research on authoritative parenting style

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Parenting Styles: A Closer Look at a Well-Known Concept

Sofie kuppens.

1 Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

2 Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Eva Ceulemans

3 Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Although parenting styles constitute a well-known concept in parenting research, two issues have largely been overlooked in existing studies. In particular, the psychological control dimension has rarely been explicitly modelled and there is limited insight into joint parenting styles that simultaneously characterize maternal and paternal practices and their impact on child development. Using data from a sample of 600 Flemish families raising an 8-to-10 year old child, we identified naturally occurring joint parenting styles. A cluster analysis based on two parenting dimensions (parental support and behavioral control) revealed four congruent parenting styles: an authoritative, positive authoritative, authoritarian and uninvolved parenting style. A subsequent cluster analysis comprising three parenting dimensions (parental support, behavioral and psychological control) yielded similar cluster profiles for the congruent (positive) authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles, while the fourth parenting style was relabeled as a congruent intrusive parenting style. ANOVAs demonstrated that having (positive) authoritative parents associated with the most favorable outcomes, while having authoritarian parents coincided with the least favorable outcomes. Although less pronounced than for the authoritarian style, having intrusive parents also associated with poorer child outcomes. Results demonstrated that accounting for parental psychological control did not yield additional parenting styles, but enhanced our understanding of the pattern among the three parenting dimensions within each parenting style and their association with child outcomes. More similarities than dissimilarities in the parenting of both parents emerged, although adding psychological control slightly enlarged the differences between the scores of mothers and fathers.

Parenting has gained ample research attention from various scientific disciplines. Many theoretical frameworks emphasize that parenting plays a vital role in child development, which has fueled research investigating the impact of parenting on child development for over 75 years. When studying parenting, researchers can take various strategies by considering parenting practices, parenting dimensions or parenting styles. Parenting practices can be defined as directly observable specific behaviors that parents use to socialize their children (Darling and Steinberg 1993 ). For example, parenting practices intended to promote academic achievement are showing involvement by attending parent–teacher meetings or regular supervision of children’s homework. Other parenting practices pertain to positive reinforcement, discipline, or problem solving.

Rather than focusing on specific parenting practices, other researchers have identified overarching parenting dimensions that reflect similar parenting practices, mostly by modeling the relationships among these parenting practices using factor analytic techniques. There is consensus among scientists about the existence of at least two broad dimensions of parenting, labeled parental support and parental control. Parental support pertains to the affective nature of the parent-child relationship, indicated by showing involvement, acceptance, emotional availability, warmth, and responsivity (Cummings et al. 2000 ). Support has been related to positive development outcomes in children, such as the prevention of alcohol abuse and deviance (Barnes and Farrell 1992 ), depression and delinquency (Bean et al. 2006 ) and externalizing problem behavior (Shaw et al. 1994 ).

The control dimension has been subdivided into psychological and behavioral control (Barber 1996 ; Schaefer 1965 ; Steinberg 1990 ). Parental behavioral control consists of parenting behavior that attempts to control, manage or regulate child behavior, either through enforcing demands and rules, disciplinary strategies, control of rewards and punishment, or through supervisory functions (Barber 2002 ; Maccoby 1990 ; Steinberg 1990 ). An appropriate amount of behavioral control has been considered to positively affect child development, whereas insufficient (e.g., poor parental monitoring) or excessive behavioral control (e.g., parental physical punishment) has been commonly associated with negative child developmental outcomes, such as deviant behavior, misconduct, depression and anxious affect (e.g., Barnes and Farrell 1992 ; Coie and Dodge 1998 ; Galambos et al. 2003 ; Patterson et al. 1984 ). While parental behavioral control refers to control over the child’s behavior, parental psychological control pertains to an intrusive type of control in which parents attempt to manipulate children’s thoughts, emotions, and feelings (Barber 1996 ; Barber et al. 2005 ). Due to its manipulative and intrusive nature, psychological control has almost exclusively been associated with negative developmental outcomes in children and adolescents, such as depression, antisocial behaviour and relational regression (e.g., Barber and Harmon 2002 ; Barber et al. 2005 ; Kuppens et al. 2013 ). The three parenting dimensions (support, psychological control, and behavioral control) have been labelled conceptually distinct, although they are related to some extent (Barber et al. 2005 ; Soenens et al. 2012 ).

Other authors have taken yet a different approach to studying parenting by emphasizing that specific combinations of parenting practices within a parent particularly impact child development rather than separate parenting practices or dimensions (e.g., Baumrind 1991 ; Maccoby and Martin 1983 ). Within such a configurational approach, one examines which patterns of parenting practices occur within the same parent and how these patterns—commonly labelled as parenting styles— are related to children’s development. Such parenting styles have the clear advantage of accounting for different parenting practices at the same time within the same person. As such, it comprises a person–centered approach that focuses on configurations within individuals rather than a variable–centered approach that focuses on relationships among variables across individuals as has been used to identify parenting dimensions (Magnusson 1998 ).

Baumrind ( 1966 , 1967 , 1971 ) is commonly considered a pioneer of research into parenting styles. She introduced a typology with three parenting styles to describe differences in normal parenting behaviors: the authoritarian, authoritative and permissive parenting style. Baumrind ( 1971 ) suggested that authoritarian parents try to shape, control, and evaluate their children’s behavior based on the absolute set of standards; whereas permissive parents are warmer and more autonomy granting than controlling. She considered an authoritative parenting style to fall between those two extremes. Later on in the 1980s, Maccoby and Martin ( 1983 ) attempted to bridge Baumrind’s typology and parenting dimensions. Based on the combination of two dimensions – demandingness and responsiveness – they defined four parenting styles: authoritative (i.e., high demandingness and high responsiveness); authoritarian (i.e., high demandingness and low responsiveness); indulgent (i.e., low demandingness and high responsiveness); and neglectful (i.e., low demandingness and low responsiveness). These two parenting dimensions are similar, yet not identical to the dimensions ‘parental support’ and ‘parental behavioral control’. Based on Maccoby and Martin’s work, Baumrind ( 1989 , 1991 ) expanded her typology with a fourth parenting style, namely the ‘neglectful’ parenting style.

Maccoby and Martin ( 1983 ) research efforts primarily focused on the configuration of the parenting styles and to a lesser extent on their association with children’s development. Baumrind, in contrast, has also extensively studied the association between parenting styles and child development (1967, 1971, 1989, 1991). This work consistently demonstrated that youth of authoritative parents had the most favorable development outcomes; authoritarian and permissive parenting were associated with negative developmental outcomes; while outcomes for children of neglectful parents were poorest. These aforementioned associations have also been replicated by other researchers. An authoritative parenting style has consistently been associated with positive developmental outcomes in youth, such as psychosocial competence (e.g., maturation, resilience, optimism, self-reliance, social competence, self-esteem) and academic achievement (e.g., Baumrind 1991 ; Lamborn et al. 1991 ; Steinberg et al. 1994 ). Findings regarding permissive/indulgent parenting have been inconsistent yielding associations with internalizing (i.e., anxiety, depression, withdrawn behavior, somatic complaints) and externalizing problem behavior (i.e., school misconduct, delinquency), but also with social skills, self–confidence, self–understanding and active problem coping (e.g., Lamborn et al. 1991 ; Steinberg et al. 1994 ; Williams et al. 2009 ; Wolfradt et al. 2003 ). An authoritarian parenting style has consistently been associated with negative developmental outcomes, such as aggression, delinquent behaviors, somatic complaints, depersonalisation and anxiety (e.g., Hoeve et al. 2008 ; Steinberg et al. 1994 ; Williams et al. 2009 ; Wolfradt et al. 2003 ). Children of neglectful parents have shown the least favorable outcomes on multiple domains, such as lacking self-regulation and social responsibility, poor self-reliance and social competence, poor school competence, antisocial behavior and delinquency, anxiety, depression and somatic complaints (e.g., Baumrind 1991 ; Hoeve et al. 2008 ; Lamborn et al. 1991 ; Steinberg et al. 1994 ).

Baumrind’s typology (1966) was initially determined on theoretical grounds, although with time she did conduct empirical validation research (1967, 1971, 1989, 1991). Nonetheless, the empirical studies always started with parenting styles that were predefined in a prototypical score profile in terms of minimum or maximum limit scores (e.g., scores above or below the median) on the different parenting practices; thus parents were first classified using cut–off scores for these predefined parenting styles and afterwards associations with child developmental outcomes were examined. However, such a confirmatory approach is not preferred to investigate parenting styles types (Mandara 2003 ) as it does not allow the identification of the naturally occurring typology, because people are actually forced into some predefined category defined on theoretical grounds. To empirically identify typologies in a certain population an exploratory clustering approach is needed (Everitt et al. 2001 ; Mandara 2003 ). Such clustering methods entail that persons are assessed on different variables (e.g., parenting practices) and patterns that naturally occur in the data are identified. Persons with a similar score profile are classified in the same cluster and those with distinctly different profile scores are classified into other clusters; with the number of clusters and associated score profiles being unknown a priori. The literature shows that researchers started to adopt such clustering methods in research into parenting styles about 15 to 20 years ago (Aunola et al. 2000 ; Beato et al. 2016 ; Brenner andand Fox 1999 ; Carlson and Tanner 2006 ; Chaudhuri et al. 2009 ; Dwairy et al. 2006 ; Gorman-Smith et al. 2000 ; Heberle et al. 2015 ; Hoeve et al. 2008 ; Lee et al. 2006 ; Mandara and Murray 2002 ; Martin et al. 2007 ; McGroder 2000 ; McKinney and Renk 2008 ; Meteyer and Perry-Jenkins 2009 ; Metsäpelto and Pulkkinen 2003 ; Pereira et al. 2008 ; Russell et al. 1998 ; Shucksmith et al. 1995 ; Tam and Lam 2004 ; van der Horst and Sleddens 2017 ; Wolfradt et al. 2003 ). These studies have generally identified three or four parenting styles that resemble the initial theoretical parenting styles.

Although Baumrind’s typology has greatly influenced parenting research, two issues have largely been overlooked in the existing knowledge. A first issue relates to the psychological control dimension which is currently considered the third parenting dimension. Initially, Baumrind paid little attention to the role of psychological control because her control dimension solely referred to parental socializing practices aimed at integrating the child in the family and society (Darling and Steinberg 1993 ). In her later work (1971, 1989, 1991), Baumrind did incorporate aspects of psychological control but the confirmatory nature of that research (cf. using predefined clusters) makes it impossible to determine which parenting styles would naturally evolve when psychological control would be taken into account. Empirical studies have also rarely explicitly included parental psychological control when modeling parenting styles. So far, the limited research including psychological control indices (e.g., Pereira et al. 2008 ; Wolfradt et al. 2003 ) has mostly identified four parenting styles that match the theoretically distinct styles. Within these parenting styles psychological control coincided with behavioral control levels in the authoritarian parenting style, yet cumulative knowledge remains too limited to draw firm conclusions.

A second issue is that existing research provides little insight into the coexistence of maternal and paternal parenting styles and their joint impact on child development. Although Baumrind included both parents in her studies, she assigned a (pre-defined) parenting style to each one separately. In some studies (1991), data was limited to mothers if both parents were assigned a different parenting style; in others (1971) families were entirely excluded in such instances. Not only Baumrind, but research on parenting styles in general has paid less attention to the impact of joint parenting styles on child development (Martin et al. 2007 ; McKinney and Renk 2008 ; Simons and Conger 2007 ), but has mainly focused on the unique, differential or interaction effects of maternal and paternal parenting styles adopting a variable-oriented perspective (e.g., Beato et al. 2016 ; Miranda et al. 2016 ). Children in two-parent households are influenced by the combined practices of both parents (Martin et al. 2007 ); and some studies have clearly shown that mothers and fathers can differ in their parenting style (Conrade and Ho 2001 ; McKinney and Renk 2008 ; Russell et al. 1998 ). Considering how the parenting styles of both parents cluster together, therefore, aligns more closely with the real experiences of children growing up in two-parent households. Only such an approach can shed light onto possible additive and compensatory effects (Martin et al. 2007 ). For example, Simons and Conger ( 2007 ) found evidence for an additive effect as having two authoritative parents was associated with the most favorable outcomes in adolescents, as well as a compensatory effect where one parent’s authoritative parenting style generally buffered the less effective parenting style of the other parent. Similarly, McKinney and Renk ( 2008 ) suggested that in late adolescence perceiving one parent as authoritative while the other parent has a different parenting style, partly buffered for emotional adjustment problems.

Only two studies have simultaneously clustered maternal and paternal practices into joint parenting styles and examined how they are associated with child development (for other approaches, see Martin et al. 2007 ; Simons and Conger 2007 ; Steinberg et al. 1994 ). Meteyer and Perry-Jenkins ( 2009 ) modeled the warmth and dysfunctional discipline practices of both parents resulting in three parenting styles that aligned with Baumrind’s typology, namely supportive parents (i.e., similar to Baumrind’s authoritative style), mixed–supportive parents (i.e., mother’s parenting style is similar to Baumrind’s ‘good enough parenting’–style and father’s to Baumrind’s authoritarian style) and non–supportive parents (i.e., similar to Baumrinds’ authoritarian style). Although insightful, this study did not incorporate aspects of psychological control; was limited to early elementary school children (6– to 7– year olds); and was based on a rather small sample size (85 families). McKinney and Renk ( 2008 ) identified four joint parenting styles in their cluster analyses using late adolescents’ (18–22 years) reports of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting: congruent authoritative (i.e., an authoritative parenting style by both parents), congruent authoritarian (i.e., an authoritarian parenting style by both parents), an authoritarian father–authoritative mother combination, and a permissive father–authoritarian mother combination. This study used ratings of parenting styles as input for cluster analysis leaving the role of separate parenting dimensions unclear.

We aimed to extend the existing research on the well-known parenting styles concept by identifying joint parenting styles in an exploratory manner using data on three major parenting dimensions (i.e., support, behavioral control and psychological control) and their associations with child behavioral outcomes in a large sample of mothers and fathers raising elementary school children. In particular, we first examined whether the configuration of exploratory identified parenting styles differed when the – often neglected – psychological control dimension was considered in addition to the support and behavioral control dimensions. Secondly, we identified how parenting practices of mothers and fathers clustered together into joint parenting styles. We were particularly interested in exploring whether similarity or dissimilarity would depict the joint parenting styles. Incongruence could be expected from attachment or gender theories that particularly stress differences between parents’ roles, while assortative or socialization processes could result in highly congruent parenting styles. Thirdly, we associated these joint parenting styles to child behavioral outcomes. For incongruent parenting styles, we particularly examined whether the different parenting styles may buffer each other’s impact on child outcomes. For congruent parenting styles, we looked at additive effects in which parents’ (very) similar styles may reinforce each other’s impact on child outcomes.

Participants

Participants were 600 Flemish families with an elementary-school child (301 boys; 299 girls). The children’s age ranged from 8 to 10 years ( M =  9.27, SD  = 0.83). For 556 children both parents participated, while for the remaining children only the mother ( n  = 40) or father ( n  = 4) took part in the study. The participating mothers and fathers were on average 38.09 ( SD  = 4.00) and 40.39 years old ( SD  = 4.85), respectively. Most parents received 12 to 15 years of education. The vast majority of children (92%) were of Belgian origin (i.e., children and both parents born in Belgium). The remaining children mostly originated from another European country ( n =  28); a limited number had an African ( n  = 7), US ( n  = 4), Middle East ( n =  1), Asian ( n =  1) or unknown origin ( n  = 7). Most children (84%) lived in traditional two-parent families with married biological parents; others belonged to a blended family (5%), a household with shared custody (2%), or a single-parent household (9%). In this study, we focused on the subsample of families for which both parents consented to participate. Of the initial 556 families, data were available for a final sample of 527 families due to some non-response.

We used data on parenting collected in a Flemish large-scale study on social determinants of child psychosocial functioning including three cohorts: 8–, 9– and 10– year olds. To safeguard representativeness, a two-stage proportional stratified random sample of elementary school children enrolled in mainstream Flemish schools was drawn. In a first stage, 195 Flemish schools were randomly selected taking into account the distribution of schools across the five Flemish provinces and the Brussels region of which 55 schools agreed to participate. In a second stage, 913 children (2nd to 4th grade) were randomly selected within the participating schools. Parents received an introductory letter and consent form via the teachers. Informed consent to participate in the study was obtained for 600 families with both parents participating for 556 children. We used information on parenting practices collected from both parents. The parents received their questionnaires via the teacher during the second trimester and were asked to complete them individually and independently of each other. Given that 583 mothers (98%), and 538 fathers (96%) actually completed the questionnaire, non-response was fairly low.

Parental behavioral control

Parental behavioral control was operationalized via 19 items of the subscales Rules (8 items; α mother  = 0.79; α father  = 0.82)), Discipline (6 items; α mother  = 0.78; α father  = 0.80) and Harsh Punishment (5 items; α mother  = 0.76; α father  = 0.80) of the Ghent Parental Behavior Scale (Van Leeuwen and Vermulst 2004 ). Each item was scored on a 5–point Likert scale from 1 = never true to 5 = always true. The subscale Rules reflects the extent to which parents provide rules for their children’s behavior (e.g., “I teach my child that it is important to behave properly”; “I teach my child to obey rules”). The subscale Discipline pertains to effective punishments after unwanted behavior (e.g., ‘…taking away something nice’; ‘… give him/her a chore for punishment); whereas the subscale Harsh Punishment points towards parental physical punishment when children misbehave (e.g., “I slap my child in the face when he/she misbehaves”; “I spank my child when he/she doesn’t obey rules”; “I shake my child when we have a fight”). We included multiple subscales to represent the multidimensional nature of the behavioral control dimension, as demonstrated by others (Van Leeuwen and Vermulst 2004 ). In addition, we consider aspects of adequate (i.e., subscales Rules and Discipline) and inadequate behavioral control (i.e., subscale Harsh Punishment) in this study, given the differential association with child outcomes. While the first has been linked to positive child development, the latter has commonly been associated with negative child outcomes. Correlations between maternal and paternal reports were moderate for the subscales Rules ( r  = .31; p <  .001) and Discipline ( r  = 0.47; p <  0.001), but strong for the subscale Harsh Punishment ( r  = 0.52; p <  0.001). Within each parent, weak-to-moderate positive correlations were found between the subscales Rules and Discipline ( r mother  = 0.32; r father  = 0.26; p <  0.001); weak positive correlations between the subscales Discipline and Harsh Punishment ( r mother  = 0.22; r father  = 0.22; p <  0.001); and small negative correlations between the subscales Rules and Harsh Punishment ( r mother  = −0.14, p  = 0.009; r father  = −0.11; p =  0.001).

Parental support

Parental support was operationalized by 11 items (1 = never true to 5 = always true) of the subscale Positive Parenting of the Ghent Parental Behavior Scale (Van Leeuwen and Vermulst 2004 ). This subscale (α mother  = 0.85; α father  = 0.88) pertains to parental involvement, positive reinforcement and problem solving (e.g., “I make time to listen to my child, when he/she wants to tell me something”; “I give my child a compliment, hug, or a tap on the shoulder as a reward for good behavior”). Maternal and paternal reports were moderately correlated ( r  = 0.35, p <  0.001).

Parental psychological control

Parents assessed their own psychologically controlling behavior by means of a Dutch version of the Psychological Control Scale (Barber 1996 ; Kuppens et al. 2009a ) via a 5–point Likert scale from 1 = never true to 5 = always true. This scale (α mother  = 0.70; α father =  0.71) included 8 items pertaining to invalidating feelings, constraining verbal expressions, personal attack, and love withdrawal (e.g., “I am less friendly with my child when (s)he doesn’t see things my way”; “If my child has hurt my feelings, I don’t speak to him/her until (s)he pleases me again”; “I change the subject when my child has something to say”). Correlations between maternal and paternal reports were moderate ( r  = 0.32, p <  0.001).

Child behavioral outcomes

Both parents completed the 20-item Dutch Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; van Widenfelt et al. 2003 ) using a 3–point scale in order to assess child psychosocial behavior (0 = not true to 2 = certainly true). Externalizing problems were operationalized via the subscales Conduct Problems (5 items; α mother  = .60; α father  = 0.61) and Hyperactivity (5 items; α mother =  0.80; α father  = 0.76), while internalizing problems were reflected by the subscale Emotional Symptoms (5 items; α mother =  0.73; α father  = 0.72). We also included the subscale on Prosocial Behavior (5 items; α mother =  0.67; α father  = 0.64). Because high correlations ( r =  0.54–0.71; p <  0.001) between mother and father reports was obtained, an average parental score was created for each subscale.

Data Analyses

To identify joint parenting styles, we conducted cluster analysis in MATLAB. Cluster analysis is an overarching term for procedures used to identify groups or clusters of individuals based on their scores on a number of variables (Everitt et al. 2001 ). Greater similarity emerges between individuals of the same cluster (or who lie geometrically closer according to some distance measure) than between individuals from different clusters (Steinly and Brusco 2011 ). We first ran a cluster analysis based on the four parenting subscales of mothers and fathers (i.e., eight variables as input) that reflect parental support and parental behavioral control to identify joint parenting styles based on these two parenting dimensions (i.e., without considering parental psychological control). To gain insight into the role of parental psychological control in identifying joint parenting styles, we subsequently conducted a cluster analysis on all five parenting subscales of mothers and fathers (i.e., ten variables as input) representing the three parenting dimensions.

We used the conceptual framework of Milligan for a stepwise implementation of cluster analysis (Steinly & Brusco 2011 ) by (1) determining the observations to be clustered; (2) selecting the variables to be included in the clustering procedure; (3) determining whether and how the selected variables should be standardized; (4) selecting a cluster algorithm and association measure (e.g., a distance measure); (5) determining the number of clusters; and (6) validating clustering (i.e., interpretation, testing, and replication). During steps 1 through 3, we performed analyses on the sum scores of the different parenting subscales which were standardized to give each variable equal weight in the analysis. In step 4, we chose Mac Queens K–means cluster algorithm which aims to identify K –clusters with the largest possible between–cluster differences and the smallest possible within–cluster differences (Everitt et al. 2001 ), while the value of K is specified by the user. K-means consists of a reallocation procedure by which persons, starting from an initial random or rational clustering, are reallocated in clusters as long as this yields a decrease in the loss function (i.e., sum of squared Euclidean distance from the corresponding cluster mean). Because the resulting clustering strongly depends on the initial clustering (Steinley 2003 ), we used 1000 random starts and retained the clustering with the lowest loss function value. To determine the optimal number of clusters in step 5, or in other words to define the value of K , we used the CHull procedure (Ceulemans and Kiers 2006 ; Wilderjans et al. 2013 ). CHull is an automated model selection procedure that scans a complexity versus fit plot to find the model with the best complexity versus fit balance. Applied to K-means clustering, this means that we look for the model after which allowing for additional clusters does not substantially decrease the loss function. To interpret the resulting clusters (step 6), we visually inspected the pattern emerging in the cluster profile plots. When comparing the cluster-specific profile scores between parents, we focused on the position of the corresponding profile scores compared to zero (i.e., the standardized mean of the sample) and differences in its substantial interpretation. For example, the terms above and below average mean that a parent scores higher or lower than the standardized mean of the sample.

To assess the validity of the empirically identified joint parenting styles representing all parenting dimensions, we examined their association with child behavioral outcomes via four analyses of variance (ANOVA) using SPSS Version 23 with the SDQ-subscales as dependent variables and the identified joint parenting styles based on the three parenting dimensions as the independent variable. Analyses of residuals did not reveal meaningful violations of model assumptions.

In the following sections, the empirically identified joint parenting styles based on the four subscales reflecting the two parenting dimensions ‘support’ and ‘behavioral control’ are first presented; followed by the results of analyses also considering ‘parental psychological control’ as input behavior. We end with linking the identified joint parenting styles based on three parenting dimensions to child behavioral outcomes.

Clusters with Two Parenting Dimensions

In a first step, we conducted a K –means cluster analysis on the maternal and paternal ratings only using the four parental support and behavioral support subscales for each parent (i.e., eight variables) as input, representing the two parenting dimensions. The analysis was conducted for 1 to 8 clusters each with a 1000 random starts. The corresponding number of clusters versus loss function plot is shown in Fig. ​ Fig.1. 1 . Applying the CHull procedure to this plot pointed towards a solution with four clusters.

Number of clusters vs. loss function plots for the cluster analyses based on the two parenting dimensions (left) and on the three parenting dimensions (right)

Parents belonging to the first cluster (Fig. ​ (Fig.2) 2 ) scored above average on positive parenting, rules and discipline; and scored below average on harsh punishment. A visual inspection of the cluster plot did not reveal notable differences between mothers and fathers. These parents show warmth and involvement in their interaction with their child, but at the same time set clear rules and expectations for children’s behavior. They also discipline the child’s undesirable behavior, but rarely use strict physical punishment when doing so. Because these parents demonstrate elevated support and (adequate) behavioral control levels, we labeled this parenting style as the congruent authoritative parenting style.

Cluster profiles of the analysis based on two parenting dimensions

Parents belonging to the second cluster (Fig. ​ (Fig.2) 2 ) also scored above average on positive parenting and rules, but clearly below average on effective (subscale Discipline) and harsh disciplining (subscale Harsh Punishment). Based on a visual inspection, levels of positive parenting and providing rules of mothers seemed somewhat higher, while effective discipline was somewhat lower compared to fathers, but the substantive interpretation was similar across parents. These parents show warmth and involvement in their parenting while also setting clear rules for children’s behavior, yet they hardly discipline their child in any manner after showing unwanted behavior. Because these parents showed elevated support levels combined with aspects of behavioral control that focus on promoting desired behavior (instead of discouraging unwanted behavior), we labeled this cluster as the congruent positive authoritative parenting style.

The third cluster (Fig. ​ (Fig.2) 2 ) included parents who scored clearly above average on harsh punishment, above average on discipline, and below average on positive parenting and rules; without any notable visual differences between mothers and fathers. These parents are therefore less warm and involved in the relationship with their child. Their parenting is particularly characterized by strict physical punishment following unwanted behavior, without setting clear rules for their children’s behavior. This cluster reflected the congruent authoritarian parenting style .

A fourth cluster (Fig. ​ (Fig.2) 2 ) was identified that yielded below average scores for both parents on all subscales; without salient visual differences between mothers and fathers. These parents do not show marked warmth and involvement with their child, and also do not prominently provide rules or discipline unwanted behavior. Because these parents demonstrated below average scores on both dimensions, we labeled this cluster as a congruent uninvolved parenting style.

Clusters with Three Parenting Dimensions

In a second step, we performed the same K –means cluster analysis, but now psychological control was included as a third parenting dimension. The analysis was again conducted for 1 to 8 clusters each time using 1000 random starts. Applying the CHull procedure to the number of clusters versus loss function plot (Fig. ​ (Fig.1) 1 ) pointed toward a solution with 2 or 3 clusters. However, to enable comparisons between the cluster solution based on the two parenting dimensions, we again selected the solution with four clusters of which the cluster profiles are visualized in Fig. ​ Fig.3 3 .

Cluster profiles of the analysis based on three parenting dimensions

When comparing both cluster solutions, a remarkable similarity in the cluster profiles was observed with the cluster scores on parental psychological control for the congruent authoritative, congruent positive authoritative and congruent authoritarian parenting styles covarying with scores on harsh punishment. These three clusters could thus be interpreted and labeled in a similar manner as earlier. For the congruent uninvolved parenting styles, the pattern for parental support and behavioral control remained fairly unchanged, but both showed slightly above-average psychological control scores. It seems that these parents are thus less supportive and behavioral controlling, yet showing somewhat elevated levels of psychologically intrusive practices. As such, we relabeled the congruent uninvolved cluster as a congruent intrusive parenting style. Adding the psychological control dimension slightly enlarged the differences between the scores of mothers and fathers within each parenting style, but the substantive interpretation remained similar across parents

Given the substantial similarity in emerging parenting styles after including two or three parenting dimensions, we computed the agreement in classification of the corresponding parents. Analyses revealed that parents were generally assigned to the same parenting style if psychological control was taken into account, (Cramer’s V  = .87). Note that the agreement was substantial regardless of the retained number of clusters (2 clusters: V =  .77; 3 clusters: V =  .86; 5 clusters: V =  .83; 6 clusters: V =  .69; 7 clusters: V =  .68; 8 clusters: V =  .65).

Parenting Styles and Child Behavioral Outcomes

The four joint parenting styles were associated to significantly different behavioral outcomes: Prosocial Behavior [ F (3, 520) = 20.15, p <  0.001, R 2 = 0.10]; Hyperactivity [ F (3, 520) = 12.98, p <  0.001, R 2 =  0.07]; Emotional Symptoms [ F (3, 520) = 3.77, p =  .011, R 2 = 0.02]; and Conduct Problems [ F (3, 520) = 20.15, p <  0.001, R 2 = 0.10]. The mean subscale score per joint parenting style are presented in Fig. ​ Fig.4. 4 . To gain more insight into the nature of the differences, pairwise contrasts (Tukey–Kramer) were computed for each ANOVA.

Mean subscale scores on child behavioral outcomes per parenting style

For each child behavioral outcome, a significant difference ( p  < 0.05) was established between the congruent authoritarian parenting style and at least one other parenting style. Children of authoritarian parents demonstrated more negative (i.e., hyperactivity, conduct problems, emotional symptoms) and less positive (i.e., prosocial behavior) child outcomes compared to children whose parents belonged to another parenting style. For conduct problems, the associated standardized mean difference involving authoritarian parents was most pronounced compared to positive authoritative parents ( d =  1.06, p <  0.001), whereas a medium difference (range d =  0.67 – 0.73, p <  .001) with the authoritative and intrusive parenting styles was found. Similarly, for hyperactivity standardized mean differences involving authoritarian parents were large ( d =  0.85, p <  0.001) compared to positive authoritative parents; and medium (range d =  0.60 – 0.63, p <  0.001) compared to authoritative and intrusive parents. Standardized mean differences involving authoritarian parents were large (range d =  0.83–0.93, p <  0.001) for prosocial behavior, but only a small difference ( d =  0.37, p =  0.031) with the intrusive parenting style emerged. Standardized mean differences for emotional symptoms between the authoritarian parenting style were small in magnitude (range d =  0.40 – 0.43, p <  0.05), except for a non-significant ( d =  0.28, p =  0.159) difference with the intrusive parenting style.

In addition, the congruent positive authoritative parenting style yielded significantly lower conduct problem levels in children (range d =  0.33 – 0.39, p <  0.05) compared to authoritative and intrusive parents. In contrast, significantly less prosocial child behavior (range d =  0.46–0.56, p ≤  0.001) was found for the congruent intrusive parenting style compared to (positive) authoritative parents.

With this study, we aimed to add to the parenting styles literature by identifying empirically derived joint parenting styles based on data regarding the three major parenting dimensions as perceived by both mothers and fathers raising elementary school children. These resulting joint parenting styles were subsequently associated with child behavioral outcomes. As highlighted in the introduction, the commonly used parenting typologies have a theoretical underpinning, although empirical studies have generally identified three or four similar parenting styles. Our empirically derived parenting styles based on the two parenting dimensions Support and Behavioral Control bear resemblance to the initial authoritative, authoritarian, and neglectful parenting styles, yet some differences also emerged.

The authoritative parenting style was further broken down into a disciplinary and non-disciplinary subtype. Similarly, although differences between parents within each parenting style were minor, they were more pronounced for the non-disciplinary than for the disciplinary control strategies. These findings highlight that all parenting practices aimed at controlling, managing or regulating child behavior are not necessarily simultaneously used by the same parent, suggesting that considering a variety of parenting practices is crucial to identifying naturally occurring parenting substyles. Some parents seem to provide clear rules, guidelines and expectations for child behavior, but hardly have deviant child behavior followed by an effective disciplinary strategy. One subgroup appears to reflect parents that mostly adopt positive parenting practices (i.e., high support, high rule setting), whereas another subgroup uses a combination of positive (i.e., high support, high rule setting) and negative (i.e., high effective discipline) parenting practices. The latter closely resembles the authoritative parenting style as originally defined (Baumrind 1966 , 1967 , 1971 ), while the former clustering aligns more with a second–order positive dimension obtained in research adopting a variable–oriented approach (Van Leeuwen et al. 2004 ).

In this study, the positive dimension tapped into parenting practices such as parental involvement, positive reinforcement, rule setting, and autonomy–stimulating behavior, while the negative dimensions pertained to negatively controlling efforts such as effective discipline, ignoring or harsh punishment following children’s unwanted behavior. In the uninvolved parenting style, parenting practices bear a resemblance to the neglectful parenting style given the below average scores on all subscales suggesting that parents show less warmth, place fewer restraints on and display little monitoring of children’s behavior. However, we did not identify extreme low scores on parenting dimensions that would suggest a truly neglectful parenting style as originally defined; thus an uninvolved parenting style seems a more appropriate label. Although parent self-reports could overestimate scores of positive parenting and underestimate scores of negative parenting due to social desirability bias, it should be noted that a previous study using adolescent reports also did not find extreme scores for the parenting style clusters (McKinney and Renk 2008 ).

We were not able to empirically identify the originally proposed permissive parenting style reflecting parents that are very loving, warm and involved (high support), yet have relatively few rules for children’s behavior and hardly discipline (low behavioral control). This finding diverges from some previous empirical studies in which the latter parenting style did emerge using an a theoretical (Aunola et al. 2000 ; Carlson and Tanner 2006 ; Shucksmith et al. 1995 ; Wolfradt et al. 2003 ) or empirical clustering approach (McKinney and Renk 2008 ). Our operationalization of the support dimension via the positive parenting subscale of the Ghent Parental Behavior Scale could underlie this divergent finding, because the subscale does not only pertain to warm and responsive parenting practices, but also includes items on problem solving. In contrast to other studies tapping only into warmth and responsiveness, lower scores on solving problems together with the child can attenuate overall scores on parental support. As a result, the pronounced scores on parental support which typify a permissive parenting style may have been somewhat masked in the present study. Alternatively, the parent self-reports may not accurately reflect their actual parenting practices due to a social desirability bias, hampering the identification of the permissive parenting style.

Regarding the role of psychological control in empirically deriving parenting styles, cluster analyses revealed a very similar configuration with four parenting styles when parental psychological control was taken into account. Thus, its addition did not lead to the identification of additional parenting styles, but the third parenting dimension did enhance our understanding. Results clearly pointed toward a substantial overlap between parental psychological control and parental harsh punishment for the congruent authoritarian, authoritative and positive authoritative parenting styles. This finding coincides with research suggesting that inadequate behavior control (e.g., physical punishment) and psychological control by parents are correlated, whereas parental psychological control and adequate behavioral control are considered orthogonal dimensions (Barber 1996 ; Gray andand Steinberg 1999 ; Steinberg 1990 ). For example, Pettit et al. ( 2001 ) found that parental psychological control was preceded in adolescence by harsh, restrictive disciplinary parenting during childhood. Barber and Harmon ( 2002 ) have further argued that parental psychological control may be a marker of a hostile and dysfunctional parent – child relationship, including the use of harsh disciplinary parenting practices.

For the congruent uninvolved parenting style, including parental psychological control actually led to an improved understanding of the previously considered uninvolved parents. As it turned out these parents did use psychologically controlling strategies to some extent, regardless of their lower levels on the other parenting dimension. This pattern could mean that in the parents–child relationship these parents are not so much concerned with the child and their behavior, but with manipulating children’s thoughts, emotions, and feelings to fit their own. It is commonly recognized that by using psychologically controlling strategies, parents intrude into children’s ‘psychological world’, exert parental authority over the children’s own life, and intervene in the individuation process (Barber and Xia 2013 ; Steinberg 2005 ). A recent study by Zhang et al. ( 2015 ) also demonstrated that parental psychological control indeed positively correlated with parent–centered intentions, implying that parents intend to satisfy their own needs by applying controlling behaviors with their children.

Several theories point towards differences in parenting between mother and father (McKinney and Renk 2008 ). For example, psychoanalytic theory argues that mothers are children’s primary attachment figure whereas a greater distance between fathers and their children occurs; the gender and role theory link differences in child rearing to male and female characteristics (e.g., expressiveness and instrumentality) with the traditional mother role as caring figures and fathers taking on the role of authority figure and family provider. The literature also indicates that differences in parenting between mothers and fathers may arise if one parent wants to compensate for the other parent (Meteyer and Perry-Jenkins 2009 ; Simons and Conger 2007 ). Nonetheless, our results revealed more similarities than dissimilarities in the parenting styles of both parents, despite small-to-moderate correlations between mother and father reports. These similarities may reflect an assortative process when choosing a partner, meaning that people tend to look for a partner with similar characteristics (Botwin et al. 1997 ; Buss 1984 , 1985 ; Larsen and Buss 2010 ). Similarity in parenting could also result from socialization processes (Simons and Conger 2007 ); through a process of mutual influence or reciprocity partners gradually form similar views and beliefs on parenting. The slight differences that emerged pertained particularly to a dissimilar position on positive parenting and rule setting. Although less pronounced, this finding aligns with the study by Meteyer and Perry-Jenkins ( 2009 ) that yielded congruent parenting styles for mothers and fathers of 7-year old children, except for a dissimilar position on self-reported parental warmth. Another study using adolescent reports of parenting (McKinney and Renk 2008 ) found more pronounced sex differences. Perhaps sex differences in parenting styles become more apparent as children grow older or when children’s perspectives are considered.

Results on associations between the joint parenting styles and child behavioral outcomes indicated that children of two authoritarian parents showed the poorest behavioral outcomes. These children were perceived as showing significantly more internalizing and externalizing problem behavior and less prosocial behavior compared to children of parents adopting other parenting styles. In contrast, children of two positive authoritative parents demonstrated the lowest levels of conduct problems. These findings could suggest an additive effect in which the impact of similar parenting styles is reinforced as having two authoritarian and two positive authoritative parents was associated with the least and most favorable child behavioral outcomes, respectively.

The obtained associations between parenting styles and child behavioral outcomes partially align with previous research. Firstly, it has repeatedly been demonstrated that an authoritative parenting style coincides most with positive developmental outcomes in children (e.g., Aunola et al. 2000 ; Baumrind 1967 , 1971 , 1989 , 1991 , Darling and Steinberg 1993 ; Dornbusch et al. 1987 ; Lamborn et al. 1991 ; Querido et al. 2002 ; Shucksmith et al. 1995 ; Steinberg et al. 1994 ; Steinberg et al. 1992 ). Our findings confirm this pattern for the children having parents who employ an authoritative parenting style, but children with parents both using a positive authoritative parenting style even showed less conduct problems. This finding could point towards the value of rule setting – in contrast to disciplinary strategies – in preventing behavioral problems. However, as parenting is a reciprocal process with children and parents mutually influencing each other, it is equally likely that parents show less disciplinary strategies simply because their children pose fewer behavior problems as demonstrated by others (Kerr et al. 2012 ; Kuppens et al. 2009b ; Laird et al. 2003 ).

Secondly, previous research has repeatedly linked an authoritarian parenting style with externalizing and internalizing behavior problems in children (e.g., Hoeve et al. 2008 ; Lamborn et al. 1991 ; Steinberg et al. 1994 ; Williams et al. 2009 ; Wolfradt et al. 2003 ). The present findings extend this body of research, although the association was most pronounced for externalizing behavior problems which may be due to children’s age (8 to 10 year olds). In younger children, having authoritarian parents may be more strongly associated with externalizing problem behavior, whereas the association with internalizing problems only emerges as children grow older. The shift in the nature of behavior problems as children age has been linked to the physical, cognitive and social maturation of children and the associated changes in social demands and expectations.

Thirdly, the neglectful parenting style has been associated with the poorest developmental outcomes in children (Baumrind 1991 ; Lamborn et al. 1991 ; Mandara and Murray 2002 ; Shucksmith et al. 1995 ; Steinberg et al. 1994 ). As this parenting style did not emerge in the present study, we were not able to model its association with child outcomes. Even children having parents who were less involved, but intrusive, were doing better than children having authoritarian parents. Findings did reveal that prosocial behavior and conduct problems were significantly lower for children having parents who adopted an intrusive parenting style compared to children of (positive) authoritarian parents. This findings coincides with a growing body of evidence on the deleterious of impact of psychologically controlling parenting in children and adolescents adopting a variable approach (Barber et al. 2005 ; Kuppens et al. 2013 ; Soenens et al. 2012 ), but likewise extends this evidence-base with person-oriented findings on the impact of an intrusive parenting style on child development.

Limitations and Future Research

Although the present study has several merits, it falls short in that only parent self-reports were used to assess parenting and child behavioral outcomes; children’s perspective on their parenting practices may be quite different. For example, Smetana ( 1995 ) found that adolescents perceived their parents as being more permissive and authoritarian compared to parents’ own view on the matter, whereas parents perceived themselves as being more authoritative than their adolescent children. Although a significant convergence between child and parent reports on parenting dimensions has been established in elementary school (Kuppens et al. 2009a ), future research should explicitly take a multiple informant approach when identifying parenting styles as informant perspectives on parenting styles in this age period may differ. In a related vein, multiple informant assessments of child behavioral problems have been shown to be context–specific with differences occurring according to the context (e.g., home, school) that forms the basis for informant’s assessment (Achenbach et al. 1987 ). Involving informants other than parents in the assessment of child behavioral outcomes therefore seems particularly interesting in future research on parenting styles.

Furthermore, inspecting a normally developing sample generally results into a low occurrence of inadequate parenting practices and child behavioral problems. Studying parenting styles in a clinical sample could certainly supplement this view because more variation in parenting practices may yield more or different parenting styles. Hoeve et al. ( 2008 ) have conducted one of the few studies using a sample of children with a high or low risk of antisocial and behavioral problems; and they were able to identify a neglectful parenting style. In addition, the role of parental psychological control in identifying parenting styles may be more pronounced in a clinical sample; an issue that to date remains unresolved.

The present sample closely resembled the population distribution with regard to family composition and paternal educational level, but it was rather homogeneous for ethnicity and mothers were more highly educated. As such, the present findings may not generalize to minority groups or families with less educated mothers; an issue that should be resolved by future studies. For example, previous research has demonstrated that harsh punishment and psychological control are more common among lower SES parents (e.g., Eamon 2001 ; El‐Sheikh et al. 2010 ) and that Caucasian caregivers were more prevalent in an authoritative parenting style cluster (van der Horst and Sleddens 2017 ). The present study clearly complements the scarce body of research on naturally occurring joint parenting styles conducted in US samples, but additional research is needed to replicate these findings. Moreover, as parenting occurs within a cultural belief system that influences attitudes towards particular parenting practices (Durrant et al. 2003 ), cross-cultural research could further clarify the role of culture in identifying naturally occurring (joint) parenting styles incorporating three parenting dimensions. Finally, the cross-sectional associations among joint parenting styles and child outcomes should be complemented by longitudinal research to gain more insight into the directionality of these associations. Longitudinal research covering the entire childhood and adolescence period could also increase our understanding of age-of-child and sex-of parent differences in naturally occurring parenting styles.

Despite these limitations, this study adds to the literature by further empirically validating well-known parenting styles and by increasing our understanding of the role of parental psychological control and joint parenting. The overlap between harsh punishment and parental psychological control in congruent parenting styles and its unique role in the uninvolved parenting style suggests that this intrusive parenting dimension should be routinely considered in practice settings. We also found that adequate behavior controlling practices may be particularly interesting in preventing behavioral problems; and that not only an authoritarian but also a (psychologically) intrusive parenting style can impede upon child development.

Author Contributions

SK: designed and executed the study, conducted part of the data-analysis, and wrote the paper. EC: conducted the cluster analyses, and collaborated in the writing and editing of the final manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the KU Leuven (University of Leuven) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

• Achenbach TM, McConaughy SH, Howell CT. Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin. 1987; 101 :213–232. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.213. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aunola K, Stattin H, Nurmi JE. Parenting styles and adolescents’ achievement strategies. Journal of Adolescence. 2000; 23 :205–222. doi: 10.1006/jado.2000.0308. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barber BK. Parental psychological control: revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development. 1996; 67 :3296–3319. doi: 10.2307/1131780. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barber BK. Reintroducing parental psychological control. In: Barber BK, editor. Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2002. pp. 3–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barber BK, Harmon EL. Violating the self: Parental psychological control of children and adolescents. In: Barber BK, editor. Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2002. pp. 15–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barber, B. K., Stolz, H. E., Olsen, J. A., Collins, W. A., & Burchinal, M. (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 , i -147. [ PubMed ]
• Barber BK, Xia M. The centrality of control to parenting and its effects. In: Larzelere RE, Morris AS, Harrist AW, editors. Authoritative parenting: Synthesizing nurturance and discipline for optimal child development. Washington: APA; 2013. pp. 61–87. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes GM, Farrell MP. Parental support and control as predictors of adolescent drinking, delinquency, and related problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1992; 54 :763–776. doi: 10.2307/353159. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumrind D. Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development. 1966; 37 :887–907. doi: 10.2307/1126611. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumrind D. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behaviour. Genetic Psychology Monographs. 1967; 75 :43–88. doi: 10.1037/h0024919. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumrind D. Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology. 1971; 4 :1–103. doi: 10.1037/h0030372. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumrind D. Rearing competent children. In: Damon W, editor. Child Development Today and Tomorrow. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1989. pp. 349–378. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumrind D. The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance abuse. Journal of Early Adolescence. 1991; 11 :56–95. doi: 10.1177/0272431691111004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bean RA, Barber BK, Crane DR. Parental support, behavioral control, and psychological control among African American youth: The relationships to academic grades, delinquency, and depression. Journal of Family Issues. 2006; 27 :1335–1355. doi: 10.1177/0192513X06289649. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beato A, Pereira AI, Barros L, Muris P. The relationship between different parenting typologies in fathers and mothers and children’s anxiety. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2016; 25 :1691–1701. doi: 10.1007/s10826-015-0337-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Botwin MD, Buss DM, Shackelford TK. Personality and mate preferences: five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality. 1997; 65 :107–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00531.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brenner V, Fox RA. An empirically derived classification of parenting practices. The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 1999; 160 :343–356. doi: 10.1080/00221329909595404. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buss DM. Toward a psychology of Person-Environment (PE) correlation: the role of spouse selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1984; 47 :361–377. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.47.2.361. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buss DM. Human mate selection: Opposites are sometimes said to attract, but in fact we are likely to marry someone who is similar to us in almost every variable. American Scientist. 1985; 73 :47–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carlson L, Tanner JF. Understanding parental beliefs and attitudes about children: Insights from parental style. Journal of Consumer Affairs. 2006; 40 :144–162. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00049.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ceulemans E, Kiers HAL. Selecting among three-mode principal component models of different types and complexities: A numerical convex hull based method. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. 2006; 59 :133–150. doi: 10.1348/000711005X64817. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaudhuri JH, Easterbrooks MA, Davis CR. The relation between emotional availability and parenting style: cultural and economic factors in a diverse sample of young mothers. Parenting: Science and Practice. 2009; 9 :277–299. doi: 10.1080/15295190902844613. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coie JD, Dodge KA. Aggression and antisocial behavior. In: Damon W, Eisenberg N, editors. Handbook of Child Psychology. 3: Social, Emotional and Personality Development. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons; 1998. pp. 779–862. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conrade G, Ho R. Differential parenting styles for fathers and mothers. Australian Journal of Psychology. 2001; 53 :29–35. doi: 10.1080/00049530108255119. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cummings EM, Davies PT, Campbell SB. Developmental Psychopathology and Family Process. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Darling N, Steinberg L. Parenting style as context: an integrative model. Psychological Bulletin. 1993; 113 :487–496. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dornbusch SM, Ritter PL, Liederman PH, Roberts DF, Fraleigh MJ. The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development. 1987; 58 :1244–1257. doi: 10.2307/1130618. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Durrant JE, Rose-Krasnor L, Broberg AG. Physical punishment and maternal beliefs in Sweden and Canada. Journal of Comparative Family Studies. 2003; 34 :585–604. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwairy M, Achoui M, Abouserie R, Farah A, Sakhleh AA, Fayad M, Khan HK. Parenting styles in Arab societies: a first cross-regional research study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2006; 37 :230–247. doi: 10.1177/0022022106286922. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eamon MK. Antecedents and socioemotional consequences of physical punishment on children in two-parent families. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2001; 25 (6):787–802. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00239-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• El‐Sheikh M, Hinnant JB, Kelly RJ, Erath S. Maternal psychological control and child internalizing symptoms: vulnerability and protective factors across bioregulatory and ecological domains. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2010; 51 (2):188–198. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02140.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Everitt BS, Landau S, Leese M. Cluster analyses. 4th Ed. London: Hodder Arnold; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Galambos NL, Barker ET, Almeida DM. Parents do matter: trajectories of change in externalizing and internalizing problems in early adolescence. Child Development. 2003; 74 :578–594. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.7402017. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heberle AE, Briggs‐Gowan MJ, Carter AS. A person‐oriented approach to identifying parenting styles in mothers of early school‐age children. Infant and Child Development. 2015; 24 :130–156. doi: 10.1002/icd.1888. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gorman-Smith D, Tolan PH, Henry DB. A developmental-ecological model of the relation of family functioning to patterns of delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 2000; 16 :169–198. doi: 10.1023/A:1007564505850. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray MR, Steinberg L. Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1999; 61 :574–587. doi: 10.2307/353561. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoeve M, Blokland A, Dubas JS, Loeber R, Gerris JRM, van der Laan PH. Trajectories of delinquency and parenting styles. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2008; 36 :223–235. doi: 10.1007/s10802-007-9172-x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kerr M, Stattin H, Özdemir M. Perceived parenting style and adolescent adjustment: revisiting directions of effects and the role of parental knowledge. Developmental Psychology. 2012; 48 :1540. doi: 10.1037/a0027720. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuppens S, Grietens H, Onghena P, Michiels D. Measuring parenting dimensions in middle childhood: multitrait-multimethod analysis of child, mother, and father ratings. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2009; 25 :133–140. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.25.3.133. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuppens S, Grietens H, Onghena P, Michiels D. Relations between parental psychological control and childhood relational aggression: reciprocal in nature? Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2009; 38 :117–131. doi: 10.1080/15374410802575354. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuppens S, Laurent L, Heyvaert M, Onghena P. Associations between parental psychological control and relational aggression in children and adolescents: A multilevel and sequential meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology. 2013; 49 :1697–1712. doi: 10.1037/a0030740. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laird RD, Pettit GS, Bates JE, Dodge KA. Parents’ monitoring-relevant knowledge and adolescents’ delinquent behavior: Evidence of correlated developmental changes and reciprocal influences. Child Development. 2003; 74 :752–768. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00566. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamborn SD, Mounts NS, Steinberg L, Dornbusch SM. Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development. 1991; 62 :1049–1065. doi: 10.2307/1131151. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Larsen RJ, Buss DM. Personality and Social Interaction. In: Larsen RJ, Buss DM, editors. Personality Psychology. Domains of Knowledge about Human Nature. 4th Ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2010. pp. 464–491. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee SM, Daniels MH, Kissinger DB. Parental influences on adolescent adjustment: Parenting styles versus parenting practices. The Family Journal. 2006; 14 :253–259. doi: 10.1177/1066480706287654. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maccoby EM. Social Development: Psychological Growth and the Parent–child Relationship. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetheringtono(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol . IV . Socialization, Personality and Social Development (4 th Ed., pp. 1-101). New York: Wilepy.
• Magnusson D. The logic and implications of a person-oriented approach. In: Cairns RB, Bergman LR, Kagan J, editors. Methods and Models for Studying the Individual. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998. pp. 33–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mandara J. The typological approach in child and family psychology: a review of theory, methods, and research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 2003; 6 :129–146. doi: 10.1023/A:1023734627624. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mandara J, Murray CB. Development of an empirical typology of African American family functioning. Journal of Family Psychology. 2002; 16 :318–337. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.16.3.318. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin A, Ryan RM, Brooks-Gunn J. The joint influence of mother and father parenting on child cognitive outcomes at age 5. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2007; 22 :423–439. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.07.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGroder SH. Parenting among low-income, African-American single mothers with preschool-age children: patterns, predictors, and developmental correlates. Child Development. 2000; 71 :752–771. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00183. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKinney C, Renk K. Differential parenting between mothers and fathers. implications for late adolescents. Journal of Family Issues. 2008; 29 (6):806–827. doi: 10.1177/0192513X07311222. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meteyer KB, Perry-Jenkins M. Dyadic parenting and children’s externalizing symptoms. Family Relations. 2009; 58 :289–302. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2009.00553.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Metsäpelto RL, Pulkkinen L. Personality traits and parenting: neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience as discriminative factors. European Journal of Personality. 2003; 17 :59–78. doi: 10.1002/per.468. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miranda MC, Affuso G, Esposito C, Bacchini D. Parental acceptance–rejection and adolescent maladjustment: mothers’ and fathers’ combined roles. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2016; 25 (4):1352–1362. doi: 10.1007/s10826-015-0305-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patterson GR, Dishion TJ, Bank L. Family interaction: a process model of deviancy training. Aggressive Behavior. 1984; 10 :253–267. doi: 10.1002/1098-2337(1984)10:3<253::AID-AB2480100309>3.0.CO;2-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pereira AI, Canavarro C, Cardoso MF, Mendonça D. Patterns of parental rearing styles and child behaviour problems among Portuguese school-aged children. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2008; 18 :454–464. doi: 10.1007/s10826-008-9249-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pettit GS, Laird RD, Dodge KA, Bates JE, Criss MM. Antecedents and behavior-problem outcomes of parental monitoring and psychological control in early adolescence. Child Development. 2001; 72 (2):583–598. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00298. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Querido JG, Warner TD, Eyberg SM. Parenting styles and child behavior in African American families of preschool children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2002; 31 :272–277. doi: 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3102_12. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell A, Aloa V, Feder T, Glover A, Miller H, Palmer G. Sex-based differences in parenting styles in a sample with preschool children. Australian Journal of Psychology. 1998; 50 :89–99. doi: 10.1080/00049539808257539. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaefer ES. Children’s reports of parental behavior: an inventory. Child Development. 1965; 36 :413–424. doi: 10.2307/1126465. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shaw DS, Keenan K, Vondra JI. Developmental precursors of externalizing behavior: ages 1 to 3. Developmental Psychology. 1994; 30 :355–364. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.30.3.355. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shucksmith J, Hendry LB, Glendinning A. Models of parenting: Implications for adolescent well-being within different types of family contexts. Journal of Adolescence. 1995; 18 :253–270. doi: 10.1006/jado.1995.1018. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simons LG, Conger RD. Linking mother-father differences in parenting to a typology of family parenting styles and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Family Issues. 2007; 28 :212–241. doi: 10.1177/0192513X06294593. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Soenens B, Park SY, Vansteenkiste M, Mouratidis A. Perceived parental psychological control and adolescent depressive experiences: A cross-cultural study with Belgian and South-Korean adolescents. Journal of Adolescence. 2012; 35 :261–272. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.05.001. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smetana JG. Parenting styles and conceptions of parental authority during adolescence. Child Development. 1995; 66 :299–316. doi: 10.2307/1131579. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinberg L. Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship. In: Feldman SS, Elliot GR, editors. At the Threshold: The developing Adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1990. pp. 255–276. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinberg L. Psychological control: Style or substance? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. 2005; 108 :71–78. doi: 10.1002/cd.129. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinberg L, Lamborn SD, Darling N, Mounts NS, Dornbusch SM. Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development. 1994; 65 :754–770. doi: 10.2307/1131416. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinberg L, Lamborn SD, Dornbusch SM, Darling N. Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: authoritative parenting, school involvement and encouragement to succeed. Child Development. 1992; 63 :1266–1281. doi: 10.2307/1131532. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinley D. Local Optima in K-Means Clustering: what you don’t know may hurt you. Psychological Methods. 2003; 8 :294–304. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.8.3.294. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinly D, Brusco MJ. Choosing the number of clusters in K-means clustering. Psychological Methods. 2011; 16 (3):285–297. doi: 10.1037/a0023346. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tam VC, Lam RS. A cultural exploration based on structured observational methods in Hong Kong. Marriage & Family Review. 2004; 35 :45–61. doi: 10.1300/J002v35n03_04. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van der Horst K, Sleddens EF. Parenting styles, feeding styles and food-related parenting practices in relation to toddlers’ eating styles: a cluster-analytic approach. PloS One. 2017; 12 (5):e0178149. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178149. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Leeuwen KG, Mervielde I, Braet C, Bosmans G. Child personality and parental behavior as moderators of problem behavior: variable-and person-centered approaches. Developmental Psychology. 2004; 40 :1028–1046. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.1028. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Leeuwen KG, Vermulst A. Some psychometric properties of the Ghent Parental Behavior Scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2004; 20 :283–298. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.20.4.283. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Widenfelt BM, Goedhart AW, Treffers PD, Goodman R. Dutch version of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2003; 12 :281–289. doi: 10.1007/s00787-003-0341-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilderjans TF, Ceulemans E, Meers K. CHull: a generic convex hull based model selection method. Behavior Research Methods. 2013; 45 :1–15. doi: 10.3758/s13428-012-0238-5. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams LR, Degnan KA, Perez-Edgar KE, Henderson HA, Rubin KH, Pine DS, Fox NA. Impact of behavioral inhibition and parenting style on internalizing and externalizing problems from early childhood through adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2009; 37 :1063–1075. doi: 10.1007/s10802-009-9331-3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolfradt U, Hempel S, Miles JN. Perceived parenting styles, depersonalisation, anxiety and coping behaviour in adolescents. Personality and Individual differences. 2003; 34 (3):521–532. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00092-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang L, Wan WW, Tam VC, Wu P, Luk CL. An exploratory study on school children’s intent attributions for parental structuring behaviors. Psychological Reports. 2015; 116 :249–273. doi: 10.2466/21.PR0.116k17w3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

All About Authoritative Parenting

Authoritative parenting is one of the most effective and beneficial parenting styles. Here’s what to know about it.

Imagine you walk into your child’s room and you notice that their homework isn’t finished, the room is a mess, and they’re on the phone talking with their friend. What do you?

Parenting isn’t easy, especially in moments like these.

Your first instinct may be to yell and punish your kid. But what if you choose to remind them about your request instead, and give them a firm deadline for when you expect both tasks to be completed? You can set up consequences for not completing the tasks, such as taking away their phone for the day.

Of course, there is no “right” way to handle the situation. Yet, this could be exactly how someone following an authoritative parenting style would react in this situation.

This parenting style has been shown to be highly effective in psychological research. Here’s what to know about it.

What is an authoritative parenting style?

Authoritative parenting is sometimes confused with authoritarian parenting, which is actually very different. Authoritative parenting is a parenting philosophy developed in the 1960s by developmental psychologist Diana Baumrind.

It aims to strike a balance between structure and nurture.

“Parents using an authoritative style have certain expectations for their children, though they use respect to encourage good behavior,” explains Jaclyn Gulotta , a mental health counselor and parenting coordinator based in Lake Mary, Florida.

In other words, authoritative parents may set clear boundaries and rules for their kids, but they will also give them the resources and support they need to succeed and meet those expectations.

They also leave some room for conversation and compromise in their relationship with their child.

“This style is much more democratic,” explains Brent Metcalf , a clinical social worker based in Johnson City, Tennessee.

“The guardians using this style of parenting are responsive to their children and will usually listen to the children about any complaints or questions they have about the rules set in place.”

Caregivers using authoritative parenting also tend to use fair discipline and are more forgiving if a kid doesn’t meet expectations, especially if there are extenuating circumstances.

This is because, in general, an authoritative parent will rely more on positive reinforcement and encouragement, rather than punishment or threats, to get their children to strive to do better next time.

What are examples of authoritative parenting?

• establishing household chores, but giving the child choices for which tasks they want to be responsible for
• setting clear expectations, boundaries, or rules for your kid and communicating them ahead of time
• being comfortable saying no to your child
• following through with fair and consistent discipline when expectations aren’t met or rules are broken
• listening to kids when they’re upset, disappointed, or feeling another big emotion
• encouraging kids to have an opinion and share it with you and others
• being warm, empathetic, compassionate, loving, and nurturing toward your child
• prioritizing your connection and relationship with your kid over micromanaging their behavior
• fostering independence while also allowing children to feel the consequences of their own choices or actions
• supporting your kid’s ambitions and interests by giving them the tools and encouragement they need, rather than enabling them

What are the four parenting styles?

Authoritative parenting is one of the four basic parenting styles described in cornerstone psychological literature, according to a 2019 review . The other three are:

• Authoritarian parenting. This parenting style is very strict and relies on punishment and less open communication about the reasoning behind the rules. This is what Metcalf says he calls the “because I said so” parenting style.
• Permissive parenting. This parenting style is lenient, with very few concrete demands or rules for kids. “Children experiencing this parenting style are rarely disciplined and [their caregivers] are generally nurturing and communicative with their children,” Metcalf explains. “This often looks more like a friendship than it does a parent-child relationship.”
• Uninvolved parenting. This style also has very few parenting demands or rules, but it also doesn’t have a lot of communication between kid and caregiver, either. “Parents may meet the basic needs of children — food, water, shelter, clothing — but they are typically detached from their child’s life,” Metcalf explains.

Of course, there are other complementary parenting philosophies out there, including mindful parenting . In general, those are strategies that often work with one of these basic styles, rather than replacing them.

Is authoritative parenting the most effective?

It’s difficult to say for certain whether authoritative parenting is the most effective.

Psychologists and parents often disagree about the best way to raise the caregiver’s particular children. Kids also do not all respond in the exact same ways to boundaries, rules, or even their parents’ support and nurturing.

There are also many different factors at play influencing each child’s development and mental health, 2019 research says. This could limit the effectiveness of one particular parenting style.

Expert opinion

However, many psychologists, researchers, and child development experts — including Metcalf and Gulotta — are big supporters of authoritative parenting because of its benefits.

“[It] may be more effective than other parenting styles, as it promotes a sense of security and stability from the parents,” Gulotta explains. “Children may feel more respected and feel validated even when they are being disciplined.”

“This can leave children feeling more self-confident in their relationships and attachments,” Gulotta says.

What the research says

Research also seems to suggest that authoritative parenting can be very beneficial for kids.

A 2015 study found that an authoritative parenting style might boost creativity in children.

A 2020 study found that authoritative parenting led to higher life satisfaction in young people between ages 14 and 29.

A 2021 study suggested that it could have a positive impact on self-esteem and problem-solving skills.

This isn’t necessarily the case with other parenting styles.

For example, while authoritarian parenting can lead to kids growing into obedient and skilled adults, explains Metcalf, it can also cause them to be less happy, socially competent, or develop self-esteem issues and fear of failure.

Liz Weissman-Young , an education specialist and virtual parent educator, says, “Permissive parents who are unable to effectively and consistently set boundaries for their children often unknowingly foster insecure attachments with their children through this lack of structure.”

This can result in kids not developing self-regulation skills, issues with authority , relationship issues, and poor performance in school.

As for uninvolved parenting, says Metcalf, “Children who experience this parenting style usually rank the lowest in all of life’s domains, lack self-control, have low self-esteem, and can be less competent than their peers.”

What happens when parents are authoritative?

Several studies, including a 2019 study including 600 Flemish families, have found that authoritative parenting has a lot of positive effects on kids, especially compared with other parenting styles. Here are some of the pros and cons:

• helping children form secure relationship attachments
• reducing anger and resentment in children toward their parents (because kids feel appreciated and respected)
• reducing parenting stress and burnout
• promoting self-reliance
• boosting self-esteem and confidence
• fostering better communication and social skills in children
• teaching emotional control and regulation
• helping children grow into happier, more capable, and successful adults

The biggest con of authoritative parenting is that it doesn’t necessarily come naturally to every parent, and some find it difficult to maintain over time, especially if they’re going through periods of stress in their own lives.

“[Authoritative parenting] takes effort, consistency, and patience,” says Weissman-Young, “which is difficult if parents are not receiving sufficient support or do not have the tools they need to parent in this way.”

If you find it difficult to adopt this parenting style at first or find yourself feeling stressed at times, consider going easy on yourself. Losing your patience or slipping up every now and then isn’t going to undo everything you’ve built. It’s OK to evolve as a parent.

Let’s recap

Ultimately, the key to being an authoritative parent is to strive to be communicative with your child, as well as a good role model. To do that, sometimes you might benefit from asking for help yourself from your partner, family, friends, or even a therapist .

Authoritative parenting is a highly effective parenting style that allows you to set boundaries and expectations for your children while also providing them with the love, patience, warmth, and support they need to grow into well-adjusted adults.

It’s not always the easiest parenting style to adopt — or maintain — but it can help you and your kid develop a healthy, loving, and respectful relationship over time.

Last medically reviewed on April 24, 2022

9 sources collapsed

• Baumrind D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1967-05780-001
• Gao D, et al. (2021). Transactional models linking maternal authoritative parenting, child self-esteem, and approach coping strategies. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0193397321000253
• Gulotta J. (2022). Personal interview.
• Kuppens S, et al. (2019). Parenting styles: A closer look at a well-known concept. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6323136/
• Lau EYH, et al. (2020). Coparenting, parenting stress, and authoritative parenting among Hong Kong Chinese mothers and fathers. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15295192.2019.1694831
• Lavič M, et al. (2021) The power of authoritative parenting: A cross-national study of effects of exposure to different parenting styles on life satisfaction. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v116y2020ics019074092030918x.html
• Mehrinejad S A, et al. (2015). The relationship between parenting styles and creativity and the predictability of creativity by parenting styles. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815050326
• Metcalf B. (2022). Personal interview.
• Weissman-Young, L. (2022). Personal interview.

Read this next

Mindful parenting involves using mindfulness in everyday parenting situations and may have many mental health benefits for both kids and parents alike.

You may be at your wits end about rearing your kid after an ADHD diagnosis. Three experts weigh in on just four basic tips to guide your parenting…

Find out where positive punishment has its benefits, and in what circumstances it can cause harm for employees, athletes, and kids.

Finally, an article written at a level your elementary-school-aged child can understand. We're giving them a simple introduction to their first…

Co-parenting with someone with narcissistic traits or NPD can be challenging. Here are signs to watch for and tips on making it work.

Given the range of procedures that are considered “psychotherapy,” arriving at a complete definition for t

Podcast episode with Netflix documentarian on the use of psychedelics in mental health treatments.

Mental health apps can help with specific conditions and overall mental well-being. Here are the top 10 apps for relaxation, sleep, mood tracking, and…

PsychoHairapy meets the need for a creative approach to mental health and wellness for Black girls and women.

These quotes about staying true to yourself and embracing who you are will inspire and motivate you to be genuine wherever you are.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Mediating and moderating effects of authoritative parenting styles on adolescent behavioral problems.

• 1 College of Education Sciences, Hubei Second Normal College, Wuhan, Hubei, China
• 2 College of Educational Sciences, Hubei Normal University, Huangshi, Hubei, China

Introduction: This study aimed to analyze how authoritative parenting affects behavioral problems among primary, junior high, and secondary high school students. Today, parental educational anxiety and parent–child relationship conflicts are common in China and are resulting in a high incidence of child behavioral problems. High-quality family education is becoming increasingly important in China. This study sought to provide a reference for developing responsive family education services.

Methods: A total of 10,441 parents in Hubei Province, including urban and rural areas, were evaluated using the Parents’ Education Anxiety Questionnaire, Parental Authority Parenting Questionnaire, Parent–Child Relationship Scale, and Self-Made Behavior Problem Scale to determine the internal mechanisms of child behavioral problems in the family system. To make the sample more representative, this study collected data from primary and secondary schools representative of the southeast, northwest, and center of Hubei Province; further, the number of parents involved in each school was controlled at approximately 300 to ensure that the final sample had analytical value.

Results: Educational anxiety directly affected children’s behavioral problems and indirectly affected them through the conflicts between parent and child. This conflict partially mediated educational anxiety and child behavioral problems, and authoritative parenting played a significant regulatory role in this relationship.

Discussion: Higher levels of educational anxiety among parents increased the likelihood of a depressed family environment. This can lead to deteriorating parent–child relationships, which can result in children’s problem behaviors. Parents can address these problems by changing their approach to education and adjusting their emotions accordingly.

1 Introduction

This study explored how parenting styles impact adolescent behavior toward outlining best practices for family education in China. Family education affects child growth and development, family happiness and stability, social harmony and progress, and national prosperity. Family education refers to “social roles (including kinship relations and ancestry), emotions, responsibilities (including child welfare), being together, economics (housekeeping), leisure and care” ( Bernardes, 1999 ; Havigerová et al., 2013 ). Many countries have introduced laws to promote family education. For example, the U.S. federal government updated and revised the Family Education Protection Act ( United Nations, 1989 ) to emphasize the legal status of family upbringing and provide parents with more educational autonomy.

Meanwhile, the U.K. government published Guidance for Local Authorities and Parents ( U.K. Government, 1996 ) to help parents better understand the importance of family upbringing, what parents should focus on, and how they can communicate and work with local authorities. Additionally, the government of Ontario, Canada, issued the Policy Statement on Family Upbringing ( Ontario Ministry of Education, 2018 ), which provides a comprehensive overview of family upbringing, clearly expresses the government’s support and endorsement of family upbringing and sets relevant regulatory standards and requirements. The Australian government’s updated National Education Guidelines ( Australian Government, 2022 ) outlines numerous requirements and recommendations for family upbringing to regulate its quality and safety effectively. All these documents reflect the international emphasis, concern regarding home education, and provide parents with practical information and legal protection.

Recently, research on family education has emerged along the following lines. First, scholars have considered the impact of family education on child development, particularly the relationships between learning and social, psychological, and physical health. Second, they have explored parents’ roles in family education to uncover how different types of parental involvement impact child development. Third, scholars have investigated heterogeneities in family education; for example, they have studied how families from different ethnic, cultural, and economic backgrounds educate and explore the advantages and disadvantages of different educational approaches. Fourth, scholars have examined parenting skills, examining how to improve parents’ educational skills and knowledge to better support child growth and development. Fifth, researchers have considered views on educational policies, exploring how their attitudes influence their expectations for educational reform ( Garcia Yeste et al., 2018 ).

In China, family education is becoming increasingly important. Historically, family education has played a profound, foundational, and long-term role in the growth of children and youth. Parents’ ability to educate their children affects the effectiveness of family education and child development ( Huang Y. et al., 2022 ). Today, there is a shortage of high-quality family educational strategies, creating contradictions in educational development. Modernization and urbanization have profoundly changed the traditional Chinese family structure ( Gao and Bian, 2023 ). With family structures becoming smaller and more nucleated, elders have less time and energy to devote to family education, and the resources and support they can obtain from within the family are becoming more limited, leading to the absence or devaluation of family education ( Qiang, 2021 ). These trends can cause problems in children and youth. For example, psychological and behavioral issues related to lack of childhood education can exacerbate the trend of under-age delinquency ( Danisworo and Wangid, 2022 ). Some studies have shown that moral and conscious restraints can significantly increase the psychological costs of juvenile involvement in crime. Conversely, low morale and conscious restraints among adolescents increase crime rates; socially maladjusted adolescents are more likely to commit crimes, and associating with transgressive peers can influence adolescent delinquency ( Han and Zhang, 2015 ). Furthermore, emotional problems in adolescents, such as the callousness trait, which manifests itself in insensitivity to negative emotions and a lack of empathy, are key personality factors leading to juvenile delinquency ( Ermer et al., 2013 ).

Further, although providing satisfactory education is a key goal of the new era, parent anxiety around education and parent–child relationship conflicts hinder the widespread implementation of satisfactory family education ( Ding and Xue, 2022 ). Parental educational anxiety is evident in the fact that parents devote all their limited time and energy to their children’s studies. This trend is causing the parent–child relationship to mutate into a teacher–student relationship and reducing the warmth and acceptance characteristics of the original parent–child relationship. This may reduce the child’s sense of security and belonging in their family. Additionally, it may cause children to feel that there is no space for their emotions ( Mellon and Moutavelis, 2011 ). Together, these effects can increase psychological and behavioral problems among children.

Further, the education of both fathers and mothers can directly predict children’s behavioral problems ( Gao et al., 2023 ). Meanwhile, anxiety disorders among parents significantly affect children ( Lawrence et al., 2019 ). Similarly, parental non-pathological anxiety symptoms and traits can also predict emotional problems in children ( Bayer et al., 2006 ). Therefore, it is necessary to reduce parents’ educational anxiety and improve parent–child relationships to improve family education in China. For example, these issues may be addressed by providing parents with accurate educational guidance ( Huang et al., 2022a ; Zhou Shiyi, 2022 ), implementing family education legislation, rebuilding family education, and cultivating healthy personalities ( Zhang, 2022 ), thereby alleviating the effects of educational anxiety on children’s behavioral problems and achieving scientific family education.

The ecosystem theory supports the idea that a child’s development is closely related to the education they receive at home. This theory was introduced by Bronfenbrenner (1992) , based on his synthesis of the ecological view of development and personal experience. Broadly, the ecosystem theory maintains that the environment greatly influences individual development ( Tudge et al., 2009 ). This theory divides the formative environment into microsystems, mesosystems, exosystems, macrosystems, and ephemeral systems. Ecosystem theory emphasizes the linkages between systems, the bidirectional nature of the role of the individual and the microsystem, the process of the individual’s continuous adjustment to the environment, and the selection and adjustment of the environment; the theory establishes that the environment has a dynamic influence on the individual ( Bronfenbrenner, 1992 ). Within this theoretical framework, family, school, and peers belong to the microsystem. The family system is an environment comprising children, parents, and the family setting, and includes children’s personalities, genders, ages, and parents’ education, occupation, and parenting style ( Luan et al., 2013 ). In the family system, the child directly perceives activities and interacts with their parents. Notably, the family system has the greatest impact on student development ( Liu and Meng, 2009 ), which is specifically influenced by relationships between family members ( Xu et al., 2019 ; Conger and Donnellan, 2021 ); for example, increased conflict between parents makes children more likely to have conflicts with other students at school ( Ingoldsby et al., 2001 ; Harold and Sellers, 2018 ). Family systems theory suggests that a good family environment promotes children’s physical and mental development, whereas an unfavorable one hinders it ( Cox and Paley, 2003 ; Walsh, 2016 ; Minuchin, 2017 ). Based on the ecosystem theory, the family system has the greatest influence on student development; accordingly, good parent characterizes a favorable family environment–child relationships, can keep children emotionally stable, and can reduce problem behaviors.

However, as suggested above, Chinese parents may need help maintaining good relationships with their children and a favorable family environment. To facilitate family education that supports healthy child development, it is necessary to clarify the relationships between Chinese parents’ behaviors, especially around their children’s education, and child behavior to uncover best practices for family education. This study responds to this task. Specifically, this study enriches research in family systems theory by studying the relationship between parenting anxiety, authoritative parenting style, parent–child conflict, and child behavioral problems in the family system. A survey was conducted on 10,441 families in Hubei Province, China, to identify the intrafamilial factors influencing behavioral problems in primary and secondary school students. This study offers valuable insights for research and practice on preventing and controlling child behavioral problems and improving the quality of family education received by children aged 6–18.

2 Literature review and hypothesis development

2.1 educational anxiety and child behavioral problems.

“Parental education anxiety” refers to emotional and psychological experiences triggered by the stresses and challenges parents experience due to their children’s education, including uncertainty about their children’s future development, expectations of academic performance, and anxiety brought about by comparisons between their children and their children’s peers ( Hossain and Roopnarine, 2020 ; Kim S. et al., 2020 ). While parental educational anxiety manifests differently in different countries and regions—for example, parents in some countries may be more focused on their children’s school performance, while those in others may be more concerned about their children’s social skills, creativity, and self-perception—it is a universal phenomenon ( Alharbi and Al-Khateeb, 2020 ; Kim E. Y. et al., 2020 ; Shumow et al., 2020 ; Zhong et al., 2021 ). Regardless of its form, parenting anxiety can negatively impact family life and threaten children’s healthy development ( Lee et al., 2020 ). In this study, parental educational anxiety refers explicitly to the tension, anxiety, worry, annoyance, and panic that parents experience due to the uncertainty of their educational outcomes, such as fears about their children falling “behind in education,” the stress of being “educationally overburdened,” the stress of “educational backwardness,” and worries over “educational incompetence” ( Chen and Xiao, 2014 ). Notably, parental education anxiety is a kind of state anxiety that exists during their children’s education and fluctuates with changes in their children’s performance or other educational factors. When a child is removed from an educational scenario, parental educational anxiety may decrease or even disappear ( Yin et al., 2022 ).

The American educational community defines “problem behaviors” in children and adolescents as issues with learning and interpersonal relationships, inappropriate actions and emotions, generalized emotional depression and distress, and learning-related physical symptoms ( American Psychological Association, 2015 ; National Association of School Psychologists, 2018 ). Meanwhile, in China, “problem behaviors” are more generally recognized as behaviors that are abnormal for the child’s age, both in terms of severity and duration ( General Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2021 ). Achenbach and Edelbrock (1978) divided behavioral problems into three major categories: internalizing, externalizing, and mixed behavior problems, and developed the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) in 1987 from these categories. Based on this, this study defines “child problem behaviors” as a variety of behaviors that are common and detrimental to the development of character and physical and mental health. These behaviors include externalizing and internalizing problem behaviors, which are non-adaptive behaviors that violate social norms, including aggression, violence, discipline issues, and other problem behaviors. Negative emotions and tendencies, including anxiety, depression, and withdrawal, accompany internalizing problem behaviors.

Several studies have shown that parents’ educational anxiety negatively impacts their children’s behaviors. This may be because such parents may be more inclined to use punitive methods rather than positive guidance and rewards to change their children’s behaviors. These parents tend to focus more on their children’s surface behaviors and lack adequate attention and support for intrinsic issues, such as emotion management ( Wang and Zhou, 2022 ) and social skills ( Beelmann and Lösel, 2021 ; Scharf and Mayseless, 2021 ). However, reasonable educational anxiety can promote children’s learning and development ( Yang and Xia, 2018 ; Haßler et al., 2020 ). The key is to balance parental expectations and concerns with support and encouragement for children’s autonomous development and creativity. Based on the above discussion, the first research hypothesis of this study is proposed.

Hypothesis 1 : Parental educational anxiety affects children’s behavioral problems.

2.2 Parent–child conflict and child behavioral problems

The parent–child relationship is grounded in blood relationships and a common living environment and involves nurturing, parenting, and support ( Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2020 ; Baucom et al., 2021 ). It is the most basic relationship between an individual and their family and the first interpersonal relationship to which an individual is exposed ( Ling et al., 2018 ). Notably, the parent–child relationship reflects the degree of emotional connection between parents and their children ( Furman and Buhrmester, 1985 ).

Most leading research on parent–child relationships outside of China are a few decades old. Authoritative academic definitions of parent–child relationships highlight different aspects of the relationship. For example, Belsky (1984) defines the relationship as “an intimate, emotional bond involving parental care, support, and encouragement of the child’s growth.” Meanwhile, Darling and Steinberg (1993) describe the parent–child relationship as a two-way interactive process that involves parental control and support of the child and the child’s responses and reactions to their parent. Baumrind (1991) established that the relationship also includes parents’ norms for and demands of their children and their responses to the behaviors exhibited by their children. These studies provide valuable insights into the importance and impact of parent–child relationships and guidance on how to improve them.

Parent–child conflict (PCC) refers to tensions, arguments, and disagreements between parents and their children, usually involving issues of behavior, expectations, values, power, and control ( Laursen et al., 2021 ). Various factors, such as personality differences, cultural differences, educational styles, and miscommunication, may cause such conflicts. Regardless of the cause, such conflicts may profoundly impact the development and growth of children and youths, requiring appropriate interventions and solutions ( Davies and Martin, 2021 ).

Scholars have suggested that the parent–child relationship is rooted in multiple factors, including parenting style, children’s behaviors and reactions, and the family environment. Good parent–child relationships cultivated by a positive family environment can prevent and reduce child behavioral problems ( Robinson and Hoyt, 2021 ; Lee et al., 2022 ). On the other hand, poor parent–child relationships, such as those caused by parent–child conflict, can cause problem behaviors in children ( Skibbe et al., 2021 ; Kim and Kim, 2022 ). These findings remind us that parents should minimize conflict with their children, improve their relationships with them, and help them develop positive emotional management and problem-solving skills to nurture their healthy development. Based on the above discussion, the second research hypothesis of this study is proposed.

Hypothesis 2 : Parent–child conflict affects child behavioral problems.

2.3 Educational anxiety and parent–child conflict

Educational anxiety and parent–child conflict are closely related ( Kim and Lee, 2022 ). Parents have high expectations for their children’s academic achievement and development. However, stress and anxiety are common trends in the process of reaching these expectations, causing parents to be overly demanding and critical of their children’s performances, which can increase family tensions and parent–child conflict. In addition, asymmetries between parents’ educational expectations and standards and their children’s abilities and interests may lead to conflict. Suppose a child feels they cannot meet their parents’ expectations or are forced to do something they are not interested in. In that case, they may develop negative emotions, further exacerbating parent–child conflict. A study examining the effect of parents’ educational anxiety on their children’s academic achievement showed that parents’ excessive focus on academic achievement and desire for their children to succeed academically are psychological control behaviors that may lead to educational anxiety by causing parent–child conflict ( Liu X. et al., 2021 ; Wu et al., 2022 ). Therefore, parents need to be aware of their parenting styles and avoid excessive psychological control behaviors to avoid conflict with their children and youths to reduce educational anxiety.

In addition, research has shown that parent–child conflict mediates educational expectations and educational anxiety. When parents have high educational expectations for their children that do not match their children’s abilities, parent–child conflict is triggered, which can increase educational anxiety ( Yin et al., 2021 ). Scholars have also explored the role of parent–child conflict in mediating the relationship between parenting stress and child behavior problems; specifically, they found that parents with higher parenting stress tend to have more conflicts with their children, which leads to more behavioral problems in the children ( Fang et al., 2018 ). Additionally, researchers have reported that parent–child conflict mediates the relationship between parental attachment style and adolescent depressive symptoms ( Akin, 2020 ). Based on the above discussion, we propose the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 3 : Educational anxiety triggers parent–child conflict. Hypothesis 4 : Parent–child conflict mediates the relationship between educational anxiety and child behavioral problems.

2.4 Moderating role of parenting style

In the 1960s, Baumrind (1966 , 1967) introduced the most influential and far-reaching work on the dimensions of parenting styles. Specifically, based on a study in which she used naturalistic observation and interview methods to study more than 100 families with preschool-aged children, she reported that the main differences between parenting styles are reflected by two dimensions of parenting style: meeting needs and insisting on demands. The need-satisfying dimension refers to parents’ conscious efforts to foster self-discipline and self-confidence in their children by supporting their children’s behavior. The insistence dimension refers to making children comply with family elders’ decisions through orders, supervision, discipline, and punishment. Based on the differences in the intensity of these two dimensions, Baumrind identified four parenting styles: authoritative (highly demanding, highly satisfying), coddling (lacking in demand, highly satisfying), authoritarian (highly demanding, lacking in satisfaction), and neglectful (lacking in demand, dissatisfaction). This study uses Baumrind’s definition of an authoritative parent–child relationship. The authoritative type, also known as the democratic type, refers to parents who demonstrate a highly demanding parenting style—setting reasonable limits and monitoring their children’s activities and behaviors through guidelines—and a highly responsive style—nurturing their children’s sense of self-determination and individuality through warm, reasoned, and democratic communication. These parents are more likely to reason with their children or correct their behavior in supportive ways if children fail to follow their parents’ guidelines. Democratic parents balance their demands and satisfaction with those of their children to encourage their children to be independent while still complying with family rules ( Baumrind, 1966 , 1967 , 1971 ). This parenting style promotes children’s autonomy and helps them to develop positive behavioral patterns.

Authoritative parenting plays a moderating role in various outcomes associated with child and adolescent development. A study found that authoritative parenting moderated the relationship between parental academic expectations and adolescent academic achievement ( Wang et al., 2022 ). Meanwhile, another reported that authoritative parenting moderates academic self-efficacy and achievement ( Hayek et al., 2022 ). Additionally, researchers have found that authoritative parenting moderates the relationship between cyberbullying victimization and perpetration among Pakistani children and youths ( Farooq and Awan, 2021 ). These findings emphasize the importance of authoritative parenting for positive development. Based on the above discussion, the fifth research hypothesis of this paper is proposed.

Hypothesis 5 : Authoritative parenting moderates the relationship between educational anxiety and parent–child conflict that impacts child behavioral problems.

3 Materials and methods

3.1 research tools.

SPSS 23.0 and AMOS 24.0 were used to process the data in this study. Reliability analysis was performed using SPSS 23.0; the total scale reliability was 0.842, which is good and reliable. Exploratory factor analysis KMO was 0.894, and KMO greater than 0.8 is considered suitable for factor analysis. Large-scale questionnaires containing the following content were created for unified data management.

3.1.1 Parental education anxiety questionnaire

The Parental Education Anxiety Questionnaire was adapted from a questionnaire compiled by Xia et al. The questionnaire includes 12 items, reaching across the six dimensions of academic anxiety, physical anxiety, safety anxiety, psychological anxiety, future anxiety, and teacher anxiety ( Yin et al., 2022 ). This study divided nine topics into academic achievement anxiety and non-academic achievement anxiety. The questionnaire adopted a five-point Likert scoring method; the higher the total score, the higher the degree of educational anxiety. Through confirmatory factor analysis, it was found that x 2 / df  = 6.98, RMSEA = 0.11, RMR = 0.08, NFI = 0.88, RFI = 0.83, IFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.86, and CFI = 0.90 and the internal consistency of the selected items was 0.82, indicating that the reliability and validity of the questionnaire were consistent.

3.1.2 Parent–child relationship scale

The Parent–Child Relationship Scale was adapted from the Parent–Child Relationship Scale compiled by Pianta in 1992. The Chinese version of the scale was developed after a translation and revision by Xiao et al. The scale contains 26 items divided into the three dimensions of intimacy, conflict, and dependence ( Xu, 2022 ). This study selected all nine questions in the intimacy dimension and 12 questions in the conflict dimension. The questions in the conflict dimension were reverse-scored and then summed with the scores in the intimacy dimension. The higher the score, the better the parent–child relationship ( Zu et al., 2022 ). This measure adopted a Likert five-point scale. The confirmatory factor analysis revealed that x 2 / df  = 4.70, RMSEA = 0.08 (RMSEA values greater than 0.08 can be described as having moderate goodness-of-fit), RMR = 0.13, NFI = 0.84, RFI = 0.82, IFI = 0.87, TLI = 0.85, and CFI = 0.87, and the internal consistency reliability of the selected items was 0.78, indicating that the reliability of the scale meets the psychometric requirements.

3.1.3 Parental authority questionnaire

The Parental Authority Questionnaire, compiled by Buri in 1991, was revised into Chinese by Zhou et al., who confirmed its reliability and validity. The revised PAQ finally consists of 26 items, including 11 in the authority dimension, 10 in the autocracy dimension, and five in the laissez-faire dimension ( Shang, 2015 ). This study selected five questions from the PAQ: two in the authoritative dimension and three in the authoritarian dimension. The responses to the questionnaire ranged from very different to very agreeable, based on a five-point score. Through confirmatory factor analysis, it was found that x 2 / df  = 21.59, RMSEA = 0.20, RMR = 0.18, NFI = 0.81, RFI = 0.53, IFI = 0.82, TLI = 0.54, and CFI = 0.82, indicating that the validity of the questionnaire met the requirements of psychometrics. The reliability of internal consistency in the authoritative dimension was 0.77, and that in the authoritarian dimension was 0.48.

3.1.4 Self-administered child behavior problem scales

The CBCL scale, developed by Achenbach and Edelbrock in 1976, was revised in 1983 as the Child Behavior Scale for Parents. This scale is used to rate children’s behavioral, emotional, and social competence ( Rey et al., 1992 ). Moreover, the scale is widely revised and used by Chinese authors ( Huang et al., 2022b ). In our study, the self-made Child Behavior Problem Scale was subjected to a validated factor analysis, RMR = 0.09, NFI = 0.94, IFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.94, GFI = 0.96, AGFI = 0.89, Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) <0.1, Normed Fit Index (NFI) >0.9, Incremental Fit Index (IFI) >0.9, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > 0.9, Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) > 0.9, Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) close to 0.9, and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) close to 0.9. The scale meets the validity requirements of psychometrics. The self-administered behavioral scales in this study refer to the Achenbach Child Behavior Scale (CBCL).

3.2 Research object

The participants in this survey were parents of students (children and youth aged 6–18 years) in Hubei Province. We divided them into three groups according to their children’s school age. A total of 10,441 questionnaires were collected. A true understanding of the problems in home education and parents’ confusion in home education is a prerequisite for providing targeted advice and assistance to parents. Based on this starting point, we conducted a more comprehensive analysis of the administrative planning of Hubei Province and thoroughly pre-planned the representativeness of the sample. In addition, it was estimated that a large sample provides more analyzable space for our study as the problems faced by families in different geographical areas may not be identical. Therefore, to create a sample representative of Hubei Province, the sample extended across all cities and states in Hubei Province, radiating to both rural and urban areas. To conduct the survey, we first selected schools based on their distribution across Hubei Province—specifically, we selected primary and secondary rural and urban schools that were representative of the southeast, northwest, and north of the province. We then contacted teachers in the selected schools and, through the teachers, created balanced samples of students and parents in all grades. Next, we asked each teacher to encourage approximately 300 parents to complete the questionnaire. The parents completed the questionnaires online. The characteristics of the sample are listed in Table 1 .

Table 1 . Basic information derived from the sample.

3.3 Data object

SPSS23.0 and AMOS23.0 were used to analyze the data. SPSS23.0 was used for conducting descriptive statistical analysis and the PROCESS macro program was used to test the mediating and moderating effects. After the normality test, it was found that the skewness value of educational anxiety data = 0.071 (standard error 0.105), Z-score = 0.671, kurtosis value = 0.127 (standard error = 0.210), and Z-score = 0.666. The Z-score were all between ±1.96, which conformed to the normal distribution. This study establishes a model with educational anxiety as the independent variable, child behavioral problems as the dependent variable, parent–child conflict as the mediating variable, and authoritative parenting style as the moderating variable to explore the relationship between authoritative parenting style, educational anxiety, parent–child conflict, and child behavioral problems.

This study utilized anonymous measurements, reversed scores on certain items, and employed other measures to account for common method deviations. Harman’s single-factor test was used to test the common method deviations of the collected data. Six factors with characteristic roots greater than one were extracted from the rotational exploratory factor analysis results, and the maximum factor variance explanation rate was 23.97%. More than one factor had a characteristic root greater than 1, and the maximum factor variance was less than 40%; therefore, there was no serious common method deviation.

Table 2 shows that the average parent–child relationship score was 4.32. Taking the theoretical median of 3.5 as the reference point, the single sample T-test showed a significant difference between the parent–child relationship score and the median ( t  = 86.447, p  < 0.001), indicating that the parent–child relationship was significantly higher than the theoretical median level. Average intimacy was 4.41 ( t  = 99.984, p  < 0.001) and average conflict was 2.74 ( t  = −81.911, p  < 0.001), indicating that most parent–child relationships are more intimate than conflictual. Regarding educational anxiety, the average value was 2.91. Taking the theoretical median value of 3 as the reference point, the single sample T-test showed a significant difference between the educational anxiety score and the theoretical median value ( t  = −11.902, p  < 0.001), indicating that overall educational anxiety was significantly lower than the theoretical median value.

Table 2 . Educational anxiety, parent–child relationship, and child behavioral problems.

Moreover, the standard deviation of 0.75 showed that the level of educational anxiety was discrete; that is, the level of educational anxiety significantly varied. The average academic achievement anxiety was 3.28, significantly higher than the theoretical median ( t  = 31.186, p  < 0.001). Meanwhile, the average non-academic achievement anxiety was 2.62, significantly lower than the theoretical median ( t  = −49.138, p  < 0.001). These results suggest that parents were concerned about their children’s achievements and had educational anxiety. The average score for child behavioral problems was significantly lower than the theoretical median ( t  = −95.174, p  < 0.001), suggesting that the participants did not have children with very serious behavioral problems. The authoritative parenting style was significantly higher than the theoretical median ( t  = −80.938, p  < 0.001), indicating that most participants had authoritative parenting styles ( Table 2 ).

Statistical analysis revealed that child’s age was significantly correlated only with the parent–child relationship, which showed a low level of slippage as the child’s age increased ( r  = −0.05, p  < 0.001). There was no significant correlation between age and educational anxiety, children’s behavioral problems, and the level of parental authority in parenting; that is, parental educational anxiety, children’s behavioral problems, and the level of parental authority are not subject to change with the child’s age.

However, there were significant differences in parents’ educational anxiety, parent–child relationship, children’s behavioral problems, and the degree of authoritative parenting received with regard to children’s place of residence. Urban children were significantly better than rural students in terms of parent–child relationship ( t  = 4.88, df = 7,843, p  < 0.001), the degree of authoritative parenting received ( t  = 3.54, df = 10,436, p  < 0.001), and closeness to their parents ( t  = 3.94, df = 10,436, p  < 0.001). Rural students were significantly better than urban students in terms of educational anxiety in academics ( t  = −7.94, df = 10,436, p  < 0.001), non-academic dimensions ( t  = −8.84, df = 10,436, p  < 0.001), conflict with parents ( t  = −3.70, df = 10,436, p  < 0.001), and problematic behaviors ( t  = 5.52, df = 10,436, p  < 0.001).

We selected samples of parents from different places and age groups to study the representativeness of the samples. A present, in various regions of China, students of different ages have very similar problems. They face significant pressure to study from their parents. This situation is especially prominent in non-urban than urban regions, and this study explored the impact of such a dysfunctional parent–child relationship on children and suggested ways to cope with it.

4.1 Correlation between educational anxiety, parent–child relationship, and child behavioral problems

A Pearson correlation analysis showed that educational anxiety, the parent–child relationship, and child behavioral problems were correlated in pairs. The correlation coefficient between educational anxiety and the parent–child relationship is −0.278**, and the correlation coefficient between educational anxiety and child behavioral problems is 0.277**, indicating that educational anxiety was positively correlated with child behavioral problems; this validates Hypothesis 1—that is, it establishes that parental educational anxiety affects the behavioral problems of primary and secondary school students. Further, we also found that educational anxiety is negatively correlated with parent–child relationships; this validates Hypothesis 2—that is, it confirms that parental educational anxiety affects the quality of primary and secondary school students’ relationships with their parents. Meanwhile, the correlation coefficient between the parent–child relationship and child behavioral problems is −0.547**, indicating that the parent–child relationship is negatively correlated with child behavioral problems.

4.2 Correlations between education anxiety, parent–child relationship, and child behavioral problems across different dimensions

A Pearson’s correlation analysis showed that the correlation coefficients for each dimension of educational anxiety and child behavioral problems were 0.241** and 0.244**, respectively, revealing a significant positive correlation between each dimension of educational anxiety and child behavioral problems. The correlation coefficient between the intimacy dimension of the parent–child relationship and child behavioral problems was −0.173**, showing a significant negative correlation between these factors. The correlation coefficient between the conflict dimension of the parent–child relationship and child behavioral problems was 0.613**, showing a significant and close positive correlation between these factors; this validates Hypothesis 3—that is, it reveals that parent–child conflict can trigger behavioral problems in children. The correlation coefficients between each dimension of educational anxiety and the intimacy dimension of the parent–child relationship were − 0.073** and − 0.050**, respectively, indicating weak negative correlations. The correlation coefficients of each dimension of educational anxiety and the conflict dimension of the parent–child relationships were 0.255** and 0.233**, respectively, showing a significant positive correlation between these factors ( Table 3 ).

Table 3 . Correlations among educational anxiety, parent–child relationship, and child behavioral problems.

4.3 Testing the mediating effect of parent–child relationships

In this study, Model 4 in the PROCESS macro program was used to test the mediating effect of parent–child conflict in the relationship between educational anxiety and child behavioral problems. As Table 4 shows, educational anxiety significantly positively predicted child behavioral problems ( β  = 0.352, p  < 0.001), indicating that the greater the parents’ educational anxiety, the more serious the child’s behavioral problems are likely to be. Educational anxiety significantly positively predicted conflict ( β  = 0.342, p  < 0.001), indicating that the greater the parents’ educational anxiety, the greater the conflict between parents and children; this validates Hypothesis 4—that is, it shows that conflictual parent–child relationships mediate the association between educational anxiety and child behavior problems. When educational anxiety and parent–child conflict simultaneously predicted child behavioral problems, they both significantly positively predicted them ( β  = 0.145, p  < 0.001, β  = 0.605, p  < 0.001), indicating that conflict strongly influences child behavioral problems when educational anxiety and parent–child conflict co-exist.

Table 4 . The mediating effect of conflict between educational anxiety and child behavioral problems.

Furthermore, the bootstrap program method was used to test the mediating effect of conflict between educational anxiety and child behavioral problems. The number of repeated random samplings of bootstrap samples was set to 5,000 times. As shown in Table 5 , the direct effect value of educational anxiety on child behavioral problems is 0.145, and the 95% confidence interval is [0.125, 0.166], indicating that the direct effect is significant. The mediating effect of conflict between educational anxiety and child behavioral problems was 0.207, and the 95% confidence interval was [0.189, 0.226], with an effect size of 0.59, which showed that the mediating effect of parent–child conflict was significant. Therefore, parent–child conflict partially mediates the relationship between educational anxiety and child behavioral problems. This suggests that while educational anxiety can directly affect child behavioral problems, it can also affect them through parent–child conflicts.

Table 5 . Decomposition table of total effect, direct effect, and intermediary effect.

4.4 An adjusted mediating effect test

Model 7 (adjusted for the first half of the mediation) in the PROCESS macro program was used to test the mediated effect. As Table 6 shows, educational anxiety has a significant moderation effect on parent–child conflict ( β  = 0.335, p  < 0.001), authoritative parenting style has a significant negative predictive effect on conflict ( β  = 0.072, p  < 0.001), and the interaction between educational anxiety and authoritative parenting style has a significant predictive effect on conflict ( β  = 0.053, p  < 0.001). To clarify the essence of the interaction between educational anxiety and authoritative parenting style, authoritative parenting style was divided into high and low groups according to a standard deviation of plus or minus one, and the influence of educational anxiety on conflict at different levels of authoritative parenting style was investigated using a simple slope test. As Figure 1 shows, a low level of authoritative parenting (M-1SD) had a significant moderation effect on child behavioral problems (simple slope = 0.274, t  = 16.676, p  < 0.001). Meanwhile, a high level of authoritative parenting style (M + 1SD) had a significant moderation effect on child behavioral problems (simple slope = 0.396, t  = 25.021, p  < 0.001); this confirms Hypothesis 5—that is, it evidences that parenting styles play a moderating role in the relationship between parental educational anxiety and parent–child conflict; accordingly, parenting styles consequently affect how this relationship shapes child behavioral problems ( Figure 2 ). Although the moderation effect of educational anxiety on conflict continues to increase as the authoritative parenting style improves, the level of parent–child conflict decreases, suggesting that authoritative parenting can weaken the moderation effect of educational anxiety on parent–child conflict. Table 7 shows the results of further testing of the moderating effect of authoritative parenting style, revealing the influence of educational anxiety on child behavioral problems through parent–child conflict and the confidence interval. The mediating model constructed in this study holds an effect size of 0.22 (index = −0.032, bootstrap = 0.008, 95% CI = [0.016, 0.049]) ( Table 6 ).

Table 6 . Adjustment effect test.

Figure 1 . Moderating effect of an authoritative parenting style on the relationship between educational anxiety and parent–child conflict.

Figure 2 . Research model diagram.

Table 7 . Mediating effect of regulation.

5 Discussion

In China, regardless of the age or location of students, the primary pressure they face at home is academic achievement, and the source is their parents ( Hong and Liu, 2021 ). This study revealed the influence of educational anxiety on child behavioral problems. After adding parent–child conflict as an intermediary variable, it was found that educational anxiety not only directly affects child behavioral problems but also indirectly affects them by increasing parent–child conflict, which partially mediates their relationship.

First, the complex relationships among educational anxiety, the parent–child relationship, and child behavioral problems reveal the current state of family education in China. Most parents attach excessive importance to their children’s academic performance ( Liu G. et al., 2021 ; Chang et al., 2022 ); parents place their children’s academic performance as second in importance only to their health. Because many Chinese parents rigidly require their children to perform well academically, their children’s lives are centered on studying and are, therefore, very monotonous. When parents pass their educational anxiety on to their children, their children may experience much pressure and accordingly evaluate themselves and others based on their academic performance. Children without strong learning abilities who grow up in such an environment often feel relatively high levels of anxiety and discomfort. They may not feel that they are loved within their families. Second, the higher the parents’ educational anxiety for their children, the higher their educational requirements for their children, which increases the likelihood of creating a depressed family environment and putting children under more pressure. Eventually, these trends worsen the parent–child relationship, increase parent–child conflict, and restrict the child’s development, increasing the likelihood that the child will have behavioral problems ( Liu G. et al., 2021 ). Finally, good parent–child relationships have a long-term protective effect on child development. Authoritative parenting mediates this effect; children who grow up in a family with a positive approach to education have fewer conflicts with their parents and are less prone to behavioral problems ( Yu, 2010 ).

These findings closely relate to China’s current educational context and family education atmosphere, which may differ in other countries. First, it is notable that China has a large population, which has created intense competition for limited resources. In the Chinese context, individuals have been brought up with the idea that parents are the first persons responsible for their children’s poor educational outcomes and that their biggest failure is their own ( Xia, 2016 ). Thus, parents feel responsible for their children’s development and may become frustrated if their children are poorly educated. Therefore, it is not surprising that most families in China today expend great efforts to educate their children ( Yu et al., 2022 ).

Further, the average fertility rate of a family in China is currently under 2, which means that very few families have more than two children. The social phenomenon of childlessness determines that parents only have one chance to raise their children and do not want to see their children fail. This is one of the reasons for the serious educational anxiety behavior of Chinese parents. Additionally, the double educational elimination mechanism of the midterm and college entrance exams may cause Chinese parents to feel highly anxious about their children’s educational success. If a child fails the Secondary School Examination, they will have to work as a manual laborer and lead a hard life. If a child fails the College entrance examination, they will have no competitive edge and will not be able to find a well-paid job ( Sun, 2022 ). China’s highly competitive environment may put more pressure on parents to ensure their children are well-educated, and the anxieties related to these pressures may be passed on to their children. When parents pass their educational anxiety directly to their children, tensions can emerge in the parent–child relationship, increasing the likelihood of child behavioral problems.

Meanwhile, in countries without double educational elimination mechanisms, children may not be educationally differentiated until the university level, when they will be adults who can take responsibility for their behaviors. In such contexts, parental educational anxiety may be less intense than that observed in China. Accordingly, the process revealed in this study may not be so apparent in other cultural environments. However, because parents are naturally caught up in their children’s education by virtue of raising them, they will always have some degree of anxiety about their children’s education. Therefore, this study’s finding that the education sector can improve children’s and parent’s health and strengthen their mutual harmony by providing adequate support to parents may also be applicable in these other contexts.

The results of this study also underscore that parents should provide their children with care, understanding, support, encouragement, a suitable living environment, appropriate educational methods, and positive parenting styles. Excessive anxiety and parent–child conflicts are not conducive to healthy child development. However, there are some existing barriers to this work. Brown and Brenner’s ecosystem theory ( Strauss, 2021 ), mentioned in the introduction, maintains that an environment has a significant influence on individual development—specifically, the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and ephemeral system all influence individual development to different degrees. Considering the family educational problems in Hubei Province, the ecosystem theory suggests that we can make efforts in the following aspects. First, at the macrosystem level, we should update existing conceptions of a “successful” parent. Many parents still educate their children according to traditional methods, believing that if their children’s academic performance is excellent, nothing else requires attention—as a result, elements such as child mental health, parent–child communication, and interpersonal interactions are often neglected.

Parental leadership at the socio-cultural level is necessary. Second, at the exosystem level, the education sector should better support family education. Parents’ attitudes toward their parenting and effort levels are both exosystemic factors. Chinese parents want to guide their children’s education but also want to be guided in this work themselves. Notably, they are impatient and always hope for a one-time cure for all problems. The education department can help parents shape their children’s education by offering systematic support and targeted guidance. Third, children’s education should be actively promoted at the mesosystemic level. Effective cooperation among multiple microsystems can result in positive interactions with negative outcomes. A student’s frustration with learning in school, coupled with their parents’ scolding at home, is a classic negative interaction that can only worsen the problem. The student’s frustration in learning can be supported by warmth from their family, which can solve their behavioral problems. Fourth, at the microsystem level, guidance for children should be implemented. Families and schools are the microsystems where elementary, junior high, and secondary school students live. How parents interact with their children directly affects the atmosphere of the family system and children’s growth. When parents encourage each other in their roles in child-rearing, each one will parent more effectively. Further, when parents and children encourage each other, and teachers and students support each other, the microsystems of children’s lives are healthier.

Today, schools offer guidance by means of traditional forms of family education through home visits and parent–teacher conferences; however, it is not enough to rely solely on traditional schools to guide family education. The sampling survey and quantitative evaluation conclusions suggest that a family education guidance system could be rebuilt based on the following aspects.

5.1 Effective social supply

First, community family education service sites should be established. This study found that most parents’ problems include not knowing how to raise their children, the conflict between maternal and paternal approaches, intergenerational differences in family education, and shortcomings in the child’s psychology. By setting up community family education service sites and organizing regular parent exchange meetings, parents of different age groups can share their experiences with raising their children, learn from each other’s experiences, and continuously improve their educational methods ( Liu et al., 2022 ). Individualized activities should also be offered for families with different needs to provide them with one-on-one counseling. For example, families with intergenerational differences in family education could be offered family education guidance services to help them better understand their children and effectively co-parent; families with conflicting educational concepts could be provided with professional guidance on different parenting styles suitable for their children’s physical and mental characteristics to avoid conflicts between parents (which can affect parent–child relationships) and create a good family atmosphere.

Second, a platform for quality learning resources should be created. The data from this study show that most parents pay attention to their children’s educational information, which indicates that most parents have an awareness of learning and self-improvement. Therefore, a platform that offers data on family education services should be created to ensure that parents can personalize their learning in a targeted manner. Such a platform could use big data to provide guidance and resources according to the family environment, the child’s personality, age, and other characteristics to ensure that parents can efficiently carry out personalized learning ( Hu and Wang, 2022 ). This study found that parents in Hubei Province had relatively low levels of education; therefore, providing parents with quality learning resources can help them understand the characteristics and rules of their children’s physical and mental development and thus better promote their children’s growth.

Finally, a professional team for family education guidance services should be established. Moreover, resources should be invested in developing family education research; this work must notably consider different historical and cultural characteristics and realities, the hotspots and difficult problems common to family education, and the outstanding guidance needs of special families ( Dou and Qiao, 2023 ). This quality tripartite for family education guidance service is necessary for healthy child development.

5.2 Schools as the main source of guidance services

This study found that schools are considered the main body of family education guidance. Parents want to jointly and equally participate with schools and teachers to support their children’s education. Schools’ normative and professional nature may make family educational services more attractive to parents and society. Therefore, schools should actively provide targeted family education guidance services as needed. They should consider the diversity and specificity of family development, understand the composition of students and parents in schools, and provide individualized guidance for different types of families ( Liang and Bian, 2022 ).

First, schools should encourage parental involvement in classroom activities. This study found that parental absence is a part of family education. Parental presence is important for children’s growth, and schools should keep abreast of parental presence in each family, strengthen equal cooperation between home and school, actively carry out class activities, encourage fathers to participate in increasing father–child interaction, and help children to be responsible for their learning. Regarding schools’ roles in increasing father–child interactions, schools could, for instance, encourage students to write monthly letters to their fathers in which they may write about their feelings, offer gratitude to their fathers, discuss their disagreements with or misunderstandings of their father, or ask for help. Schools can also encourage fathers to respond to these letters.

Second, schools should train teachers in family education. Teachers have the most frequent contact with and knowledge of their students’ families; therefore, they critically possess the core competencies needed to carry out educational guidance. Teachers’ competencies in family education guidance services do not come naturally but are acquired and enhanced through various targeted training and practices. Especially in pre-service education, there are few courses related to family education in teacher training colleges and universities, so there is a greater need to strengthen long-term training for schoolteachers, especially school leaders, classroom teachers, mental health teachers, and other key family education instructors and school administrators in the post-service period ( Yang and Zeng, 2022 ).

Finally, school and community collaboration is essential. School services for family education are in their infancy in China, and it is difficult to rely on schoolteachers and internal resources alone to make a difference in the face of parents’ diverse needs and the highly specialized nature of family education guidance services. Therefore, schools must broaden their thinking, use social forces, and coordinate resources and support from all sides. On the one hand, they should integrate the resources of family education guidance services established by social organizations, such as women’s federations, and establish effective cooperation mechanisms with family education guidance centers in their regions and parent schools in their communities. On the other hand, the resources of social and professional organizations and professional institutions should be integrated to guide parents through purchasing services and conducting cooperative research to ensure the quality of family education guidance services and to broaden the types of family education guidance services ( Bian et al., 2021 ). The government should also establish an effective mechanism for cooperation with schools.

5.3 Breaking through family dilemmas

The study’s results suggest that a strong family education guidance system would be needed to break through family dilemmas. First, the system should help families create a good family atmosphere. This study found that only a small number of parents thought that their children were receiving a good family education; most of them felt that they might need more social support from their schools to realize an ideal level of family education and an ideal atmosphere in which their children could be educated at home. Therefore, when providing family education guidance services, it is necessary to provide more social support and actively help parents create a positive family atmosphere.

Second, it will also be important to increase Parent–child intimacy through emotional companionship. On the one hand, parents should be more involved in their children’s daily activities, understand their children’s emotional needs, and take them to parent–child activities and sports activities as much as possible so that their children can feel their love and care. On the other hand, the government and community should promote theoretical knowledge and practical training on parental emotional support in family education. Parents with low income and education levels should be given more support and assistance, especially in rural areas. Family guidance can be flexibly used by parents with educational experience.

Finally, appropriate parenting styles can improve parent–child conflict. This study found that children who grew up with positive family values had fewer parent–child conflicts and were less likely to have behavioral problems. An authoritative parenting style can actively create an atmosphere of love, respect, and equality for their children and minimize such conflicts; therefore, parents should consider adopting this style. Parents should also keep abreast of national policies, establish correct educational concepts, reduce anxiety, and calmly communicate with their children. At the same time, parents should be offered guidelines on restricting and supervising their children’s activities and behaviors to prevent them from developing behavioral problems. Children’s sense of self-determination and individuality should be nurtured through warm, reasoned, and democratic communication to promote healthy development. Family education supply and demand should match, and the supply of family education guidance services should respond to the demand for family education guidance in a modernized context. It will be necessary to fully consider children’s learning needs and characteristics and provide targeted educational services. Families, schools, the government, and society should work together to build a family education guidance service system so that children can grow up well in an ideal family.

5.4 Contributions

This study contributes to existing knowledge through its research method, sample quantity, sample quality, breadth and depth, and practical value. First, this was a mixed qualitative and quantitative study. We used qualitative interviews to discover the real problems in Chinese family education and then used quantitative methods to reveal the average level and the relationship between various variables—the research both came from life and applied to life. Second, this study had a large sample size, showing the current family education situation in Hubei Province. Studying the demand for family education in the province and the current situation provides empirical support for best practices for family education in Hubei Province. Specifically, it yields practical suggestions and countermeasures to improve family education: country, society, and family.

5.5 Directions for future research

Research on the status of family education should move away from the self-statement scale approach. Regarding the current situation of family education, a direct questionnaire survey of parents may clarify results that may have been distorted due to various factors like social factors. Furthermore, interviews with children, teachers, and other stakeholders can deepen our understanding of family education.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Hubei University of Education of China. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

LS: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AL: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MC: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft. LL: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Supervision, Writing – original draft. YZ: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AZ: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. PH: Data curation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research was supported by grants from the Hubei Teacher Education Research Center (jsjy202201).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Editage ( www.editage.cn ) for English language editing.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Achenbach, T. M., and Edelbrock, C. S. (1978). The classification of child psychopathology: a review and analysis of empirical efforts. Psychol. Bull. 85, 1275–1301. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.85.6.1275

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Akin, U. (2020). Parent–child conflict as a mediator between parental attachment styles and adolescents’ depressive symptoms. J. Child Fam. Stud. 29, 1769–1777.

Google Scholar

Alharbi, K. A., and Al-Khateeb, F. A. (2020). Academic procrastination, parental control, and psychological well-being of undergraduate students in Saudi Arabia: a moderated mediation analysis. Curr. Psychol. 39, 1209–1217.

American Psychological Association (2015). Guidelines for psychological practice with transgender and gender nonconforming people. Available at: https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf (Accessed June 2, 2023).

Australian Government (2022). National Education Guidelines . Canberra: Department of Education and Training.

Baucom, K. J., Hahlweg, K., Atkins, D. C., and Eldridge, K. A. (2021). Enhancing the quality of parent–child relationships: a randomized controlled trial. J. Fam. Psychol. 35, 33–43.

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Dev. 37, 887–907. doi: 10.2307/1126611

Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genet. Psychol. Monogr. 75, 43–88.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Dev. Psychol. 4, 1–103. doi: 10.1037/h0030372

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. J. Early Adolesc. 11, 56–95. doi: 10.1177/0272431691111004

Bayer, J. K., Sanson, A. V., and Hemphill, S. A. (2006). Parent influences on early childhood internalizing difficulties. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 27, 542–6559. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2006.08.002

Beelmann, A., and Lösel, F. (2021). A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Randomized Evaluations of the Effect of Child Social Skills Training on Antisocial Development. J Dev Life Course Criminology 7, 41–65. doi: 10.1007/s40865-020-00142-8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: a process model. Child Dev. 55, 83–96. doi: 10.2307/1129836

Bernardes, J. (1999). We must not define “the family”! Marriage Family Rev. 28, 21–41. doi: 10.1300/J002v28n03_03

Bian, Y., Yuan, K., and Zhang, X. (2021). The current situation, challenges and policy analysis of the school-based family education guidance service system in China: results of a survey in nine provinces (cities). Chin. Educ. J. 12, 22–27.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory . Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Chang, Y., Guo, F., and Chen, Z. (2022). The influence of parents’ irrational beliefs on pupils’ behavior problems: the multiple mediating effects of parents’ anxiety and psychological control. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 30, 397–402. doi: 10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611

Chen, H. Z., and Xiao, W. (2014). The phenomenon of “education anxiety” among Chinese parents. J. Natl Acad. Educ. Admin. 2, 18–23.

Conger, R. D., and Donnellan, M. B. (2021). An interactionist perspective on family relationships and adolescent development. Dev. Psychol. 57, 165–177.

Cox, M. J., and Paley, B. (2003). Understanding families as systems. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 12, 193–196. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.01259

Danisworo, D. L., and Wangid, M. N. (2022). The influence of family harmony and emotional regulation ability on juvenile delinquency. Eur. J. Edu. Studies 9, 2501–1111. doi: 10.46827/ejes.v9i6.4315

Darling, N., and Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: an integrative model. Psychol. Bull. 113, 487–496. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487

Davies, P. T., and Martin, M. J. (2021). Understanding parent–child conflict: contributions from neurobiology and attachment research. Fam. Process 60, 375–392.

Ding, Y., and Xue, H. (2022). The current situation, characteristics and influencing factors of parents’ educational anxiety—an empirical study based on 35, 162 parents. J. Cap. Norm. Univ. 5, 145–156.

Dou, Y., and Qiao, D. (2023). Top-level design and implementation of family education guidance service system under “homeschool-society synergy”. Chin. J. Educ. 357:34-39 + 74.

Ermer, E., Cope, L. M., Nyalakanti, P. K., Calhoun, V. D., and Kiehl, K. A. (2013). Aberrant paralimbic gray matter in incarcerated male adolescents with psychopathic traits. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psych. 52, 94–103.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2012.10.013

Fang, Y., Zhang, W., and Chen, X. (2018). Parent–child conflict mediates the relationship between parenting stress and child behavior problems: a longitudinal study of Chinese families. J. Fam. Psychol. 32, 116–126.

Farooq, M. S., and Awan, M. A. (2021). Role of authoritative parenting style in reducing cyberbullying among adolescents: moderating effect of gender. J. Child Fam. Stud. 30, 1550–1561.

Furman, W., and Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Dev. Psychol. 21, 1016–1024. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.21.6.1016

Gao, S., and Bian, Y. (2023). A study on the construction of a four-level system of family education guidance services in the new era - an organizational framework for Chinese-style family education guidance services. Edu. Devel. Res. 6, 18–25. doi: 10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2023.06.010

Gao, Y., Hu, J., Zhou, L., and Tu, S. (2023). The relationship between parenting anxiety and adolescent emotional and behavioral problems: the mediating role of negative parenting styles. Appl. Psychol. 1, 80–88. doi: 10.20058/j.cnki.cjap.022012

Garcia Yeste, C., Morlà Folch, T., and Ionescu, V. (2018). Dreams of higher education in the Mediterranean school system through family education. Front. Educ. 3:79. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2018.00079

General Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China (2021). Guiding opinions on strengthening and improving mental health services for minors . Beijing: General Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China.

Han, B., and Zhang, L. (2015). The effect of educational expansion on juvenile delinquency. J. Northeast Normal Univ. 2, 43–48. doi: 10.16164/j.cnki.22-1062/c.2015.02.009

Harold, G. T., and Sellers, R. (2018). Annual research review: interparental conflict and youth psychopathology: an evidence review and practice focused update. J. Child Psychol. Psych. 59, 374–402. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12893

Haßler, B., Major, L., and Hennessy, S. (2020). Learner-generated content: a framework to promote educational equity? J. Learn. Dev. 7, 67–79.

Havigerová, J. M., Haviger, J., and Truhlářová, Z. (2013). Teacher’s subjective definition of family. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 106, 2507–2515. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.288

Hayek, J., Schneider, F., Lahoud, N., Tueni, M., and de Vries, H. (2022). Authoritative parenting stimulates academic achievement, also partly via self-efficacy and intention towards getting good grades. Plos one 17:e0265595. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265595

Hong, X., and Liu, Q. (2021). Parenting stress, social support, and parenting self-efficacy in Chinese families: does the number of children matter? Early Child Dev. Care 191, 2269–2280. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2019.1702036

Hossain, Z., and Roopnarine, J. L. (2020). Parenting stress and practices among immigrant parents: the role of acculturation and perceptions of school climate. J. Child Fam. Stud. 29, 1033–1042.

Hu, J., and Wang, X. (2022). The legal framework and implementation path of family education: a study on the needs of family education in China. J. Beijing Admin. Coll. 2022, 104–112. doi: 10.16365/j.cnki.11-4054/d.2022.03.013

Huang, D., Huang, Z. M., and Fu, G.-L. (2022b). Analysis of factors influencing parents’ willingness to provide family education guidance for primary and secondary school students: an ordered multicategorical logistic regression model. J. Contin. High. Educ. 35, 66–73.

Huang, D., Huang, Z., Fu, G., and Ma, M. (2022a). Analysis of parents’ family education guidance needs and suggestions for countermeasures under the background of “double reduction”. J. Hunan Radio Telev. Univ. 3, 30–39. doi: 10.19785/j.cnki.hnddxb.2022.03.004

Huang, Y., Liu, J., Xu, Y., Wang, X., Guo, L., and Gao, F. (2022). A study of the Achenbach child behavior scale (CBCL) in children with autism spectrum disorders. Chinese J. Soc. Med. 5, 571–575.

Ingoldsby, E. M., Shaw, D. S., and Garcia, M. M. (2001). Intrafamily conflict in relation to boys’ adjustment at school. Dev. Psychopathol. 13, 35–52. doi: 10.1017/S0954579401001031

Kim, E. Y., Cho, S., and Kim, M. (2020). Korean mothers’ parenting style and self-efficacy on child-rearing: a moderated mediation model. Child Youth Serv. Rev. 114:105030

Kim, S. Y., and Kim, S. Y. (2022). Bidirectionality between parent–child conflict and adolescent problem behaviors: a longitudinal study of Korean adolescents. J. Adolesc. 96, 138–147.

Kim, E. M., and Lee, J. (2022). Parent–child conflict mediates the relationship between academic anxiety and behavioral problems in preschoolers. J. Child Fam. Stud. 31, 83–92.

Kim, S., Lee, J., and Lee, H. (2020). Parental involvement and children’s academic achievement in South Korea: focusing on the mediating roles of academic motivation and self-regulation. Early Child Dev. Care 190, 434–447.

Laursen, B., Coy, K. C., and Collins, W. A. (2021). “Adolescent-parent conflict: an overview of current research” in Handbook of adolescent psychology . eds. R. M. Lerner and L. Steinberg (Hoboken: Wiley), 123–152.

Lawrence, P. J., Murayama, K., and Creswell, C. (2019). Systematic review and meta-analysis: anxiety and depressive disorders in offspring of parents with anxiety disorders. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psych. 58, 46–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2018.07.898

Lee, S. J., Daniels, M. H., and Shin, J. (2020). Understanding Korean American parents’ involvement in their children’s education and psychological well-being: the role of acculturation, parental educational expectations, and parent–child relationships. J. Adolesc. Res. 35, 267–294.

Lee, E. H., Grogan-Kaylor, A., and Berger, L. M. (2022). Parenting practices and child behavior problems in kindergarten: mediating and moderating effects of parent–child relationship quality. Child Youth Serv. Rev. 133:105398

Liang, L., and Bian, H. (2022). How to improve the effectiveness of family education guidance services in primary and secondary schools?—based on a study of 113 counties in 9 provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities) in China. J. Chin. Educ. 12, 34–39.

Ling, F., Li, G. C., Zhang, J. R., Pi, D. D., and Lai, R. (2018). Parent–child relationships and school bullying among elementary school students: the mediating role of self-sustaining behaviors. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 26, 1178–1181. doi: 10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2018.06.027

Liu, S., Bai, Y., Jiang, M., and Ma, D. (2022). A study on the demand for family education guidance service for parents of junior high school students. Tibet Educ. 6, 43–46.

Liu, G., Ma, S., Li, J., and Zhan, W. (2021). Study on the influence of parent–child relationship on children’s behavior development. Surv. Educ. 10, 85–87. doi: 10.16070/J.CNKI.CN45-1388/G4S.2008

Liu, J., and Meng, H.-M. (2009). On Bronfenbrenner’s ecosystem theory of developmental psychology. China J. Health Psychol. 17, 250–252. doi: 10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2009.02.045

Liu, X., Wang, J., Li, Y., Liu, X., and Li, X. (2021). Parental psychological control and educational anxiety among Chinese adolescents: the mediating role of parent–child conflict. Front. Psychol. 12:663726. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.790923

Luan, W. J., Lu, H. H., Tong, Y. L., and Lv, D. (2013). The influence of family relationships on the mental health of migrant children. Presch. Educ. Res. 2, 27–36. doi: 10.13861/j.cnki.sece.2013.02.002

Mellon, R. C., and Moutavelis, A. G. (2011). Parental educational practices in relation to children’s anxiety disorder-related behavior. J. Anx. Dis. 25, 829–834. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.04.003

Minuchin, S. (2017). Families and family therapy . New York: Routledge.

National Association of School Psychologists (2018). Addressing student social, emotional, and behavioral health through a multi-tiered system of support. Available at: https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resources/school-safety-and-crisis/multi-tiered-systems-of-support/addressing-student-social,-emotional,-and-behavioral-health-through-multi-tiered-systems-of-support (Accessed June 1, 2023).

Ontario Ministry of Education (2018). Policy statement on homeschooling. Available at: https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/extra/eng/ppm/131.html (Accessed June 1, 2023).

Qiang, Y. (2021). Family education legislation should emphasize the “enhancement of family education capacity”. J. Edu. Sci. Hunan Normal Univ. 3, 55–63. doi: 10.19503/j.cnki.1671-6124.2021.03.007

Rey, J. M., Schrader, E., and Morris-Yates, A. (1992). Parent-child agreement on children’s behaviours reported by the child behaviour checklist (CBCL). J. Adolesc. 15, 219–230. doi: 10.1016/0140-1971(92)90026-2

Robinson, K. E., and Hoyt, L. T. (2021). Parent–child relationship quality and adolescent problem behaviors: the mediating roles of self-esteem and depression. J. Adolesc. 91, 78–89.

Scharf, M., and Mayseless, O. (2021). Parental academic involvement, academic anxiety, and children’s social skills: a longitudinal study from early childhood to adolescence. J. Educ. Psychol. 113, 434–449.

Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Braungart-Rieker, J. M., and Stansbury, K. (2020). “Parent–child relationships” in Handbook of life course health development . eds. C. B. Forrest, N. Halfon, and R. M. Lerner (New York: Springer), 295–310.

Shang, B. (2015). The application of parental authority questionnaire in health field . Wuhan: Wuhan Institute of Physical Education.

Shumow, L., Vandell, D. L., and Posner, J. K. (2020). Parents’ educational expectations and children’s academic achievement: a cross-cultural perspective. Parent. Sci. Pract. 20, 281–300.

Skibbe, L. E., Thompson, S. F., Downer, J. T., and Justice, L. M. (2021). Parent–child conflict and children’s behavior regulation in the preschool classroom. Early Child Res. Q. 54, 22–32.

Strauss, G. P. (2021). A bioecosystem theory of negative symptoms in schizophrenia. Front. Psych. 12:655471. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.655471

Sun, J. (2022). A study of the relationship between parenting styles, self-esteem, sense of meaning in life, and academic engagement among high school students. Master’s thesis . [Harbin (Heilongjiang)]: Harbin Normal University.

Tudge, J. R., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B. E., and Karnik, R. B. (2009). Uses and misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. J. Fam. Theory Rev. J . 1, 198–210.

U.K. Government (1996). Education act 1996 . London: The Stationery Office.

United Nations (1989). Convention on the rights of the child . New York: United Nations.

Walsh, F. (2016). Family resilience: a framework for clinical practice. Fam. Process 42, 1–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2003.00001.x

Wang, M., Guo, J., and Chen, Q. (2022). Parental academic pressure and children’s behavioral and emotional problems: the mediating roles of parental autonomy support and children’s self-control. J. Child Fam. Stud. 31, 72–84.

Wang, Y., and Zhou, H. (2022). The moderating role of authoritative parenting style in the relationship between parental academic expectations and adolescent academic achievement: a meta-analysis. J. Adolesc. 96, 161–170.

Wu, X., Li, M., and Wang, T. (2022). The relationship between parental academic pressure and students’ academic anxiety in China: a cross-sectional study. Front. Psychol. 13:804.

Xia, Y. (2016). “Parental responsibility” in the perspective of comparative law. Northern Law J. 1, 25–34. doi: 10.13893/j.cnki.bffx.2016.01.003

Xu, W. W. (2022). The influence of parent–child games on pupils’ problem behaviors: The mediating role of parent–child relationship [dissertation] . [Guangzhou (Guangdong)]: Sun Yat-sen University.

Xu, Y., Farver, J. A., Zhang, Z., and Zeng, Q. (2019). Parent–child relationships and social-emotional development in Chinese preschoolers: the moderating role of parenting stress. J. Child Fam. Stud. 28, 2760–2772.

Yang, Y., and Xia, M. (2018). Reasonable educational anxiety can promote children’s learning and development. Int. J. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 5, 41–44.

Yang, W., and Zeng, B. (2022). Research on the construction of a professional team of family education guidance services: based on the law of the People’s Republic of China on the promotion of family education. J. Chengdu Norm. Coll. 38, 7–12.

Yin, X., Liu, Y. C., Zhang, H., and Tu, W. T. (2022). Parental expectation bias and educational anxiety. Youth Stud. 1:40-48 + 95.

Yin, H.-B., Wang, K.-T., and Zheng, X.-P. (2021). Parental emotional support and conflict management in the relationship between parental educational expectations and adolescents’ academic achievement: a moderated mediation model of educational anxiety and parent-adolescent conflict. J. Child Fam. Stud. 30, 814–826. doi: 10.1007/s10826-020-01886-6

Yu, X. (2010). Study on behavior problems and influencing factors of primary school students [dissertation] . [Wuhan (Hubei)]: Huazhong University of Science and Technology.

Yu, S., Zheng, J., Xu, Z., and Zhang, T. (2022). The transformation of parents’ perception of education involution under the background of “double reduction” policy: the mediating role of education anxiety and perception of education equity. Front. Psychol. 13:800039. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.800039

Zhang, G. (2022). On the order-supporting function of family education: a theoretical investigation from the traditional Chinese family training. J. East China Univ. Pol. Sci. Law. 25, 18–27.

Zhong, X., Wang, Y., and Qian, M. (2021). Parental academic pressure and children’s depressive symptoms: the mediating role of academic stress and the gender differences. Child Youth Serv. Rev. 120:105842

Zhou, Shiyi. (2022). Research on optimization strategy of family education guidance service system in primary and secondary schools in the new era [D]. East China Normal University . doi: 10.27149/d.cnki.ghdsu.2022.002436

Zu, J., Yang, W., Zhou, T., Teng, W., and But, F. (2022). The influence of parents’ bowing behavior on children’s problem behavior: a moderating mediation model. Presch. Educ. Res. 6, 34–48. doi: 10.13861/j.cnki.sece.2022.06.013

Keywords: authoritative parenting style, educational anxiety, parent–child relationship, behavioral problems, adolescents

Citation: Sun L, Li A, Chen M, Li L, Zhao Y, Zhu A and Hu P (2024) Mediating and moderating effects of authoritative parenting styles on adolescent behavioral problems. Front. Psychol . 15:1336354. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1336354

Received: 13 November 2023; Accepted: 05 January 2024; Published: 01 February 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Sun, Li, Chen, Li, Zhao, Zhu and Hu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Ao Li, [email protected]

† These authors share first authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Authoritative Parenting Characteristics and Effects

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

• Characteristics
• Authoritative vs. Authoritarian
• Why It Works

Authoritative parenting is characterized by reasonable demands and high responsiveness. While authoritative parents might have high expectations for their children, they also give them the resources and support they need to succeed.

Parents who exhibit this style listen to their kids and provide love and warmth in addition to limits and fair discipline . This approach to parenting avoids punishment and threats and instead relies on strategies such as positive reinforcement .

Press Play for Advice On Raising Resilient Children

Hosted by therapist Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of The Verywell Mind Podcast , featuring actress Cobie Smulders, shares how to raise resilient kids. Click below to listen now.

Follow Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts

Brief History

During the 1960s, developmental psychologist Diana Baumrind described three different types of parenting styles : authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive. These types were based on her research with preschool-age children.  

The authoritative parenting style is sometimes referred to as "democratic." It involves a child-centric approach in which parents hold high expectations for their children backed by support and guidance.

Traditionally, the authoritative parenting style has been identified as the most effective and helpful to a child; research suggests that parents should flexibly deploy parenting techniques based on their personal goals and the unique behaviors of each child.  

What's Your Parenting Style?

This fast and free parenting styles quiz can help you analyze the methods you're using to parent your kids and whether or not it may be a good idea to learn some new parenting behaviors:

Characteristics of Authoritative Parenting

According to Baumrind, authoritative parents share some common characteristics. Traits they exhibit include:

• Administering fair and consistent discipline when rules are broken
• Allowing their children to express opinions
• Encouraging their children to discuss options
• Expressing warmth and nurturing
• Fostering independence and reasoning
• Listening to their children
• Placing limits, consequences, and expectations on their children's behavior

While the expectations of authoritative parents are high, these kinds of parents also tend to be flexible. If there are extenuating circumstances, authoritative parents will adjust their response accordingly.

Parents with this style are able to adjust and adapt their approach depending on the situation, their child's needs, and other factors that may be present. Discipline, then, takes into account all variables, including the child’s behavior, the situation, and so on.

Authoritative vs. Authoritarian Styles

These characteristics can be contrasted with the authoritarian parenting style , which is characterized by exceedingly high expectations with little warmth and guidance.

Commanding but supportive

Focused on reinforcing desirable behaviors

Provides structure, guidelines, and expectations

Significant involvement in a child's life

Strict and unsupportive

Focused on punishing mistakes

Rules that are often harshly enforced

Little involvement in a child's life

For example, imagine a situation where two young boys steal candy from the grocery store. How each boy's parents deal with the situation characterizes the differences between these parenting styles.

Authoritative Parents

When the boy with authoritative parents finally arrives home, he receives a fair punishment that fits the nature of the transgression. An example of how authoritative parenting might look in this situation:

• He is grounded for two weeks and must return the candy and apologize to the store owner.
• His parents talk to him about why stealing is wrong.
• His parents are supportive and encourage him not to engage in such behavior again.

Authoritarian Parents

The other boy has authoritarian parents, so his consequences look quite different. An example of how authoritarian parenting might look in this circumstance:

• When he arrives home, he is yelled at by both parents.
• His father spanks him.
• His father orders him to spend the rest of the night in his room without dinner.

The child with authoritative parents was disciplined but with support and guidance for encouraging the desired future behavior. On the other hand, the child with authoritarian parents was not given support or love and received no feedback or guidance about why the theft was wrong.

Effects of Authoritative Parenting

In the past, child development experts influenced by Baumrind's work generally identified the authoritative parenting style as the best approach to parenting.

Research has repeatedly shown that children raised by authoritative parents tend to be more capable, happy, and successful.

According to Baumrind, children of authoritative parents:

• Are self-confident about their abilities to learn new things
• Develop good social skills
• Have good emotional control and regulation
• Tend to have happier dispositions

Research suggests that authoritative parenting is associated with better:

• Life satisfaction among teens and young adults
• Problem-solving abilities 
• Self-esteem
• Emotional regulation
• Self-reliance
• Relationships
• Self-confidence

While authoritative parenting is often viewed as the most effective approach, it is important to recognize that various factors play a role in developmental outcomes.

Why Authoritative Parenting Works

Authoritative parents act as role models and exhibit the same behaviors they expect from their children. Because of this, their kids are more likely to internalize these behaviors and exhibit them as well. Consistent rules and discipline also allow children to know what to expect.

These parents tend to exhibit good emotional understanding and control. Their children also learn to manage their emotions and learn to understand others.

Authoritative parents also allow children to act independently. This freedom teaches kids that they are capable of accomplishing things on their own, helping to foster strong self-esteem and self-confidence.

Some parents are naturally more authoritative than authoritarian or permissive . However, this doesn't mean that you cannot adopt a more authoritative style, even though it is not your natural default.

Attempting to moderate your parenting style may mean that you will have to remain mindful of your actions while you work to develop the habits of an authoritative parenting style. 

How to Be an Authoritative Parent

If you are interested in becoming a more authoritative parent, there are some things you can do that may help. It can be helpful to view this parenting style as a balance between discipline, emotional control, and allowing independence.

• Set rules and communicate the guidelines, boundaries, and expectations for behavior.
• Establish consequences when rules are violated and follow through when expectations are not met.
• Be compassionate , warm, empathetic, and supportive of your child. 
• Focus on building a strong, supportive relationship with your child rather than controlling everything that they do.
• Encourage your child to be independent and allow them to experience the natural consequences of their actions.

Try not to be too harsh or too lenient. You can start by letting your child make more decisions and have regular discussions about those choices. This parenting method will become more natural with time, attention, and flexibility to your child's needs.

A Word From Verywell

Authoritative parenting is often regarded as the ideal parenting style. It is important to recognize, however, that your own style might be a mix of different styles and your style may differ from that of your partner or co-parent. Even if authoritative parenting doesn't immediately come naturally to you, there are strategies you can u

Baumrind D. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior . Genetic Psychology Monographs . 1967:75(1):43-88.

Smetana JG. Current research on parenting styles, dimensions, and beliefs . Curr Opin Psychol . 2017;15:19-25. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.02.012

Sege RD, Siegel BS. Effective discipline to raise healthy children . Pediatrics . 2018;142(6). doi:10.1542/peds.2018-3112

Kuppens S, Ceulemans E. Parenting styles: a closer look at a well-known concept .  J Child Fam Stud . 2019;28(1):168-181. doi:10.1007/s10826-018-1242-x

Lau EYH, Power TG. Coparenting, parenting stress, and authoritative parenting among Hong Kong Chinese mothers and fathers . Parenting . 2020;20(3):167-176. doi:10.1080/15295192.2019.1694831

Macmull MS, Ashkenazi S. Math anxiety: The relationship between parenting style and math self-efficacy .  Front Psychol . 2019;10:1721. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01721

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Population Study Article
• Open access
• Published: 05 June 2024

Associations between media parenting practices and early adolescent screen use

• Jason M. Nagata   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6541-0604 1 ,
• Angel Paul 1 ,
• Felicia Yen 1 ,
• Zacariah Smith-Russack 1 ,
• Iris Yuefan Shao 1 ,
• Abubakr A. A. Al-shoaibi 1 ,
• Kyle T. Ganson 2 ,
• Alexander Testa 3 ,
• Orsolya Kiss 4 ,
• Jinbo He 5 &
• Fiona C. Baker 4 , 6  

Pediatric Research ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

To assess the prevalence of various media parenting practices and identify their associations with early adolescent screen time and problematic social media, video game, and mobile phone use.

Cross-sectional data from Year 3 of the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study (2019–2022) that included 10,048 adolescents (12–13 years, 48.3% female, 45.6% racial/ethnic minorities) in the US were analyzed using multiple linear regression analyses adjusting for potential confounders.

Parent screen use, family mealtime screen use, and bedroom screen use were associated with greater adolescent screen time and problematic social media, video game, and mobile phone use. Parental use of screens to control behavior (e.g., as a reward or punishment) was associated with higher screen time and greater problematic video game use. Parental monitoring of screens was associated with lower screen time and less problematic social media and mobile phone use. Parental limit setting of screens was associated with lower screen time and less problematic social media, video game, and mobile phone use.

Parent screen use, mealtime screen use, and bedroom screen use were associated with higher adolescent problematic screen use and could be limited in a family media use plan. Parental monitoring and limiting of screen time are associated with less problematic screen use.

Impact statement

Although the American Academy of Pediatrics provides guidance for screen use for children 5–18 years, there is a paucity of evidence-based guidance for media parenting practices, specifically for early adolescents.

In a diverse sample of 10,048 early adolescents across the US, we found cross-sectional associations between parent, mealtime, and bedroom screen use and higher adolescent problematic screen use.

Parental monitoring and limiting of adolescent screen time were cross-sectionally associated with less problematic screen use in our analytic sample and may be incorporated into a family media use plan.

Similar content being viewed by others

Screen media exposure in the first 2 years of life and preschool cognitive development: a longitudinal study

A novel, composite measure of screen-based media use in young children (ScreenQ) and associations with parenting practices and cognitive abilities

Associations of media use and early childhood development: cross-sectional findings from the LIFE Child study

Introduction.

In this era of technology and digital media, there has been growing concern surrounding the effects of screen use behaviors in children and adolescents. Examples of screen-based technology and digital media include, but are not limited to, social media, video games, and mobile phones. Social media consists of technologies and digital media that facilitate the creation, sharing, and exchange of information, ideas, and multimedia content. 1 Social networks are a specific type of social media that focuses on building and connecting communities of people through profiles, and sharing content. 1 Excessive screen use in children and adolescents has been linked to mental and physical health problems, obesity, sedentary behaviors, and sleep difficulties. 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 As parents play key roles during childhood and adolescence, child-parent relationships, parenting styles, and home environments have been identified as factors that may contribute to children’s screen use patterns. 6 , 7 In general, greater parental monitoring has been associated with less total screen time in children 8 and adolescents. 9

Given the evolving landscape of digital technology, it is important to investigate how parenting approaches specific to technology use (termed ‘media parenting practices’) influence children’s screen use. 10 It remains unclear whether or not media parenting practices have significant effects on children’s screen time and screen use behaviors as previous studies have had small sample sizes or mixed findings. 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 Of the existing literature on media parenting practices, a majority have been studied in infants 14 and younger children 6 , 8 , 10 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 with fewer studies focusing exclusively on early adolescents, which have revealed that parental regulation or rules of screen use have been associated with less adolescent screen time, or decreased likelihood of exceeding recommended screen time limits. 12 , 21 , 22 However, some existing evidence points to weaker associations between media parenting practices and screen time for those in middle childhood and adolescence compared to those in early childhood. 23 , 24 Early adolescence is a developmental period characterized by a desire for greater independence, which can lead to shifting parent-adolescent relationships. 24 , 25 Despite these changes, parental figures continue to play crucial roles in adolescent development, as decreased parental monitoring has been associated with alcohol use, binge drinking, and marijuana use. 26 Given that screen time has been found to increase in adolescence 23 and smartphone/Internet engagement is thought to disproportionately impact early adolescents, 27 it is critical to understand how media parenting practices influence screen use behaviors in this age cohort.

One prior study developed a questionnaire to measure specific media parenting practices, including screen time modeling (e.g., parents’ own screen use behaviors), mealtime screen use, bedroom screen use, using screens to control behavior (e.g., offering screen time as a reward for good behavior), monitoring screen time, and limiting screen time. 10 However, this study was cross-sectional among 62 children (1.5–5 years old) and their parents in Guelph and Wellington County, Ontario, Canada. 10 Therefore, understanding the prevalence of media parenting practices at a larger scale and for parents of adolescents remains an important gap in the literature.

Beyond screen time, it is of value to assess the associations of parenting practices with problematic screen use, as parental attitudes towards adolescents and screen use have been found to be risk factors for problematic Internet use. 28 Problematic screen use can be characterized by addiction-like traits such as tolerance (e.g., feeling the need to use more and more), relapse (e.g., trying to reduce use but unable to), mood modification (e.g., use to forget about problems), salience (e.g., spending a lot of time thinking about use), and conflict (e.g., use has had a bad effect on schoolwork or job), which may disrupt daily functioning. 29 , 30 , 31 There have been mixed findings regarding the association between parenting practices and problematic screen use in children thus far. One cross-sectional study from the Netherlands suggested that positive parenting and Internet-specific parental rules were associated with fewer problematic social media use behaviors in adolescents. 7 In contrast, a meta-analysis revealed weak negative associations between problematic Internet use and general parenting practices, such as authoritative parenting, warmth, and control. 32 Four general parenting styles have been defined in the literature, namely authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent/permissive, and neglectful/uninvolved parenting. Authoritative parenting is characterized by high control and high receptiveness, while authoritarian parenting is defined by high control and low receptiveness. Indulgent/permissive parenting refers to low control and high receptiveness, whereas neglectful/uninvolved parenting is marked by low control and low receptiveness. 8 , 20 , 32 In the same meta-analysis, problematic Internet use was not significantly associated with media-specific parenting practices such as restrictive mediation and active mediation. 32 Restrictive mediation refers to parental enforcement of media use rules, such as time or content allowed, while active mediation refers to parent-child communication regarding media use. 24 , 32 These inconsistencies underscore the need for further studies to investigate effective media-parenting practices that are associated with problematic screen use.

With these gaps in the literature, our study aims to assess the prevalence of various media parenting practices (e.g., screen time modeling, mealtime screen use, bedroom screen use, screens to control behavior, monitoring screen time, limiting screen time) in a diverse national sample of early adolescents in the US. Second, we assess the associations between media parenting practices and adolescent screen time and problematic screen use across social media, video games, and mobile phones.

Study population

The data was collected from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, a prospective cohort study which collects annual data on the health and cognitive development of 11,875 adolescents from 21 different geographically diverse sites across the US. The ABCD Study baseline was 2016–2018, when participants were 9-10 years old. The data analyzed in this specific analysis are from the ABCD 5.0 release, which includes the Year 3 follow-up (2019–2022), with 10,048 having media parenting practices and any screen use (screen time or problematic screen use) data to be included in this analysis. Appendix  A illustrates the differences in the sociodemographic characteristics of those who were included in any part of the analysis ( N  = 10,048) and those excluded due to missing outcome data ( N  = 1827). This study received centralized institutional review board (IRB) approval from the University of California, San Diego, and the participating study sites received local IRB approval. Written informed consent was provided by caregivers, and written assent was provided by each participating adolescent.

Media parenting practices

To assess media parenting practices, parents of participating children were asked about their screen time practices through a self-reported questionnaire. 10 Parents were asked 14 questions (as detailed in Table  2 ) which were grouped into 6 categories: screen time modeling (measuring parents’ own screen use in front of the adolescent, 2 questions), mealtime screen use (measuring screen use of the entire family during meals, 2 questions), bedroom screen use (measuring adolescents’ screen use in the bedroom, 3 questions), parental control of screen use (measuring the parental control of adolescent screen time for rewards or punishments, 2 questions), parental monitoring of screen use (measuring parental monitoring of the adolescent’s screen use, 2 questions), and parental limiting of screen use (measuring parental limit setting of the adolescent’s screen use, 3 questions). Parents responded to each question based on a 4-point Likert scale with responses ranging from (1) “Strongly Disagree” to (4) “Strongly Agree.” Within the screen time modeling category, the question “I try to limit how much I use a screen-based device when I am with my child” was reverse coded to maintain consistency in the directionality of the responses within the category in the regression model. These scores were then summed and averaged to create average sum scores for each of the 6 categories as has been done previously. 10

Adolescent screen use

Screen time.

Total recreational screen time was calculated using adolescents’ self-reported hours of typical weekday and weekend use of the following: single- and multi-player gaming, texting, social media, browsing the internet, video chatting and watching/streaming movies, videos, or TV. 31 , 33 Daily screen time (hours/day) was calculated as a weighted sum [(weekday average x 5) + (weekend average x 2)]/7. 34 Participants were specifically asked only to include recreational screen use and not to include screen use for school or homework.

Problematic screen use

Problematic social media use (smaq).

Adolescents who stated they had at least one social media account ( n  = 6916) were asked to complete the Social Media Addiction Questionnaire (SMAQ), 31 to assess problematic social media use. The SMAQ consisted of six questions that capture aspects of problematic use such as mood modification (“I use social media apps so I can forget about my problems”), salience (“I spend a lot of time thinking about social media apps or planning my use of social media apps”), relapse (“I’ve tried to use my social media apps less but I can’t”), conflict (“I use social media apps so much that it has had a bad effect on my schoolwork or job”), and tolerance (“I feel the need to use social media apps more and more”). The single-factor model of the SMAQ demonstrated adequate fit in a confirmatory factor analysis (comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.989, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.05 (90% CI: 0.042,0.058)). 31 In the current sample, the SMAQ demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (α = 0.89).

Problematic video game use (VGAQ)

Those who reported any video game use ( n  = 8487) were asked to complete the Video Game Addiction Questionnaire (VGAQ), a self-reported six-question questionnaire modeled after the Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale. 29 This scale has been used in broader applications to measure video game and social media addiction among adolescents. 30 , 35 Questions asked in the VGAQ are similar to the questions described above for the SMAQ to measure mood modification, salience, relapse, conflict, and tolerance, but refer to video games instead of social media. The single-factor model of the VGAQ demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (McDonald’s 0.90) and adequate fit in a confirmatory factor analysis (comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.988, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.060 (90% CI: 0.053,0.067)). 31 In the current sample, the VMAQ demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (α = 0.86).

Problematic mobile phone use

Those who reported using a mobile phone ( n  = 8310), were asked to complete the Mobile Phone Involvement Questionnaire (MPIQ), which consists of eight questions developed to measure elements of behavioral addictions such as conflict, relapse, withdrawal, tolerance, and salience. 36 Example questions are as follows: “I interrupt whatever else I am doing when I am contacted on my phone” and “I often use my phone for no particular reason”. The responses were based on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”. 31 The questionnaire was developed based on a principal components analysis finding that the eight items included assessed a unitary construct. 36 In the current sample, the MPIQ demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (α = 0.88).

For each problematic use scale, responses were summed to obtain a total score.

Statistical analyses

The analyses were performed in Stata 18.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Descriptive statistics, including percentages, means, and SDs were calculated. Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to estimate associations between exposure variables (six media parenting practices) and outcome variables (total screen time and the three problematic screen use scores). Sociodemographic characteristics, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, parent education, household income, study site, and data collection period (pre- versus during the COVID-19 pandemic using March 13, 2020, as the start date of the pandemic in the US) were considered as covariates in the regression models. Analyses incorporated ABCD propensity scores to approximate the distribution per the American Community Survey from the U.S. Census. 4

Table  1 shows the sociodemographic characteristics of the 10,048 individuals included in this analysis. The sample was 48.3% female and included 45.6% from racial/ethnic minority groups. Table  2 shows the frequencies of parent practices around screen use. When asked about screen-time modeling habits, 72.9% of parents stated that they used screens around their adolescents, while 85.3% tried to limit their own screen use when with their adolescents. Over a third (35.6%) of families reported often watching a screen during meals and nearly half (46.2%) of children have access to a mobile screen-based device in bed. Over two-thirds (67.4%) of parents monitor their adolescent’s screen time during the week and three-quarters (76.2%) limit their adolescent’s screen time during the week.

Table  3 shows the association between media parenting practices and adolescent-reported screen time and problematic use of social media, video games, and mobile phones adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. Greater parental screen time modeling (e.g., parents’ own use of a screen-based device when with child) was significantly associated with higher adolescent screen time (B: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.96), problematic social media use scores (B: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.55, 1.10), problematic video game use scores (B; 0.38, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.64) and problematic mobile phone use scores (B: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.82, 1.81). Family mealtime screen use was associated with higher adolescent screen time (B: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.47) and problematic social media (B: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.64, 1.02), video game (B: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.35, 0.71), and mobile phone (B: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.65) use. Adolescents’ bedroom screen use was associated with higher adolescent screen time (B: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.36, 1.85) and problematic social media (B: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.71, 2.11), video game (B: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.72), and mobile phone (B: 2.91, 95% CI: 2.56, 3.26) use. Parental control of adolescents’ screen use behavior (e.g., offering screen time as a reward for good behavior) was associated with higher adolescent screen time (B: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.60) and higher problematic video game scores (B: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.82). Parental monitoring of adolescent screen use was associated with lower adolescent screen time (B: –0.83, 95% CI: –1.05, –0.60), and lower problematic social media (B: –0.86, 95% CI: –1.04, –0.68) and mobile phone use (B: –1.12, 95% CI: –1.44, –0.81) scores. Additionally, parental limiting of adolescent screen use was associated with lower adolescent screen time (B: –1.29, 95% CI: –1.59, –0.98) and problematic social media (B: –1.58, 95% CI: –1.83, –1.34), video game (B: –0.49, 95% CI: –0.72, –0.25), and mobile phone (B: –2.24, 95% CI: –2.66, –1.81) use.

In this demographically diverse sample of 12–13-year-old early adolescents in the United States, we found that although 76.2% of parents reported that they try to limit their adolescents’ screen use during the week and 85.3% agreed that they try to limit their own screen use in front of their adolescents, 72.9% of parents report using screens around their adolescents. Approximately one-third of parents allow for family mealtime screen use and adolescent bedtime screen use. Parental monitoring and limiting of adolescent screen use was generally associated with lower adolescent screen time and problematic screen use; however, parental modeling of their own screen use and allowance of mealtime and bedtime screen use was associated with higher adolescent screen time and problematic screen use. Greater parental control of adolescent screen use as a reward or punishment was also associated with higher total screen time and problematic screen use of video games.

Parental screen time modeling

Our study showed that parental screen use when with their child was associated with higher total screen time and problematic social media, video games, and mobile phone use in early adolescents. These findings were consistent with various prior studies, which have suggested that greater parental screen time use is associated with greater screen time in younger children 17 , 18 , 20 , 37 and more frequent co-use of screens with children. 13 These associations could potentially be explained in the context of social learning theory, which states that individuals learn from observing and modeling other’s behavior. Children may mirror parental behavior and could thus model their parents’ screen use behaviors. 7 It is also possible that parents who use digital media more frequently may be more open to children’s media use and impose fewer restrictions. 13

Mealtime & bedroom screen use

Family mealtime screen use and child bedroom screen use were both positively associated with adolescent total screen time and problematic use of social media, video game, and mobile phone, which is in accordance with prior evidence. 6 , 10 , 11 , 15 , 38 The American Academy of Pediatrics advocates for a Family Media Use Plan which notes that parents may consider instituting screen-free times such as during mealtime and bedtime. Watching screens during meals has been linked to overeating, distracted eating, and weight gain/obesity. 3 , 39 Bedtime screen use has been linked with shorter sleep duration and sleep disturbances, potentially due to higher arousal at bedtime, blue light effects, and disturbances by notifications. 5 One prior study during the COVID-19 pandemic found no association between the implementation of parent rules (including limiting screen use at mealtimes and bedtime) and problematic media use; however, the analyses grouped all parent media rules together and did not differentiate between mealtime and bedtime screen rules. 40 To our knowledge, prior studies have not examined whether parental limiting of bedtime and mealtime screen use reduces adolescent total screen time and problematic screen use; further research may shed light on this topic.

Use of screens to control behavior

Interestingly, in our study, while a little over three-quarters of parents reported removing screen time as a punishment for bad behavior, almost 40% reported offering screen time as a reward for good behavior. Greater control of adolescent screen use as a reward or punishment was associated with increased total screen time and problematic screen use of video games. Our findings support prior studies, which revealed that screen-based devices as disciplinary tools increased children’s screen time. 10 , 41 However, our findings contrast with another study that did not find an association between rewarding screen time and children’s weekly TV viewing. 15 In our study, no significant associations were found between screens to control behavior and problematic social media and mobile phone use. One potential explanation is that early adolescents are at a stage of seeking independence away from their parents/caregivers and may view certain media parenting practices as intrusive, leading them to reject rules. 13 , 17 , 23 , 25 , 42 With the increasing accessibility, availability, and familiarity of digital media platforms, early adolescents may increasingly depend on these modalities for social support and identity exploration. 43

Parenting style may be of consideration in this context. One European randomized controlled trial on 10–12-year-old children revealed that autonomy-supportive parenting styles were associated with less TV/DVD and computer/game console time while controlling parental styles were associated with perceived excessive time on TV/DVD and computer/game consoles. 21 One cross-sectional study from the Netherlands found that more problematic internet use was associated with less positive parenting practices such as rejection and harsh punishment. 7 However, these more negative parenting practices may reflect general parenting styles rather than ones specific to screen use.

Parental monitoring of screen time and limiting screen time (parental restriction of screen use)

Parental monitoring of screen time was inversely associated with total screen time and problematic social media and mobile phone use, which parallels prior findings that greater parental screen time monitoring was associated with lower children’s screen time 10 , 15 and fewer problematic social media use behaviors 7 respectively. Parental monitoring of screen time tended to be inversely associated with problematic video game use; however, the association was not statistically significant. In our questionnaire, parental monitoring of screen use does not necessarily involve actions to limit or control screen use, which are measured separately. Further research may be needed to determine how parental control of adolescent screen use as a reward or punishment can differ from monitoring screen time in affecting problematic video game use. Parental limiting of screen time was also inversely associated with total screen time and problematic social media, video games, and mobile phone use in early adolescents. This is in accordance with prior evidence, which has found that family screen time rules, including limiting screen time, are associated with children spending less time watching TV/DVD and using the computer or game console. 15 , 17 , 21 Setting screen time boundaries is in line with characteristics of authoritative parenting, in which parents impose control and are responsive and supportive of their children, a parenting style that has been associated with positive developmental results such as healthy dietary behavior and improved academic outcomes. 8 , 20

Limitations and strengths

There are several limitations of our study to be considered. With the cross-sectional nature of the study, directions of causality cannot be determined. Though potential confounders were adjusted for, it is possible that there are remaining confounders. There is the possibility of selection bias as participants from racial/ethnic minority populations and lower socioeconomic backgrounds were less likely to be included in the analytic sample. All measures were self-reported, which increases the possibility of reporting and recall bias. The Video Game Addiction Questionnaire was based on a measure developed for social media, although it similarly captures elements of behavioral addictions such as mood modification, salience, relapse, conflict, and tolerance. 29 , 31 Our screen use measures were not able to differentiate between active (e.g., active or interactive engagement with cognitive, physical, or social tasks) versus passive (e.g., passive absorption of information, such as watching media) screen use, which could be an area of future research. The screen time measure focused on recreational screen time rather than screen time related to school or school work, which could be investigated in relation to parent rules and monitoring in future research. Our bedroom screen use measure captured if children had access to a mobile screen-based device in the bedroom, but did not gather information about specific bedroom screen use rules. This may be a future area to investigate, as the absence of parental bedtime screen rules has been found to exacerbate social media frequency effects in adolescents. 44

It is also important to consider that the data in this study include Year 3 follow-up data from 2019 to 2022, overlapping with the years of the COVID-19 pandemic which has had a profound impact on screen use. On average, screen time in children and adolescents was found to have increased by 52% during the pandemic. 45 Adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18 had greater changes in screen time when compared to their younger counterparts and were more likely to have access to personal devices. With the social distancing restrictions in place during the pandemic, children and adolescents were less likely to engage in in-person social interactions, thus likely turning to digital media to maintain their social networks. Therefore, it should be noted that our findings may be influenced by the effects of increased screen time and shifting individual and family dynamics from the COVID-19 pandemic during this period of isolation.

Strengths of this study include its large, diverse sample of early adolescents in the United States and measures of total screen time and problematic screen use based on adolescent reports. The present study advances prior work by encompassing adolescent screen use behaviors of contemporary digital modalities and analyzing problematic screen use per modality, rather than collapsing devices into one measure.

With the potential risks of children’s excessive screen time and problematic screen use in relation to negative health outcomes, there are several implications from the current study. The American Academy of Pediatrics encourages the creation of Family Media Use plans. 46 Our findings suggest that monitoring and limiting screen time parent media practices are associated with lower screen time and lower problematic screen use in early adolescents. In contrast, using screens to control behavior (i.e., as a reward or punishment) is associated with greater total screen time and problematic screen use of video games. These actions could be incorporated into a family media use plan, as parents may have discussions with their children regarding setting boundaries on screen time, while minimizing use of screens to control behavior as a reward or punishment, to prevent downstream screen use effects. The implementation of a family media use plan may be more successful when clear, consistent rules are mutually agreed upon by parents and children. 10 , 11 , 19 , 22 This is particularly important for early adolescents who may spend longer portions of the day away from home and are developing more autonomy. Recreational screen use is generally higher on weekends than on weekdays; future research may investigate the differences in parenting media practices on weekdays compared to weekends, and associations with adolescent screen use. 47 Future research may explore more objective measures of screen use behaviors to compare the efficacy of various media parenting practices to further shape public health policy and clinical guidance for early adolescents.

Data availability

Data used in the preparation of this article were obtained from the ABCD Study ( https://abcdstudy.org ), held in the NIMH Data Archive (NDA). Investigators can apply for data access through the NDA ( https://nda.nih.gov/ ).

Aichner, T., Grünfelder, M., Maurer, O. & Jegeni, D. Twenty-five years of social media: A review of social media applications and definitions from 1994 to 2019. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 24 , 215–222 (2021).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Robinson, T. N. et al. Screen media exposure and obesity in children and adolescents. Pediatrics 140 , S97–S101 (2017).

Nagata, J. M. et al. Contemporary screen time modalities among children 9–10 years old and binge‐eating disorder at one‐year follow‐up: A prospective cohort study. Int J. Eat. Disord. 54 , 887–892 (2021).

Paulich, K. N., Ross, J. M., Lessem, J. M. & Hewitt, J. K. Screen time and early adolescent mental health, academic, and social outcomes in 9- and 10- year old children: Utilizing the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development SM (ABCD) Study. Kabir E, ed. PLOS One . 16 , e0256591 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Nagata J. M. et al. Bedtime screen use behaviors and sleep outcomes: Findings from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study. Sleep Health. 9 , 497–502 (2023).

Veldhuis, L., Van Grieken, A., Renders, C. M., HiraSing, R. A. & Raat, H. Parenting style, the home environment, and screen time of 5-year-old children; The ‘Be Active, Eat Right’ Study. Allen P, ed PLoS One . 9 , e88486 (2014).

Geurts, S. M., Koning, I. M., Vossen, H. G. M. & Van Den Eijnden, R. J. J. M. Rules, role models or overall climate at home? Relative associations of different family aspects with adolescents’ problematic social media use. Compr. Psychiatry 116 , 152318 (2022).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jago, R., Wood, L., Zahra, J., Thompson, J. L. & Sebire, S. J. Parental control, nurturance, self-efficacy, and screen viewing among 5- to 6-year-old children: A cross-sectional mediation analysis to inform potential behavior change strategies. Child Obes. 11 , 139–147 (2015).

Vaala, S. E. & Bleakley, A. Monitoring, mediating, and modeling: Parental influence on adolescent computer and internet use in the United States. J. Child Media 9 , 40–57 (2015).

Article   Google Scholar  

Tang, L., Darlington, G., Ma, D. W. L. & Haines, J., on behalf of the Guelph Family Health Study. Mothers’ and fathers’ media parenting practices associated with young children’s screen-time: a cross-sectional study. BMC Obes. 5 , 37 (2018).

Ramirez, E. R. et al. Adolescent screen time and rules to limit screen time in the home. J. Adolesc. Health Publ. Soc. Adolesc. Med. 48 , 379–385 (2011).

Bergh, I. H. et al. Post-intervention effects on screen behaviours and mediating effect of parental regulation: the HEalth In Adolescents study – a multi-component school-based randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health 14 , 200 (2014).

Poulain, T., Meigen, C., Kiess, W. & Vogel, M. Media regulation strategies in parents of 4- to 16-year-old children and adolescents: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 23 , 371 (2023).

Adams, E. L. et al. INSIGHT responsive parenting intervention reduces infant’s screen time and television exposure. Int J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 15 , 24 (2018).

Neshteruk, C. D. et al. Screen time parenting practices and associations with preschool children’s TV viewing and weight-related outcomes. Int J. Environ. Res Public Health 18 , 7359 (2021).

De Lepeleere, S. et al. Parenting practices as a mediator in the association between family socio-economic status and screen-time in primary schoolchildren: A Feel4Diabetes study. Int J. Environ. Res Public Health 15 , 2553 (2018).

De Lepeleere, S., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Cardon, G. & Verloigne, M. Do specific parenting practices and related parental self-efficacy associate with physical activity and screen time among primary schoolchildren? A cross-sectional study in Belgium. BMJ Open. 5 , e007209 (2015).

Jago, R., Sebire, S. J., Edwards, M. J. & Thompson, J. L. Parental TV viewing, parental self-efficacy, media equipment and TV viewing among preschool children. Eur. J. Pediatr. 172 , 1543–1545 (2013).

Jago, R. et al. Managing the screen-viewing behaviours of children aged 5–6 years: a qualitative analysis of parental strategies: Table 1. BMJ Open. 6 , e010355 (2016).

Lee, H. E., Kim, J. Y. & Kim, C. The influence of parent media use, parent attitude on media, and parenting style on children’s media use. Children 9 , 37 (2022).

Bjelland, M. et al. Associations between parental rules, style of communication and children’s screen time. BMC Public Health 15 , 1002 (2015).

Carlson, S. A. et al. Influence of limit-setting and participation in physical activity on youth screen time. Pediatrics 126 , e89–e96 (2010).

Sanders, W., Parent, J., Forehand, R., Sullivan, A. D. W. & Jones, D. J. Parental perceptions of technology and technology-focused parenting: Associations with youth screen time. J. Appl Dev. Psychol. 44 , 28–38 (2016).

Coyne, S. M. et al. Parenting and digital media. Pediatrics 140 , S112–S116 (2017).

Katzman D. et al. Neinstein’s Adolescent and Young Adult Health Care: A Practical Guide . Seventh edition. Wolters Kluwer; 2023.

Rusby, J. C., Light, J. M., Crowley, R. & Westling, E. Influence of parent–youth relationship, parental monitoring, and parent substance use on adolescent substance use onset. J. Fam. Psychol. 32 , 310–320 (2018).

Aboujaoude, E. et al. Assessment of the popularity and perceived effectiveness of smartphone tools that track and limit smartphone use: Survey study and machine learning analysis. J. Med Internet Res. 24 , e38963 (2022).

Hwang, J. & Toma, C. L. The role of mental well-being and perceived parental supportiveness in adolescents’ problematic internet use: Moderation analysis. JMIR Ment. Health . 8 , e26203 (2021).

Andreassen, C. S., Torsheim, T., Brunborg, G. S. & Pallesen, S. Development of a facebook addiction scale. Psychol. Rep. 110 , 501–517 (2012).

Nagata, J. M. et al. Social epidemiology of early adolescent problematic screen use in the United States. Pediatr. Res. 92 , 1443–1449 (2022).

Bagot, K. et al. Youth screen use in the ABCD® study. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 57 , 101150 (2022).

Lukavská, K., Hrabec, O., Lukavský, J., Demetrovics, Z. & Király, O. The associations of adolescent problematic internet use with parenting: A meta-analysis. Addict. Behav. 135 , 107423 (2022).

Bagot, K. S. et al. Current, future and potential use of mobile and wearable technologies and social media data in the ABCD study to increase understanding of contributors to child health. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 32 , 121–129 (2018).

Nagata, J. M. et al. Sociodemographic correlates of contemporary screen time use among 9- and 10-year-old children. J. Pediatr. 240 , 213–220.e2 (2022).

Hou, Y., Xiong, D., Jiang, T., Song, L. & Wang, Q. Social media addiction: Its impact, mediation, and intervention. Cyberpsychology J. Psychosoc. Res. Cyberspace . 13 , 4 (2019).

Walsh, S. P., White, K. M. & Young, R. M. Needing to connect: The effect of self and others on young people’s involvement with their mobile phones. Aust. J. Psychol. 62 , 194–203 (2010).

Xu, H., Wen, L. M. & Rissel, C. Associations of parental influences with physical activity and screen time among young children: A systematic review. J. Obes . 2015 , 546925 (2015).

Gingold, J. A., Simon, A. E. & Schoendorf, K. C. Excess screen time in US children: Association with family rules and alternative activities. Clin. Pediatr. (Philos.). 53 , 41–50 (2014).

Nagata, J. M. et al. Contemporary screen time usage among children 9–10‐years‐old is associated with higher body mass index percentile at 1‐year follow‐up: A prospective cohort study. Pediatr Obes . 16 , e12827 (2021).

Kroshus, E. et al. Problematic child media use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pediatrics 150 , e2021055190 (2022).

Hawi, N. S. & Rupert, M. S. Impact of e-discipline on children’s screen time. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 18 , 337–342 (2015).

Geurts, S. M., Koning, I. M., Vossen, H. & Van Den Eijnden, R. J. J. M. A qualitative study on children’s digital media use and parents’ self-interest. J. Child Fam. Stud. 31 , 2015–2026 (2022).

Mougharbel, F. et al. Heavy social media use and psychological distress among adolescents: the moderating role of sex, age, and parental support. Front Public Health 11 , 1190390 (2023).

Hamilton, J. L. & Lee, W. Associations between social media, bedtime technology use rules, and daytime sleepiness among adolescents: Cross-sectional findings from a nationally representative sample. JMIR Ment. Health . 8 , e26273 (2021).

Madigan, S., Eirich, R., Pador, P., McArthur, B. A. & Neville, R. D. Assessment of changes in child and adolescent screen time during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 176 , 1188 (2022).

Reid Chassiakos, Y. L. et al. Children and adolescents and digital media. Pediatrics 138 , e20162593 (2016).

Sigmundová, D. & Sigmund, E. Weekday-weekend sedentary behavior and recreational screen time patterns in families with preschoolers, schoolchildren, and adolescents: Cross-sectional three cohort study. Int. J. Environ. Res Public Health 18 , 4532 (2021).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Anthony Kung and Zain Memon for editorial assistance.

J.M.N. was supported by the National Institutes of Health (K08HL159350 and R01MH135492), and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (2022056). The ABCD Study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and additional federal partners under award numbers U01DA041022, U01DA041025, U01DA041028, U01DA041048, U01DA041089, U01DA041093, U01DA041106, U01DA041117, U01DA041120, U01DA041134, U01DA041148, U01DA041156, U01DA041174, U24DA041123, and U24DA041147. A full list of supporters is available at https://abcdstudy.org/federal-partners/ . A listing of participating sites and a complete listing of the study investigators can be found at https://abcdstudy.org/principal-investigators.html . ABCD consortium investigators designed and implemented the study and/or provided data but did not necessarily participate in the analysis or writing of this report.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Jason M. Nagata, Angel Paul, Felicia Yen, Zacariah Smith-Russack, Iris Yuefan Shao & Abubakr A. A. Al-shoaibi

Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Kyle T. Ganson

Department of Management, Policy and Community Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA

Alexander Testa

Center for Health Sciences, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, USA

Orsolya Kiss & Fiona C. Baker

School of Humanities and Social Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

School of Physiology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Fiona C. Baker

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Jason M. Nagata conceptualized the study, drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and edited the final manuscript, and provided supervision. Angel Paul conducted data cleaning and analyses, drafted the initial manuscript, and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. Felicia Yen drafted the initial manuscript, and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. Zacariah Smith-Russack contributed to the data cleaning and analyses, and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. Iris Yuefan Shao contributed to the data cleaning and analyses, critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. Abubakr A.A. Al-shoaibi critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. Kyle Ganson critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. Alexander Testa critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. Orsolya Kiss critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. Jinbo He critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. Fiona C. Baker contributed to the methodology of the study, supervised data collection, and reviewed and edited the final manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason M. Nagata .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Consent to publish

Caregivers provided written informed consent, and each child provided written assent.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Appendix a r1, rights and permissions.

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/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Nagata, J.M., Paul, A., Yen, F. et al. Associations between media parenting practices and early adolescent screen use. Pediatr Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-024-03243-y

Download citation

Received : 26 November 2023

Revised : 08 April 2024

Accepted : 23 April 2024

Published : 05 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-024-03243-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

PARENTING SCIENCE

Parenting styles: An evidence-based, cross-cultural guide

Researchers have been studying parenting styles for more than 50 years, and you’ve probably heard some of their claims:

• The authoritarian parenting style is strict and dictatorial, and associated with children who may struggle more with self-regulation and socioemotional functioning.
• Permissive parenting is more affectionate and child-centered, but because caregivers don’t enforce limits, their children can be at higher risk for developing behavior problems and unhealthy habits.
• Authoritative parenting is warm and nurturing, but also mindful of setting age-appropriate limits. Caregivers try to guide behavior through reasoning, rather than punishments, and they make kids feel acknowledged or included during family decision-making. This style is consistently linked with positive child outcomes.
• Uninvolved (or “neglectful”) parenting is lacking in both affection and limits. The children of uninvolved parents have the worst outcomes of all.

Now, notice the careful wording: We’re talking about links and associations, not definitive proof that a specific parenting style causes or contributes to child outcomes.

Nevertheless, it seems pretty clear which style parents should strive for, which is why you’ll see organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics remind medical professionals that authoritative parenting “has been strongly associated with positive mental health and behavioral outcomes in children and adolescents.”

Moreover, when child development experts speak approvingly of approaches that go by other names (like “supportive parenting,” “positive parenting ,” “Montessori parenting,” “gentle parenting,” “attachment parenting, ” or “dolphin parenting”), it’s usually because they judge these approaches to be variants or subtypes of authoritative parenting. 

But is it really this cut-and-dried? No!

In the real world, people don’t sort neatly and precisely into these categories. You or someone you know might straddle the line between two styles, or switch styles across the day, depending on the circumstances. When a young child takes a dash into traffic, even a very permissive parent may start acting authoritarian.

Moreover, some people favor an approach that doesn’t match up with any of styles mentioned above. There are cultures where authoritative parenting – as defined by Western psychologists – is largely absent, and it’s not clear that folks meet the criteria for permissive or authoritarian parenting either.

Finally, we have to acknowledge that the causation is complex. Parenting styles help shape the way kids turn out. But there are other factors, too, and parenting itself is influenced by children’s behavior.

None of this means we can’t learn from the research on parenting styles, or that many kids wouldn’t benefit from an authoritative approach. On the contrary, I think the original ideas proposed by Diana Baumrind – the psychologist who coined the term “parenting style” – are amazingly relevant for 21 st century families. So in the rest of this article, I will provide you with an overview of these ideas, and the big questions they invite us to ask:

• How do the parenting styles differ on a philosophical level, and what specific behaviors do researchers use to classify a caregiver’s style?
• Are the resulting classifications accurate or reliable?
• Why is it wrong to assume that parenting styles are stable, clear-cut, or the same in all cultures?
• What do we know about child outcomes? And how do other factors – besides parenting style – shape the way our children turn out?

What do researchers mean when they talk about “parenting style”?

Parents influence their children through specific practices, like engaging babies in language-learning opportunities, encouraging kids to play outdoors, and troubleshooting sleep problems.

But parenting – so the argument goes – is more than a set of specific practices. What about the overall approach to guiding, controlling, and socializing kids? The attitudes that parents have about discipline, nurturing, and the emotional climate this creates?

It’s this general pattern–this emotional climate–that researchers refer to as “parenting style” (Darling and Steinberg 1993).

So how do psychologists distinguish one parenting style from another?

The philosophical underpinnings of parenting styles: It’s about attitudes toward authority

It started in the 1960s with the developmental psychologist, Diana Baumrind. Observing trends in the United States, Baumrind noticed that very idea of “authority” had fallen into disrepute.

Thoughtful people had rejected the dictatorial, authoritarian mindsets of the past. But they hadn’t stopped there.

In addition to opposing the kind of authority that reigns by fear and force, folks had seemingly rejected what the philosopher Erich Fromm called rational authority — the authority that we grant to people who have special areas of competence. People like like teachers and scientists. Therapists and surgeons. Plumbers and pilots.

It’s the kind of authority that helps, rather than exploits – a limited authority based in equality and cooperation, not mindless submission. We trust rational authorities to make judgments on our behalf, not because we shut off our brains, but because we are reasoning beings. If their judgments don’t make sense to us, we ask for clarification, and they explain.

When Baumrind looked around, she saw lots of parents who weren’t embracing rational authority. Instead, many parents fell into one of two camps.

1. The strict, authoritarian, obey-me-without-question types. These were the parents who held their children to an inflexible standard of conduct (often derived from religious beliefs), and who favored harsh measures (including hostile remarks, threats, shaming, and severe punishment) to ensure compliance. They expected children to obey without question – without any “verbal give and take.” It was the parent’s job to restrict a child’s autonomy, and keep the child in his or her “place” (Baumrind 1966).

2. The permissive, child-centered, never-impose-boundaries types. Reacting against the whole notion of authority, these parents allowed their kids to determine their own behavior as much as possible. Their goal wasn’t to teach, nor serve as role models.  Instead, their purpose was to be accepting of children’s impulses and actions, wherever they might lead. They didn’t encourage children to meet any external standards of conduct. They put very few demands on children, and avoided any sort of parental control (Baumrind 1966).

To Baumrind, this was a contrast between extremes. Wasn’t there a compromise? A moderate strategy that fosters self-discipline, responsibility, and independence?

The answer, according to Baumrind, was to exercise rational authority. Compared to their children, parents possess special knowledge about what’s required to get along in society. They can therefore provide the guidance of rational authority – using reasoning, positive reinforcement, and the age-appropriate application of standards — to help kids learn how to balance their freedoms and responsibilities.

Some folks were doing just this, an approach she dubbed “authoritative.” And so Baumrind identified a total of three distinct parenting styles:

• Authoritarian parenting,  which emphasizes blind obedience, highly restricted autonomy, and the control of children through threats, punishments, shaming, hostile remarks, and the withdrawal of affection.
• Permissive parenting,  which is characterized by warmth, responsiveness, and the fostering of self-determination, but which fails to hold children accountable to limits or rules.
• Authoritative parenting,  a more balanced approach in which parents expect kids to meet certain behavioral standards, but also show high levels of affection, recognize children’s feelings and needs for autonomy, and encourage kids to think for themselves. The use of reasoning is emphasized over other forms of control. Physical punishment, shaming, and other harsh tactics are avoided.

Later, researchers added a fourth style,  uninvolved or neglectful parenting, in which parents offer little or no warmth, and fail to enforce limits (Maccoby and Martin 1983).

In addition, researchers re-formulated the original definitions by rating each parenting style according to two dimensions – “responsiveness” and “demandingness”:

• Responsiveness  is “the extent to which parents intentionally foster individuality, self-regulation, and self-assertion by being attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to children’s special needs and demands” (Baumrind 1991). This dimension has also been called “support,” and it includes behavior that communicates warmth and caring.
• Demandingness  refers to “the claims parents make on children to become integrated into the family whole, by their maturity demands, supervision, disciplinary efforts and willingness to confront the child who disobeys” (Baumrind 1991).

This allows the four parenting styles to be represented by a 2×2 matrix (below).

At a glance, the 2×2 matrix reveals why so many people regard authoritative parenting as optimal.

Being responsive and sensitive is a good thing, and two styles – authoritative and permissive – meet this criterion.

Being demanding is also helpful for aspects of child development, and two styles – authoritative and authoritarian – display this feature.

But only one parenting style – authoritative – ticks the boxes for both dimensions.

Now, heads-up for those of you interested in cultural differences, especially with regard to autonomy:

I’ve said being responsive is a good thing, and that’s well-supported when it’s defined in terms of acknowledging children’s perspectives, desires, and emotions, and making them feel loved, accepted, and cared for. For example, cross-cultural research suggests that this kind of responsiveness reduces a child’s risk of depression and social withdrawal (Rothenberg et al 2020).

But if we look at the way responsiveness is being defined above, it may also entail the promotion of the culture-specific value of individualism – a stance that emphasizes the separation of the self from others, and prioritizes autonomous decision-making.

As we’ll see below, there are societies where successful adjustment depends instead on fostering interdependence, where people view the self as intimately connected to the needs and interests of other people, and individuals are supposed to prioritize group interests and social harmony over autonomous decision-making. In such cultural settings, the pro-individualistic aspects of authoritative parenting may not necessarily lead to better child outcomes.

Digging deeper: How, specifically, can we identify an individual’s parenting style?

It’s easy to say that authoritative parents are both responsive and demanding. Or that authoritarian parents are insufficiently responsive. Or that permissive parents aren’t demanding enough.

But what is “insufficient”? What is “enough?” Who decides this stuff, and how does it get measured?

These are important questions, because we can’t apply research to our everyday lives if we don’t know how our own parenting behavior would be categorized. So let’s take a quick peak behind the researcher’s curtain. If you were participating in a study, how would the study’s authors determine your parenting style?

Sometimes, researchers make direct observations of parenting behavior

This is the “let’s collect genuine behavioral data” approach, and it often looks like this: Put families in challenging situations, and then see how parents behave.

It’s an excellent way to see what parents actually do (as opposed to relying on their self-reports). It gives you something concrete to measure, and, when done right, it can reveal meaningful differences in the way that parents attempt to influence or control their kids.

For example, researchers might ask a parent to sit alone with her toddler while the child works on a puzzle. The family interactions are recorded, and researchers look to see how the parent responds. Does she encourage the child to think of his or her own solutions, and provide positive emotional feedback to keep the child engaged? Or does the parent get bossy, telling the child what to do, and criticizing his or her mistakes?

A more common approach is to ask people to fill out questionnaires

Strictly speaking, this approach isn’t measuring parenting behavior so much as it’s measuring what people decide to report about parenting behavior . But it’s quicker and cheaper than setting up behavioral observations, so it gets used a lot.

For families with young children, researchers usually give the questionnaires to parents, so we’re finding out what parents believe (or are willing to report) about themselves. In families with older children, researchers sometimes ask the kids to do the reporting, in which case the children indicate their pwn perceptions of how their parents behave.

What do these “parenting style” questionnaires look like?

There are several in use. Typically, they consist of statements about parenting behavior, and respondents rate how often the parent exhibits that behavior (on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1= never and 5 = always).  

For example, there is the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PDSQ), which asks parents to rate statements addressing different aspects of authoritative, permissive, and authoritarian parenting (Robinson et al 1995). Here’s a sampling of items from the PDSQ.

Statements about responsiveness and democratic participation (associated with authoritative and permissive parenting):

• “I give comfort and understanding when my child is upset.”
• “I take my child’s preferences into account when making family plans.”

Statements representing a failure to impose limits (associated with permissive parenting):

• “I give into my child when he / she causes a commotion about something.”
• “I ignore my child’s misbehavior.”

Statements measuring reasoning (associated primarily with authoritative parenting):

• “I give my child reasons why rules should be obeyed.”
• “I help my child understand the impact of behavior by encouraging my child to talk about the consequents of his/her own actions.”

Statements measuring hostility and raw power assertion (associated with authoritarian parenting):

• “I yell when I disapprove of my child’s behavior”
• “When my child asks me why he/she has to do something, I tell him/her it is because I said so, I am your parent, or because that is what I want.”

I could give you more examples, but I hope you get the idea. You rate each item, researchers compare your scores against whatever cut-offs they have established, and voilà! Your parenting style has been classified, rather in the manner of a “Which Disney Princess Are You?” online quiz.

How accurate or reliable is the questionnaire-based approach to identifying people’s parenting styles?

As noted above, we’re not measuring parenting behavior directly. What people say they do might deviate from what they actually do. So this is a source of error or murkiness. And there are other issues too.

For instance, how people interpret the statements matters. Suppose I asked you to rate this item from the PDSQ (Robinson et al 1995):

“I set strict, well-established rules for my child.”

Researchers might use this to determine if you are permissive, but how did you interpret the statement?

Maybe when you read it, you thought of a parent who is busy regulating all aspects of a child’s life. You envisioned a parent being overly restrictive or intrusive. You don’t identify with that, so you give the statement a low rating, indicating that you never do this, or do it only sometimes.

Alternatively, you might have read that statement and decided it meant something like “in the areas that that matter to me, I make it clear to my child that certain behavior is not acceptable.” So you give the statement a high rating, stating that you do this “always” or “often.”

What happens when researchers collect these answers from people? We might get parents sorted in misleading ways, with some individuals categorized as either permissive or authoritative, not because they treat their children differently , but because they interpret the meaning of the statements differently.

So when we hear researchers claim that they’ve demonstrated a link between a parenting style and a particular child outcome, we shouldn’t take the claim at face value. We need to know more about the way researchers measured parenting. As I note in another article, I think this can partly explain conflicting findings about the permissive parenting style.

The methodological concerns aside, do people sort themselves neatly into different parenting style categories?

Not necessarily. No.

As you can imagine, some parents filling out these questionnaires may come up with a mix of answers. Researchers might end up labeling them with a single parenting style, but it’s a loose fit.

Then there is the problem of culture. Baumrind’s original scheme was inspired, in part, by differences she had observed among a specific population – predominantly white, mostly middle class, 20 th century Americans. As I’ll note below, her categories don’t always map onto the types of parenting that people practice in other cultures.

Finally, some critics reject the idea that parenting styles are stable — remaining the same regardless of the circumstances. For instance, you might act like an authoritarian parent when there is a conflict about safety, but act like authoritative parent when you are trying to encourage your child to learn certain social skills, like empathy.

Also, as Judith Rich Harris noted (1988), the same parents might use different styles with different kids. For example, when dealing with children who are self-regulated and cooperative, parents may find it easy to be authoritative. But when they clash with kids who are disruptive and defiant, parents may react with more authoritarian tactics. As we’ll see below, children’s behavior can influence the way parents behave.

What can we conclude from the research on child outcomes?

From the beginning, researchers anticipated that authoritative parenting would be linked with the best child outcomes. It was more or less built into the definition of this parenting style, because the officially-recognized components of authoritativeness were already believed to facilitate socioemotional functioning, resilience, resourcefulness, and self-regulation. All good things, right?

Similarly, permissive and authoritative parenting were defined in ways that would make us expect certain downsides.

Yet no matter how intuitive something appears to be, proving causation can be tricky.

Ideally, we’d want to perform controlled experiments: Randomly assign some children to receive different types of parenting, keep everything else in their lives as similar as possible, and then compare outcomes. But ethical and practical considerations rule this out, so we’re left with other types of evidence.

One source of information comes from cross-sectional studies — “snapshots” of a particular point in time.

Researchers select a group of families, and measure each child’s current status, along with the type of parenting he or she has been receiving. Are there any correlations? These studies can’t provide us definitive evidence that parenting styles affect children’s outcomes. But researchers try to filter out the effects of other variables (like socioeconomic status) using statistical methods.

Researchers can also hone in on causation by tracking children’s development, and looking for evidence of change.

For instance, if kids tend to become more anti-social over the years — even after controlling for their initial behavior problems (and other factors) — that’s stronger evidence that a parenting style is at least partly responsible.

What, then, have we learned about parenting styles from these studies?

You can read the details by following the links below, but the highlights are these:

Kids from authoritative families tend to be well-behaved, and successful at school. They tend to be emotionally healthy, resourceful, and socially-adept.

Kids from authoritarian families are at somewhat higher risk for “externalizing symptoms” – such as aggression and defiance. In addition, these kids may develop less social competence, and – in many societies – they are more likely to suffer from  “internalizing symptoms” (such as anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem).

Children with permissive parents receive high levels of warmth, which is beneficial for a child’s emotional health. However, children from permissive families may be at an elevated risk for externalizing behavior problems, and they also seem to fare worse when it comes to risky, health-related behaviors – like substance use, excessive screen time, and poor sleep. 

Kids from uninvolved families are the worst off in all respects. Most juvenile offenders have uninvolved parents (Steinberg 2001).

What about the role of culture?

Are the four basic parenting styles universal?

Strictly speaking, no. Not if we are looking for all aspects of the definitions to align with what folks are doing in different cultures.

Baumrind’s ideas have been successfully applied in places as varied as Brazil, China, Scandinavia, Mediterranean Europe, and Turkey (Martinez et al 2007; Zhange et al 2017; Turkel and Teser 2009; Olivari et al 2015). But not everything matches up.

For example, in a study of Korean-American parenting, researchers found that over 75% of the sample population didn’t fit into  any  of the standard parenting style categories (Kim and Rohner 2002). And Ruth Chao has argued that the authoritarian parenting style—as defined by Western psychologists—doesn’t have an exact counterpart in  traditional Chinese child-rearing  (Chao 1994).

Moreover, when Su Yeong Kim and her colleagues analyzed parenting among Chinese Americans, they found that the most prevalent style (which they called “supportive”) was similar to authoritative parenting in every respect but one: These parents attempt to influence behavior by shaming, a tactic of psychological control that Western psychologists associate with authoritarianism (Kim et al 2013; Kim 2013).

The mapping may even more difficult when we try to apply Baumrind’s parenting style categories to populations with radically different lifeways.

For example, considered what’s normal among the world’s last hunter-gatherer societies.

First, there’s the generous freedom to explore, even under conditions that your local child protective services would deem neglectful: If a baby picks up a dangerous tool, nobody rushes in to take it away (Hewlett and Roulette 2016; Marlowe 2010).

Then there’s what Western parenting style experts would deem a lack of disciplinary guidance or “follow through”: When little kids engage in physical aggression, parents either ignore it, laugh it off, or move the children away from whomever they are trying to attack (e.g., Howell 2010; Marlowe 2010; Konner 2010; Endicott 2013).

Parents reject punishment, especially physical punishment, so this certainly doesn’t look like authoritarian parenting. But it doesn’t really look like authoritative parenting, either – not according to the standard definition. What’s conspicuously absent is instructive feedback or pushback. People don’t tell young children their behavior was unacceptable, in part because they believe young children “lack the wits” (Marlowe 2010).

So this must be permissive parenting, right? Except that hunter-gatherers also provide guidance, and kids learn about limits.

Caregivers actively train young children to meet the social standards that are crucial for success in foraging societies. In particular, they play games with babies that teach them to interact appropriately, overcome selfish impulses, and share.

Moreover, as kids get older, they are increasingly held to account – by parents and others in the community.

For instance, adults might not interfere when an angry child tries to hit people with a stick. But if that child hits another, older kid, he might get smacked back (e.g., Marlowe 2010, p. 197).

And people of all ages employ mechanisms of psychological control — teasing, ridiculing, or shaming kids when they behave in ways that seem selfish or anti-social. Parents may also try to shape behavior with scare tactics — stories about supernatural creatures who punish bad conduct (Lew-Levy et al 2017). These are responses that the “Which Disney Princess Are You?” type questionnaires tend to count as authoritarian.

So where does normal hunter-gatherer parenting fit into Baumrind’s scheme of parenting styles?

Arguably, it doesn’t fit anywhere, and if you tried to force one of the standard labels, people would get the wrong impression.

What about situations where we can confirm that the same parenting style exists in two different cultures. Are child outcomes the same in both settings?

Not always, no.

For example, as we’ve already noted, high levels of psychological control are identified with authoritarianism, and they have been linked with elevated rates of internalizing problems in children. But the effect size varies.

In a study of parenting in 12 different cultures, the connection between psychological control and internalizing symptoms was weaker “in cultures where more psychological control by parents is more normative” (Lansford et al 2018). In other words, if your parents are very controlling — but their behavior is similar to most other parents in your community – you won’t suffer as much emotionally.

Then there is the question of autonomy and freedom of choice — giving kids latitude to make their own, independent decisions.

This is sometimes considered a crucial aspect of authoritative parenting, and it has been associated with better child outcomes in societies that are democratic and individualistic.

But what if you are growing up in a culture that favors interdependence over individualism? And what if your society is also hierarchical, and reverential toward the wisdom of elders?

In such cultural settings, children may expect their older, wiser parents to make decisions for them. It’s a sign that their parents are living up to their responsibilities, and showing that they care. For these kids, the “free choice” aspect of authoritative parenting may not be as beneficial (Marybell-Pierre et al 2019).

So culture can modify the links between parenting style and child outcomes. Yet there is still a widespread tendency for authoritative parenting to “edge out” other styles — especially in societies where children need formal schooling to succeed in life.

In an international meta-analysis of 428 published studies, researchers found that authoritative parenting is associated with at least one positive outcome in every region of the world. By contrast, authoritarian parenting is associated with at least one  negative  child outcome (Pinquart and Kauser 2018).

Why is authoritative parenting so often linked with better outcomes?

Maybe it’s because the components of authoritative parenting (showing warmth, setting limits, using reasoning, and allowing for autonomy) help kids develop into socially responsible, self-regulated, well-adjusted people.

And maybe it depends on the kinds of behavior that get rewarded outside the home – e.g., in the classroom, the neighborhood, the workplace. For instance, when schools are run along authoritative principles, kids from authoritative families may have an easier time understanding and meeting their teacher’s expectations (Pellerin 2004).

What if two parents disagree, and adopt different parenting styles?

Some people wonder if kids require consistency across caregivers, so much so that they would be better off if everyone used the same approach — even if that means doubling down on authoritarianism or permissiveness.

In other words, if your co-parent insists on being permissive (or authoritarian), should you conform? Or is it better steer your own course as an authoritative parent?

I’ve found three studies that have addressed this question. All three focused on the adjustment of American adolescents, and all three reported the same results: Teens were generally better off having at least one authoritative parent – even if the other parent was permissive or authoritarian (Fletcher et al 1999; Simons and Conger 2007; McKinney and Renk 2008).

So how much does parenting style influence children’s outcomes? What about other factors — like peers? What about the child’s temperament or personality?

Parenting style is important, but it’s just one influence among many. Differences in parenting style – by themselves – explain only part of the variation between kids.

As for the rest, children’s outcomes are also shaped by many other aspects of their environment, including socioeconomic status, culture, schooling, the popular media, and peers.

For example, a study tracking the behavior of Swedish adolescents found that authoritative parenting was linked with less frequent use of alcohol. But for this particular outcome, kids were primarily influenced by peers, their previous involvement in delinquent behavior, and the availability of alcohol (Berge et al 2016).

It’s also clear that genetics, prenatal conditions, and temperament play a major role in child development. In fact, children’s pre-existing behavioral tendencies can influence a parent’s caregiving style.

For instance, consider a child with a difficult, excitable temperament. He’s impulsive, and prone to temper tantrums when something frustrates him. It’s the way his brain is wired up – the result of developmental processes that began before he was born.

This child’s parents start out with the intention to practice authoritative parenting. But, as the years go by, they find it increasingly difficult. His behavior stresses them out, and soon they drift towards other responses. They might become more punitive and authoritarian. Or, alternatively, they might feel helpless, and give up on enforcing limits.

Either way, the child’s temperament has influenced the way the parents behave. They intended to practice authoritative parenting, but their child’s temperament nudged them off course.

Does this really happen? A number of studies support the idea.

For example, consider a study tracking more than 400 children from the age of 3.  If children showed early signs of ADHD, their parents tended to become more authoritarian over time (Allman et al 2022). 

Or take a study that followed the development of approximately 500 adolescent girls over the course of a year (Huh et al 2006).

At the beginning of the study, the researchers measured the girls’ externalizing behavior problems (e.g., picking fights and engaging in acts of defiance). They also asked girls about the way their parents attempted to monitor them and enforce rules. At the end of the study, researchers repeated their measurements.

The results? Initially low levels of parental control didn’t have a significant effect on a girl’s subsequent development of externalizing behavior problems. But initially high levels of misconduct were a significant predictor of  decreasing  parental control over time (Huh et al 2006).

In other words, parents were more likely to give up — stop trying to control their kids — if children were more aggressive or difficult to begin with. In effect, misbehavior prompted parents to become more permissive.

Now, none of this means that parents with difficult kids  should  respond by becoming more authoritarian or more permissive. On the contrary, these responses tend to make things worse.

It’s a pattern reported by a number of studies: When kids struggle with behavior problems, they are more likely to improve over time when their parents adopt authoritative practices (like positive parenting , emotion coaching , and inductive discipline ).

But it isn’t easy. We need to acknowledge that some kids are intrinsically more challenging to handle. Their behavior can nudge parents to react in ways that are counter-productive.

Therapists and counselors can help, but they need to address the behavior of both parents  and  kids (Huh et al 2006). And parents need advice tailored to their children’s temperaments and psychological profiles.

For more information, see my article about parenting stress , as well as my evidence-based tips for handling disruptive behavior problems.

More reading about parenting styles

Interested in authoritative caregiving? I offer more insights and advice in these articles:

• The authoritative parenting style: An evidence-based guide
• Positive parenting tips:Getting better results with humor, empathy, and diplomacy
• Emotion coaching: Helping kids cope with negative feelings
• Inductive discipline: Why it pays to explain the reasons for rules
• Aggressive behavior problems: 12 evidence-based tips
• Teaching self-control: Evidence-based tips

In addition, you can learn more about authoritarian parenting from these Parenting Science articles:

• Authoritarian parenting style: What does it look like?
• Authoritarian parenting: What happens to the kids?

Here are my articles about permissive parenting:

• Permissive parenting: An evidence-based guide
• The permissive parenting style: Does it ever benefit kids?

And check out these, related Parenting Science offerings:

• The health benefits of sensitive, responsive parenting
• Student-teacher relationships: Why emotional support matters
• Oxytocin affects social bonds — can we influence oxytocin in children?
• Teaching empathy: Tips for fostering empathic awareness in children
• The science of attachment parenting

References: Parenting styles

Baumrind D. 1966. Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37(4), 887-907.

Baumrind D. 1991. The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence 11(1): 56-95.

Berge J, Sundell K, Öjehagen A, Håkansson A. 2016. Role of parenting styles in adolescent substance use: results from a Swedish longitudinal cohort study. BMJ Open. 6(1):e008979

Calafat A, García F, Juan M, Becoña E, Fernández-Hermida JR. 2014. Which parenting style is more protective against adolescent substance use? Evidence within the European context. Drug Alcohol Depend. 138:185-92.

Chao R. 1994. Beyond parental control; authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development 45: 1111-1119.

Chen X, Dong Q, Zhou H. 1997. Authoritative and Authoritarian Parenting Practices and Social and School Performance in Chinese Children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21(4): 855-873.

Darling N and Steinberg L. 1993. Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin 113(3): 487-496.Garcia F and Gracia E. 2009. Is always authoritative the optimum parenting style? Evidence from Spanish families. Adolescence 44(173): 101-131.

Endicott K. 2013. “Peaceful foragers: The significance of the Batek and Moriori for the question of innate human violence.” In D. Fry (ed):  War, Peace, and Human Nature. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 241-61.

Fletcher AC, Steinberg L, and Sellars EB. 199. Adolescents’ well-being as a function of perceived interparental consistency. Journal of Marriage and the Family 61(3): 599-610. 

Harris JR. 1998. The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. Free Press.

Hewlett BS and Roulette CJ. 2016. Teaching in hunter-gatherer infancy. R Soc Open Sci. 3(1):150403..

Howell N. 2010. Life histories of the Dobe !Kung. University of California Press.

Huh D, Tristan J, Wade E and Stice E. 2006. Does Problem Behavior Elicit Poor Parenting?: A Prospective Study of Adolescent Girls. Journal of Adolescent Research 21(2): 185-204.

Kim K and Rohner RP. 2002. Parental Warmth, Control, and Involvement in Schooling: Predicting academic achievement among Korean American adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 33(2): 127-140.

Kim SY, Wang Y, Orozco-Lapray D, Shen Y, Murtuza M. 2013. Does “Tiger Parenting” Exist? Parenting Profiles of Chinese Americans and Adolescent Developmental Outcomes. Asian Am J Psychol. 4(1):7-18.

Kim SY. 2013.  Defining Tiger Parenting in Chinese Americans. Hum Dev. 56(4):217-222.

Konner M. 2011. The evolution of childhood. Belknap Press.

Lansford JE, Godwin J, Al-Hassan SM, Bacchini D, Bornstein MH, Chang L, Chen BB, Deater-Deckard K, Di Giunta L, Dodge KA, Malone PS, Oburu P, Pastorelli C, Skinner AT, Sorbring E, Steinberg L, Tapanya S, Alampay LP, Uribe Tirado LM, Zelli A. 2018. Longitudinal associations between parenting and youth adjustment in twelve cultural groups: Cultural normativeness of parenting as a moderator. Dev Psychol. 54(2):362-377.

Lew-Levy. 2017. How Do Hunter-Gatherer Children Learn Social and Gender Norms? A Meta-Ethnographic Review. Cross-Cultural Research 52(2): 213-255.

Maccoby EE and Martin JA. 1983. Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (ed) and E. M. Hetherington (vol. ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.

Marlowe FW. 2010. The Hadza hunter-gatherers of Tanzania.  University of California Press.

McKinney C and Renk K. 2008. Differential parenting between mothers and fathers. implications for late adolescents. Journal of Family Issues. 29(6):806–827.

Martínez I, García JF, and Yubero S. 2007. Parenting styles and adolescents’ self-esteem in Brazil. Psychol Rep. 2007 Jun;100(3 Pt 1):731-45.

Pinquart M and Kauser R. 2018. Do the Associations of Parenting Styles With Behavior Problems and Academic Achievement Vary by Culture? Results From a Meta-Analysis. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol. 24(1): 75-100.

Pinquart M. 2017. Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with internalizing symptoms in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis Marriage and Family Review 53: 613-640.

Robinson C, Mandleco B, Olsen, SF, and Hart CH. 1995. Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting practices: Development of a new measure. Psychological Reports 77: 819–830.

Rothenberg WA, Lansford JE, Al-Hassan SM, Bacchini D, Bornstein MH, Chang L, Deater-Deckard K, Di Giunta L, Dodge KA, Malone PS, Oburu P, Pastorelli C, Skinner AT, Sorbring E, Steinberg L, Tapanya S, Maria Uribe Tirado L, Yotanyamaneewong S, Peña Alampay L. 2020. Examining effects of parent warmth and control on internalizing behavior clusters from age 8 to 12 in 12 cultural groups in nine countries. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 61(4):436-446.

Simons LG and Conger RD. 2007. Linking mother-father differences in parenting to a typology of family parenting styles and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Family Issues. 28:212–241.

Smetana JG. 2017. Current research on parenting styles, dimensions, and beliefs. Curr Opin Psychol. 15:19-25.

Steinberg L. 2001. We know some things: Parent-adolescent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of research on adolescence 11(1): 1-19.

Türkel YD and Tezer E. 2008. Parenting styles and learned resourcefulness of Turkish adolescents. Adolescence. 43(169):143-52.

Content last modified 4/2024. Portions of the text are derived from earlier version of this article, written by the same author

Graphic of matrix depicting parenting styles copyright 2018 Gwen Dewar and Parenting Science

Image of mother pressing forehead against child by jacobblund / istock

image of hunter-gatherer rock art photographed by Dietmar Rauscher / shutterstock

Exploring Retrospective Parenting Styles and Parent-Child Relationship Quality as Correlates of Chinese Adults’ Current Psychological Distress: Influence of Family-of-Origin?

• Original Paper
• Published: 01 June 2024

Cite this article

• Yiman Yu 1   na1 ,
• Tianxiang Cui 2   na1 ,
• Wesley R. Barnhart 3 ,
• Yutian Liu 1 ,
• Qingyang Wang 4 &
• Jinbo He   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2785-9371 1  

12 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The present study explored retrospective childhood parenting styles and retrospective childhood parent-child relationship quality as correlates of Chinese adults’ current psychological distress. An online community sample of 501 Chinese adults (aged 19-46 years, M  = 28.55, SD  = 5.38; 252 men) was recruited. Retrospective parenting styles and parent-child relationship quality were measured by asking participants to recall their childhood experiences (≤12 years old). With bivariate correlations, both retrospective parenting styles and parent-child relationship quality were significantly associated with adults’ current psychological distress. With multiple linear regressions, retrospective parental rejection was the only significant, positive correlate of current psychological distress ( β  = 0.36, p  < 0.001). Gender significantly moderated the relation between retrospective parental warmth and current psychological distress ( β  = −0.12, p  = 0.049) and the relation between retrospective parent-child relationship quality and current psychological distress ( β  = 0.18, p  = 0.032). These findings suggest that Chinese adults’ retrospective parenting styles and relationship quality with their parents during childhood may relate to current mental health status as represented by psychological distress, highlighting the potential influence of family-of-origin.

With bivariate correlations, both retrospective parenting styles and parent-child relationship quality were significantly associated with adults’ current psychological distress.

With multiple linear regressions, retrospective parental rejection was the only significant, positive correlate of current psychological distress.

Higher retrospective parental warmth interacted with female gender in relation to lower current psychological distress.

Higher retrospective parent-child relationship quality interacted with male gender in relation to lower current psychological distress.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Is a harsh childhood growth environment reflected in parental images and emotional distress in adulthood?

Precursors and Effects of Self-reported Parental Reflective Functioning: Links to Parental Attachment Representations and Behavioral Sensitivity

Sex-Specific Effect of Recalled Parenting on Affective and Cognitive Empathy in Adulthood

Data availability.

The dataset and codes used in the present study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Ackard, D. M., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., & Perry, C. (2006). Parent–Child Connectedness and Behavioral and Emotional Health Among Adolescents. American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 30 (1), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.09.013 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Alika, H. I., Akanni, D. O., & Akanni, O. O. (2016). Parenting styles and family characteristics as correlates of psychological distress among Nigerian adolescents. International Journal of Psychology and Counselling , 8 (9), 102–108. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJPC2016.0451 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Anlı, İ., & Karslı, T. A. (2010). Perceived parenting style, depression and anxiety levels in a Turkish late-adolescent population. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , 2 (2), 724–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.091 .

Arrindell, W. A., Sanavio, E., Aguilar, G., Sica, C., Hatzichristou, C., Eisemann, M., Recinos, L. A., Gaszner, P., Peter, M., Battagliese, G., Kállai, J., & van der Ende, J. (1999). The development of a short form of the EMBU 1Swedish acronym for Egna Minnen Beträffande Uppfostran (“My memories of upbringing”). 1: Its appraisal with students in Greece, Guatemala, Hungary and Italy. Personality and Individual Differences , 27 (4), 613–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00192-5 .

Arvidsdotter, T., Marklund, B., Kylén, S., Taft, C., & Ekman, I. (2016). Understanding persons with psychological distress in primary health care. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences , 30 (4), 687–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12289 .

Balsa, A. I., Homer, J. F., & French, M. T. (2009). The Health Effects of Parental Problem Drinking on Adult Children. Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics , 12 , 55–66.

Barcellos, S. H., Carvalho, L. S., & Lleras-Muney, A. (2014). Child Gender and Parental Investments In India: Are Boys and Girls Treated Differently? American Economic Journal: Applied Economics , 6 (1), 157–189. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.6.1.157 .

Barton, A. L., & Kirtley, M. S. (2012). Gender Differences in the Relationships Among Parenting Styles and College Student Mental Health. Journal of American College Health , 60 (1), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2011.555933 .

Bavelas, J. B., & Segal, R. (1982). Family systems theory: Background and implications. Journal of Communication , 32 (3), 99–107.

Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures. Spine , 25 (24), 3186–3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 .

Benson, M., & Parker, J. (2004). Parent-Adolescent Relations and Adolescent Functioning: Self-Esteem, Substance Abuse, and Delinquency. Adolescence , 39 (155), 519–530.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bessaha, M. L. (2017). Factor Structure of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) Among Emerging Adults. Research on Social Work Practice , 27 (5), 616–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731515594425 .

Boutelle, K., Eisenberg, M. E., Gregory, M. L., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2009). The reciprocal relationship between parent–child connectedness and adolescent emotional functioning over 5 years. Journal of Psychosomatic Research , 66 (4), 309–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.10.019 .

Boyd, D. R., & Bee, H. L. (2015). Lifespan development (Seventh Edition). Pearson.

Brandon, N. J., & Sawa, A. (2011). Linking neurodevelopmental and synaptic theories of mental illness through DISC1. Nature Reviews Neuroscience , 12 (12), 707–722. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3120 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Braza, P., Carreras, R., Muñoz, J. M., Braza, F., Azurmendi, A., Pascual-Sagastizábal, E., Cardas, J., & Sánchez-Martín, J. R. (2015). Negative Maternal and Paternal Parenting Styles as Predictors of Children’s Behavioral Problems: Moderating Effects of the Child’s Gender. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 24 (4), 847–856. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9893-0 .

Brown, B., Mackett, R., Gong, Y., Kitazawa, K., & Paskins, J. (2008). Gender differences in children’s pathways to independent mobility. Children’s Geographies , 6 (4), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733280802338080 .

Brumariu, L. E., & Kerns, K. A. (2010). Parent–child attachment and internalizing symptoms in childhood and adolescence: A review of empirical findings and future directions. Development and Psychopathology , 22 (1), 177–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409990344 .

Brummer, L., Stopa, L., & Bucks, R. (2014). The Influence of Age on Emotion Regulation Strategies and Psychological Distress. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , 42 (6), 668–681. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465813000453 .

Buist, K. L., Verhoeven, M., Hoksbergen, R., ter Laak, J., Watve, S., & Paranjpe, A. (2017). Associations of Perceived Sibling and Parent-Child Relationship Quality With Internalizing and Externalizing Problems: Comparing Indian and Dutch Early Adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence , 37 (8), 1163–1190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431616653473 .

Bulanda, R. E., & Majumdar, D. (2009). Perceived Parent–Child Relations and Adolescent Self-Esteem. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 18 (2), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-008-9220-3 .

Cameron, M. K., & Manning, D. (2020). Relating parenting styles to adult emotional intelligence: A retrospective study. Athens Journal of Social Sciences , 7 (3), 185–196.

Chen, H. Y., Ng, J., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2021). Why is self-esteem higher among American than Chinese early adolescents? The role of psychologically controlling parenting. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 50 , 1856–1869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01474-4 .

Chopik, W. J., Edelstein, R. S., van Anders, S. M., Wardecker, B. M., Shipman, E. L., & Samples-Steele, C. R. (2014). Too close for comfort? Adult attachment and cuddling in romantic and parent–child relationships. Personality and Individual Differences , 69 , 212–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.035 .

Clark, K. E., & Ladd, G. W. (2000). Connectedness and autonomy support in parent–child relationships: Links to children’s socioemotional orientation and peer relationships. Developmental Psychology , 36 (4), 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.4.485 .

Compton, M. T., & Shim, R. S. (2015). The Social Determinants of Mental Health. FOCUS , 13 (4), 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.focus.20150017 .

de Haan, A. D., Deković, M., & Prinzie, P. (2012). Longitudinal impact of parental and adolescent personality on parenting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 102 (1), 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025254 .

de Roo, M., Veenstra, R., & Kretschmer, T. (2022). Internalizing and externalizing correlates of parental overprotection as measured by the EMBU: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Social Development , 31 (4), 962–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12590 .

Ding, R., & He, P. (2022). Parenting styles and health in mid- and late life: Evidence from the China health and retirement longitudinal study. BMC Geriatrics , 22 (1), 463. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03157-6 .

Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology , 17 , 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019637632584 .

Downs, W. R., Capshew, T., & Rindels, B. (2004). Relationships between adult women’s alcohol problems and their childhood experiences of parental violence and psychological aggression. Journal of Studies on Alcohol , 65 (3), 336–344. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2004.65.336 .

Downs, W. R., Capshew, T., & Rindels, B. (2006). Relationships Between Adult Women’s Mental Health Problems and their Childhood Experiences of Parental Violence and Psychological Aggression. Journal of Family Violence 21 , 439–447.

Drapeau, A., Marchand, A., & Beaulieu-Prévost, D. (2012). Epidemiology of psychological distress. In Mental Illnesses—Understanding, Prediction and Control , 5 , 105–106. https://openresearchlibrary.org/content/9ae4ecf9-6811-4dfc-9069-1c307ece7273

Google Scholar  

Eun, J. D., Paksarian, D., He, J.-P., & Merikangas, K. R. (2018). Parenting style and mental disorders in a nationally representative sample of US adolescents. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology , 53 (1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-017-1435-4 .

Fukuda, Y., & Hiyoshi, A. (2012). Influences of income and employment on psychological distress and depression treatment in Japanese adults. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine , 17 (1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12199-011-0212-3 .

Gan, X., Li, H., Li, M., Yu, C., Jin, X., Zhu, C., & Liu, Y. (2021). Parenting styles, depressive symptoms, and problematic online game use in adolescents: a developmental cascades model. Frontiers in Public Health , 9 , 710667 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.710667 .

Givertz, M., & Segrin, C. (2014). The Association Between Overinvolved Parenting and Young Adults’ Self-Efficacy, Psychological Entitlement, and Family Communication. Communication Research , 41 (8), 1111–1136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212456392 .

Goodwin, R. D., & Gotlib, I. H. (2004). Gender differences in depression: The role of personality factors. Psychiatry Research , 126 (2), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2003.12.024 .

Gorostiaga, A., Aliri, J., Balluerka, N., & Lameirinhas, J. (2019). Parenting styles and internalizing symptoms in adolescence: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 16 (17), 3192. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16173192 .

Granieri, A., Franzoi, I. G., & Chung, M. C. (2021). Psychological distress among University students. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 , 647940. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.647940 .

Green, A., MacLean, R., & Charles, K. (2020). Recollections of parenting styles in the development of narcissism: The role of gender. Personality and Individual Differences , 167 , 110246 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110246 .

Grubaugh, A. L., Zinzow, H. M., Paul, L., Egede, L. E., & Frueh, B. C. (2011). Trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder in adults with severe mental illness: A critical review. Clinical Psychology Review , 31 (6), 883–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.04.003 .

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Beyond WEIRD: Towards a broad-based behavioral science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 33 (2–3), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000725 .

Hillekens, J., Buist, K. L., Horváth, L. O., Koper, N., Ólafsdóttir, J., Karkdijk, E., & Balázs, J. (2020). Parent-early adolescent relationship quality and problem behavior in Hungary, the Netherlands, India, and Iceland. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology , 61 (6), 763–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12667 .

Huang, J. P., Xia, W., Sun, C. H., Zhang, H. Y., & Wu, L. J. (2009). Psychological Distress and its Correlates in Chinese Adolescents. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry , 43 (7), 674–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048670902970817 .

Inguglia, C., Ingoglia, S., Liga, F., Lo Coco, A., & Lo Cricchio, M. G. (2015). Autonomy and Relatedness in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood: Relationships with Parental Support and Psychological Distress. Journal of Adult Development , 22 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-014-9196-8 .

Irons, C., Gilbert, P., Baldwin, M. W., Baccus, J. R., & Palmer, M. (2006). Parental recall, attachment relating and self-attacking/self-reassurance: Their relationship with depression. British Journal of Clinical Psychology , 45 (3), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466505X68230 .

Isgut, M., Smith, A. K., Reimann, E. S., Kucuk, O., & Ryan, J. (2017). The impact of psychological distress during pregnancy on the developing fetus: Biological mechanisms and the potential benefits of mindfulness interventions. Journal of Perinatal Medicine , 45 (9). https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2016-0189 .

Jeynes, W. H. (2010a). The Salience of the Subtle Aspects of Parental Involvement and Encouraging that Involvement: Implications for School-Based Programs. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education , 112 (3), 747–774. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811011200311 .

Jeynes, W. H. (2010b). Parental Involvement and Academic Success . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203843444 .

Jurado, D., Alarcón, R. D., Martínez-Ortega, J. M., Mendieta-Marichal, Y., Gutiérrez-Rojas, L., & Gurpegui, M. (2017). Factors associated with psychological distress or common mental disorders in migrant populations across the world. Revista de Psiquiatría y Salud Mental (English Edition) , 10 (1), 45–58.

Kang, Y., Guo, W., Xu, H., Chen, Y., Li, X., Tan, Z., Li, N., Gesang, Z., Wang, Y., Liu, C., Luo, Y., Feng, J., Xu, Q., Lee, S., & Li, T. (2015). The 6-item Kessler psychological distress scale to survey serious mental illness among Chinese undergraduates: Psychometric properties and prevalence estimate. Comprehensive Psychiatry , 63 , 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2015.08.011 .

Kang, Y., & Moore, J. (2011). Parenting style and adolescents’ school performance in mainland China. US-China Education Review B , 1 , 133–138.

Kawabata, Y., Alink, L. R. A., Tseng, W.-L., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Crick, N. R. (2011). Maternal and paternal parenting styles associated with relational aggression in children and adolescents: A conceptual analysis and meta-analytic review. Developmental Review , 31 (4), 240–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2011.08.001 .

Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K., Normand, S.-L. T., Walters, E. E., & Zaslavsky, A. M. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine , 32 (6), 959–976. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291702006074 .

Khalid, J., & Aslam, N. (2012). Relationship of Perceived Parenting with Psychological Distress and Resilience among Adolescents. Pakistan Journal of Psychology , 43 (2), 57–71.

Kincaid, C., Jones, D. J., Sterrett, E., & McKee, L. (2012). A review of parenting and adolescent genderual behavior: The moderating role of gender. Clinical Psychology Review , 32 (3), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.01.002 .

Kouros, C. D., Pruitt, M. M., Ekas, N. V., Kiriaki, R., & Sunderland, M. (2017). Helicopter Parenting, Autonomy Support, and College Students’ Mental Health and Well-being: The Moderating Role of Gender and Ethnicity. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 26 (3), 939–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0614-3 .

Layte, R. (2012). The Association Between Income Inequality and Mental Health: Testing Status Anxiety, Social Capital, and Neo-Materialist Explanations. European Sociological Review , 28 (4), 498–511. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcr012 .

Lee, R. M., Draper, M., & Lee, S. (2001). Social connectedness, dysfunctional interpersonal behaviors, and psychological distress: Testing a mediator model. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 48 (3), 310–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.3.310 .

Li, Q. (2012). “Qiongyang erzi fuyang nv” de xianshi yiyi [The practical significance of “Raising sons poorly and daughters richly”]. Zouxiang Shijie , 08 , 31.

Li, Z., Wang, L., & Zhang, L. (2012). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis of a Short-Form of the EMBU among Chinese Adolescents. Psychological Reports , 110 (1), 263–275. https://doi.org/10.2466/02.08.09.21.PR0.110.1.263-275 .

Liang, B., & West, J. (2011). Relational health, alexithymia, and psychological distress in college women: Testing a mediator model. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 81 (2), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2011.01093.x .

Lieber, E., Fung, H., & Leung, P. W.-L. (2006). Chinese child-rearing beliefs: Key dimensions and contributions to the development of culture-appropriate assessment. Asian Journal Of Social Psychology , 9 (2), 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2006.00191.x .

Lindsey, E. W., Cremeens, P. R., & Caldera, Y. M. (2009). Mother-child and father-child mutuality in two contexts: Consequences for young children’s peer relationships. Infant and Child Development . https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.645 .

Liu, Y., Cui, T., Barnhart, W. R., Wang, Q., Yu, Y., & He, J. (2023). Associations among retrospective parenting styles, retrospective food parenting, and current eating behaviors in Chinese adults. Appetite , 184 , 106512 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.106512 .

Long, J. A. (2019). interactions: Comprehensive, User-Friendly Toolkit for Probing Interactions . https://cran.r-project.org/package=interactions .

Luk, J. W., Patock-Peckham, J. A., Medina, M., Terrell, N., Belton, D., & King, K. M. (2016). Bullying Perpetration and Victimization as Externalizing and Internalizing Pathways: A Retrospective Study Linking Parenting Styles and Self-Esteem to Depression, Alcohol Use, and Alcohol-Related Problems. Substance Use & Misuse , 51 (1), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2015.1090453 .

Maechler, M., Rousseeuw, P., Croux, C., Todorov, V., Ruckstuhl, A., Salibian-Barrera, M., di Palma, M. A., Verbeke, T., M. Koller, & Conceicao, E. L. T. (2022). robustbase: Basic Robust Statistics . http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=robustbase .

Mallers, M. H., Charles, S. T., Neupert, S. D., & Almeida, D. M. (2010). Perceptions of childhood relationships with mother and father: Daily emotional and stressor experiences in adulthood. Developmental Psychology , 46 (6), 1651–1661. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021020 .

Mazza, C., Ricci, E., Biondi, S., Colasanti, M., Ferracuti, S., Napoli, C., & Roma, P. (2020). A Nationwide Survey of Psychological Distress among Italian People during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Immediate Psychological Responses and Associated Factors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 17 (9), 3165 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093165 .

McKinney, C., & Kwan, J. W. (2018). Emerging Adult Perceptions of and Preferences for Parenting Styles and Associated Psychological Outcomes. Journal of Family Issues , 39 (9), 2491–2504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X18756928 .

Mewton, L., Kessler, R. C., Slade, T., Hobbs, M. J., Brownhill, L., Birrell, L., Tonks, Z., Teesson, M., Newton, N., Chapman, C., Allsop, S., Hides, L., McBride, N., & Andrews, G. (2016). The psychometric properties of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) in a general population sample of adolescents. Psychological Assessment , 28 (10), 1232–1242. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000239 .

Mousavi, S. E., Low, W. Y., & Hashim, A. H. (2016). Perceived Parenting Styles and Cultural Influences in Adolescent’s Anxiety: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 25 (7), 2102–2110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0393-x .

Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Parental imprisonment: Long-lasting effects on boys’ internalizing problems through the life course. Development and Psychopathology , 20 (1), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579408000138 .

Ng, F. F. Y., Pomerantz, E. M., & Deng, C. (2014). Why are Chinese mothers more controlling than American mothers?“My child is my report card. Child Development , 85 (1), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12102 .

Oliver, A., Pile, V., Elm, D., & Lau, J. Y. F. (2019). The Cognitive Neuropsychology of Depression in Adolescents. Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports , 6 (4), 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40473-019-00187-0 .

Ollendick, T. H., & Benoit, K. E. (2012). A Parent–Child Interactional Model of Social Anxiety Disorder in Youth. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review , 15 (1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-011-0108-1 .

Özdemir, Y., & Sağkal, A. S. (2019). Recalled Parenting Practices and Psychological Distress in Turkish Emerging Adults: The Role of Self-Criticism. Psychological Reports , 122 (5), 1720–1743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118798623 .

Park, H., Choi, E., & Wenzel, J. A. (2020). Racial/ethnic differences in correlates of psychological distress among five Asian-American subgroups and non-Hispanic Whites. Ethnicity & Health , 25 (8), 1072–1088. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2018.1481495 .

Prochaska, J. J., Das, S., & Young-Wolff, K. C. (2017). Smoking, Mental Illness, and Public Health. Annual Review of Public Health , 38 (1), 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044618 .

R Core Team. (2022). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing . R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ .

Raudino, A., Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2013). The quality of parent/child relationships in adolescence is associated with poor adult psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Adolescence , 36 (2), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.12.002 .

Revelle, W. (2021). Psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research . Northwestern University. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych .

Rhee, K. E., Lumeng, J. C., Appugliese, D. P., Kaciroti, N., & Bradley, R. H. (2006). Parenting Styles and Overweight Status in First Grade. Pediatrics , 117 (6), 2047–2054. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-2259 .

Rothbaum, F., Rosen, K., Ujiie, T., & Uchida, N. (2002). Family Systems Theory, Attachment Theory, and Culture. FAMILY PROCESS , 41 , 23.

Rutter, M., Kim-Cohen, J., & Maughan, B. (2006). Continuities and discontinuities in psychopathology between childhood and adult life. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 47 (3–4), 276–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01614.x .

Saleem, S., Renshaw, K. D., Azhar, M., Giff, S. T., & Mahmood, Z. (2021). Interactive Effects of Perceived Parental Rearing Styles on Distress Tolerance and Psychological Distress in Pakistani University Students. Journal of Adult Development , 28 (4), 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-021-09373-5 .

Shaffer, D. R., & Kipp, K. (2014). Developmental psychology: Childhood and adolescence (9th edition). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Sharp, J., & Theiler, S. (2018). A review of psychological distress among university students: Pervasiveness, implications and potential points of intervention. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling , 40 , 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-018-9321-7 .

Shaw, B. A., Krause, N., Chatters, L. M., Connell, C. M., & Ingersoll-Dayton, B. (2004). Emotional Support From Parents Early in Life, Aging, and Health. Psychology and Aging , 19 (1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.19.1.4 .

Singh, S. (2017). Parenting style in relation to children’s mental health and self-esteem: A review of literature. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing , 8 (12), 1522–1527. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1986552675/abstract/D328666BB761483FPQ/1

Smetana, J. G. (2017). Current research on parenting styles, dimensions, and beliefs. Current Opinion in Psychology , 15, 19–25.

Stack, D. M., Serbin, L. A., Enns, L. N., Ruttle, P. L., & Barrieau, L. (2010). Parental Effects on Children’s Emotional Development Over Time and Across Generations. Infants & Young Children , 23 (1), 52–69. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0b013e3181c97606 .

Steele, E. H., & McKinney, C. (2019). Emerging adult psychological problems and parenting style: Moderation by parent-child relationship quality. Personality and Individual Differences , 146 , 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.048 .

Stephens, M. A. (2009). Gender differences in parenting styles and effects on the parent-child relationship (Unpublished thesis) . San Marcos, Texas: Texas State University-San Marcos.

Su, C., & Hynie, M. (2011). Effects of life stress, social support, and cultural norms on parenting styles among mainland Chinese, European Canadian, and Chinese Canadian immigrant mothers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 42 (6), 944–962. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110381124 .

Su, Q., & Chen, L. (2020). Chinese adolescents’ perceptions of parents’ rearing styles: A crosstemporal meta-analysis of birth cohort changes 1994–2017. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal , 48 (11), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.9399 .

Turner, M. J. (2016). Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), Irrational and Rational Beliefs, and the Mental Health of Athletes. Frontiers in Psychology , 07 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01423 .

Uher, R. (2014). Gene-Environment Interactions in Severe Mental Illness. Frontiers in Psychiatry , 5 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00048 .

Uji, M., Sakamoto, A., Adachi, K., & Kitamura, T. (2014). The Impact of Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Permissive Parenting Styles on Children’s Later Mental Health in Japan: Focusing on Parent and Child Gender. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 23 (2), 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9740-3 .

Villanueva van den Hurk, A. W., & McKinney, C. (2022). Emerging Adult Antisocial Problems and Psychological and Physical Maltreatment: Moderation by Other Parent-Child Relationship Quality Alicia W. Villanu. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 37 (19–20), NP19084–NP19105. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211043580 .

Wang, L., Nelson, L. D., Gao, R. Y., Jung, M., & Hung, I. W. (2022). Validating a new tool for social scientists to collect data . San Diego, CA, USA: Poster presentation at the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making. November.

Wang, Y., Chung, M. C., & Wang, N. (2021). Parenting revisited: Profiles and associations with psychological distress among traumatized Chinese adolescents. Current Psychology . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01411-5 .

Weymouth, B. B., Buehler, C., Zhou, N., & Henson, R. A. (2016). A Meta-Analysis of Parent–Adolescent Conflict: Disagreement, Hostility, and Youth Maladjustment. Journal of Family Theory & Review , 8 (1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12126 .

Wu, P., Robinson, C. C., Yang, C., Hart, C. H., Olsen, S. F., Porter, C. L., & Wu, X. (2002). Similarities and differences in mothers’ parenting of preschoolers in China and the United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development , 26 (6), 481–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250143000436 .

Xiao, B., Bullock, A., Liu, J., & Coplan, R. J. (2022). The longitudinal links between marital conflict and Chinese children’s internalizing problems in mainland China: Mediating role of maternal parenting styles. Family Process , 61 (4), 1749–1766. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12735 .

Xiong, Y., Qin, L., Wang, Q., Wang, M., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2022). Reexamining the cultural specificity of controlling and autonomy-supportive parenting in the United States and China with a within-individual analytic approach. Developmental Psychology , 58 (5), 935–949. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001329 .

Yap, M. B., Morgan, A. J., Cairns, K., Jorm, A. F., Hetrick, S. E., & Merry, S. (2016). Parents in prevention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of parenting interventions to prevent internalizing problems in children from birth to age 18. Clinical Psychology Review , 50 , 138–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2016.10.003 .

Zhang, M., Zhang, J., Zhang, F., Zhang, L., & Feng, D. (2018). Prevalence of psychological distress and the effects of resilience and perceived social support among Chinese college students: Does gender make a difference? Psychiatry Research , 267 , 409–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.06.038 .

Zubizarreta, A. (2019). Punitive Parenting Style and Psychological Problems in Childhood: The Moderating Role of Warmth and Temperament. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 28 , 233–244.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research received financial support from the Undergraduate Research Awards of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, to Yutian Liu, Yiman Yu, and Qingyang Wang.

This research was partly supported by the Presidential Fund of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, to Jinbo He (Grant Number: PF.01.001428).

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Yiman Yu, Tianxiang Cui

Authors and Affiliations

School of Humanities and Social Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Yiman Yu, Yutian Liu & Jinbo He

Department of Psychology, University of Macau, Taipa, Macau, China

Tianxiang Cui

Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, USA

Wesley R. Barnhart

School of Management and Economics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Qingyang Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jinbo He .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (Applied Psychology) of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen (No. EF20201212001).

Informed Consent

All subjects were informed the purpose of this study and informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Yu, Y., Cui, T., Barnhart, W.R. et al. Exploring Retrospective Parenting Styles and Parent-Child Relationship Quality as Correlates of Chinese Adults’ Current Psychological Distress: Influence of Family-of-Origin?. J Child Fam Stud (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-024-02859-2

Download citation

Accepted : 16 May 2024

Published : 01 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-024-02859-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Retrospective reports
• Parenting styles
• Parent-child relationship quality
• Chinese adults
• Psychological distress
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

StarsInsider

Parenting styles and how they affect children

Posted: May 10, 2024 | Last updated: May 13, 2024

How a child is treated has enormous effects on their well-being when they grow up. There is no such thing as “perfect parenting.” However, researchers have found four different parenting styles that parents will loosely fall into.

These styles are authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, and uninvolved. Each parenting style takes a different approach to raising children and can be identified by specific characteristics. To learn about what these parenting styles are and how they affect children, click through the following gallery.

You may also like: The most terrifying places in the world

Authoritarian parenting

As the title indicates, in this parenting style children must adhere to strict rules set out by the parent, resulting in punishment if not followed.

Rules go unexplained

The authoritarian style of parenting means parents usually don't take time to explain the meaning behind the rules that they've instated and will give reasons to children like “because I said so.”

You may also like: 28 fake ghost photos that went viral

Unresponsive with high demands for children

The authoritarian parent is usually not very responsive to their children and has high demands of them. They expect and attempt to enforce exemplary behavior from the child, giving little direction as to what that means.

Unhappier children

The children of authoritarian parents tend to follow the rules very strictly, which in some cases comes at a price. The children of these parents tend to rank lower in happiness.

You may also like: The hidden secrets in famous works of art

It affects self-esteem

As can be easily imagined, a child who grows up with an authoritarian parent(s) runs the risk of developing self-esteem issues, feeling like their opinions aren’t valid because they weren’t valued in their formative years.

Authoritative parenting

Similar to authoritarian parenting, authoritative parenting also is mainly defined by a style of parenting that includes a lot of rules that children must follow. However, it’s not as strict and is a little more democratic.

You may also like: Australian models who made it big

Healthy communication

With this parenting style, the difference is that parents monitor their children’s behavior and communicate clear standards to them.

Feedback, warmth, and support

Much like the authoritarian style of parenting, the authoritative kind of parent also expects a lot from a child regarding their behavior and performance at school. Still, they provide clear feedback, warmth, and support.

You may also like: Famous widowed women and their lives after loss

It's not all punishment

The authoritative parent is willing to listen to a child’s questions. They are more nurturing and forgiving when a child does wrong, as opposed to punishing them.

Other features of authoritative parenting

This style of parenting is assertive and not intrusive or restrictive. These parents are not punitive. They expect their children to be responsible, cooperative, and self-regulated.

You may also like: The most-asked "why" questions on Google

The results of authoritative parenting

Research has found that children who grow up with authoritative parents are most likely to grow up to be socially responsible and confident in the validity of their opinions.

It's proven to be the best for children

In fact, of all of the parenting styles, this parenting style is most likely to result in happy, capable, and successful adults.

You may also like: The most bizarre TripAdvisor reviews

Permissive parenting

Permissive parents can be best understood as indulging in their children’s demands. They will typically go to great lengths to give the child what they need and have low expectations regarding maturity and self-control.

Very lenient

Permissive parenting is a style of parenting that is non-traditional in that it is not demanding, and instead is very lenient.

You may also like: You're fired! Trump's White House rejects

Avoiding confrontation

The permissive parent will avoid confrontation with the child, and is generally quite nurturing and communicative.

Friend instead of parent

This parenting style tends to take on the role of a friend to the child rather than one that is typically associated with being a parent.

You may also like: Celebrity couples who don't live together

Children can lack discipline

Children who grow up with this parenting style are much more likely to struggle academically and lack discipline.

Children of permissive parents may lack respect

Because these children don’t see rules enforced very strictly in their formative years, they tend to not respect authority or regulations when they grow up.

You may also like: Fictional characters inspired by real people

Higher risk of physical health issues

Children of permissive parents also risk developing physical health issues like obesity and dental hygiene problems because they can lack the discipline to limit their junk food intake.

Uninvolved parenting

Uninvolved parents are characterized by being unresponsive, having minimal demands of the child, and not communicating with the child.

You may also like: Beyond the veil: eerie encounters with ectoplasm and spiritualists

Children raise themselves

Uninvolved parents expect children to raise themselves. They don’t devote much time or energy to their children. It should be said that these parents are suffering from mental health issues themselves in many cases.

Lack of guidance and support

These parents will tend to have very little knowledge of where their child is or what they’re doing. The child typically won’t receive much guidance, support, or warmth from this style of parent.

You may also like: Recognizing ‘Cluster C’ personality disorders

Some parents may be struggling with work

Uninvolved parents may be overwhelmed with work, managing a household and bills, and simply may not have the time or presence of mind to give the child what they need.

Self-esteem issues

Children of these kinds of parents tend to grow up less happy and are at a higher risk of developing issues with self-esteem.

You may also like: Step inside the diabolical House of Medici

Authoritative parenting is the healthiest

In short, for the sake of the children’s well-being, success, happiness, and general performance in life, the style of parenting that is best is the authoritative parent.

Authoritative parenting is a good balance

The authoritative style of parents strikes a balance in setting rules while not being too strict, and explains to the child the reason for the rules they’ve put in place.

You may also like: The most impressive horns and antlers in the animal kingdom

Children can affect the parenting style

Interestingly, it’s also been found that children can affect parenting style, too. For example, kids tend to misbehave not because the parent was too permissive but because the parent gave up on trying to control the child misbehaving.

To consider

Furthermore, it’s not always the case that the parenting style affects the children in a way that’s expected. Often children with permissive parents behave very well and respect authority and rules, and children with authoritarian-style parents are hell-bent on breaking them.

You may also like: Find out which type of drunk you are based on your zodiac sign

The "best parenting style" doesn't apply to all cultures

There are also cultural factors at play. Authoritative parenting, which is proven to produce the best outcomes for European and American families in terms of children’s school performance, doesn’t apply in the same way to African-American or Asian-American children.

Sources: (Verywell Mind) (Parenting for Brain) (Bright Horizons)

See also: Individual psychology: How you can be happy today

More for You

I’m a Bank Teller: 3 Times You Should Never Ask For $100 Bills at the Bank

Chevy Chase and Randy Quaid Reunite for New Christmas Comedy

Debunking 12 Myths About Trump's Conviction

Say goodbye to disposable sweeper pads and hello to this easy, DIY, reusable option!

Not everyone should sleep on their left side — leading sleep doctor explains why

Sabrina Ionescu's Blunt Reply To Angel Reese's Ejection

Appliance repairman demonstrates simple step to cool any room in minutes: 'Allowing you to ease off the AC'

House votes to punish International Criminal Court

Avengers 5 Leaks: 2 Founding Members Returning, One Avengers Villain Will Show up to Help the Heroes

GOP’s Biden-Manhattan conspiracy theory suffers a double blow

A stealthy cholesterol is killing people, and most don’t know they’re at risk

Here's Where Brown Recluse Spiders Are Most Likely To Be Lurking In Your Home

Putin’s subs have exposed Ireland’s shameless hypocrisy

Fact Check: Do Photos Show USS Eisenhower Damage After Houthi Strike?

Woman's Easy Hidden Door Hack Is Surprisingly Effective

World’s biggest solar farm goes online, big enough to power a country

Signs of 'silent heart attack' often mistaken for tiredness

Top 10 Celebrity Reactions to Impressions of Themselves

How Often Do You Really Need To Change Your Car's Brake Fluid?

Long lines form at banks as Cuba starts to run out of cash