Discussion Paper No. 1008

INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION
OF AUTHORITATIVE PARENTING STYLE:
EVIDENCE FROM JAPANLin Zhang
Shinsuke Ikeda

August 2017

The Institute of Social and Economic Research
Osaka University
6-1 Mihogaoka, Ibaraki, Osaka 567-0047, Japan

Intergenerational transmission of authoritative parenting style: Evidence fromJapan
Lin Zhang and Shinsuke Ikeda
Abstract
We examine and verify our hypothesis from a theoretical model that parents are more likely to beauthoritative if they are from a wealthy family. Using the data from the Preference Parameters
Study of Osaka University, Japan, we find that there are significantly positive associations
between respondents’ authoritative parenting style and their family living standards when 15 years
old. This result shows how childhood family economic status influences the intergenerationaltransmission of parenting style.
Keywords: Parenting Style; Authoritative Parenting; Intergenerational Transmission
JEL Classification: D10, I30, J13
Acknowledgments Ikeda has received financial support of: Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research(C No. 26380239; B No. 17H02499) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; andthe Joint Usage/ Research Center Project of ISER from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology. Zhang has received Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B No.
16K17140) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. This research uses microdata
from the Preference Parameters Study of Osaka University’s 21st Century COE Program“Behavioral Macrodynamics Based on Surveys and Experiments” and its Global COE project“Human Behavior and Socioeconomic Dynamics”. We acknowledge the program/project’s
contributors: Yoshiro Tsutsui, Fumio Ohtake, and Shinsuke Ikeda.
Conflict of interest We have no conflict of interest.

 Corresponding author: Lin Zhang

Faculty of Economics, Kindai University, 3-4-1 Kowakae, Higashi-Osaka, Osaka 577-8502, Japan. Tel.: 81-6-43073235.
Email: <zhang@eco.kindai.ac.jp>.
The Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University, 6-1 Mihogaoka, Ibaraki, Osaka 567-0047, Japan.
Tel.: 81-6-6879-8568.
E-mail: <ikeda@iser.osaka-u.ac.jp>.

11. Introduction
The main purpose of this study is to investigate how the childhood family economic status of parents
influences their parenting style. By assessing the relation between authoritative parenting and parents’childhood family economic status, we show that it is an important factor in the transmission of
authoritative parenting from one generation to the next.
Parenting behavior has increasingly been recognized as a fundamental determinant of children’sdevelopment and achievement. Many psychological studies on child development investigate therelationship between one generation’s child-rearing practices and that of the next generation, and findthat the character of parenting behavior could be transmitted intergenerationally (for comprehensive
literature reviews, see van Ijzendoorn 1992, Putallaz et al. 2008, and Belsky and Jaffee 2006). In otherwords, parents’ own experiences in their childhood would influence their child-rearing attitude andpractices.
Baumrind (1967, 1971, and 1991) classifies parenting behavior into three styles: authoritative,
authoritarian, and permissive. Specifically, it is found that the authoritative parenting style leads tochildren’s later higher levels of achievement at midlife (Dornbusch et al. 1987 and Baumrind 1991).
However, the mechanism behind parenting style continuity across generations is not fully understoodyet. Child development psychologists attempt to explain the transmission with psychological andsociological factors as a mediating pathway, such as social participation, marital satisfaction, andfamily structure (Chen and Kaplan 2001, Chen et al. 2008, Chan and Koo 2011).
Economic studies on parenting strategies mainly concentrate on how parenting style as a mediating
channel influences the transmission of human capital across generations. By modelling the association
between parents’ economic status and their parenting practices, Weinberg (2001) shows that parents
with high income levels tend to use pecuniary incentives rather than corporal punishments to influence
their children’s behavior. Kubota et al (2012) find that people’s tough attitude toward children is2

associated with their core worldview beliefs and preferences on intertemporal decision making, suchas impatience and debt aversion. Kan and Tsai (2005) and Violato et al. (2011) empirically show thatparents’ current economic status influences their parenting style. Further, via different parenting styles
parents’ current economic characteristics impact their children’s educational and behavioral outcomes.
Doepke and Zilibotti (forthcoming) develop a parent-child interaction model to describe the different
parenting styles as equilibrium outcomes. Using survey data across countries, they (Doepke andZilibotti, forthcoming) empirically show that the choice of parenting styles depends on parent’s
preferences and the socioeconomic environmental characteristics, such as income, inequality, andeducational outcomes. Cobb-Clark et al. (2016) show that as investment in human capital, parenting
style is associated with parents’ socioeconomic disadvantage, and it is also correlated with young
adults’ outcome. In general, these studies focus on the current economic characteristics of parents as
the determinants of parenting practices, and through their parenting behavior parents’ economic
resources are transmitted intergenerationally.
However, few studies link parents’ childhood family economic status to their parenting styles. As
pointed out by child development psychologists, parents’ attitude toward parenting styles is affectedby people’s childhood experiences and could be transmitted across generations (van Ijzendoorn 1992,
Putallaz et al. 2008, and Belsky and Jaffee 2006). What is the role of childhood family economic status
in the mechanism of intergenerational transmission of parenting? The theoretical prediction of Zhang
and Ikeda (2016) provides an interpretation.
In their study, Zhang and Ikeda (2016) proposed a parental altruism model with regard to children’s
habit formation, and derive the condition under which parents’ authoritative behavior by keeping
income transfer low raises children’s lifetime welfare: children’s welfare is raised when the parent isaltruistic and rich enough and, hence, the amount of income transfer is large so that the children’s
marginal utility thereof is sufficiently small. With an underlying notion that a grown-up child, whose3welfare is raised by his parent’s authoritative parenting, will tend to appreciate and adopt this parenting
style, it links a person’s parenting style to his/her family’s economic status in their childhood.
By testing the validity of this theoretical prediction with microdata, this paper aims to show that in
the process of transmitting parenting style across generations, the earlier economic status of a person’sfamily plays an important role in that parents who come from a rich family are more likely to beauthoritative. The results of this study support our theoretical prediction: authoritative parenting̶both the demanding and responsive aspects̶have a significantly positive association with parents’childhood family living standards.
The novelty of this research is that we focus on the association between generations. Unlike previous
studies, which discuss the parenting strategy under parents’ current economic status, this researchsheds light on the effect of parents’ childhood family economic status on the transmission of
authoritative parenting between generations. As the results show, one generation’s economic status has
an impact on the next generation’s parenting style. Since authoritative parenting is an important
determinant of children’s future achievement (Dornbusch et al. 1987, Baumrind 1991, Kan and Tsai
2005, and Violato et al. 2011), in this context, this study extends the existing literature on parenting
strategies and intergenerational transmission of human capital.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly introduces the model and proposes
the theoretical hypothesis. Section 3 gives the data and methodology. Section 4 shows the empiricalresults. Section 5 concludes.

2. Theoretical Prediction and Hypothesis
The hypothesis of this research is based on the theoretical result obtained by Zhang and Ikeda (2016).
In their model, a child’s consumption is habit forming, as it can cause overconsumption. A parent, who
is aware of her child’s consumption habit, restricts the child’s consumption level by keeping theamount of income transfer lower than what the child desires. In this context, restricting the level of4

income transfer to the child corresponds to the authoritative parenting style, which is characterized bya high level of control and maturity demands in the form of active communication and induction(Baumrind 1978).
Zhang and Ikeda (2016) show that the parent’s authoritative parenting behavior enhances a child’s
lifetime welfare if and only if the parent is sufficiently altruistic and wealthy. Note that although it is
optimal for parents, either rich or poor, to adopt authoritative parenting in this model, this parenting
style is welfare-enhancing only when the parent is sufficiently wealthy. Therefore, parents from richfamilies, that is, parents who once experienced that authoritative parenting in their childhood enhanced
their welfare, and would more likely adopt the authoritative parenting style based on their experience
as a child. In such families, this would contribute to the transmission of the authoritative parenting
style across generations. In other words, a family’s economic status plays an important role in theprocess of intergenerational transmission of parenting style.
Therefore, based on the prediction of the theoretical model (Zhang and Ikeda 2016), our hypothesis
here is that authoritative parenting behavior is positively associated with the family’s past economic
status when they were young.

3. Data and Methodology
This research uses data from the Preference Parameters Study of Osaka University’s 21st Century
COE Program “Behavioral Macrodynamics Based on Surveys and Experiments” and its Global COE
project “Human Behavior and Socioeconomic Dynamics”. Results of the 2008 questionnaire are
employed. In this survey, a random sample is drawn from men and women aged 20-69 years old by aself-administered placement method. The total number of respondents is 2731, and among them thenumber of respondents with children is 2259.
In order to test the hypothesis, we construct the following variables.

Authoritative Parenting
5

According to the typologies (Baumrind 1978) of parenting style adopted by child development
psychologists, the authoritative parenting is defined as the attempt to direct a child’s activities in arational issue-oriented manner with affection and warmth. Furthermore, the two dimensions ofparenting are demandingness and responsiveness. Authoritative parents exhibit high levels of bothdemandingness and responsiveness. Based on these two aspects, and following Baumrind (1978) andDoepke and Zilibotti (forthcoming), we employ two questions (Q39 and Q40) in the survey as ameasurement of authoritative parenting.
Question Q39 asks respondents about their attitude when their 5-year old children are sick:Q39. Imagine that you have a 5-year old child that has a high fever and is in pain. The child’s
doctor tells you that both the fever and pain are harmless. He can give you a medicine that curesthe sickness but slightly weakens the child’s immune system when the child becomes 50 years old.
What would you do? (Check ONE Box)
1 I would give the medicine to the child if the sickness is known to last for one day.
2 I would give the medicine to the child if the sickness is known to last for two days.
3 I would give the medicine to the child if the sickness is known to last for one week.
4 I would give the medicine to the child if the sickness is known to last for one month.
5 I would not give the medicine to the child.

As fever and pain are assumed to be harmless to the child in Q39, authoritative parenting here is to
put off giving the medicine and let the child bear with the fever and pain for a while, rather than togiving a medicine that weakens the child’s immune systems. This question about a child’s fever isclose to the demanding and strict aspect of authoritative parenting. From options 1 to 5, a large numberof the options indicate a high level of demandingness and strictness. We construct an ordinal variable
Authoritative_Fever from Q39.
Question Q40 is about parental attitudes toward their 19-year old children who need money to buy
a concert ticket:

6Q40. Imagine that you have a 19-year old child that has been working at a restaurant for the lastmonth. The child has been doing so to earn money to buy a concert ticket. You agreed that it would
be all right for the child to buy the ticket as long as the child earns the necessary money. The childjust got fired, and asked you to help by providing one tenth of the necessary money. The tickets
will be sold out if you do not provide the money. What would you do in this situation? (Check
ONE Box)
1 I would provide the money regardless of the reason why the child got fired.
2 I would provide the money if the child is not at fault for being fired.
3 I would not provide the money because it is not good for my child.
4 I would not provide the money because it will be a waste of money.

Respondents in Q40 are asked to decide whether they should give one tenth of the necessary money
for a concert ticket to their children who gets fired from a part-time job. Here it is assumed that theparent has already allowed the child to buy a concert ticket with money earned from the part-time job.
This question is assessing the responsiveness and supportiveness aspect of authoritative parenting.
Options 1 to 4 show different reactions of parents. Thus, we first construct a multinomial variable
Authoritative_Ticket from Q40. Despite different expressions, options 1 to 3 are commonly captured
by parents’ responsiveness and consideration, while option 4 is not. The respondent who chooses theeither one of the options from 1 to 3 is labeled as responsive and supportive, and a binary variable
Authoritative_Responsiveness is also constructed from Q40.

Habit AwarenessAccording to the typologies on parenting styles (Baumrind 1978), both authoritative andauthoritarian parents exhibit a high level of demandingness. However, authoritarian parenting shows
little responsiveness or supportiveness. This feature distinguishes authoritative parents from theauthoritarian ones. Authoritarian parents exert strict control just because they want obedience, and not
for the sake of improving the child’s future outcome.
7

In the theoretical model (Zhang and Ikeda 2016), the authoritative parent is aware that consumptionis habit-forming, while the child is not. Being unaware of the habit-forming nature of consumption,
the child tends to overconsume, which will worsen his lifetime welfare. Hence authoritative parenting
would be able to control the child’s habitual overconsumption by keeping income transfer low.
Therefore, in this context, indicating that whether the respondents are aware of habit formation helps
distinguish authoritative parenting from the authoritarian style. To identify whether our respondents
are actually aware of it, we use their responses to the following two questions about living standards(Q3-03 and Q15):
Q3-03. How true for you are each of the following statements? Answer for each on a scale from 1
to 5, where “1” means it is particularly true for you and “5” means “it doesn't hold true at all foryou. (Check ONE Box for EACH)
Once I enjoy a high standard of living, it is painful to lower it.

Q15. Suppose that your housing and the necessities of life will be provided by the government for
the next ten years. If there is a limit on the overall provision, which pattern would you choose?
(Check ONE Box)
1 Start from higher living standard, then lower it gradually.
2 Same living standard every year.
3 Start from lower living standard, then raise it gradually.

Theoretically, habit formation of consumption implies that a consumer’s marginal utility is
increased by past consumption, and a child who does not realize it tends to over consume. Our habit
awareness indicator, Habit_Aware, is jointly constructed from Q3-03 and Q15.
Question Q3-03 concerns the ratchet effect of standard of living, which implies that people’s
consumption level is irreversible. 1 Habit formation weakens a consumer’s tolerance of declining

1

Duesenberry (1949) argues that consumption as a proportion of income rises as income increases anddoes not fall in the same proportion when the income declines. This is called the “ratchet effect”.

8living standards and shows the ratchet effect. Hence, a consumer who is aware of habit formation
would report that he/she feels pained to lower their standard of living after experiencing high living
standard.
Question Q15 asks whether the respondent has any preference for improvement in his/her higher
standard of living. Habit formation is an important factor that causes a consumer to seek an increasing
living standard (see Easterlin 1974, Easterlin 1995, and Loewenstein and Prelec 1991). Consumers
who are aware of the habit-forming nature of consumption would prefer the upward time profile ofthe living standard.
We label those respondents who report “1” or “2” in Q3-03 and at the same time “3” in Q15 asbeing aware of habit formation.

Family Living Standard

According to the result of the model proposed by Zhang and Ikeda (2016), authoritative parenting
style of keeping income transfer to children low is in fact welfare-enhancing to the children only if theparents are rich enough. This implies that the family economic status during childhood years is a
critical factor for parents to adopt authoritative parenting. To measure the past family economic status,
we construct an 11-scale variable Family_Living_Standard from the question (FQ44) about thefamily’s standard of living when the respondent was 15 years old:
FQ44. On a scale of 0-10 with “10” being “Highest” and “0” being “Lowest”, please indicate what
you think was the standard of living for your family when you were 15 years old. (Check ONE
Box)
Highest10

Lowest
9

8

7

6

5

4

Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics of the variables.

<Table 1>
9

3

2

1

0

4. Results
First, we test our theoretical hypothesis by investigating how childhood family economic condition
influences authoritative parenting from the aspect of demandingness with ordered logit models. The
dependent variable (Authoritative_Fever) is from the fever question Q39. The independent variable isthe family’s living standard when the respondent was 15 years old (Family_Living_Standard), which
is a proxy variable for the respondent’s childhood family economic status. Control variables age, age
squared, female indicator, and bachelor’s degree (or higher) indicator are included.2<Table 2>

Table 2 summarizes the regression results. Recall that a high level of demandingness appears inboth authoritative and authoritarian parenting (Baumrind 1978), and the indicator Habit_Aware
enables us to separate them from each other. In other words, habit awareness is critical when examining
how family’s childhood economic status is associated with the demanding aspect of authoritative
parenting.
As shown in Table 2, authoritative parenting has significantly positive associations with
Family_Living_Standard when the respondents are aware of the effect of habit (Habit_Aware=1). In
contrast, for the sample in which the respondents are unaware of habit (Habit_Aware=0), thecoefficients of Family_Living_Standard are not significant. In the case where habit awareness is notconsidered (column (5) and (6)), the coefficients are not significant either. These results commonly
support out hypothesis.
Next, we examine the theoretical hypothesis from the aspect of responsiveness. Following Doepke
and Zilibotti (forthcoming), we regress parenting style in multinomial models. Multinomial variable
Authoritative_Ticket from Q40 is employed as the dependent variable. Table 3 shows the results of2
There is multicollinearity between the annual income of the entire household and other independent
variables. Further, if it is included as a control variable, the coefficient of annual income of the entire
household is not significant.

10

multinomial regressions, where option 4 of Q40 is the reference category in all the models.

<Table 3>

In Table 3, the coefficients of Family_Living_Standard are the relative risk ratios for options 1 to
3 versus option 4. Each one of the options from 1 to 3 exhibits responsiveness and supportiveness,while option 4 does not. Hence, these coefficients show the relative risk ratios associated withrespondents’ family economic status for responsiveness versus non-responsiveness. Note that habit
awareness is not a critical factor for responsiveness or supportiveness. Therefore, when the
Habit_Aware indicator is not considered, options 1, 2, and 3 all have a significantly positive
association with Family_Living_Standard. Even in the case that Habit_Aware indicator is considered(Habit_Aware=1 or Habit_Aware=0), significantly positive coefficients of Family_Living_Standard

still exist. Therefore, we conclude that the responsive aspect of authoritative parenting is
positively associated with family economic status, which is consistent with the theoretical
hypothesis.
Furthermore, we process principal component analysis to investigate the common tendency ofauthoritative parenting’s two aspects and its relation with family economic status. Note that althoughquestions Q39 and Q40 focus on different aspects of authoritative parenting, they both contain acommon feature that defines authoritative parenting: parents’ supervision of their children’s behavior
with consideration and involvement. The demanding aspect and responsive aspect are not opposite or
exclusive of each other, but jointly formalize the authoritative parenting (Maccoby and Martin 1983).
Due to its nature, the multinomial variable Authoritative_Ticket cannot be used in the principal
component analysis. Instead, a binary indicator from Q40 (Authoritative_Responsiveness) isconstructed. In order to extract common information, respondents’ inclination toward authoritative
parenting, a principal component analysis of these two original variables is carried. The results areshown in Table 4. We construct a new variable, Authoritative_PC, which is the first principal
11

component of Authoritative_Fever and Authoritative_Responsiveness. As shown in Table 4,
Authoritative_PC, consisting of both demandingness and responsiveness, is an integrated andcomprehensive measure of authoritative parenting. The value of the first principal component, i.e., thefactor score, is also calculated for each respondent.

<Table 4>

In Figure 1 and Figure 2, we graphically examine how the value of the first principal component of
the two original variables (Authoritative_PC) relates with the level of family living standards at theage of 15 years (Family_Living_Standard) in the groups of Habit_Aware=1 and Habit_Aware=0. The
respondents are categorized by their family living standard during childhood, which is shown as thehorizontal axis. The mean values of respondents’ factor score at different levels of family living
standards are plotted, with 95% confidence interval. Note that a larger value on the vertical axis
represents a stronger inclination for authoritative parenting.
Consistent with our hypothesis, Figure 1 shows that the mean value of Authoritative_PC increases
with the respondents’ family living standard when they are aware of the effect of habit formation. In
contrast, Figure 2 shows that such a correlation cannot be observed for respondents who are unawareof habit formation.

<Figure 1><Figure 2>
To examine the association between authoritative parenting and childhood family living standard
more clearly, we regress Authoritative_PC on Family_Living_Standard. As shown in Table 5, theresults still support our hypothesis. In fact, Authoritative_PC is positively associated with respondents’family economic status (Family_Living_Standard) in the group of habit awareness (Habit_Aware=1).
Even when habit awareness is not considered, this significantly positive association still exists. This12

is because responsiveness and consideration are integrated, which distinguish authoritative from
authoritarian. However, in the group of habit unawareness, this significant association is hardly
observed.

<Table 5>

5. Concluding Remarks
We investigate the theoretical prediction (Zhang and Ikeda 2016) that people from a wealthy family
are more likely to be authoritative parents. We examine the hypothesis from the two underlying
dimensions of parenting style, demandingness and responsiveness. Consistent with the theoreticalresult, we find that the demanding aspect and the responsive aspect are both positively associated withthe family’s living standard when the respondent was 15 years old. Additionally, authoritative
parenting, which is jointly formalized from these two aspects, is also positively associated withrespondents’ childhood family economic status. The empirical results of this study validate thetheoretical model proposed by Zhang and Ikeda (2016) and expand childhood family economic status
to the mechanism of intergenerational parenting transmission. Therefore, parents’ childhood
experiences, e.g.

their childhood family economic status, play an essential role in the transmissionof authoritative parenting from one generation to the next. Our research results are related withintergenerational transmission of human capital and intergenerational mobility. The results provide
explanation and evidence for studies on intergenerational persistence in income and social class fromthe aspect of parenting style by showing the important effect of one’s childhood family economic
status.

13

References
Baumrind, D. (1967) Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic
Psychology Monographs, 75 (1), 43–88.
Baumrind, D. (1971) Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4, 1-103.
Baumrind, D. (1978) Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth & Society,9 (3), 239-267.
Baumrind, D. (1991) Parenting styles and adolescent development. In Brooks-Gunn, J., Lerner, R.,
and Peterson, A. C. (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Adolescence, Garland, New York, 746–758.
Belsky, J., and Jaffee, S. (2006) The multiple determinants of parenting. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen(Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: 3. Risk, disorder and adaptation (2nd ed., 38–85). New York:
Wiley.
Chan, T. W., and Koo, A. (2011) Parenting style and youth outcomes in the UK. European Sociological
Review, 27(3), 385–399.
Chen, Z., and Kaplan, H. B. (2001) Intergenerational transmission of constructive parenting. Journalof Marriage and Family, 63, 17–31.
Chen, Z. Y., Liu, R. X., and Kaplan, H. B. (2008) Mediating mechanisms for the intergenerationaltransmission of constructive parenting: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Family Issues,29(12), 1574-1599.
Cobb-Clark, D. A., Salamanca, N. and Zhu, A. (2016) Parenting style as an investment in humandevelopment. IZA Discussion Paper, No. 9686.
Doepke, M. and Zilibotti, F. (Forthcoming) Parenting with Style: Altruism and paternalism inintergenerational preference transmission. Econometrica.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., and Fraleigh, M. J. (1987) The relationof parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58(5), 1244-1257.
Duesenberry, J. S. (1949) Income, saving, and the theory of consumer behavior. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Easterlin, R. A. (1974) Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In
Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of Moses Abramovitz, ed. Paul A.
David and Melvin W. Reder. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Easterlin, R. A. (1995) Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 27 (1), 35-47.
van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1992) Intergenerational transmission of parenting: A review of studies in
nonclinical populations. Developmental Review, 12, 76–99.
Kan, D. and Tsai, W. D. (2005) Parenting practices and children’s education outcomes. Economics of
Education Review, 24, 29–43.
Kubota, K., Horioka, C. Y., Kamesaka, A., Ogaki, M. and Ohtake, F. (2012) Cultures, worldviews, and14

intergenerational altruism. ISER Seminar Series.
Loewenstein, G. and Prelec, D. (1991) Negative time preference. The American Economic Review,
81 (2), Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Third Annual Meeting of the American Economic
Association, 347–352.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. M. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: parent-childinteraction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality,
and social development. New York: Wiley.
Putallaz, M., Constanzo, P. R., Grimes, C.L., and Sherman, D. M. (1998) Intergenerational continuities
and their influences on children’s social development. Social Development, 7, 389–427.
Violato, M., Petrou, S., Gray, R. and Redshaw, M. (2011) Family income and child cognitive andbehavioural development in the United Kingdom: does money matter? Health Economics, 20, 1201–
1225.
Weinberg, A. B. (2001) An incentive model of the effect of parental income on children. Journal of
Political Economy, 109 (2), 266–280.
Zhang, L. and Ikeda, S. (2016) Welfare-enhancing parental altruism and children’s habit formation.
International Review of Economics, 63 (3), 281–303.

15

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics
Parent sample

Whole sample

#obs.

Mean

S.D.

#obs.

Mean

S.D.

Authoritative _Fever

2,229

3.450

1.236

2,681

3.473

1.238

Authoritative _Ticket

2,234

1.994

0.575

2,689

1.997

0.581

Habit_Aware

2,212

0.170

0.375

2,670

0.177

0.382

Family_Living_Standard

2,240

4.568

1.831

2,703

4.623

1.818

Table 2. Authoritative Parenting Demandingness and Childhood Family Economic
Status
(1)

(2)

(3)

Habit_Aware=1
Family_Living_Standard

Age

Age sq.

FemaleBachelor’s Degree

#obs.

(3)

Habit_Aware=0

(5)

(6)

Habit_Aware Removed

0.108**

0.101**

0.002-0.009

0.027

0.018

(0.054)(0.048)(0.025)(0.023)(0.022)(0.021)

0.055

0.039

-0.0170.015-0.0100.016(0.075)(0.050)(0.036)(0.025)(0.032)(0.022)-0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

(0.001)(0.001)(0.000)(0.000)(0.000)(0.000)-0.188-0.142

0.000

0.039

-0.047-0.006(0.208)(0.183)(0.092)(0.083)(0.083)(0.075)

0.095

0.167

0.149

0.246

0.109

0.204**(0.217)(0.190)(0.118)(0.105)(0.102)(0.090)

363

453

1756

2067

2154

2564

Notes: standard errors in parentheses. ***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1. Dependent variable:
Authoritative_Fever. Columns (1), (3) and (5) include the respondents with children, while columns (2),(4) and (6) include all. All the models are ordered logistic regressions.

16

Table 3. Authoritative Parenting Responsiveness and Childhood Family Economic Status
Reference Category: Option 4
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Habit_Aware Removed
Option 1
Family_Living_Standard

Age

Age sq.

FemaleBachelor’s Degree#obs.

Option 2

Option 30.308***

0.286***

0.291***

0.274***

0.274**

0.259**(0.113)(0.099)(0.110)(0.096)(0.114)(0.100)

0.130

0.114

-0.1070.014-0.0770.014(0.196)(0.117)(0.189)(0.112)(0.195)(0.117)-0.001-0.001

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.000

(0.002)(0.001)(0.002)(0.001)(0.002)(0.001)

0.114-0.130

0.578

0.476

0.838**

0.691**(0.418)(0.357)(0.405)(0.344)(0.424)(0.362)

0.346

0.615

0.330

0.744

0.422

0.733

(0.578)(0.560)(0.566)(0.549)(0.587)(0.566)

2155

2568

2155

2568

2155

2568

(5)

(6)

Reference Category: Option 4
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Habit_Aware=1
Option 1
Family_Living_Standard

Age

Age sq.

FemaleBachelor’s Degree#obs.

Option 2

Option 30.600**

0.685**

0.671**

0.754***

0.684**

0.752***(0.288)(0.280)(0.281)(0.275)(0.295)(0.287)-1.001

0.522**-1.1970.440**-1.0870.587**(1.770)(0.239)(1.766)(0.227)(1.771)(0.249)0.006-0.005**0.008-0.005**0.007-0.006**(0.014)(0.002)(0.014)(0.002)(0.014)(0.002)

0.516

0.897

0.967

1.400

1.837

2.127**(1.220)(1.178)(1.192)(1.156)(1.245)(1.201)-0.711

0.199

0.049

0.730

0.882

1.412

1.273

(1.195)(1.228)(1.165)(1.276)(1.209)

364

454

364

454

364

454

17

Reference Category: Option 4
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Habit_Aware =0
Option 1
Family_Living_Standard

Age

Age sq.

FemaleBachelor’s Degree#obs.

Option 2

Option 30.265**

0.258**

0.228**

0.223**

0.200

0.205**(0.131)(0.114)(0.127)(0.111)(0.132)(0.115)-0.021-0.004-0.271-0.105-0.261-0.130(0.233)(0.145)(0.226)(0.140)(0.232)(0.145)

0.000

0.000

0.002

0.001

0.003

0.001

(0.002)(0.001)(0.002)(0.001)(0.002)(0.001)0.208-0.258

0.668

0.362

0.829**

0.496(0.470)(0.401)(0.456)(0.387)(0.476)(0.406)

1.007

1.095

0.835

1.132

0.682

0.942

(0.778)(0.761)(0.767)(0.751)(0.791)(0.770)

1759

2073

1759

2073

1759

2073

Notes: standard errors in parentheses. ***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1. Dependent variable:
Authoritative_Ticket. Columns (1), (3) and (5) include the respondents with children, while columns (2),(4) and (6) include all. All the models are multinomial logistic regressions.

18

Table 4. Principal Component Analysis of Demandingness and ResponsivenessPrincipal Component

Component 1

Component 2

Factor Loading on Authoritative_Fever

0.707

0.707

Factor Loading on Authoritative_Responsiveness

0.707-0.707

Variation Explained (%)

52.2

47.8

Table 5. Authoritative_PC and Childhood Family Economic Status
(1)

(2)

(3)

Habit_Aware=1
Family_Living_Standard

Age

Age sq.

FemaleBachelor’s Degree

#obs.

(4)

(5)

(6)

Habit_Aware=0

Habit_Aware Removed

0.091***

0.084***

0.018

0.016

0.033***

0.031***(0.029)(0.025)(0.013)(0.013)(0.012)(0.011)0.077**

0.065**-0.0200.003-0.0030.012(0.040)(0.027)(0.019)(0.014)(0.017)(0.012)-0.001**-0.001***

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

(0.000)(0.000)(0.000)(0.000)(0.000)(0.000)-0.004

0.044

0.059

0.055

0.038

0.049

(0.114)(0.097)(0.050)(0.046)(0.045)(0.042)

0.043

0.108

0.120**

0.165***

0.076

0.134***(0.121)(0.102)(0.064)(0.058)(0.056)(0.051)

362

452

1749

2058

2143

2551

Notes: standard errors in parentheses. ***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1. Dependent variable: Authoritative_PC(the first principal component of Authoritative_Fever and Authoritative_Responsiveness). Columns (1), (3)and (5) include the respondents with children, while columns (2), (4) and (6) include all. All the models are
OLS regressions.

19

Figure 1. Principal Component and Family Living Standard under Habit AwarenessNote: 95% confidence intervals shown.

Figure 2. Principal Component and Family Living Standard under Habit UnawarenessNote: 95% confidence intervals shown.

20