Gender Influences on Parenting Practices among Caregivers of Children with Behavioral Disorders in Uganda
- Open Access
- 09-08-2025
- Original Paper
Gepubliceerd in:
Abstract
Delen
Gendered Parenting and Its Influence on Child Development
Gender, a social structure constructed and enacted through individual, group and institutional interactions, significantly influences health and wellbeing. Gendered parenting refers to parental messages and behaviors that convey information about how girls and boys are supposed to behave (Mesman & Groeneveld, 2018). Both theoretical and empirical research suggest that gendered parenting manifests in distinct but interrelated ways (Mesman & Groeneveld, 2018; Morawska, 2020; Parke, 2013; Tenenbaum & May, 2013). Explicit gendered parenting practices include differential treatment of girls and boys, direct instruction to children, supervision, and gender role modeling. Implicit gendered parenting practices include differential gendered experiences, opportunities, parent’s emotional communication and discipline (Mesman & Groeneveld, 2018; Morawska, 2020; Parke, 2013; Tenenbaum & May, 2013). For example, mothers may engage in more frequent verbal interactions with their daughters than with their sons, while fathers may impose stricter discipline on their sons compared to their daughters. Mothers also tend to respond more frequently to their sons’ emotional displays than their daughters’, and they are more consistent in their responses to their sons’ emotions (Biringen et al., 1999; Palkovitz, 2013; Wong et al., 2009). Fathers, on the other hand, tend to be more cognitively, reward daughters for positive compliant behaviors, and reward sons for assertiveness (Kerig et al., 1993). Additionally, adolescent sons often receive more permissive parenting compared to daughters and are subject to less parental monitoring (Leaper, 2005; McKinney & Renk, 2008). Across all age groups, boys are more likely to receive harsh discipline compared to girls (Finkelhor et al., 2019; Lansford et al., 2010; Mahoney et al., 2000; Straus & Stewart, 1999). Moreover, mothers are more likely to use harsh discipline than fathers are (Lansford et al., 2010; McKinney et al., 2018; Straus & Stewart, 1999).
Children’s gender and parenting styles are important determinants in the development of behavioral problems (Bongers et al., 2003, 2004; Calkins & Keane, 2009; Clark & Frick, 2018; Kapungu et al., 2006; Muratori et al., 2015; Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994; Smorti et al., 2021; Stormshak et al., 2000). Although studies conducted largely in the Global North have documented mixed impacts of gendered parenting on child developmental outcomes (Mesman & Groeneveld, 2018; Morawska, 2020; Parke, 2013; Tenenbaum & May, 2013), the literature suggests that gendered parenting practices influence children’s cognitive competence, emotional regulation, and social wellbeing (e.g., social assertiveness and social responsibility, and may also contribute to or exacerbate disruptive behavioral disorders (DBDs) among children (Dittman et al., 2023; McKinney & Renk, 2008; McKinney et al., 2018; Palkovitz, 2013).
Parenting in Uganda: The Role of Gendered Norms
In Uganda, patriarchal structures and gendered divisions are deeply rooted in tradition and significantly shape family dynamics. In many Ugandan cultures, there is a strong preference for sons over daughters, leading to differential treatment of male and female children within the family. Parents often may prioritize educational opportunities for their male children, and allocate resources differently based on the gender of their children, which could impact their overall development and well-being. These gendered parenting practices may influence parents’ cognitive evaluations of their children’s behavior and ability to respond effectively when their children’s behavior deviates from expected behavioral norms. Gendered norms and associated gendered parenting practices and contribute to adverse outcomes, such as intimate partner violence (Ellsberg et al., 2008; González & Rodríguez-Planas, 2020; Jewkes, 2002) HIV/AIDS, (Dworkin, 2005; Higgins et al., 2010) and child marriage and early school-drop out for the girls (McCleary-Sills et al., 2015; Psaki, 2016; Unicef, 2022). Despite extensive research on gendered norms, a critical gap remains in understanding how these norms affect parenting practices, particularly in relation to children’s behavioral outcomes and mental health.
Contextual and Stress-Related Influences on Parenting
Broader Parenting Context: Bronfenbrenner’s Socio-Ecological Framework
Bronfenbrenner’s Socio-Ecological Framework (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) provides a comprehensive lens for understanding how individual characteristics (e.g. child gender, age, temperament) and socio-contextual factors (e.g. parental education, socio-economic status, social class and workforce participation) may influence parent-child interactions and parenting practices (Bornstein, 2013; Ishizuka, 2019; Laursen & Collins, 2009). While not fully understood, past studies have alluded to the differential dynamics of parent gender and child gender interactions in parent-child interactions (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010; Collins & Russell, 1991; Cowan et al., 1993; Noller & Callan, 1990; Palkovitz, 2013; Russell & Saebel, 1997). For example, parents may feel a greater affinity, commonality, and responsibility for same-gender children and thereby exert closer control over them. Alternatively, parents may encourage opposite-gender children to adopt traditional gender roles, leading to differential treatment. For example, fathers may encourage femininity in their daughters, while mothers encourage masculinity in their sons (Palkovitz, 2013). Researchers have suggested the interactions of parent-child interactions often follow a fourfold taxonomy of distinctive intra-familial relationships consisting of mother-son, mother-daughter, father-son and father-daughter dyads (Collins & Russell, 1991; Cowan et al., 1993; McKinney & Renk, 2008; Russell & Saebel, 1997), helping to further explain the complexities of gendered parenting. Additionally, parental characteristics such as higher educational attainment and income as well as actively engaged in the formal workforce are associated with more egalitarian gender role orientations and gendered parenting practices (Marks et al., 2009).
At the interpersonal level, socio-contextual factors such as marital conflict, social networks including involvement of kinship in parenting and social class may also influence parent-child interactions (Marks et al., 2009). For example, high levels of marital conflict within the household can create a tense and emotionally charged environment, which may spill over into parent-child interactions. Children may witness arguments between their parents, leading to feelings of anxiety or distress. In response, parents may exhibit shorter tempers or decreased patience with their children, resulting in more authoritarian or punitive parenting behaviors. At the societal level, cultural factors such as intracultural variability may also play a role in shaping parent-child interactions, as cultures are not monolithic (Bornstein, 2013). For example, many African families prioritize collectivism and strong family bonds, placing a high value on interdependence and communal decision-making. These cultural orientations manifest in distinct parenting styles, with many parents adopting more authoritarian approaches characterized by strict discipline and obedience. Culture could mold parents’ cognitions about child gender and shape their child-rearing practices as parents typically adopt the dominant cultural prescriptions for their girls and boys (Bornstein, 2013).
Family Stress Model: A Specific Mechanism for Parenting Challenges
Within the broader socio-ecological context, the Family Stress Model (Conger et al., 1992; Conger et al., 2010; Nelson et al., 2009) offers a more specific explanation of how stressors, particularly those related to socio-economic hardships, negatively impact parenting capacity. The Family Stress Model asserts that family stressors such as socio-economic stress can diminish parents’ capacity to nurture their children. Education, parent occupation and household assets - proxy indicators of family socio-economic status (SES) – are powerful predictors of both parenting practices and numerous child developmental outcomes (Conger et al., 1992; Conger et al., 2010; Hoff et al., 2002; Reardon, 2011). Although findings are complex and contingent on several factors (e.g., social support, quality of marital relationship, child age and gender), the vast literature generally supports a positive association between family SES and child wellbeing (including behavioral health outcomes), with family income and wealth as possible causal connections (Dearing et al., 2006; Landers‐Potts et al., 2015; Mistry et al., 2009; Mistry et al., 2004; Yeung et al., 2002).
Bronfenbrenner’s framework highlights the multi-layered influences on parenting, while the Family Stress Model explains the specific mechanisms that operate within these broader contextual influences. For example, socio-contextual factors such as marital conflict and social networks (Marks et al., 2009) shape the emotional environment of the household. However, socio-economic stressors—such as financial strain and unemployment—further exacerbate these dynamics by diminishing parents’ capacity for nurturing behaviors. As Bronfenbrenner’s model emphasizes, societal and cultural factors also play a significant role in shaping parenting practices, especially in African contexts where collectivism and strong family bonds often lead to more authoritarian styles of parenting (Bornstein, 2013). Additionally, in some cultures, such as those in Uganda, the preference for sons may result in gendered differential treatment in how resources and attention are allocated between boys and girls (Bornstein, 2013), thereby intensifying the effects of socio-economic status (SES) and stress on gendered parenting practices.
The Current Study
In Uganda, more half of the population are children and adolescents under the age of 15. (UNICEF, 2015) Estimates of the prevalence of Disruptive Behavior Disorders (DBDs) among Ugandan children range from 2% to 33% (Cortina et al., 2012; Kivumbi et al., 2019), and key risk factors include poverty, low parental education, maternal depression, harsh parenting, strained parent-child relationships, stress, orphanhood, and exposure to violence (El-Khodary & Samara, 2020; Frick, 2016; Kanne & Mazurek, 2011; Nabunya & Ssewamala, 2014; Okello et al., 2014; Pisano et al., 2017; Ssewamala et al., 2010; Ssewamala et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2010)- all of which are highly prevalent in Uganda. With multi-dimensional poverty affecting more than half of children (Ghandour et al., 2012) and high levels of orphanhood (Ovuga et al., 2005; UNICEF, 2019), there is a pressing need to strengthen parent-child relationships and reduce these stressors.
The current study seeks to fill the gap in understanding how gendered norms influence parenting practices in Uganda and the subsequent impact on child behavioral outcomes. Specifically, this study aims to: 1) assess gender differences in parenting practices among caregivers of children with DBDs (e.g., conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder) in Uganda; and 2) examines how psychosocial factors, including family cohesion, caregiver mental health, caregiver education, caregiver employment, and asset ownership, may contribute to gendered variations in parenting practices.
Methods
Study Design and Sampling
We utilize data from the SMART Africa – Uganda study, a longitudinal experimental study that examined the effectiveness of Amaka Amasanyufu, an evidence-based Multiple Family Group (MFG) intervention aimed at improving child behavioral challenges. A detailed description of the study protocol, design, and methods has been previously published (Ssewamala et al., 2018). Briefly, children and their caregivers were recruited from 30 public schools located in urban and semi-urban communities in the greater Masaka region of Uganda. Briefly, children were included in this study based on the following criteria: aged between 8–13 years (grades 2 to7); caregiver completed a screening assessment for Disruptive Behavioral Disorders (DBDs) such as conduct disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder; caregiver provided written consent; and child provided assent to participate. Children with cognitive impairments that precluded their ability to provide informed assent were not included in the study. Schools were randomly assigned to three study conditions (n = 10 per study condition): (1) Multiple Family Groups (MFG) delivered by trained parent peers (MFG-PP); (2) Multiple Family Groups (MFG) delivered by community health workers (MFG-CHW); or (3) comparison comprising of usual care comprising mental health care support materials, bolstered with school support materials.
Participants
This analysis focuses on data collected from caregivers of children who screened positive for DBDs. Specifically, we use baseline data from 636 primary caregivers, based on caregiver reports from the DBD screening assessment.
Procedures
Data were collected at baseline, 8 and 16 weeks, and 6-month follow-up, using interviewer administered questionnaires. However, due to COVID-19, country wide restrictions prevented baseline and follow-up recruitment from occurring in four intervention schools and so only 26 schools were enrolled in the study. Our analyses focus on data collected from caregivers of children who tested positive for DBDs.
Ethical considerations
All children and their caregivers provided written assent and consent, respectively, prior to participating in the study. Privacy and confidentiality of participants and the right to withdraw from the study at any time was guaranteed, and at each assessment, participants received compensation for any expenses incurred (e.g., transport) and time to participate in the study (approximately $10). The SMART Africa-Uganda study was approved by the Uganda Virus Research Institute (GC/127/16/05/555), the Uganda National Council of Science and Technology (SS4090), and the Washington University in St. Louis Institutional Review Board (#2016011088). The study is registered in the Clinical Trials database: NCT03081195; registration date: 16/3/2017.
Measures
Outcome Variable
Parenting practices was measured using the 9-item short form of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ-9) which was designed to assess parenting practices related to disruptive behaviors (Elgar et al., 2007). The APQ-9 comprises three sub-scales with three items in each scale: Positive Parenting, Inconsistent Discipline, and Poor Supervision. Caregivers rated each of the nine items on a five-point Likert scale ranging from never (1) to always (5). Scores in the positive parenting subscale were reverse coded to reflect less positive parenting practices, to be consistent with other sub-scales before computing the total scale score. Higher raw scores in each sub scale represented less positive parenting (Cronbach’s alpha (α)= 0.67), higher inconsistent discipline (α = 0.35), and lower parental supervision (α = 0.54). Thus, higher scores on the total scale are indicative of poorer parenting practices (α = 0.52).
Independent variables
Gender was conceptualized as threefold taxonomy of distinctive intra-familial relationships corresponding to father-son, mother-daughter, and mixed gender due to the relatively smaller proportion of mixed gender dyads. The decision to use a threefold, rather than fourfold taxonomy was driven by the sample composition as most caregivers were female (83%).
Family cohesion was measured using an 8-item scale adapted from the Family Environment Scale (Moos, 1994) and the Family Assessment measure (Skinner et al., 2009). This assesses how well family members are committed to supporting and helping each other. Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from never (1) to always (5), with higher raw scores representing greater family cohesion (α = 0.74).
Caregiver mental health was evaluated using the 34-item Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) (Drobnjak, 2013). The BSI measures nine domains of mental health functioning: somatization, obsession-compulsion, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation and psychoticism. Caregivers rated each symptom on a Likert scale ranging from never (1) to always (5), with higher scores indicative of increasing mental health distress. The BSI showed high reliability at baseline (Cronbach α = 0.92).
Covariates
We included caregiver educational level, caregiver employment status and asset ownership as control variables in the models. These variables have been associated with parenting practices and caregiver mental health in prior studies (Fang et al., 2024; Nagy et al., 2022; Pappin et al., 2015). Education level was categorized into four indicator variables corresponding to: 1) none, 2) primary; 3) secondary; and 4) certificate/diploma/vocational/tertiary level (reference level: none). Employment status was categorized into a binary variable with the options employed vs unemployed (including retired, disabled and student caregivers). Asset ownership was a count variable describing ownership of 18 different assets including property, small businesses, types of transportation vehicles, crop gardens, and animal husbandry.
Statistical Analyses Procedures
First, we summarized categorical variables using counts and percentages, and summarized continuous variables using means and standard deviations (Table 1). Next, we conducted bivariate analyses to examine the association between caregiver/child dyad gender and parenting practices, individually for the overall parenting practices scale, and for each of the parenting practices sub-scales (Table 2). Subsequently, we conducted multivariate linear regression analyses to assess the associations between caregiver/child dyad gender and parenting practices, adjusting for caregiver’s and family socio-demographic characteristics (Table 3). Given that participants were clustered at school level, we adjusted the standard errors for the school level clustering in both the bivariate and multivariate analyses.
Table 1
Characteristics of study population by gender of caregiver/child dyads
Characteristic | Both male n (%) | Both female n (%) | Mixed sex n (%) | Total n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Employment status | ||||
Employed | 55 (94.8) | 234 (83.6) | 271 (90.9) | 560 (88.1) |
Unemployed | 3 (5.2) | 46 (16.4) | 27 (9.1) | 76 (12.0) |
Education attainment | ||||
None | 3 (5.2) | 18 (6.4) | 27 (9.1) | 48 (7.6) |
Primary | 168 (65.5) | 183 (65.4) | 168 (56.4) | 389 (61.2) |
Secondary | 13 (22.4) | 65 (23.2) | 82 (27.5) | 160 (26.2) |
Higher1 | 4 (6.9) | 14 (5.0) | 21 (7.1) | 39 (6.1) |
Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | |
Child’s age | 10.9 (1.5) | 10.0 (1.4) | 10.5 (1.3) | 10.3 (1.4) |
Caregiver’s age | 43.2 (9.6) | 40.8 (12.2) | 43.7 (12.7) | 42.4 (12.3) |
Asset ownership | 8.6 (2.9) | 7.2 (3.5) | 7.9 (3.1) | 7.7 (3.3) |
Caregiver mental health | 68.9 (20.5) | 80.2 (20.7) | 79.1 (20.5) | 78.7 (20.8) |
Family cohesion score | 31.5 (3.8) | 31.6 (4.3) | 32.0 (4.3) | 31.8 (4.3) |
Table 2
Bivariate associations between gender of caregiver/child dyads and parenting practices including each subscale
Gender of caregiver-child dyads | Total parenting practices | Positive parenting | Inconsistent discipline | Poor supervision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |
β (95% CI) | β (95% CI) | β (95% CI) | β (95% CI) | |
Mixed gender (ref) | ||||
Both males | 0.52 (−0.27, 1.31) | 0.62 (−0.18, 1.41) | −0.09 (−0.52, 0.34) | −0.004 (−0.75, 0.74) |
Both females | −0.94 (−1.62, −0.24) | −0.25 (−0.62, 0.13) | −0.15 (−0.50, 0.20) | −0.54 (−1.05, −0.03) |
Constant | 22.50 (22.07, 22.93) | 7.44 (7.21, 7.67) | 9.33 (9.12, 9.55) | 5.73 (5.40, 6.05) |
N | 636 | 636 | 636 | 636 |
Table 3
Multivariate associations between gender of caregiver/child dyads and parenting practices and each subscale
Total parenting practices | Positive parenting | Inconsistent discipline | Poor supervision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |
B (95% CI) | B (95% CI) | B (95% CI) | B (95% CI) | |
Gender of caregiver-child dyads | ||||
Mixed gender (ref) | ||||
Both males | 0.68 (−011, 1.48) | 0.45 (−0.25, 1.14) | −0.03 (−0.47, 0.40) | 0.27 (−0.50, 1.05) |
Both females | −0.99 (−1.62, −0.35) | −0.25 (−0.63, 0.12) | −0.17 (−0.52, 0.17) | −0.56 (−1.04, −0.08) |
Caregiver employment status | ||||
Employed (ref) | ||||
Unemployed | 0.16 (−0.64, 0.95) | 0.08 (−0.42, 0.59) | 0.16 (−0.28, 0.60) | −0.09 (−0.64, 0.47) |
Caregiver education level | ||||
None (ref) | ||||
Primary | −0.73 (−1.88, 0.42) | −0.51 (−1.04, 0.02) | 0.29 (−0.30, 0.88) | −0.51 (−1.52, 0.49) |
Secondary | −0.77 (−1.97, 0.44) | −0.77 (−1.52, −0.003) | 0.48 (−0.10, 1.07) | −0.48 (−1.52, 0.55) |
Higher1 | −0.87 (−2.52, 0.78) | −1.16 (−2.08, −0.25) | 0.01 (−1.00, 1.03) | 0.28 (−1.06, 1.61) |
Asset ownership | −0.01 (−0.11, 0.10) | 0.02 (0.01, 0.13) | −0.03 (−0.08, 0.02) | −0.05 (−0.11, 0.02) |
Caregiver mental health | 0.02 (<0.001, 0.04) | −0.01 (−0.02, 0.01) | 0.0002 (−0.01, 0.01) | 0.02 (0.01, 0.04) |
Family cohesion score | −0.16 (−0.23, −0.10) | −0.14 (−0.20, −0.09) | 0.06 (0.003, 0.11) | −0.08 (−0.12, −0.03) |
Constant | 26.98 (24.38, 29.58) | 12.51 (10.32, 14.67) | 7.45 (5.05, 9.86) | 7.02 (4.58, 9.45) |
N | 633 | 633 | 636 | 636 |
Results
A total of 636 children tested positive for DBDs. Of these, 243 were in the control condition, 199 Family Groups (MFG) delivered by community health workers (MFG-CHWs) group, and 194 in the Multiple Family Groups (MFG) delivered by trained parent peers (MFG-PP) group. Thus, the total number of caregivers in the combined MFG group (i.e., MFG-PP and MFG-CHWs) was 393 (see Table 1). The average age of children was 11.4 years (mean (SD) = 11.4 (1.4); and 51.6% were female. The average age of caregivers was 42 years (mean (SD) = 42.4 (12.3), and the majority were female (83%). Most were formally employed (88.1%), and primary school was the highest level of education completed for most caregivers (61.2%). The mean asset ownership was 7.7 (SD = 3.3).
Table 2 presents the results of the bivariate analyses comparing parenting practices across caregiver/child gender, for the overall parenting scale (Model 1) and individual sub-scales (Models 2 – 4). Compared to the mixed caregiver-child dyads, caregivers in the female caregiver – female child dyads (both females) were significantly less likely to report poor parenting practices, overall (β = −0.94; 95% CI: −1.62 - −0.24), and on the poor supervision sub-scale (β = −0.54; 95% CI: −1.05 - −0.03). However, we observed no significant differences between the caregiver-child gender dyads on the positive parenting and inconsistent discipline sub-scales.
Table 3 presents the results of the multivariate analyses comparing parenting practices across caregiver/child gender, for the overall parenting scale (Model 1) and individual sub-scales (Models 2 – 4), adjusting for caregiver and family socio-demographic variables. Similarly, we found that compared to mixed caregiver-child dyads, caregivers in the female caregiver – female child dyads (both females) were significantly less likely to report poor parenting practices, overall (β = −0.99; 95% CI: −1.62 - −0.35) and on the poor supervision sub-scale (β = −0.56; 95% CI: −1.04 - −0.08). However, no caregiver-child gender comparisons were statistically significant on the positive parenting and inconsistent discipline sub-scales. Among the caregiver and family socio-demographic characteristics, we found statistically significant differences in caregiver education, asset ownership, caregiver mental health and family cohesion. Specifically, caregivers with secondary education (β = −0.77; 95% CI: −1.52 - −0.003) and higher education (β = −1.16; 95% CI: −2.08 - −0.25) were significantly less likely to report less positive parenting practices, compared to caregivers without any education. Higher asset ownership was significantly associated with less positive parenting practices (β = 0.02; 95% CI: 0.01 – 0.13). Higher caregiver mental health distress was positively associated with poor parenting practices, overall (β = 0.02; 95% CI: <0.001 – 0.04) and on the poor supervision sub-scale (β = 0.02; 95% CI: 0.01 – 0.04). As family cohesion increased caregivers were less likely to report poor parenting practices overall (β = −0.16; 95% CI: −0.23 - −0.10), on the positive parenting (β = −0.14; 95% CI: −0.20 - −0.09), and poor supervision (β = −0.08; 95% CI: −0.12 – 0.03) sub-scales but were significantly more likely to report inconsistent discipline (β = 0.06; 95% CI: 0.003 – 0.11).
Discussion
This study aimed to explore how caregiver and child gender interact to shape caregiver parenting practices, and how caregiver socio-demographics, such as education attainment, employment status, and mental health, along with family characteristics like household wealth and family cohesion, contribute to variations in these gendered parenting practices. We found that female caregiver–female child dyads were significantly less likely to report poor parenting practices compared to mixed caregiver-child dyads, particularly in terms of poor supervision. However, no significant differences were observed for positive parenting or inconsistent discipline across caregiver-child gender dyads. Additionally, caregiver education, mental health, and family cohesion were positively associated with more positive parenting practices, while asset ownership was associated with poorer parenting practices. These findings suggest that caregiver-child gender interactions and socio-demographic factors shape the dynamics of parenting practices among caregivers of children with DBDs.
Our finding that female caregiver–female child dyads are associated with better supervision aligns with existing literature on gendered parenting practices in patriarchal societies. Previous research has highlighted how gendered parenting practices results in differential treatment of boys and girls, especially regarding supervision and behavioral expectations (Mesman & Groeneveld, 2018; Morawska, 2020; Parke, 2013; Tenenbaum & May, 2013). In highly patriarchal societies, caregiving responsibilities predominantly fall on female caregivers, who often feel a heightened sense of responsibility for their daughters’ well-being. This can lead to more attentive supervision, particularly regarding behavior and safety. This finding also aligns with prior research indicating that mothers may engage more actively in their daughters’ upbringing through verbal interaction and emotional engagement (Biringen et al., 1999; Palkovitz, 2013; Wong et al., 2009). As a result, female caregivers may be more vigilant in supervising their daughters to fulfill these caregiving expectations and ensure their daughters’ conformity to social norms.
Notably, the lack of significant differences between caregiver-child gender dyads in the positive parenting and inconsistent discipline sub-scales contrasts with findings from studies conducted in high-income settings. In those contexts, gendered differences in warmth, responsiveness, and discipline have been observed (Biringen et al., 1999; Mesman & Groeneveld, 2018; Morawska, 2020; Palkovitz, 2013; Parke, 2013; Tenenbaum & May, 2013; Wong et al., 2009). This difference may reflect the unique social and cultural context of low-income, patriarchal settings like Uganda, where gendered parenting practices may manifest more strongly in domains related to supervision and control, rather than warmth or responsiveness. As Bronfenbrenner’s model emphasizes, societal and cultural factors also play a significant role in shaping parenting practices, especially in African contexts where collectivism and strong family bonds often lead to more authoritarian styles of parenting (Bornstein, 2013). In Uganda, where the emphasis on gender roles is pronounced, parenting may prioritize ensuring appropriate behavior and maintaining control, particularly with daughters, who are often expected to conform to stricter behavioral norms (McCleary-Sills et al., 2015; Psaki, 2016; Unicef, 2022).
Our findings also underscore the broader context in which gendered parenting practices occur. As outlined in Bronfenbrenner’s Socio-Ecological Framework (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), parenting practices are shaped by multiple layers of influence, including individual and socio-contextual factors such as caregiver education, socio-economic status, and family cohesion. Consistent with the Family Stress Model (Conger et al., 1992; Conger et al., 2010; Nelson et al., 2009), we found that caregivers with higher levels of education and those with lower mental health distress were more likely to practice positive parenting, which reflects the influence of these factors on parenting capacity. Education, as a proxy for socio-economic status, enhances caregivers’ ability to support their children’s development, fostering better outcomes (Conger et al., 1992; Conger et al., 2010; Hoff et al., 2002; Reardon, 2011).
The literature generally supports a positive association between family socio-economic status and child wellbeing, with family income and wealth often cited as the key drivers of this relationship (Dearing et al., 2006; Landers‐Potts et al., 2015; Mistry et al., 2009; Mistry et al., 2004; Yeung et al., 2002). However, we found that higher asset ownership, which is typically associated with better parenting practices in many settings, was associated with poorer parenting practices in this context. This finding suggests that in a low-resource environment, material assets alone may not confer the same benefits as other forms of capital, such as education and social support, which are critical in shaping effective parenting practices This suggests that in a low-resource environment, material assets alone may not provide the same advantages as other forms of capital, such as education and social support, which play a crucial role in fostering effective parenting (Cutler et al., 2008; Herd et al., 2007). Furthermore, the positive association between family cohesion and inconsistent discipline may indicate that caregivers who are emotionally closer to their children could find it challenging to set firm disciplinary boundaries, possibly prioritizing emotional closeness over consistency in discipline.
Limitations
This study had several strengths, including the use of measures previously validated and tested among adult Ugandan populations. However, some limitations must be considered. First, given that these measures were based on self-reports rather than observations, there is a possibility that responses related to parenting practices may have been influenced by social desirability bias. Second, the internal consistency reliability of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ-9) in this sample was notably low, particularly for the inconsistent discipline and poor supervision sub-scales. This low internal consistency raises concerns about the reliability of the key dependent variable in our study. Although the APQ-9 has been validated in other populations, it may not have performed adequately in this Ugandan context, potentially limiting the accuracy and interpretation of the findings. As such, our findings should be interpreted with caution. Third, our analyses utilize data drawn from caregivers of children with disruptive behavioral disorders. As such, our findings may not be generalizable to caregivers of children without these specific conditions. Future research may benefit from a broader sample and a closer examination of the cultural validity and reliability of parenting measures in low-resource settings.
Practical Implications
Our findings have important practical implications for family-based interventions aimed at improving parenting practices in low-resource, patriarchal settings like Uganda. First, interventions must consider the gender dynamics of caregiving, as female caregiver–female child dyads exhibited better supervision, a crucial aspect of child behavioral management. Intervention programs should provide additional support to female caregivers to further enhance their supervisory skills and ensure their sons receive similar levels of supervision. Second, the association between caregiver education and positive parenting practices underscores the importance of enhancing caregiver knowledge and skills including effective strategies to support their children, as this can be critical in fostering better child outcomes, especially in low-income settings. Third, the role of caregiver mental health in shaping parenting practices suggests that further emphasizes the importance of integrating caregiver mental health in child-focused interventions as this may enhance their capacity to provide consistent and nurturing care, ultimately improving the overall family environment and child outcomes. Lastly, interventions need to consider the complexities of family cohesion and its relationship with inconsistent discipline. Programs should aim to help caregivers balance emotional closeness with consistent disciplinary strategies, fostering both strong emotional bonds and appropriate behavior management.
Conclusions
Gendered norms and practices exhibit remarkable similarity across many cultures in sub-Saharan Africa, where patriarchal values often underscore familial dynamics and child-rearing practices. As such, while our findings may reflect the situation in Uganda, they hold relevance for understanding gender-related parenting differences in similar cultural contexts across the region. However, as nuances of cultural beliefs, societal norms, and historical contexts vary across countries and regions, potentially influencing parental behaviors in distinct way, further research endeavors encompassing diverse cultural contexts is warranted to elucidate the broader applicability of our findings and to deepen our understanding of the complex interplay between culture and gender-related parenting practices. Nonetheless, our findings make an important contribution to the literature on gender, parenting and child wellbeing in Uganda. Taken together, our findings suggest that it is important for family-based interventions that address parenting to consider how gender dynamics and caregiver characteristics may shape intervention outcomes through their impact on family processes such as parenting practices. Caregiver and child socio-demographics such as gender are immutable but awareness of how these factors may influence mutable factors such as parenting practices and underlying mechanistic factors such as family cohesion and caregiver mental health can be leveraged to enhance intervention effects.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. SMART Africa-Uganda study was approved by the Uganda Virus Research Institute (GC/127/16/05/555), the Uganda National Council of Science and Technology (SS4090), and the Washington University in St. Louis Institutional Review Board (#2016011088). The study is registered in the Clinical Trials database: NCT03081195; registration date: 16/3/2017.
Consent to participate
All children and their caregivers provided written assent and consent, respectively, prior to participating in the study. Privacy and confidentiality of participants and the right to withdraw from the study at any time was guaranteed, and participants received compensation for any expenses incurred and time to participate in the study.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.