title: Does "Tiger Parenting" Exist? Parenting Profiles of Chinese Americans and Adolescent Developmental Outcomes.
abstract: "Tiger parenting," as described by Chua (2011), has put parenting in Asian American families in the spotlight. The current study identified parenting profiles in Chinese American families and explored their effects on adolescent adjustment. In a three-wave longitudinal design spanning eight years, from early adolescence to emerging adulthood, adolescents (54% female), fathers and mothers from 444 Chinese American families reported on eight parenting dimensions (e.g., warmth and shaming) and six developmental outcomes (e.g., GPA and academic pressure). Latent profile analyses on the eight parenting dimensions demonstrated four parenting profiles: supportive, tiger, easygoing, and harsh parenting. Over time, the percentage of parents classified as tiger parents decreased among mothers but increased among fathers. Path analyses showed that the supportive parenting profile, which was the most common, was associated with the best developmental outcomes, followed by easygoing parenting, tiger parenting, and harsh parenting. Compared with the supportive parenting profile, a tiger parenting profile was associated with lower GPA and educational attainment, as well as less of a sense of family obligation; it was also associated with more academic pressure, more depressive symptoms and a greater sense of alienation. The current study suggests that, contrary to the common perception, tiger parenting is not the most typical parenting profile in Chinese American families, nor does it lead to optimal adjustment among Chinese American adolescents.
authors: University of Texas at Austin.
authors: Su Yeong
authors: SY
authors: Kim
authors: Yijie
authors: Y
authors: Wang
authors: Diana
authors: D
authors: Orozco-Lapray
authors: Yishan
authors: Y
authors: Shen
authors: Mohammed
authors: M
authors: Murtuza
keywords: Chinese; adolescent adjustment; parenting profiles; tiger parenting
references: Child Dev. 1994 Aug;65(4):1111-9
references: 7956468
references: Child Dev. 1996 Dec;67(6):3296-319
references: 9071782
references: Dev Psychol. 2012 Nov;48(6):1540-53
references: 22448987
references: J Consult Psychol. 1965 Dec;29(6):552-7
references: 5846126
references: Psychol Methods. 2003 Sep;8(3):369-77; discussion 384-93
references: 14596497
references: J Youth Adolesc. 2011 Jun;40(6):730-43
references: 20809102
references: Child Dev. 1989 Dec;60(6):1424-36
references: 2612251
references: Dev Psychol. 2013 May;49(5):900-12
references: 22799587
references: J Adolesc Health. 2010 Apr;46(4):331-8
references: 20307821
references: Child Dev. 2001 Nov-Dec;72(6):1832-43
references: 11768148
references: J Youth Adolesc. 2008 Jan;37(1):36-49
references: 20725611
references: Dev Psychol. 2011 Mar;47(2):493-508
references: 21219066
references: Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:549-76
references: 18652544
references: Psychol Methods. 2006 Mar;11(1):36-53
references: 16594766
references: Dev Psychol. 2009 Sep;45(5):1314-27
references: 19702394
references: Child Dev. 2006 Sep-Oct;77(5):1252-67
references: 16999796
references: Child Dev. 1992 Oct;63(5):1266-81
references: 1446552
references: Fam Process. 2009 Jun;48(2):195-210
references: 19579905
references: J Youth Adolesc. 1987 Oct;16(5):427-54
references: 24277469
references: Soc Work. 2008 Oct;53(4):337-46
references: 18853670
references: Child Dev. 1995 Feb;66(1):80-97
references: 7497831