research on parenting styles generally suggests that quizlet

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Why Parenting Styles Matter When Raising Children

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

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

Verywell / Laura Porter

The Four Parenting Styles

• Impact of Parenting Style

Advantages of Authoritative Parenting

Can you change your parenting style.

• Limitations and Criticism

Parenting styles are constructs used to describe the different strategies parents tend to utilize when raising children. These styles encompass parents' behaviors and attitudes and the emotional environment in which they raise their children.

Developmental psychologists have long been interested in how parents affect child development. However, finding actual cause-and-effect links between specific actions of parents and later behavior of children is very difficult.

Some children raised in dramatically different environments can later grow up to have remarkably similar personalities . Conversely, children who share a home and are raised in the same environment can grow up to have very different personalities.

Despite these challenges, researchers have posited that there are links between parenting styles and the effects these styles have on children. And some suggest these effects carry over into adult behavior.

In the 1960s, psychologist Diana Baumrind conducted a study on more than 100 preschool-age children. Using naturalistic observation , parental interviews, and other research methods , she identified some important dimensions of parenting.

These dimensions include disciplinary strategies, warmth and nurturing, communication styles, and expectations of maturity and control. Based on these dimensions, Baumrind suggested that the majority of parents display one of three different parenting styles. Later research by Maccoby and Martin suggested adding a fourth parenting style. Each of these has different effects on children's behavior.

The four parenting styles that have been identify by Baumrind and other researchers are:

• The authoritarian parenting style
• The authoritative parenting style
• The permissive parenting style
• The uninvolved parenting style

What's Your Parenting Style?

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

Authoritarian Parenting

In this style of parenting, children are expected to follow the strict rules established by the parents. Failure to follow such rules usually results in punishment.

Authoritarian parents don't explain the reasoning behind these rules. If asked to explain, the parent might simply reply, "Because I said so."

Other common characteristics:

• While these parents have high demands, they are not very responsive to their children.
• They expect their children to behave exceptionally and not make errors, yet they provide little direction about what they should do or avoid in the future.
• Mistakes are punished, often quite harshly, yet their children are often left wondering exactly what they did wrong.

Baumrind says these parents "are obedience- and status-oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation." They are often described as domineering and dictatorial. Their approach is "spare the rod, spoil the child." They expect children to obey without question.

Effects of Authoritarian Parenting

Authoritarian parenting styles generally lead to obedient and proficient children, but they rank lower in happiness, social competence, and  self-esteem . They may also be more likely to lie to avoid punishment.

Authoritative Parenting

Like authoritarian parents, those with an authoritative parenting style establish rules and guidelines that their children are expected to follow. However, this parenting style is much more democratic.

Common characteristics of the authoritative parenting style:

• Authoritative parents are responsive to their children and willing to listen to questions.
• These parents expect a lot of their children, but they provide warmth, feedback, and adequate support.
• When children fail to meet expectations, these parents are more nurturing and forgiving than punishing.

According to Baumrind, authoritarive parents are good at setting standards and monitoring their children's behavior. Their disciplinary methods are assertive and supportive rather than intrusive, restrictive, or punitive.

For authoritative parents, the goal is to raise children who are socially responsible, cooperative, and self-regulated. The combination of expectation and support helps children of authoritative parents develop skills such as independence, self-control, and self-regulation. 

Effects of Authoritative Parenting

Authoritative parenting styles tend to result in happy, capable, and successful children.

Permissive Parenting

Permissive parents , sometimes referred to as indulgent parents, make very few demands of their children. These parents rarely discipline their children because they have relatively low expectations of maturity and self-control.​

• Other common characteristics of permissive parenting:
• Permissive parents prioritize being their child's friend rather than being a parent.
• They are warm and attentive but tend to set few rules, rarely enforce rules, and have few expectations.
• They allow their children to make their own decisions. 

According to Baumrind, permissive parents are responsive to their children but not demanding. Because they do not expect mature behavior from their children, kids may struggle to set limits for themselves. On the positive side, this can help kids become more self-sufficient and independent. On the downside, it can contribute to poor self-regulation.

Permissive parents are generally nurturing and communicative with their children, often taking on the status of a friend more than a parent.

Effects of Permissive Parenting

Permissive parenting often results in children who rank low in happiness and self-regulation. These children are more likely to experience problems with authority and tend to perform poorly in school.

Uninvolved Parenting

In addition to the three major styles introduced by Baumrind, psychologists Eleanor Maccoby and John Martin proposed a fourth style: uninvolved or neglectful parenting.

An uninvolved parenting style is characterized by few demands, low responsiveness, and very little communication.

Other characteristics of the uninvolved parenting style:

• While these parents fulfill the child's basic needs, they are generally detached from their child's life.
• They might ensure that their kids are fed and have shelter but offer little to nothing in the way of guidance, structure, rules, or even support.
• These parents may seem indifferent, unresponsive, and dismissive.
• In some cases, these parents may reject or neglect the needs of their children. They may also be physically or emotionally abusive.

A 2019 study found that children raised by neglectful parents tend to struggle in school, experience more depression, have worse social relationships, have difficulty controlling their emotions, and experience more anxiety.

Effects of Uninvolved Parenting

Uninvolved parenting styles rank lowest across all life domains. These children tend to lack self-control, have low self-esteem, and are less competent than their peers.

The Impact of Parenting Styles

Research suggests that parenting styles can have a range of effects on children. Some of the areas of a child's life that may be affected in the present and in the future include:

• Academics : Parenting styles can play a part in academic achievement and motivation.
• Mental health : Parenting styles can also influence children's mental well-being. Kids raised by authoritarian, permissive, or uninvolved parents tend to experience more anxiety, depression, and other mental health problems.
• Self-esteem : Kids raised by parents with an authoritative style tend to have strong self-esteem than kids raised by parents with other styles,
• Social relationships : Parenting styles can impact how kids relate to other people. For example, kids raised by permissive parents are more likely to be bullied, while kids raised by authoritarian parents are more likely to bully others.
• Adult relationships : Researchers have also found that kids raised by strict, authoritarian parents may be more likely to experience emotional abuse in adult romantic relationships.

Because authoritative parents are more likely to be viewed as reasonable, fair, and just, their children are more likely to comply with their parents' requests. Also, because these parents provide rules as well as explanations for these rules, children are much more likely to internalize these lessons.

Rather than simply following the rules because they fear punishment (as they might with authoritarian parents), the children of authoritative parents are able to see why the rules exist, understand that they are fair and acceptable, and strive to follow these rules to meet their own internalized sense of what is right and wrong.

Mixing Parenting Styles

The parenting styles of individual parents also combine to create a unique blend in each family. For example, the mother may display an authoritative style, while the father favors a more permissive approach.

This can sometimes lead to mixed signals. To create a cohesive approach to parenting, parents must learn to cooperate and combine their unique parenting styles.

Get Advice From The Verywell Mind Podcast

Hosted by therapist Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of The Verywell Mind Podcast shares what mentally strong parents do.

Follow Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts

If you notice that you tend to be more authoritarian, permissive, or uninvolved, there are steps you can take to adopt a more authoritative parenting style. Strategies that may help include:

• Listen : Spending time listening to what your child has to say. Let them share their opinions, ideas, and worries with you. 
• Establish rules : Create a clear set of rules for your household and communicate your expectations to your child. In addition to telling your child what the rules are, be sure to explain why these rules exist.
• Consider your child's input : Authoritative parents set the rules but are also willing to listen to their child's feelings and consider them when making decisions.
• Be consistent : Enforce rules consistently, but be sure to provide consequences that are fair, proportionate, and educational. 

Developing a more authoritative parenting style takes time. With practice and consistent effort, however, you will find that your approach to parenting gradually shifts to a more supportive, involved approach that can lead to better developmental outcomes.

Limitations of Parenting Style Research

Links between parenting styles and behavior are based on correlational research , which is helpful for finding relationships between variables . However, such research cannot establish definitive cause-and-effect relationships.

While there is evidence that a particular parenting style is linked to a specific pattern of behavior, other variables, such as a child's temperament, can also play a significant role.

Children May Affect Their Parents' Styles

There is also evidence that a child's behavior can impact parenting styles. One study found that the parents of children who exhibited difficult behavior began to exhibit less parental control over time. Such results suggest that kids might misbehave not because their parents were too permissive but because the parents of difficult or aggressive children gave up on trying to control their kids.

Outcomes Vary

Some researchers have also noted that the correlations between parenting styles and behaviors are sometimes weak. In many cases, the expected child outcomes do not materialize. For example, parents with authoritative styles may have children who are defiant or who engage in delinquent behavior. Parents with permissive styles may have self-confident and academically successful children.

Cultural Factors Play a Role

Cultural factors also play a significant role in parenting styles and child outcomes. There isn't a universal style of parenting that is always best. For example, while authoritative parenting is linked to better results in European and American cultures, research has also found that this style is not linked to better school performance Black and Asian youth.

Parenting styles are associated with different child outcomes, and the authoritative style is generally linked to positive behaviors such as strong self-esteem and self-competence. However, other important factors, including culture, children's temperament, children's perceptions of parental treatment, and social influences, also play an important role in children's behavior.

A Word From Verywell

Understanding more about your own parenting style can help you explore different approaches to parenting your children. If you notice that you tend to have a more strict, indulgent, or dismissive approach, there are steps that you can take to become more involved and authoritative in how you relate to your children.

Baumrind D. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior . Genet Psychol Monogr. 1967;75(1):43-88.

Durrant J, Ensom R.  Physical punishment of children: lessons from 20 years of research .  CMAJ . 2012;184(12):1373-7. doi:10.1503/cmaj.101314

Power TG. Parenting dimensions and styles: a brief history and recommendations for future research .  Child Obes . 2013;9 Suppl(Suppl 1):S14–S21. doi:10.1089/chi.2013.0034

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

Alizadeh Maralani F, Mirnasab M, Hashemi T. The predictive role of maternal parenting and stress on pupils' bullying involvement .  J Interpers Violence . 2019;34(17):3691-3710. doi:10.1177/0886260516672053

Beyarslan SD, Uzer T. Psychological control and indulgent parenting predict emotional-abuse victimization in romantic relationships . Curr Psychol . 2022;41(8):5532-5545. doi:10.1007/s12144-020-01072-w

Bi X, Yang Y, Li H, Wang M, Zhang W, Deater-deckard K. Parenting styles and parent-adolescent relationships: the mediating roles of behavioral autonomy and parental authority . Front Psychol . 2018;9:2187. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02187

Huh D, Tristan J, Wade E, Stice E. Does problem behavior elicit poor parenting?: A prospective study of adolescent girls .  J Adolesc Res . 2006;21(2):185-204. doi:10.1177/0743558405285462

Bernstein DA.  Essentials of Psychology . Cengage Learning; 2013.

Benson, JB, Marshall, MH. Social and Emotional Development in Infancy and Early Childhood . Academic Press, 2009.

Macklem, GL. Practitioner's Guide to Emotion Regulation in School-Aged Children . Springer, 2008.

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

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

4.1: Baumrind's Parenting Styles

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 77360

• Iowa State University

Diana Baumrind’s Parenting Styles

The parenting style used to rear a child will likely impact that child’s future success in romantic, peer and parenting relationships. Diana Baumrind, a clinical and developmental psychologist, coined the following parenting styles: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive/indulgent, Later, Maccoby and Martin added the uninvolved/neglectful style. [1]

It is beneficial to evaluate the support and demandingness of a caregiver in order to determine which style is being used and how to effectively use it. Support refers to the amount of affection, acceptance, and warmth a parent provides to a child. Demandingness refers to the degree a parent controls a child’s behavior.

Authoritative Parenting

In general, children tend to develop greater competence and self-confidence when parents have high-but reasonable and consistent- expectations for children’s behavior, communicate well with them, are warm and responsive, and use reasoning rather than coercion to guide children’s behaviors. This kind of parenting style has been described as authoritative . [2] Parents who use this style are supportive and show interest in their kids’ activities but are not overbearing and allow children to make constructive mistakes. This “tender teacher” approach deemed the most optimal parenting style to use in western cultures. Children whose parents use the authoritative style are generally happy, capable, and successful. [3]

Authoritarian Parenting

Parents using the authoritarian (“rigid ruler”) approach are low in support and high in demandingness. These parents expect and demand obedience because they are “in charge” and they do not provide any explanations for their orders. [4] Parents also provide well-ordered and structured environments with clearly stated rules.

Many would conclude that this is the parenting style used by Harry Potter’s harsh aunt and uncle, and Cinderella’s vindictive stepmother. Children reared in environments using the authoritarian approach are more likely to be obedient and proficient, but score lower in happiness, social competence, and self-esteem.

Permissive Parenting

Parents who are high in support and low in demandingness are likely using the permissive- also called the indulgent-style. Their children tend to rank low in happiness and self-regulation, and are more likely to have problems with authority. Parents using this approach are lenient, do not expect their children to adhere to boundaries or rules, and avoid confrontation. [5]

Uninvolved Parenting

Children reared by parents who are low in both support and demandingness tend to rank lowest across all life domains, lack self-control, have low self-esteem, and are less competent than their peers. Parents using the uninvolved (or sometimes referred to as indifferent or neglectful) approach are neglectful or rejecting of their children and do not provide most, if any, necessary parenting responsibilities.

Video Example

Watch this video about Baumrind’s parenting styles.

Parenting Styles and Outcomes for Children

Parenting style has been found to predict child well-being in the domains of social competence, academic performance, psychosocial development, and problem behavior. Research in the United States, based on parent interviews, child reports, and parent observations consistently finds:

• Children and adolescents whose parents use the authoritative style typically rate themselves and are rated by objective measures as more socially and instrumentally competent than those whose parents do not use the authoritative style (Baumrind, 1991; Weiss & Schwarz, 1996; Miller et al., 1993).
• Children and adolescents whose parents are uninvolved typically perform most poorly in all domains.

In general, parental responsiveness tends to predict social competence and psychosocial functioning, while parental demandingness is typically associated with instrumental competence and behavioral control (e.g., academic performance and deviance). These findings indicate:

• Children and adolescents reared in households using the authoritarian style (high in demandingness, but low in responsiveness) tend to perform moderately well in school and be uninvolved in problem behavior, but tend to have poorer social skills, lower self-esteem, and higher levels of depression when compared to their peers who are reared in households using the authoritative approach.
• Children and adolescents reared in homes using the indulgent style (high in responsiveness, low in demandingness) tend to be more involved in problem behavior and perform less well in school, but they have been shown to have higher self-esteem, better social skills, and lower levels of depression when compared to their peers who are not reared using the indulgent style. [6]

In reviewing the literature on parenting styles, it is apparent that using the authoritative parenting style is associated with both instrumental and social competence and lower levels of problem behavior at all developmental stages for youth in the United States. The benefits of using the authoritative parenting style and the detrimental effects of the uninvolved parenting style are evident as early as the preschool years and continue throughout adolescence and into early adulthood.

Support for Baumrind’s Authoritative Parenting

Support for the benefits of authoritative parenting has been found in countries as diverse as the Czech Republic, [7] India, [8] China, [9] Israel, [10] and Palestine. [11] In fact, authoritative parenting appears to be superior in Western, individualistic societies—so much so that some people have argued that there is no longer a need to study it. [12]

Other researchers are less certain about authoritative parenting and point to differences in cultural values and beliefs. For example, while many children reared in European-American cultures fare poorly with too much strictness (authoritarian parenting), children reared in Chinese cultures often perform well, especially academically. The reason for this likely stems from Chinese culture viewing strictness in parenting as related to training, which is not central to American parenting beliefs. [13]

As children mature, parent-child relationships should naturally adapt to accommodate developmental changes. Parent-child relationships that do not adapt to a child’s abilities can lead to high parent-child conflict and ultimately a reduced parent-child relationship quality. [14]

Key Takeaways

• The authoritative (the “tender teacher”) approach is the most optimal style for use in the U.S.
• The ways in which parents rear children can have lifelong impacts on children’s development.
• Baumrind's Parenting Styles is an adaptation of Child, Family, and Community ( Chapter 6: A Closer Look at Parenting ) by Laff & Ruiz (2019), licensed CC BY 4.0 and Social and Personality Development in Childhood by Ross Thompson, licensed CC BY NC SA . ↵
• Baumrind, D. (2013). Authoritative parenting revisited: History and current status. In R. E. Larzelere, A. Sheffield, & A. W. Harrist (Eds.), Authoritative parenting: Synthesizing nurturance and discipline for optimal child development . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ↵
• Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28 (6), 1006–1017. ↵
• Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, R. M. Lerner, & A. C. Petersen (Eds.), The encyclopedia on adolescence (pp. 746-758). New York: Garland Publishing. ↵
• Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, R. M. Lerner, & A. C. Petersen (Eds.), The Encyclopedia on Adolescence (pp. 746-758). New York: Garland Publishing. ↵
• Darling, N. (1999). Parenting style and its correlates. ERIC digest. Retrieved from https://www.ericdigests.org/1999-4/parenting.htm ↵
• Dmitrieva, J., Chen, C., Greenberger, E., & Gil-Rivas, V. (2004). Family relationships and adolescent psychosocial outcomes: Converging findings from Eastern and Western cultures. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14 , 425-447. ↵
• Carson, D., Chowdhurry, A., Perry, C., & Pati, C. (1999). Family characteristics and adolescent competence in India: Investigation of youth in southern Orissa. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 211-233. ↵
• Pilgrim, C., Luo, Q., Urberg, K.A., & Fang, X. (1999). Influence of peers, parents, and individual characteristics on adolescent drug use in two cultures. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 45 , 85-107. ↵
• Mayseless, O., Scharf, M., & Sholt, M. (2003). From authoritative parenting practices to an authoritarian context: Exploring the person-environment fit. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17 , 23-50. ↵
• Punamaki, R., Qouta, S., & Sarraj, E. (1997). Models of traumatic experiences and children’s psychological adjustment: The roles of perceived parenting and the children’s own resources and activity. Child Development, 68 , 718-728. ↵
• Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Adolescent-parent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11 , 1-19. ↵
• Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65 , 1111-1119. ↵
• Support for Baumrind's Authoritative Parenting is taken from The Family by Joel A Muraco, licensed CC BY NC SA . ↵

Baumrind's Parenting Styles by Joel A. Muraco, Wendy Ruiz, Rebecca Laff, Ross Thompson, and Diana Lang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Parenting Styles

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

It is a stereotype that, in therapy, all of a person’s problems will be blamed on their parents. That is not the case. But decades of psychological research have suggested that the approach to parenting generally followed by an individual’s mother and/or father can influence the way they approach relationships, challenges, and opportunities. That doesn’t mean that an adult can’t change, of course, especially once they understand what may be influencing their behavior. And parents who become aware of the pitfalls of their own style and how it may affect their kids can also change.

For more on dysfunctional parenting, click here .

On This Page

• What are the four major parenting styles?
• How can a parent’s style predict a child’s future relationships?
• How can mothers and fathers tell what their parenting style is?
• How can parents become more authoritative?
• What is supportive parenting?
• What is attachment parenting?
• How can mothers and fathers transition away from attachment parenting?

Research begun by developmental psychologist Diana Baumrind in the 1960s identified three main parenting styles —authoritarian, indulgent, and authoritative. Later studies added a fourth—neglectful. Every parent does not neatly fit into one of these four categories but they describe the approaches of many.

• An authoritarian parent seeks to maintain a high level of control over their children. They may set and adhere to a strict set of rules, and are more likely to support and take part in corporal punishment such as spanking. Children of highly authoritarian parents may struggle socially and may be likely to become authoritarian parents themselves.
• Neglectful parents (also known as uninvolved or disengaged) take on a limited parenting role. They may not spend as much time as other parents in conversation, play, or other activities, and may not bother to set many house rules. Some children of neglectful parents may resist rules outside of the home and struggle with self-control.
• Indulgent (or permissive) parents may be attentive and warm, but may not set many rules for their children. They may prioritize being their child’s friend over being their parent. Research suggests that the children of permissive parents may show higher levels of creativity but may also feel entitled, and be more interested in taking rather than giving in their own relationships.
• Authoritative parents follow what is widely understood as the preferred approach. Such parents are more pragmatic and flexible. They set clear boundaries but also encourage children’s independence within those limits. Discipline in such families may be more supportive than punitive, and as children get older, their independence increases. Children of authoritative parents may have more highly developed self-control and self-reliance.

Recent research suggests that, in some families, a parent’s style, especially as it relates to maintaining control over their children, could leave their kids vulnerable to emotional abuse from future partners, employers, and and others. Researchers found that people raised with a parent who maintained strict psychological control over them grew to be especially vulnerable to emotionally abusive partners. The effect appeared to be offset, though, by experiencing emotional warmth from the other parent. Research continues to explore the effect of differing parenting styles in the same family, and whether it matters if a mother or father is the authoritarian.

Much research of parenting styles has examined how the styles affect children as they grow up, and how negative effects could be tempered. But other studies have focused on helping parents become more self-aware and change their styles to develop healthier relationships with their kids . Some researchers have developed analytical scales in which parents indicate how they would respond to certain scenarios with an eye toward helping them shift, perhaps through therapy, to a more moderate approach.

In practical terms, most parents do not think of themselves as authoritarian, authoritative, or otherwise, and many mothers and fathers are self-aware enough to know that they may not be consistent with their kids at all times. Experts suggest that attention to some general guidelines can help parents develop a healthier style—for example, being consciously warm and loving toward children, setting age-appropriate limits, actively listening to children’s concerns, gently but firmly asking to be treated with respect, and “catching” kids being good , while making sure they know they’ve been seen and acknowledged.

Supportive parenting describes an approach to authoritative parenting in which mothers and fathers are conscious of how often they say no to children (as they often must, especially when kids are young) so that they can seek more opportunities to say yes to them in encouraging ways that help kids develop confidence and self-esteem. When children are mostly told what they cannot do, they can feel rejected by a parent, even a well-meaning one, with potentially negative emotional outcomes. Being consciously supportive and selfless with children can help them internalize belief in themselves.

Attachment parenting , a term coined by pediatrician William Sears, describes an approach to parenting in which mothers and fathers are physically and emotionally close to their children, especially at an early age, and is characterized in practice by extended periods of breastfeeding and co-sleeping. Sears referred to it as “what mothers and fathers would do instinctively if they were raising their baby on a desert island.” There is little evidence, however, that this approach leads to more positive psychological outcomes for children and many experts reject attachment parenting as unnecessarily demanding of parents and potentially creating conflict and division between new parents.

Parents who commit themselves to attachment parenting and have the time and temperament to maintain the approach throughout early childhood may then be faced with the challenge of weaning their children from the approach. These mothers and fathers may need to consciously practice “ detachment parenting ” so that children entering early adolescence can develop independence and healthy friendships, while resisting feeling rejected themselves as kids begin to resist a parent’s efforts to hold onto their previous level of connection.

Although moving between two homes can be stressful for a young child, their co-parents can work together to make sure the process is as easeful as possible.

Growing up too quickly is undoubtedly hard, but studies show it isn't all bad for some individuals.

What if we celebrated the growth mindset and skill set harnessed in youth athletics? Let's look beyond wins. Character thrives in the chase

Young adults are delaying adulthood in greater numbers, but calling them a failure to launch is inaccurate and counterproductive. Is Hikikomori a better term?

For a family trip to Disney World to be a success, preparation is essential—and will be rewarded with special family memories.

Emotional intelligence, including emotional granularity, is vital for both adults and children. Find out why it's important and how you can foster it in your kids.

Children who hear less complex language at home may be at a disadvantage when starting school. Interventions can help to combat inequalities in early life language development.

Rituals decrease people’s negative responses to their own slip-ups—suggesting that rituals help us move past our inevitable mistakes whenever we perform.

Explore the challenges and benefits of becoming a single parent by choice.

Learn how to combat the overreliance on social media and digital communication for social interactions in our families and in our own lives.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• 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
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

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
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Parenting Warmth and Strictness across Three Generations: Parenting Styles and Psychosocial Adjustment

Oscar f. garcia.

1 Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain; [email protected] (O.F.G.); [email protected] (E.S.)

Maria C. Fuentes

2 Department of Methodology of the Behavioral Sciences, Faculty of Psychology, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain; [email protected]

Enrique Gracia

3 Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain; [email protected]

Emilia Serra

Fernando garcia.

Recent emergent research is seriously questioning whether parental strictness contributes to children’s psychosocial adjustment in all cultural contexts. We examined cross-generational differences in parental practices characterized by warmth and practices characterized by strictness, as well as the relationship between parenting styles (authoritative, indulgent, authoritarian, and neglectful) and psychosocial adjustment in adulthood. Parenting practices characterized by warmth (affection, reasoning, indifference, and detachment) and strictness (revoking privileges, verbal scolding, and physical punishment) were examined. Psychosocial adjustment was captured with multidimensional self-concept and well-being (life satisfaction and happiness). Participants were 871 individuals who were members of three generations of Spanish families: College students (G3), their parents (G2), and their grandparents (G1). Results showed two different cross-generational patterns in parenting practices, with an increased tendency toward parental warmth (parents use more affection and reasoning but less indifference across generations) and a decreased tendency toward parental strictness (parents use revoking privileges, verbal scolding, and physical punishment less across generations). Interestingly, despite cross-generational differences in parenting practices, a common pattern between parenting styles and psychosocial adjustment was found: indulgent parenting was related to equal or even better self-concept and well-being than authoritative parenting, whereas parenting characterized by non-warmth (authoritarian and neglectful) was related to poor scores.

1. Introduction

Parental socialization is an adult-initiated process (parents or primary caretakers) by which the young person acquires the culture and the habits and values congruent with adaptation to that culture, so that young person become responsible members of their society. Parental socialization is over when the adolescent reaches the adult age [ 1 , 2 ]. In the study of parental socialization, scholars examine the influence of parents on children through two different parenting practices (theoretically independent or unrelated): those of warmth and those of strictness. The four parenting styles are defined by the combined effects of both warm and strict parenting practices: authoritative (warmth and strictness), indulgent (warmth without strictness), authoritarian (strictness without warmth) and neglectful (neither warmth nor strictness).

Traditionally, research conducted mainly in Anglo-Saxon contexts with European-American samples has consistently related authoritative parenting (i.e., warmth and strictness) to optimum psychosocial adjustment. However, there are serious doubts about the benefits of the combined effects of parental warmth and strictness (i.e., authoritative parenting) as the best parenting strategy for all cultural contexts. Additionally, although parenting and its impact on psychosocial adjustment is usually examined with adolescents, only some studies have examined the impact of parental socialization once adolescence is over, with adult children. Most of these studies have suggested cross-generational differences in parenting practices, but their findings emerge from non-normative families examining abusive parental practices (e.g., physical, emotional, and even sexual abuse). Within the same cultural context, it is generally argued that parenting practices change across historical periods and even that the impact of parenting on child psychosocial adjustment might be different depending on generation [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. The present paper aims to examine in adult children of three generations of families (i) cross-generational differences in parenting practices, and (ii) which parenting style is related to the highest psychosocial adjustment.

1.1. Theoretical Framework

Variations in children’s and adolescents’ psychosocial adjustment are linked to differences in parental socialization [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Based mostly on the work of Baumrid (1971) [ 6 ] and Maccoby and Martin (1983) [ 11 ], in order to capture parental socialization, researchers have widely identified two independent (i.e., orthogonal) parental dimensions: warmth and strictness. Parental practices characterized by support and reasoning are grouped into a warmth dimension (also called responsiveness, acceptance, or involvement), whereas surveillance parenting practices are grouped into a strictness dimension (also called demandingness or supervision). The combination of these two orthogonal dimensions leads to four parenting styles: authoritative, characterized by warmth and strictness; indulgent, characterized by warmth but not strictness; authoritarian, characterized by strictness but not warmth; and neglectful, characterized by neither warmth nor strictness [ 7 , 11 , 12 ]. Parenting styles represent relational qualities between parents and their children, and they make it possible to capture the emotional family climate better than the isolated analysis of parental practices [ 7 , 13 ].

Since the early studies by Diana Baurind [ 6 , 14 ], research in Anglo-Saxon contexts with European-American samples (mostly white middle-class families) has traditionally identified authoritative parenting (i.e., warmth and strictness) as the best parenting strategy to foster psychosocial adjustment in the form of instrumental competence (i.e., behavior that is socially responsible and independent) and academic success. However, research conducted with other samples and in other cultural contexts does not support the idea that authoritative parenting is always associated with the best psychosocial adjustment of the children. In this regard, a growing body of research suggests that parenting’s influence on the children’s psychosocial adjustment can also vary as a function of the cultural context (for reviews, see García and Gracia, 2014 [ 8 ]; Garcia, Serra, Garcia, Martinez, and Cruise, 2019 [ 5 ]; Pinquart, and Gerke, 2019 [ 9 ]; Pinquart and Kauser, 2018 [ 15 ]).

For example, some studies from the United States with ethnic minority groups, such as African Americans [ 16 , 17 ], Chinese Americans [ 18 , 19 ], Hispanic Americans [ 20 , 21 ], or multiethnic Americans [ 22 ], as well as some studies with Arab families [ 23 , 24 , 25 ], found some benefits related to authoritarian parenting, suggesting that the authoritarian style is an appropriate parenting strategy. In addition, some studies that examined parenting styles in European and Latin American countries found that indulgent parenting (warmth but not strictness) was related to optimal child development. Indulgent parenting (also labelled as permissive, characterized by warmth but not strictness) was related to equal or even better psychosocial adjustment than authoritative parenting, whereas authoritarian parenting (strictness but not warmth) and neglectful parenting (neither warmth nor strictness) have consistently been related to the worst psychosocial adjustment [ 26 , 27 , 28 ].

In order to understand the differential impact of parental socialization on the psychosocial adjustment of children depending on the cultural background, researchers usually analyze the extent to which the same parental practices are used by families around the world [ 4 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ]. Overall, frequent parenting practices are perceived as more culturally normative by children [ 30 ], so that parenting may have different consequences for children’s psychosocial adjustment depending on the extent to which parenting practices (e.g., love withdrawal or physical punishment) are normative within a culture [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ]. It is usually argued that normative parental practices (i.e., those that are more frequent) tend to be perceived as fair and reasonable by children. For example, research findings reveal that corporal punishment has different effects on children across countries depending on the frequency of its use within a cultural context (for a discussion, see Gershoff et al., 2010 [ 32 ]).

1.2. Parenting across Generations

Although research has examined the extent to which different parental practices are used across families from different countries and cultural contexts, little research attention has been paid to analyzing whether, within the same cultural context, parental practices also vary in members of families from different generations. Within the same cultural context, it is generally argued that parenting practices change across historical periods [ 3 , 4 , 29 , 37 , 38 ]. Most research examining differences in the use of parenting practices across generations is based on studies analyzing generational differences in abusive parental practices, such as physical, emotional, and even sexual abuse in non-normative families (for a review, see Madigan et al., 2019 [ 39 ]). Fewer studies have examined parental practices across generations in normative families [ 38 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ]. Overall, research findings regarding change in the parental dimensions of warmth and strictness across generations suggest a tendency toward an increase in parental warmth and a decrease in parental strictness [ 43 , 44 ], although it is not clear which specific practices of warmth and strictness are changing across generations [ 38 , 42 ]. For example, Zhou and colleagues (2018) [ 42 ] examined parenting practices of warmth (support and praise) and strictness (criticism, corporal punishment and control) across three generations of Chinese families (grandchildren, their mothers, and their grandmothers). The cross-generational parenting profile for the warmth dimension indicated an increased tendency toward parental practices of support (“Did your parents support your interests or talent?”) and praise (“Did your parents praise and encourage you a lot?”). In contrast, the cross-generational parenting profile for the strictness dimension revealed a decreased tendency toward parental practices of strictness, but only in the use of criticism or corporal punishment (“Did your parents criticize you? Did they ever use corporal punishment?”). However, in the strict parental practice of control (“Did your parents have many constraints?”), no cross-generational differences were found.

1.3. The Present Study

Although differences in the use of parenting practices across generations have been found, and these variations have been hypothesized to be associated with differences in children’s psychosocial functioning, this question has not been exhaustively tested empirically. The present study aims to examine cross-generational changes in parenting practices and the link between parenting styles and psychosocial adjustment in adulthood across three generations in a European country (i.e., Spain). Interestingly, an emerging body of research suggests that parental socialization could be related to long-term psychosocial adjustment beyond adolescence [ 1 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ]. Findings from these studies revealed that differences in parental socialization showed a long-term, consistent, theoretically predictable pattern with psychological adjustment, not only in adolescent children, but also in adult children, including young, middle-aged, and older adults. Nevertheless, these studies offered evidence about the long-term impact of parental socialization, but without examining cross-generational differences in parenting practices that might play a crucial role in understanding the differential impact of parenting styles on psychosocial adjustment. Specifically, in the present study, we will examine: (i) cross-generational differences in parental practices characterized by warmth and practices characterized by strictness; and (ii) the relationship between parenting styles (i.e., authoritative, indulgent, authoritarian, and neglectful) and psychosocial adjustment in adulthood. Two sets of psychosocial adjustment outcomes will be analyzed: self-concept and wellbeing.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. sample and procedure.

It was estimated that a minimum of 768 participants were needed to conduct the study with a statistical power of 95% (1 − β = 0.95), setting the conventional limits on error rates in statistical inference (α = β = 0.05) and detecting medium-small effect sizes ( f = 0.15) [ 51 ] between the four parenting styles and the psychosocial adjustment criteria [ 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 ]. The research was conducted at a large public university in southeastern Spain [ 56 , 57 ], data were collected from 871 individuals who were members of three-generation families: College students (G3), their parents (G2), and their grandparents (G1). A total of 184 middle-class families participated, and in each family, the participants were one college student (G3), both parents (G2) and at least one grandparent (G1). All participants (G1, G2, and G3) completed the questionnaires. During the course period, participants received information about the purpose of the study and signed an informed consent. Respondents were informed that participation was voluntary, that they were free to terminate their participation at any time, and that their responses to the questionnaires would be confidential. The mean age for the grandparent generation (G1) was 78.32 years ( SD = 6.90; range 60 to 99; 182 females and 145 males). The mean age for the parent generation (G2) was 51.04 years ( SD = 4.17; range 39 to 61; 184 females and 176 males), and the mean age for the college student generation (G3) was 22.73 years ( SD = 1.76; range 20 to 29; 95 females and 89 males). All the college-age participants in this study (a) were Spanish, as were their parents and four grandparents; (b) they all participated voluntarily; (c) they were undergraduate students of psychology, pedagogy and teaching studies, and (d) they received some course credit for participating. With a study sample of 871 respondents, a sensitivity power analysis among the four parenting styles guaranteed the detection of a medium-small effect size of 0.140 ( f = 0.140, α = 0.05, 1 − β = 0.95). All questionnaires were completed anonymously with Institutional Review Board approval.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. parental socialization.

Parental socialization was captured with the Parental Socialization Scale (ESPA29) [ 58 ], a self-report instrument widely used to examine parenting practices and parenting styles. Parental warmth was captured with the ESPA-29 acceptance/involvement dimension, which included the practices of affection, reasoning, indifference, and detachment subscales (the latter two were negatively related to the dimension). Parental strictness was captured with the ESPA-29 strictness/imposition dimension, which included the subscales of revoking privileges, verbal scolding, and physical punishment. As in some previous studies, the following sentence was included in the instructions: “Here are some phrases or statements that describe how parents act with their children. Compare each statement to the way your mother and father treated you when you were a child” [ 1 , 49 , 59 , 60 ]. All the statements are in past tense. Previous studies used a similar procedure to evaluate parenting among adult children, once parental socialization is over [ 59 , 60 ].

The ESPA-29 scale is composed of 212 items (106 for each parent), all referring to 29 representative situations of daily family life, including 13 family norms compliance situations (e.g., “If I respected the established schedules in my house”); where respondents rate the frequency (from 1 = never to 4 = always) in which their parents used the parenting practices of affection (“He/she showed affection”) and indifference (“He/she seemed indifferent”); and 16 non-compliance situations (e.g., “If I broke or ruined anything in my house”), where respondents rate the frequency (from 1 = never to 4 = always) in which their parents used the parenting practices of reasoning (“He/she talked to me”), detachment (“It didn’t matter to him/her”), verbal scolding (“He/she scolded me”), physical punishment (“He/she hit me”), and revoking privileges (“He/she took something away from me”). The ratings on affection and reasoning subscales, together with the inverted ratings on indifference and detachment subscales, the ESPA-29 acceptance/involvement dimension, were averaged to obtain the parental warmth score; whereas parental strictness scores were obtained by averaging the ratings on verbal scolding, physical punishment and revoking privileges subscales, the ESPA-29 strictness/imposition dimension.

Taking into account the scores obtained on the warmth and strictness dimensions, families were classified according to the parenting style that characterizes them. For this purpose, the sample was dichotomized using the median split (i.e., Pc50), considering both dimensions simultaneously and also taking into account the sex and age of the participants [ 12 , 61 , 62 ]. Thus, authoritative families were those that scored above the median in both dimensions; indulgent families were those that scored below the median in the strictness/imposition dimension and above it in the acceptance/involvement dimension; authoritarian families were those that scored above the median on strictness/imposition and below it on acceptance/involvement; and, finally, neglectful families were those that scored below the median in both dimensions [ 55 , 63 ].

The adequate psychometric properties of the ESPA-29, as well as the orthogonality of the two main dimensions and its invariance for sex and age, have been demonstrated in studies across different countries, such as the United States [ 62 ], Portugal [ 64 ], Brazil [ 65 ], and Spain [ 66 ]. Cronbach’s alphas obtained in this study were 0.98 for acceptance/involvement and 0.98 for strictness/imposition. The Cronbach’s alphas for the subscales were the following: affection: 0.97, indifference: 0.96, reasoning: 0.97, detachment: 0.92, verbal scolding: 0.95, physical punishment: 0.97, and revoking privileges: 0.97.

2.2.2. Psychosocial Adjustment

Self-concept was measured using the Multidimensional Self-Concept Scale AF5 [ 67 ]. It is based on the multidimensional and hierarchical theoretical model by Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) [ 68 ]. It is composed of 30 items that assess five self-concept dimensions, with six items per dimension and a 99-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 99 = strongly agree): academic/professional (e.g., “My teachers (superiors) consider me an intelligent and hard-working person”), social (e.g., “I make friends easily”), emotional (e.g., reversed item, “A lot of things make me nervous”), family (e.g., “My family would help me in any kind of trouble”), and physical (e.g., “I like the way I look”). The AF5, originally validated with a sample of more than 6000 adolescents and adults, has good psychometric properties for both age groups [ 50 , 67 , 69 , 70 ]. Additionally, the AF5 scale is commonly used in studies with adults [ 1 , 50 , 71 , 72 ]. The penta-factorial structure of this instrument as well as its invariance for sex and age have been confirmed in several studies across different countries, such as the USA [ 73 ], Chile [ 74 ], Portugal [ 69 ], Brazil [ 75 ], Spain [ 76 , 77 ] and China [ 78 ]. Cronbach’s alphas obtained in this study were: academic, 0.89, social, 0.80, emotional, 0.83, family, 0.77, and physical, 0.73.

Well-being was captured through two indicators: life satisfaction and happiness. Life satisfaction, which is usually defined as the cognitive component of well-being, was captured with the Satisfaction with Life Scale, SWLS [ 79 ], made up of five items (e.g., “If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing”) rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s alphas obtained in this study was 0.87. This instrument is one of the most widely used scales to measure life satisfaction [ 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 ]. Additionally, SWLS is commonly used in studies with adult participants [ 84 ]. Happiness, which is usually defined as the emotional component of well-being [ 85 , 86 ], was captured with a single item (“How happy are you with your life in general”), rated on an 11-point Likert scale (1 = completely unhappy to 11 = completely happy). This evaluation is commonly used with adult participants [ 87 ]. Previous studies reported the adequate psychometric properties of this approach [ 88 , 89 , 90 ].

2.2.3. Data Analyses

To analyze cross-generational differences in warmth and strictness parental practices, a two-way multifactorial (3 × 2) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was applied, one to the four parenting variables characterized by warmth (i.e., affection, reasoning, detachment, and indifference) and the other to the three parenting variables characterized by strictness (i.e., revoking privileges, verbal scolding, and physical punishment). The two factors were the adult children’s generation (G1, G2, or G3) and sex (male or female). Follow-up univariate F-tests were conducted for all the sources of variation when multivariate statistically significant differences were found. Univariate significant results were followed by post hoc Bonferroni comparisons of all the possible pairs of means.

To analyze the relationship between parenting styles and psychosocial adjustment in adulthood, a three-way multifactorial (4 × 3 × 2) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was applied to two sets of psychosocial adjustment outcome variables (self-concept and well-being). The three factors were parenting styles (authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful), adult children’s generation (G1, G2 or G3), and sex (male or female). The significant sets of psychosocial adjustment outcome variables in the MANOVA were then analyzed by using univariate F -tests and, significant differences in the univariate F -tests were after examined using the post-hoc Bonferroni test [ 91 , 92 , 93 ].

3.1. Parenting Style Groups

Adult children from the three generations (i.e., G1, G2, and G3) were classified into one of the parenting style families (i.e., indulgent, authoritative, authoritarian, or neglectful; Table 1 ). The authoritative parenting group contained 219 participants (25.1%), with high warmth, M = 3.37 and SD = 0.35, and high strictness, M = 3.37 and SD = 0.30; the indulgent group had 217 (24.9%), with high warmth, M = 3.44 and SD = 0.32, but low strictness, M = 1.56 and SD = 0.25; the authoritarian group contained 219 (25.1%), with low warmth, M = 2.56 and SD = 0.30, and strictness, M = 2.28 and SD = 0.35; and the neglectful family contained 216 (24.8%), with low warmth, M = 2.54 and SD = 0.40, and low strictness, M = 1.50 and SD = 0.22.

Numbers of Cases in Parenting Style Groups, Mean Scores, and Standard Deviations on Main Measures of Parental Dimensions.

3.2. Cross-Generational Differences in Parental Practices

Previously, since the data are clustered, with the three generations having been sampled within families, we applied preliminary nested multifactorial MANOVAs [ 94 , 95 ], with the 184 families as random factors for each set of outcomes as dependent variables (i.e., warmth and strictness practices). The MANOVA for the set of warmth parental practices did not yield statistically significant effects of family, Λ = 0.027, F (2188.0, 1274.9) = 0.86, p > 0.05, neither did the MANOVA for the set of strictness parental practices, Λ = 0.056, F (1641.0, 958.0) = 0.94, p > 0.05.

The results for the MANOVA conducted with the four parental warmth practices (i.e., affection, reasoning, indifference, and detachment) yielded a significant main effect for the generation, Λ = 0.937, F (8, 1730.0) = 7.15, p < 0.001. Moreover, the results for the MANOVA conducted with the three parental practices characterized by strictness (i.e., revoking privileges, verbal scolding, and physical punishment) showed a significant main effect for the generation, Λ = 0.857, F (6, 1732.0) = 23.11, p < 0.001.

Parental practices characterized by warmth have increased in families across generations (see Table 2 , and Figure 1 ). Parents in the first generation tended to use less affection than in the second generation (G2) and the third generation (G3). Interestingly, according to the results of the F statistic, the biggest differences in parental warmth practices across the three generations were found in reasoning, F (2, 2868) = 23.53, p < 0.001, with an increasing tendency. In particular, parents in the second generation G2) use more reasoning than those in the first generation (G1), whereas parents in the third generation (G3) use higher reasoning than those in the second generation (G2). Similarly, the use of indifference (a parental practice characterized by low parental warmth) tends to decrease with the generations, with less detachment in the second generation (G2) and the third generation (G3) than in the first generation (G1).

Parenting across generations for parental practices of ( a ) warmth, and ( b ) strictness.

Means and (standard deviations) in parental practices of warmth and strictness across generations.

Note: Bonferroni Test α = 0.05; 1 > 2 > 3 , ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

By contrast, in the case of parental practices characterized by strictness, a decreasing tendency was found across generations (see Table 2 , and Figure 1 ). The use of revoking privileges by parents is lower in the third generation (G3) than in the second generation (G2) and the first generation (G1). A similar decreasing tendency appeared for verbal scolding; parents in the second generation use less verbal scolding than in the first generation (G1), although parents in the third generation (G3) use less verbal scolding than in the second generation (G2). Interestingly, the biggest differences across the three generations was found in parental practices characterized by strictness, F (2, 865) = 65.77, p < 0.001. The use of physical punishment tends to decrease across generations. The highest use of physical punishment corresponded to parents from the first generation (G1), the lowest corresponded to those from the third generation, and parents from the second generation (G2) were in the middle position.

3.3. Parenting Styles and Psychosocial Adjustment

Previously, since the data are clustered, with the three generations having been sampled within families, we applied preliminary nested multifactorial MANOVAs [ 94 , 95 ], with the 184 families as random factors and the set of outcomes of psychosocial adjustment as dependent variables (i.e., self-concept and well-being). The MANOVA for the set of psychosocial adjustment did not yield statistically significant effects of family, Λ = 0.001, F (3829.0, 2219.7) = 1.04, p > 0.05.

Results of the MANOVAs yielded statistically significant main effects for parenting style, Λ = 0.795, F (21, 2415.4) = 9.58, p < 0.001, sex, Λ = 0.953, F (7, 841) = 5.93, p < 0.001, and generation, Λ = 0.854, F (14, 1682) = 9.87, p < 0.001. In addition, significant interaction effects were obtained between parenting style and generation, Λ = 0.886, F (42, 3948.1) = 2.45, p < 0.01, and sex and generation, Λ = 0.970, F (14, 1682) = 1.84, p < 0.05, (see Table 3 ).

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) factorial (4 a × 2 b × 3 c ) for psychosocial adjustment (self-concept and well-being).

Note: a a 1 , authoritative, a 2 , indulgent, a 3 , authoritarian, a 4 , neglectful; b b 1 , females, b 2 , males; c c 1 , first-generation children, c 2 , second-generation children, c 3 , third-generation children.

Overall, the results for main effects of the parenting styles showed that indulgent parenting was related to equal or even better psychosocial adjustment than the authoritative style (see Table 4 ), whereas the worst psychosocial adjustment corresponded to parenting characterized by a lack of warmth (i.e., authoritarian and neglectful styles). Adult children from indulgent families scored higher than those from authoritarian and neglectful families on academic/professional self-concept. Additionally, adult children with authoritative parents obtained higher scores than those with authoritarian parents. On physical self-concept, adult children from authoritative, indulgent, and neglectful families scored significantly better than their peers with authoritarian parents. Finally, adult children with authoritative and indulgent parents obtained higher scores on happiness than those from authoritarian families (see Table 4 ).

Means and (standard deviations) of parenting style, generation, and sex, and main univariate F values for psychosocial adjustment (self-concept and well-being).

Note: Bonferroni Test α = 0.05; 1 > 2 , a > b . *** p < 0.001.

Moreover, an interaction effect between parenting styles and the children’s generation was found on social self-concept, F (6, 847) = 2.68, p = 0.014, family self-concept, F (6, 847) = 7.72, p < 0.001, and life satisfaction, F (6, 847) = 2.89, p = 0.009. Once again, indulgent parenting and authoritative parenting were significantly related to better results than the authoritarian and neglectful parenting styles across children’s generations (see Figure 2 ). Whereas neglectful parenting showed mixed results, especially in adult children from the first generation (e.g., on family self-concept); authoritarian parenting was consistently related to the worst results across the generations, with adult children from the third generation showing the lowest scores on all the outcomes. Specifically, on social self-concept, adult children from indulgent and authoritative families scored significantly better than those from authoritarian and neglectful families in the first and third generations. Regarding the second generation, adult children with indulgent parents scored significantly better than those from authoritarian and neglectful families (see Figure 2 , section A). On family self-concept, adult children with indulgent, authoritative, and neglectful parents obtained higher scores than those with authoritarian parents in the first generation. In the second generation, adult children from indulgent families scored significantly better than those from authoritative, authoritarian, and neglectful parents; whereas adult children with indulgent and authoritative parents obtained higher scores than those with authoritarian parents in the third generation (see Figure 2 , section B). Finally, on life satisfaction, adult children from indulgent families scored significantly better than those from authoritarian and neglectful families in the first generation; and adult children with indulgent and authoritative parents obtained higher scores than those with authoritarian and neglectful parents (see Figure 2 , section C).

Interactions of parenting style by generation. ( a ) Social self-concept, ( b ) family self-concept, ( c ) life satisfaction.

Results revealed some sex and age related differences in self-concept and psychological adjustment (see Table 5 ). Regarding sex-related differences, results showed that males scored significantly higher than females on emotional and physical self-concept. In the case of generation-related differences, children from the first and second generations obtained higher scores on academic/professional self-concept than those from the third generation. On physical self-concept, adult children from the second and third generations scored better than adult children from the first generation. On life satisfaction, adult children from the first generation scored better than those from the third generation. Finally, adult children from the third generation showed greater happiness than those from the first and second generations. In addition, an interaction effect between sex and children’s generation was found on emotional self-concept, F (2,847) = 5.66, p = 0.004. Females from the first generation reported higher emotional self-concept than the males from the same generation. In the third generation, no sex-related differences were found (see Figure 3 ). Sex-related differences indicated that females showed higher family self-concept than males.

Interactions of sex and generation. Emotional self-concept.

Means and (standard deviations) of generation and sex, and main univariate F values for psychosocial adjustment (self-concept and well-being).

Note: Bonferroni Test α = 0.05; 1 > 2 * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.

4. Discussion

The present study examines cross-generational differences in parental practices characterized by warmth (warmth, reasoning, indifference, and detachment) and strictness (revoking privileges, verbal scolding, and physical punishment), and the links between parenting styles (i.e., authoritative, indulgent, authoritarian, and neglectful) and psychosocial adjustment in adulthood in a community sample of Spanish adult children from three family generations. Overall, results showed cross-generational differences in parental practices characterized by warmth and strictness across generations. Importantly, despite these variations in the extent to which parental practices are used, the relationship between parenting styles and psychosocial adjustment (self-concept and well-being) showed a common pattern. The indulgent style (warmth but not strictness) was related to equal or even better results on psychosocial adjustment outcomes than authoritative parenting (warmth and strictness), whereas parenting characterized by lack of warmth (authoritarian and neglectful) was associated with poor psychosocial adjustment.

An important contribution of the present study is that the main findings offer a clear pattern of cross-generational variations in parental practices. Specifically, parents tend to be warmer and more involved with their children and less strict and imposing over the generations. A cross-generational pattern of increasing parental warmth was found. Parents in the second generation and the third generation use affection more and indifference less than in the first generation, and parents show the greatest use of reasoning in the first generation, the lowest in the third generation, and an intermediate amount in the second generation. By contrast, a cross-generational pattern of decreasing parental strictness was found. Parents in the first generation tend to use the revoking privileges strategy less than in the second generation and the third generation, and parents also show the greatest use of verbal scolding and physical punishment in the first generation, the lowest in the third generation, and an intermediate amount in the second generation. The findings of this study confirmed the cross-generational effects of parenting found by Olsen and colleagues (1999) [ 43 ] with a single global measure for warmth and strictness, but extending the evidence to seven specific parental practices rather than a single measure for each main dimension.

Another crucial finding of the present study is that, beyond the cross-generational differences in parental practices, those adult children who were raised by indulgent parents (warmth but not strictness) reported equal or even higher psychosocial adjustment than their peers from authoritative households, whereas those raised in neglectful and authoritarian homes were consistently associated with the poorest psychosocial adjustment. Overall, on multidimensional self-concept, parenting characterized by warmth (i.e., indulgent and authoritative) is related to better results than non-warm parenting (i.e., authoritarian and neglectful), although only indulgent parenting is consistently related to the highest self-concept. Furthermore, adult children from the second generation who characterized their parents as indulgent reported more family and social self-concept than their peers from authoritative families. Similarly, warm parenting styles (i.e., indulgent and authoritative) were positively related to multidimensional well-being in the life satisfaction and happiness domains, whereas non-warm parenting (i.e., indulgent and authoritative) offered poor benefits in terms of well-being.

On the other hand, findings from the present study indicate that the indulgent parenting style (i.e., warmth but not strictness) is an optimal strategy to foster psychosocial adjustment in children in the European cultural context, thus confirming evidence from previous studies conducted in European and South American countries, while extending it to three family generations of Spanish children and other developmental outcomes such as life-satisfaction. Children with indulgent parents obtained equal or even better adjustment and competence than those from authoritative families (warmth but not strictness) on several criteria such as self-concept [ 26 , 28 ], psychosocial maturity [ 1 ], internalization of values [ 50 ], protection against bullying and cyberbullying [ 96 ], psychological adjustment [ 49 ], child-to-parent violence [ 97 ], social and environmental values [ 98 , 99 ], protection against alcohol [ 95 , 100 ] and other drugs [ 101 , 102 , 103 ], school and sport achievement and academic adjustment [ 104 , 105 , 106 ].

Nevertheless, findings from the present study do not agree with some evidence from other cultural contexts where parental strictness is a necessary component of parental socialization in order to obtain children with good psychosocial adjustment. In middle-class European-American families, strictness is a necessary component of parental socialization, combined with parental warmth (i.e., authoritative parenting). For example, children with indulgent parents have greater academic self-conceptions and report less somatic distress (in the same way as their peers from authoritative homes), but they fail in their school orientation and indicate school misconduct (in contrast with children from authoritative households) [ 55 , 63 ]. In the same way, strict parenting is also necessary, even without parental warmth (i.e., authoritarian parenting), in families of ethnic minorities in the United States [ 16 , 18 ] or Arabic countries [ 23 , 25 ]. According to the present results examining three generations of Spanish families, the parental strictness component not only seems to be unnecessary, but it could also be negative for psychosocial adjustment because children from indulgent homes have equal or even greater self-conceptions and well-being than those from authoritative families.

Another crucial finding from the present study is that our results do not agree with the idea that cross-generational differences in the use of parental practices from one generation to another change the way these practices influence the children’s psychosocial adjustment (e.g., if physical punishment is more common or normative during a generation, it will not have negative influences, whereas if this parenting practice is no longer used, it will be likely to have negative impact on another generation). For example, parents in the first generation use the greatest strictness and imposition (including practices such as physical punishment and revoking privileges) and the poorest warmth and involvement (including less use of affection and reasoning, and greater use of indifference). However, despite the greater strictness and lower warmth in children from the first generation, and to a lesser extent in the second generation compared to the third generation, even children from the first generation raised in authoritarian families showed poorer psychosocial functioning. The authoritarian parenting style is consistently related to the lowest self-concept and well-being, regardless of the generation.

The long-term impact of parental socialization on the psychosocial adjustment of adult children confirms some previous research, but also extends the evidence to family generations using the same theoretical framework with four parenting styles [ 1 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ]. For instance, prospective evidence from the MRC National Survey of Health and Development revealed a long-term impact of the childhood environment on the mental wellbeing at 60–64 years old [ 47 ], and childhood adversities and the home atmosphere were associated with adjustment in old age based on the Helsinki birth cohort study [ 107 ]. In the same line, parental warmth was associated with coping and well-being in adulthood using three waves of longitudinal data across 20 years from the national survey of Midlife Development in the United States [ 108 ]. A prospective longitudinal design revealed that the effects of parenting practices, both positive and negative, persisted well into mid-adulthood [ 109 ], and psychological outcomes in middle adulthood were linked to the mother’s child-rearing attitudes in early childhood, based on longitudinal evidence from the British Cohort Study (BCS70) [ 110 ].

In addition, results of this study agree with some previous studies about differences between demographic variables and psychosocial adjustment. Overall, older adults reported lower academic/professional and physical self-concept than young and middle-aged adults [ 1 ] but older adults also tended to have greater well-being (e.g., life-satisfaction and happiness) than young adults [ 111 , 112 ]. Females usually report greater family self-concept, but less emotional self-concept, than males [ 73 , 75 ].

The present findings should be interpreted with caution. We cannot exclude either causal relations between variables or third-variable explanations, although the sample is relatively similar in demographic traits, making third-variable accounts less likely. Conclusions about the present findings should be considered preliminary due to the absence of longitudinal or experimental data. Parents’ behavior was obtained through children’s reports instead of parents’ reports, although similar results were found with different methods of data collection. The present study offers interesting evidence about the variations in parental practices characterized by warmth and strictness across family generations, also considering the relationship between parenting styles and psychosocial adjustment. The present study examines parenting in middle-class families, so future studies should test the impact of parenting in other socioeconomic settings. Additionally, future studies should continue to examine cross-generational differences in parental socializations and their impact on children’s adjustment

5. Conclusions

The present work also addressed main gaps in previous findings examining the linkage between parenting across generations and its impact on psychosocial adjustment. Most of the previous studies have focused on non-normative families, examining strict parental practices such as physical, emotional, and even sexual abuse [ 39 ]. However, less is known about the cross-generational differences in strict parental practices such as physical punishment, which, applied in the general emotional context of normative families (i.e., authoritarian parenting style), is quite different from other forms of harsh discipline such as physical abuse [ 113 , 114 ] (for a review, see Baumrind, Larzelere, and Cowan, 2002 [ 115 ]). The present findings, using a contextual [ 7 ] and situational [ 116 ] approach to capture parenting, revealed different patterns across generations in the parental practices of warmth (with an increasing tendency) and strictness (with a decreasing tendency). In contrast with some previous research, our study provides evidence by using a parenting styles framework that captures overall long-term parenting characteristics that integrate and organize the specific parenting practices of warmth and strictness. Furthermore, the impact of parenting was examined using the same psychosocial adjustment outcomes (self-concept and well-being) and seven indicators. The results confirm previous evidence about the link between parenting styles and long-term psychosocial adjustment outcomes, extending evidence to children raised by Spanish parents from three different family generations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.F.G., M.C.F., E.G., E.S. and F.G.; Data curation, O.F.G., E.G., E.S. and F.G.; Formal analysis, O.F.G., M.C.F., E.G., E.S. and F.G.; Funding acquisition, O.F.G.; Investigation, O.F.G., M.C.F., E.G., E.S. and F.G.; Methodology, O.F.G., M.C.F., E.G., E.S. and F.G.; Project administration, O.F.G. and M.C.F.; Resources, O.F.G., M.C.F., E.G., E.S. and F.G.; Software, O.F.G., M.C.F., E.G., E.S. and F.G.; Supervision, E.G., E.S. and F.G.; Validation, O.F.G., M.C.F., E.G., E.S. and F.G.; Visualization, O.F.G., M.C.F., E.G., E.S. and F.G.; Writing–original draft O.F.G., M.C.F., E.G., E.S. and F.G.; Writing–review & editing, O.F.G., M.C.F., E.G., E.S. and F.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

The research reported in this study has been partially supported by Grants ACIF/2016/431 and BEFPI/2017/058, which provided funding for a research stay at the Nottingham Trent University, UK (Valencian Regional Government, and European Social Fund), and FPU16/00988 (Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, Government of Spain).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Systematic review of the differences between mothers and fathers in parenting styles and practices

• Published: 23 August 2020
• Volume 42 , pages 16011–16024, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Yosi Yaffe   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3342-8842 1 , 2  

12k Accesses

65 Citations

136 Altmetric

16 Mentions

Explore all metrics

Parenting is a broad construct that comprises stable and durable attitudes and behaviors regarding child-rearing. Since mothers and fathers play different roles in the family, parenting styles and practices in childhood and adolescence may differ depending on the parents’ and adolescents’ gender. While gender differences in parenting are theoretically warranted, the research literature in this field is considerably limited and lacking conclusive information dealing with this question. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to aggregate and synthesize the available research studies containing significant findings on the differences between mothers and fathers in parenting styles and practices. For that purpose, we conducted a systematic search of the PsycInfo, Scopus, Eric, and Web of Science databases, covering literature published from 1990 to 2020. The search was restricted to peer-reviewed studies in English alone. Our findings reveal that mothers as compared to fathers are perceived as more accepting, responsive, and supportive, as well as more behaviorally controlling, demanding, and autonomy granting than fathers. Accordingly, in the studies comparing parents on the constructs of overall parenting styles, mothers were predominantly more authoritative than fathers, and fathers were mostly more authoritarian than mothers (based on both parent and descendant reports). These parental differences established by research from over 15 countries around the globe seem to apply similarly for male and female descendants, while principally not varying by their age.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Parent, child, and situational factors associated with parenting stress: a systematic review

Yuan Fang, Jie Luo, … Hein Raat

Focus on Fathers: Exploring the parenting experiences of fathers using a large population-level sample

Catherine M. Wade, Jan Matthews, … Warren G. Cann

Supporting Fathering: a Systematic Review of Parenting Programs that Promote Father Involvement

Ligia de Santis, Thaís Ramos de Carvalho, … Elizabeth Joan Barham

Abubakar, A., de Vijver, F. J. R., Suryani, A. O., Handayani, P., Pandia, W. S., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Suryani, A. O., Handayani, P., & Pandia, W. S. (2015). Perceptions of parenting styles and their associations with mental health and life satisfaction among urban indonesian adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24 (9), 2680–2692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-0070-x .

Article   Google Scholar  

Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67 (6), 3296–3319.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

Baumrind, D. (1968). Authoritarian vs. authoritative parental control. Adolescence , 3 (11), 255.

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

Baumrind, D. (2012). Differentiating between confrontive and coercive kinds of parental power-assertive disciplinary practices. Human Development, 55 (2), 35–51.

Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., & Lansford, J. E. (2011). Parenting attributions and attitudes in cross-cultural perspective. Parenting-Science and Practice, 11 (2–3, SI), 214–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2011.585568 .

Branscum, P., & Housely, A. (2018). Differences in how mothers and fathers monitor sugar-sweetened beverages for their young children (7-12 years). Health Education & Behavior, 45 (2), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198117732111 .

Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57 (1), 110–119.

Campbell, J., & Gilmore, L. (2007). Intergenerational continuities and discontinuities in parenting styles. Australian Journal of Psychology, 59 (3), 140–150.

Collins, W. A., & Russell, G. (1991). Mother-child and father-child relationships in middle childhood and adolescence: A developmental analysis. Developmental Review, 11 (2), 99–136.

Conrade, G., & Ho, R. (2001). Differential parenting styles for fathers and mothers: Differential treatment for sons and daughters. Australian Journal of Psychology, 53 (1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530108255119 .

Crouter, A. C., McHale, S. M., & Bartko, W. T. (1993). Gender as an organizing feature in parent-child relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 49 (3), 161–174.

Dallaire, D. H., & Weinraub, M. (2005). The stability of parenting behaviors over the first 6 years of life. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20 (2), 201–219.

Davidov, M., & Khoury-Kassabri, M. (2013). Recollections of harsh discipline in childhood and depressive feelings in adulthood: The roles of culture and gender. Children and Youth Services Review, 35 (6), 1007–1014.

del Milagro Aymerich, M., Musitu, G., & Palmero, F. (2018). Family socialisation styles and hostility in the adolescent population. Sustainability, 10 (9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10092962 .

Dufur, M. J., Howell, N. C., Downey, D. B., Ainsworth, J. W., & Lapray, A. J. (2010). Sex differences in parenting behaviors in single-mother and single-father households. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72 (5), 1092–1106.

Dwairy, M., & Menshar, K. E. (2006). Parenting style, individuation, and mental health of Egyptian adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 29 (1), 103–117.

Forehand, R., & Nousiainen, S. (1993). Maternal and paternal parenting: Critical dimensions in adolescent functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 7 (2), 213.

Gamble, W. C., Ramakumar, S., & Diaz, A. (2007). Maternal and paternal similarities and differences in parenting: An examination of Mexican-American parents of young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22 (1), 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.11.004 .

Gámez-Guadix, M., & Almendros, C. (2015). Parental discipline in Spain and in the United States: Differences by country, parent-child gender and education level. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 38 (3), 569–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2015.1054665 .

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gryczkowski, M. R., Jordan, S. S., & Mercer, S. H. (2010). Differential relations between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting practices and child externalizing behavior. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19 (5), 539–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-009-9326-2 .

Hill, N. E. (1995). The relationship between family environment and parenting style: A preliminary study of African American families. Journal of Black Psychology, 21 (4), 408–423.

Huang, C. Y., Hsieh, Y. P., Shen, A. C. T., Wei, H. S., Feng, J. Y., Hwa, H. L., & Feng, J. Y. (2019). Relationships between parent-reported parenting, child-perceived parenting, and children’s mental health in Taiwanese children. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16 (6), 1049.

Hosley, C. A., & Montemayor, R. (1997). Fathers and adolescents. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 162–178). New York: Wiley.

Google Scholar  

Jaureguizar, J., Bernaras, E., Bully, P., & Garaigordobil, M. (2018). Perceived parenting and adolescents’ adjustment. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 31 (1), 8.

Kachel, S., Steffens, M. C., & Niedlich, C. (2016). Traditional masculinity and femininity: Validation of a new scale assessing gender roles. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 , 956.

Kim, K., & Rohner, R. P. (2002). Parental warmth, control, and involvement in schooling: Predicting academic achievement among Korean American adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33 (2), 127–140.

Lai, K. W., & McBride-Chang, C. (2001). Suicidal ideation, parenting style, and family climate among Hong Kong adolescents. International Journal of Psychology, 36 (2), 81–87.

Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62 (5), 1049–1065.

Ma, J., Han, Y., Grogan-Kaylor, A., Delva, J., & Castillo, M. (2012). Corporal punishment and youth externalizing behavior in Santiago, Chile. Child Abuse and Neglect, 36 , 481–490.

Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28 , 1006–1017.

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. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1–101). New York, NY: Wiley.

Mastrotheodoros, S., Van der Graaff, J., Deković, M., Meeus, W. H., & Branje, S. J. (2019). Coming closer in adolescence: Convergence in mother, father, and adolescent reports of parenting. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29 (4), 846–862. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12417 .

McKinney, C., & Renk, K. (2008). Differential parenting between mothers and fathers: Implications for late adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 29 (6), 806–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X07311222 .

Miranda, M. C., Affuso, G., Esposito, C., & Bacchini, D. (2016). Parental acceptance–rejection and adolescent maladjustment: Mothers’ and fathers’ combined roles. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25 (4), 1352–1362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0305-5 .

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151 (4), 264–269.

Newland, L. A., Chen, H.-H. H.-H., Coyl-Shepherd, D. D., Liang, Y.-C., Carr, E. R., Dykstra, E., & Gapp, S. C. (2013). Parent and child perspectives on mothering and fathering: The influence of ecocultural niches. Early Child Development and Care, 183 (3–4), 534–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2012.711598 .

Pakaluk, C. R., & Price, J. (2020). Are mothers and fathers interchangeable caregivers? Marriage & Family Review, 56 (8), 784–793.

Paulson, S. E., & Sputa, C. L. (1996). Patterns of parenting during adolescence: Perceptions of adolescents and parents. Adolescence, 31 (122), 369–381.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Pinquart, M., & Kauser, R. (2018). Do the associations of parenting styles with behavior problems and academic achievement vary by culture? Results from a meta-analysis. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24 (1), 75–100.

Pratt, M., Hoffmann, D., Taylor, M., & Musher-Eizenman, D. (2019). Structure, coercive control, and autonomy promotion: A comparison of fathers’ and mothers’ food parenting strategies. Journal of Health Psychology, 24 (13), 1863–1877. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105317707257 .

Pychyl, T. A., Coplan, R. J., & Reid, P. A. (2002). Parenting and procrastination: Gender differences in the relations between procrastination, parenting style and self-worth in early adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 33 (2), 271–285.

Quach, A. S., Epstein, N. B., Riley, P. J., Falconier, M. K., & Fang, X. (2015). Effects of parental warmth and academic pressure on anxiety and depression symptoms in Chinese adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24 (1), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9818-y .

Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Frost Olsen, S., & Hart, C. H. (1995). Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting practices: Development of a new measure. Psychological Reports, 77, 819–830.

Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (2001). The parenting styles and dimensions questionnaire. In B. F. Perlmutter, J. Touliatos, & G. W. Holden (Eds.), Handbook of family measurement techniques: Vol. 3. Instruments & index (pp. 319–321). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rohner, R. P. (1990). Handbook for the study of parental acceptance and rejection . Storrs, CT: Rohner Research.

Roman, N. V., Makwakwa, T., & Lacante, M. (2016). Perceptions of parenting styles in South Africa: The effects of gender and ethnicity. Cogent Psychology, 3 . https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1153231 .

Russell, A., Aloa, V., Feder, T., Glover, A., Miller, H., & Palmer, G. (1998). Sex-based differences in parenting styles in a sample with preschool children. Australian Journal of Psychology, 50 (2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049539808257539 .

Russell, A., Hart, C., Robinson, C., & Olsen, S. (2003). Children’s sociable and aggressive behaviour with peers: A comparison of the US and Australia, and contributions of temperament and parenting styles. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27 (1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250244000038 .

Russell, A., & Saebel, J. (1997). Mother–son, mother–daughter, father–son, and father–daughter: Are they distinct relationships? Developmental Review, 17 (2), 111–147.

Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children’s reports of parental behavior: An Inventory. Child Development, 36 ,(2) 413–424.

Schludermann, E., & Schludermann, S. (1970). Replicability of factors in children’s report of parent behavior (CRPBI). The Journal of Psychology, 76 (2), 239–249.

Shek, D. T. L. (1998). Adolescents’ perceptions of paternal and maternal parenting styles in a Chinese context. Journal of Psychology, 132 (5), 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989809599285 .

Shek, D. T. L. (1995). Chinese adolescnets perceptions of parenting styles of fathers and mothers. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 156 (2), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1995.9914815 .

Shek, D. T. L., Lee, T. Y. Y., & Chan, L. K. K. (1998). Perceptions of parenting styles and parent-adolescent conflict in adolescents with low academic achievement in Hong Kong. Social Behavior and Personality, 26 (1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1998.26.1.89 .

Siegal, M. (1987). Are sons and daughters treated more differently by fathers than by mothers? Devefopmenral Review, 7 , 183–209.

Simons, L. G., & Conger, R. D. (2007). Linking mother-father differences in parenting to a typology of family parenting styles and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Family Issues, 28 (2), 212–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X06294593 .

Smetana, J. G. (1995). Parenting styles and conceptions of parental authority during adolescence. Child Development, 66 (2), 299–316.

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

Sorkhabi, N., & 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. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23 (7), 1227–1241.

Steinberg, L. (1990). Authoritative parenting and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches.

Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60 , 1424–1436.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63 (5), 1266–1281.

Tavassolie, T., Dudding, S., Madigan, A. L., Thorvardarson, E., & Winsler, A. (2016). Differences in perceived parenting style between mothers and fathers: Implications for child outcomes and marital conflict. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25 (6), 2055–2068.

Winsler, A., Madigan, A. L., & Aquilino, S. A. (2005). Correspondence between maternal and paternal parenting styles in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2005.01.007 .

Xu, X., Ni, S., Ran, M., & Zhang, C. (2017). The relationship between parenting styles and adolescents’ social anxiety in migrant families: A study in Guangdong, China. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 , 626. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00626 .

Yaffe, Y. (2017). Development and validation of a new parental authority instrument (PAI). North American Journal of Psychology, 19 (1).

Yaffe, Y. (2018). Establishing specific links between parenting styles and the s-anxieties in children: Separation, social, and school. Journal of Family Issues, 39 (5), 1419–1437.

Yaffe, Y. (2020a). Comparing Bedouin and Jewish parents’ parenting styles and practices. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25 (1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1577283 .

Yaffe, Y. (2020b). Parental authority: A contemporary integrative-theoretical conceptualization. In N. Roman (Ed.), A closer look at parenting styles and practices (pp. 73–96). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc..

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, Ohalo Academic College, Katzrin, Israel

Department of Education, Tel-Hai Academic College, Qiryat Shemona, Israel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yosi Yaffe .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests.

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Yaffe, Y. Systematic review of the differences between mothers and fathers in parenting styles and practices. Curr Psychol 42 , 16011–16024 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01014-6

Download citation

Published : 23 August 2020

Issue Date : July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01014-6

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

• Parenting styles
• Adolescents
• Differences
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Driven by China, Coal Plants Made a Comeback in 2023

The country, along with India, is still building power stations that run on coal. Elsewhere, retirements of older plants have slowed.

By Max Bearak

Global capacity to generate power from coal, one of the most polluting fossil fuels, grew in 2023, driven by a wave of new plants coming online in China that coincided with a slowing pace of retirements of older plants in the United States and Europe.

The findings came in an annual report by Global Energy Monitor , a nonprofit organization that tracks energy projects around the world.

Coal’s heavy greenhouse gas footprint has prompted calls for it to be rapidly phased out as a source of energy, and all of the world’s countries have broadly agreed to reduce their dependence on coal. But industrializing economies, particularly in Asian countries with inexpensive access to domestic coal reserves, have set longer horizons for their transitions.

China alone accounted for two-thirds of the world’s newly operating coal plants last year. Indonesia, India, Vietnam, Japan, Bangladesh, Pakistan and South Korea also inaugurated new plants, which typically operate for two to three decades.

A New Surge in Power Use Is Threatening U.S. Climate Goals

A boom in data centers and factories is straining electric grids and propping up fossil fuels.

One silver lining is that new coal plants are generally less polluting than older ones, but scientists, climate researchers and activists agree that moving away from not just coal, but all fossil fuels, has to happen as soon as possible to avoid the most dire consequences of global warming.

“Right now, coal’s future is a two-part story: What do we do about currently operating coal plants, and then, how do we make sure the last coal plant that will ever exist is one that’s already built,” said Flora Champenois, one of the authors of the report. “If it weren’t for the China boom, that’s pretty much where we’d already be.”

China, and, to a lesser extent, India, are still planning to build coal plants many years from now. In 2023, new coal plant construction hit an eight-year high in China. If China were to build all the others it has proposed, it would add the equivalent of one-third of its current operating fleet.

Today, China accounts for around 60 percent of the world’s coal use, followed by India and then the United States. India relies most intensively on coal, with 80 percent of its electricity generation derived from it.

The flip side of the growth in coal is a slowdown in plant retirements in Western economies. Fewer were decommissioned in 2023 than in any year for the past decade. Phasing out all operating coal plants by 2040 would require closing an average of about two coal plants per week.

Analysts said the slowdown in 2023 may have been temporary, as the United States, Britain and European Union countries have set various targets to close all their existing coal plants well before 2040. The International Energy Agency’s modeling suggests that, to align with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius over preindustrial levels, rich countries should phase out coal by 2030 and it should be eliminated everywhere else by 2040.

“We had said that 2024 was the year coal would peak,” said Carlos Torres Diaz, a senior vice president at Rystad Energy. “But right now, I would say it’s not clear we’ll hit that. We’re near it, in any case.”

Western countries relied on coal for well over a century, which is why, in no small part, they account for the majority of historical greenhouse gas emissions.

In an attempt to balance financial responsibility for the energy transition, richer countries have pooled tens of billions of dollars in loans to some coal-reliant developing countries like Indonesia, Vietnam and South Africa to help them build out renewable energy so as to transition more quickly away from coal. For now, however, much of that money remains undisbursed as stakeholders iron out disagreements.

For many developing countries, coal has one major advantage: It’s cheap. It’s price has also proved less volatile than oil and gas, the other major fossil fuels used in electricity production.

Bangladesh, for instance, had been building up its gas capacity. But fluctuations in price and availability, stemming largely from shocks related to the war in Ukraine, have prompted a rethink and a reinvestment in coal.

The same dynamic is, to some extent, true in China, analysts said. The pandemic’s toll on China’s economy has made its utilities more likely to opt for the cheapest fuel: coal.

China also leads the world in renewable energy expansion. That growth far outpaces coal’s growth, and in some cases is tied to it. China’s government says that much of the coal it uses or plans to use would serve as a fallback for times when renewable production dips and the grid requires more energy.

“While the data isn’t totally clear from China, it is possible that while there may be more coal plants there could also be lower utilization of them,” Mr. Diaz said. “But when it comes to coal, given that China is such an overwhelming part, whatever happens there really defines the global trend.”

An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the last time the group found coal capacity to have grown. Coal capacity outside China grew in 2019, not coal capacity everywhere.

How we handle corrections

Max Bearak is a Times reporter who writes about global energy and climate policies and new approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. More about Max Bearak

Learn More About Climate Change

Have questions about climate change? Our F.A.Q. will tackle your climate questions, big and small .

“Buying Time,” a new series from The New York Times, looks at the risky ways  humans are starting to manipulate nature  to fight climate change.

Big brands like Procter & Gamble and Nestlé say a new generation of recycling plants will help them meet environmental goals, but the technology is struggling to deliver .

The Italian energy giant Eni sees future profits from collecting carbon dioxide and pumping it  into natural gas fields that have been exhausted.

New satellite-based research reveals how land along the East Coast is slumping into the ocean, compounding the danger from global sea level rise . A major culprit: the overpumping of groundwater.

Did you know the ♻ symbol doesn’t mean something is actually recyclable ? Read on about how we got here, and what can be done.