psychology research topics on parenting

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
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Current research on parenting styles, dimensions, and beliefs

Affiliation.

1 Department of Clinical & Social Sciences in Psychology, Meliora Hall, RC 270266, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA. Electronic address: [email protected].
PMID: 28813261
DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.02.012

For decades, parenting has been characterized in terms of broad global styles, with authoritative parenting seen as most beneficial for children's development. Concerns with greater sensitivity to cultural and contextual variations have led to greater specificity in defining parenting in terms of different parenting dimensions and greater consideration of the role of parenting beliefs in moderating links between parenting and adjustment. New research includes 'domain-specific' models that describe parents as flexibly deploying different practices depending on their goals, children's needs, and the types of behaviors towards which parenting is directed. These trends are described, and directions for future research are discussed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Elsevier Science

Other Literature Sources

scite Smart Citations
Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Research Topics & Ideas: Psychology

100+ Psychology Topic Ideas To Fast-Track Your Research

If you’re starting out on the dissertation or thesis journey for your psychology degree, the very first challenge you’ll face is finding a solid research topic . In this post, we’ll help get the topic ideation process started by providing a meaty list of research ideas, spanning a range of psychology sub-disciplines. We’ll also look at some examples from actual theses and dissertations to give you an idea of what these look like in the real world.

NB – This is just the start…

The topic ideation and evaluation process has multiple steps (which we’ll explain a little later). Therefore, it’s important to recognise that this post is only the first step in finding a high-quality psychology-centred research topic. To develop a research topic, you’ll need to identify a clear and convincing research gap , and a viable plan of action to fill that gap.

If this all sounds a bit intimidating, be sure to check out our free dissertation mini-course , which covers the process of writing a dissertation or thesis from A-Z. You can also sign up for our free webinar that explores how to find a high-quality research topic. Alternatively, if you’d like hands-on help, have a look at our 1-on-1 coaching service .

Overview: Psychology-Related Topics

How to find a research topic (video)
Behavioural psychology
Clinical psychology
Cognitive psychology
Developmental psychology
Educational psychology
Forensic psychology
Social psychology
Sports psychology
Examples of actual dissertation topics
Free Webinar : Topic Ideation 101
Where to get extra help

How To Find A Research Topic

In the video below, we explain how to find suitable research ideas (in psychology or any field), and how to then refine those into well-articulated potential topics for your dissertation or thesis. We also discuss a few important evaluation criteria to help you make the right choice for your project.

Below you’ll find a list of research ideas to get your thinking started. Please note that these research topic ideas are intentionally broad and generic, so you will need to refine them a fair deal using the techniques we discussed in the video above.

We’ve grouped the topic ideas based on a few popular areas of psychology to make it a little easier for you to find something in your particular field of interest. That said, there is naturally some overlap between topics, so keep this in mind.

Research Ideas: Behavioural Psychology

Cultural variation in behaviour and mental health of adolescents during a disaster: a case study
The impact of parental drug use and risky behaviour on early child development
The effects of video game violence on aggressive behaviour among teenage boys in school
The relationship between adverse childhood experiences and adult risk-seeking behaviour
The impact of physical exercise on anxiety and health-harming behaviour
The relationship between personality traits and addiction behaviour
The effects of reinforcement schedules on decision-making and associative learning
The effects of daily mindfulness practice on stress and anxiety in middle-aged women
The use of behavioural interventions in the treatment of eating disorders in poorer communities
Understanding implicit cognitive processes involved in the over-consumption of fast food
The use of cognitive behavioural therapy for alcohol addiction treatment
The impact of extensive technology use in children on long-term attention and focus
The impact of social media on self-destructive behaviour and poor mental health outcomes
Exploring the role of sleep and sleep deprivation on healthy behaviours

Research Ideas: Clinical Psychology

The use of mindfulness-based approaches in the treatment of anxiety disorders among college students
The use of technology in the delivery of psychological services in war-torn countries
The effectiveness of dialectical behaviour therapy for borderline personality disorder
The use of virtual reality technology in the treatment of phobias and PTSD among war veterans
The role of childhood adversity on adult mental health in immigrant populations in the USA
The role of genetics and epigenetics in the development of bipolar disorder in Pakistani women: an integrative review
The effectiveness of pharmacotherapy in the treatment of social anxiety among hikikomori in Japan
The perception of healthcare workers and patients on the use of teletherapy for the delivery of psychological services
The impact of social support on mental health outcomes among single parents.
The effectiveness of integrative therapeutic approaches in the treatment of schizophrenia
The effectiveness of trauma-focused therapies on post-traumatic growth in domestic abuse survivors
The role and use of cognitive-behavioural therapy for depression among first-generation students
The effectiveness of family therapy in addressing childhood trauma and depression
The impact of cultural mistrust on the diagnosis and treatment of mental health issues in culturally-diverse populations
The effectiveness of group therapy on post-traumatic stress symptoms among survivors of sexual assault

Research Topic Kickstarter - Need Help Finding A Research Topic?

Research Ideas: Cognitive Psychology

The impact of lifelong aerobic exercise on cognitive function in old age
The effects of evening screen use on cognitive development in preschool children
The impact of sleep deprivation on decision-making among graduate students
The use of neuroimaging to understand the neural basis of memory retrieval
The effect of conservative religious homes on social functioning in LGBT+ adolescents
The role of positive emotions in working memory among high school learners
The neural basis of decision-making and problem-solving during undergraduate statistic assessments
The neural basis of language processing among adults learning English as a second language
The role of technological tools in improving working memory in older adults
The role of attention in emotional face processing among adult males
The impact of depression on cognitive function during ageing The impact of daily meditation and mindfulness practice on cognitive function
The relationship between increased protein intake and improved cognitive function
The effects of stress on cognitive function among final-year learners

Research Ideas: Developmental Psychology

The impact of maternal affection on cognitive, social, and emotional development
The effects of parenting styles on children’s executive function
The impact of late-night screen use on child development
The role of digital play on child development outcomes
Exploring the impact of poverty on early child development in Brazil
The trauma-informed care as moderating the impact of trauma on child development
Evaluating the relationship between peer relationship quality and child social development
The impact of child-targeted media and advertising on child behavioural development
The role of parental attachment in child resilience
The moderating impact of culture on bullying and child social development
The impact of single-parenting on child development in India
The impact of early educational interventions on child socio-emotional development
The impact of digital technology use on adolescent development and mental health
The impact of socioeconomic status on child executive function
The role of genetics and epigenetics on child neurodevelopmental outcomes linked to depression

Need a helping hand?

Research Ideas: Educational Psychology

The relationship between self-regulated learning and academic performance in asynchronous versus synchronous learning environments
Exploring effective parental involvement strategies and their impact on student achievement
The role of intrinsic motivation in formative assessment in the classroom
The impact of classroom management and practice on student learning and behaviour
University students’ preference regarding online learning environments
The effects of gentrification on student achievement in traditionally poor neighbourhoods
The impact of teacher expectations and academic self-concept on K12 student mathematics performance
The use and effectiveness of game-based learning in a high school biology classroom
The impact of prejudice on the relationship between student motivation and academic performance among Black university students
The impact of culture on second language English student learning preferences
The effects of student self-efficacy and engagement on academic performance in secondary school mathematics
The role of metacognition in learning musicality in hip hop
The role of small group instruction on teacher efficacy and stress in early childhood education
The perception and use of multimedia among high school biology teachers in France
The use of augmented reality applications and its impact on student learning, motivation and attitude

Research Ideas: Forensic Psychology

The impact of trauma on the psychological functioning of police officers and first responders
Understanding cultural considerations during forensic psychological assessment and treatment of trauma
Ethical considerations of the use of AI in forensic psychology in the legal system
The psychological factors related to recidivism among white collar female offenders in the USA
The psychological factors related to false confessions among juveniles
Understanding the use of psychological assessment in the evaluation of eyewitness testimony in criminal courts in England
The impact of trauma on the reflective functioning of adult female sexual assault victims
The use and effectiveness of psychological interventions in reducing recidivism among non-violent criminals
The impact of domestic violence on the mental health and forensic evaluation of men
Exploring the ethical considerations and use of behavioural analysis in the study of criminal behaviour
The use and limitations of neuropsychological assessment in forensic evaluations
The use of social media forensics in evaluating criminal behaviour in violent crimes
The racialised use of psychological assessment in the evaluation of competency to stand trial in Canada
Exploring the use and availability of virtual reality technologies in forensic psychology in Spain
The impact of motivational interviewing-based interventions among criminalized drug users

Research Ideas: Social Psychology

The impact of prejudice and discrimination on social behaviour among African immigrants in South Africa
The impact of social networks on behaviour and well-being among young adult females
The effects of social identity on non-conformity in University students
The effects of group dynamics on risk-seeking behaviour in adult men
The impact of social media on the quality of interpersonal relationships among high school learners
The impact of parental emotional intelligence on pro-social behaviour in children and adolescents
The effects of conformity and deviance on social attitudes and behaviour during a global recession
The effects of Tik Tok on social comparison and self-esteem among teenage girls
Understanding gendered differences in social influence and algorithms on impulsive decision-making
The effects of social support on mental health among healthcare workers in the UK
The effects of gender roles on social behaviour among trans teens
The impact of perceived power and social status on the behaviour of social media influencers
The impact of social norms on prosocial behaviour among women
The effects of community participation on aggression and violence in middle-aged men
The impact of culture and gender on social behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic

Research Ideas: Sports Psychology

The moderating role of cultural factors on the relationship between mental health and sports performance in team sports
The role of mindfulness practice in addressing stress and anxiety in young national athletes
The relationship between team cohesion and performance in cricket teams
The effect of transformational leadership on female sports teams in Canada
The effect of positive self-talk on athletic performance and motivation among Olympic athletes
The use and perception of hypnosis in New Zealand team sports Understanding stress and burnout in University team athletes
The efficacy of personalised nutrition and diet on athletic performance among sprinters
Exploring mental preparation techniques and their effect on athletic motivation and resilience among team-sport athletes
Exploring the perception and understanding of goal-setting characteristics on athletic performance among team coaches
The effects of motivational feedback on the performance of female gymnasts
The perception and use of visualization and imagery among coaches as a means to enhance sport performance
The impact of sports injuries on mental health and recovery in high school athletes
The moderating role of sleep on mental toughness and sports performance in Olympic athletes
The use and perception of technology in sports training and performance in little league softball

Free Webinar: How To Find A Dissertation Research Topic

Psychology-Related Dissertations & Theses

While the ideas we’ve presented above are a decent starting point for finding a research topic in psychology, they are fairly generic and non-specific. So, it helps to look at actual dissertations and theses to see how this all comes together in practice.

Below, we’ve included a selection of research projects from various psychology degree programs to help refine your thinking. These are actual dissertations and theses, written as part of Master’s and PhD-level programs, so they can provide some useful insight as to what a research topic looks like in practice.

Effects of a Patient Question Prompt List on Outpatient Palliative Care Appointments (McDarby, 2022)
The role of affect and exercise goals in physical activity engagement in younger and older adults (Stojanovic, 2022)
Lay Theories about Whether Emotion Helps or Hinders Reasoning and Well-being (Karnaze, 2022)
The effects of blast-induced traumatic brain injury on two transgenic models of Alzheimer’s Disease (Gann, 2020)
Understanding the parental mind: Examining the stability of parental reflective functioning across the birth of a child and associations with maternal mind-mindedness (Pitzen, 2021)
An investigation of ineffective ally behaviours (Collier, 2019)
Response Inhibition-Related Beta Power: Distinguishing Cognitively Intact Elders by Risk for Alzheimer’s Disease (Evans, 2021)
Recognition Memory of Extremely High-Frequency Words (Miller, 2019)
The Relationship between Dementia Caregiver Burden and Caregiver Communications in a Memory Clinic Setting (Martin, 2021)
Examination of Maternal Versus Paternal Ratings of Child Pre-Injury Functioning in Predicting Child Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms (Sayer, 2021)
Electromyography As A Means of Predicting The Rubber Hand Illusion (Teaford, 2021)
Linking Diversity Climate and Feedback Seeking Through Interpersonal Processes and Race Effects (Flores, 2021)

Looking at these titles, you can probably pick up that the research topics here are far more specific and narrowly-focused , compared to the generic ones presented earlier. This is an important thing to keep in mind as you develop your own research topic. That is to say, to create a top-notch research topic, you must be precise and target a specific context with specific variables of interest . In other words, you need to identify a clear, well-justified research gap.

Fast-Track Your Topic Ideation

Still unsure about how to find the right topic for your research project? Check out our private coaching services , where we work with psychology students on a 1:1 basis to help them find the perfect topic.

10 Comments

Great insight

A very interesting site that offers a variety of options regarding research topics.

You’re most welcome

A good platform to get information

Amazing and interesting options 👌

Very useful but had not any field of research in health psychology

I feel honored going through this lovely stuff put together. Thank you so much

I need counseling psychology research topics

very empowering and insightful presentations. Can I be assisted in crafting a school psychology-related research topic about African context

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Print Friendly

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.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10826_2018_1242_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10826_2018_1242_Fig2_HTML.jpg

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 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10826_2018_1242_Fig3_HTML.jpg

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.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10826_2018_1242_Fig4_HTML.jpg

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 ]

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Parenting styles and parent–adolescent relationships: the mediating roles of behavioral autonomy and parental authority.

$\r\nXinwen Bi$

1 Department of Psychology, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China
2 Department of Business, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China
3 Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, United States

The parent–adolescent relationship has been a classic research topic, and researchers have found that parenting styles (e.g., authoritative, authoritarian) are closely related to various qualities of parent-adolescent relationships (e.g., cohesion, conflict). However, little empirical work has addressed how these variables correlate with each other in mainland China, nor has prior research addressed internal psychological mechanisms. The present study investigated the associations between parenting styles and parent–adolescent relationship factors, examined the mediating effects of adolescents’ expectations of behavioral autonomy and beliefs about parental authority, and explored whether adolescent gender moderated these effects. Results from a sample of 633 Chinese adolescents (7th grade: M age = 13.50 ± 0.62 years, 9th grade: M age = 15.45 ± 0.67 years, 11th grade: M age = 17.30 ± 0.75 years) suggested similar levels of parent–adolescent conflict frequency for all parenting styles. However, for parent–adolescent conflict intensity, youth of neglectful and authoritarian parents reported higher levels compared to those with indulgent parents. The highest levels of cohesion with both parents were reported by adolescents with authoritative parents, followed by indulgent, authoritarian and neglect parenting styles. Cohesion with mothers for youth with authoritative or indulgent mothers was higher for girls than boys. Adolescents’ expectation for behavioral autonomy mediated the links between parenting style and conflict, whereas adolescents’ beliefs about the legitimacy of parental authority mediated the links between parenting style and cohesion; some of these mediating effects differed by gender. Findings highlight the importance of studying potential effects of adolescents’ values and attitudes within the family system in specific cultural contexts.

Introduction

Variations in parenting styles and parent–child relationship qualities are long-standing research topics in developmental and family psychology. Previous research has shown that parenting styles are critical family context factors which are closely related to parent–adolescent relationships ( Shek, 2002 ). Despite the large number of studies on the associations between parenting styles and parent–adolescent relationships, existing research mainly has focused on the direct effects of parenting styles on parent-adolescent relationships, while the underlying mechanisms through which parenting styles are associated with parent–adolescent relationships have seldom been examined. The present study examined the possible mediating effects of adolescents’ expectations for behavioral autonomy and beliefs in the legitimacy of parental authority, on the link between parenting style differences and variability in relationship conflict and cohesion, in a sample of youth from mainland China. We also tested whether the direct and mediated effects differed for girls and boys.

Parenting Styles and Parent–Adolescent Relationships

Parenting style is defined as a constellation of parents’ attitudes and behaviors toward children and an emotional climate in which the parents’ behaviors are expressed ( Darling and Steinberg, 1993 ). In the field of parenting, Maccoby and Martin’s (1983) and Baumrind’s (1991) typological approach of conceptualizing parenting has had a tremendous impact. They classified parenting into four types based on responsiveness and demandingness ( Maccoby and Martin, 1983 ; Baumrind, 1991 ). Authoritative parenting style is characterized as high in responsiveness and demandingness. Authoritative parents provide not only support and warmth, but also clearly defined rules and consistent discipline ( Baumrind, 1991 ). Authoritarian parenting style is characterized as low in responsiveness but high in demandingness. Parents of this style tend to use hostile control or harsh punishment in an arbitrary way to gain compliance, but they seldom provide explanation or allow verbal give-and-take. Indulgent parenting style is characterized as low in demandingness but high in responsiveness. Indulgent parents are responsive to their children and satisfy children’s needs, but they fail to set proper disciplinary, exhibit behavioral control, or make demands for mature behaviors. Finally, neglectful parenting style is characterized as low in responsiveness and demandingness. Neglectful parents are parent-centered and they are seldom engaged in child rearing practices. They neither provide warmth nor set rules for their children.

Adolescence is a critical developmental period that requires parents and youth to renegotiate their relationships ( Laursen and Collins, 2009 ). Existing research has shown that variation in parenting styles is related to differences in parent-adolescent relationship features. Overall, most studies with Western samples have consistently found that authoritative parenting style is associated with higher levels of parent–adolescent cohesion ( Nelson et al., 2011 ) and lower levels of conflict frequency ( Smetana, 1995 ), conflict intensity ( Smetana, 1995 ), and total conflict ( McKinney and Renk, 2011 ). In contrast, an authoritarian parenting style is associated with lower cohesion ( McKinney and Renk, 2011 ) and higher conflict frequency ( Smetana, 1995 ; Sorkhabi and Middaugh, 2014 ), intensity ( Smetana, 1995 ), and total conflict ( McKinney and Renk, 2011 ). For instance, in a sample of American adolescents, Smetana (1995) found that more frequent and intense conflicts were predicted by more authoritarian parenting and less authoritative parenting. Similarly, Sorkhabi and Middaugh (2014) analyzed data from American adolescents who had Asian, Latino, Arab, European or other ethnic background. They found that adolescents of authoritative parents reported less conflict than those with authoritarian parents.

Most previous research on the associations between parenting styles and parent-adolescent conflict and cohesion focused on one or the other (e.g., Smetana, 1995 ; Nelson et al., 2011 ; Sorkhabi and Middaugh, 2014 ). However, conflict is not the opposite of cohesion, nor are increases over time in one necessarily associated with decreases in the other ( Zhang et al., 2006 ). To comprehensively understand the links between parenting styles and these two aspects of the parent-adolescent relationship, both should be examined. Also, most previous research seldom distinguished conflict frequency and intensity or examined them simultaneously. Conflict frequency refers to how often conflict occurs, whereas conflict intensity refers to the magnitude of emotional arousal that occurs during conflict. Prior research on these two aspects of conflict has yielded mixed results. For example, Smetana (1995) found that parenting styles’ links with conflict frequency and intensity were very similar. In contrast, Assadi et al. (2011) reported that frequency was lower for authoritative parents and higher for authoritarian parents—but only authoritative parenting was linked to intensity. Thus, conflict intensity and frequency both should be examined.

Another major gap in the literature is that few of the relevant prior studies examined all four parenting styles. We know of only one American study (of adolescent substance abusers) that examined conflict, cohesion, and all four parenting styles ( Smith and Hall, 2008 ). Actually, it’s also important to explore the relationships between indulgent and neglectful parenting style and parent–adolescent conflict and cohesion. Especially, neglectful parenting style which is characterized as disengaged from child rearing process may be destructive to parent–adolescent relationships. Thus, in light of the gaps in literature identified above, our first major aim was to explore the associations between all four parenting styles and parent–adolescent conflict (frequency and intensity) and cohesion. Based on prior evidence, we hypothesized that conflict (frequency and intensity) would be highest, and cohesion lowest, for youth with authoritarian parents—and conflict lowest and cohesion highest for adolescents with authoritative parents.

Adolescent Autonomy and Beliefs About Parental Authority

In spite of the numerous prior studies of the link between parenting style and parent–adolescent relationship features, there are surprisingly few that have tested mechanisms that might account for the link. We also addressed this gap in the current study. According to Darling and Steinberg’s (1993) integrative model, parenting styles affect adolescents’ outcomes by changing the degree to which adolescents accept their parents’ attempts to socialize them. When parents use specific styles to rear children, adolescents are not just passive social beings, but play an active role in shaping the parent–adolescent relationship and in interpreting parenting behavior, in ways that influence their own outcomes. Particularly important to this psychological process are adolescents’ attitudes about behavioral autonomy and the legitimacy of parental authority ( Darling et al., 2007 ).

Adolescents’ Expectation for Behavioral Autonomy

Autonomy, in contrast to forced behavior, reflects actions that arise from the agency of the self rather than others ( Chen et al., 2013 ). Variations in parenting style are associated with individual differences in adolescents’ autonomy beliefs. Authoritative parenting has been shown to be the most beneficial to youth, with regard to fostering healthy normative development of autonomy ( Baumrind, 1991 ). In contrast, authoritarian parents provided too much strictness and supervision for their children, while indulgent and neglectful parents provided insufficient monitoring and guidance. Adolescents with non-authoritative parents are more likely to desire for more behavioral autonomy which is not satisfied in an appropriate way ( Bush and Peterson, 2013 ). It is important to note, however, that not all studies find authoritative parenting to be optimal for youth autonomy—differences in findings that may be due to the sample characteristics or measures being used (e.g., Darling et al., 2005 ; Chan and Chan, 2009 ).

The development of adolescents’ autonomy, in turn, can have effects on parent–adolescent relationship features. Parents and adolescents expect increasing autonomy with age, but adolescents typically demand autonomy earlier than their parents are ready to grant it ( Jensen and Dost-Gözkan, 2015 ; Pérez et al., 2016 ). Adolescents’ desire for more autonomy than their parents wish to grant them prompts youth to exert more control of their own affairs, and to be more critical of their parents’ control behaviors—a pattern that causes conflict and reduces cohesion ( Fuligni, 1998 ; Zhang and Fuligni, 2006 ).

Adolescents’ Beliefs About Parental Authority

In addition to developmental changes in autonomy, adolescence also is a period of youths’ changes in attitudes about parental authority—specifically, the extent to which parental assertion of control is seen as an appropriate extension of their role ( Darling et al., 2008 ). Compared to other parenting styles, authoritative parents have children and adolescents who are more likely to endorse the legitimacy of parental authority ( Smetana, 1995 ; Darling et al., 2005 ; Trinkner et al., 2012 ). In contrast, authoritarian parents tend to define issues as falling into parental jurisdiction too rigidly, and indulgent and neglectful parents define these too permissively ( Smetana, 1995 ; Baumrind, 2005 ). In those cases, adolescents and parents may be deprived of opportunities to debate and negotiate appropriate boundaries, which in turn can lead youth to question and doubt the legitimacy of parental authority.

Attitudes about legitimacy of authority are also linked with parent–adolescent relationship features. Adolescents’ endorsement of parental authority is associated with greater cohesion and less conflict with parents ( Zhang et al., 2006 ; Jensen and Dost-Gözkan, 2015 )—in one study, a pattern found in Mexican, Chinese, Filipino, and European background families ( Fuligni, 1998 ).

In sum, there are well-established links between parenting style, adolescents’ beliefs (specifically, about autonomy and parental authority), and parent-adolescent relationship qualities. However, these different constructs have not been examined all together in one study. In addition, although previous studies have examined the associations between parenting styles and parent-adolescent relationships, there was no research that examined whether adolescents’ expectation for behavioral autonomy and endorsement of parental authority mediated these associations. Thus, our second aim was to test the hypothesis that expectations for behavioral autonomy and beliefs in the legitimacy of parental authority both would mediate the link between parenting styles and parent-adolescent conflict and cohesion.

The Role of Adolescent Gender

The third and final aim of the current study was to examine potential gender differences in the relationships between parenting styles, parent-adolescent conflict and cohesion, adolescents’ expectation for behavioral autonomy and endorsement of parental authority. There is reason to expect differences to be found, although results may differ depending on the parenting styles and parent-adolescent relationship features in question. For instance, Shek (2002) reported an association between parental negativity and greater parent-adolescent conflict, only for girls. These differences may reflect distinct socialization goals for boys and girls, with girls oriented more toward family relationships and compliance, and boys oriented toward autonomy and self-reliance ( Shek, 2002 ; Zhang et al., 2006 ). Based on previous research, we expected to find stronger associations between parenting style and parent–adolescent relationship features for girls compared to boys. However, given the lack of prior research on beliefs about autonomy and parental authority as mediators, we had no hypotheses regarding gender as moderator of those mediating effects.

Chinese Cultural Context

As a final point, another rationale for the current study was to address the dearth of research on mainland Chinese families published in the international literature. The existing evidence is almost completely dominated by studies of families from Western industrial nations, even though mainland China has the single largest population of children and adolescents in the world—in 2016, 13% or nearly one in eight of the globe’s 0–14-year-olds ( World Bank, 2017 ). We know of only one relevant published study of parenting styles and parent–adolescent relationships, which found that authoritative mothers exhibited the highest levels, and authoritarian mothers the lowest levels, of mother-adolescent cohesion ( Zhang et al., 2017 ). Adding to the literature base to include evidence from non-Western nations such as China, serves to extend and deepen knowledge of parent-adolescent relationship processes.

Studying mainland Chinese families also offers a unique opportunity for examining family processes because its culture is so distinct from Western contexts. Two features in particular stand out. First, China has been unique in the world in its “one child policy” implemented by the government from 1979 until 2016. This led to a significant change in the family, often described as the “4-2-1” family structure (four grandparents, two parents, and one child). In this context, the relationships between parenting styles and parent–adolescent conflict and cohesion in China may be different from those in Western cultures. Second, Chinese culture is rooted in Confucianism, which emphasizes collectivist values such as conforming to social norms, submission to authority, establishing strong relationships with others, and avoiding confrontation ( Peterson et al., 2005 ). In this strict hierarchical framework, individuals’ requests for autonomy and any behaviors that potentially threaten group harmony are discouraged, whereas great respect for parental authority is highly valued ( Fuligni, 1998 ). Furthermore, some research has shown that autonomy and authority beliefs among adolescents covary with family relationship features in different ways depending on cultural context. For example, one study reported that conflict intensity with mothers was greater for adolescents with lower respect for parental authority in African American and Latina, but not European American, families ( Dixon et al., 2008 ). Thus, there is a need to broaden the diversity of samples in this literature, to better understand which aspects of the relevant family processes operate similarity, or differently, in distinct cultural contexts.

In sum, the current study addressed three aims in a mainland China sample of families: (1) to explore the links between four parenting styles and parent-adolescent relationship conflict (frequency and intensity) and cohesion, including testing the hypothesis that conflict would be highest and cohesion lowest for authoritarian parents, conflict lowest and cohesion highest for authoritative parents; (2) to test the hypothesis that the links between parenting style and parent–adolescent relationship features would be statistically mediated by adolescents’ autonomy expectations and beliefs regarding parental authority; and (3) to test the hypothesis that the links between parenting style and relationship features (explored in Aim 1) would be stronger for girls than for boys—and to also explore gender differences in the mediating effects (hypothesized in Aim 2).

Materials and Methods

Participants and procedure.

A total of 633 students (48.5% females, in line with the proportion found in the Chinese population) in the 7th ( M age = 13.50 ± 0.62 years), 9th ( M age = 15.45 ± 0.67 years) and 11th ( M age = 17.30 ± 0.75 years) grades of four schools in Jinan, the capital of Shandong Province in Middle Eastern China, completed self-report questionnaires. Because of the implementation of one child policy in mainland China, 90 percent of them were only children.

Surveys were completed in class through group administration; students were asked not to communicate with each other while completing the survey. Research staff members administered the surveys to the class by introducing the purpose of this study and the voluntary nature of participation, reading instructions and answering any questions that arose during the data collection period. All participants gave written informed consent. Additionally, all parents of participants were notified about the research and were given the opportunity to withdraw their children from study participation. All parents gave written informed consent to allow their children to participate in this study. The Institutional Review Board of Shandong Normal University approved this study procedures.

Parenting Styles

Parenting styles were assessed using the Chinese version of Steinberg et al.’s (1994) parenting styles questionnaire ( Long et al., 2012 ). Two subscales comprise the measure of parenting: acceptance/involvement and strictness/supervision. The acceptance/involvement subscale (α = 0.84) was the average of 15 items that were used to assess responsive, loving and involved parenting (e.g., “I can count on my parents to help me out if I have some kind of problem.”). The strictness/supervision subscale (α = 0.78) was the average of 12 items that was used to assess monitoring and supervision (e.g., “How much do your parents try to know where you go out at night”). The adolescents were required to indicate the strength of endorsement using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 ( completely disagree ) to 5 ( completely agree ) for each item. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the measurement of parenting styles (as well as endorsement of parental authority, expectations for behavioral autonomy and parent-adolescent conflict and cohesion) had acceptable construct validity and strong measurement invariance across gender (see Online Supplementary Materials and Supplementary Table S1 ).

Endorsement of Parental Authority

Adolescents’ beliefs about the legitimacy of parental authority were assessed using Chinese version of Smetana’s (1988) questionnaire ( Zhang and Fuligni, 2006 ). Students were presented with a list of 13 topics as individual items such as curfew, choosing clothes, and choosing friends, and were asked whether father or mother could make a rule about each topic. Responses for each topic/item were coded on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 ( It’s not OK ) to 4 ( It’s completely OK ). These were averaged separately for mother (α = 0.84) and father (α = 0.86).

Expectations for Behavioral Autonomy

Adolescents’ expectation for behavioral autonomy was measured based on the questionnaire from Fuligni (1998) . Students were presented with a list of 12 behaviors (e.g., “watch as much TV as you want”). Adolescents then indicated the degree of expectation for each item using a 4-point scale ranging from 1 ( expect heavily ) and 4 ( not expect at all ) (α = 0.86). In order to achieve consistency across all instruments so that a high score would reflect a high level of the variable being measured, these entries were reversed score so that 1 was recoded as 4, 2 as 3, 3 as 2, and 4 as 1.

Parent–Adolescent Conflict

Adolescents’ perceptions of the incidence and intensity of conflict with their mothers and fathers were measured by the Chinese version of Issues Checklist ( Prinz et al., 1979 ; Zhang and Fuligni, 2006 ). Students indicated whether the 16 specific topics (e.g., chores, cursing) were discussed or not with their parents within the past 2 weeks (using a binary scale, yes or no ). Then, for each endorsed topic of discussion, adolescents reported the conflict intensity of the discussion of each topic, using a 5-point scale that varied from 1 ( very calm ) to 5 ( very angry ). To be consistent with previous research (e.g., Fuligni, 1998 ), conflict frequency was computed by summing the number of discussions rated as containing anger (2 or greater on the 5-point scale). Conflict intensity was obtained by averaging adolescents’ rating on those items that were discussed (mother: α = 0.72, father: α = 0.73).

Parent–Adolescent Cohesion

Adolescents completed the cohesion subscale of the Chinese version of Family Adaptation and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES) II inventory separately for each parent ( Olson et al., 1979 ; Zhang and Fuligni, 2006 ). This scale included 10 items (e.g., “My mother [father] and I feel very close to each other”). Students’ perception of cohesion with parents was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 ( almost never ) to 5 ( almost always ), separately for mother (α = 0.82) and father (α = 0.79).

Controlled Variables

Grade and socioeconomic status (SES) were controlled for this study. The SES score was computed by averaging the standardized education and occupation of both parents. Parents’ education was coded as 1 = equal to or below primary school, 2 = junior high school, 3 = senior high school, 4 = some college or above. The occupation was coded as 1 = peasant or jobless, 2 = blue collar, 3 = professional or semiprofessional. In terms of parents’ educational level, approximately 0.8% of the mothers and 0.3% of fathers had completed primary school education or less, and 38.5% of mothers and 57.1% of fathers had a college or university degree. The remainder had either a junior high school education (7.6% of mothers and 5.5% of fathers) or a senior high school education (48.2% of mothers and 31.5% of fathers). The occupational status of mothers and fathers, respectively, was as follows: 6.2 and 2.7% were peasants or jobless, 28.4 and 23.4% had blue collar position, and 64.9 and 73.6% held a professional or semiprofessional occupation.

Descriptive Statistics

We used Harman’s single factor test to check the common method bias. The results showed that 30 factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and the first factor accounted for only 16.53% of total variance. Since more than one factor emerged and the first factor did not account for the majority of the variance ( Podsakoff and Organ, 1986 ), common method bias was not a serious concern in the present study.

Cluster analysis with K-means method was used to identify the four parenting styles. Instead of defining parentings styles a priori based on subjective cut-off scores ( Steinberg et al., 1994 ), in cluster analysis families are grouped according to their scores on various parenting characteristics ( Henry et al., 2005 ). To validate the cluster solution, we reanalyzed the data with a different cluster method — a hierarchical cluster analysis ( Henry et al., 2005 ; Hoeve et al., 2007 ). We repeated the hierarchical cluster analysis ten times, applying the standardized Euclidian Distance method as a distance measure and using Ward’s algorithm. The cross validation procedure ( Mandara, 2003 ) result in moderate agreements ( k = 0.71, range: 0.67–0.75).

To label the four groups, we examined the parenting styles by computing a one-way ANOVA on the standardized scores of parenting dimensions with the clusters serving as the factors. The result revealed that the clustering variables significantly differed between the parenting dimensions [acceptance/involvement: F (3,608) = 472.58, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.70; strictness/supervision: F (3,608) = 280.35, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.58]. Authoritative parents were those who scored high on both dimensions (acceptance/involvement: z = 0.95, strictness/supervision: z = 0.76), whereas neglectful parents scored low on both dimensions (acceptance/involvement: z = -1.45, strictness/supervision: z = -1.06). Authoritarian parents scored low on acceptance/involvement ( z = -0.61) but high on strictness/supervision dimension ( z = 0.50), whereas indulgent parents scored high on acceptance/involvement ( z = 0.15) but low on strictness/supervision dimension ( z = -0.77).

Descriptive statistics for study variables are presented in Table 1 , and bivariate correlations are presented in Table 2 . Regarding descriptives, the following frequencies were found for the four parenting styles: 152 (24.0% of total sample) authoritarian; 200 (31.6%) authoritative; 83 (13.1%) neglectful; and 177 (28.0%) indulgent. The average scores of beliefs in parents’ authority and expectation for behavioral autonomy ranged from 2 to 3, which implied that adolescents reported medium level of endorsement of parental authority and autonomy expectations. The average scores of conflict frequency ranged from 2 to 4 and the average scores of conflict intensity ranged from 1 to 2, which suggested that adolescents reported low level of conflict frequency and intensity. Since the cohesion scored larger than 3 (except girls with neglectful parents), adolescents reported medium-high level of cohesion with parents.

TABLE 1. Means and standard deviations of all study variables except parenting styles.

TABLE 2. Correlations for all study variables except parenting styles.

Turning to correlations, although with a few exceptions, overall the adolescents’ higher expectation for behavioral autonomy was associated with greater frequency and intensity of conflict, and less cohesion. Adolescents’ stronger endorsement of the legitimacy of parental authority was associated with greater cohesion, but less frequent and intense conflict.

Links With Parenting Styles

A series of 4 (parenting styles) × 2 (child gender) analyses of covariance was conducted to explore the links between four parenting styles and parent–adolescent relationships. At the same time, we also explored if adolescents’ expectation for behavior autonomy and endorsement of parental authority differed as a function of adolescents’ gender and parenting styles. SES and grade served as covariables.

For adolescents’ expectation for behavior autonomy, the main effect of parenting styles was significant [ F (3,597) = 8.74, p < 0.001]. Bonferroni post hoc t -tests indicated that adolescents of authoritative parents reported the lower level of expectation for behavioral autonomy ( M = 2.18, SD = 0.60) than adolescents of neglectful [ M = 2.70, SD = 0.64, t (278) = 4.66, p < 0.001], indulgent [ M = 2.48, SD = 0.62, t (371) = 3.75, p < 0.01] and authoritarian parents [ M = 2.43, SD = 0.66, t (344) = 2.79, p < 0.05].

For legitimacy of parental authority, the main effect of parenting styles was significant [mother: F (3,597) = 30.26, father: F (3,597) = 29.62, p s < 0.001]. Adolescents of authoritative parents reported the highest endorsement of parental authority (mother: M = 2.73, SD = 0.53; father: M = 2.71, SD = 0.56), whereas adolescents of neglectful parents reported the lowest endorsement of parental authority (mother: M = 2.06, SD = 0.47; father: M = 1.98, SD = 0.54). Adolescents raised by authoritarian (mother: M = 2.42, SD = 0.59; father: M = 2.38, SD = 0.62) and indulgent parents (mother: M = 2.26, SD = 0.51; father: M = 2.25, SD = 0.55) reported endorsements of parental authority that were between the other two groups (mother: t > 2.86, p < 0.05; father: t > 3.52, p < 0.01). The interaction between gender and parenting styles also was significant [mother: F (3,597) = 2.53, p = 0.056; father: F (3,597) = 3.03, p < 0.05]. Post hoc probing revealed no gender difference for youth with authoritative, authoritarian and neglectful parents. In contrast, for youth with indulgent parents, boys reported greater endorsement of parental authority (mother: M = 2.37, SD = 0.56; father: M = 2.39, SD = 0.60) than did girls [mother: M = 2.16, SD = 0.44, t (171) = 2.62, p < 0.01; father: M = 2.12, SD = 0.46, t (171) = 3.52, p < 0.01].

Turning to intensity of conflict with parents, the main effect of parenting styles was significant [mother: F (3,595) = 7.49, p < 0.001; father: F (3,583) = 3.90, p < 0.01]. Adolescents of neglectful [mother: M = 1.74, SD = 0.62, t (253) = 3.99, p < 0.001; father: M = 1.73, SD = 0.81, t (245) = 2.58, p = 0.06] and authoritarian parents [mother: M = 1.63, SD = 0.54, t (320) = 3.01, p < 0.05; father: M = 1.63, SD = 0.75, t (313) = 2.49, p = 0.08] reported more intense conflict than those of indulgent parents (mother: M = 1.46, SD = 0.43; father: M = 1.45, SD = 0.46). In addition, adolescents of neglectful parenting also reported more intense conflict with mothers than those of authoritative parenting [ M = 1.49, SD = 0.47, t (276) = 3.61, p < 0.01]. As for the frequency of conflict with parents, none of the effects was significant.

For cohesion, gender was significantly related to mother–child cohesion [ F (1,597) = 9.07, p < 0.01], with greater cohesion found for daughters than sons (girls: M = 3.70, SD = 0.66; boys: M = 3.42, SD = 0.59). For mothers and fathers alike, there was a main effect of parenting styles [mother: F (3,597) = 37.53, father: F (3,597) = 26.49, p s < 0.001]. Adolescents of authoritative parents reported the highest level of cohesion (mother: M = 3.85, SD = 0.58; father: M = 3.77, SD = 0.63), followed by indulgent [mother: M = 3.59, SD = 0.52, t (371) = 4.20, p < 0.001; father: M = 3.55, SD = 0.63, t (371) = 3.15, p < 0.05], authoritarian [mother: M = 3.41, SD = 0.60, t (320) = 2.62, p = 0.05; father: M = 3.29, SD = 0.72, t (320) = 3.33, p < 0.01] and neglectful parents [mother: M = 3.05, SD = 0.67, t (227) = 4.78, p < 0.001; father: M = 3.02, SD = 0.75, t (227) = 2.94, p < 0.05]. Finally, the parenting style main effect for mothers was moderated by child gender [ F (3,597) = 1.34, p < 0.01]. Cohesion was higher for girls than boys, only in authoritative [girls: M = 4.03, SD = 0.55; boys: M = 3.64, SD = 0.56, t (195) = 4.77, p < 0.001] and indulgent homes [girls: M = 3.70, SD = 0.50; boys: M = 3.48, SD = 0.50, t (171) = 2.61, p < 0.01].

Mediating Effects

To test our second hypothesis that expectations for behavioral autonomy and beliefs in the legitimacy of parental authority would mediate the links between parenting style and parent-adolescent conflict and cohesion, we used structural equation modeling in Mplus 7.4 (Figures 1 – 3 , for the analyses of conflict frequency, conflict intensity, and cohesion, respectively). SES and grade were included as covariables. The categorical parenting style variable was represented as three dummy-coded variables with authoritative parenting as the reference category. Because the autonomy expectations scale had many items, we used a common parceling technique to estimate a highly reliable latent construct for that variable by randomly assigning items into four nearly equal-sized sets of indicators ( Little et al., 2002 ). Finally, latent variables were constructed (using mother and father scales as indicators) for the conflict and cohesion variables, as well as the attitudes about legitimate parental authority variable. All models showed good fit with the data [conflict frequency: χ 2 = 160.99, df = 56, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.055; conflict intensity: χ 2 = 167.23, df = 56, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.058; cohesion: χ 2 = 192.55, df = 56, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.063).

FIGURE 1. Adolescents’ expectation for autonomy and beliefs about parental authority as mediators between parenting styles and the frequency of parent-adolescent conflict. Standardized path coefficients are presented in the model. ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.

In all three models, adolescents raised in neglectful, indulgent and authoritarian homes (compared to authoritative) reported lower level of beliefs about parental authority and higher expectations for behavior autonomy. Regarding frequency (Figure 1 ) and intensity (Figure 2 ) of conflict, greater expectation of autonomy was linked with more frequent and intense conflict, whereas regarding parent–adolescent cohesion (Figure 3 ), greater endorsement of authority was linked with greater relationship cohesion. Also, conflict intensity was lower for youth with indulgent parents and cohesion was lower for youth with neglectful, indulgent or authoritarian (compared to authoritative) parents.

FIGURE 2. Adolescents’ expectation for autonomy and beliefs about parental authority as mediators between parenting styles and the intensity of parent–adolescent conflict. Standardized path coefficients are presented in the model. ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.

FIGURE 3. Adolescents’ expectation for autonomy and beliefs about parental authority as mediators between parenting styles and parent-adolescent cohesion. Standardized path coefficients are presented in the model. ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.

Significance of indirect effects was computed using bootstrapping with 1000 resamples. A bias-corrected bootstrapped 95% confidence interval (CI) showed significant indirect effects from neglectful, indulgent and authoritarian parenting style to the frequency and the intensity of parent-adolescent conflict via adolescents’ expectation for behavior autonomy. For conflict frequency, 95% CIs were [0.033,0.126], [0.022,0.102], and [0.014,0.092] for neglectful, indulgent and authoritarian parents, respectively. For intensity of conflict, 95% CIs were [0.042,0.131] [0.027,0.105], and [0.019,0.097] for neglectful, indulgent and authoritarian parents, respectively. There also were significant indirect effects to cohesion via adolescents’ beliefs in the legitimacy of parental authority. The 95% CIs were [-0.202, -0.081], [-0.185, -0.071], and [-0.128, -0.0341] for neglectful, indulgent and authoritarian parents, respectively.

Moderating Effect of Adolescents’ Gender

Given possible gender differences in paths, we conducted multiple-group analyses. We had hypothesized that the links between parenting style and parent-adolescent conflict and cohesion would be stronger for girls than boys; we did not have hypotheses regarding the mediators however. Chi-square difference statistic (Δχ 2 ) were used to compare fit between models. All structural paths were constrained to be equal for boys and girls and the overall model fit was compared to a model without any constraint. For conflict frequency and intensity, the unconstrained and fully constrained models were not significantly different—suggesting no gender moderation [Δχ 2 (11) = 14.88, Δχ 2 (11) = 14.96, p s > 0.05]. In contrast, for cohesion, the unconstrained model provided a significantly better fit than the constrained model [Δχ 2 (11) = 23.45, p < 0.05]. To interpret this, we compared path coefficients for boys and girls one by one (see Figure 4 ). The negative prediction of cohesion from neglectful and authoritarian parenting (relative to authoritative parenting) was stronger for girls than boys; this was consistent with our hypothesis. As for the exploration of gender differences in the mediation paths, we found that the negative link between indulgent parenting style and parental authority was stronger for girls than boys, whereas the positive link between endorsement of parental authority and cohesion was stronger for boys than girls.

FIGURE 4. Results of multiple-group structural equation model evaluating the relationships of adolescents’ expectation for behavioral autonomy, their endorsement of parental authority and parent–adolescent cohesion across genders. Standardized path coefficients are presented in the model. Covariances, correlations and residuals are not shown. Solid lines indicate the pathway parameters are different between male sample and female sample. Dotted lines indicate the pathway parameters are similar between male sample and female sample. ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.

In the current study, we tested the associations between parenting styles and parent-adolescent relationships (Aim 1), examined the mediating effects of adolescents’ expectation for behavior autonomy and their endorsement of parental authority on these associations (Aim 2), and also explored the moderating effect of adolescents’ gender (Aim 3) in a sample of adolescents from mainland China.

Parenting Styles and Relationships With Adolescents

In studies of Western families, parenting styles are recognized as having predictable associations with parent-adolescent conflict and cohesion. Previous studies have reported that adolescents of authoritative parents have lower conflict frequency and intensity and higher cohesion than those of authoritarian parents ( Smetana, 1995 ; Assadi et al., 2011 ; Nelson et al., 2011 ; Sorkhabi and Middaugh, 2014 ). In contrast to previous research, the present study showed that adolescents reported similar levels of parent-adolescent conflict frequency regardless of parenting style. This result may be attributed to the traditional Chinese culture, which places emphasis on keeping harmonious relationships and avoiding confrontation ( Peterson et al., 2005 ). This unique cultural context may alleviate any links between parenting and frequency of conflict because Chinese adolescents may avoid conflict with their parents.

However, conflict intensity did show associations with parenting style. Compared with indulgent parenting styles, adolescents of neglectful and authoritarian parents experienced greater intensity of conflict. Indulgent parents place relatively few demands on the adolescents’ behavior, giving them high degree of freedom to act as they wish. In contrast, neglectful parents are characterized as lacking warmth and guidance, whereas authoritarian parents place a high value on obedience and conformity and allow less verbal give-and-take. Conflict may be more intense in neglectful parenting style because the adolescent is making demands on a parent who otherwise is withdrawn and minimizing of the youth’s needs. Also, adolescents may be dissatisfied with authoritarian parents’ setting broad rules without emotional support, which leads to more intense conflict when it occurs. Other variables might also explain the effect. For instance, adolescents with neglectful parents are more likely to engage in delinquent behaviors ( You and Lim, 2015 ), which itself may lead to more intense conflict.

In addition, the current study found that adolescents raised in authoritative and authoritarian parenting style reported similar levels of conflict intensity with parents. This is inconsistent with previous findings, which showed that Western adolescents raised in authoritarian parenting homes reported more intense parent–adolescent conflict than those raised in authoritative parenting homes ( Smetana, 1995 ). One explanation for this difference in results may be that in Chinese culture, similar to training and tiger parenting, the motivation and intention of authoritarian parenting is to supervise children and promote optimal development, instead of simply controlling them ( Chao, 1994 ; Kim et al., 2013 ). And Chinese adolescents may perceive positively the parents’ intention to supervise their development, resulting in no direct association between levels of parental control and conflict intensity.

With regard to parent–adolescent relationship cohesion, the current study showed that adolescents with authoritative parents reported the highest levels of cohesion. This result extends previously published work in various cultural groups showing greater cohesion for authoritative parenting (e.g., Nelson et al., 2011 ). Authoritative parenting is characterized by a high degree of warmth and acceptance as well as supervision, but also including the granting of adolescent autonomy ( Baumrind, 2005 ). In Chinese and Western cultures today, adolescents seek greater independence along with support (compared to children)—a balance of youth and parent goals that is best met in authoritative households that promote close relationships. In contrast, neglectful parents’ lack of warmth and supervision, which may be interpreted as irresponsibility, may hinder the establishment of cohesive relationships. Indulgent and authoritarian parents provided either limited guidelines or limited support for their children. All these characteristics were likely to reduce parent–adolescent cohesion.

Expectation for Behavioral Autonomy

Our second aim was, in part, to identify potential mediating effects of adolescents’ expectations for autonomy. Results showed that adolescents’ autonomy expectations mediated the links between parenting styles and both the frequency and intensity of parent–adolescent conflict. Specifically, compared to adolescents in authoritative homes, those in neglect, indulgent, and authoritarian homes reported stronger expectations for autonomy, which in turn were linked with more frequent and intense parent-adolescent conflict. This result was consistent with other studies which explored the relationships between parenting styles, adolescents’ expectation for behavioral autonomy and parent-adolescent conflict ( Baumrind, 1991 ; Bush and Peterson, 2013 ).

Adolescents in authoritative families reported the lowest expectation for behavioral autonomy. This result may be due to that adolescents with authoritative parents have achieved appropriate autonomy, therefore, their desire to acquire more autonomy is not so strong. The salutary effect of authoritative parenting style on adolescents’ behavioral autonomy likely reflects the successful attainment of a socialization goal among authoritative parents: to facilitate autonomy and promote self-reliance. This socialization goal is accomplished by respecting their children’s needs and recognizing that adolescents legitimately have the right to control some aspects of their lives ( Bush and Peterson, 2013 ).

Compared with authoritative parenting style, non-authoritative parenting styles have some characteristics that are thought to hinder the development of adolescents’ behavioral autonomy. Authoritarian parents are characterized as using hostile control or harsh punishment in an arbitrary manner to gain obedience and conformity ( Bush and Peterson, 2013 ). At the same time, authoritarian parents provide limited warmth and responsiveness. In that context, adolescents are more likely to seek greater behavioral autonomy because it is not available to them. Also, indulgent and neglect parents provide few if any rules or discipline. Without sufficient firm control in the form of parental monitoring and guidance, adolescents raised in indulgent and neglect parenting families are more likely to experience high levels of independence before they can manage it themselves ( Bush and Peterson, 2013 ). Also, adolescents in neglectful families lack parental supportiveness and those in indulgent homes are simply spoiled. Such adolescents may have high levels of autonomy, but it is not likely to have been developed through a healthy developmental process with their parents in a way that balances their growing self-determination and connectedness with their parents.

In agreement with previous research ( Laursen and Collins, 2009 ), the current results revealed that adolescents’ expectation for behavioral autonomy statistically predicted greater parent–adolescent conflict—perhaps because parents favor less autonomy than do their teenage children. This parent-youth discrepancy has been found in individualistic and collectivist cultural groups within the United States and in other countries ( Smetana, 1988 ; Pérez et al., 2016 ). Researchers have interpreted the discrepancy as a developmental phenomenon, in which adolescents’ need for autonomy exceeds parental concerns with maintaining order and protecting their children from harm ( Jensen and Dost-Gözkan, 2015 ).

Legitimacy of Parental Authority

The second mediating effect that was tested involved adolescents’ beliefs in the legitimacy of parental authority; results suggested some evidence for this effect. Compared with authoritative parenting, non-authoritative parenting was negatively associated with adolescents’ beliefs in the legitimacy of parental authority, which in turn were positively related to parent-adolescent cohesion. This finding is consistent with previous research ( Fuligni, 1998 ; Darling et al., 2005 ; Assadi et al., 2011 ; Trinkner et al., 2012 ). Our interpretation is that with increasingly adult-like social cognitions and relationships, adolescents increasing question parental authority as they shift from unquestioning compliance to rational assessment with conditional obedience. Compared to other types of parents, authoritative parents, are more successful with continually renegotiating parental authority as their children “grow up,” because they use reasoning and explanations and are responsive to adolescents’ perspectives. This ongoing negotiation provides a context for parents and children to articulate and discuss divergent perspectives, which helps legitimize the parents’ authority by rationally justifying the boundaries of adolescents’ personal jurisdiction.

In contrast, authoritarian parents exert strict and sometimes arbitrary punishment without explanation. Also, they construct the boundaries of parental authority much more broadly than authoritative parents, which promotes resistance in adolescence ( Smetana, 1995 ; Baumrind, 2005 ). In this context, adolescents struggle to internalize the legitimacy of parental authority. Also, in contrast to authoritative parents, indulgent and neglectful parents provide little information about boundaries or appropriate behavior. Such lax control can undermine parental authority, so that youth increasingly regard parents as not playing an authority role.

Parents who exercise their authority are satisfied when their adolescent children respect them, which helps maintain harmonious relationships in the family ( Zhang et al., 2006 ; Jensen and Dost-Gözkan, 2015 ). As child-rearing agents, providers of information and rules, and primary sources of support for their children, parents need to establish their authority to better play their parenting roles. However, this occurs in a relationship context with adolescent, and the teenager’s endorsement of parents’ authority helps the adults meet their psychological needs as well. In such families, parents and youth consider each other’s boundaries and areas of control through negotiation and mutual respect, which builds more cohesive relationships.

In the current study, although adolescents’ expectations for behavioral autonomy and beliefs in the legitimacy of parental authority are both critical attitude domains, their mediating effects were different: autonomy expectations mediated the effect of parenting style on parent-adolescent conflict, but authority legitimacy mediated the effect of parenting style on parent-adolescent cohesion. Certainly, although they are correlated, conflict and cohesion delineate different aspects of parent–adolescent relationships ( Zhang et al., 2006 )—and, each may be affected differently by levels of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. The distinction may be particularly strong in Chinese culture which emphasizes conformity and obedience ( Peterson et al., 2005 ). Parent-adolescent conflict was more likely to be linked with adolescents’ higher expectations for behavioral autonomy which runs against cultural norms, but cohesion was more likely to be linked with adolescents’ greater endorsement of parental authority which is consistent with cultural norms.

Adolescent Gender

Our final aim was to test the hypothesis that the direct link between parenting style and relationship qualities would be stronger for girls than boys—and, to also explore whether there were gender differences in the mediating effects via adolescent autonomy and authority attitudes. The results indicated only a few such effects. Briefly, girls in authoritative and indulgent homes reported more cohesion with mothers than boys, and girls of neglect and authoritarian parenting reported lower level of parent–adolescent cohesion than boys. This may be due to that girls are more responsive and sensitive to social bonds than boys, and that cohesion and parenting style both reflects emotional atmosphere. Therefore, the relationships between parenting styles and cohesion were stronger for girls. Besides, girls of indulgent parents were less likely to endorse parental authority than boys, while endorsement of parental authority had greater effect on parent-adolescent cohesion for boys than girls. To the extent that parents normally set more rules and expect greater obedience of parental authority for girls than boys ( Darling et al., 2005 ; Zhang and Fuligni, 2006 ), and consequently girls of indulgent parents may be more likely to feel that their parents did not shoulder the responsibility of cultivating them or establish the authority, given indulgent parents did not provide enough supervision and rules. Therefore, girls of indulgent parents endorsed lower level of parental authority. At the same time, since parents expected less conformity and obedience for boys, their endorsement of parental authority was more likely to live up to parents’ expectation, which may improve relationships with parents.

Although gender moderated a few paths in the direct and mediating models, overall, the majority of paths were not significantly different for boys and girls across all of the models that were tested. This may be due to that, with the implementation of the one child policy, Chinese parenting styles and socialization practices are becoming increasingly similar for their sole children ( Lu and Chang, 2013 ), resulting in more similar associations between parenting styles and parent–adolescent relationships and also the mediating effects of autonomy and authority for these relationships for boys and girls.

Limitations and Conclusions

Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, the participants were urban adolescents in mainland China which is characterized as collectivist culture, so generalizing the results to other cultures or groups should be done with caution. Second, the correlational design does not permit causal inferences. Longitudinal experimental data are necessary to identify causal relationships among the variables. Finally, we relied on adolescents’ self-reports. Previous research found that there were discrepancies between parents’ and youth’s perceptions on these variables (e.g., Jensen and Dost-Gözkan, 2015 ), so our findings may not represent what would be found using parents’ reports or observers’ ratings.

Despite these limitations, the current study has important implications. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the mediating effects of adolescents’ expectations for behavioral autonomy and beliefs in the legitimacy of parental authority, on the links between parenting styles and parent-adolescent conflict and cohesion. The findings of this study extend existing research and suggest that prevention and intervention efforts are needed to primarily target the reduction of non-authoritative parenting styles, and the promotion of acquiring appropriate levels of autonomy expectations and endorsement of parental authority. Future research should examine other possible mediating paths and sample a wider range of cultural contexts to explore adolescent development and family functioning.

Ethics Statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Institutional Review Board of Shandong Normal University. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Shandong Normal University.

Author Contributions

XB conducted the analysis and drafted the manuscript. YY and HL helped in performing the statistical analysis. MW coordinated the data collection and helped in the statistical analysis. WZ conceived and coordinated the study and helped to draft the manuscript. KD-D helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript and the byline order of authors.

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31671156).

Conflict of Interest Statement

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.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02187/full#supplementary-material

Assadi, S. M., Smetana, J., Shahmansouri, N., and Mohammadi, M. (2011). Beliefs about parental authority, parenting styles, and parent-adolescent conflict among iranian mothers of middle adolescents. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 35, 424–431. doi: 10.1177/0165025411409121

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

Baumrind, D. (2005). Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New Dir. Child Adolesc. Dev. 2005, 61–69. doi: 10.1002/cd.128

Bush, K. R., and Peterson, G. W. (2013). “Parent-child relationships in diverse contexts,” in Handbook of Marriage and the Family , 3rd edn. Eds G. W. Peterson and K. R. Bush (New York, NY: Springer), 275–302. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3987-5_13

Chan, K. W., and Chan, S. M. (2009). Emotional autonomy and perceived parenting styles: relational analysis in the Hong Kong cultural context. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 10, 433–443. doi: 10.1007/s12564-009-9050-z

Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Dev. 65, 1111–1119. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00806.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Soenens, B., and Petegem, S. V. (2013). Autonomy in family decision making for Chinese adolescents: disentangling the dual meaning of autonomy. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 44, 1184–1209. doi: 10.1177/0022022113480038

Darling, N., Cumsille, P., and Martínez, M. L. (2007). Adolescents’ as active agents in the socialization process: legitimacy of parental authority and obligation to obey as predictors of obedience. J. Adolesc. 30, 297–311. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.03.003

Darling, N., Cumsille, P., and Martínez, M. L. (2008). Individual differences in adolescents’ beliefs about the legitimacy of parental authority and their own obligation to obey: a longitudinal investigation. Child Dev. 79, 1103–1118. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01178.x

Darling, N., Cumsille, P., and Peña-Alampay, L. (2005). Rules, legitimacy of parental authority, and obligation to obey in chile, the philippines, and the United States. New Dir. Child Adolesc. Dev. 2005, 47–60. doi: 10.1002/cd.127

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

Dixon, S. V., Graber, J. A., and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). The roles of respect for parental authority and parenting practices in parent-child conflict among African American, Latino, and European American families. J. Fam. Psychol. 22, 1–10. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.1

Fuligni, A. J. (1998). Authority, autonomy, and parent-adolescent conflict and cohesion: a study of adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, Filipino, and European backgrounds. Dev. Psychol. 34, 782–792. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.34.4.782

Henry, D. B., Tolan, P. H., and Gormansmith, D. (2005). Cluster analysis in family psychology research. J. Fam. Psychol. 19, 121–132. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.121

Hoeve, M., Blokland, A. A. J., Semon-Dubas, J., Loeber, R., Gerris, J. R. M., and Van der Laan, P. (2007). Trajectories of delinquency and parenting styles. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 36, 223–235. doi: 10.1007/s10802-007-9172-x

Jensen, L. A., and Dost-Gözkan, A. (2015). Adolescent-parent relations in Asian Indian and Salvadoran immigrant families: a cultural-developmental analysis of autonomy, authority, conflict, and cohesion. J. Res. Adolesc. 25, 340–351. doi: 10.1111/jora.12116

Kim, S. Y., Wang, Y., Orozco-Lapray, D., Shen, Y., and Murtuza, M. (2013). Does “tiger parenting” exist? Parenting profiles of Chinese Americans and adolescent developmental outcomes. Asian Am. J. Psychol. 4, 7–18. doi: 10.1037/a0030612

Laursen, B., and Collins, W. A. (2009). “Parent-child relationships during adolescence,” in Handbook of Adolescent Psychology , eds R. M. Lerner and L. Steinberg (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley).

Google Scholar

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., and Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: exploring the question, weighing the merits. Struct. Equ. Model. 9, 151–173. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902-1

Long, R. H., Huang, D., and Zhang. J. X. (2012). Evaluating on reliability and validity of steinberg scale, Chinese version. Chin. J. Public Health 28, 439–441.

Lu, H. J., and Chang, L. (2013). Parenting and socialization of only children in urban China: an example of authoritative parenting. J. Genet. Psychol. 174, 335–343. doi: 10.1080/00221325.2012.681325

Maccoby, E., and Martin, J. (1983). “Socialization in the context of the family: parent-child interaction”, in Handbook of Child Psychology Socialization, Personality, and Social Development , Vol. 4, eds. E. M. Hetherington and P. H. Mussen (New York, NY: Wiley), 1–101

Mandara, J. (2003). The typological approach in child and family psychology: a review of theory, methods, and research. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev. 6, 129–146. doi: 10.1023/A:1023734627624

McKinney, C., and Renk, K. (2011). A multivariate model of parent-adolescent relationship variables in early adolescence. Child Psychiatr. Hum. Dev. 42, 442–462. doi: 10.1007/s10578-011-0228-3

Nelson, L. J., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Christensen, K. J., Evans, C. A., and Carroll, J. S. (2011). Parenting in emerging adulthood: an examination of parenting clusters and correlates. J. Youth Adolesc. 40, 730–743. doi: 10.1007/s10964-010-9584-8

Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., and Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: i. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Fam. Process 18, 3–28. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1979.00003.x

Pérez, J. C., Cumsille, P., and Martínez, M. L. (2016). Brief report: agreement between parent and adolescent autonomy expectations and its relationship to adolescent adjustment. J. Adolesc. 53, 10–15. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.08.010

Peterson, G. W., Steinmetz, S. K., and Wilson, S. M. (eds). (2005). Parent-Youth Relations: Cultural and Cross-Cultural Perspectives . New York, NY: Hawthorn Press.

Podsakoff, P. M., and Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. J. Manag. 12, 531–544. doi: 10.1177/014920638601200408

Prinz, R. J., Foster, S., Kent, R. N., and O’Leary, K. D. (1979). Multivariate assessment of conflict in distressed and nondistressed mother-adolescent dyads. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 12, 691–700. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1979.12-691

Shek, D. T. (2002). Parenting characteristics and parent-adolescent conflict: a longitudinal study in the Chinese culture. J. Fam. Issues 23, 189–208. doi: 10.1177/0192513X02023002002

Smetana, J. G. (1988). Adolescents’ and parents’ conceptions of parental authority. Child Dev. 59, 321–335. doi: 10.2307/1130313

Smetana, J. G. (1995). Parenting styles and conceptions of parental authority during adolescence. Child Dev. 66, 299–316. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00872.x

Smith, D. C., and Hall, J. A. (2008). Parenting style and adolescent clinical severity: findings from two substance abuse treatment studies. J. Soc. Work Pract. Addict. 8, 440–463. doi: 10.1080/15332560802341073

Sorkhabi, N., and Middaugh, E. (2014). How variations in parents’ use of confrontive and coercive control relate to variations in parent-adolescent conflict, adolescent disclosure, and parental knowledge: adolescents’ perspective. J. Child Fam. Stud. 23, 1227–1241. doi: 10.1007/s10826-013-9783-5

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., and Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Dev. 65, 754–770.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Trinkner, R., Cohn, E. S., Rebellon, C. J., and Van Gundy, K. (2012). Don’t trust anyone over 30: parental legitimacy as a mediator between parenting style and changes in delinquent behavior over time. J. Adolesc. 35, 119–132. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.05.003

World Bank. (2017). Population, Ages 0-14, Total . Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.0014.TO?end=2016andstart=1960andview=chart

You, S., and Lim, S. A. (2015). Development pathways from abusive parenting to delinquency: the mediating role of depression and aggression. Child Abuse Negl. 46, 152–162. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.05.009

Zhang, W. X., and Fuligni, A. J. (2006). Authority, autonomy, and family relationships among adolescents in urban and rural China. J. Res. Adolesc. 16, 527–537. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00506.x

Zhang, W. X., Wang, M. P., and Fuligni, A. J. (2006). Expectations for autonomy, beliefs about parental authority, and parent-adolescent conflict and cohesion. Acta Psychol. Sin. 38, 868–876.

Zhang, W., Wei, X., Ji, L., Chen, L., and Deater-Deckard, K. (2017). Reconsidering parenting in Chinese culture: subtypes, stability, and change of maternal parenting style during early adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc. 46, 1117–1136. doi: 10.1007/s10964-017-0664-x

Keywords : parenting style, parent–adolescent relationship, behavioral autonomy, parental authority, gender

Citation: Bi X, Yang Y, Li H, Wang M, Zhang W and Deater-Deckard K (2018) Parenting Styles and Parent–Adolescent Relationships: The Mediating Roles of Behavioral Autonomy and Parental Authority. Front. Psychol. 9:2187. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02187

Received: 08 August 2018; Accepted: 23 October 2018; Published: 13 November 2018.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2018 Bi, Yang, Li, Wang, Zhang and Deater-Deckard. 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: Wenxin Zhang, [email protected]

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.

Developmental Psychology

Exploring Parenting Styles and Their Impact on Child Development in the Community

Jurnal Sosial Sains Terapan dan Riset (Sosateris) 10(2):105-119
10(2):105-119
This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

25+ million members
160+ million publication pages
2.3+ billion citations

Ramchandra Keshav Dhongade
Preeti Sagar Lad
Rahul Kulkarni

Child Adolesc Psychiatr Ment Health
Norbert Skokauskas

Lois T. Flaherty
Anthony P. S. Guerrero

Laurence Steinberg
CHILD YOUTH SERV REV

Jenni Menon

Recruit researchers
Join for free
Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

What is Positive Parenting? 33 Examples and Benefits

And while most of us strive to be great parents, we may also find ourselves confused and frustrated by the seemingly endless challenges of parenthood.

As both parents of toddlers and teenagers can attest, such challenges are evident across all developmental stages.

But there is good news— numerous research-supported tools and strategies are now available for parents. These resources provide a wealth of information for common parenting challenges (i.e., bedtime issues, picky eating, tantrums, behavior problems, risk-taking, etc.); as well as the various learning lessons that are simply part of growing up (i.e., starting school, being respectful, making friends, being responsible, making good choices, etc.).

With its focus on happiness, resilience and positive youth development ; the field of positive psychology is particularly pertinent to discussions of effective parenting. Thus, whether you are a parent who’s trying to dodge potential problems; or you are already pulling your hair out— you’ve come to the right place.

This article provides a highly comprehensive compilation of evidence-based positive parenting techniques. These ideas and strategies will cover a range of developmental periods, challenges, and situations. More specifically, drawing from a rich and robust collection of research, we will address exactly what positive parenting means; its many benefits; when and how to use it; and its usefulness for specific issues and age-groups.

This article also contains many useful examples, positive parenting tips, activities, programs, videos, books , podcasts – and so much more. By learning from and applying these positive parenting resources; parents will become the kind of parents they’ve always wanted to be: Confident, Optimistic, and even Joyful.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Positive Parenting Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients identify opportunities to implement positive parenting practices and support healthy child development.

This Article Contains:

What is positive parenting, a look at the research, how can it encourage personal development and self growth in a child, how old must the child be, what are the benefits, 12 examples of positive parenting in action, positive parenting styles, a look at positive discipline, positive parenting with toddlers and preschoolers, how to best address sibling rivalry, positive parenting with teenagers, positive parenting through divorce, a take-home message.

Before providing a definition of positive parenting, let’s take a step back and consider what we mean by “parents.” While a great deal of parenting research has focused on the role of mothers; children’s psychosocial well-being is influenced by all individuals involved in their upbringing.

Such caregivers might include biological and adoptive parents, foster parents, single parents, step-parents, older siblings, and other relatives and non-relatives who play a meaningful role in a child’s life. In other words, the term “parent” applies to an array of individuals whose presence impacts the health and well-being of children (Juffer, Bakermans-Kranenburg & van Ijzendoorn, 2008).

Thus, any time the terms “parent” or “caregiver” are used herein; they apply to any individuals who share a consistent relationship with a child, as well as an interest in his/her well-being (Seay, Freysteinson & McFarlane, 2014).

Fortunately, parenting research has moved away from a deficit or risk factor model towards a more positive focus on predictors of positive outcomes (e.g., protective factors ). Positive parenting exemplifies this approach by seeking to promote the parenting behaviors that are most essential for fostering positive youth development (Rodrigo, Almeida, Spiel, & Koops, 2012).

Several researchers have proposed definitions of positive parenting, such as Seay and colleagues (2014), who reviewed 120 pertinent articles. They came up with the following universal definition:

Positive parenting is the continual relationship of a parent(s) and a child or children that includes caring, teaching, leading, communicating, and providing for the needs of a child consistently and unconditionally.

(Seay et al., 2014, p. 207).

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2006) similarly defined positive parenting as “ … nurturing, empowering, nonviolent… ” and which “ provides recognition and guidance which involves setting of boundaries to enable the full development of the child ’’ (in Rodrigo et al., 2012, p. 4). These definitions, combined with the positive parenting literature, suggest the following about positive parenting:

It involves Guiding
It involves Leading
It involves Teaching
It is Caring
It is Empowering
It is Nurturing
It is Sensitive to the Child’s Needs
It is Consistent
It is Always Non-violent
It provides Regular Open Communication
It provides Affection
It provides Emotional Security
It provides Emotional Warmth
It provides Unconditional Love
It recognizes the Positive
It respects the Child’s Developmental Stage
It rewards Accomplishments
It sets Boundaries
It shows Empathy for the Child’s Feelings
It supports the Child’s Best Interests

Along with these qualities, Godfrey (2019) proposes that the underlying assumption of positive parenting is that “… all children are born good, are altruistic and desire to do the right thing …” (positiveparenting.com).

Godfrey further adds that the objective of positive parenting is to teach discipline in a way that builds a child’s self-esteem and supports a mutually respectful parent-child relationship without breaking the child’s spirit (2019). These authors reveal an overall picture of positive parenting as warm, thoughtful and loving— but not permissive.

There is plenty of research supporting the short- and long-term effects of positive parenting on adaptive child outcomes. To begin with, work by the Positive Parenting Research Team ( PPRT ) from the University of Southern Mississippi (Nicholson, 2019) is involved in various studies aimed at examining the impact of positive parenting.

The following are included among the team’s research topics:
Relationships between positive parenting and academic success;
Positive parenting as a predictor of protective behavioral strategies;
Parenting style and emotional health; maternal hardiness, coping and social support in parents of chronically ill children, etc.

The PPRT ultimately seeks to promote positive parenting behaviors within families.

In their seven-year longitudinal study; Pettit, Bates and Dodge (1997) examined the influence of supportive parenting among parents of pre-kindergartners. Supportive parenting was defined as involving mother‐to‐child warmth, proactive teaching, inductive discipline, and positive involvement. Researchers contrasted this parenting approach with a less supportive, more harsh parenting style.

Supportive parenting was associated with more positive school adjustment and fewer behavior problems when the children were in sixth grade. Moreover, supportive parenting actually mitigated the negative impact of familial risk factors (i.e., socioeconomic disadvantage, family stress, and single parenthood) on children’s subsequent behavioral problems (Pettit et al., 2006).

Researchers at the Gottman Institute also investigated the impact of positive parenting by developing a 5-step ‘emotion coaching’ program designed to build children’s confidence and to promote healthy intellectual and psychosocial growth.

Gottman’s five steps for parents include:

awareness of emotions;
connecting with your child;
listening to your child;
naming emotions; and
finding solutions (Gottman, 2019).

Gottman has reported that children of “emotional coaches” benefit from a more a positive developmental trajectory relative to kids without emotional coaches. Moreover, an evaluation of emotional coaching by Bath Spa University found several positive outcomes for families trained in emotional coachings, such as parental reports of a 79% improvement in children’s positive behaviors and well-being (Bath Spa University, 2016).

Overall, research has indicated that positive parenting is related to various aspects of healthy child development (many more examples of evidence supporting the benefits are positive parenting are described further in this article). Such outcomes are neither fleeting nor temporary; and will continue well beyond childhood.

Another way of thinking about the role of positive parenting is in terms of resilience. When children—including those who begin life with significant disadvantages— experience positive and supportive parenting, they are far more likely to thrive.

It is in this way that positive parenting minimizes health and opportunity disparities by armoring children with large stores of emotional resilience (Brooks, 2005; Brooks & Goldstein, 2001). And since we know positive parenting works; what parent wouldn’t want to learn how to use it and thereby give his/her child the best shot at a healthy and happy life?

Download 3 Free Positive Parenting Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients with tools to improve parenting styles and support healthy child development.

Download 3 Free Positive Parenting Exercises Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Email Address *
Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

There are various mechanisms through which positive parenting promotes a child’s prosocial development.

For example, Eisenberg, Zhou, and Spinrad et al. (2005) suggest that positive parenting impacts children’s temperament by enhancing emotion regulation (e.g., “effortful control” enabling children to focus attention in a way that promotes emotion modulation and expression).

The authors reported a significant link between parental warmth and positive expressivity on children’s long-term emotion regulation. This ability to use effortful control was found to predict reduced externalizing problems years later when children were adolescents (Eisenbert et al., 2005).

Along with emotion regulation, there are many other ways in which positive parenting encourages a child’s positive development and self-growth.

Here are some examples:

Teaching and leading promote children’s confidence and provides them with the tools needed to make good choices.
Positive communication promotes children’s social and problem-solving skills while enhancing relationship quality with caregivers and peers.
Warm and democratic parenting enhances children’s self-esteem and confidence.
Parental supervision promotes prosocial peer bonding and positive youth outcomes.
Autonomy-promoting parenting supports creativity, empowerment, and self-determination.
Supportive and optimistic parenting fosters children’s belief in themselves and the future.
Providing recognition for desirable behaviors increases children’s self-efficacy and the likelihood of engaging in prosocial, healthy behaviors.
Providing boundaries and consequences teaches children accountability and responsibility.

Generally speaking, there are many aspects of positive parenting that nurture children’s self-esteem; creativity; belief in the future; ability to get along with others; and sense of mastery over their environment.

Warm, loving and supportive parents feed a child’s inner spirit while empowering him/her with the knowledge and tools necessary to approach life as a fully capable individual.

5 Expert tips no parent should miss – Goalcast

The need for positive parenting begins – well, at the beginning. The attachment literature has consistently indicated that babies under one year of age benefit from positive parenting. More specifically, a secure attachment between infants and mothers is related to numerous positive developmental outcomes (i.e., self-esteem, trust, social competence, etc.; Juffer, Bakermans-Kranenburg & van Ijzendoorn, 2008).

The quality of the mother-child attachment is believed to be a function of parental sensitivity (e.g., mothers who accurately perceive and quickly respond to their babies’ needs; Juffer et al., 2008)— which is certainly a key indicator of positive parenting practices in their earliest form.

Not only is a secure mother-child attachment related to early positive developmental outcomes, but more recent attachment research also indicates long-term increases in social self-efficacy among girls with secure attachments to their fathers (Coleman, 2003).

There are even ways in which positive parenting benefits a child or family as soon as the parents learn of a pregnancy or adoption (i.e., see the subsequent ‘sibling rivalry’ section). Therefore, it cannot be stressed enough: Positive parenting begins as early as possible.

There is empirical evidence for numerous benefits of positive parenting, which cover all developmental stages from infancy to late adolescence. The following table provides a list of many such examples:

Positive Parenting Style, Behavior, or Intervention	Benefit	Citation
Autonomy-supportive Parenting	Better school adjustment among children Increased motivation among infants Higher internalization among toddlers Better psychosocial functioning among adolescents	Joussemet, Landry & Koestner, 2008
	Reduced depressive symptoms among adolescents Increased self-esteem among adolescents	Duineveld, Parker, Ryan, Ciarrochi, & Salmela-Aro, 2017
	Increased optimism among children	Hasan & Power, 2002
Sensitive/Responsive Parenting that Promotes a Secure Parent-Child Attachment	Increased self-esteem among older adolescents	Liable-Gustavo & Roesch, 2004
	Increased social self-efficacy among adolescents	Coleman, 2003
	Multiple positive outcomes among children, such as secure parental attachments, and better cognitive and social development	Juffer, Bakermans-Kranenburg & van Ijzendoorn, 2008
Interventions that Enhance Positive Parenting Practices	Improved attachment security among toddlers Improved school adjustment among children	Forgatch & DeGarmo, 1999
	Increased cognitive and social outcomes among preschoolers	Smith, Landry, & Swank, 2000
	Numerous reductions in problem behaviors and increases in competences among children and adolescents— such as self-esteem, coping efﬁcacy, educational goals, and job aspirations	Sandler, Wolchik, Tein, & Winslow, 2015
	Reduced behavior problems among children Lower dysfunctional parenting styles Higher sense of parenting competence	Sanders, Calam, Durand, Liversidge, & Carmont, 2008
	Long-term reductions in behavior problems among children	de Graaf, Speetjens, Smit, Wolff, & Tavecchio, 2008
	Decreased family conflict and stress; decreased behavioral problems and conduct disorders among children; improved family cohesion, communication, and organization; improved resilience among children and parents	Kumpfer & Alvarado, 1998
	Reduced problem behaviors and increased positive development among children	Knox, Burkhard, & Cromly, 2013
Responsive Parenting (i.e., involves tolerating and working through emotions)	Increased emotion regulation associated with various positive outcomes among children and adolescents	See studies cited in Bornstein 2002
Involved Parenting (i.e., uses rules and guidelines, and involves kids in decision-making)	Increased compliance and self-regulation among children	See studies cited in Bornstein 2002
Developmental Parenting as Characterized by Parental Affection, Teaching & Encouragement	Numerous positive outcomes among children and adolescents; such as increased compliance, greater cognitive abilities, more school readiness, less negativity, more willingness to try new things, better cognitive and social development, better language development, better conversational skills, and less antisocial behavior	See studies cited in Roggman, Boyce, & Innocenti, 2008
Supportive Families	Increased resilience among children and adolescents	Newman & Blackburn, 2002
Parental Attachment, Positive Family Climate & Other Positive Parenting Factors	Increased social skills among adolescents	Engels, Deković, & Meeus, 2002
Warm, Democratic, and Firm Parenting Style (e.g., Authoritative)	Increased school achievement among adolescents	Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989
	General positive youth development (i.e., less risky behaviors, improved school success, better job prospects, etc.) among adolescents	Sandler, Ingram, & Wolchik, et al., 2015
Family Supervision and Monitoring; Effective Communication of Expectations and Family Values/Norms; and Regular Positive Family Time	Improved ability to resist negative peer influences among adolescents	Lochman, 2000

The evidence clearly supports a relationship between positive parenting approaches and a large variety of prosocial parent and child outcomes. Therefore, practitioners have developed and implemented a range of programs aimed at promoting positive parenting practices.

Here are some noteworthy examples; including those which target specific risk factors, as well as those with a more preventative focus:

Parent’s Circle program (Pearson & Anderson, 2001): Recognizing that positive parenting begins EARLY, this program helped parents of infants in the neonatal intensive care unit to enhance their parenting skills in order to better parent their fragile newborns.
The Home Visiting Program (Ammaniti, Speranza, & Tambelli, et al., 2006): Also focused on babies, this program aimed to increase parental sensitivity in order to improve secure mother-infant attachments. In doing so, psychologists visited high-risk mothers at their homes in order to improve parental sensitivity to their infants’ signals.
The Early Head Start Home-based Program (Roggman, Boyce, & Cook, 2009): This home-based program also focused on promoting parent-child attachment. Parents in semirural areas received weekly home-based visits from a family educator who taught them positive strategies aimed at promoting healthy parent-child interactions and engagement in children’s activities.
American Psychological Association’s ACT Raising Safe Kids (RSK) program (Knox, Burkhard, & Cromly, 2013): The goal of this program was to improve parents’ positive parenting knowledge and skills by teaching nonviolent discipline, anger management, social problem‐solving skills, and other techniques intended to protect children from aggression and violence.
New Beginnings Program (Wolchik, Sandler, Weiss, & Winslow, 2007): This empirically-based 10-session program was designed to teach positive parenting skills to families experiencing divorce or separation. Parents learned how to nurture positive and warm relationships with kids, use effective discipline, and protect their children from divorce-related conflict. The underlying goal of the New Beginnings Program was to promote child resilience during this difficult time.
Family Bereavement Program (Sandler, Wolchik, Ayers, Tein, & Luecken, 2013): This intervention was aimed at promoting resilience in parents and children experiencing extreme adversity: The death of a parent. This 10-meeting supportive group environment helped bereaved parents learn a number of resilience-promoting parenting skills (i.e., active listening, using effective rules, supporting children’s coping, strengthening family bonds, and using adequate self-care).
The Positive Parent (Suárez, Rodríguez, & López, 2016): This Spanish online program was aimed at enhancing positive parenting by helping parents to learn about child development and alternative child-rearing techniques; to become more aware, creative and independent in terms of parenting practices; to establish supportive connections with other parents; and to feel more competent and satisfied with their parenting.
Healthy Families Alaska Programs (Calderaa, Burrellb, & Rodriguez, 2007): The objective of this home visiting program was to promote positive parenting and healthy child development outcomes in Alaska. Paraprofessionals worked with parents to improve positive parenting attitudes, parent-child interactions, child development knowledge, and home environment quality.
The Strengthening Families Program (Kumpfer & Alvarado, 1998): This primary prevention program has been widely used to teach parents a large array of positive parenting practices. Following family systems and cognitive-behavioral philosophies, the program has taught parenting skills such as engagement in positive interactions with children, positive communication, effective discipline, rewarding positive behaviors, and the use of family meetings to promote organization. The program’s overall goal was to enhance child and family protective factors; to promote children’s resilience, and to improve children’s social and life skills.
Incredible Years Program (Webster-Stratton& Reid, 2013): This program refers to a widely implemented and evaluated group-based intervention designed to reduce emotional problems and aggression among children, and to improve their social and emotional competence. Parent groups received 12-20 weekly group sessions focused on nurturing relationships, using positive discipline, promoting school readiness and academic skills, reducing conduct problems, and increasing other aspects of children’s healthy psychosocial development. This program has also been used for children with ADHD.
Evidence-based Positive Parenting Programs Implemented in Spain (Ministers of the Council of Europe, in Rodrigo et al., 2012): In a special issue of Psychosocial Intervention, multiple evaluation studies of positive parenting programs delivered across Spain are presented. Among the programs included are those delivered in groups, at home, and online; each of which is aimed at positive parenting support services. This issue provides an informative resource for understanding which parents most benefited from various types of evidence-based programs aimed at promoting positive parenting among parents attending family support services.
Triple P Positive Parenting Program (Sanders, 2008): This program, which will be described in more detail in a subsequent post, is a highly comprehensive parenting program with the objective of providing parents of high-risk children with the knowledge, confidence, and skills needed to promote healthy psychological health and adjustment in their children. While these programs are multifaceted, an overarching focus of the Triple P programs is to improve children’s self-regulation.

A reoccurring theme in the positive parenting literature is that a warm, yet firm parenting style is linked to numerous positive youth outcomes. This style is termed ‘authoritative’ and it is conceptualized as a parenting approach that includes a good balance of the following parenting qualities: assertive, but not intrusive; demanding, but responsive; supportive in terms of discipline, but not punitive (Baumrind, 1991).

Along with an authoritative parenting style, a developmental parenting style is also believed to support positive child outcomes (Roggman et al., 2008).

Developmental parenting is a positive parenting style that promotes positive child development by providing affection (i.e., through positive expressions of warmth toward the child); responsiveness (i.e., by attending to a child’s cues); encouragement (i.e., by supporting a child’s capabilities and interests); and teaching (i.e., by using play and conversation to support a child’s cognitive development (Roggman & Innocenti, 2009).

Developmental parenting clearly shares several commonalities with authoritative parenting, and both represent positive parenting approaches.

Overall, by taking a good look at positive parenting strategies that work for raising healthy, happy kids; it is evident that positive parenting styles encourage a child’s autonomy by:

Supporting exploration and involvement in decision-making
Paying attention and responding to a child’s needs
Using effective communication
Attending to a child’s emotional expression and control
Rewarding and encouraging positive behaviors
Providing clear rules and expectations
Applying consistent consequences for behaviors
Providing adequate supervision and monitoring
Acting as a positive role model
Making positive family experiences a priority

In a nutshell, positive parents support a child’s healthy growth and inner spirit by being loving, supportive, firm, consistent, and involved. Such parents go beyond communicating their expectations, but practice what they preach by being positive role models for their children to emulate.

4 Things you must say to your kids daily – Live on Purpose TV

The term ‘discipline’ often has a negative, purely punitive connotation. However, ‘discipline’ is actually defined as “training that corrects, molds, or perfects the mental faculties or moral character” (Merriam-Webster, 2019).

This definition is instructive, as it reminds us that as parents, we are not disciplinarians, but rather teachers. And as our children’s teachers, our goal is to respectfully show them choices for behaviors and to positively reinforce adaptive behaviors.

Positive discipline again harkens back to authoritative parenting because it should be administered in a way that is firm and loving at the same time. Importantly, positive discipline is never violent, aggressive or critical; it is not punitive.

Relevant: Examples of Positive Punishment & Negative Reinforcement

Physical punishment (i.e., spanking) is ineffective for changing behaviors in the long-term and has a number of detrimental consequences on children (Gershoff, 2013). Indeed, the objective of positive discipline is to “teach and train. Punishment (inflicting pain/purposeful injury) is unnecessary and counter-productive” (Kersey, 2006, p. 1).

Nelsen (2006) describes a sense of belonging as a primary goal of all people; a goal that is not achieved through punishment. In fact, she describes the four negative consequences of punishment on children (e.g., “the four R’s”) as resentment toward parents; revenge that may be plotted in order to get back at parents; rebellion against parents, such as through even more excessive behaviors; and retreat, that may involve becoming sneaky and/or experiencing a loss of self-esteem (Nelsen, 2006).

She provides the following five criteria for positive discipline (which are available on her positive discipline website ):

Is both kind and firm
Promotes a child’s sense of belonging and significance
Works long-term (note: punishment may have an immediate impact, but this is short-lived)
Teaches valuable social and life skills (i.e., problem-solving, social skills, self-soothing, etc.)
Helps children develop a sense that they are capable individuals

In her comprehensive and helpful book for parents: Positive Discipline , Nelsen (2006) also describes a number of key aspects of positive discipline, such as being non-violent, respectful, and grounded in developmental principles; teaching children self-respect, empathy, and self-efficacy; and promoting a positive relationship between parent and child.

Stated another way, “ respecting children teaches them that even the smallest, most powerless, most vulnerable person deserves respect, and that is a lesson our world desperately needs to learn ” (LR Knost, lovelivegrow.com).

Since we know that positive discipline does not involve the use of punishment; the next obvious questions become “Just what exactly does it involve?”

This question is undoubtedly urgent for parents who feel like their child is working diligently toward driving them mad. While we will discuss some of the more typical frustrations that parents regularly encounter later in the article, Kersey (2006) provides parents with a wonderful and comprehensive resource in her publication entitled “101 positive principles of discipline.”

Here are her top ten principles:

Demonstrate Respect Principle : Treat the child in the same respectful way you would like to be treated.
Make a Big Deal Principle : Use positive reinforcement in meaningful ways for desired behaviors. Reward such behaviors with praise, affection, appreciation, privileges, etc.
Incompatible Alternative Principle : Provide the child with a behavior to substitute for the undesirable one, such as playing a game rather than watching tv.
Choice Principle : Provide the child with two choices for positive behaviors so that he/she feels a sense of empowerment. For example, you might say “would you rather take your bath before or after your brush your teeth?”
When/Then – Abuse it/Lose it Principle : Ensure that rewards are lost when rules are broken. For example, you might say “After you clean your room, you can play outside” (which means that a child who does not clean his/her room, will not get to play outside. Period.)
Connect Before You Correct Principle : Ensure that the child feels loved and cared for before behavioral problems are attended to.
Validation Principle : Validate the child’s feelings. For example, you might say “I know you are sad about losing your sleepover tonight and I understand”.
Good Head on Your Shoulders Principle : Ensure that the child hears the equivalent of “you have a good head on your shoulders” in order to feel capable, empowered and responsible for his/her choices. This is especially important for teenagers.
Belonging and Significance Principle : Ensure that your child feels important and as if he/she belongs. For example, remind your child that he/she is really good at helping in the kitchen and that the family needs this help in order to have dinner.
Timer Says it’s Time Principle : Set a timer to help children make transitions. This helps kids to know what’s expected of them and may also involve giving them a choice in terms of the amount of time. For example, you might say “Do you need 15 or 20 minutes to get dressed?” Make sure to let the child know that the time is set.

The reader is encouraged to check-out Kersey’s 101 positive discipline principles, as they contain an enormous amount of useful and effective approaches for parents; along with principles that reflect many everyday examples (e.g., Babysitter Principle; Apology Principle; Have Fun Together Principle; Talk About Them Positively to Others Principle; Whisper Principle; Write a Contract Principle; and so much more).

This section has provided many helpful positive discipline ideas for a myriad of parenting situations and challenges. Positive discipline (which will be expounded on later sections of in the article: i.e., ‘positive parenting with toddlers and preschoolers,’ ‘temper tantrums,’ ‘techniques to use at bedtime,’ etc.) is an effective discipline approach that promotes loving parent-child relationships, as well as producing productive, respectful, and happy children.

The notion of parenting a toddler can frighten even the most tough-minded among us. This probably isn’t helped by terms such as ‘terrible two’s,’ and jokes like “ Having a two-year-old is kind of like having a blender, but you don’t have a top for it ” (Jerry Seinfeld, goodreads.com).

Sure, toddlers and preschoolers get a bad rap; but they do sometimes seem like tiny drunken creatures who topple everything in their path. Not to mention their tremendous noise and energy, mood swings, and growing need for independence.

While their lack of coordination and communication skills can be endearing and often hilarious; they are also quite capable of leaving their parents in a frenzied state of frustration. For example, let’s consider the situation below.

The Grocery Store Blow-out

In this relatable example, a dad and his cranky 3-year-old find themselves in a long line at a grocery store. The child decides she’s had enough shopping and proceeds to throw each item out of the cart while emitting a blood-curdling scream.

The father, who may really need to get the shopping done, is likely to shrivel and turn crimson as his fellow shoppers glare and whisper about his “obnoxious child” or “bad parenting.” He, of course, tells her to stop; perhaps by asking her nicely, or trying to reason with her.

When this doesn’t’ work, he might switch his method to commanding, pleading, threatening, negotiating, or anything else he can think of in his desperation. But she is out of control and beyond reason. The father wants an immediate end to the humiliation; but he may not realize that some quick fixes intended to placate his child, will only make his life worse in the long run.

So, what is he to do?

Before going into specific solutions for this situation, it is essential that parents understand this developmental stage. There are reasons for the child’s aggravating behaviors; reasons that are biologically programmed to ensure survival.

For example, kids aged two-to-three are beginning to understand that there are a lot of things that seem scary in the world. As such, they may become anxious about a variety of situations; like strangers, bad dreams, extreme weather, creepy images, doctor and dentist offices, monsters, certain animals, slivers or other minor medical issues, etc.

While these childhood fears make life more difficult for parents (i.e., when a child won’t stay in his/her room at night due to monsters and darkness, or when a child makes an enormous fuss when left with a babysitter), they are actually an indicator of maturity (Durant, 2016).

The child is reacting in a way that supports positive development by fearing and avoiding perceived dangers. While fear of monsters does not reflect a truly dangerous situation, avoidance of individuals who appear mean or aggressive is certainly in the child’s best interest.

Similarly, fear of strangers is an innate protective mechanism that prompts children to stay close to those adults who keep them healthy and safe. And some strangers indeed should be feared. Although a challenge for parents, young children who overestimate dangers with consistent false-positives are employing their survival instincts.

In her book Positive Discipline (which is free online and includes worksheets for parents), Durant (2016) notes the importance of respecting a child’s fears and not punishing her/him for them, as well as talking to the child in a way that shows empathy and helps him/her to verbalize feelings. Durant proposes that one of the keys of effective discipline is “… to see short-term challenges as opportunities to work toward your long-term goals” (2016, p. 21).

With this objective in mind, any steps a parent takes when dealing with a frightened or misbehaving child should always be taken with consideration of their potential long-term impact. Long-term goals, which Durant describes as “the heart of parenting” may be hard to think about when a child is challenging and a frustrated parent simply wants the behavior to stop.

However, punishing types of behaviors such as yelling, are not likely to be in-line with long-term parenting goals. By visualizing their preschooler as a high school student or even an adult, it can help parents to ensure that their immediate responses are in-line with the kind, peaceful and responsible person they wish to see in 15 years or so. Durant (2016) provides several examples of long-term parenting goals, such as:

Maintaining a quality relationship with the parent
Taking responsibility for actions
Being respectful of others
Knowing right from wrong
Making wise decisions
Being honest, loyal and trustworthy

Related: Examples of Positive Reinforcement in the Classroom

Grocery Store Blow-out Solutions

Long-term parenting goals are highly relevant to the maddening grocery store example. If the dad only thinks about the short-term goal of making his daughter’s behavior stop embarrassing him at the store, he might decide to tell her she can have a candy bar if she is quiet and stops throwing items from the cart.

This way, he might reason, he can finish his shopping quickly and without humiliation. Sure, this might work as far as getting the child to behave on that day— at that moment; BUT here are some likely consequences:

Next time they go shopping, she will do this again in order to receive the candy reward.
Pretty much every time they go shopping, she will do the same thing; and the value of the reward is likely to escalate as she gets tired of the candy.
She will learn that this behavior can get her rewards in all sorts of places beyond the grocery store, thus making her exhausted parents afraid to take her anywhere.

Moreover, the message she receives from the candy tactic will not reinforce the qualities the father likely wants to see in his daughter over time, such as:

Being respectful of her parents
Being respectful of others around her
Being respectful of others’ property
Being responsible for her behavior
Being courteous and considerate
Being helpful
Having good manners
Having good social skills

Therefore, the father might instead deal with this situation by calmly telling her that she needs to stop or she will get a time-out. The time-out can take place somewhere in the store that is not reinforcing for her, such as a quiet corner with no people around (e.g., no audience). Or they can go sit in the car.

If the store is especially crowded, the dad might also ask the clerk to place his cart in a safe place and/or save his place in line until he returns (which he/she will likely be inclined to do if it will get the child to be quiet). After a brief time-out, he should give his daughter a hug and let her know the rules for the remainder of the shopping trip, as well as the consequences of not following them.

In some cases, it might be better for the parent to simply leave the store without the groceries and go home. He won’t have completed his shopping, but that will be a small price for having a child who learns a good lesson on how to behave.

Very importantly, however; if he does take her home, this absolutely cannot be done in a way that is rewarding (i.e., she gets to go home and play, watch tv, or anything else she enjoys). She will need a time-out immediately upon arriving home, as well as perhaps the message that dinner won’t be her favorite tonight since the shopping was not done.

This is not meant to be punitive or sarcastic, more of a natural consequence for her to learn from (e.g., “If I act-out at the store, we won’t have my favorite foods in the house”). In fact, even though he may not feel like it, the father needs to speak to his daughter in a kind and loving way.

Regardless of whether the consequence is in the store or at home, the dad absolutely must follow-through consistently. If he doesn’t, he will teach her that sometimes she can misbehave and still get what she wants; this is a pattern of reinforcement that is really difficult to break.

Of course, the father cannot leave the store each time she misbehaves, as he won’t get anything done and he’s also giving her too much control. Thus, he should prepare in advance for future shopping trips by making her aware of the shopping rules, expectations for her behavior, and the consequences if she breaks them.

The father should be specific about such things, as “I expect you to be good at the store” is not clear. Saying something more like “The rules for shopping are that you need to talk in your quiet voice, listen to daddy, sit still in the cart, help daddy give the items to the clerk, etc.” The dad is also encouraged to only take her shopping when she is most likely to behave (i.e., when well-rested, well-fed, not upset about something else, etc.).

He might also give her something to do while shopping, such as by bringing her favorite book or helping to put items in the cart. Giving his daughter choices will also help her feel a sense of control (i.e., “You can either help put the items in the cart or you can help give them to the clerk”).

And, finally, the little girl should be rewarded for her polite shopping behavior with a great deal of praise (i.e., “You were a very good girl at the store today. You really helped Daddy and I enjoyed spending time with you”).

He might also reward her with a special experience (i.e., “You were so helpful at the store, that we saved enough time to go the park later” or “You were such a great helper today; can you also help daddy make dinner?”). Of course, the reward should not consist of food, since that can lead to various other problems.

There are many more positive parenting tips for this and other difficult parenting scenarios throughout this article, as well as numerous helpful learning resources. In the meantime, it is always wise to remember that your toddler or preschooler does not act the way he/she does in order to torture you— it’s not personal.

There are always underlying reasons for these behaviors. Just keep your cool, plan-ahead, think about your long-term goals, and remember that your adorable little monster will only be this age for a brief time.

Related: Parenting Children with Positive Reinforcement (Examples + Charts)

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

Siblings, whether biological; adopted; full or half stepsiblings; often pick at each other endlessly. Arguments between siblings are a normal part of life. However, sometimes the degree of animosity between siblings (e.g., sibling rivalry) can get out of control and interfere with the quality of the relationship. Not to mention creating misery for parents. Plus, there are negative long-term consequences of problematic sibling relationships, such as deviant behavior among older children and teens (Moser & Jacob, 2002).

Sibling rivalry is often complicated, as it is affected by a range of family variables, such as family size, parent-child interactions, parental relationships, children’s genders, birth order, and personality—among others. And it starts really early. Sometimes, as soon as a child realizes a baby brother or sister is on the way, emotions begin to run high. Fortunately, parents have a great opportunity to prepare their children from the start.

For example, the parent can foster a healthy sibling relationship by engaging in open communication about becoming a big brother or sister early on. This should be done in a way that is exciting and supports the child’s new role as the older sibling. Parents can support bonding by allowing the child to feel the baby kick or view ultrasound pictures. They can solicit their child’s help in decorating the baby’s room.

For some families, their newborn baby may be premature or have other medical problems that require time in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). In this situation, which can be quite stressful for siblings, parents should talk to the older child about what’s happening. Parents might also provide the child with updates on the baby’s progress, prepare the child for visits to the NICU, have the child draw a picture to leave with the baby, make a scrapbook for the baby, and set aside plenty of time with the older child (Beavis, 2007).

If the new child is going to be adopted, it is also important to encourage a connection. For example, along with explaining how the adoption will work, the child can be involved in the exciting aspects of the process once it is confirmed. In the case of an older child or international adoption, there are special things parents can do as well.

For example, if a child is in an orphanage, the sibling can help pick-out little gifts to send ahead of time (i.e., a stuffed animal, soft blanket or clothing). Having the child draw a picture and/or write a letter to the new sibling is another way to enhance the relationship. Adopting an older child will require particular preparation; as the new sibling will arrive with his/her own fears, traits, memories, and experiences that will certainly come into play.

There are a number of children’s books designed to help parents prepare their children for a new sibling, such as You Were the First (MacLachlan, 2013), My Sister Is a Monster : Funny Story on Big Brother and New Baby Sister How He Sees Her (Green, 2018), and Look-Look : The New Baby (Mayer, 2001).

There are also children’s books that help prepare children for adopted siblings, with some that are even more focused on the type of adoption. Here are a few examples: Seeds of Love : For Brothers and Sisters of International Adoption (Ebejer Petertyl & Chambers, 1997), A Sister for Matthew : A Story About Adoption (Kennedy, 2006), and Emma’s Yucky Brother (Little, 2002).

Along with the above tips, Amy McCready (2019) provides some excellent suggestions for ending sibling rivalry, these include:

Avoid Labeling Children: by labeling children in ways such as “the social one,” “the great student,” “the athlete,” “the baby” etc., parents intensify comparisons, as well as one child’s belief that he/she does not possess the same positive qualities as the other one (i.e., “if he’s the ‘brainy one,’ I must be the ‘dumb one,’”).
Arrange for Attention: Make sure each child has plenty of regular intentional attention so that they will be less inclined to fight for it.
Prepare for Peace: McCready describes several ways to teach conflict resolution skills that help to avoid further issues between siblings.
Stay out of Squabbles: Unless absolutely necessary (i.e., during a physical fight), it is best to stay out of squabbles. In doing so, the parent is not reinforcing the disagreement, while also enabling the children to work out solutions together.
Calm the Conflict: If you must intervene, it is best to help the children problem-solve the situation without judgment or taking sides.
Put them All in the Same Boat: McCready suggests that all children involved in the conflict receive the same consequence, which teaches them that they each will benefit from getting along.

These and other useful tips and resources are available on McCready’s Positive Parenting Solutions website . Luckily, by being thoughtful and preparing ahead of time, parents can avoid excessive competition between children and promote meaningful lifelong sibling bonds.

Before discussing positive parenting with teenagers, it is important to remember one key fact: Teens still need and want their parents’ support, affection, and guidance— even if it doesn’t seem like it. Just as with younger kids, parental figures are essential for helping adolescents overcome difficult struggles (Wolin, Desetta & Hefner, 2016).

Indeed, by fostering a sense of mastery and internal locus of control, adults help to empower a teen’s sense of personal responsibility and control over the future (Blaustein & Kinniburgh, 2018). In fact, the presence of nurturing adults who truly listen has been reported among emotionally resilient teens (Wolin et al., 2016).

Positive parenting practices such as quality communication, parental monitoring, and authoritative parenting style also have been found to predict fewer risky behaviors among adolescents (DeVore & Ginsburg, 2005).

As parents of teens know, there are many challenges involved in parenting during this developmental period. Adolescents often find themselves confused about where they fit in the area between adulthood and childhood. They may desire independence, yet lack the maturity and knowledge to execute it safely. They are often frustrated by their bodily changes, acne and mood swings.

Teens may be overwhelmed by school, as well as pressures from parents and peers. Teens may feel bad about themselves and even become anxious or depressed as they try to navigate the various stressors they face.

Many of these difficulties, which certainly need attention from parents, may also make conversations difficult. Parents may feel confused as to how much freedom versus protectiveness is appropriate. The Love and Logic approach (Cline & Faye, 2006) provides some terrific ways for parents to raise responsible, well-adjusted teens.

The authors’ approach for parents involves two fundamental concepts: “Love [which] means giving your teens opportunities to be responsible and empowering them to make their own decisions.” And “Logic [which] means allowing them to live with the natural consequences of their mistakes-and showing empathy for the pain, disappointment, and frustration they’ll experience” (Foster, Cline, & Faye, 2019, hopelbc.com, p. 1).

Just as with young children, the Love and Logic method is a warm and loving way to prepare teens for the future while maintaining a quality relationship with parents.

Another positive parenting approach that is particularly applicable to adolescents is the Teen Triple P Program (Ralph & Sanders, 2004). Triple P (which will be described in a subsequent post) is tailored toward teens and involves teaching parents a variety of skills aimed at increasing their own knowledge and confidence.

The program also promotes various prosocial qualities in teens such as social competence, health, and resourcefulness; such that they will be able to avoid engaging in problem behaviors (e.g., substance use, risky sex, delinquency, Bulimia, etc.). This approach enables parents to replace harsh discipline styles for those that are more nurturing, without being permissive. It aims to minimize parent-teen conflict while providing teens with the tools and ability to make healthy choices (Ralph & Sanders, 2004).

Parents of teens (or future teens) often shudder when considering the dangers and temptations to which their children may be exposed. With a focus specifically on substance use, the Partnership for Drug-free Kids website offers a great deal of information for parents who are either dealing with teen drug use or are doing their best to prevent it.

For example, several suggestions for lowering the probability that a teen will use substances include:

knowing your teen’s friends;
being a positive role model in terms of your own coping mechanisms and use of alcohol and medication;
being aware of your child’s level of risk for substance use;
providing your teen with substance use information;
supervising and monitoring your teen;
setting boundaries;
communicating openly about substance use; and
building a supportive and warm relationship with your teen (Partnership for Drug-free Kids; PDK, 2014).

These suggestions are discussed in more detail on the following PDF : Parenting Practices: Help Reduce the Chances Your Child will Develop a Drug or Alcohol Problem (PDK, 2014). By employing these and other positive parenting techniques, you are helping your teenager to become a respectful, well-adjusted and productive member of society.

Divorce has become so common that dealing with it in the best possible way for kids is of vital importance to parents everywhere.

Parental divorce/separation represents a highly stressful experience for children that can have both immediate and long-term negative consequences.

Children of divorce are at increased risk for mental health, emotional, behavioral, and relationship problems (Department of Justice, Government of Canada, 2015).

There is, however, variability in how divorce affects children; with some adverse consequences being temporary, and others continuing well into adulthood. Since we know that divorce does not impact all children equally, the key question becomes: What are the qualities that are most effective for helping children to cope with parental divorce?

There are differences in children’s temperament and other aspects of personality, as well as family demographics, that affect their ability to cope with divorce. But, for present purposes, let’s focus on the aspects of the divorce itself since this is the area parents have the most power to change.

Importantly, the detrimental impact of divorce on kids typically begins well before the actual divorce (Amato, 2000). Thus, it may not be the divorce per se that represents the child risk factor; but rather, the parents’ relationship conflicts and how they are handled. For divorced/divorcing parents, this information is encouraging—as there are things you can do to help your children (and you) remain resilient despite this difficult experience.

Parental Conflict and Alienation

There are several divorce-related qualities that make it more difficult for children to adapt to divorce, such as parental hostility and poor cooperation between parents (Amato, 2000); and interpersonal conflict between parents along with continued litigation (Goodman, Bonds, & Sandler, et al., 2005).

Parents dealing with divorce need to make a special effort not to expose their children to conflicts between parents, legal and money related issues, and general animosity. The latter point merits further discussion, as parents often have a difficult time not badmouthing each other in front of (or even directly to) their kids. It is this act of turning a child against a parent that ultimately serves to turn a child against himself (Baker & Ben-Ami, 2011).

Badmouthing the other divorced parent is an alienation strategy, given its aim to alienate the other parent from the child. Such alienation involves any number of criticisms of the other parent in front of the child. This may even include qualities that aren’t necessarily negative, but which can be depicted as such for the sake of enhancing alienation (Baker & Ben-Ami, 2011).

Baker and Ben-Ami (2011) note that parental alienation tactics hurt children by sending the message that the badmouthed parent does not love the child. Also, the child may feel that, because their badmouthed parent is flawed; that he/she is similarly damaged. When a child receives a message of being unlovable or flawed, this negatively affects his/her self-esteem, mood, relationships, and other areas of life ( Baker & Ben-Ami, 2011 ).

An excellent resource for preventing parental alienation is Divorce Poison : How to Protect Your Family from Bad-mouthing and Brainwashing (Warshak, 2010).

Warshak describes how one parent’s criticism of the other may have a highly detrimental impact on the targeted parent’s relationship with his/her child. And such badmouthing absolutely hurts the child. Badmouthed parents who fail to deal with the situation appropriately are at risk of losing the respect of their kids and even contact altogether. Warshak provides effective solutions for bad-mouthed parents to use during difficult situations, such as:

How to react when you find out about the badmouthing
What to do if your kids refuse to see you
How to respond to false accusations
How to insulate kids from bad-mouthing effects

Reasons that parents attempt to manipulate children, as well as behaviors often exhibited by children who have become alienated from one parent, are also described (Warshak, 2010). This book, as well as additional resources subsequently listed, provides hope and solutions for parents who are dealing with the pain of divorce.

Importantly, there are ways to support children in emerging from divorce without long-term negative consequences (i.e., by protecting them from parental animosity). It is in this way that parents can “enable their children to maintain love and respect for two parents who no longer love, and may not respect, each other” (Warshak, 2004-2013, warshak.com).

Positive parenting is an effective style of raising kids that is suitable for pretty much all types of parents and children. This article contains a rich and extensive collection of positive parenting research and resources; with the goal of arming caregivers with the tools to prevent or tackle a multitude of potential challenges. And, of course, to foster wellness and healthy development in children.

Here are the article’s key takeaways:

Parents are never alone. Whatever the problem or degree of frustration, there is a whole community of parents who have faced the same issues. Not to mention a ton of positive parenting experts with effective solutions.
Positive parenting begins early. Positive parenting truly starts the moment a person realizes he/she is going to become a parent since even the planning that goes into preparing for a child’s arrival will have an impact.
Positive parenting applies to all developmental periods. With a positive parenting approach, raising toddlers and teenagers need not be terrible nor terrifying. Positive parenting promotes effective, joyful parenting of kids of all ages.
Positive parents raise their children in a way that empowers them to reach their full potential as resilient and fulfilled individuals. Positive parents are warm, caring, loving and nurturing— and so much more: They are teachers, leaders, and positive role models. They are consistent and clear about expectations. They know what their kids and teens are doing. They encourage and reinforce positive behaviors. They make family experiences a priority. They support their children’s autonomy and individuality. They love their children unconditionally. They engage in regular, open dialogues with their children. They are affectionate, empathetic, and supportive. They understand that their teenagers still need them.
Positive discipline is an effective, evidence-based approach that is neither punitive nor permissive. Positive discipline is performed in a loving way without anger, threats, yelling, or punishment. It involves clear rules, expectations, and consequences for behavior; and consistent follow-through. It is in alignment with parents’ long-term parenting goals.
Positive parenting is backed by empirical evidence supporting its many benefits. Positive parenting promotes children’s self-esteem, emotional expression, self-efficacy, sense of belonging, social and decision-making skills, and belief in themselves. Positive parenting fosters secure attachments and quality relationships with parents; school adjustment and achievement; reduced behavior problems, depressive symptoms, and risk behaviors; and positive youth development in general. The outcomes associated with positive parenting are long-term and often permanent.
Positive parenting is applicable to a vast array of challenges. Positive parenting applies to everyday challenges, as well as more frustrating and even severe issues. Positive parenting has been effectively used for dealing with temper tantrums, bedtime and eating issues, and sibling rivalry; as well as difficulties associated with divorce, ADHD, family stressors, teen pressures, and risk-taking—and much more.
Positive parenting solutions are both abundant and accessible. Because positive parenting experts have tackled so many parenting issues, available resources are plentiful. Along with the many tips and suggestions contained in this article; there is a whole online library of positive parenting-related activities, workbooks, books, videos, courses, articles, and podcasts that cover a broad range of parenting topics.

Considering the many positive parenting solutions and resources currently available, parents can approach their role as teachers, leaders, and positive role models with confidence and optimism. And, ultimately, by consistently applying positive parenting strategies; parents will experience a deep and meaningful connection with their children that will last a lifetime. ?

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Positive Parenting Exercises for free .

Alshugairi, N., & Lekovic Ezzeldine, M. (2017). Positive parenting in the Muslim home . Irvine, CA: Izza Publishing.
Altiero, J. (2006). No more stinking thinking: A workbook for teaching children positive thinking . London, United Kingdome: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Amato, P. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62 (4), 1269-1287.
Amit Ray. Goodreads (2019). Retrieved from https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/girl-child
Ammaniti M., Speranza A., Tambelli R., Muscetta, S., Lucarelli, L., Vismara, L., Odorisio, E., Cimino, S. (2006). A prevention and promotion intervention program in the field of mother-infant relationship. Infant Mental Health Journal, 27 :70-90.
Asa Don Brown. Goodreads (2019). Retrieved from https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/girl-child
Author Unknown. The Quote Garden (1998-2019). Retrieved from http://quotegarden.com/
Baker, A. & Ben-Ami, N. (2011). To turn a child against a parent is to turn a child against himself: The direct and indirect effects of exposure to parental alienation strategies on self-esteem and well-being. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 52 (7), 472–489.
Bath Spa University (2016). Somerset Emotion Coaching Project. Retrieved from https://www.ehcap.co.uk/content/sites/ehcap/uploads/NewsDocuments/302/Emotion-Coaching-Full-Report-May-2016-FINAL.PDF
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11 (1), 56-95.
Beavis, A. (2007). What about brothers and sisters? Helping siblings cope with a new baby brother or sister in the NICU. Infant, 3 (6), 239-242.
Benjamin Spock. Goodreads (2019). Retrieved from https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/girl-child
Bill Ayers. Goodreads (2019). Retrieved from https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/girl-child
Bornstein, M. (2002). Emotion regulation: Handbook of parenting . Mahwah, New Jersey London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Brooks R.B. (2005) The power of parenting. In: Goldstein S., Brooks R.B. (eds) Handbook of resilience in children . Springer, Boston, MA.
Brooks, R., & Goldstein, S. (2001). Raising resilient children: Fostering strength, hope, and optimism in your child . New York: Contemporary Books.
Bruni, O., Violani, C., Luchetti, A., Miano, S. Verrillo, E., Di Brina, O., Valente, D. (2004). The sleep knowledge of pediatricians and child neuropsychiatrists. Sleep and Hypnosis, 6 (3):130-138.
Calderaa, D., Burrellb, L., Rodriguezb, K., Shea Crowneb, S., Rohdec, C., Dugganc, A. (2007). Impact of a statewide home visiting program on parenting and on child health and development. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31 (8), 829-852.
Carter, C. (2017). Positive discipline: 2-in-1 guide on positive parenting and toddler discipline . North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Centers for Disease Control (2014). Positive parenting tips. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/childdevelopment/positiveparenting/
Cline, F. & Fay, J. (2006). Parenting with love and logic: Teaching children responsibility . Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.
Cline, F., Fay, J., & Cline, F. (2006). Parenting teens with love and logic: Preparing adolescents for responsible adulthood . Colorado Springs, CO: Piñon Press.
Cline, F., Fay, J., & Cline, F. (2019). Parenting Teens with Love & Logic . Retrieved from http://hopelbc.com/parenting%20teens%20with%20love%20and%20logic.pdf
Coleman, P. (2003). Perceptions of parent‐child attachment, social self‐efficacy, and peer relationships in middle childhood. Infant and Child Development, 12 (4), 351-356.
David, O. & DiGiuseppe, R. (2016). The Rational Positive Parenting Program . Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.
de Graaf, I., Speetjens, P., & Smit, F., de Wolff, M., & Tavecchio, L. (2008). Effectiveness of The Triple P Positive Parenting Program on behavioral problems in children: A meta-analysis. Behavior Modification, 32 (5), 714–735.
Department of Justice, Government of Canada (2015). The effects of divorce on children: a selected literature review. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/divorce/wd98_2-dt98_2/toc-tdm.html
DeVore, E. & Ginsburg, K. (2005). The protective effects of good parenting on adolescents. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 17 (4), 460-465.
Duineveld, J., Parker, P., Ryan, R., Ciarrochi, J., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2017). The link between perceived maternal and paternal autonomy support and adolescent well-being across three major educational transitions. Developmental Psychology, 53 (10), 1978-1994.
Durand, M. & Hieneman, M. (2008). Helping parents with challenging children: Positive family intervention parent workbook (programs that work). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Durant, J. (2016). Positive discipline in everyday parenting. Retrieved from http://www.cheo.on.ca/uploads/advocacy/JS_Positive_Discipline_English_4th_edition.pdf
Eanes, R. (2015). The newbie’s guide to positive parenting: Second edition. SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Eanes, R. (2016). Positive parenting: an essential guide (the positive parent series). New York, NY: Penguin Random House, LLC.
Eanes, R. (2018). The positive parenting workbook: An interactive guide for strengthening emotional connection (The Positive Parent Series). New York, NY: Random House, LLC.
Eanes, R. (2019). The gift of a happy mother: Letting go of perfection and embracing everyday joy. Los Angeles, CA: TarcherPerigee.
Ebejer Petertyl, M., & Chambers, J. (1997). Seeds of love: For brothers and sisters of international adoption . Grand Rapids, MI: Folio One Pub.
Eisenberg, N., Zhou, Q., Spinrad, T. L., Valiente, C., Fabes, R. A., & Liew, J. (2005). Relations among positive parenting, children’s effortful control, and externalizing problems: A three-wave longitudinal study. Child Development, 76 (5), 1055–1071.
Engels, R., Dekovic, M., & Meeus, W. (2002). Parenting practices, social skills and peer relationships in adolescence. Social Behavior and Personality, 30 (1), 3-17.
Fay, J. (2019). What Is Parenting with Love and Logic? Retrieved from http://www.hopelbc.com/parenting%20with%20love%20and%20logic.pdf
Ferber, R. (2006). Solve your child’s sleep problems: New, revised, and expanded edition . New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc.
Forgatch, M., & DeGarmo, D. (1999). Parenting through change: An effective prevention program for single mothers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67 (5), 711-724.
Franklin D. Roosevelt. Goodreads (2019). Retrieved from https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/girl-child
Gary Smalley. Azquotes (2019). Retrieved from https://www.azquotes.com/
Gershoff, E. (2013). Spanking and child development: We know enough now to stop hitting our children. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cdep.12038
Godfrey, D. (2019). Retrieved from https://positiveparenting.com/
Goodman, M., Bonds, D., Sandler, I., & Braver, S. (2005). Parent psychoeducational programs and reducing the negative effects of interparental conflict following divorce. Family Court Review, 42 (2), 263–279.
Gottman, J. (2019). The Gottman Institute: A research-based approach to relationships. Retrieved from https://www.gottman.com/parents/
Green, A. (2018). My sister is a monster: Funny story on big brother and new baby sister how he sees her; sibling book for children. New York, NY: Schwartz & Wade.
Halloran, J. (2016). Coping skills for kids workbook: Over 75 coping strategies to help kids deal with stress, anxiety and anger workbook. Retrieved from https://copingskillsforkids.com/workbook
Hasan, N., & Power, T. G. (2002). Optimism and pessimism in children: A study of parenting correlates. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26 (2), 185–191.
Janet Lansbury. Love Live Grow (2018). Retrieved from https://lovelivegrow.com/
Jesse Jackson. The Quote Garden (1998-2019). Retrieved from http://quotegarden.com/
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Azquotes (2019). Retrieved from https://www.azquotes.com/
Johnson, M. (2009). Positive parenting with a plan paperback . Anchorage, AK: Publications Consultants.
Joseph, G. (2019). Nine guided mindfulness meditations to help children go to sleep. Mindfulness Habits Team. Retrieved from https://www.audible.com/pd/Bedtime-Meditations-for-Kids-Audiobook/B07MGKHPWP
Joussemet, M., Landry, R., & Koestner, R. (2008). A self-determination theory perspective on parenting. Canadian Psychology, 49 (3),194-200.
Juffer F., Bakermans-Kranenburg M. & Van IJzendoorn M. (2008). Promoting positive parenting: An attachment-based intervention . New York: U.S.A.: Lawrence Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis.
Karapetian, M., & McGrath, A. (2017). Conquer negative thinking for teens: A workbook to break the nine thought habits that are holding you back . Oakland, CA: Instant Help Books.
Kennedy, P. (2006). A Sister for Matthew: A story about adoption . Nashville, TN: Ideals Publications.
Kersey, K. (2006). The 101 Positive Principles of Discipline . Retrieved from https://ww2.odu.edu/~kkersey/101s/101principles.shtml
Knox, M., Burkhard, K., & Cromly, A. (2013). Supporting positive parenting in community health centers: The Act Raising Safe Kids Program. Journal of Community Psychology, 41 (4), 395-407.
Kumpfer, K. L., and Alvarado, R. (1998). Effective family strengthening interventions . Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.strengtheningfamiliesprogram.org/about.html
Liable, D., Gustavo, C., & Roesch, S. (2004). Pathways to self-esteem in late adolescence: The role of parent and peer attachment, empathy, and social behaviors. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1314&context=psychfacpub
Little J. (2002). Emma’s yucky brother. New York, NY: Harper Trophy.
LR Knost. Love Live Grow (2018). Retrieved from https://lovelivegrow.com/
MacLachlan, P. (2013). You were the first. Boston. MA: Little, Brown Books for Young Readers.
Markham, L. (2018). Peaceful parent, happy kids workbook: Using mindfulness and connection to raise resilient, joyful children and rediscover your love of parenting . Eau Claire, WI: PESI, Inc.
Mathew L Jacobson. Love Live Grow (2018). Retrieved from https://lovelivegrow.com/
Maya Angelou. Goodreads (2019). Retrieved from https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/girl-child
Mayer, M. (2001). Look-look: The new baby. New York, NY: Random House Books for Young Readers.
McCready, 2016). The me, me, me epidemic: A step-by-step guide to raising capable, grateful kids in an over-entitled world . Los Angeles, CA: TarcherPerigee.
McCready, A. (2012). If I have to tell you one more time…: The revolutionary program that gets your kids to listen without nagging, reminding, or yelling. Los Angeles, CA: TarcherPerigee.
McCready, A. (2019). Get your kids to listen without yelling, nagging, or losing control. Retrieved from https://www.positiveparentingsolutions.com/
Merriam-Webster (2019). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discipline
Mignon McLaughlin. The Quote Garden (1998-2019). Retrieved from http://quotegarden.com/
Ministers of the Council of Europe (2006). In Rodrigo, J., Almeida, A., Spiel, C., & Koops, W., (2012). Introduction: Evidence-based parent education programs to promote positive parenting. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/hszak/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_ 8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/introductionevidence-baseprograms%20(1).pdf
Moser, R., & Jacob, T. (2002). Parental and sibling effects in adolescent outcomes. Psychological Reports, 91 (2), 463-479.
Nelsen, J. (2006). Positive discipline. Retrieved from www.positivediscipline.com/
Nelsen, J., & Tamborski, M., & Ainge, B. (2016). Positive discipline parenting tools: The 49 most effective methods to stop power struggles, build communication, and raise empowered, capable kids. New York, NY: Harmony Books.
Newman, T., & Blackburn, S. (2002). Transitions in the lives of children and young people: Resilience factors. Interchange 78. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED472541
Nicholson, B. (2019). Retrieved from https://bonnienicholson.weebly.com/about-me.html
Partnership for Drug-free Kids (2014). Parenting practices: Help reduce the chances your child will develop a drug or alcohol problem. Retrieved from https://drugfree.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/6-Parenting-Practices.pdf
Pearson, J., & Anderson, K. (2001). Evaluation of a program to promote positive parenting in the neonatal intensive care unit. Neonatal Network, 20 (4), 43-8.
Pettit, G., Bates, J., & Dodge, K. (1997). Supportive parenting, ecological context, and children’s adjustment: A seven‐year longitudinal study. Child Development, 68 (5), 908-923.
Phelan, T., & Webb, C. (2018). 1-2-3 magic workbook: Effective discipline for children. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.
Phifer, L., Sibbald, L., & Roden, J. (2018). Parenting toolbox: 125 activities therapists use to reduce meltdowns, increase positive behaviors & manage emotions. Eau Claire, WI: PESI Publishing & Media.
Plato. Azquotes (2019). Retrieved from https://www.azquotes.com/
Rachel Carson. Azquotes (2019). Retrieved from https://www.azquotes.com/
Ralph, A., & Sanders, R. (2004). The ‘Teen Triple P’ Positive Parenting Program: A preliminary evaluation. https://www.questia.com/read/1P3-1653850011/the-teen-triple-p-positive-parenting-program-a
Ranjan, A. (2015). Children: What percentage of people become parents? Retrieved from https://www.quora.com/Children-What-percentage-of-people-become-parents
Rebecca Eanes. Love Live Grow (2018). Retrieved from https://lovelivegrow.com/
Richard L. Evans. Azquotes (2019). Retrieved from https://www.azquotes.com/
Roggman, L., & Boyce, L., & Innocenti, M. (2008). Developmental parenting: A guide for early childhood practitioners Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Roggman, L., Boyce, L., & Cook, G. (2009). Keeping kids on track: Impacts of a parenting-focused early head start program on attachment security and cognitive development. Early Education Development, 20 , 920-941.
Sanders, M. (2008). Triple P-Positive Parenting Program as a public health approach to strengthening parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 22 (4), 506-517.
Sanders, M., & Markie-Dadds, C. (1996). Triple P: A multi-level family intervention program for children with disruptive behaviour disorders. Early intervention and prevention in mental health. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/15030279.pdf
Sandler, I., Ingram, A., Wolchik, S., Tein, J., & Winslow, E. (2015). Long-term effects of parenting-focused preventive interventions to promote resilience of children and adolescents. Child Development Perspectives, 9 (3), 164–171.
Seay, A., Freysteinson, W. M., & McFarlane, J. (2014). Positive parenting. Nursing Forum, 49 (3), 200–208.
Sheryl Sandberg. Goodreads (2019). Retrieved from https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/girl-child
Siegel, D. & Payne Bryson, T. (2016). No-drama discipline workbook: Exercises, activities, and practical strategies to calm the chaos and nurture developing minds. Eue Claire, WI: PESI, Inc.
Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60 , 1425-1436.
Suárez, A., Rodríguez, J., & López, M. (2016): The Spanish online program “Educar en Positivo” (“The Positive Parent”): Whom does it benefit the most? Psychosocial Intervention, 25 (2), 119-26.
The Quote Garden (1998-2019). Retrieved from http://quotegarden.com/
van de Korput, J. (2012). The Brighter Futures Programme in Birmingham – An inspiring initiative with good results and failures. Retrieved from https://bernardvanleer.org/blog/brighter-futures-programme-birmingham-inspiring-initiative-good-results-failures/
Warshak, R. (2004-2013). Retrieved from http://warshak.com/divorce-poison/index.html
Warshak, R. (2010). Divorce poison: How to protect your family from bad-mouthing and brainwashing. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.
Webster-Stratton, C., & Reid, R., (2013): Long-term outcomes of incredible years parenting program: predictors of adolescent adjustment. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 16 (1), 38–46.
Wolchik, S., Sandler, I., Weiss, L., & Winslow, E. (2007). New Beginnings: An empirically-based program to help divorced mothers promote resilience in their children. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232468945_ New_Beginnings_An_empirically-based_program_to_help_divorced_mothers_ promote_resilience_in_their_children
Wolin, S., Desetta, A., & Hefner, K. (2000). Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

I am currently a student in occupational therapy and I am in the process of completing my dissertation for my degree, focusing on positive parenting and its impact on children with ADHD. Recently, I purchased a book that contained a QR code leading me to your article. Would it be possible to receive the DOI and the PDF of this article via email, please?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Best regards, Anis

While we don’t currently have an option to download or convert our posts to pdf, you are very welcome to reference the article as follows (APA 7): [author last name], [author initial]. (year, month day). Title. PositivePsychology.com. https://positivepsychology.com/URL/

Hope this helps!

Warm regards, Julia | Community Manager

Thank you for compiling this research. It was truly helpful in getting started on a positive path.

Hi there! I am writing a research paper on gentle parenting and the positive effects it has. Would you be able to send me your resource list for this article?

If you scroll to the very end of the article, you will find a button that you can click to reveal the reference list.

– Nicole | Community Manager

I am also writing a paper. When citing this article, should I use 2019 or 2023 as the date? Thank you!

You can reference this article in APA 7th as follows: Lonczak, H.S. (2019, May 08). Title. PositivePsychology.com. https://positivepsychology.com/positive-parenting/

Hope this helps! Kind regards, Julia | Community Manager

Great article. I really liked. I will share this article with my school.

I totally agree with many different points has written in this useful article, I spent several days to complete it,, but it was really worthy especially what you mentioned here about model of parenting. Thank your for all details and sources you wrote up there and waiting for your new things coming up.

i love your blog and always like new things coming up from it.

Positive parenting is key for a happy family! I totally agree that positive parenting promotes effective, joyful parenting of kids of all ages. The most important things about such a model of parenting are to know your kid’s friends, being a positive role model in terms of your own coping mechanisms and use of alcohol and medication, and building a supportive and warm relationship with your child. We are responsible for the future generation, therefore raising happy and good person is a must!

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Parenting Styles: Are You Helping or Hurting? 3 Quizzes

Navigating the complexities of parenthood involves understanding various parenting styles and their impact on children’s development. From authoritarian to permissive, each approach reflects differing beliefs [...]

Conscious Parenting: A Mindful Approach to Parenting

Parenting is one of the most enriching and challenging roles we can undertake in our lifetimes. There is a growing interest in alternative approaches to [...]

Unleashing the Power of Gentle Parenting (& 3 Examples)

Parenting is a beautiful and deeply rewarding, but also often a confusing and overwhelming journey. We all want to raise happy and well-adjusted children. However, [...]

Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Parenting Psychology: 12 Studies Every Parent Should Know

Parenting advice is an impenetrable maze of dos and don’ts, but these studies provide scientific tips on the best way to raise children and be a parent.

Parenting advice is an impenetrable maze of dos and don’ts, but these studies provide tips from psychology on the best way to raise children and be a parent.

One of the many reasons parenting is an impossible job is that everyone is giving you advice, and much of it is rubbish.

Frankly, it’s amazing we’ve all made it this far.

So, bucking the trend of random anecdote and superstition, here are twelve psychology studies about parenting that every parent should know.

1. Parents are happier than non-parents

First some good news for those worried about the burdens of parenting.

In recent years, some studies have suggested that the pleasures of parenting are outweighed by the pains.

“Ha!” said parents to themselves, secretly, “I knew it!”

Not so fast though: research has found that, on average, parents feel better than non-parents each day and derive more pleasure from parenting than from other activities ( Nelson et al.,. 2013 ).

Fathers, in particular, derive high levels of positive emotions and happiness from parenting.

2. Child-centric parenting is worth it

Underlining the pleasures of parenting, research finds that child-centric attitudes are beneficial.

A psychology study by Ashton-James et al. (2013) found that parents who were the most child-centric were also happier and derived greater meaning in life from parenting.

Performing child-care activities was associated with greater meaning and fewer negative feelings.

“These findings suggest that the more care and attention people give to others, the more happiness and meaning they experience. From this perspective, the more invested parents are in their children’s well-being — that is, the more ‘child centric’ parents are — the more happiness and meaning they will derive from parenting.” (Ashton-James et al., 2013)

So, what’s good for your kids, is also good for you and your parenting.

3. Good parenting involves supporting emotional expression

Parents who encourage their offspring to express their emotions raise happier children, psychological research finds ( McKee et al., 2019 ).

When parents support emotional expression, young adults experience less depression and anxiety.

They are also more mindful, better able to regulate their attention and more open and accepting towards themselves and the world.

Children need ’emotional socialisation’: the ability to understand and deal with one’s own emotions.

Key parenting skills that achieve this include listening, giving comfort and helping children to solve problems.

4. Helicopter parenting may be depressing

As with many things in life, though, it’s a fine line between caring and smothering; especially when children have grown up.

Schiffrin et al. (2013) asked 297 undergraduate students about their parents’ behaviour and how they felt about it.

The study found links between ‘helicopter parenting’ and higher levels of depression amongst the students, as well as lower levels of autonomy, relatedness and competence.

“Parents should keep in mind how developmentally appropriate their involvement is and learn to adjust their parenting style when their children feel that they are hovering too closely.” (Schiffrin et al., 2013)

Other studies have also suggested that helicopter parenting raises maladjusted children.

5. Avoid strict discipline

Around 90 percent of American parents admit at least one instance of using strict verbal discipline with their children, such as calling names or swearing at them.

Rather than helping keep adolescents in line, though, be aware that this may just exacerbate the problem.

A child psychology study of 967 US families and their parenting found that harsh verbal discipline at 13-years-old predicted worse behaviour in the next year ( Wang et al., 2013 ).

And it didn’t help if parents had a strong bond with their children.

The study’s lead author Ming-Te Wang explained:

“The notion that harsh discipline is without consequence, once there is a strong parent-child bond–that the adolescent will understand that ‘they’re doing this because they love me’–is misguided because parents’ warmth didn’t lessen the effects of harsh verbal discipline. Indeed, harsh verbal discipline appears to be detrimental in all circumstances.”

Studies also find that harsh parenting practices when children are small is linked to smaller brain structures in adolescence.

6. Regular bedtimes are vital to parenting

Regular bedtimes really matter to children’s developing brains, psychology research on parenting finds.

Researchers followed 11,000 children from when they were 3-years old to the age of 7 to measure the effects of bedtimes on cognitive function ( Kelly et al., 2013 ).

The researchers found that:

“…irregular bedtimes at 3 years of age were associated with lower scores in reading, maths, and spatial awareness in both boys and girls, suggesting that around the age of 3 could be a sensitive period for cognitive development.”

Regular bedtimes are important for both boys and girls and the earlier these can be implemented, the better for cognitive performance.

7. Do the chores together

Bringing up happy children is easier if Mum and Dad’s relationship isn’t too rocky.

One frequent bone of contention between parents is the chores.

A trick for achieving marital satisfaction over the chores is to do them together.

When partners perform their chores at the same time–no matter who is doing what — both people are more satisfied with the division of labour ( Galovan et al., 2013 ).

Getting the children involved in chores is also a positive parenting step.

8. Good parenting means letting children see negative emotions

Surprisingly, it is good parenting to allow children to see negative emotions like anger and frustration, psychology research finds ( Karnilowicz et al., 2018 ).

Many parents, though, try to hide all conflicts from their children.

However, children often know when their parents are trying to hide conflict and it confuses them.

They know something is wrong, but see no change in their parent’s behaviour, which is confusing.

Better, say psychologists, to allow children to see healthy conflict and how it is resolved — that is good parenting.

9. Limit infant TV viewing

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children should watch no more than two hours of TV per day after two years of age, and none before that age.

Here’s why: a study that followed almost 2,000 Canadian children from birth found that an extra hour’s TV viewing at 2.5-years-old predicted worse performance later when they attended kindergarten ( Pagani et al., 2013 ).

The more children exceeded this recommendation at 2.5 years old, the worse their vocabulary, math and motor skills were at 5-years-old.

10. Exercise boosts kids’ school performance

Kids are increasingly sedentary and, as I frequently write here on PsyBlog, exercise is a wonderful way to boost brain power, and it has many other benefits.

A study of 11-year-olds has found that moderate to vigorous exercise was associated with increased academic performance in English, Maths and Science ( Booth et al., 2013 ).

These gains from exercise were also seen in exams taken at 16-years-old.

Interestingly, girls’ science results benefited the most from extra exercise.

11. Intense mothering makes stressful parenting

Some women say that parenting is more stressful than being at work.

There are strong links between parenting and stress and guilt.

How can we square this with the reports and research findings that children fill your life with joy and meaning?

It may be down to differences in attitudes to parenting.

In particular, being an ‘intense mother’ may be bad for you.

In their child psychology study of 181 mothers of children under 5, Rizzo et al. (2012) found that mothers who most strongly endorsed the idea that children were sacred and that women are better parents than men, were more likely to be depressed and experience less satisfaction with life.

Yes, nurture your children, but don’t sacrifice your own mental health.

12. Why siblings are so different

Anyone with more than one child will have noticed a curious thing: their personalities are often very dissimilar.

In fact, according to a study by Plomin and Daniels (1987) , siblings have no more in common in their personalities than two completely unrelated strangers.

This is very weird given that 50 percent of their genetic code is identical.

The answer isn’t in the genes at all, but in the environment in which children grow up.

Far from having the same environments, each child has:

a different relationship with their parents,
a different relationship with their other siblings,
different friends and experiences at school…

…and so on.

And all these differences add up to quite remarkable dissimilarities between siblings — often such that if they didn’t look alike, you’d never know they were related.

All this means, of course, that because their personalities are often so different, parenting strategies that work with one child, may not work with another.

It’s just one more challenge of parenting!

Author: Dr Jeremy Dean

Psychologist, Jeremy Dean, PhD is the founder and author of PsyBlog. He holds a doctorate in psychology from University College London and two other advanced degrees in psychology. He has been writing about scientific research on PsyBlog since 2004. View all posts by Dr Jeremy Dean

Join the free PsyBlog mailing list. No spam, ever.

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
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Open access
Published: 02 September 2024

Influence of parental attitudes and coping styles on mental health during online teaching in the COVID-19 pandemic

Fang Cheng 1 na1 ,
Lixian Chen 2 na1 ,
Huabing Xie 3 ,
Chenglan Wang 4 ,
Ruonan Duan 4 ,
Dihui Chen 5 ,
Jincheng Li 1 ,
Hongying Yang 1 &
Lingjiang Liu 1

Scientific Reports volume 14 , Article number: 20375 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Lifestyle modification
Public health

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the online delivery model became the primary mode of education. With multiple pressures on society and families, mental health issues for parents have become particularly pronounced. Most of the current research has focused on the psychological state of education practitioners and children, with little attention to parents’ mental health issues. Therefore, this study explored the attitudes and coping styles of parents who experienced the process of their children being taught online over a long period and the factors influencing their mental health. This cross-sectional study was conducted between November 2021 and January 2022, using an anonymous online questionnaire to survey 1500 parents with children aged 6–13 years. The Chinese versions of the Patient Health Questionnaire Depression Scale (PHQ-9), the Parenting Stress Scale (PSS), the General Mental Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), and the Brief Coping Style Scale (SCSQ), and a related factors questionnaire were used to survey the subjects. The normal distribution of the data was examined using the Shapiro–Wilk method. A multivariate regression analysis was conducted to identify factors significantly associated with parental mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only 30.24% of parents agreed with online classes during the pandemic, and 52.28% used positive coping methods during stressful situations. Multivariate regression models identified significant factors associated with parental mental health: parent’s gender, child’s grade level, perceived stress about online classes, whether the child has ADHD, positive or negative coping styles, and subjective attitudes of support for online classes or not. The results of the study suggest that as online classes become more socially acceptable, it is necessary to be concerned about the risk of mental illness for parents and develop policies and interventions, especially for parents who adopt negative coping styles and endorse online classes. The focus should be on the stress of online classes on parents, improving the acceptance of online classes and psychological well-being, regulating the way parents deal with their children, and targeting subgroups of children with ADHD symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Online education and the mental health of faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan

The association between psychosocial factors, protective factors, and its associated triggers with psychological distress among Bolivian adolescents

Online positive parenting programme for promoting parenting competencies and skills: randomised controlled trial

Introduction.

Neoconiosis is a serious respiratory disease caused by infection with the novel coronavirus SARS-COV-2, known as COVID-19. Since 2019, COVID-19 has created a global pandemic, posing a significant threat to global public health 1 . Although the case fatality rate of COVID-19 has been estimated at 2–3%, which is considerably lower than that of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndromes (SARS) (approximately 10%) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) (approximately 40%) 2 , 3 , 4 , its impact has been profound. The virus has an extremely high transmission rate through the respiratory tract and close contact. As of 15 March 2020, COVID-19 has spread rapidly to 34 provinces and cities in China, while 144 countries/regions in five continents worldwide have reported cases of infection to varying degrees 5 . Thus, the COVID-19 pandemic in recent years has posed a significant challenge to the entire society and every individual’s life.

With the global spread of COVID-19, education in China and worldwide is facing a considerable challenge. Anticipating the high transmission rate of the virus, the crowded nature of public places such as campuses, and the low immunity profile of adolescents, the Chinese government enacted a series of responses, of which the use of online learning became a typical result of the COVID-19 pandemic 6 , 7 . While such initiatives have played a large part in preventing and controlling the pandemic, the impact on the parent and child side of the online delivery context is currently varied. Means et al. argue that online learning is an educational tool based on technological devices and the Internet in an era of rapid development 8 . Tallent-Runnels et al. are similarly optimistic that technological innovations and the continued growth of Internet accessibility can increase the motivation to learn online 9 . By contrast, however, Joshi et al. found that the pedagogical outcomes of online learning are controversial and that online learning directly contributes to the lack of face-to-face interaction between students and teachers 10 . Research has shown that effective online education requires high-quality means for designing and assessing online courses and that the operators, the teachers who deliver the courses online, are equally required in terms of proficiency in the use of Internet equipment, etc 11 , 12 . Unfortunately, many educational institutions lack a careful design and development process for the transition of teaching models 13 , and the online education experience during the pandemic has suffered from varying degrees of skepticism and rejection 14 .

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the conflict between the educational format and the students translated in different ways and to varying degrees into multifaceted stress and family conflicts for parents. On the one hand, online instruction placed greater demands on the technology of connecting to the Internet, as a great challenge for many economically disadvantaged households, especially with the economic depression induced by the pandemic. Students from different family backgrounds faced different feedback on their online learning, even with the same willingness to learn. In particular, younger students 15 , 16 , students from immigrant backgrounds 17 , and students from families with a low socioeconomic status 18 encountered more difficulties with distance learning. At the same time, the prolonged online mode of delivery poses a risk of increased exposure of learners to screens, impacting young people’s visual health. The lack of teacher and parental supervision is another challenge, especially for young learners. The disadvantaged, weaker learners, requiring more supervision and guidance from their elders, face significant difficulties in this learning environment. Beyond China, the pandemic and the closure of schools have profoundly affected the mental health of students worldwide 19 . Empirical studies in Bangladesh, China, France, Greece, the UK, and the USA have found that a large proportion of students suffer from varying degrees of mental disorders 20 , 21 , 22 . Many students experiencing the online delivery model over a long period report suffering from depression, anxiety, distress, and even suicidal thoughts 23 , 24 . Interestingly, this academic mental health problem of adolescents is, to some extent, transferred to their parents. Due to multiple issues, such as the inadaptability of the online mode of delivery and socioeconomic pressures, the academic burden of the children leads to different aspects of psychological feedback and coping for the parents.

Apart from the financial pressures on some families, parents and children in the context of their different formative years show very different attitudes and behavioral patterns toward the use and efficacy of electronic devices. This phenomenon has been particularly notable in online education during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Soykan, parents emphasize the expected dangers of using technology for academic performance 25 . The epidemic forced parents to take on an additional task: supervising children during class, especially at basic and primary levels. Research on emergency distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic has shown reduced interactions between teachers and students 26 , with the ability of students to learn independently and actively being crucial to students’ academic performance 27 . Hale, Troxel, and Buysse surveyed online teaching and concluded that parents were disappointed in helping their children focus and participate in virtual classrooms 28 . The study reported emotional and behavioral problems (i.e., anxiety, irritability, and distraction) observed by parents in their children and adolescents due to the epidemic 29 . These phenomena are particularly significant in adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Some relevant studies have shown that adolescents with ADHD find it more difficult to adapt to the online teaching mode compared to their peers and often exhibit problems such as motivation problems and executive dysfunction 30 . ADHD children face significant challenges in online learning environments, including attention, task organization, and completion difficulties. The lack of face-to-face supervision and structure can make it harder for them to adapt and participate in learning activities. Additionally, the demands for self-discipline and time management in online learning pose further obstacles for these children 31 . Parents often bear different levels of pressure and mental health problems due to the problems associated with electronic equipment, anxiety about performance under online learning, and comprehensive social pressure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research has shown that parents have greater responsibility and participation in their children’s learning in a distance learning environment than in regular classroom teaching 32 . This is a vicious circle of contradictions, wherein the various forms of pressure on parents may affect how students experience a new learning environment: the greater the pressure their parents feel, the more negative their views of distance learning become.

Under enormous social and economic pressure, the threat of COVID-19 infection, and the anxiety about children’s academic performance, parents experience mental health problems to varying degrees, which impact their social development. Studies have shown that home isolation, economic hardship, despair, and loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic also increased the risk of mental illness and suicide 33 , 34 . Social isolation is usually closely related to physical and mental health issues 35 . Such mental health problems often have an inseparable relationship with the parents’ attitudes toward online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures taken, which are often unavoidable. However, no scholars have yet reported on this phenomenon.

Therefore, this study investigated the parents’ sociodemographic information and mental health scoring variables (depression level, parenting stress, general psychological state, and coping style) to analyze differences in parental mental health and their related factors under different coping styles and attitudes toward online courses and explore how factors such as children’s ADHD symptoms, parents’ attitudes toward online courses, and parents’ coping styles affect parents’ mental health, in an attempt to provide effective guidance on parental mental health issues in the post-pandemic era and the emerging wave of online education.

Study design

This cross-sectional study surveyed the parents of young children. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the prevalence of online classes, parents’ mental health variables, including depression levels, parental stress, general psychological status, and coping styles, were measured using an anonymous online survey, and their children’s ADHD symptoms were measured through parent ratings. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Kangning Hospital, Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China (No. NBKNYY-2021-LC-1). A random sample of six primary schools in Ningbo, Zhejiang Province and Yuhuan County, Zhejiang Province were selected for data collection from November 2021 to January 2022. The purpose and content of the survey were explained to each respondent, and a digital informed consent form was provided for the study. All the respondents completed the questionnaire anonymously.

During this period, China adopted strict measures to control the spread of the COVID-19 36 . Especially in Zhejiang Province, including Ningbo City and Yuhuan County, the government and education departments quickly adapted to the changing situation, ensuring the continuity of education while prioritizing public health. Therefore, many schools in China still used online learning modes due to the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. In primary schools in Ningbo City and Yuhuan County, Zhejiang Province, these regions benefited from relatively developed digital infrastructure. Schools were equipped with the necessary technology, allowing students to access the internet and use digital devices, although there were still differences. Platforms such as DingTalk, WeChat, and specialized educational applications were widely used for teaching and maintaining communication between teachers, students, and parents 37 , 38 . Concurrently, teachers received training on effectively using online teaching tools and methods. Additionally, a support system was established to assist parents and students in coping with the new educational model.

Participants

The questionnaires were completed anonymously in online class groups, and the participants were selected from different regions. The inclusion criteria were: (i) parents of children studying in Ningbo or Yuhuan County, Zhejiang Province, China, before the COVID-19 outbreak and currently, including primary school students and junior high school students; (ii) a child age of 6–13 years. Only parents participated in this survey; children did not directly participate.

Our study’s sample size was determined based on established principles in international questionnaire design. These guidelines suggest that the sample size should be approximately 5 to 20 times the number of items in the questionnaire to ensure adequate data representation and reliability 39 , 40 . Anticipating the possibility of non-responses or invalid questionnaires, which typically account for about 10% of the total surveys distributed 41 , we increased our target sample size by 10%. Therefore, the final sample size was set at 5.5 times the number of questionnaire items, ensuring that even with the anticipated rate of non-response or invalidity, we would still have a sufficiently large sample to maintain the robustness of our study’s findings. Given that our study comprised 153 items, the minimum sample size was calculated at 842 (153 items × 5.5).

In the end, 1500 questionnaires were distributed, and 1454 questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 96.93%. Among these questionnaires, 138 had more than 30% missing data and logical errors and were thus recorded as invalid. There were 1,316 valid questionnaires, resulting in an effective completion rate of 90.51%.

Survey content

The general questionnaire comprised two main sections. The first part of the survey concerned sociodemographic information such as child grade, parent gender, parent education, online class approval or not, online class pressure, children’s ADHD type, and parents’ perceived source of their emotional impact (i.e., whether they believed their emotional impact was due to the pandemic or their child’s online classes). The specific question was: “If you feel that your emotions are affected, do you think it is due to the pandemic, your child’s online learning, or both?” Children’s ADHD type was rated by the parent version of the SNAP-IV rating scale 42 . The categories were as follows: attention deficit dominant (≥ 6 items on the Attention Deficit Subscale 2 or 3 only), hyperactivity/impulsivity dominant (≥ 6 items on the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity Subscale 2 or 3 only), and ADHD-C (≥ 6 items on both the Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity/Impulsivity Subscale 2 or 3).

The second part concerned the mental health rating variables, including depression level, parental stress, general psychological state, and coping styles, measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire Depression Scale (PHQ-9) (0–27), the Parental Stress Scale (PSS), the General Mental Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) (0–12), and the Brief Coping Style Scale (SCSQ). These scales have exhibited good reliability and validity in previous studies 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 . These scales are classified as follows: PHQ-9: normal (0–4), mild (5–9), moderate to severe (10–14), and severe (20–27); PSS: normal (< 86), critical high (86–90), high (91–98), and very high (> 98); GHQ-12: high risk (98); GHQ-12 high (86o–3), and low risk (0–1); SCSQ: positive coping (coping tendency > 0), negative coping (coping tendency < 0), where coping tendency = positive coping standard score (Z score)—negative coping standard score (Z score), and the standard score is Z-transformed using the mean and standard deviation of positive coping style and negative coping style.

To ensure the reliability and consistency of the questionnaire results, psychiatrists explained the purpose of the survey and administered it to participants. A pre-test was conducted before the main survey to explore the questionnaire’s psychometric properties, such as reliability and validity. The pre-test involved a small group of participants similar to the main study’s target population. After completing the pre-test questionnaire, the researchers collected the responses, entered the data, and performed an initial analysis to identify any issues with the questionnaire items. This process helped refine the questionnaire and ensure the quality of the answers in the main survey.

Data analysis methods

After logic checking and proofreading, we used R-4.2.1 (an open-source programming language) and Rstudio for Windows (an open-source IDE) to process and analyze the data. We first conducted a descriptive analysis of the social demographic characteristics of the participants (Table 1 ) and a descriptive analysis of the continuous variables (PSS, PHQ-9, GHQ-12, and SCSQ) (Table 2 ).

The Shapiro–Wilk test 47 was used to test the normality of each variable. In addition, Spearman’s rank correlation analysis 48 was used to investigate the correlations between the variables (Table 3 ). Spearman’s rank correlation analysis was adopted because it is applicable to data with non-normal distribution and can effectively evaluate the monotonic relationship between two variables. Its results are more reliable than the chi-squared test, especially when the data are skewed. Ultimately, this study conducted a univariate intergroup analysis on each variable based on whether the parents agreed to online classes and the parents’ coping styles (Table 4 ). The purpose was to explore the differences in parental mental health and related factors among different groups and determine possible influencing factors.

In the multiple regression analysis, we examined the impact of various independent variables on the psychological health of parents (i.e., PSS, PHQ, and GHQ) under different coping styles and attitudes toward online courses. Specifically, we studied the effects of different coping styles (negative or positive) on parental mental health and related factors (Table 5 ). Additionally, we explored how different attitudes toward online courses (disapproving vs. approving) influenced parental mental health and related factors (Table 6 ). The purpose of the multiple regression analysis was to reveal the impact of each variable on the parents’ mental health and related factors and provide a basis for interventive measures.

The main objectives of this study were to analyze the differences in parental mental health and its associated factors across coping styles and attitudes toward online classes, as well as to explore how factors such as children with ADHD symptoms, parental attitudes toward online classes, and parental coping styles affect parental mental health. We hope to provide strong references and recommendations for improving parental mental health through these analyses.

It is particularly noteworthy that this work considered p -values of < 0.05 statistically significant.

Sociodemographic characteristics

The survey, which included 1316 participants, revealed that only a minority of parents supported online classes during the pandemic. The majority adopted positive coping methods during stressful situations. Table 1 presents detailed demographic information about the parents and their children, including grade levels, gender distribution, age ranges, and educational attainment. Additionally, Table 1 outlines the parents’ perceptions of online classes, their levels of stress, sources of emotional stress, and the types of ADHD diagnosed in their children.

The distribution and correlations among variables

Table 2 presents the distribution characteristics of scores on the PSS, PHQ-9, GHQ-12, and SCSQ scales, indicating that the scores did not conform to a normal distribution regarding skewness, kurtosis, and extreme value distribution ratios.

Table 3 details the correlations between sociodemographic characteristics and mental health variables, highlighting several significant associations. Key findings include: (1) Parental stress correlated significantly with the child’s grade and parent’s gender, educational level, approval of online classes, stress due to online classes, and sources of emotional stress; (2) PHQ-9 scores showed significant associations with the child’s grade and parental age, education, approval of online classes, online class stress, and sources of emotional stress; (3) GHQ-12 scores were significantly linked to the child’s grade and parental age, education, online class recognition, online class stress, and emotional sources; (4) SCSQ scores correlated with parental gender, approval of online classes, and stress from online classes; (5) ADHD was significantly associated with the child’s achievements and parental gender, recognition of online classes, stress from online classes, and emotional sources.

These correlations provided the basis for the subsequent analysis and are comprehensively detailed in Table 3 .

The severity of measurements and associated factors

Table 4 shows the results of single-factor analyses of survey data, highlighting significant differences based on parental approval of online classes and the type of coping strategy adopted. The key findings are: (1) Parental approval of online classes: Significant differences were observed between parents who disapproved and those who approved of online classes in terms of online class pressure, emotional sources, and scores on the PSS, PHQ-9, and GHQ-12 scales ( p < 0.001 for all); (2) Coping strategies: Parents adopting positive coping strategies (SCSQ > 0) showed significant differences in PSS, PHQ-9, and GHQ-12 scores compared to those using negative coping strategies (SCSQ < 0), with p < 0.001 for all comparisons. No significant differences were found in terms of sociodemographic characteristics or other factors. These analyses underscore the impact of online class approval and coping strategies on parental stress and mental health, as detailed in Table 4 .

The study used multiple regression to analyze parental coping styles, attitudes toward online courses, and their impact on mental health, including the PSS, PHQ-9, and GHQ-12 dimensions, as detailed in Tables 5 and 6 . The findings are summarized below.

The results from Table 5 are as follows: For negative coping, PSS scores were significantly associated with parental gender, online classroom stress, and ADHD type. Female parents and parents experiencing lower stress levels in online classrooms had lower PSS scores. Parents of children without ADHD symptoms also had lower PSS scores compared to those with the combined ADHD type; PHQ-9 scores were significantly associated with the child’s grade and parental education, online classroom agreement, and emotional source. Higher PHQ-9 scores were noted among parents of older children, parents with higher education, those agreeing to online classes, and those influenced by both COVID-19 and online learning. GHQ-12 scores were significantly associated with the child’s grade and parental education, online classroom agreement, and emotional source. Higher GHQ-12 scores were found among parents of older children, parents with higher education, those agreeing to online classes, and those influenced by both COVID-19 and online learning. For positive coping, PSS scores were associated with parental education and online classroom stress. Parents with higher education and those with lower online classroom stress had lower PSS scores. PHQ-9 scores correlated with the child’s grade, online classroom stress, and ADHD type. Parents of older children, those with lower online classroom stress, and those with children without ADHD symptoms had lower PHQ-9 scores. GHQ-12 scores correlated with online classroom stress and ADHD type. Parents with lower online classroom stress and those with children without ADHD symptoms had lower GHQ-12 scores.

Table 6 further compares the results of multiple regressions under different attitudes toward coping with online classes.

Concerning PSS scores, among parents disapproving of online classes, those aged 38–45 had higher scores, while college-educated parents had lower scores. Among approving parents, moderate online classroom stress and higher SCSQ scores were associated with lower PSS scores. Concerning PHQ-9 scores, among disapproving parents, those with a postgraduate degree had higher scores. Among approving parents, higher scores were noted for parents of older children and those with high online classroom stress, while higher SCSQ scores were linked to lower PHQ-9 scores. Regarding GHQ-12 scores, among disapproving parents, those with children having attention deficit ADHD had higher scores. Among approving parents, higher scores were observed for parents of older children and those with high online classroom stress, while higher SCSQ scores correlated with lower GHQ-12 scores.

These analyses illustrate the complex relationships between parental coping styles, attitudes toward online classes, and various mental health dimensions. Detailed results are presented in Tables 5 and 6 .

Since the gradual outbreak of COVID-19 in late 2019, the virus has exhibited an unimaginably high level of infectiousness 49 . As of 3 April 2020, there had been at least 52,869 deaths and 10,066 confirmed cases of COVID-19 infection; by 18 May 2020, the number of confirmed cases had increased to 4,679,511, with 315,005 deaths. Frighteningly, these numbers rapidly increased, with many people having secondary infections 50 . The rapid spread of COVID-19 worldwide posed a serious challenge to the entire human population on many fronts: health, economic, environmental, and social. The impact on the education sector has been particularly significant: to avoid the mass gathering of young students, most schools were forced to opt out of the face-to-face mode of delivery and instead turn to online learning. Although online learning is not new, this massive, long-term paradigm shift presented significant challenges for children and parents alike 51 . Sun et al. indicated that students subjected to the online delivery mode for a long time since the spread of COVID-19 were more likely to fall behind in their grades and be affected by various aspects of psychological stress 52 . The impact on pupils can easily be passed on to parents to varying degrees, becoming a psychological burden and challenge. However, much of the current research is based on the perspective of educators and children, often ignoring the attitudes and mental health factors of the parents.

In a multifactorial study of the impact of parental attitudes and coping styles on mental health in the context of online delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic, parents’ agreement with online delivery was only 30.24%, and 52.28% adopted positive coping styles in times of stress. We found that the significant factors for parental mental health (measured as PSS, PHQ-9, and GHQ-12 quantitative values) were parental gender, the child’s grade, perceived stress about online classes, whether the child has ADHD, positive or negative coping styles, and subjective attitudes toward supporting online classes. This study separately examined the influence of individual child characteristics and subjective parental attitudes and behavioral patterns on their mental health.

Individual child characteristics

The analysis of children’s ADHD subtypes revealed that the regression coefficients for the quantified values of parental psychological problems were significantly lower for parents of children without ADHD compared to parents of children with mixed ADHD symptoms (Tables 5 and 6 ). However, it is noteworthy that the regression coefficient was positive when parents disagreed with online classes, which might be due to subjective negative parental attitudes masking the impact of the child with ADHD on the parent’s mental health. ADHD, whose main symptoms are inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, is one of the most common psychiatric disorders, with a prevalence of 4‒6% in children and adolescents 53 , 54 and 5.6% in this study (Table 1 ). Interestingly, the mental health impact of children with ADHD on their parents was similar across time. One study on the parents of children with ADHD found that such parents were at greater risk of developing psychopathology 55 . This type of phenomenon showed a more pronounced trend during the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of a long-term home isolation policy and multiple social pressures. The unfamiliarity with electronic devices, concerns about performance in online classes, and the hyperactivity and inattention of children with ADHD symptoms continue to impact parents’ psychological defenses, ultimately leading to a range of mental health problems. Research has shown that the majority of children with ADHD (40‒60%) exhibit both oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and/or conduct disorder 56 . This oppositional psychology or behavior toward elders was often amplified in the online mode of instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the long hours spent together.

In addition, this study found significant effects on parents’ mental health when their children were in the middle and upper grades. Interestingly, the higher grades did not increase parental stress but instead increased parental depression and reduced the general psychological state of GHQ-12 scores of the parents (Tables 5 and 6 ). In a study on the consistency of parental anxiety with children, it was reported that in 76% of the parents in the sample who suffered from depressive psychological problems, the children tended also to have some mental health problems. This was often an indirect link, and this effect was not found in younger children 57 . In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the online mode of delivery led to varying degrees of adaptation and concerns about academic performance, often creating a state of stress and anxiety among students, particularly in the context of the long-term home isolation policy. Often, as students progress through the grades, the burden of schoolwork and the pressure to progress to higher education intensifies this phenomenon. Parents who either respond positively or negatively to online classes, with some threat to employment, salary packages, etc., all expressed concerns about online classes, especially when their children were at some critical point in their senior years. Several studies have found that the correlation between psychological problems such as parental and child depression increases with the child’s age 58 , 59 . Even parents who have some reservations about the online mode of instruction for their younger children show some tolerance and emotion compared to their attitudes toward the online instruction of their middle and upper school children, contributing to a relatively relaxed state of mind and psychological situation. Although parents who experience depression and other psychological states in the face of heavy academic pressure on their children in the upper grades are often less able to cope with the difficulties of the upper grades and the gradual expression of their children’s sense of autonomy, the parental pressure in this situation is not significant 60 , 61 .

Parents’ willingness to respond in a subjective way

This study focused on the impact of long-term online teaching of children on parental mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically regarding parents adopting two distinctly different behavioral approaches, negative or positive. The univariate group comparisons in Table 4 show that parental adoption of positive coping resulted in significantly lower mean scores on the PSS, PHQ-9, and GHQ-12 (109.37–98.66, 11.33–10.11, and 3.17–2.57). During the global spread of the virus, the fear of getting sick inspired more negative emotions dominated by stress, anxiety, and other psychological disorders 62 . A study in Iran showed that 34.8%, 32.2%, and 29% of the adult population in the Yazd region had negative psychological symptoms such as stress, anxiety, and depression, respectively, during the COVID-19 pandemic 63 . Health concerns, accompanied by economic stagnation and various aspects of the child’s schooling, have resulted in strong negative psychological feedback from parents during the COVID-19 period, especially in a negative way. With this negative behavioral approach, accompanied by a distrust of electronic devices and online delivery modes, parents often voice doubts about the effectiveness of their children’s lessons. However, the parental pressure and anxiety brought about by this pandemic can easily demotivate students and discourage them from learning 64 . Children who lose interest in learning will eventually regress in the long-term online mode, and this vicious circle will further feed parents’ frustration with the online mode. As shown in Table 5 , in the multiple regression results for parental mental health and its correlates under different coping styles, we found an interesting phenomenon: among parents who maintained a negative coping style, men tended to show high levels of parental stress significance (i.e., a decrease of 2.03 for women compared to men), and the parents with a positive coping style did not show significant gender-differentiated behavior. In addition, the lower the level of stress parents experienced from online classes was, the lower the regression coefficients were for the quantitative values of parental psychological problems. Furthermore, parents who maintained a positive coping style had higher regression coefficients compared to those with negative coping styles (Table 5 ). Active parental involvement in family education is crucial to the child’s development 65 , and it is relatively easier to maintain a healthy psychological level in such a benign parenting relationship. Pratama et al. showed through a study of parental feedback in the face of home-based online classes during the pandemic 66 that positive parental coping in the face of a long-term online delivery model is an effective safeguard for advancing children’s learning progress, which forms, to some degree, a virtuous cycle.

It is also worth noting, as shown in Table 4 , that subjective parental disapproval of online instruction resulted in significantly lower means scores on the PSS, PHQ-9, and GHQ-12 (108.85–102.27, 11.45–10.45, and 3.41–2.66). Thus, in addition to the differential impact of how parents respond to long-term online classes, the subjective willingness or unwillingness to support online classes showed a similarly significant impact. Although some have argued that parental involvement in the child’s learning experience during COVID-19 is unprecedented, the fact is that parental behavioral interference and even subjective attitudes have a profound impact on the child’s learning and have done so for decades 67 , 68 , 69 . Plowman et al. showed that children’s online learning requires more subjective support and assistance from parents than formal supervision 70 . Our analysis revealed that when parents reported subjective agreement with online classes, their perception of low stress associated with these classes was more negatively correlated with levels of psychological well-being than when they disagreed with online classes (as rated by the PSS, PHQ, and GHQ) (Table 6 ). A 2019 study found that parents’ attitudes toward their children’s online learning affected the quality of their children’s learning 71 and that children’s learning often feeds back to some extent on the parents’ mental health state. The above phenomenon may be because the expectations of these parents are more aligned with reality. They may have a negative perception of online delivery, so their expectations of its effectiveness are lower. As a result, they may feel less stress and disappointment when reality meets their expectations. Conversely, parents who identify with online delivery may have higher expectations and feel more stress and disappointment when reality does not meet those expectations.

Finally, parents should show a more tolerant and supportive attitude to the online teaching model for students during COVID-19, even in the face of the many stressors that arise at home. With the rapid development of technology and the spread of new electronic devices in modern society, this online mode of delivery will not just be a significant feature of the COVID-19 period but will gradually become more common in the future. A range of theories derived from motivation research, such as self-determination theory 72 , expectancy-value theory 73 , and achievement goal theory 74 , suggest that active involvement in children’s learning processes, with the intervention of a facilitator and the provision of some external motivators, can effectively address the psychological factors that influence learner motivation, engagement, and learning. Therefore, it is only by being more optimistic and accepting of new things and by motivating their children to varying degrees that parents can guide their children to adjust to their mental health.

Strengths & limitations

We analyzed the differences in parental mental health and its correlates across coping styles and attitudes toward online classes and explored how factors such as children with ADHD symptoms, parental attitudes toward online classes, and parental coping styles all affect parental mental health. The results suggest that, at a time when online delivery is becoming socially acceptable, attention must be paid to the risk of mental illness it poses to parents. In addition, policies and interventions need to be developed to increase parental acceptance of online delivery. It is hoped that this study can provide effective guidance on parental mental health issues in the post-pandemic era and the emerging wave of online education. In addition, the results of this study are based on a relatively large sample drawn from a randomized whole group and may partially reflect the mental health characteristics of parents of school-aged children aged 6‒13 years in China between pandemics and, to some extent, represent the sociological characteristics of parents suffering from mental health problems under the pressure of online delivery. The present results may serve as a reference for countries with similar cultural backgrounds.

However, our study has several limitations. First, this study is a cross-sectional survey limited in its ability to provide longitudinal judgments of the development of parental mental disorder characteristics, and longitudinal prospective observations may be considered in the future. In addition, the parenting stress, general mental health, and depression scales included in the survey contain a wide range of behaviors of varying clinical relevance, and some atypical behaviors may not be captured by these scales. Furthermore, there is a significant imbalance in group sizes between children with normal ADHD and those with other types of ADHD, which might affect the generalizability and precision of our findings. This imbalance highlights the need for larger sample sizes for each ADHD subtype in future research. Despite combining all other types of ADHD into one group for analysis, the imbalance remains, and this issue should be addressed in future studies.

Few reports are available on parents’ mental health factors against the background of long-term online teaching during COVID-19. Therefore, in this study, we conducted a multifactorial survey on the impact of parents’ attitudes and coping styles on their mental health in this context. The results showed that during the COVID-19 pandemic in China, facing the long-term online teaching mode, parents of senior children and children with ADHD showed a higher risk of depression and other psychological disorders due to excessive worry and anxiety. In addition, there was a close relationship between parents’ subjective attitudes and behavioral patterns and their mental health status: parents who adopted a positive coping style were relatively less susceptible to the negative impact of both the pandemic and online teaching, so they gradually adapted to their children’s online teaching mode and provided guidance to varying degrees. Subjectively, parents who did not agree with online teaching had a better mental health status compared to parents who agreed with online courses. The findings of this work can provide practical guidance on parental mental health issues in the post-pandemic era and the emerging wave of online education, with a focus on the stresses that online classes induce in parents, improving parental acceptance of online classes and their mental health, and providing further psychological relief measures and health programs for different groups of students and parents.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, [Liu], upon reasonable request.

Zhu, N. et al. A novel corona-virus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. N. Engl. J. Med. 382 (8), 727–733. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017 (2020).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Drosten, C. et al. Identification of a novel coronavirus in patients with severe acute respir-atory syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 348 (20), 1967–1976. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa030747 (2003).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Ksiazek, T. G. et al. A novel coronavirus associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 348 (20), 1953–1966. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa030781 (2003).

Zaki, A. M. et al. Isola-tion of a novel coronavirus from a man with pneumonia in Saudi Arabia. N. Engl. J. Med. 367 (19), 1814–1820. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1211721 (2012).

World Health Organization, 2020. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Situation Report-55. World Health Organ-ization. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel - coronavirus-2019/situation-reports [Accessed on Mar. 16, 2020].

Fry, K. E-learning markets and providers: Some issues and prospects. Educ. Train. 43 (4/5), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005484 (2001).

Article Google Scholar

Hrastinski, S. Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educ. Quart. 31 (4), 51–55 (2008).

Google Scholar

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.

Tallent-Runnels, M. K. et al. Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Rev. Educ. Res. 76 (1), 93–135. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001093 (2006).

Joshi, O. et al. Benefits and challenges of online instruction in agriculture and natural resource education. Interact. Learn. Environ. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1725896 (2020).

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, ( March 27, 2020).

Bozkurt, A. & Sharma, R. C. Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to Corona Virus pandemic. Asian J. Dist. Educ. 15 (1), i–iv (2020).

Branch, R. M. & Dousay, T. A. Survey of instructional development models 5th edn. (Association for Educational Communications and Technology, UK, 2015).

Vlachopoulos, D. COVID-19: Threat or opportunity for online education. High. Learn. Res. Commun. 10 (1), 2 (2020).

Tomasik, M. J., Helbling, L. A. & Moser, U. Educational gains of in-person vs. distance learning in primary and secondary schools: A natural experiment during the COVID-19 pandemic school closures in Switzerland. Int. J. Psychol. 56 , 566–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12728 (2020).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Blume, F., Schmidt, A., Kramer, A. C., Schmiedek, F. & Neubauer, A. B. Homeschooling during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: the role of students’ trait self-regulation and task attributes of daily learning tasks for students’ daily self-regulation. Z. Erzieh. 24 , 367–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-021-01011-w (2021).

Manca, S. & Delfino, M. Adapting educational practices in emergency remote education: continuity and change from a student perspective. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2021 , 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13098 (2021).

Bonal, X. & González, S. The impact of lockdown on the learning gap: Family and school divisions in times of crisis. Int. Rev. Educ. 66 , 635–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-020-09860-z (2020).

Savage, M. J. et al. Mental health and movement behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic in UKuniversity students: Pro-spective cohort study. Ment. Health Phys. Act. 19 , 100357 (2020).

Khan, A. H. et al. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mentalhealth & wellbeing among home-quarantined Bangladeshi students: Across-sectional pilot study. J. Affect. Disord. 277 , 121–128 (2020).

Jiang, R. Knowledge, attitudes and mental health of university stu-dents during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 119 , 105494 (2020).

Essadek, A. & Rabeyron, T. Mental health of French students during the Covid-19 pandemic. J. Affect. Disord. 277 , 392–393 (2020).

Kaparounaki, C. K. et al. University students’mental health amidst the COVID-19 quarantine in Greece. Psychiatry Res. 290 , 113111 (2020).

Copeland, W. E. et al. Impact of COVID on collegestudent mental health and wellness. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 60 (1), 134–141 (2020).

Soykan, E. Views of students’, teachers’ and parents on the tablet computer usage in education. Cypriot J. Educ. Sci. 10 (3), 228–228 (2015).

Wößmann, L. et al. Bildung in der Coronakrise: Wie haben die Schulkinder Die Zeit der Schulschließungen Verbracht, und welche Bildungsmaßnahmen Befürworten die Deutschen?. Ifo Schnelldienst 73 , 25–39 (2020).

Pelikan, E. R. et al. Learning during COVID-19: the role of self-regulated learning, motivation, and procrastination for perceived competence. Z. Erzieh. 24 , 393–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-021-01002-x (2021).

Hale, L., Troxel, W. & Buysse, D. J. Sleep health: An opportunity for public health to address health equity. Annu. Rev. Public Health 41 (1), 81–99 (2020).

Jiao, W. Y. et al. Behavioral and emotional disorders in children during the COVID-19 epidemic. J. Pediatr. 221 , 264–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.03.013 (2020).

Hai, T., Swansburg, R., MacMaster, F. P. & Lemay, J. F. Impact of COVID-19 on educational services in Canadian children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Front. Educ. 6 , 614181. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.614181 (2021).

Tessarollo, V. et al. Distance learning in children with and without ADHD: A case-control study during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Attent. Disord. 26 , 902–914. https://doi.org/10.1177/10870547211027640 (2022).

Hasler-Waters, L., Menchaca, M. P. & Borup, J. Parental Involvement in K-12 Online and Blended Learning. In Handbook of Research on K-12 Online and Blended Learning (eds Kennedy, K. & Ferdig, R. E.) 303–324 (ETC Press, 2014).

Killgore, W. D. S., Cloonan, S. A., Taylor, E. C. & Dailey, N. S. Loneliness: A signature mental health concern in the era of COVID-19. Psychiatry Res. 290 , 113117 (2020).

Xin, M. et al. Negative cognitive and psychological correlates of mandatory quarantine during the initial COVID-19 outbreak in China. Am. Psychol. 75 (5), 607–617 (2020).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T. & Stephenson, D. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10 (2), 227–237 (2015).

Tian, H. et al. An investigation of transmission control measures during the first 50 days of the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Science 368 (6491), 638–642 (2020).

Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Xie Z, Yang J. Autonomous learning of elementary students at home during the COVID-19 epidemic: A case study of the second elementary school in Daxie, Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China. Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China (March 15, 2020), 2020.

Zhang, W. et al. Suspending classes without stopping learning: China’s education emergency management policy in the COVID-19 outbreak. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 13 (3), 55 (2020).

Hair, J. F. et al. Multivariate Data Analysis 7th edn. (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2010).

Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. The assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory 3 , 248–292 (1994).

Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W. & Higgins, C. C. Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Inf. Technol. Learn. Perform. J. 19 , 43–50 (2001).

Gau, S. S. F. et al. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham, version IV scale–parent form. Int. J. Methods Psychiatric Res. 17 (1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.237 (2008).

Qin, Z. et al. Research and analysis on the optimal cutoff value of Chinese version PHQ-9 for screening depression in different populations. J. Clin. Digest. Dis. 31 (5), 4 (2019).

Wang, W. et al. The optimal cutoff values and screening characteristics of different scoring methods in 12 general health questionnaires. Chin. J. Psychiatry 45 (6), 5 (2012).

Qin, X. et al. A study on parental stress and related factors in mothers of children with autism. Chin. J. Ment. Health 23 (009), 629–633 (2009).

Wang, C. et al. A longitudinal study on the mental health of general population during the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Brain Behav. Immun. 87 , 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.028 (2020).

González-Estrada, E. & Cosmes, W. Shapiro–Wilk test for skew normal distributions based on data transformations. J. Statist. Comput. Simul. 89 (17), 3258–3272 (2019).

Article MathSciNet Google Scholar

Lyerly, S. B. The average Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Psychometrika 17 (4), 421–428 (1952).

Kumari, T. & Shukla, V. Covid-19: Towards confronting an unprecedented pandemic. Int. J. Biol. Innov. 2 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.46505/IJBI.2020.2101 (2020).

Chakraborty, I. & Maity, P. COVID-19 outbreak: Migration, effects on society, global environment and prevention. Sci. Total Environ. 728 , 138882 (2020).

Adedoyin, O. B. & Soykan, E. Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: the challenges and opportunities. Interact. Learn. Environ. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180 (2020).

Sun, S. (2020, August 22). Rural primary education in Cambodia during the pandemic: Challenges and solutions. Cambodian Education Forum. https://cefcambodia.com/2020/08/22/rural-primary-education-in-cambodia-during-the-pandemic-challenges-and-solutions/ .

Brown, R. T. et al. Prevalence and assessment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in primary settings. Pediatrics. 107 , 43 (2001).

Scahill, L. & Schwab-Stone, M. Epidemiology of ADHD in school-age children. Child. Adolesc. Psychiatr Clin. N. Am. 9 , 541–555 (2000).

Agha, S. S., Zammit, S., Thapar, A. & Langley, K. Maternal psychopathology and offspring clinical outcome: A four-year follow-up of boys with ADHD. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-016-0873-y (2016).

August, G. J., Realmunto, G. M., MacDonald, A. W. III., Nugent, S. M. & Crosby, R. Prevalence of ADHD and comorbid disorders among elementary school children screened for disruptive behavior. J. Abnormal Child. Psychol. 24 , 571–595 (1996).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Frick, P. J., Silverthorn, P. & Evans, C. Assessment of child-hood anxiety using structured interviews: Patterns of agreementamong informants and association with maternal anxiety. Psychol. Assess. 6 , 372–379 (1994).

Edelbrock, C., Costello, A. J., Dulcan, M. K., Conover, N. C. & Kala, R. Parent–child agreement on child psychiatricsymptoms via structured interview. J. Child. Psychol. Psychiatry 27 , 181–190 (1986).

Verhulst, F. C., Althaus, M. & Berden, F. M. G. The child assessment schedule: Parent child agreement and validity measures. J. Child. Psychol. Psychiatry 28 , 455–466 (1987).

Nye, C., Turner, H. & Schwartz, J. Approaches to parent involvement for improving the academic performance of elementary school age children. Campbell Syst. Rev. 2 (1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2006.4 (2006).

Eccles, J. S. & Harold, R. D. Parent-school involvement during the early adolescent years. Teach. Coll. Record 94 (3), 568–658 (1993).

Liu, Y., Gayle, A. A., Wilder-Smith, A. & Rocklöv, J. The reproductive number of COVID-19 is higher compared to SARS coronavirus. J. Travel Med. 76 , 71–76 (2020).

Mirzaei, M., Yasini Ardekani, S. M., Mirzaei, M. & Dehghani, A. Prevalence of depression, anxiety and stress among adult population: Results of Yazd health study. Iran. J. Psychiatry 14 (2), 137–146 (2019).

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Pekrun, R., Lichtenfeld, S., Marsh, H. W., Murayama, K. & Goetz, T. Achievement emotions and academic performance: Longitudinal models of reciprocal effects. Child Dev. 88 (5), 1653–1670 (2017).

Kellaghan, T., Sloane, K., Alvarez, B. & Bloom, B. S. The Home Environment and School Learning: Promoting Parental Involvement in the Education of Children (Jossey-Bass, 1993).

Pratama, A. R. & Firmansyah, F. M. Disengaged, positive, or negative: Parents’ attitudes toward learning from home amid COVID-19 pandemic. J. Child. Fam. Stud. 30 (7), 1803–1812 (2021).

Fishel, M. & Ramirez, L. Evidence-based parent involvement interventions with school-aged children. School Psychol. Quart. 20 (4), 371. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.2005.20.4.371 (2005).

Gross, D. et al. What is parent engagement in early learning? Depends who you ask. J. Child. Fam. Stud. 29 (3), 747–760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01680-6 (2020).

Topor, D. R., Keane, S. P., Shelton, T. L. & Calkins, S. D. Parent involvement and student academic performance: a multiple mediational analysis. J. Prevent. Intervent. Commun. 38 (3), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2010.486297 (2010).

Plowman, L. & Stephen, C. Children, play, and computers in pre-school education. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 36 (2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00449.x (2005).

Erdogan, N. I., Johnson, J. E., Dong, P. I. & Qiu, Z. Do parents prefer digital play? Examination of parental preferences and beliefs in four nations. Early Childh. Educ. J. 47 , 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0901-2 (2019).

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860 (2020).

Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J. S. Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25 (1), 68–81 (2000).

Senko, C., Hulleman, C. S. & Harackiewicz, J. M. Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educ. Psychol. 46 (1), 26–47 (2011).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Medical Science and Technology Plan Project in Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China (2020Y22), as well as supports from the Medical and Health Technology of Zhejiang Province, China (2021KY330) and the Ningbo Natural Science Foundation, Zhejiang Province, China (202003N4262).

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Fang Cheng and Lixian Chen.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Pediatric Psychology, Ningbo Kangning Hospital, Ningbo, 315201, Zhejiang, China

Fang Cheng, Jincheng Li, Hongying Yang & Lingjiang Liu

The Second People’s Hospital of Yuhuan, Zhejiang, China

Lixian Chen

Department of General Medicine, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430060, Hubei, China

Huabing Xie

Huizhen Academy, NingBo, Zhejiang, China

Chenglan Wang & Ruonan Duan

Gaoqiao Central Primary School, Haishu, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

F.C., L.C., and H.X. conceived and designed the experiments. C.W. and R.D. performed the experiments and collected data. D.C. and J.L. analyzed the data. H.Y. and L.L. contributed to the writing of the manuscript and provided critical revisions that addressed important intellectual content. All authors discussed the results and implications and commented on the manuscript at all stages. *H.Y. and L.L. also served as corresponding authors, overseeing the project coordination and ensuring the integrity of the work from inception to published article. F.C. and L.C. contributed equally to this work due to L.C. significant contributions in completing the revisions.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Hongying Yang or Lingjiang Liu .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This survey was conducted following the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers): The Ningbo Kangning Hospital granted Ethical approval to carry out the study within its facilities (Ethical Application Ref. No.: NBKNYY-2021-LC-1, 2021.3.15–2024.3.14).

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Cheng, F., Chen, L., Xie, H. et al. Influence of parental attitudes and coping styles on mental health during online teaching in the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci Rep 14 , 20375 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-71314-5

Download citation

Received : 28 February 2024

Accepted : 27 August 2024

Published : 02 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-71314-5

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

Online delivery
Parenting stress
Coronavirus,
Coping styles
Parental mental health

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Stop worrying about being happy: New Berkeley Psychology research suggests doing so makes people unhappy

Berkeley Psychology Professor Iris Mauss

Berkeley Psychology alumna and New York University postdoctoral researcher Felicia K. Zerwas

A new Berkeley Psychology research study suggests that worrying too much about happiness can actually make you feel less happy and even more depressed.

The research, which was published in August in the American Psychological Association’s journal Emotion and titled “Unpacking the Pursuit of Happiness,” is a collaboration between UC Berkeley Psychology professors Iris Mauss and Oliver P. John, along with Berkeley Psychology alumni Felicia K. Zerwas (New York University postdoctoral researcher) and Brett Q. Ford (University of Toronto associate psychology professor).

The study examined two different aspects of pursuing happiness: aspiring to be happy and being concerned about one’s level of happiness. Results showed that aspiring to be happy did not predict a person’s overall well-being. But being concerned about happiness was heavily associated with lower well-being, including less satisfaction with life and greater depression symptoms.

“This means that changing how one thinks about happiness — specifically, decreasing one’s concern about happiness — should benefit mental health,” Professor Mauss said. “We need to be alert when we obsess over our happiness and paradoxically thwart our efforts to attain it.”

Mauss added: “While these findings raise a possible conundrum — wanting to feel happy ultimately involves feeling less happy — people should not take away that they are stuck. There are productive ways of thinking about happiness.”

The researchers propose that one way people can change their thinking and avoid being too concerned with happiness is to accept that they may never feel perfectly happy, even during positive experiences.

“Very few moments, if any, will bring only happiness, and latching on to the less-than-perfect aspects of positive moments will ultimately spoil them,” Zerwas said. “Instead, accepting the emotions we are feeling in the moment allows us to move forward without adding any extra negativity to the experience.”

Other ways people can prevent potentially harming their mental health include accepting that negative emotions are natural responses to life, not viewing positive activities as a means to an end (i.e., only doing something because you think it will make you happier), and partaking in activities that involve social connection, Mauss said.

Researchers carried out this study by having participants complete a series of surveys and diaries that measured valuing happiness as well as three facets of well-being: satisfaction with life, psychological well-being and depressive symptoms.

Future research related to this study may examine if results are consistent cross-culturally by including participants from other countries, and also if certain interventions (i.e., mindfulness practices) may increase psychological well-being in those overly concerned with happiness, Zerwas, the NYU researcher said.

Read the paper in the American Psychological Association’s journal Emotion : https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Femo0001381

Medical Books

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

Parenting at Your Child's Pace: The Integrative Pediatrician’s Guide to the First Three Years

To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

Parenting at Your Child's Pace: The Integrative Pediatrician’s Guide to the First Three Years Paperback – August 6, 2024

Print length 304 pages
Language English
Publisher Union Square & Co.
Publication date August 6, 2024
Dimensions 5.9 x 0.8 x 8.9 inches
ISBN-10 1454952490
ISBN-13 978-1454952497
See all details

Editorial Reviews

About the author, product details.

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Union Square & Co. (August 6, 2024)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Paperback ‏ : ‎ 304 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1454952490
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1454952497
Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 1 pounds
Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 5.9 x 0.8 x 8.9 inches
#18 in Pediatrics (Books)
#92 in Children's Health (Books)
#119 in Baby & Toddler Parenting

Videos for this product

Click to play video

Customer Review: Easy to understand & Packed with resources / references

Savannah Scagliotti

About the author

Joel Warsh is a Board-Certified Pediatrician in Los Angeles, California who specializes in Parenting, Wellness and Integrative Medicine. He grew up in Toronto, Canada and completed degrees in Kinesiology, Psychology and Epidemiology and Community Health before earning his medical degree from Thomas Jefferson Medical College. He completed his Pediatric Medicine training at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles (CHLA) and worked in private practice in Beverly Hills before founding his current practice, Integrative Pediatrics and Medicine Studio City, in 2018.

Dr. Gator has published research in peer-reviewed journals on topics including childhood injuries, obesity and physical activity.

He has been featured in numerous documentaries, films, summits, podcasts and articles including CBS, Fox, LA Parent, MindBodyGreen, and many others.

He is also the founder of the supplement line Tiny Roots Apothecary, the Parenting Masterclass Series Raising Amazing which can be found at Raising Amazing Plus.

He is a consultant for high-profile brands in the health and wellness space.

Customer reviews

5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

Reviews with images

Easy to understand & Packed with resources / references

Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

About Amazon
Investor Relations
Amazon Devices
Amazon Science
Sell products on Amazon
Sell on Amazon Business
Sell apps on Amazon
Become an Affiliate
Advertise Your Products
Self-Publish with Us
Host an Amazon Hub
› See More Make Money with Us
Amazon Business Card
Shop with Points
Reload Your Balance
Amazon Currency Converter
Amazon and COVID-19
Your Account
Your Orders
Shipping Rates & Policies
Returns & Replacements
Manage Your Content and Devices

Conditions of Use
Privacy Notice
Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
Your Ads Privacy Choices

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications
Our Methods
Short Reads
Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Why Many Parents and Teens Think It’s Harder Being a Teen Today

Is it harder these days to be a teen? Or do today’s teenagers have it easier than those of past generations? We asked the following question of 1,453 U.S. parents and teens: Compared with 20 years ago, do you think being a teenager today is harder, easier or about the same?

Parents and teens most often say it’s harder to be a teen today. Though parents are far more likely to say this.

Far fewer say it’s easier now …

… or that it’s about the same.

Teens, though, are more likely than parents to say they are unsure.

But why? We asked those who say teen life has gotten harder or easier to explain in their own words why they think so.

Why parents say it’s harder being a teen today

A chart showing that Technology, especially social media, is the top reason parents think it’s harder being a teen today

There are big debates about how teenagers are faring these days. And technology’s impact is often at the center of these conversations.

Prominent figures, including the U.S. Surgeon General, have been vocal about the harmful effects technology may be having on young people.

These concerns ring true for the parents in our survey. A majority blame technology – and especially social media – for making teen life more difficult.

Among parents who say it’s harder being a teen today, about two-thirds cite technology in some way. This includes 41% who specifically name social media.

While some mention social media in broad terms, others bring up specific experiences that teens may have on these platforms, such as feeling pressure to act or look a certain way or having negative interactions there. Parents also call out the downsides of being constantly connected through social media.

Pew Research Center has a long history of studying the attitudes and experiences of U.S. teens and parents, especially when it comes to their relationships with technology.

For this analysis, the Center conducted an online survey of 1,453 U.S. teens and parents from Sept. 26 to Oct. 23, 2023, through Ipsos. Ipsos invited one parent from each of a representative set of households with parents of teens in the desired age range from its KnowledgePanel . The KnowledgePanel is a probability-based web panel recruited primarily through national, random sampling of residential addresses. Parents were asked to think about one teen in their household. (If there were multiple teens ages 13 to 17 in the household, one was randomly chosen.) After completing their section, the parent was asked to have this chosen teen come to the computer and complete the survey in private.

The survey is weighted to be representative of two different populations: 1) parents with teens ages 13 to 17, and 2) teens ages 13 to 17 who live with parents. For each of these populations, they survey is weighted to be representative by age, gender, race and ethnicity, household income and other categories.

Parents and teens were first asked whether they think it is harder, easier, or about the same to be a teen now than it was 20 years ago. Those who answered that it was easier or harder were then asked an open-ended question to explain why they answered the way they did. Center researchers developed a coding scheme categorizing the written responses, coded all responses, then grouped them into the themes explored in this data essay. Quotations may have been lightly edited for grammar, spelling and clarity.

Here are the questions among parents and among teens used in this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology .

This research was reviewed and approved by an external institutional review board (IRB), Advarra, an independent committee of experts specializing in helping to protect the rights of research participants.

“Social media is a scourge for society, especially for teens. They can’t escape social pressures and are constantly bombarded by images and content that makes them feel insecure and less than perfect, which creates undue stress that they can’t escape.” FATHER, 40s

“Kids are being told what to think and how to feel based on social media.” MOTHER, 40s

Parents name other forms of technology, but at much lower rates. Roughly one-in-ten parents who think being a teen is harder today specifically say the internet (11%) or smartphones (7%) contribute to this.

“Teens are online and they are going to encounter everything offered – positive and negative. Unfortunately, the negative can do major damage, as in cyberbullying, for example.” MOTHER, 30s

Another 26% say technology in general or some other specific type of technology (e.g., video games or television) makes teens’ lives harder today.

“Technology has changed the way people communicate. I can see how kids feel very isolated.” FATHER, 40s

Parents also raise a range of reasons that do not specifically reference technology, with two that stand out: more pressures placed on teens and the country or world being worse off than in the past. Among parents who think it’s harder to be a teen today, 16% say it’s because of the pressures and expectations young people face. These include teens feeling like they have to look or act a certain way or perform at a certain level.

“The competition is more fierce in sports and academics and the bar seems to be higher. Everything is more over-the-top for social activities too. It’s not simple as it was.” MOTHER, 50s

A similar share (15%) says teen life is harder because the country or world has changed in a bad way, whether due to political issues or to shifts in morals and values.

“Now it is more difficult to instill values, principles, good customs and good behavior, since many bad vices are seen in some schools and public places.” MOTHER, 50s

Other reasons that do not mention technology are less common. For example, roughly one-in-ten of these parents or fewer mention violence and drugs, bullying, and exposure to bad influences.

Why parents say it’s easier being a teen today

A chart showing that Parents largely point to technology as a reason it’s easier being a teen today

Teens today have a seemingly endless choice of technologies at their disposal, whether it be smartphones , video games or generative AI . And while relatively few parents say teen’s lives are easier today, those who do largely point to technology.

Among parents who say it is easier being a teen today, roughly six-in-ten mention technology as a reason.

Some reference a specific type of technology, like the internet (14%). Another 8% cite smartphones, and 3% cite social media.

“Although the internet can be toxic, it also opens up so many avenues for connection, learning and engagement.” MOTHER, 50s

“We didn’t have smartphones when I was a teenager. Nowadays, teenagers have all the answers in the palm of their hand.” FATHER, 40s

A fair portion (47%) mention technology broadly or name another specific type of technology.

“Technology has improved exponentially, giving access to the whole world at your fingertips.” FATHER, 30s

Some other reasons that emerge do not mention technology specifically. For instance, 18% of parents who say it’s easier being a teen today think this is because there are fewer pressures and expectations on teenagers than in the past.

“Teens today have been shown more leniency; they barely hold themselves responsible.” MOTHER, 40s

And one-in-ten say it’s easier because teens have access to more resources and information.

“When I was a teen, I had to carry so many books and binders everywhere while my daughter can just have her school laptop. She can complete research easily with internet access on her school device.” MOTHER, 30s

Why teens say it’s harder being a teen today

A chart showing that Increased pressures and social media stand out as reasons teens say it’s harder to be a teen today

Most teens use social media , and some do so almost constantly. But they also see these sites as a reason teens’ lives are harder today than 20 years ago.

In addition, teens point to the pressures and expectations that are placed on them.

Among teens who say it’s harder to be a teenager today than in the past, roughly four-in-ten mention technology as a reason. This includes a quarter who specifically name social media. Some mention these sites broadly; others link them to harmful experiences like increased pressures to look a certain way or negative interactions with others.

“Social media tells kids what to do and say. And if you aren’t up on it, you look like the fool and become like an outcast from lots of people.” TEEN GIRL

“Social media was not a part of my parents’ teenage lives and I feel that they did not have to ‘curate’ themselves and be a certain way in order to fit [in] as it is today.” TEEN GIRL

Few specifically mention the internet (6%) or smartphones (3%) as reasons. About one-in-ten (11%) cite technology broadly or another type of technology.

“For one thing, my phone is a huge distraction. It takes up so much of my time just looking at stuff that doesn’t even mean anything to me.” TEEN GIRL

Teens name several reasons that do not specifically mention technology – most prominently, the increased pressures and expectations placed on them. Roughly three-in-ten of those who say teen life is harder today (31%) say it’s because of these pressures and expectations.

“We have so much more homework and pressure from other kids. We are always being looked at by everyone. We can’t escape.” TEEN GIRL

“Adults expect too much from us. We need to get good grades, do extracurricular activities, have a social life, and work part time – all at the same time.” TEEN BOY

Another 15% say it’s harder because the world is worse off today, due to such things as political issues, values being different or the country having declined in some way.

“Teenagers are less able to afford vehicles, rent, etc. and basic living necessities, and are therefore not able to move out for years after they graduate high school and even college.” TEEN BOY

Other reasons that don’t mention technology – including violence and drugs, bullying, and mental health problems – are named by 8% of these teens or fewer.

Why teens say it’s easier being a teen today

A chart showing that Technology is the top reason why teens think it’s easier being a teen today

Teens also see ways that technology makes life better, whether that’s helping them pursue hobbies , express their creativity or build skills . Overall, few think teens’ lives are easier today than 20 years ago, but those who do largely say technology is a reason.

Six-in-ten teens who say teen life is easier today reference technology in some way. This includes 14% who mention the internet and 12% who mention phones. Just 3% name social media.

“[Teens 20 years ago] didn’t have internet available anywhere and they also didn’t have smartphones to be able to use whenever needed.” TEEN BOY

This also includes 46% who reference technology in general or some other specific type of technology.

“Tech has made it easier to connect with friends.” TEEN BOY

These teens also name reasons that don’t specifically mention technology, including 14% who say life is easier because there are fewer pressures and expectations for people their age.

“Twenty years ago there was probably more pressure to become an adult sooner and get things like a job, a learner’s permit, etc.” TEEN GIRL

And a same share says having more resources available to them has made life easier.

“Nowadays, we have help to deal with your physical and mental well-being, and we have specialists/therapists that we can talk to about our feelings and emotions.” TEEN GIRL

Smaller shares say it’s due to the country and world being better off today (4%) or people being nicer to each other (3%).

How parents and teens compare

A chart showing that Teens, parents cite social media, pressures at different rates when it comes to why teen life is harder today

Parents and teens are mostly in agreement on what makes growing up today harder than in the past.

But the rate at which they cite certain factors like social media or facing pressures differ.

Among those who say being a teen today is harder , 65% of parents believe it’s because of technology in some way. This drops to 39% among teens.

This divide also stands out when it comes to social media specifically (41% vs. 25%).

Teens, on the other hand, are more likely than parents to describe issues related to overachieving or having to look a certain way. Among those who say teen life is harder today, 31% of teens cite pressures and expectations as a reason, compared with 16% of parents.

Still, there are areas in which parents and teens are in sync. For example, similar shares cite the country or world being worse today (15% each) and violence and drugs (8% each) as reasons life today for teens is harder.

And among those who say being a teen today is easier , roughly six-in-ten parents (59%) and teens (60%) mention technology in some way.

Why parents and teens think it’s harder or easier to be a teen today than 20 years ago

Read the quotes below showing how parents and teens think teenagers’ experiences today differ from before.

Find out more

This project benefited greatly from the contributions of Director of Internet and Technology Research Monica Anderson , Research Assistants Eugenie Park and Olivia Sidoti . This project also benefited from Communications Manager Haley Nolan, Editorial Assistant Anna Jackson and Copy Editor Rebecca Leppert .

Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder.

Follow these links for more of our work on teens and technology:

Teens, social media and technology
Screen time among teens and parents
Views of social media policies for minors
Teens’ use of ChatGPT for schoolwork
Teens and video games
Cellphone distraction in the classroom
Parents’ worries about explicit content, time-wasting on social media

Find more reports and blog posts related to internet and technology on our topic page.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

Research Topics

Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

This Simple Question Transforms Every Parent I Coach

Balancing the scale: the power of highlighting the wins in parent coaching..

Posted August 31, 2024 | Reviewed by Margaret Foley

What Is Coaching?
Take our Burnout Test
Find a life coach near me
Focusing solely on problems traps us in a cycle of negativity, impeding progress and worsening mental health.
Asking parents what has been going well enables a focus on their strengths and successes.
It's crucial to start coaching not from a point of failure but from a place of growth.

At the start of every session with my parent- coaching clients, I ask a simple yet powerful question: “What has been going well, and what could be better?" This question is vital in our work together, setting a constructive tone and guiding our conversation toward a balanced perspective. In a world where it’s easy to get overwhelmed by negativity and challenges, this question helps shift focus toward progress and growth, which are crucial aspects of positive psychology.

The Power of Positive Psychology

Positive psychology, which explores what makes life fulfilling, emphasizes that our well-being improves when we concentrate on our strengths, successes, and positive experiences. This approach isn’t about ignoring difficulties but about ensuring a balanced view. Focusing solely on problems can trap us in a cycle of negativity, impeding progress and worsening mental health. Conversely, recognizing what’s going well fosters resilience and hope and provides a solid foundation for addressing areas needing improvement.

Why This Question Matters

Asking parents what has been going well enables us to start with a focus on their strengths and successes. This approach has several significant effects:

1. Affirming Progress

In parent coaching, progress can often be gradual and hard to measure. By highlighting what’s been going well, clients can see the results of their efforts, however minor. This recognition builds self-efficacy , reinforcing their ability to make positive changes. It’s a reminder that despite challenges, there are achievements to celebrate. Over time, this practice fosters resilience, helping parents stay motivated and committed to their growth journey.

2. Creating a Positive Mindset

Beginning a session focusing on positives sets a constructive tone. It helps clients enter a mindset conducive to productive problem-solving, reducing the likelihood of feeling overwhelmed. Positive psychology research shows that a positive mindset enhances cognitive flexibility, making generating creative solutions to problems more accessible. This approach also strengthens the therapeutic alliance, as clients feel understood and supported in a balanced way, fostering deeper trust and collaboration .

3, Building Resilience

Parenting involves a series of ups and downs. When I coach parents, I have found that looking at what’s going well strengthens resilience by affirming that setbacks are not the entirety of the experience. Clients learn that challenges are part of the journey but don’t define it. Recognizing successes is an act of resilience, refusing to let difficulties overshadow positive aspects of life.

4. Balancing the Narrative

Addressing what could be better is equally important. However, we create a balanced narrative by starting with what’s going well. This approach prevents the session from becoming solely about complaints and encourages a nuanced exploration of strengths and challenges.

Practical Application in Coaching

In practice, this question leads to more productive sessions. For instance, a parent struggling with a defiant child may come in feeling overwhelmed. When asked what has been going well, they might recall successfully de-escalating a conflict or being consistent with boundaries . As I found when researching my book 10 Days to a Less Defiant Child, acknowledging these wins provides a foundation for further discussion of strategies to improve the parenting approach.

Similarly, discussing areas for improvement is framed within the context of progress. The client isn’t starting from a point of failure but from a place of growth. This perspective encourages viewing challenges as opportunities for improvement rather than insurmountable obstacles.

Conclusion: The Balance of Growth and Improvement

The question “What has been going well and what could be better?” is more than a conversation starter; it’s a coaching tool that embodies positive psychology principles. It helps parent-coaching clients focus on their successes, reinforcing their strengths and progress. At the same time, it allows for exploring growth areas, ensuring that sessions address both positive and challenging aspects of their parenting journey. Maintaining this balance creates a space where healing, growth, and resilience can flourish.

Jeffrey Bernstein, Ph.D. , is a psychologist and the author of seven books, including 10 Days to a Less Defiant Child.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Single parenting and today’s family

Life in a single parent household—though common—can be quite stressful for the adult and the children.

Divorce and Child Custody

Today single parent families have become even more common than the so-called “nuclear family” consisting of a mother, father, and children. Today we see all sorts of single parent families: headed by mothers, fathers, and even by a grandparent raising their grandchildren.

Life in a single parent household—though common—can be quite stressful for the adult and the children. The single parent may feel overwhelmed by the responsibilities of juggling caring for the children, maintaining a job, and keeping up with the bills and household chores. And typically, the family’s finances and resources are drastically reduced following the parents’ breakup.

Single parent families deal with many other pressures and potential problem areas that other families may not face.

Stressors faced by single parent families

Visitation and custody problems.
The effects of continuing conflict between the parents.
Less opportunity for parents and children to spend time together.
Effects of the breakup on children’s school performance and peer relations.
Disruptions of extended family relationships.
Problems caused by the parents’ dating and entering new relationships.

The single parent can help family members face these difficulties by talking with each other about their feelings and working together to tackle problems. Support from friends, other family members, and places of worship can help too. But if family members are still overwhelmed and having problems, it may be time to consult an expert or a licensed mental health professional.

Registration now open for 2024 Psychology Research Day

The seventh annual Psychology Research Day will take place on Thursday 7 November 2024 as part of the week-long BPS Psychology Careers Festival.

03 September 2024

The Psychology Research Day, delivered in collaboration with Senate House Library, is primarily aimed at psychology students and early career researchers.

The day will feature talks about research skills and careers in psychology research.

Planned talks for the day include sessions about political psychology, artificial intelligence, psychometric testing, and diverse career paths in psychological research.

Like the other days of the Careers Festival, the Psychology Research Day will run virtually over the Zoom platform.

The Psychology Research Day is a free event to attend, however you can upgrade your ticket to attend the full event and get access to all stages and speakers.

We surveyed attendees of the Psychology Careers Festival after the event last year*, and received positive feedback about the Psychology Research Day and the Careers Festival overall:

Feedback from last year's attendees was hugely positive, with:

86 per cent of Careers Festival attendees surveyed agreed/strongly agreed that attending the Careers Festival was a valuable use of their time
89 per cent agreed/strongly agreed that they gained new knowledge as a result of attending
Most (84 per cent ) agreed/strongly agreed that they plan to attend another BPS Psychology Careers Festival in the future

"The full day all about research careers was amazingly useful and very motivational." Psychology Careers Festival 2023 attendee

"For me personally it [the best aspect of the Psychology Careers Festival] was the inspiring psychologists working in research as this is where I want my career to head." Psychology Careers Festival 2023 attendee

* The BPS surveyed online 134 attendees to the Psychology Careers Festival 2023, after the Festival (between 15 November and 04 December 2024).

psychology research topics on parenting

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Current research on parenting styles, dimensions, and beliefs

Similar articles

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

Other Literature Sources

Research Topics & Ideas: Psychology

Overview: Psychology-Related Topics

How To Find A Research Topic

Research Ideas: Behavioural Psychology

Research Ideas: Clinical Psychology

Research Ideas: Cognitive Psychology

Research Ideas: Developmental Psychology

Need a helping hand?

Research Ideas: Educational Psychology

Research Ideas: Forensic Psychology

Research Ideas: Social Psychology

Research Ideas: Sports Psychology

Psychology-Related Dissertations & Theses

Fast-Track Your Topic Ideation

10 Comments

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

Eva Ceulemans

Participants

Parental behavioral control

Parental support

Parental psychological control

Child behavioral outcomes

Data Analyses

Clusters with Two Parenting Dimensions

Clusters with Three Parenting Dimensions

Parenting Styles and Child Behavioral Outcomes

Limitations and Future Research

Author Contributions

Conflict of Interest

Ethical Approval

Informed Consent

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Introduction

Parenting Styles and Parent–Adolescent Relationships

Adolescent Autonomy and Beliefs About Parental Authority

Adolescents’ Expectation for Behavioral Autonomy

Adolescents’ Beliefs About Parental Authority

The Role of Adolescent Gender

Chinese Cultural Context

Materials and Methods

Parenting Styles

Endorsement of Parental Authority

Expectations for Behavioral Autonomy

Parent–Adolescent Conflict

Parent–Adolescent Cohesion

Controlled Variables

Descriptive Statistics

Links With Parenting Styles

Mediating Effects

Moderating Effect of Adolescents’ Gender

Parenting Styles and Relationships With Adolescents

Expectation for Behavioral Autonomy

Legitimacy of Parental Authority

Adolescent Gender

Limitations and Conclusions

Ethics Statement

Author Contributions

Conflict of Interest Statement

Supplementary Material

Exploring Parenting Styles and Their Impact on Child Development in the Community

What is Positive Parenting? 33 Examples and Benefits

This Article Contains:

Download 3 Free Positive Parenting Exercises (PDF)

Download 3 Free Positive Parenting Exercises Pack (PDF)

5 Expert tips no parent should miss – Goalcast

4 Things you must say to your kids daily – Live on Purpose TV

The Grocery Store Blow-out

Grocery Store Blow-out Solutions

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

Parental Conflict and Alienation

Article feedback

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply