Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

Item

Title

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

Author

Gauthier, Anne H.

Research Area

Class, Status and Power

Topic

Social Stratification

Abstract

This essay critically reviews the literature on social class differences in parental investment in children including differences in (i) parenting practices or behavior; (ii) parenting styles, logics, and strategies; and (iii) parenting values and ideologies. The essay reveals how structural and cultural barriers contribute to creating social class differences in the ways parents interact with their children, as well as in the way they protect and promote their children's development and well‐being. This essay covers some of the foundational research in the field as well as newer research which has started to question the strict social class divide in parental investment. In particular, this essay discusses recent research on the resistance to the dominant ideology of good parenting, and studies of the complex interactions between social class, race and ethnicity, and gender. This essay concludes with a discussion of future research avenues including a call for a better empirical operationalization of the concept of parental investment.

Related Essays

Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups (Sociology), Noah Askin et al.

Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi

Enduring Effects of Education (Sociology), Matthew Curry and Jennie E. Brand

Intergenerational Mobility (Economics), Steve N. Durlauf and Irina Shaorshadze

Stratification in Hard Times (Sociology), Markus Gangl

The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus

Education for Mobility or Status Reproduction? (Sociology), Karyn Lacy

Stratification and the Welfare State (Sociology), Stephanie Moller and Joya Misra

Social Classification (Sociology), Elizabeth G. Pontikes

Class, Cognition, and Face‐to‐Face Interaction (Sociology), Lauren A. Rivera

The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey M. Stonecash

Identifier

etrds0306

extracted text

Social Class and Parental
Investment in Children
ANNE H. GAUTHIER

Abstract
This essay critically reviews the literature on social class differences in parental
investment in children including differences in (i) parenting practices or behavior;
(ii) parenting styles, logics, and strategies; and (iii) parenting values and ideologies.
The essay reveals how structural and cultural barriers contribute to creating social
class differences in the ways parents interact with their children, as well as in the
way they protect and promote their children’s development and well-being. This
essay covers some of the foundational research in the field as well as newer research
which has started to question the strict social class divide in parental investment.
In particular, this essay discusses recent research on the resistance to the dominant
ideology of good parenting, and studies of the complex interactions between social
class, race and ethnicity, and gender. This essay concludes with a discussion of
future research avenues including a call for a better empirical operationalization of
the concept of parental investment.

INTRODUCTION
Parental investment in children is one of the most important determinants of
children’s well-being and development (Barber, 2000; Kalil & DeLeire, 2004).
It is also a highly stratified determinant with large variations across social
class (Smeeding, Erikson, & Jantti, 2011). There is no standard definition of
parental investment, but in simple terms it can be said to be capturing what
parents do with their children, what they do for their children, as well as the
emotional climate in which they raise their children. More formally, parental
investment refers to the allocation of time, money, and emotional resources
by parents to their children as well as parents’ management of their children’s
risks and opportunities.
The importance of parental investment for children’s academic and
cognitive development has been solidly demonstrated in numerous studies
(e.g., Barber, Stoltz, & Olsen, 2005). Where the debate instead lies are in
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

the reasons behind the observed social class differences in parental investment, more specifically whether such social class differences are driven by
structure or culture (Sherman & Harris, 2012). Proponents of the structural
argument point to deep socioeconomic status (SES) inequalities, including
inequalities in resources and opportunities, as reasons preventing parents
from low SES from investing more in their children. Differential access to
quality schools, poor community infrastructure, and income constraints are
examples of structural barriers confronting low SES families. In contrast,
proponents of the cultural argument point to intrinsic class-based norms and
practices that result in social class differences in parental investment and
which ultimately contribute to the reproduction of class. Lower educational
aspirations for their children, and a lower emphasis on values such as
entitlement, self-control, and self-efficacy by low social class parents are
examples of cultural barriers which are argued to be reinforcing social
class differences. This dichotomous debate, opposing structure versus
culture, was at the core of the foundational research on parenting and
parental investment in children. As discussed in this essay, it is however
currently losing momentum in favor of a more complex understanding of
parental investment involving race/ethnicity, class, and gender. Newer and
cutting-edge research is delving deeper into the daily reality of families
in order to better understand the motives, opportunities, and barriers to
parental investment. In turn, such a research can be argued to be essential to
help develop evidence-based policies and programs to tackle the deep social
class inequalities in children’s outcomes.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
PARENTAL RESOURCES, PRACTICES, AND BEHAVIOR
One of the ways parental investment in children has been captured in the
literature is through its time component. On the basis of time-diary instruments, research dating back to the 1980s has highlighted the educational gradient in parental time allocation to their children (Hill & Stafford, 1985). Even
after controlling for numerous individual-level characteristics, more highly
educated parents were found to be devoting more time to their children. This
is a robust finding that has since been observed in numerous countries (Craig,
2006; Gauthier, Smeeding, & Furstenberg, 2004; Kalil, Ryan, & Corey, 2012;
Sayer, Gauthier, & Furstenberg, 2004). Studies have also revealed strong SES
differences in time spent on education-enrichment activities (Craig, 2006),
verbal interaction with children (Hart & Risley, 1995; Hoff, 2003), and reading to children (Davis-Kean, 2005; Yarosz & Barnett, 2001). In other words,

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

3

the way parents allocate their time and the type of activities they engage in
appear to be strongly patterned by social class.
Parents from higher SES also appear to be devoting more financial resources
to their children including on items such as education (Mauldin, Mimura,
& Lino, 2001), childcare (Bianchi, Cohen, Raley, & Nomaguchi, 2004), and
educational material in the house (Bradley, Corwyn, McAdoo, & Garcia Coll,
2001). There is also evidence that the inequalities in household expenditures
on children have been increasing over time resulting in greater polarization
between low- and high-income families (Kornrich & Furstenberg, 2013).
PARENTING STYLE AND LOGIC
The previous body of literature is focused on specific forms of parental investment in children. In contrast, parenting style can be theoretically seen as providing the emotional context for parenting (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). There
is a long tradition of research on parenting style stemming from the seminal
work of Baumrind (1967). Parents, it has been argued, differ considerably in
terms of two key dimensions: (i) their level of responsiveness toward their
children and (ii) their level of demandingness (Baumrind, 1991; Maccoby
& Martin, 1983). The resulting typology of parenting style has been—and
continues to be—widely used in the literature and has repeatedly been identified as a key determinant of child development. In particular, an authoritative parenting style (high responsiveness and high demandingness) has
been found to be associated with better child outcomes than the other parenting styles. Moreover, this parenting style has been found to be more prevalent among higher SES parents (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, &
Fraleigh, 1987). More recent studies have however questioned the validity of
this finding across different cultural and economic childrearing contexts (e.g.,
Domenech Rodriguez, Donovick, & Crowley, 2009). In particular, the adoption of more restrictive and punitive parenting style by low SES parents has
been argued to be a reaction to more hostile and dangerous living conditions
(Furstenberg, 1993; Kotchick & Forehand, 2002).
In a different body of literature, the context of parenting and the principles
guiding parental investment in children have been explored under the heading of childrearing logic. The most important and influential piece here is the
study by Lareau (2002, 2003, 2011) based on intensive ethnographic observations of a small sample of middle-class, working-class, and poor families in
the United States. Two distinct childrearing logics emerged from her analysis: (i) the logic of concerted cultivation which aims at developing children’s
talents and at providing them with a sense of confidence and entitlement

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

primarily through the use of reasoning and variations in parent–child verbal interactions as well as children’s participation in extracurricular activities and (ii) the logic of natural growth characterized by more unstructured
time for children and less contacts with the adult world. Importantly, Lareau
argues that the former logic is more likely to be adopted by the middle-class
and the latter by the working-class.
PARENTING VALUES, NORMS, AND IDEOLOGIES
Parents not only do things with, and for, their children, but they also aim
at instilling them with specific values. In a now classic study carried out in
the late 1950s, Kohn (1959, 1976) revealed deep social class differences in the
values associated with childrearing. More specifically, middle-class parents
were found to be emphasizing to a greater extent the value of self-direction
and autonomy while working-class parents were found to be more likely to
demand compliance to parental authority. Kohn further argued that these
social class differences stemmed from differences in parents’ occupations,
which, in turn, were aimed at better preparing children for their future
(class-based) occupations (Hoff, Laursen, & Tardiff, 2002). The hypothesis
of social class differences in parenting values has since been substantiated
in numerous studies (Gerris, Dekovic, & Janssens, 1997; Luster, Rhoades,
& Haas, 1989), with some however stressing the importance of parental
education as opposed to occupation as the key determinant (J. D. Wright &
S. R. Wright, 1976).
Recent work in this field has pushed further the examination of parenting
values by highlighting the apparent contradictions between parenting
values, on the one hand, and parenting behavior, on the other. As discussed
by Weininger & Lareau (2009), while middle-class parents highly value
autonomy and self-direction, they tend to exert a high level of control
over their children’s schedule and related activities. In contrast, while
working-class parents value conformity to external authority, they provide
children with more freedom over their use of time. The apparent paradox,
it has been argued, suggests complex links between parenting values and
behavior: links that have been insufficiently explored in the literature.
Deep social class differences are also found in parenting beliefs and
ideologies of “good” parenting (Alwin, 2001). In particular, Hays (1986) has
argued that recent decades have seen the emergence of a new parenting
ideology, which she calls “intensive mothering” and that she defines as
“child-centered, expert-guided, emotionally absorbing, labor intensive,
and financially expensive” (Hays (1986), p. 54). She furthermore argues
that this is a parenting ideology that has been more strongly endorsed
by middle-class parents. It is an ideology that carries large expectations

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

5

regarding mothers’ time availability for their children and that has large
implications for their labor force participation (Johnston & Swanson 2006;
Maher & Saugeres 2007; Parson, Pacholok, Snape, & Gauthier, 2012; Vincent,
Rollock, Ball, & Gillborn, 2004). Recent studies have in fact documented the
struggles and tensions mothers are confronted to when trying to uphold this
new standard of good mothering and the concurrent expectations of “good”
workers (Christopher, 2012; Rizzo, Schiffrin, & Liss, 2012).
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
While the foundational research reviewed earlier has provided solid evidence of social class differences in parental investment in children, recent
cutting-edge research has questioned some of the key assumptions and
findings of this earlier body of literature. Three main issues have been
examined.
First, there is the assumption of class homogeneity in the work by
Lareau (2002, 2011), more specifically the assumption that middle-class
and working-class parents adhere to contrasting cultural strategies of
childrearing. Instead, new research has pointed to much heterogeneity
within classes especially regarding parents’ motives and strategies of
childrearing. Research on working-class parents has for instance shown
that disadvantaged families do, to a large extent, adhere to the logic of
concerted cultivation: they have high aspirations for their children and
provide significant educational support (Siraj-Blatchford, 2010). Where such
families struggle is in finding the time and financial resources to implement
such aspirations and such a high level of parental involvement (O’Brien
Hallstein, 2008). For example, recent research has pointed to the discrepancy
between the high educational aspirations of middle-income parents and
their severe income constraints making their hopes of sending their children
to college an unlikely reality (Napolitano, Pacholok, & Furstenberg, 2013).
Yet, other studies continue to point to strong class-based cultural differences.
For instance, a recent study of low-income mothers in Canada revealed the
resistance of this group of mothers to the ideology of intensive mothering.
Although low-income mothers were aware of the dominant standards of
good mothering and attempted to implement some of it (e.g., reading to
their children), they also questioned some of its tenets especially what they
perceived as the over-involvement of parents (Romagnoli & Wall, 2012).
Considerable heterogeneity has also been observed within middle-class
families. In this case, part of this heterogeneity stems from ambivalence and
resistance to the dominant model of parenting (Brown, 2011; Irwin and Elley,
2011). For some time, the popular psychology literature had been warning
parents about the dangers of hyper-parenting and over-scheduling (Honore,

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

2009; Rosenfeld & Wise, 2000). What is new here is evidence of middle-class
mothers’ resistance to some of the demands of intensive mothering. This
includes criticisms of the excess, pushiness, and over-ambitious of other
middle-class mothers, as well as a stated preference for quality time (togetherness) as opposed to the relentless schedule of families whose children are
involved in so many activities (Perrier, 2012).
Second, the recent literature has also questioned. Lareau’s claim regarding
the dominance of social class over race in determining childrearing strategies.
In particular, research on the Black middle-class in the United Kingdom has
pointed to the commitments of these parents to the standards of concerted
cultivation and to the educational success of their children while also trying
to equip their children to live in a racist society (Vincent et al., 2012). In contrast, research on African-American middle-class mothers has highlighted
the distance between the dominant model of intensive mothering and the
ideology instead valued by these mothers. Coined “integrated mothering,”
this ideology stresses the importance of nonparental childcare support, the
centrality of paid employment, and considerations of race and racism (Dow,
2011). Other studies have also pointed to the extra work done by middle-class
ethnic families in order to being heard by schools and to fight stereotypes of
underachievement (Archer, 2010).
Third, while Lareau’s work was relatively silent on the gender dimension
of parental involvement with children, recent research has highlighted
significant gender dimensions especially in the implementation of concerted
cultivation between boys and girls. Parents, it was found, invest more time
and resources in girls as compared to boys, although this gender difference
was found to vary across race, SES, and type of activity (McCoy, Byrne,
& Banks, 2012; Warner & Milkie, 2013). Finally, recent research has also
examined men’s experience of intensive parenting in pointing to men’s
relative insulation from the demands of such ideology (Shirani, Henwood,
& Coltart, 2012), while also revealing large social, economic and ethnic
variations (McLoyd, Cauce, Takeuchi, & Wilson, 2000). Yet, and as recently
argued, there is a need for a better integration of fathering in parenting
research (Pleck, 2012).
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
MEASUREMENT
The first key issue is that of measurement, that is, how best to capture
quantitatively parental investment and especially the concepts of intensive
parenting and concerted cultivation. There is obviously a wide array of
parental investment indicators that have been used in the literature, but there
remains a gulf separating, on the one hand, research on specific parental

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

7

practices and time allocation (mostly based on quantitative data), and on the
other hand, research on parenting ideologies and strategies (mostly based on
qualitative data). Some recent attempts have been made to bridge these two
bodies of literature. For example, concerted cultivation has been measured
through the combination of data on (i) parents’ school engagement, (ii)
children’s participation in extracurricular activities, and (iii) the amount of
educational materials in the home (Bodovski & Karkas 2009; Cheadle 2009;
Cheadle & Amato, 2011; Lareau, Weineiger, Conley, & Velez, 2011). Similarly,
some attempts have been made at measuring quantitatively the concept of
intensive mothering (Liss, Schriffin, Mackintosh, Miles-McLean, & Erchull,
2012). However, there is also an acknowledgement that these indicators do
not capture the full scope of these concepts. For example, existing measures
do not fully capture parents’ efforts to mobilize resources on behalf of their
children nor their efforts to promote their children’s sense of confidence and
self-entitlement.
PARENTAL INVESTMENT IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS
The second key issue is to expand the study of parental investment to more
countries and to different political and institutional regimes. In particular,
while the literature based on time-use data has been carried out in numerous countries, the literature on other dimensions of parental investment, and
especially on concerted cultivation and intensive mothering, has been dominated by Anglo-Saxon countries. The point here is that while there are reasons to expect the phenomenon of intensive mothering not to be exclusive
to the Anglo-Saxon world (see the discussion below), the actual expectations
and norms of good mothering may well vary across contexts.
DRIVING FORCES
Third, we need to better understand the driving forces behind the emergence of new ideologies of parenting and especially behind the growing
polarization in parental investment in children. The recent literature in this
field has identified three possible elements. First, recent decades have seen
major changes in the economies of developed countries: changes that have
fundamentally altered the economic context of childrearing. This includes
increasing job instability, increasing uncertainties about the future, as well as
increasing income inequality which, together, have made it more difficult for
families, especially for middle-class families, to maintain their class status
(Acs & Nichols 2010). The combination of these trends, it could be argued,
may have prompted middle-class families to invest further in their children
in order to prevent downward social mobility.

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Second, there has been increasing knowledge about, and increasing visibility given to, the importance of early experiences and early stimulation
for children’s brain development. Popular magazines and psychology books
have helped disseminated this scientific knowledge, turning the whole experience of parenting as a near “science project” (Apple 2006; Quirke 2006; Wall
2004, 2010). And again, middle-class parents appear to have been particularly susceptible to, and receptive of, this new knowledge and expectations
regarding children’s early years.
Finally, the emergence of a neoliberal ideology at the political level,
ideology placing increasing responsibility on individuals, has also been
argued to be adding to expectations of large parental investment in children
(Romagnoli & Wall, 2012). In particular, children’s success has been increasingly viewed as being dependent on parents’ skills and on their investment
in their children. In contrast, bad parenting and a lack of parental investment have been viewed as being responsible for poverty and social disorder
(Gillies, 2008). And while the new political rhetoric of “investing in children”
may be suggesting a shift toward greater governmental support, observers
have argued that it has mainly been used to further emphasize parental
responsibility (Butler, 2010; Gillies, 2012).
Theoretically, these various societal changes (economy, knowledge, and
politics) could be argued to have altered parental expectations and practices,
especially by creating a climate of anxiety and personal responsibility. New
research should however attempt to empirically test these theoretical propositions. In particular, if a childrearing strategy such as concerted cultivation
is indeed prompted by increasing economic uncertainties, income inequalities, and neoliberal ideologies, its applicability should go well beyond the
Anglo-Saxon world. Continued financial woes in Europe, and continued
uncertainties for young adults and young families around the world, could
be expected to be providing the impetus for more parental investment in
children, especially by middle-class parents, in most of the developed world.
This is an empirical hypothesis that still needs to be tested. Moreover, it
would be important to examine more closely cross-national differences in
parental investment since differences in family policies and state support
for families could be posited to be associated with different expectations
concerning the role of parents and the role of societal institutions.
THE DYNAMICS OF PARENTAL INVESTMENT
Finally, there is a need to examine the dynamic nature of parental investment,
that is, to examine changes in parental investment as parents experience
various transitions (e.g., divorce and remarriage) and as children grow up.
In particular, while the current literature has provided us with is a picture of
parental investment at one point in time, we lack a longitudinal perspective

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

9

on how this investment changes over the life course of parents and children.
One of the very few exceptions in the qualitative literature comes again from
Lareau (2011) with the 10-year follow-up of her original study of class-based
childrearing logics. Her findings confirmed the persisting importance of
social class especially through middle-class parents’ formal and informal
knowledge of institutions of higher education, and through the continuous
monitoring and guidance of their young adults. Working-class and poor
parents were found to be providing “valuable emotional, financial, and
social support for their children” (Lareau, 2011, p. 302) but were less well
equipped to do so and tended to value more the autonomy of their young
adults as compared to their middle-class counterparts.
CONCLUSION
That educated middle-class parents use specific strategies to transmit privileges to their children is not a new phenomenon. Yet, the social role of children, as well as the standards of good parenting (and good mothering), have
changed considerably in recent decades. In the midst of growing economic
uncertainties and growing income inequalities, large time, monetary, and
emotional parental investments have been perceived as key for children’s
success. At the same time, resistance to this dominant model of good parenting has been emerging, together with concerns about its consequences on
the well-being of parents (especially mothers) including anxiety and feeling
of guilt (Sutherland, 2010).
The empirical literature on the ideologies and practices of parental investment has however been largely confined so far to specific countries and has
been dominated by qualitative studies. More rigorous measurement of the
concept of parental investment, as well as more extensive investigation of this
concept in different contexts are needed in order to allow for a better understanding of some of the mechanisms and driving forces behind the increasing
polarization in parental investment. At the same time, longitudinal studies
are needed to examine the dynamics of parental investment and how class
differences evolve as children grow up and as families experience various
demographic and economic events. Only with such a better understanding
of inequalities in parental investment can we start devising interventions and
programs to better support parents and to start closing the social class gap in
children’s well-being and achievement.
REFERENCES
Acs, G., & Nichols, A. (2010). America Insecure: Changes in the Economic Security
of American Families. Paper 16. The Urban Institute.

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Alwin, D. F. (2001). Parenting values, beliefs, and behavior: A review and promulga
for research into the new century. Children at the Millennium: Where have we
come from, where are we going? Advances in Life Course Research, 6, 97–139.
Apple, R. D. (2006). Perfect motherhood: Science and childrearing in America. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Archer, L. (2010). We raised it with the Head: the educational practices of minority
ethnic, middle-class families. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31(4), 449–469.
Barber, N. (2000). Why parents matter. Parental investment and child outcomes. Westport,
CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Barber, B. K., Stoltz, H., & Olsen, J. (2005). Parental support, psychological control,
and behavioral control: Assessing relevance across time, culture, and method.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 70(4), 1–151.
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool
behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75(1), 43–88.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and
substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95.
Bianchi, S., Cohen, P. N., Raley, S., & Nomaguchi, K. (2004). Inequalities in parental
investment in child rearing: Expenditures, time and health. In K. M. Neckerman
(Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 189–220). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., McAdoo, H. P., & Garcia Coll, C. (2001). The home
environments of children in the United States, part I: Variations by age, ethnicity
and poverty status. Child Development, 72, 1844–1867.
Brown, I. (2011). A sociological analysis of maternal ambivalence. PhD thesis. Rutgers, the State University of New York.
Butler, K. (2010). Intensive mothering in British Columbia: Understanding the impact
of an “investing-in-children” framework on mothering ideology. International Journal of Canadian Studies, 42, 243–253.
Cheadle, J. E. (2009). Parent educational investment and children’s general knowledge development. Social Science Research, 38(2), 477–491.
Cheadle, J. E., & Amato, P. R. (2011). A quantitative assessment of Lareau’s qualitative conclusions about class, race, and parenting. Journal of Family Issues, 32(5),
679–706.
Christopher, K. (2012). Extensive mothering: Employed mothers’ constructions of
the good mother. Gender & Society, 26(1), 73–96.
Craig, L. (2006). Parental education, time in paid work and time with children: An
Australia time-diary analysis. The British Journal of Sociology, 57(4), 553–575.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487–496.
Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on
child achievement: The indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(5), 294–304.
Domenech Rodriguez, M. M., Donovick, M. R., & Crowley, S. L. (2009). Parenting styles in a cultural context: Observations of “protective parenting” in
first-generation latinos. Family Process, 48, 195–210.

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

11

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987).
The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244–1257.
Dow, D. (2011). Black moms and “While motherhood society”: African-American
middle-class mothers’ perspectives on work, family and identity. Institute for the
Study of Social Change, University of California Berkeley, http://escholarship.
org/uc/item/6kr3v4pz (accessed 18 April 2013).
Furstenberg, F. F. (1993). How families manage risk and opportunity in dangerous
neighborhoods. In W. J. Wilson (Ed.), Sociology and the public agenda (pp. 231–258).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gauthier, A. H., Smeeding, T. M., & Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (2004). Are parents investing
less time in children? Trends in selected industrialized countries. Population and
Development Review, 30(4), 647–671.
Gerris, J. R. M., Dekovic, M., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (1997). The relationship between
social class and childrearing behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59, 4.
Gillies, V. (2008). Childrearing, class and the new politics of parenting. Sociology Compass, 2, 1079–1095.
Gillies, V. (2012). Family policy and the politics of parenting: From function to competence. In M. Richter & S. Andersen (Eds.), The Politicization of parenthood: Shifting
private and public responsibilities in education and child rearing (pp. 13–26). London,
England: Springer.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young
American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Hays, S. (1986). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hill, R. C., & Stafford, F. P. (1985). Parental care of children: Time diary estimates
of quantity, predictability and variety. In F. T. Juster & F. P. Stafford (Eds.), Time,
goods, and well-being (pp. 415–437). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status
affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development,
74(5), 1368–1378.
Hoff, E., Laursen, B., & Tardiff, T. (2002). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In M.
H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Vol. 2. Biology and ecology of parenting (2nd
ed., pp. 231–252). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated Publishers.
Honore, C. (2009). Under pressure: Rescuing our children from the culture of hyperparenting. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publisher.
Irwin, S., & Elley, S. (2011). Concerted cultivation? Parenting values, education and
class diversity. Sociology, 45(3), 480–495.
Johnston, D. D., & Swanson, D. H. (2006). Constructing the good mother: The experience of mothering ideologies by work status. Sex Roles, 64(7–8), 509–519.
Kalil, A., & DeLeire, T. (2004). Family investments in children’s potential: Resources and
parenting behaviors that promote success. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated Publishers.
Kalil, A., Ryan, R., & Corey, M. (2012). Diverging destinies: Maternal education and
the development gradient in time with children. Demography, 49(4), 1361–1383.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Kohn, M. L. (1959). Social class and parental values. The American Journal of Sociology,
64, 337–351.
Kohn, M. L. (1976). Social class and parental values: Another confirmation of the
relationship. American Sociological Review, 41, 538–545.
Kornrich, S., & Furstenberg, F. F. (2013). Investing in children: Changes in parental
spending on children, 1972–2007. Demography, 50(1), 1–23.
Kotchick, B. A., & Forehand, R. (2002). Putting parenting in perspective: A discussion
of the contextual factors that shape parenting practices. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 11(3), 255–269.
Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families
and white families. American Sociological Review, 67(5), 747–776.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods; Class, race and family life. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race and family life Second edition with an
update a decade later. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lareau, A., Weineiger, E., Conley, D., & Velez, M. (2011). Unequal childhoods in
context: Results from a quantitative analysis. In A. Lareau (Ed.), Unequal childhoods: Class, race and family life. Second edition with an update a decade later (pp.
333–341). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Liss, M., Schriffin, H. H., Mackintosh, V. H., Miles-McLean, H., & Erchull, M. J. (2012).
Development and validation of a quantitative measure of intensive parenting attitudes. Journal of Child and Family Studies. doi:10.1007/s10826-012-9616-y
Luster, T., Rhoades, K., & Haas, B. (1989). The relationship between parental values
and parenting behavior: A test of Kohn hypothesis. Journal of Marriage and Family,
51, 139–147.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:
Parent–child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology.
Vol. IV: Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1–101). New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Maher, J., & Saugeres, L. (2007). To be or not to be a mother? Women negotiating
cultural representations of mothering. Journal of Sociology, 43(1), 5–21.
Mauldin, T., Mimura, Y., & Lino, M. (2001). Parental expenditures on children’s education. Journal of Family and Economics Issues, 22(3), 221–241.
McCoy, S., Byrne, D., & Banks, J. (2012). Too much of a good thing? Gender, ‘concerted cultivation’ and unequal achievement in primary education. Child Indicators
Research, 5(1), 155–178.
McLoyd, V. C., Cauce, A. M., Takeuchi, D., & Wilson, L. (2000). Marital processes and
parental socialization in families of color: A decade review of research. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 62, 1070–1093.
Napolitano, L., Pacholok, S. & Furstenberg, F. F. (2013). Educational aspirations,
expectations, and realities for middle-income families. Journal of Family Issues.
March 6, 2013. doi:0192513X13479334
O’Brien Hallstein, D. L. (2008). Second wave silences and third wave intensive mothering. In A. E. Kinser (Ed.), Mothering in the third wave (pp. 107–116). Toronto:
Brunswick Books.

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

13

Parson, J., Pacholok, S., Snape, T., & Gauthier, A. H. (2012). Trying to do more with
less? Negotiating intensive mothering and financial strain in Canada. Families,
Relationships and Societies, 1(3), 361–377.
Perrier, M. (2012). Middle-class mothers’ moralities and ‘concerted cultivation’: Class
others, ambivalence and excess. Sociology. Published online before print December
12, 2012 doi:10.1177/0038038512453789
Pleck, J. H. (2012). Integrating father involvement in parenting research. Parenting:
Science and practice, 12(2/3), 243–253.
Quirke, L. (2006). Keeping young minds sharp: Children’s cognitive stimulation and
the rise of parenting magazines, 1959–2003. Canadian Review of Sociology, 43(4),
387–406.
Rizzo, K. M., Schiffrin, H. H., & Liss, M. (2012). Insight into the parenthood paradox:
Mental health outcomes of intensive mothering. Journal of Child and Family Studies.
doi:10.1007/s10826-012-9615-z
Romagnoli, A., & Wall, G. (2012). I know I’m a good mom: young, low-income mothers’ experiences with risk perception, intensive parenting ideology and parenting
education programmes. Health, Risk & Society, 14(3), 273–289.
Rosenfeld, A., & Wise, N. (2000). The over-scheduled child: Avoiding the hyper-parenting
trap. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Sayer, L., Gauthier, A. H., & Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (2004). Educational differences in
parental time with children: cross-national variations. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 66, 1152–1169.
Sherman, J., & Harris, E. (2012). Social class and parenting: Classic debates and new
understandings. Sociology Compass, 6(1), 60–71.
Shirani, F., Henwood, K., & Coltart, C. (2012). Meeting the challenge of intensive
parenting culture, gender, risk management and the moral parent. Sociology, 46(1),
25–40.
Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2010). Learning in the home and at school: How working class
children succeed against the odds. British Educational Research Journal, 36(3),
463–82.
Smeeding, T. M., Erikson, R., & Jantti, M. (Eds.) (2011). Persistence, privilege and parenting. In The comparative study of intergenerational mobility. New York, NY: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Sutherland, J.-A. (2010). Mothering, guilt, and shame. Sociology Compass, 4, 310–321.
Vincent, C., Ball, S. J., & Pietikainen, S. (2004). Metropolitan mothers: Mothers, mothering and paid work. Women’s Studies International Forum, 27, 571–87.
Vincent, C., Rollock, N., Ball, S., & Gillborn, D. (2012). Raising the middle-class Black
children: Parenting priorities, actions and strategies. Sociology Online first: 12 Dec.
2012, 47(3), 427–442.
Wall, G. (2004). Is your child’s brain potential maximized? Mothering in an age of
new brain research. Atlantis, 28, 2.
Wall, G. (2010). Mothers’ experiences with intensive parenting and brain development discourse. Women’s Studies International Forum, 33(3), 253–263.
Warner, C. H., & Milkie, M. A. (2013). Cultivating gendered talents? The intersection
of race, class, and gender in the concerted cultivation of U.S. Elementary Students.

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

In M. H. Kohlman, D. B. Krieg & B. J. Dickerson (Eds.), Notions of family: Intersectional perspectives (Advances in Gender Research, Volume 17) (pp. 1–27). Bradford,
England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Weininger, E. B., & Lareau, A. (2009). Paradoxical pathways: an ethnographic extension of Kohn’s findings on class and childrearing. Journal of Marriage and Family,
71(3), 680–695.
Wright, J. D., & Wright, S. R. (1976). Social class and parental values for children. A
partial replication and extension of the Kohn thesis. American Sociological Review,
14, 527–537.
Yarosz, D. J., & Barnett, W. S. (2001). Who reads to young children?: Identifying predictors of family reading activities. Reading Psychology, 22(1), 67–81.

ANNE H. GAUTHIER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Anne H. Gauthier is senior researcher at the Netherlands Interdisciplinary
Demographic Institute (NIDI) and adjunct professor of sociology at the University of Calgary. She holds a DPhil from the University of Oxford and has
taught in American, British, and Canadian universities. Between 2001 and
2010, she held the Canadian Research Chair in Comparative Family Policy.
Her current research interests include the cross-national study of children’s
outcomes, fertility and policies, and parental investment into children.
RELATED ESSAYS
Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups (Sociology), Noah Askin et al.
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Enduring Effects of Education (Sociology), Matthew Curry and Jennie E.
Brand
Intergenerational Mobility (Economics), Steve N. Durlauf and Irina
Shaorshadze
Stratification in Hard Times (Sociology), Markus Gangl
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Education for Mobility or Status Reproduction? (Sociology), Karyn Lacy
Stratification and the Welfare State (Sociology), Stephanie Moller and Joya
Misra
Social Classification (Sociology), Elizabeth G. Pontikes
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction (Sociology), Lauren A. Rivera
The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey
M. Stonecash



Social Class and Parental
Investment in Children
ANNE H. GAUTHIER

Abstract
This essay critically reviews the literature on social class differences in parental
investment in children including differences in (i) parenting practices or behavior;
(ii) parenting styles, logics, and strategies; and (iii) parenting values and ideologies.
The essay reveals how structural and cultural barriers contribute to creating social
class differences in the ways parents interact with their children, as well as in the
way they protect and promote their children’s development and well-being. This
essay covers some of the foundational research in the field as well as newer research
which has started to question the strict social class divide in parental investment.
In particular, this essay discusses recent research on the resistance to the dominant
ideology of good parenting, and studies of the complex interactions between social
class, race and ethnicity, and gender. This essay concludes with a discussion of
future research avenues including a call for a better empirical operationalization of
the concept of parental investment.

INTRODUCTION
Parental investment in children is one of the most important determinants of
children’s well-being and development (Barber, 2000; Kalil & DeLeire, 2004).
It is also a highly stratified determinant with large variations across social
class (Smeeding, Erikson, & Jantti, 2011). There is no standard definition of
parental investment, but in simple terms it can be said to be capturing what
parents do with their children, what they do for their children, as well as the
emotional climate in which they raise their children. More formally, parental
investment refers to the allocation of time, money, and emotional resources
by parents to their children as well as parents’ management of their children’s
risks and opportunities.
The importance of parental investment for children’s academic and
cognitive development has been solidly demonstrated in numerous studies
(e.g., Barber, Stoltz, & Olsen, 2005). Where the debate instead lies are in
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

the reasons behind the observed social class differences in parental investment, more specifically whether such social class differences are driven by
structure or culture (Sherman & Harris, 2012). Proponents of the structural
argument point to deep socioeconomic status (SES) inequalities, including
inequalities in resources and opportunities, as reasons preventing parents
from low SES from investing more in their children. Differential access to
quality schools, poor community infrastructure, and income constraints are
examples of structural barriers confronting low SES families. In contrast,
proponents of the cultural argument point to intrinsic class-based norms and
practices that result in social class differences in parental investment and
which ultimately contribute to the reproduction of class. Lower educational
aspirations for their children, and a lower emphasis on values such as
entitlement, self-control, and self-efficacy by low social class parents are
examples of cultural barriers which are argued to be reinforcing social
class differences. This dichotomous debate, opposing structure versus
culture, was at the core of the foundational research on parenting and
parental investment in children. As discussed in this essay, it is however
currently losing momentum in favor of a more complex understanding of
parental investment involving race/ethnicity, class, and gender. Newer and
cutting-edge research is delving deeper into the daily reality of families
in order to better understand the motives, opportunities, and barriers to
parental investment. In turn, such a research can be argued to be essential to
help develop evidence-based policies and programs to tackle the deep social
class inequalities in children’s outcomes.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
PARENTAL RESOURCES, PRACTICES, AND BEHAVIOR
One of the ways parental investment in children has been captured in the
literature is through its time component. On the basis of time-diary instruments, research dating back to the 1980s has highlighted the educational gradient in parental time allocation to their children (Hill & Stafford, 1985). Even
after controlling for numerous individual-level characteristics, more highly
educated parents were found to be devoting more time to their children. This
is a robust finding that has since been observed in numerous countries (Craig,
2006; Gauthier, Smeeding, & Furstenberg, 2004; Kalil, Ryan, & Corey, 2012;
Sayer, Gauthier, & Furstenberg, 2004). Studies have also revealed strong SES
differences in time spent on education-enrichment activities (Craig, 2006),
verbal interaction with children (Hart & Risley, 1995; Hoff, 2003), and reading to children (Davis-Kean, 2005; Yarosz & Barnett, 2001). In other words,

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

3

the way parents allocate their time and the type of activities they engage in
appear to be strongly patterned by social class.
Parents from higher SES also appear to be devoting more financial resources
to their children including on items such as education (Mauldin, Mimura,
& Lino, 2001), childcare (Bianchi, Cohen, Raley, & Nomaguchi, 2004), and
educational material in the house (Bradley, Corwyn, McAdoo, & Garcia Coll,
2001). There is also evidence that the inequalities in household expenditures
on children have been increasing over time resulting in greater polarization
between low- and high-income families (Kornrich & Furstenberg, 2013).
PARENTING STYLE AND LOGIC
The previous body of literature is focused on specific forms of parental investment in children. In contrast, parenting style can be theoretically seen as providing the emotional context for parenting (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). There
is a long tradition of research on parenting style stemming from the seminal
work of Baumrind (1967). Parents, it has been argued, differ considerably in
terms of two key dimensions: (i) their level of responsiveness toward their
children and (ii) their level of demandingness (Baumrind, 1991; Maccoby
& Martin, 1983). The resulting typology of parenting style has been—and
continues to be—widely used in the literature and has repeatedly been identified as a key determinant of child development. In particular, an authoritative parenting style (high responsiveness and high demandingness) has
been found to be associated with better child outcomes than the other parenting styles. Moreover, this parenting style has been found to be more prevalent among higher SES parents (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, &
Fraleigh, 1987). More recent studies have however questioned the validity of
this finding across different cultural and economic childrearing contexts (e.g.,
Domenech Rodriguez, Donovick, & Crowley, 2009). In particular, the adoption of more restrictive and punitive parenting style by low SES parents has
been argued to be a reaction to more hostile and dangerous living conditions
(Furstenberg, 1993; Kotchick & Forehand, 2002).
In a different body of literature, the context of parenting and the principles
guiding parental investment in children have been explored under the heading of childrearing logic. The most important and influential piece here is the
study by Lareau (2002, 2003, 2011) based on intensive ethnographic observations of a small sample of middle-class, working-class, and poor families in
the United States. Two distinct childrearing logics emerged from her analysis: (i) the logic of concerted cultivation which aims at developing children’s
talents and at providing them with a sense of confidence and entitlement

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

primarily through the use of reasoning and variations in parent–child verbal interactions as well as children’s participation in extracurricular activities and (ii) the logic of natural growth characterized by more unstructured
time for children and less contacts with the adult world. Importantly, Lareau
argues that the former logic is more likely to be adopted by the middle-class
and the latter by the working-class.
PARENTING VALUES, NORMS, AND IDEOLOGIES
Parents not only do things with, and for, their children, but they also aim
at instilling them with specific values. In a now classic study carried out in
the late 1950s, Kohn (1959, 1976) revealed deep social class differences in the
values associated with childrearing. More specifically, middle-class parents
were found to be emphasizing to a greater extent the value of self-direction
and autonomy while working-class parents were found to be more likely to
demand compliance to parental authority. Kohn further argued that these
social class differences stemmed from differences in parents’ occupations,
which, in turn, were aimed at better preparing children for their future
(class-based) occupations (Hoff, Laursen, & Tardiff, 2002). The hypothesis
of social class differences in parenting values has since been substantiated
in numerous studies (Gerris, Dekovic, & Janssens, 1997; Luster, Rhoades,
& Haas, 1989), with some however stressing the importance of parental
education as opposed to occupation as the key determinant (J. D. Wright &
S. R. Wright, 1976).
Recent work in this field has pushed further the examination of parenting
values by highlighting the apparent contradictions between parenting
values, on the one hand, and parenting behavior, on the other. As discussed
by Weininger & Lareau (2009), while middle-class parents highly value
autonomy and self-direction, they tend to exert a high level of control
over their children’s schedule and related activities. In contrast, while
working-class parents value conformity to external authority, they provide
children with more freedom over their use of time. The apparent paradox,
it has been argued, suggests complex links between parenting values and
behavior: links that have been insufficiently explored in the literature.
Deep social class differences are also found in parenting beliefs and
ideologies of “good” parenting (Alwin, 2001). In particular, Hays (1986) has
argued that recent decades have seen the emergence of a new parenting
ideology, which she calls “intensive mothering” and that she defines as
“child-centered, expert-guided, emotionally absorbing, labor intensive,
and financially expensive” (Hays (1986), p. 54). She furthermore argues
that this is a parenting ideology that has been more strongly endorsed
by middle-class parents. It is an ideology that carries large expectations

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

5

regarding mothers’ time availability for their children and that has large
implications for their labor force participation (Johnston & Swanson 2006;
Maher & Saugeres 2007; Parson, Pacholok, Snape, & Gauthier, 2012; Vincent,
Rollock, Ball, & Gillborn, 2004). Recent studies have in fact documented the
struggles and tensions mothers are confronted to when trying to uphold this
new standard of good mothering and the concurrent expectations of “good”
workers (Christopher, 2012; Rizzo, Schiffrin, & Liss, 2012).
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
While the foundational research reviewed earlier has provided solid evidence of social class differences in parental investment in children, recent
cutting-edge research has questioned some of the key assumptions and
findings of this earlier body of literature. Three main issues have been
examined.
First, there is the assumption of class homogeneity in the work by
Lareau (2002, 2011), more specifically the assumption that middle-class
and working-class parents adhere to contrasting cultural strategies of
childrearing. Instead, new research has pointed to much heterogeneity
within classes especially regarding parents’ motives and strategies of
childrearing. Research on working-class parents has for instance shown
that disadvantaged families do, to a large extent, adhere to the logic of
concerted cultivation: they have high aspirations for their children and
provide significant educational support (Siraj-Blatchford, 2010). Where such
families struggle is in finding the time and financial resources to implement
such aspirations and such a high level of parental involvement (O’Brien
Hallstein, 2008). For example, recent research has pointed to the discrepancy
between the high educational aspirations of middle-income parents and
their severe income constraints making their hopes of sending their children
to college an unlikely reality (Napolitano, Pacholok, & Furstenberg, 2013).
Yet, other studies continue to point to strong class-based cultural differences.
For instance, a recent study of low-income mothers in Canada revealed the
resistance of this group of mothers to the ideology of intensive mothering.
Although low-income mothers were aware of the dominant standards of
good mothering and attempted to implement some of it (e.g., reading to
their children), they also questioned some of its tenets especially what they
perceived as the over-involvement of parents (Romagnoli & Wall, 2012).
Considerable heterogeneity has also been observed within middle-class
families. In this case, part of this heterogeneity stems from ambivalence and
resistance to the dominant model of parenting (Brown, 2011; Irwin and Elley,
2011). For some time, the popular psychology literature had been warning
parents about the dangers of hyper-parenting and over-scheduling (Honore,

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

2009; Rosenfeld & Wise, 2000). What is new here is evidence of middle-class
mothers’ resistance to some of the demands of intensive mothering. This
includes criticisms of the excess, pushiness, and over-ambitious of other
middle-class mothers, as well as a stated preference for quality time (togetherness) as opposed to the relentless schedule of families whose children are
involved in so many activities (Perrier, 2012).
Second, the recent literature has also questioned. Lareau’s claim regarding
the dominance of social class over race in determining childrearing strategies.
In particular, research on the Black middle-class in the United Kingdom has
pointed to the commitments of these parents to the standards of concerted
cultivation and to the educational success of their children while also trying
to equip their children to live in a racist society (Vincent et al., 2012). In contrast, research on African-American middle-class mothers has highlighted
the distance between the dominant model of intensive mothering and the
ideology instead valued by these mothers. Coined “integrated mothering,”
this ideology stresses the importance of nonparental childcare support, the
centrality of paid employment, and considerations of race and racism (Dow,
2011). Other studies have also pointed to the extra work done by middle-class
ethnic families in order to being heard by schools and to fight stereotypes of
underachievement (Archer, 2010).
Third, while Lareau’s work was relatively silent on the gender dimension
of parental involvement with children, recent research has highlighted
significant gender dimensions especially in the implementation of concerted
cultivation between boys and girls. Parents, it was found, invest more time
and resources in girls as compared to boys, although this gender difference
was found to vary across race, SES, and type of activity (McCoy, Byrne,
& Banks, 2012; Warner & Milkie, 2013). Finally, recent research has also
examined men’s experience of intensive parenting in pointing to men’s
relative insulation from the demands of such ideology (Shirani, Henwood,
& Coltart, 2012), while also revealing large social, economic and ethnic
variations (McLoyd, Cauce, Takeuchi, & Wilson, 2000). Yet, and as recently
argued, there is a need for a better integration of fathering in parenting
research (Pleck, 2012).
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
MEASUREMENT
The first key issue is that of measurement, that is, how best to capture
quantitatively parental investment and especially the concepts of intensive
parenting and concerted cultivation. There is obviously a wide array of
parental investment indicators that have been used in the literature, but there
remains a gulf separating, on the one hand, research on specific parental

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

7

practices and time allocation (mostly based on quantitative data), and on the
other hand, research on parenting ideologies and strategies (mostly based on
qualitative data). Some recent attempts have been made to bridge these two
bodies of literature. For example, concerted cultivation has been measured
through the combination of data on (i) parents’ school engagement, (ii)
children’s participation in extracurricular activities, and (iii) the amount of
educational materials in the home (Bodovski & Karkas 2009; Cheadle 2009;
Cheadle & Amato, 2011; Lareau, Weineiger, Conley, & Velez, 2011). Similarly,
some attempts have been made at measuring quantitatively the concept of
intensive mothering (Liss, Schriffin, Mackintosh, Miles-McLean, & Erchull,
2012). However, there is also an acknowledgement that these indicators do
not capture the full scope of these concepts. For example, existing measures
do not fully capture parents’ efforts to mobilize resources on behalf of their
children nor their efforts to promote their children’s sense of confidence and
self-entitlement.
PARENTAL INVESTMENT IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS
The second key issue is to expand the study of parental investment to more
countries and to different political and institutional regimes. In particular,
while the literature based on time-use data has been carried out in numerous countries, the literature on other dimensions of parental investment, and
especially on concerted cultivation and intensive mothering, has been dominated by Anglo-Saxon countries. The point here is that while there are reasons to expect the phenomenon of intensive mothering not to be exclusive
to the Anglo-Saxon world (see the discussion below), the actual expectations
and norms of good mothering may well vary across contexts.
DRIVING FORCES
Third, we need to better understand the driving forces behind the emergence of new ideologies of parenting and especially behind the growing
polarization in parental investment in children. The recent literature in this
field has identified three possible elements. First, recent decades have seen
major changes in the economies of developed countries: changes that have
fundamentally altered the economic context of childrearing. This includes
increasing job instability, increasing uncertainties about the future, as well as
increasing income inequality which, together, have made it more difficult for
families, especially for middle-class families, to maintain their class status
(Acs & Nichols 2010). The combination of these trends, it could be argued,
may have prompted middle-class families to invest further in their children
in order to prevent downward social mobility.

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Second, there has been increasing knowledge about, and increasing visibility given to, the importance of early experiences and early stimulation
for children’s brain development. Popular magazines and psychology books
have helped disseminated this scientific knowledge, turning the whole experience of parenting as a near “science project” (Apple 2006; Quirke 2006; Wall
2004, 2010). And again, middle-class parents appear to have been particularly susceptible to, and receptive of, this new knowledge and expectations
regarding children’s early years.
Finally, the emergence of a neoliberal ideology at the political level,
ideology placing increasing responsibility on individuals, has also been
argued to be adding to expectations of large parental investment in children
(Romagnoli & Wall, 2012). In particular, children’s success has been increasingly viewed as being dependent on parents’ skills and on their investment
in their children. In contrast, bad parenting and a lack of parental investment have been viewed as being responsible for poverty and social disorder
(Gillies, 2008). And while the new political rhetoric of “investing in children”
may be suggesting a shift toward greater governmental support, observers
have argued that it has mainly been used to further emphasize parental
responsibility (Butler, 2010; Gillies, 2012).
Theoretically, these various societal changes (economy, knowledge, and
politics) could be argued to have altered parental expectations and practices,
especially by creating a climate of anxiety and personal responsibility. New
research should however attempt to empirically test these theoretical propositions. In particular, if a childrearing strategy such as concerted cultivation
is indeed prompted by increasing economic uncertainties, income inequalities, and neoliberal ideologies, its applicability should go well beyond the
Anglo-Saxon world. Continued financial woes in Europe, and continued
uncertainties for young adults and young families around the world, could
be expected to be providing the impetus for more parental investment in
children, especially by middle-class parents, in most of the developed world.
This is an empirical hypothesis that still needs to be tested. Moreover, it
would be important to examine more closely cross-national differences in
parental investment since differences in family policies and state support
for families could be posited to be associated with different expectations
concerning the role of parents and the role of societal institutions.
THE DYNAMICS OF PARENTAL INVESTMENT
Finally, there is a need to examine the dynamic nature of parental investment,
that is, to examine changes in parental investment as parents experience
various transitions (e.g., divorce and remarriage) and as children grow up.
In particular, while the current literature has provided us with is a picture of
parental investment at one point in time, we lack a longitudinal perspective

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

9

on how this investment changes over the life course of parents and children.
One of the very few exceptions in the qualitative literature comes again from
Lareau (2011) with the 10-year follow-up of her original study of class-based
childrearing logics. Her findings confirmed the persisting importance of
social class especially through middle-class parents’ formal and informal
knowledge of institutions of higher education, and through the continuous
monitoring and guidance of their young adults. Working-class and poor
parents were found to be providing “valuable emotional, financial, and
social support for their children” (Lareau, 2011, p. 302) but were less well
equipped to do so and tended to value more the autonomy of their young
adults as compared to their middle-class counterparts.
CONCLUSION
That educated middle-class parents use specific strategies to transmit privileges to their children is not a new phenomenon. Yet, the social role of children, as well as the standards of good parenting (and good mothering), have
changed considerably in recent decades. In the midst of growing economic
uncertainties and growing income inequalities, large time, monetary, and
emotional parental investments have been perceived as key for children’s
success. At the same time, resistance to this dominant model of good parenting has been emerging, together with concerns about its consequences on
the well-being of parents (especially mothers) including anxiety and feeling
of guilt (Sutherland, 2010).
The empirical literature on the ideologies and practices of parental investment has however been largely confined so far to specific countries and has
been dominated by qualitative studies. More rigorous measurement of the
concept of parental investment, as well as more extensive investigation of this
concept in different contexts are needed in order to allow for a better understanding of some of the mechanisms and driving forces behind the increasing
polarization in parental investment. At the same time, longitudinal studies
are needed to examine the dynamics of parental investment and how class
differences evolve as children grow up and as families experience various
demographic and economic events. Only with such a better understanding
of inequalities in parental investment can we start devising interventions and
programs to better support parents and to start closing the social class gap in
children’s well-being and achievement.
REFERENCES
Acs, G., & Nichols, A. (2010). America Insecure: Changes in the Economic Security
of American Families. Paper 16. The Urban Institute.

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Alwin, D. F. (2001). Parenting values, beliefs, and behavior: A review and promulga
for research into the new century. Children at the Millennium: Where have we
come from, where are we going? Advances in Life Course Research, 6, 97–139.
Apple, R. D. (2006). Perfect motherhood: Science and childrearing in America. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Archer, L. (2010). We raised it with the Head: the educational practices of minority
ethnic, middle-class families. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31(4), 449–469.
Barber, N. (2000). Why parents matter. Parental investment and child outcomes. Westport,
CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Barber, B. K., Stoltz, H., & Olsen, J. (2005). Parental support, psychological control,
and behavioral control: Assessing relevance across time, culture, and method.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 70(4), 1–151.
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool
behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75(1), 43–88.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and
substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95.
Bianchi, S., Cohen, P. N., Raley, S., & Nomaguchi, K. (2004). Inequalities in parental
investment in child rearing: Expenditures, time and health. In K. M. Neckerman
(Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 189–220). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., McAdoo, H. P., & Garcia Coll, C. (2001). The home
environments of children in the United States, part I: Variations by age, ethnicity
and poverty status. Child Development, 72, 1844–1867.
Brown, I. (2011). A sociological analysis of maternal ambivalence. PhD thesis. Rutgers, the State University of New York.
Butler, K. (2010). Intensive mothering in British Columbia: Understanding the impact
of an “investing-in-children” framework on mothering ideology. International Journal of Canadian Studies, 42, 243–253.
Cheadle, J. E. (2009). Parent educational investment and children’s general knowledge development. Social Science Research, 38(2), 477–491.
Cheadle, J. E., & Amato, P. R. (2011). A quantitative assessment of Lareau’s qualitative conclusions about class, race, and parenting. Journal of Family Issues, 32(5),
679–706.
Christopher, K. (2012). Extensive mothering: Employed mothers’ constructions of
the good mother. Gender & Society, 26(1), 73–96.
Craig, L. (2006). Parental education, time in paid work and time with children: An
Australia time-diary analysis. The British Journal of Sociology, 57(4), 553–575.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487–496.
Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on
child achievement: The indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(5), 294–304.
Domenech Rodriguez, M. M., Donovick, M. R., & Crowley, S. L. (2009). Parenting styles in a cultural context: Observations of “protective parenting” in
first-generation latinos. Family Process, 48, 195–210.

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

11

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987).
The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244–1257.
Dow, D. (2011). Black moms and “While motherhood society”: African-American
middle-class mothers’ perspectives on work, family and identity. Institute for the
Study of Social Change, University of California Berkeley, http://escholarship.
org/uc/item/6kr3v4pz (accessed 18 April 2013).
Furstenberg, F. F. (1993). How families manage risk and opportunity in dangerous
neighborhoods. In W. J. Wilson (Ed.), Sociology and the public agenda (pp. 231–258).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gauthier, A. H., Smeeding, T. M., & Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (2004). Are parents investing
less time in children? Trends in selected industrialized countries. Population and
Development Review, 30(4), 647–671.
Gerris, J. R. M., Dekovic, M., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (1997). The relationship between
social class and childrearing behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59, 4.
Gillies, V. (2008). Childrearing, class and the new politics of parenting. Sociology Compass, 2, 1079–1095.
Gillies, V. (2012). Family policy and the politics of parenting: From function to competence. In M. Richter & S. Andersen (Eds.), The Politicization of parenthood: Shifting
private and public responsibilities in education and child rearing (pp. 13–26). London,
England: Springer.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young
American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Hays, S. (1986). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hill, R. C., & Stafford, F. P. (1985). Parental care of children: Time diary estimates
of quantity, predictability and variety. In F. T. Juster & F. P. Stafford (Eds.), Time,
goods, and well-being (pp. 415–437). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status
affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development,
74(5), 1368–1378.
Hoff, E., Laursen, B., & Tardiff, T. (2002). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In M.
H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Vol. 2. Biology and ecology of parenting (2nd
ed., pp. 231–252). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated Publishers.
Honore, C. (2009). Under pressure: Rescuing our children from the culture of hyperparenting. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publisher.
Irwin, S., & Elley, S. (2011). Concerted cultivation? Parenting values, education and
class diversity. Sociology, 45(3), 480–495.
Johnston, D. D., & Swanson, D. H. (2006). Constructing the good mother: The experience of mothering ideologies by work status. Sex Roles, 64(7–8), 509–519.
Kalil, A., & DeLeire, T. (2004). Family investments in children’s potential: Resources and
parenting behaviors that promote success. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated Publishers.
Kalil, A., Ryan, R., & Corey, M. (2012). Diverging destinies: Maternal education and
the development gradient in time with children. Demography, 49(4), 1361–1383.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Kohn, M. L. (1959). Social class and parental values. The American Journal of Sociology,
64, 337–351.
Kohn, M. L. (1976). Social class and parental values: Another confirmation of the
relationship. American Sociological Review, 41, 538–545.
Kornrich, S., & Furstenberg, F. F. (2013). Investing in children: Changes in parental
spending on children, 1972–2007. Demography, 50(1), 1–23.
Kotchick, B. A., & Forehand, R. (2002). Putting parenting in perspective: A discussion
of the contextual factors that shape parenting practices. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 11(3), 255–269.
Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families
and white families. American Sociological Review, 67(5), 747–776.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods; Class, race and family life. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race and family life Second edition with an
update a decade later. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lareau, A., Weineiger, E., Conley, D., & Velez, M. (2011). Unequal childhoods in
context: Results from a quantitative analysis. In A. Lareau (Ed.), Unequal childhoods: Class, race and family life. Second edition with an update a decade later (pp.
333–341). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Liss, M., Schriffin, H. H., Mackintosh, V. H., Miles-McLean, H., & Erchull, M. J. (2012).
Development and validation of a quantitative measure of intensive parenting attitudes. Journal of Child and Family Studies. doi:10.1007/s10826-012-9616-y
Luster, T., Rhoades, K., & Haas, B. (1989). The relationship between parental values
and parenting behavior: A test of Kohn hypothesis. Journal of Marriage and Family,
51, 139–147.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:
Parent–child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology.
Vol. IV: Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1–101). New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Maher, J., & Saugeres, L. (2007). To be or not to be a mother? Women negotiating
cultural representations of mothering. Journal of Sociology, 43(1), 5–21.
Mauldin, T., Mimura, Y., & Lino, M. (2001). Parental expenditures on children’s education. Journal of Family and Economics Issues, 22(3), 221–241.
McCoy, S., Byrne, D., & Banks, J. (2012). Too much of a good thing? Gender, ‘concerted cultivation’ and unequal achievement in primary education. Child Indicators
Research, 5(1), 155–178.
McLoyd, V. C., Cauce, A. M., Takeuchi, D., & Wilson, L. (2000). Marital processes and
parental socialization in families of color: A decade review of research. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 62, 1070–1093.
Napolitano, L., Pacholok, S. & Furstenberg, F. F. (2013). Educational aspirations,
expectations, and realities for middle-income families. Journal of Family Issues.
March 6, 2013. doi:0192513X13479334
O’Brien Hallstein, D. L. (2008). Second wave silences and third wave intensive mothering. In A. E. Kinser (Ed.), Mothering in the third wave (pp. 107–116). Toronto:
Brunswick Books.

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

13

Parson, J., Pacholok, S., Snape, T., & Gauthier, A. H. (2012). Trying to do more with
less? Negotiating intensive mothering and financial strain in Canada. Families,
Relationships and Societies, 1(3), 361–377.
Perrier, M. (2012). Middle-class mothers’ moralities and ‘concerted cultivation’: Class
others, ambivalence and excess. Sociology. Published online before print December
12, 2012 doi:10.1177/0038038512453789
Pleck, J. H. (2012). Integrating father involvement in parenting research. Parenting:
Science and practice, 12(2/3), 243–253.
Quirke, L. (2006). Keeping young minds sharp: Children’s cognitive stimulation and
the rise of parenting magazines, 1959–2003. Canadian Review of Sociology, 43(4),
387–406.
Rizzo, K. M., Schiffrin, H. H., & Liss, M. (2012). Insight into the parenthood paradox:
Mental health outcomes of intensive mothering. Journal of Child and Family Studies.
doi:10.1007/s10826-012-9615-z
Romagnoli, A., & Wall, G. (2012). I know I’m a good mom: young, low-income mothers’ experiences with risk perception, intensive parenting ideology and parenting
education programmes. Health, Risk & Society, 14(3), 273–289.
Rosenfeld, A., & Wise, N. (2000). The over-scheduled child: Avoiding the hyper-parenting
trap. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Sayer, L., Gauthier, A. H., & Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (2004). Educational differences in
parental time with children: cross-national variations. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 66, 1152–1169.
Sherman, J., & Harris, E. (2012). Social class and parenting: Classic debates and new
understandings. Sociology Compass, 6(1), 60–71.
Shirani, F., Henwood, K., & Coltart, C. (2012). Meeting the challenge of intensive
parenting culture, gender, risk management and the moral parent. Sociology, 46(1),
25–40.
Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2010). Learning in the home and at school: How working class
children succeed against the odds. British Educational Research Journal, 36(3),
463–82.
Smeeding, T. M., Erikson, R., & Jantti, M. (Eds.) (2011). Persistence, privilege and parenting. In The comparative study of intergenerational mobility. New York, NY: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Sutherland, J.-A. (2010). Mothering, guilt, and shame. Sociology Compass, 4, 310–321.
Vincent, C., Ball, S. J., & Pietikainen, S. (2004). Metropolitan mothers: Mothers, mothering and paid work. Women’s Studies International Forum, 27, 571–87.
Vincent, C., Rollock, N., Ball, S., & Gillborn, D. (2012). Raising the middle-class Black
children: Parenting priorities, actions and strategies. Sociology Online first: 12 Dec.
2012, 47(3), 427–442.
Wall, G. (2004). Is your child’s brain potential maximized? Mothering in an age of
new brain research. Atlantis, 28, 2.
Wall, G. (2010). Mothers’ experiences with intensive parenting and brain development discourse. Women’s Studies International Forum, 33(3), 253–263.
Warner, C. H., & Milkie, M. A. (2013). Cultivating gendered talents? The intersection
of race, class, and gender in the concerted cultivation of U.S. Elementary Students.

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

In M. H. Kohlman, D. B. Krieg & B. J. Dickerson (Eds.), Notions of family: Intersectional perspectives (Advances in Gender Research, Volume 17) (pp. 1–27). Bradford,
England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Weininger, E. B., & Lareau, A. (2009). Paradoxical pathways: an ethnographic extension of Kohn’s findings on class and childrearing. Journal of Marriage and Family,
71(3), 680–695.
Wright, J. D., & Wright, S. R. (1976). Social class and parental values for children. A
partial replication and extension of the Kohn thesis. American Sociological Review,
14, 527–537.
Yarosz, D. J., & Barnett, W. S. (2001). Who reads to young children?: Identifying predictors of family reading activities. Reading Psychology, 22(1), 67–81.

ANNE H. GAUTHIER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Anne H. Gauthier is senior researcher at the Netherlands Interdisciplinary
Demographic Institute (NIDI) and adjunct professor of sociology at the University of Calgary. She holds a DPhil from the University of Oxford and has
taught in American, British, and Canadian universities. Between 2001 and
2010, she held the Canadian Research Chair in Comparative Family Policy.
Her current research interests include the cross-national study of children’s
outcomes, fertility and policies, and parental investment into children.
RELATED ESSAYS
Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups (Sociology), Noah Askin et al.
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Enduring Effects of Education (Sociology), Matthew Curry and Jennie E.
Brand
Intergenerational Mobility (Economics), Steve N. Durlauf and Irina
Shaorshadze
Stratification in Hard Times (Sociology), Markus Gangl
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Education for Mobility or Status Reproduction? (Sociology), Karyn Lacy
Stratification and the Welfare State (Sociology), Stephanie Moller and Joya
Misra
Social Classification (Sociology), Elizabeth G. Pontikes
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction (Sociology), Lauren A. Rivera
The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey
M. Stonecash


Social Class and Parental
Investment in Children
ANNE H. GAUTHIER

Abstract
This essay critically reviews the literature on social class differences in parental
investment in children including differences in (i) parenting practices or behavior;
(ii) parenting styles, logics, and strategies; and (iii) parenting values and ideologies.
The essay reveals how structural and cultural barriers contribute to creating social
class differences in the ways parents interact with their children, as well as in the
way they protect and promote their children’s development and well-being. This
essay covers some of the foundational research in the field as well as newer research
which has started to question the strict social class divide in parental investment.
In particular, this essay discusses recent research on the resistance to the dominant
ideology of good parenting, and studies of the complex interactions between social
class, race and ethnicity, and gender. This essay concludes with a discussion of
future research avenues including a call for a better empirical operationalization of
the concept of parental investment.

INTRODUCTION
Parental investment in children is one of the most important determinants of
children’s well-being and development (Barber, 2000; Kalil & DeLeire, 2004).
It is also a highly stratified determinant with large variations across social
class (Smeeding, Erikson, & Jantti, 2011). There is no standard definition of
parental investment, but in simple terms it can be said to be capturing what
parents do with their children, what they do for their children, as well as the
emotional climate in which they raise their children. More formally, parental
investment refers to the allocation of time, money, and emotional resources
by parents to their children as well as parents’ management of their children’s
risks and opportunities.
The importance of parental investment for children’s academic and
cognitive development has been solidly demonstrated in numerous studies
(e.g., Barber, Stoltz, & Olsen, 2005). Where the debate instead lies are in
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

the reasons behind the observed social class differences in parental investment, more specifically whether such social class differences are driven by
structure or culture (Sherman & Harris, 2012). Proponents of the structural
argument point to deep socioeconomic status (SES) inequalities, including
inequalities in resources and opportunities, as reasons preventing parents
from low SES from investing more in their children. Differential access to
quality schools, poor community infrastructure, and income constraints are
examples of structural barriers confronting low SES families. In contrast,
proponents of the cultural argument point to intrinsic class-based norms and
practices that result in social class differences in parental investment and
which ultimately contribute to the reproduction of class. Lower educational
aspirations for their children, and a lower emphasis on values such as
entitlement, self-control, and self-efficacy by low social class parents are
examples of cultural barriers which are argued to be reinforcing social
class differences. This dichotomous debate, opposing structure versus
culture, was at the core of the foundational research on parenting and
parental investment in children. As discussed in this essay, it is however
currently losing momentum in favor of a more complex understanding of
parental investment involving race/ethnicity, class, and gender. Newer and
cutting-edge research is delving deeper into the daily reality of families
in order to better understand the motives, opportunities, and barriers to
parental investment. In turn, such a research can be argued to be essential to
help develop evidence-based policies and programs to tackle the deep social
class inequalities in children’s outcomes.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
PARENTAL RESOURCES, PRACTICES, AND BEHAVIOR
One of the ways parental investment in children has been captured in the
literature is through its time component. On the basis of time-diary instruments, research dating back to the 1980s has highlighted the educational gradient in parental time allocation to their children (Hill & Stafford, 1985). Even
after controlling for numerous individual-level characteristics, more highly
educated parents were found to be devoting more time to their children. This
is a robust finding that has since been observed in numerous countries (Craig,
2006; Gauthier, Smeeding, & Furstenberg, 2004; Kalil, Ryan, & Corey, 2012;
Sayer, Gauthier, & Furstenberg, 2004). Studies have also revealed strong SES
differences in time spent on education-enrichment activities (Craig, 2006),
verbal interaction with children (Hart & Risley, 1995; Hoff, 2003), and reading to children (Davis-Kean, 2005; Yarosz & Barnett, 2001). In other words,

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

3

the way parents allocate their time and the type of activities they engage in
appear to be strongly patterned by social class.
Parents from higher SES also appear to be devoting more financial resources
to their children including on items such as education (Mauldin, Mimura,
& Lino, 2001), childcare (Bianchi, Cohen, Raley, & Nomaguchi, 2004), and
educational material in the house (Bradley, Corwyn, McAdoo, & Garcia Coll,
2001). There is also evidence that the inequalities in household expenditures
on children have been increasing over time resulting in greater polarization
between low- and high-income families (Kornrich & Furstenberg, 2013).
PARENTING STYLE AND LOGIC
The previous body of literature is focused on specific forms of parental investment in children. In contrast, parenting style can be theoretically seen as providing the emotional context for parenting (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). There
is a long tradition of research on parenting style stemming from the seminal
work of Baumrind (1967). Parents, it has been argued, differ considerably in
terms of two key dimensions: (i) their level of responsiveness toward their
children and (ii) their level of demandingness (Baumrind, 1991; Maccoby
& Martin, 1983). The resulting typology of parenting style has been—and
continues to be—widely used in the literature and has repeatedly been identified as a key determinant of child development. In particular, an authoritative parenting style (high responsiveness and high demandingness) has
been found to be associated with better child outcomes than the other parenting styles. Moreover, this parenting style has been found to be more prevalent among higher SES parents (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, &
Fraleigh, 1987). More recent studies have however questioned the validity of
this finding across different cultural and economic childrearing contexts (e.g.,
Domenech Rodriguez, Donovick, & Crowley, 2009). In particular, the adoption of more restrictive and punitive parenting style by low SES parents has
been argued to be a reaction to more hostile and dangerous living conditions
(Furstenberg, 1993; Kotchick & Forehand, 2002).
In a different body of literature, the context of parenting and the principles
guiding parental investment in children have been explored under the heading of childrearing logic. The most important and influential piece here is the
study by Lareau (2002, 2003, 2011) based on intensive ethnographic observations of a small sample of middle-class, working-class, and poor families in
the United States. Two distinct childrearing logics emerged from her analysis: (i) the logic of concerted cultivation which aims at developing children’s
talents and at providing them with a sense of confidence and entitlement

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

primarily through the use of reasoning and variations in parent–child verbal interactions as well as children’s participation in extracurricular activities and (ii) the logic of natural growth characterized by more unstructured
time for children and less contacts with the adult world. Importantly, Lareau
argues that the former logic is more likely to be adopted by the middle-class
and the latter by the working-class.
PARENTING VALUES, NORMS, AND IDEOLOGIES
Parents not only do things with, and for, their children, but they also aim
at instilling them with specific values. In a now classic study carried out in
the late 1950s, Kohn (1959, 1976) revealed deep social class differences in the
values associated with childrearing. More specifically, middle-class parents
were found to be emphasizing to a greater extent the value of self-direction
and autonomy while working-class parents were found to be more likely to
demand compliance to parental authority. Kohn further argued that these
social class differences stemmed from differences in parents’ occupations,
which, in turn, were aimed at better preparing children for their future
(class-based) occupations (Hoff, Laursen, & Tardiff, 2002). The hypothesis
of social class differences in parenting values has since been substantiated
in numerous studies (Gerris, Dekovic, & Janssens, 1997; Luster, Rhoades,
& Haas, 1989), with some however stressing the importance of parental
education as opposed to occupation as the key determinant (J. D. Wright &
S. R. Wright, 1976).
Recent work in this field has pushed further the examination of parenting
values by highlighting the apparent contradictions between parenting
values, on the one hand, and parenting behavior, on the other. As discussed
by Weininger & Lareau (2009), while middle-class parents highly value
autonomy and self-direction, they tend to exert a high level of control
over their children’s schedule and related activities. In contrast, while
working-class parents value conformity to external authority, they provide
children with more freedom over their use of time. The apparent paradox,
it has been argued, suggests complex links between parenting values and
behavior: links that have been insufficiently explored in the literature.
Deep social class differences are also found in parenting beliefs and
ideologies of “good” parenting (Alwin, 2001). In particular, Hays (1986) has
argued that recent decades have seen the emergence of a new parenting
ideology, which she calls “intensive mothering” and that she defines as
“child-centered, expert-guided, emotionally absorbing, labor intensive,
and financially expensive” (Hays (1986), p. 54). She furthermore argues
that this is a parenting ideology that has been more strongly endorsed
by middle-class parents. It is an ideology that carries large expectations

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

5

regarding mothers’ time availability for their children and that has large
implications for their labor force participation (Johnston & Swanson 2006;
Maher & Saugeres 2007; Parson, Pacholok, Snape, & Gauthier, 2012; Vincent,
Rollock, Ball, & Gillborn, 2004). Recent studies have in fact documented the
struggles and tensions mothers are confronted to when trying to uphold this
new standard of good mothering and the concurrent expectations of “good”
workers (Christopher, 2012; Rizzo, Schiffrin, & Liss, 2012).
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
While the foundational research reviewed earlier has provided solid evidence of social class differences in parental investment in children, recent
cutting-edge research has questioned some of the key assumptions and
findings of this earlier body of literature. Three main issues have been
examined.
First, there is the assumption of class homogeneity in the work by
Lareau (2002, 2011), more specifically the assumption that middle-class
and working-class parents adhere to contrasting cultural strategies of
childrearing. Instead, new research has pointed to much heterogeneity
within classes especially regarding parents’ motives and strategies of
childrearing. Research on working-class parents has for instance shown
that disadvantaged families do, to a large extent, adhere to the logic of
concerted cultivation: they have high aspirations for their children and
provide significant educational support (Siraj-Blatchford, 2010). Where such
families struggle is in finding the time and financial resources to implement
such aspirations and such a high level of parental involvement (O’Brien
Hallstein, 2008). For example, recent research has pointed to the discrepancy
between the high educational aspirations of middle-income parents and
their severe income constraints making their hopes of sending their children
to college an unlikely reality (Napolitano, Pacholok, & Furstenberg, 2013).
Yet, other studies continue to point to strong class-based cultural differences.
For instance, a recent study of low-income mothers in Canada revealed the
resistance of this group of mothers to the ideology of intensive mothering.
Although low-income mothers were aware of the dominant standards of
good mothering and attempted to implement some of it (e.g., reading to
their children), they also questioned some of its tenets especially what they
perceived as the over-involvement of parents (Romagnoli & Wall, 2012).
Considerable heterogeneity has also been observed within middle-class
families. In this case, part of this heterogeneity stems from ambivalence and
resistance to the dominant model of parenting (Brown, 2011; Irwin and Elley,
2011). For some time, the popular psychology literature had been warning
parents about the dangers of hyper-parenting and over-scheduling (Honore,

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

2009; Rosenfeld & Wise, 2000). What is new here is evidence of middle-class
mothers’ resistance to some of the demands of intensive mothering. This
includes criticisms of the excess, pushiness, and over-ambitious of other
middle-class mothers, as well as a stated preference for quality time (togetherness) as opposed to the relentless schedule of families whose children are
involved in so many activities (Perrier, 2012).
Second, the recent literature has also questioned. Lareau’s claim regarding
the dominance of social class over race in determining childrearing strategies.
In particular, research on the Black middle-class in the United Kingdom has
pointed to the commitments of these parents to the standards of concerted
cultivation and to the educational success of their children while also trying
to equip their children to live in a racist society (Vincent et al., 2012). In contrast, research on African-American middle-class mothers has highlighted
the distance between the dominant model of intensive mothering and the
ideology instead valued by these mothers. Coined “integrated mothering,”
this ideology stresses the importance of nonparental childcare support, the
centrality of paid employment, and considerations of race and racism (Dow,
2011). Other studies have also pointed to the extra work done by middle-class
ethnic families in order to being heard by schools and to fight stereotypes of
underachievement (Archer, 2010).
Third, while Lareau’s work was relatively silent on the gender dimension
of parental involvement with children, recent research has highlighted
significant gender dimensions especially in the implementation of concerted
cultivation between boys and girls. Parents, it was found, invest more time
and resources in girls as compared to boys, although this gender difference
was found to vary across race, SES, and type of activity (McCoy, Byrne,
& Banks, 2012; Warner & Milkie, 2013). Finally, recent research has also
examined men’s experience of intensive parenting in pointing to men’s
relative insulation from the demands of such ideology (Shirani, Henwood,
& Coltart, 2012), while also revealing large social, economic and ethnic
variations (McLoyd, Cauce, Takeuchi, & Wilson, 2000). Yet, and as recently
argued, there is a need for a better integration of fathering in parenting
research (Pleck, 2012).
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
MEASUREMENT
The first key issue is that of measurement, that is, how best to capture
quantitatively parental investment and especially the concepts of intensive
parenting and concerted cultivation. There is obviously a wide array of
parental investment indicators that have been used in the literature, but there
remains a gulf separating, on the one hand, research on specific parental

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

7

practices and time allocation (mostly based on quantitative data), and on the
other hand, research on parenting ideologies and strategies (mostly based on
qualitative data). Some recent attempts have been made to bridge these two
bodies of literature. For example, concerted cultivation has been measured
through the combination of data on (i) parents’ school engagement, (ii)
children’s participation in extracurricular activities, and (iii) the amount of
educational materials in the home (Bodovski & Karkas 2009; Cheadle 2009;
Cheadle & Amato, 2011; Lareau, Weineiger, Conley, & Velez, 2011). Similarly,
some attempts have been made at measuring quantitatively the concept of
intensive mothering (Liss, Schriffin, Mackintosh, Miles-McLean, & Erchull,
2012). However, there is also an acknowledgement that these indicators do
not capture the full scope of these concepts. For example, existing measures
do not fully capture parents’ efforts to mobilize resources on behalf of their
children nor their efforts to promote their children’s sense of confidence and
self-entitlement.
PARENTAL INVESTMENT IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS
The second key issue is to expand the study of parental investment to more
countries and to different political and institutional regimes. In particular,
while the literature based on time-use data has been carried out in numerous countries, the literature on other dimensions of parental investment, and
especially on concerted cultivation and intensive mothering, has been dominated by Anglo-Saxon countries. The point here is that while there are reasons to expect the phenomenon of intensive mothering not to be exclusive
to the Anglo-Saxon world (see the discussion below), the actual expectations
and norms of good mothering may well vary across contexts.
DRIVING FORCES
Third, we need to better understand the driving forces behind the emergence of new ideologies of parenting and especially behind the growing
polarization in parental investment in children. The recent literature in this
field has identified three possible elements. First, recent decades have seen
major changes in the economies of developed countries: changes that have
fundamentally altered the economic context of childrearing. This includes
increasing job instability, increasing uncertainties about the future, as well as
increasing income inequality which, together, have made it more difficult for
families, especially for middle-class families, to maintain their class status
(Acs & Nichols 2010). The combination of these trends, it could be argued,
may have prompted middle-class families to invest further in their children
in order to prevent downward social mobility.

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Second, there has been increasing knowledge about, and increasing visibility given to, the importance of early experiences and early stimulation
for children’s brain development. Popular magazines and psychology books
have helped disseminated this scientific knowledge, turning the whole experience of parenting as a near “science project” (Apple 2006; Quirke 2006; Wall
2004, 2010). And again, middle-class parents appear to have been particularly susceptible to, and receptive of, this new knowledge and expectations
regarding children’s early years.
Finally, the emergence of a neoliberal ideology at the political level,
ideology placing increasing responsibility on individuals, has also been
argued to be adding to expectations of large parental investment in children
(Romagnoli & Wall, 2012). In particular, children’s success has been increasingly viewed as being dependent on parents’ skills and on their investment
in their children. In contrast, bad parenting and a lack of parental investment have been viewed as being responsible for poverty and social disorder
(Gillies, 2008). And while the new political rhetoric of “investing in children”
may be suggesting a shift toward greater governmental support, observers
have argued that it has mainly been used to further emphasize parental
responsibility (Butler, 2010; Gillies, 2012).
Theoretically, these various societal changes (economy, knowledge, and
politics) could be argued to have altered parental expectations and practices,
especially by creating a climate of anxiety and personal responsibility. New
research should however attempt to empirically test these theoretical propositions. In particular, if a childrearing strategy such as concerted cultivation
is indeed prompted by increasing economic uncertainties, income inequalities, and neoliberal ideologies, its applicability should go well beyond the
Anglo-Saxon world. Continued financial woes in Europe, and continued
uncertainties for young adults and young families around the world, could
be expected to be providing the impetus for more parental investment in
children, especially by middle-class parents, in most of the developed world.
This is an empirical hypothesis that still needs to be tested. Moreover, it
would be important to examine more closely cross-national differences in
parental investment since differences in family policies and state support
for families could be posited to be associated with different expectations
concerning the role of parents and the role of societal institutions.
THE DYNAMICS OF PARENTAL INVESTMENT
Finally, there is a need to examine the dynamic nature of parental investment,
that is, to examine changes in parental investment as parents experience
various transitions (e.g., divorce and remarriage) and as children grow up.
In particular, while the current literature has provided us with is a picture of
parental investment at one point in time, we lack a longitudinal perspective

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

9

on how this investment changes over the life course of parents and children.
One of the very few exceptions in the qualitative literature comes again from
Lareau (2011) with the 10-year follow-up of her original study of class-based
childrearing logics. Her findings confirmed the persisting importance of
social class especially through middle-class parents’ formal and informal
knowledge of institutions of higher education, and through the continuous
monitoring and guidance of their young adults. Working-class and poor
parents were found to be providing “valuable emotional, financial, and
social support for their children” (Lareau, 2011, p. 302) but were less well
equipped to do so and tended to value more the autonomy of their young
adults as compared to their middle-class counterparts.
CONCLUSION
That educated middle-class parents use specific strategies to transmit privileges to their children is not a new phenomenon. Yet, the social role of children, as well as the standards of good parenting (and good mothering), have
changed considerably in recent decades. In the midst of growing economic
uncertainties and growing income inequalities, large time, monetary, and
emotional parental investments have been perceived as key for children’s
success. At the same time, resistance to this dominant model of good parenting has been emerging, together with concerns about its consequences on
the well-being of parents (especially mothers) including anxiety and feeling
of guilt (Sutherland, 2010).
The empirical literature on the ideologies and practices of parental investment has however been largely confined so far to specific countries and has
been dominated by qualitative studies. More rigorous measurement of the
concept of parental investment, as well as more extensive investigation of this
concept in different contexts are needed in order to allow for a better understanding of some of the mechanisms and driving forces behind the increasing
polarization in parental investment. At the same time, longitudinal studies
are needed to examine the dynamics of parental investment and how class
differences evolve as children grow up and as families experience various
demographic and economic events. Only with such a better understanding
of inequalities in parental investment can we start devising interventions and
programs to better support parents and to start closing the social class gap in
children’s well-being and achievement.
REFERENCES
Acs, G., & Nichols, A. (2010). America Insecure: Changes in the Economic Security
of American Families. Paper 16. The Urban Institute.

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Alwin, D. F. (2001). Parenting values, beliefs, and behavior: A review and promulga
for research into the new century. Children at the Millennium: Where have we
come from, where are we going? Advances in Life Course Research, 6, 97–139.
Apple, R. D. (2006). Perfect motherhood: Science and childrearing in America. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Archer, L. (2010). We raised it with the Head: the educational practices of minority
ethnic, middle-class families. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31(4), 449–469.
Barber, N. (2000). Why parents matter. Parental investment and child outcomes. Westport,
CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Barber, B. K., Stoltz, H., & Olsen, J. (2005). Parental support, psychological control,
and behavioral control: Assessing relevance across time, culture, and method.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 70(4), 1–151.
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool
behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75(1), 43–88.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and
substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95.
Bianchi, S., Cohen, P. N., Raley, S., & Nomaguchi, K. (2004). Inequalities in parental
investment in child rearing: Expenditures, time and health. In K. M. Neckerman
(Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 189–220). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., McAdoo, H. P., & Garcia Coll, C. (2001). The home
environments of children in the United States, part I: Variations by age, ethnicity
and poverty status. Child Development, 72, 1844–1867.
Brown, I. (2011). A sociological analysis of maternal ambivalence. PhD thesis. Rutgers, the State University of New York.
Butler, K. (2010). Intensive mothering in British Columbia: Understanding the impact
of an “investing-in-children” framework on mothering ideology. International Journal of Canadian Studies, 42, 243–253.
Cheadle, J. E. (2009). Parent educational investment and children’s general knowledge development. Social Science Research, 38(2), 477–491.
Cheadle, J. E., & Amato, P. R. (2011). A quantitative assessment of Lareau’s qualitative conclusions about class, race, and parenting. Journal of Family Issues, 32(5),
679–706.
Christopher, K. (2012). Extensive mothering: Employed mothers’ constructions of
the good mother. Gender & Society, 26(1), 73–96.
Craig, L. (2006). Parental education, time in paid work and time with children: An
Australia time-diary analysis. The British Journal of Sociology, 57(4), 553–575.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487–496.
Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on
child achievement: The indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(5), 294–304.
Domenech Rodriguez, M. M., Donovick, M. R., & Crowley, S. L. (2009). Parenting styles in a cultural context: Observations of “protective parenting” in
first-generation latinos. Family Process, 48, 195–210.

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

11

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987).
The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244–1257.
Dow, D. (2011). Black moms and “While motherhood society”: African-American
middle-class mothers’ perspectives on work, family and identity. Institute for the
Study of Social Change, University of California Berkeley, http://escholarship.
org/uc/item/6kr3v4pz (accessed 18 April 2013).
Furstenberg, F. F. (1993). How families manage risk and opportunity in dangerous
neighborhoods. In W. J. Wilson (Ed.), Sociology and the public agenda (pp. 231–258).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gauthier, A. H., Smeeding, T. M., & Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (2004). Are parents investing
less time in children? Trends in selected industrialized countries. Population and
Development Review, 30(4), 647–671.
Gerris, J. R. M., Dekovic, M., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (1997). The relationship between
social class and childrearing behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59, 4.
Gillies, V. (2008). Childrearing, class and the new politics of parenting. Sociology Compass, 2, 1079–1095.
Gillies, V. (2012). Family policy and the politics of parenting: From function to competence. In M. Richter & S. Andersen (Eds.), The Politicization of parenthood: Shifting
private and public responsibilities in education and child rearing (pp. 13–26). London,
England: Springer.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young
American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Hays, S. (1986). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hill, R. C., & Stafford, F. P. (1985). Parental care of children: Time diary estimates
of quantity, predictability and variety. In F. T. Juster & F. P. Stafford (Eds.), Time,
goods, and well-being (pp. 415–437). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status
affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development,
74(5), 1368–1378.
Hoff, E., Laursen, B., & Tardiff, T. (2002). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In M.
H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Vol. 2. Biology and ecology of parenting (2nd
ed., pp. 231–252). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated Publishers.
Honore, C. (2009). Under pressure: Rescuing our children from the culture of hyperparenting. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publisher.
Irwin, S., & Elley, S. (2011). Concerted cultivation? Parenting values, education and
class diversity. Sociology, 45(3), 480–495.
Johnston, D. D., & Swanson, D. H. (2006). Constructing the good mother: The experience of mothering ideologies by work status. Sex Roles, 64(7–8), 509–519.
Kalil, A., & DeLeire, T. (2004). Family investments in children’s potential: Resources and
parenting behaviors that promote success. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated Publishers.
Kalil, A., Ryan, R., & Corey, M. (2012). Diverging destinies: Maternal education and
the development gradient in time with children. Demography, 49(4), 1361–1383.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Kohn, M. L. (1959). Social class and parental values. The American Journal of Sociology,
64, 337–351.
Kohn, M. L. (1976). Social class and parental values: Another confirmation of the
relationship. American Sociological Review, 41, 538–545.
Kornrich, S., & Furstenberg, F. F. (2013). Investing in children: Changes in parental
spending on children, 1972–2007. Demography, 50(1), 1–23.
Kotchick, B. A., & Forehand, R. (2002). Putting parenting in perspective: A discussion
of the contextual factors that shape parenting practices. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 11(3), 255–269.
Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families
and white families. American Sociological Review, 67(5), 747–776.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods; Class, race and family life. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race and family life Second edition with an
update a decade later. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lareau, A., Weineiger, E., Conley, D., & Velez, M. (2011). Unequal childhoods in
context: Results from a quantitative analysis. In A. Lareau (Ed.), Unequal childhoods: Class, race and family life. Second edition with an update a decade later (pp.
333–341). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Liss, M., Schriffin, H. H., Mackintosh, V. H., Miles-McLean, H., & Erchull, M. J. (2012).
Development and validation of a quantitative measure of intensive parenting attitudes. Journal of Child and Family Studies. doi:10.1007/s10826-012-9616-y
Luster, T., Rhoades, K., & Haas, B. (1989). The relationship between parental values
and parenting behavior: A test of Kohn hypothesis. Journal of Marriage and Family,
51, 139–147.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:
Parent–child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology.
Vol. IV: Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1–101). New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Maher, J., & Saugeres, L. (2007). To be or not to be a mother? Women negotiating
cultural representations of mothering. Journal of Sociology, 43(1), 5–21.
Mauldin, T., Mimura, Y., & Lino, M. (2001). Parental expenditures on children’s education. Journal of Family and Economics Issues, 22(3), 221–241.
McCoy, S., Byrne, D., & Banks, J. (2012). Too much of a good thing? Gender, ‘concerted cultivation’ and unequal achievement in primary education. Child Indicators
Research, 5(1), 155–178.
McLoyd, V. C., Cauce, A. M., Takeuchi, D., & Wilson, L. (2000). Marital processes and
parental socialization in families of color: A decade review of research. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 62, 1070–1093.
Napolitano, L., Pacholok, S. & Furstenberg, F. F. (2013). Educational aspirations,
expectations, and realities for middle-income families. Journal of Family Issues.
March 6, 2013. doi:0192513X13479334
O’Brien Hallstein, D. L. (2008). Second wave silences and third wave intensive mothering. In A. E. Kinser (Ed.), Mothering in the third wave (pp. 107–116). Toronto:
Brunswick Books.

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children

13

Parson, J., Pacholok, S., Snape, T., & Gauthier, A. H. (2012). Trying to do more with
less? Negotiating intensive mothering and financial strain in Canada. Families,
Relationships and Societies, 1(3), 361–377.
Perrier, M. (2012). Middle-class mothers’ moralities and ‘concerted cultivation’: Class
others, ambivalence and excess. Sociology. Published online before print December
12, 2012 doi:10.1177/0038038512453789
Pleck, J. H. (2012). Integrating father involvement in parenting research. Parenting:
Science and practice, 12(2/3), 243–253.
Quirke, L. (2006). Keeping young minds sharp: Children’s cognitive stimulation and
the rise of parenting magazines, 1959–2003. Canadian Review of Sociology, 43(4),
387–406.
Rizzo, K. M., Schiffrin, H. H., & Liss, M. (2012). Insight into the parenthood paradox:
Mental health outcomes of intensive mothering. Journal of Child and Family Studies.
doi:10.1007/s10826-012-9615-z
Romagnoli, A., & Wall, G. (2012). I know I’m a good mom: young, low-income mothers’ experiences with risk perception, intensive parenting ideology and parenting
education programmes. Health, Risk & Society, 14(3), 273–289.
Rosenfeld, A., & Wise, N. (2000). The over-scheduled child: Avoiding the hyper-parenting
trap. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Sayer, L., Gauthier, A. H., & Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (2004). Educational differences in
parental time with children: cross-national variations. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 66, 1152–1169.
Sherman, J., & Harris, E. (2012). Social class and parenting: Classic debates and new
understandings. Sociology Compass, 6(1), 60–71.
Shirani, F., Henwood, K., & Coltart, C. (2012). Meeting the challenge of intensive
parenting culture, gender, risk management and the moral parent. Sociology, 46(1),
25–40.
Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2010). Learning in the home and at school: How working class
children succeed against the odds. British Educational Research Journal, 36(3),
463–82.
Smeeding, T. M., Erikson, R., & Jantti, M. (Eds.) (2011). Persistence, privilege and parenting. In The comparative study of intergenerational mobility. New York, NY: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Sutherland, J.-A. (2010). Mothering, guilt, and shame. Sociology Compass, 4, 310–321.
Vincent, C., Ball, S. J., & Pietikainen, S. (2004). Metropolitan mothers: Mothers, mothering and paid work. Women’s Studies International Forum, 27, 571–87.
Vincent, C., Rollock, N., Ball, S., & Gillborn, D. (2012). Raising the middle-class Black
children: Parenting priorities, actions and strategies. Sociology Online first: 12 Dec.
2012, 47(3), 427–442.
Wall, G. (2004). Is your child’s brain potential maximized? Mothering in an age of
new brain research. Atlantis, 28, 2.
Wall, G. (2010). Mothers’ experiences with intensive parenting and brain development discourse. Women’s Studies International Forum, 33(3), 253–263.
Warner, C. H., & Milkie, M. A. (2013). Cultivating gendered talents? The intersection
of race, class, and gender in the concerted cultivation of U.S. Elementary Students.

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

In M. H. Kohlman, D. B. Krieg & B. J. Dickerson (Eds.), Notions of family: Intersectional perspectives (Advances in Gender Research, Volume 17) (pp. 1–27). Bradford,
England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Weininger, E. B., & Lareau, A. (2009). Paradoxical pathways: an ethnographic extension of Kohn’s findings on class and childrearing. Journal of Marriage and Family,
71(3), 680–695.
Wright, J. D., & Wright, S. R. (1976). Social class and parental values for children. A
partial replication and extension of the Kohn thesis. American Sociological Review,
14, 527–537.
Yarosz, D. J., & Barnett, W. S. (2001). Who reads to young children?: Identifying predictors of family reading activities. Reading Psychology, 22(1), 67–81.

ANNE H. GAUTHIER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Anne H. Gauthier is senior researcher at the Netherlands Interdisciplinary
Demographic Institute (NIDI) and adjunct professor of sociology at the University of Calgary. She holds a DPhil from the University of Oxford and has
taught in American, British, and Canadian universities. Between 2001 and
2010, she held the Canadian Research Chair in Comparative Family Policy.
Her current research interests include the cross-national study of children’s
outcomes, fertility and policies, and parental investment into children.
RELATED ESSAYS
Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups (Sociology), Noah Askin et al.
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Enduring Effects of Education (Sociology), Matthew Curry and Jennie E.
Brand
Intergenerational Mobility (Economics), Steve N. Durlauf and Irina
Shaorshadze
Stratification in Hard Times (Sociology), Markus Gangl
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Education for Mobility or Status Reproduction? (Sociology), Karyn Lacy
Stratification and the Welfare State (Sociology), Stephanie Moller and Joya
Misra
Social Classification (Sociology), Elizabeth G. Pontikes
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction (Sociology), Lauren A. Rivera
The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey
M. Stonecash



Media

Social Class and Parental Investment in Children