Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Children
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Vasiou, A.; Kassis, W.;
Krasanaki, A.; Aksoy, D.; Favre, C.A.;
Tantaros, S. Exploring Parenting
Styles Patterns and Children’s
Socio-Emotional Skills. Children 2023,
10, 1126. https://doi.org/10.3390/
children10071126
Academic Editor: Brian Littlechild
Received: 29 May 2023
Revised: 9 June 2023
Accepted: 27 June 2023
Published: 29 June 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
children
Article
Exploring Parenting Styles Patterns and Children’s
Socio-Emotional Skills
Aikaterini Vasiou 1, * , Wassilis Kassis 2, Anastasia Krasanaki 3, Dilan Aksoy 2, Céline Anne Favre 2
and Spyridon Tantaros 4
1Department of Primary Education, University of Crete, 74100 Rethymno, Greece
2Department of Research & Development, School of Education, University of Applied Sciences and Arts
Northwestern Switzerland, 5210 Windisch, Switzerland; wassilis.kassis@fhnw.ch (W.K.);
dilan.aksoy@fhnw.ch (D.A.); celineanne.favre@fhnw.ch (C.A.F.)
3School of Humanities, Hellenic Open University, 26335 Patras, Greece; akrasanaki@hotmail.com
4Department of Psychology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15784 Athens, Greece;
sgtan@psych.uoa.gr
*Correspondence: avasiou@uoc.gr
Abstract:
In this study, we adopted parenting styles as a multidimensional and latent construct that
includes different aspects of parenting, rather than solely focusing on a single parenting style. In a
Web-based survey with 1203 Greek parents, we identified parenting styles and their SDQ reports
on their children. According to our results by Latent Profile Analysis, we must use a more complex
approach concerning parenting styles. We identified a “Highly Authoritative style” profile with high
levels of authoritative, low levels of authoritarian and middle levels of permissive parenting styles.
We additionally identified a profile called “Relaxed Authoritative style”, with still high but lower
levels of authoritative style, low but slightly heightened levels of authoritarian style, and middle
levels of permissive style. A further profile, named “Permissive Focused Authoritative style”, had a
mix of high levels of authoritative, moderate levels of permissive, and elevated levels of authoritarian
parenting styles. Finally, in a profile named “Inconsistent Parenting style”, we identified parents with
a blend of still high, but the lowest of all four levels of authoritative and highest levels of permissive
and authoritarian parenting styles. When combining the four identified parenting patterns with the
SDQ results, we identified the “highly authoritative parenting style” profile to be the least connected
to internalizing or externalizing problems of the respective children.
Keywords:
parenting styles; SDQ; latent profile analysis; externalizing behavior problems; internalizing
behavior problems; prosocial behavior; socio-emotional development
1. Introduction
Bronfenbrenner’s socioecological framework [
1
], understanding development as a
social process, as a result of the interaction between people and their environment, sug-
gests that, among the proximal (microsystem) socialization agents, parents play the most
pivotal role in children’s development [
2
]. As such, researchers have conducted numerous
empirical investigations which focused on isolating the contribution of parenting styles
to children’s and adolescents’ behavior, such as externalizing and internalizing problems
and prosocial behavior [
3
–
5
]. Nevertheless, most studies have adopted variable-centric
perspectives to explore the overall strength of associations between the examined variables
in a larger population. Additionally, this approach primarily used single parenting styles,
such as authoritarian, permissive, or authoritative, to understand the effects of particular
parental behavior. This led to the understanding that parents apply a specific and charac-
teristic style. Nevertheless, the use of analytical techniques, such as latent profile analysis,
focused on people characteristics, often intervenes with the possibility of developing a
fully realized understanding of the predictors and outcomes of within-subject variation
Children 2023,10, 1126. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10071126 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/children
Children 2023,10, 1126 2 of 20
in parenting styles [
6
–
8
]. Consequently, the present study is conducted to identify unique
parenting style profiles and considers parenting styles as a multidimensional and latent
construct that includes different aspects of parenting, not just a single one. Using latent
profile analysis and exploring the possible relationship between the identified profiles
and children’s and adolescents’ externalizing and internalizing problems and prosocial
behavior, we attempt to develop a more complex and adequate picture of parenting styles
and their effects on children’s behavior.
1.1. Parenting Styles
Parenting style is a collection of parents’ attitudes, behaviors, and emotions [
9
]. There-
fore, we can conceptualize parenting styles as representing general types of child-rearing
that characterize parents’ typical strategies and responses [
10
]. In particular, parental behav-
ior is established in four specific behavioral dimensions: control, maturity demands, clarity
of communication, and nurturance [
11
–
14
]. Baumrind [
15
,
16
], resulting from a blending of
these dimensions and not from any single one of them, identified three primary parenting
styles: Authoritarian (high levels of control and maturity demands, and low levels of
nurturance and clarity of communication), Permissive (high levels of nurturance and clarity
of communication, and low levels of control and maturity demand) and Authoritative
(control, nurturance, clarity of communication, and maturity demands).
The behavior of authoritarian parents, which is not characterized by parental respon-
siveness and emotional availability, but by parental control, leads to limiting the indepen-
dence of the children, valuing blind obedience, as well as adopting aggressive one-way
communication [
17
–
19
]. In contrast to the authoritarian parenting style, permissive parents
encourage responsiveness in the absence of parental control and maturity requirements
as well as clear, consistent discipline and communication [
17
,
19
,
20
]. Permissive parenting
style includes loose or contradictory discipline, indifference to the child’s disobedience,
and lack of confidence regarding the parental role [
18
]. Permissive parents rarely punish,
encourage independence, and offer unconditional support to their children [
17
,
19
]. On
the other hand, authoritative parents emphasize responsiveness and control. They avoid,
however, interacting with their children by being intrusive, criticizing, scolding, and threat-
ening, as authoritarian parents are wont to do [
17
,
21
]. In addition, they try to understand
the needs of their children. They behave warmly, lovingly, and dialogically. They also
provide guidance and direction through suggestions, explanations, and argumentation.
In addition, they set developmentally appropriate expectations while demonstrating re-
ceptivity and flexibility by offering children opportunities to practice independence and
autonomy [17,22,23].
1.2. Children’s Behavior Problems
Empirically formulated classifications of child behavior have distinguished social-
emotional and behavior problems as externalizing and internalizing [
24
]. Externalizing
problem behaviors are considered aggressive and dysfunctional conducts aimed at others,
while internalizing problem behaviors refer to negative emotions and moods such as
depression, anxiety, and guilt [
25
–
27
]. Both aspects of dysfunction are related to impaired
academic, social, and emotional development in children, such as the risk of several poor
outcomes, including poor peer relationships, underachievement at school, poor personal
adjustment, and poor mental health [28–30].
In detail, externalizing problems include the most common childhood disorder, atten-
tion deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), in which a wide range of cognitive, interper-
sonal, social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties exist. Its main characteristics are aggres-
sion and disobedience, while other Disruptive Behavioral Disorders often
coexist [31–34]
.
In addition, externalizing problems include conduct problems and behavioral disorders,
in which the child comes into conflict with the environment, such as aggression, violence,
reactivity, disobedience, drug use, and delinquency, problems which are observed when
there is a lack of parental support [
18
,
35
–
37
]. Parental supervision, parental care, and
Children 2023,10, 1126 3 of 20
normative parental expectations constitute the three dimensions of parenting that are
systematically related to multiple behavioral problems in children and adolescents [
38
].
Research found associations between extreme types of control (harsh parenting, physical
punishment, psychological control, overprotection, overactive parenting) or lack of con-
trol and supervision, and a strong presence of externalizing problems, such as conduct
problems [
33
,
39
]. It is further considered that ineffective parenting (corporal punishment,
inconsistency, poor supervision, and low involvement) and specific personal characteristics,
such as sentimentality, also lead to externalizing problems [
40
]. Especially for girls, the lack
of parental support is an essential factor in developing behavioral problems [
41
]. Moreover,
the manifestation of externalizing problems leads to peer victimization and vice versa [
42
].
Conversely, problems related to depression, anxiety, shyness, irritability, withdrawal,
low self-esteem, poor physical health, negative relationships with peers and emotional
problems are recognized as internalizing problems [
18
,
36
,
37
,
43
], which possibly stem
from early experiences of rejection [
23
]. Regarding peer relationships, research shows
that children without close friends have internalizing problems, while peer rejection and
victimization are associated with internalizing and externalizing problems [
44
]. The lack
of parental supervision regarding their friends is associated with internalizing problems
in girls. In contrast, the lack of parental supervision during free time is associated with
internalizing problems for both sexes [43].
1.3. Children’s Prosocial Behavior
Prosocial behavior is the critical component in development that contributes to posi-
tive children’s and adolescents’ development and thriving [
45
]. Recent decades’ research
has shown associations between prosocial behavior and social, emotional, and psycho-
logical benefits in children and adolescents, including better relationships with peers and
adults [
46
–
50
], optimal functioning in terms of well-being [
51
], academic success [
47
,
52
–
56
],
and positive mental health [57,58].
Prosocial behavior refers to all voluntary behaviors aimed to benefit others [
57
]. They
are positive social acts that promote the well-being of others and self-motivated behaviors
that benefit others, demonstrating the existence of social conscience [
22
,
58
–
60
]. Some
manifestations of positive social behavior can be caring, comforting, sharing, cooperating,
volunteering, donating, and offering physical or emotional help to others [
58
–
61
]. The
demonstration of prosocial behavior by children and adolescents, however, is influenced
by factors such as parents, peers, school, teachers, and culture [22,62].
1.4. Parenting Styles and Children’s Behavior
For many years, parenting style’s role in children’s and adolescents’ problem behavior
was the main focus of research [
63
,
64
]. In particular, studies have examined the role of
parenting styles in internalizing and externalizing problem behavior [
65
], both during
childhood [
66
,
67
] and adolescence [
68
,
69
]. Prior studies also proposed that parenting
styles are associated with adolescents’ prosocial behavior [
70
,
71
]. Specifically, warm and
supportive parenting reinforces self-regulatory abilities, strengthens prosocial behavior
and moral values, and enhances adolescents’ acceptance of others’ needs [72,73].
Regarding the influence of parental factors on children’s social behavior, it is consid-
ered that the mother–child relationship and parenting practices play an important role
in children’s overall development and the development of externalizing and internaliz-
ing problems specifically, regardless of gender, during early adolescence [
74
,
75
]. Some
research suggests that parental support may predict a reduction in adolescent anxiety and
depression in addition to preventing future depressive behavior [
76
,
77
], whereas parental
support also appears to influence the development of prosocial behavior in children and
adolescents [78,79].
Regarding the authoritative parenting style, its high responsiveness and demanding-
ness have been scientifically associated with fewer behavioral problems [
36
]. In particular,
authoritative parents promote the development of social and academic skills during child-
Children 2023,10, 1126 4 of 20
hood and adolescence [
80
]. The authoritative parenting style also has associations with less
disobedience, reduced tendency to internalize problems and dangerous behaviors, high
ability to regulate behavior, increased self-perception for acceptance by peers, and better
adjustment [
23
,
36
–
38
,
80
,
81
]. Moreover, the authoritative parenting style continues to have
a positive effect on children’s development from childhood until later adulthood [
36
,
79
]. Fi-
nally, an authoritative parenting style helps children become more compassionate, helpful,
and kind to other people [79].
Conversely, due to their high responsiveness and low demandingness, permissive
parents do not seek control and authority over their children, guide them to regulate their
behavior, and let them decide for themselves [
36
]. Thus, children of permissive parents
learn to be passive and unresponsive in their interactions with others, developing anti-
social behavior. As a result, they become dependent and present low levels of cognitive
development and self-control, as well as low self-concept for acceptance by peers, espe-
cially in girls [
36
,
80
]. In addition, a permissive parenting style positively correlates with
externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems and delinquency [36].
Concerning the authoritarian parenting style, which is characterized by low respon-
siveness and high demandingness, it is significantly positively correlated with reduced
ability to regulate behavior, reduced self-esteem and self-confidence, low social skills, ad-
justment difficulties, depression, delinquency, externalizing and internalizing problems,
aggression in boys and hyperactivity in girls, as well as problems in interactions with
peers [
23
,
36
,
80
,
81
]. Thus, authoritarianism and corporal punishment, especially during
childhood, can lead to suicide, depression in adulthood, or problems in the later stages
of the child’s life [
36
]. Furthermore, regardless of the intramarital conflicts in the fam-
ily, socioeconomic level, and children’s temperament, harsh punitive discipline predicts
child aggression at school [
82
]. However, a ten-year longitudinal study [
83
] showed no
relationship between early parental punitiveness and subsequent aggression. Further-
more, Moore and Eisenberg [
84
] found no negative relationship between authoritarian
parenting style and children’s positive social development. Finally, according to research,
psychologically controlling parenting has detrimental effects on the psychosocial devel-
opment of adolescents, increasing the risk of externalizing and internalizing behavioral
problems [85,86].
1.5. Recent Studies on Parenting Styles Using a Person-Centered Approach
The importance of exploring naturally occurring patterns of parenting styles is in-
creasingly recognized by recent empirical studies. These studies use a person-centered
approach, which permits researchers to include multiple parenting types and expand their
understanding of the determinants and outcomes of parenting styles. For example, Car-
penter and Mendez [
87
] examined longitudinal parenting profile differences in children’s
behavioral adjustment by measuring aggression and hyperactive behavior of preschool
children twice during the academic year. In their study, Bowers et al. [
6
], based on latent
profiles of youth-reported parenting styles, examined the effect of parenting profiles in
promoting positive youth development [
6
]. Kim et al. also used latent profile analyses in
a three-wave longitudinal study lasting eight years, from early adolescence to emerging
adulthood, to identify parenting profiles in Chinese American families and explore their
consequences on adolescent adjustment [
7
], while Zhang et al. examined subtypes and their
stability, and changes in Chinese maternal parenting style during early adolescence [
88
].
Grounded in Self-Determination Theory, multigroup latent profile analyses showed that
the high monitoring–high autonomy support profile yielded the most optimal outcomes on
adolescent adjustment, while the low monitoring–high psychological control profile yielded
the worst [
89
]. More recently, Teuber et al. used longitudinal person-oriented perspec-
tives to examine the stability and possible changes in autonomy-related parenting profiles
and to further explore their consequences on adolescents’ academic and psychological
functioning [8].
Children 2023,10, 1126 5 of 20
1.6. The Current Study
In the current study, to investigate children’s and adolescents’ behavior, we used the
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) [
90
], which is globally the most widely used
tool for assessing children’s social, emotional, and behavioral problems and has also been
translated into over 60 languages [
91
]. The parent version of the scale has interestingly
indicated good psychometric properties: validity evidence based on internal structure
(i.e., internal consistency), test–retest reliability of the scores, and inter-rater agreement
on the scores [
92
]. In addition, recent findings from nationally representative data from
the United Kingdom (UK) demonstrated that parent SDQ ratings show measurement
invariance across the broad developmental period from preschool to adolescence [
93
,
94
].
Supportive evidence for measurement invariance of the parent version of the SDQ have
also been provided across informants [
95
,
96
], community and clinical samples [
89
], gender
and age of the child [
97
] and parent education level [
98
]. Specifically, we chose the three-
factor model, which makes a broader distinction between prosocial, internalizing, and
externalizing behaviors and indicated the best-fitting model in a sample of parents with
4- to 17-years
old children in the US [
99
]. Recent results [
100
] reveal that the parent-version
of the SDQ was a suitable tool for use and comparison across different contexts during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
In addition, to explore how the dimensions of control, maturity demands, clarity
of communication, and nurturance are combined with different parenting profiles, we
examined how specific parenting profiles are related to children’s and adolescents’ behavior
problems and prosocial behavior, expanding previous research in this area [
6
,
7
,
88
]. A review
of the existing literature indicates a lack of research that follows a person-centered approach
to examine the effects of parenting styles on children’s and adolescents’ behavioral problems
and prosocial behavior. Therefore, the current study was designed to address this gap
by stiving to isolate unique parental profiles using latent profile analysis. We used the
Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ) [
101
–
103
] which is known as one
of the few psychometrically robust scales measuring parenting practices [
104
] and has also
been used in multiple different cultural groups [
105
]. This choice is justified by the idea that
parents can engage in practices that align with any parenting style at different moments to
different degrees [106].
Based on prior research using person-centered analytic approaches, we hypothesize
that we will identify distinct parental profiles using latent profile analysis (H1). Aiming
to define the predictive utility of the identified parental profiles, we also hypothesize that
types of parenting profiles will display statistically significant differences in children’s
and adolescents’ externalizing/internalizing behavior problems and prosocial behavior
(H2). Finally, attempting to isolate personal and demographic characteristics that predict
parental profiles, we expected that demographic factors such as parents age [
107
,
108
]
and education [
109
,
110
] would be associated with children’s and adolescents’ external-
izing/internalizing behavior problems and prosocial behavior profile membership (H3)
and expected that younger and more educated parents would be more authoritative and
less authoritarian.
2. Materials and Methods
The study is a web-based survey conducted in Greece via the Internet, in the frame-
work of the third author’s master thesis, which was approved by the Hellenic Open
University. Participants were recruited to voluntarily fill in an electronic form question-
naire created on Google Forms and posted in parent groups on social media by the same
author. To achieve a sufficient response rate [
111
], the questionnaire was distributed mul-
tiple times for a period of 1 month; November until December 2019. Participants were
instructed through a debrief describing the objective of the study and the confidential
nature of their participation. In addition, to remove potential biases, the form elaborated
on issues of protection of privacy and ethics and provided contact details for the third
author. Participants were asked to confirm that they had read the form and were willing
Children 2023,10, 1126 6 of 20
to participate in the study. Upon receipt of this confirmation, they were directed to the
measures described below. Participants were asked to respond to all the answers and
informed that participation would be anonymous. Participation duration was 15 min.
One of the reasons for choosing this kind of survey is the nature of the characteristics of
population support, as groups are frequently established in which personal experiences are
shared [
112
]. This research method was selected to ensure a diverse group of participants
with varying levels of education, social status, and age. Online surveys were chosen for
their convenience in reaching potential respondents who may be spread out over a large
geographic area [113].
1203 parents participated in the study; 90.9% were women, while 9.1% were men. A
total of 54% were 41–50 years old, 34.8% were 31–40, 9% were 51–60, 2% were
20–30
, and
0.2% were over 60 years old. Regarding marital status, 88% were married, 8% were divorced,
1.4% were cohabiting, 1.3% were unmarried, 0.9% were widowed, and
0.4% were separated
.
Regarding their educational level, 41.8% were University or Applied sciences graduates,
28.4% PhD or master’s degree holders, 16.9% were general or vocational high school
graduates, 9.9% were vocational training graduates, 2% were high school or technical
school graduates, and 1% students. In terms of their occupational status, 83.3% were
employed, and 16.7% were unemployed. Regarding their children’s gender, 47.8% were
female. Finally, in regard to their children’ s age, the children were 6–12 (61.3%) and
13–18 (38.7%)
. By the DETECTANOMALY-procedure in SPSS (IBM, 2021), an option for
detecting anomalies, we identified two cases out of 1205, which had to be removed because
of their high anomaly index (case 933 = 9.70, respectively, for case 987 = 13.20) regarding the
three parenting styles. Due to this, the analyses were performed with N = 1203 participants.
3. Measures
3.1. Parenting Styles
The Greek version of the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ)
by Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, and Hart [
101
–
103
] was used, adapted to the Greek pop-
ulation by Maridaki-Kassotaki [
102
]. It is a self-administered questionnaire, grounded
in Baumrind’s model of parental types based on two dimensions of parental behavior:
responsiveness and demandingness [
103
]. It explores the parent–child relationship, com-
munication, and parenting methods, distinguishing parents into three dominant parental
types: the authoritative, the authoritarian, and the permissive types [
102
]. The sub-scale
“authoritative parenting style” includes 12 statements (e.g., I understand my child’s feel-
ings), the sub-scale “authoritarian parenting style” includes four statements (e.g., I use
punishment as a means of discipline), and the sub-scale “permissive parenting style” in-
cludes three statements (e.g., I think it is hard to teach my child to discipline). All parenting
scales had the same response format: 1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, and 4 = always.
Finally, regarding the internal consistency of the three parenting scales, Cronbach’s
α
was
good for the authoritative type at 0.82, for the permissive type 0.75, and just satisfactory for
the authoritarian type at 0.68.
3.2. Children’s and Adolescents’ Behavior
The parents’ version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) [
90
] was
completed by participants, created to assess children’s and adolescents’ behavioral and
emotional problems in their everyday life. Specifically, the Greek version of the Strengths
and Difficulties Questionnaire—SDQ [
90
] was used and completed by parents of children
and adolescents. The questionnaire has been adapted to the Greek population by Bibou-
Nakou et al. [
114
]. It includes 25 statements and three answers (not true, somewhat true,
and true). The main scale (of 25 statements) is made up of five sub-scales with five items
each: 1. Hyperactivity/attention deficit (e.g., (S)He is restless and hyperactive, cannot
remain calm, still for long periods of time), 2. Conduct disorder (e.g., (S)He often has
tantrums or is irritable), 3. Relationships with peers (e.g., (S)He is rather lonely, tends to
play alone), 4. Emotional disorders (e.g., (S)He often complains of headaches, stomach
Children 2023,10, 1126 7 of 20
aches, or feeling sick) and 5. Positive social behavior with five items (e.g., (S)He takes
into account the feelings of others). The subscales “Hyperactivity/attention deficit” and
“Conduct disorder” make up the SDQ-dimension “Externalizing problems”. In contrast,
the subscales “Relationships with peers” and “Emotional disorders” make up the SDQ-
dimension “Internalizing problems”. The positive social behavior scale makes the SDQ-
dimension “prosocial behavior”. As for internal consistency, Cronbach’s
α
was suitable for
all three SDQ-dimensions: for the positive social behavior, 0.70; for externalizing problems,
0.76 and for internalizing problems, 0.71.
We performed the multinomial computations of banding scores, enabling us to identify
non-clinical or “at risk/clinical” cases. To achieve this, we followed the same criteria
employed by Goodman in the original version of the SDQ [
90
], supported by empirical
research on the detection and prevalence of mental health issues [
24
,
115
]. Based on the fact
that approximately 10% of children and adolescents exhibit some form of mental health
problem, and another 10% have a borderline problem, we designated threshold values as
follows: scores above the 80th percentile fall into the “at risk/clinical = 1” range, scores,
and scores below the 80th percentile fall into the “non-clinical = 0” category [
90
,
116
,
117
].
This categorization was applied to all subscales except for Prosocial behavior, where scores
equal to or below the 20th percentile was considered “at risk/clinical = 1” and scores below
the 20th percentile were considered “non-clinical = 0”.
3.3. Covariates
Parents Education: To assess parents’ education level, we asked for the following six
educational levels: University or Applied sciences graduates, PhD, or master’s degree
holders, general or vocational high school graduates, vocational training graduates, high
school or technical school graduates, and students.
Parents Age: Parents’ age was assessed by five categories: 20–30 years, 31–40 years,
41–50 years, 51–60 years, and over 60 years old.
4. Results
4.1. Analytic Strategy
The statistical analysis for this study was conducted in four steps: in step one, sociode-
mographic differences in the applied measures were examined using t-tests. In step two,
because we regrouped the items to the scales, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis
to test construct validity. In step three, parents’ parenting style patterns were identified
by computing latent profile analyses (LPA) using three classification variables. In step
four, we ran a multinomial regression analysis of the identified parenting style patterns
related to SDQ to understand children and adolescents’ social behavior. For the conducted
confirmatory factor analysis and the LPA, we used Mplus version 8.9 [
118
]. For the t-test
and multinomial regression, SPSS 28 was used.
4.1.1. Results Analytic Step One: Sociodemographic Differences of All Measures
and Intercorrelations
We ran t-tests (see Table 1) to analyze for mean differences in the SDQ dimensions
and parenting styles by age group of the respective children and adolescents. Referring
first to the three introduced SDQ dimensions, we identified only small but still significant
effects (displayed Cohen’s d is low) between children and adolescents, with children having
higher externalizing problems. When comparing the levels of the three parenting styles,
we identified significantly higher levels for younger children than older children for both
authoritarian and permissive parenting styles.
Children 2023,10, 1126 8 of 20
Table 1.
Sample Mean Levels (and Standard Deviations) of the SDQ-Dimensions and Parenting Styles
by Age Group of the Respective Child.
Variables Range 6–12 Years Old (n= 431)
M (SD)
>12–18 Years Old (n= 364)
M (SD) Cohen’s d
Internalizing problems (SDQ) 0–15 3.02 (2.85) 3.06 (2.67) -
Externalizing problems (SDQ) 0–18 4.89 (3.26) 4.35 (2.99) ** 0.17
Prosocial behavior (SDQ) 0–10 8.09 (1.81) 8.17 (1.74) -
Authoritarian parenting style 1–4 1.19 (0.33) 1.13 (0.25) *** 0.20
Permissive parenting style 1–4 2.13 (0.62) 2.06 (0.62) * 0.12
Authoritative parenting style 1–4 3.46 (0.37) 3.49 (0.34) -
Note. * = p< 0.05, ** = p< 0.01, *** = p< 0.001. between younger and older children.
When looking at the connections between the SDQ dimensions and the parenting
styles that were found (as shown in Table 2), there were low to moderate intercorrelations,
which means there was no issue with multicollinearity.
Table 2. Intercorrelations of the SDQ-Dimensions and Parenting Styles.
Correlations
Internalizing
Problems
(SDQ)
Externalizing
Problems
(SDQ)
Prosocial
Behavior
(SDQ)
Authoritarian
Parenting
Style
Permissive
Parenting
Style
Authoritative
Parenting
Style
Internalizing
problems (SDQ)
-
Externalizing
problems (SDQ)
0.41 *** -
Prosocial
behavior (SDQ)
−0.24 *** −0.35 *** -
Authoritarian
parenting style 0.22 *** 0.31 *** −0.16 *** -
Permissive
parenting style 0.18 *** 0.31 *** −0.15 *** 0.28 *** -
Authoritative
parenting style
−0.16 *** −0.30 *** 0.35 *** −0.38 *** −0.19 *** -
Note. *** = p< 0.001.
4.1.2. Results Analytic Step Two: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for Testing
Construct Validity
To test for construct validity and to verify the factor structure we performed a con-
firmatory factor analysis. CFA allows testing of the assumption that a hypothesized
relationship between observed variables and their underlying latent constructs exists.
The RMSEA, TLI, and CFI are deemed particularly important for accurately estimating
CFAs [
119
]. Following Marsh et al. [
120
], we established the benchmark for a satisfactory
model fit as RMSEA values below 0.08, coupled with CFI and TLI values above 0.90 and
SRMR values
below 0.08
, indicating a strong fit for the model. The fit indices obtained
from the confirmatory factor analysis applied were sufficient for the three parenting style
scales, as evidenced by the following: (
χ2
(149) = 453.384, p< 0.001; RMSEA = 0.041 [90%
CI = 0.037–0.046
];
SRMR = 0.028
CFI = 0.923; TLI = 0.912), as for the five SDQ-parents sub-
scales (
χ2(231) = 587.411
,
p< 0.001
; RMSEA = 0.036 [90% CI = 0.032–0.039];
SRMR = 0.042
CFI = 0.926; TLI = 0.903). This confirms the construct validity for each scale of the study.
4.1.3. Analysis Step Three: Identifying Parenting Style Patterns by Latent Profile
Analysis (LPA)
We utilized three indicators, namely authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative
parenting style, to group parents into distinct parenting style classes through the statistical
application of Latent Profile Analysis (LPA). This allowed us to examine patterns of latent
parenting styles, which encompassed multiple indicators and their interrelationships within
Children 2023,10, 1126 9 of 20
the parenting style classes. By employing LPA as a comprehensive method, our objective
was to assess the continuity of parenting style levels. The primary goal of this study was
to use LPA to examine the proposed conceptualization of parenting styles, considering
three aspects of parenting within an overarching latent structure, and to empirically classify
latent variables into subgroups based on similar observations.
The models used in this study were non-nested. To determine the best model, different
criteria were applied [
121
], including the entropy value, as well as information criteria
such as the Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and
Sample-Adjusted BIC (ABIC). The smaller values indicate a better fit [
122
]. Entropy was also
considered, with values above 0.7 deemed sufficient to indicate certainty in the estimation,
but with models of entropy of 1.0 being overidentified [
123
,
124
]. The final latent profile
analysis (LPA) model was chosen based on various statistical indicators and theoretical
considerations. Additionally, model fit criteria such as the Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin
Likelihood Ration test (LMR-LRT), the Lo-Mendell-Rubin Adjusted Likelihood Ratio test
(aLMR-LRT), and the Bootstrapped Likelihood Ratio test (BLRT) were used for the LPA. A
significant p-value indicated an improvement to the previous model with k
−
1 profiles.
The ultimate model for an LPA, which determines the number of profiles, is selected based
on a combination of statistical measures and pre-existing theoretical frameworks and the
rule of the most parsimonious solution [
125
], which means that the interpretability and the
additional information provided by a more complex solution has to be established. There
are currently no established guidelines for determining the appropriate size of profiles [
121
].
Following Nylund [
124
], we are arguing against having profile sizes with less than 50 cases
or these profiles being less than 5% of the total sample.
The analysis was conducted for a range of two to six latent patterns. Statistical tests of
model fit can be found in Table 3. A model consisting of four profiles was selected, as it had
a lower aBIC score than a profile 3 solution, and the entropy was higher. For the comparison
between the profile 3 the profile 4 solutions, we additionally applied model fit criteria with
significant p-values for profile 3 over the profile two solutions, indicating an improvement
to the previous model, but non-significant p-values on LMR-LRT and aLMR-LRT when
comparing profile 3 and profile 4 but with still significant p-values on the BLRT, indicating
an improvement for the profile 4 to the profile three models. When comparing the profile 4
to the 5 or 6 profile solution, we noticed several criteria decreasing. In comparison to the
profile 4 solutions, we detected for profile 5 (aBIC Delta to
profile 4 = 777
) and 6 (aBIC Delta
to profile 5 = 948) solutions a significant drop in aBIC differences, and for both solutions
an Entropy of 1.0, which suggested weak evidence [
126
] and an overidentification of the
model [127], leading us favoring the profile 4 solution.
Table 3. Model Fit Indices for Latent Profile Analysis on Parenting Styles, N = 1203.
AIC BIC ABIC Entropy
LMR LR
Test
p-Values
ALMR
LR Test
p-Value
Sample Proportion
Per Profile (n; %)
Classification
Accuracy
Blt
p-Value
2-Profiles 3012 3063 3032 0.933 >0.05 >0.05 (138; 11.4%)
(1065; 88.5%) >0.921 <0.001
3-Profiles 2494 2566 2521 0.979 <0.001 <0.001 (949; 83.0) (151; 12.5)
(53; 4.4) >0.993 <0.001
4-Profiles 2174 2265 2208 0.995 >0.05 >0.05 (803; 66.7) (197; 16.3)
(53; 4.4) (150; 12.4) >0.996 <0.01
5-Profiles 1397 1509 1439 1.00 >0.05 >0.05
(197; 16.3) (103; 8.5)
(71; 5.9) (803; 66.7)
(18; 2.3)
1.00 <0.001
6-Profiles 449 581 498 1.00 >0.05 >0.05
(49; 3.9) (197; 16.3) (103;
8.5) (803; 66.7) (44; 3.6)
(9; 0.7)
1.00 <0.001
Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; ABIC = Sample-size adjusted
BIC; LMR LR = Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test; ALMR LR = Lo-Mendell-Rubin Adjusted LRT
Test; BLRT = Bootstrap likelihood ratio test.
Children 2023,10, 1126 10 of 20
For the 5 (one profile with n= 18 participants, 2.3% of the sample) and 6 profile (one
profile with n= 49, 3.9% of the sample; one profile with n= 44, 3.6% of the sample; one
profile with n= 9, 0.7% of the sample), solutions had far too small sample
sizes [124,128]
.
Additionally, for both the 5 and 6 profile solutions, the new profiles did not offer new
theoretical insights. but merely split already existing small profiles. Based on the above-
mentioned criteria and the principle of favoring more restricted and simple models, the
profile 4 solutions were ultimately chosen. Along with empirical measures, the selection
of the profile 4 solutions was also influenced by its interpretability and alignment with
existing theoretical frameworks.
By the three introduced parenting styles and the consecutive tests on a different
number of profiles (two to six profiles), we identified the four-profile solution as the best
fitting. Regarding the distribution of the four profiles (see Figure 1), we identified a profile
(profile 1, 66.6% of the participants) called Highly Authoritative style (HA) with high
levels of authoritative, the lowest levels of authoritarian and middle levels of permissive
parenting styles. We additionally identified a profile called Relaxed Authoritative style
(RA) (
profile 2
, 16.3% of the participants) with still high but lower levels of authoritative
style than in
profile 1
, low but elevated levels of authoritarian style, and middle levels
of permissive style. Profile 4 (12.4% of the participants), named Permissive Focused
Authoritative style (PFA), had a mix of the second highest levels of authoritative and
middle levels of permissive and slightly higher levels of authoritarian parenting styles.
Finally, in profile 3 (4.4% of the participants), named Inconsistent Parenting style (IP),
we identified parents with a blend of higher levels of authoritative and middle levels
of permissive and authoritarian parenting levels. From the solution chosen, we could
detect that parenting styles are a complex mix and multidimensional latent construct
encompassing authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive styles, rather than a distinct
single parenting style as commonly assumed.
Children 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20
Figure 1. Diagrammatic Representation of the four identified parenting style profiles by LPA.
4.1.4. Analysis Step Four: Multinomial Regression Analysis on the Identified Parenting
Patterns Related to the Three SDQ Dimensions to Understand the Social Behavior of the
Respective Children
For the three SDQ dimensions (internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and
prosocial behavior), we identified significantly lower levels of problems when comparing
the “highly authoritative style” profile to the other three parenting profiles (see Table 4).
This was especially the case when comparing the “highly authoritative style” profile to
the “permissive focused authoritative style” or the “inconsistent parenting style” profile.
No significant differences were identified (see Table 4) when comparing the levels of
prosocial behavior of the four parenting profiles. In summary, we identified the “highly
authoritative parenting style” profile to be the least connected to internalizing or
externalizing problems of the respective children when studying the answers by their
parents.
Table 4. Multinomial logistic regression of SDQ-dimensions in the four LPA profiles.
LCA Wave 2 Profile Predictor B SE Wald
Statistic p OR
Prediction in % Pseudo-R
2
Cox &
Snell Nagelkerke Mac-
Fadden
Permissive focused
authoritative style Intercept −0.88 0.18 23.73 <0.001 3.1 3.7 1.6
SDQ-Internalizing −0.99 0.21 22.62 <0.001 0.37
Inconsistent
Parenting style Intercept −1.60 0.24 44.72 <0.001
SDQ-Internalizing −1.48 0.30 24.49 <0.001 0.23
Relaxed
Authoritative style Intercept −1.03 0.19 29.15 <0.001
SDQ-Internalizing −0.44 0.21 4.39 <0.01 0.64
Permissive focused
authoritative style Intercept −0.74 0.18 17.15 <0.001 6.1 7.2 3.3
SDQ-Externalizing −1.19 0.21 33.16 <0.001 0.31
Inconsistent
Parenting style Intercept −1.18 0.21 32.19 <0.001
SDQ-Externalizing −2.24 0.30 56.68 <0.001 0.11
Figure 1. Diagrammatic Representation of the four identified parenting style profiles by LPA.
We analyzed if there were differences in the patterns concerning parental educa-
tion and parents’ age to control for any effects caused by these two covariates by using
multinomial-regression analysis. Neither for education (Wald chi2(12) = 9.830, p= 0.631)
nor for age (Wald chi2(6) = 6.091, p= 0.413) have significant effects been identified.
Children 2023,10, 1126 11 of 20
4.1.4. Analysis Step Four: Multinomial Regression Analysis on the Identified Parenting
Patterns Related to the Three SDQ Dimensions to Understand the Social Behavior of the
Respective Children
For the three SDQ dimensions (internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and
prosocial behavior), we identified significantly lower levels of problems when comparing
the “highly authoritative style” profile to the other three parenting profiles (see Table 4).
This was especially the case when comparing the “highly authoritative style” profile to the
“permissive focused authoritative style” or the “inconsistent parenting style” profile. No
significant differences were identified (see Table 4) when comparing the levels of prosocial
behavior of the four parenting profiles. In summary, we identified the “highly authoritative
parenting style” profile to be the least connected to internalizing or externalizing problems
of the respective children when studying the answers by their parents.
Table 4. Multinomial logistic regression of SDQ-dimensions in the four LPA profiles.
LCA Wave 2
Profile Predictor BSE Wald
Statistic pOR
Prediction in % Pseudo-R2
Cox &
Snell Nagelkerke Mac-Fadden
Permissive
focused
authoritative
style
Intercept −0.88 0.18 23.73 <0.001 3.1 3.7 1.6
SDQ-
Internalizing
−0.99 0.21 22.62 <0.001 0.37
Inconsistent
Parenting
style
Intercept −1.60 0.24 44.72 <0.001
SDQ-
Internalizing
−1.48 0.30 24.49 <0.001 0.23
Relaxed
Authoritative
style
Intercept −1.03 0.19 29.15 <0.001
SDQ-
Internalizing
−0.44 0.21 4.39 <0.01 0.64
Permissive
focused
authoritative
style
Intercept −0.74 0.18 17.15 <0.001 6.1 7.2 3.3
SDQ-
Externalizing
−1.19 0.21 33.16 <0.001 0.31
Inconsistent
Parenting
style
Intercept −1.18 0.21 32.19 <0.001
SDQ-
Externalizing
−2.24 0.30 56.68 <0.001 0.11
Relaxed
Authoritative
style
Intercept −0.87 0.19 21.95 <0.001
SDQ-
Externalizing
−0.64 0.21 9.56 <0.01 0.53
Permissive
focused
authoritative
style
Intercept −1.13 0.18 39.62 <0.001 1.1 1.3 0.6
SDQ-
Prosocial
behavior
−0.69 0.21 11.23 <0.001 0.50
Children 2023,10, 1126 12 of 20
Table 4. Cont.
LCA Wave 2
Profile Predictor BSE Wald
Statistic pOR
Prediction in % Pseudo-R2
Cox &
Snell Nagelkerke Mac-Fadden
Inconsistent
Parenting
style
Intercept −2.28 0.29 61.26 <0.001
SDQ-
Prosocial
behavior
−0.55 0.33 2.70 >0.05 0.58
Relaxed
Authoritative
style
Intercept −1.11 0.18 38.64 <0.001
SDQ-
Prosocial
behavior
−0.37 0.20 3.39 >0.05 0.69
Note: S.E. = Standard Error; OR = Odds Ratio. Reference LPA profile is the profile we called “Highly Authoritative
style”. For all three SDQ-dimensions: (0 normal; 1 at risk/clinical).
5. Discussion
Given the lack of studies that capture parenting styles as a heterogeneous construct
and therefore solely focus on the individual and the well-known parenting styles, i.e., au-
thoritative, authoritarian, and permissive, we pursued the research question as to whether
there are distinct parenting style profiles. We conceptualized parenting style as a multidi-
mensional and latent construct encompassing diverse aspects of parenting rather than a
single one. We, therefore, defined parenting style as a collection, a mix of parents’ attitudes,
behaviors, and emotions [9].
By using latent profile analysis and examining the association between the identified
profiles and adolescents’ externalizing and internalizing behavior problems and prosocial
behavior, our study is able to confirm the relevance of presenting the different parenting
dimensions in a more complex and appropriate picture of parenting profiles and their in-
fluence on adolescents’ socio-emotional skills. Person-centered approaches extend beyond
commonly used methods for establishing these parenting styles or profiles, such as the
scale-mean or median-split methods, which can be problematic when dealing with multiple
dimensions [129].
The present study adopted a person-oriented method to overcome these limitations
and address the complex interplay of multiple dimensions. This approach allowed, follow-
ing Hypotheses 1, identification of distinct parental profiles using latent profile analysis, for
an adequate representation of the combinations of parenting styles. Interestingly, previous
studies using person-centered approaches have revealed different combinations of parent-
ing styles but have not confirmed distinct forms of permissive parenting profiles [
88
,
110
]
or authoritarian profiles [
130
,
131
]. Our results supported these findings by considering par-
enting styles as a multidimensional construct rather than mere forms of distinct parenting
styles. These findings build on previous research and demonstrate how person-oriented
methods can provide insights that are difficult to achieve with variable-oriented tech-
niques. Detecting the latent profiles used in this study to identify parenting styles would
be challenging, if not impossible, to confirm using traditional variable-oriented analyses.
Confirming Hypothesis 1, we found four distinct profiles regarding a mix of all three
parenting styles. We could not identify a parenting style that was uniquely focused on au-
thoritarian, authoritative, or permissive styles, demonstrating that parenting styles should
be captured as a multidimensional, latent concept. Interestingly, all four patterns were
very high in the authoritative style, suggesting that some form of responsiveness and
control characterizes all profiles. This finding is in line with other studies [
87
], which also
found several parenting profiles consisted of authoritative (i.e., adaptive) parenting prac-
tices. Additionally, in our research, most parents had middle levels of authoritarian style
Children 2023,10, 1126 13 of 20
(
i.e., negative
features). Specifically, three out of four profiles showed some authoritarian
parenting style combined with authoritative and permissive styles. This means that a third
of the children and adolescents do experience intrusive, critical, scolding, and threatening
behaviors common to authoritarian parents [
17
,
22
,
23
], in addition to some levels of warm,
loving, and dialogical behaviors [17,21], as well as loose or contradictory discipline [18].
Notably, analyses of the latent profile frequencies indicated that most parents in our
sample perceived their practices as exhibiting a relatively positive parenting style/profile.
Given that the concept of equifinality (i.e., different early experiences in life) is helpful for
interpreting how parenting styles are associated with adaptive or maladaptive behavioral
outcomes over time [
87
], the results of the current study extend the research on multiple
manifestations of adaptive parenting by Greek parents of children and adolescents. We
found it surprising that the permissive style was present to a moderate degree in all four
profiles. This means that, although permissiveness alone is negative for socio-emotional de-
velopment in children and adolescents, our results demonstrate that it was not determinant
for profile affiliation in combination with high authoritative and low authoritarian styles.
Confirming Hypothesis 2, the present study demonstrated that the socio-emotional
development in childhood and adolescence is strongly linked to the parenting style ex-
perienced. Children and adolescents with parents with primarily authoritative parenting
styles, characterized by high levels of behavioral control and support and lower levels
of psychological control, show a positive developmental status. In contrast, adolescents
with affective controlling parents manifest problems in externalizing and internalizing
behavior. This aligns with the existing empirical evidence, which consistently shows that
the authoritative parenting style is positive for adaptive socio-emotional development,
while the others are not [
132
–
134
]. These findings propose that children and adolescents
have fewer behavioral problems [
36
] and a reduced tendency to internalize problems and
dangerous behaviors [80,81].
Although the majority of parenting programs aimed at parents have focused on im-
proving communication with their children, there are limited studies addressing parenting
strategies [
6
–
8
]. Thus, we assume that parents may need more support in coping with
their children’s behavioral problems and improving their parenting abilities to decrease the
problem behavior. By identifying different patterns of parenting styles, it becomes clear that
not all parents have the same needs. Interventions can be tailored to parents’ individual
needs and challenges based on their specific profile patterns. This is important because, if
parents can learn to create a positive and supportive environment for their children, they
can reduce the risk of externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems, especially as
parent–child conflict starts early in a child’s life and is very stable over time [
31
]. Thus, we
adopt Teuber’s et al. [
8
] suggestion that the person-oriented results pointed out that it is
useful to reinforce parents with guidance on positive parenting skills through parenting
programs that focus on adaptive parenting practices, and direct the several maladaptive
effects of different forms of dysfunctional practices. Contrary to our expectations regarding
prosocial behavior, no significant differences were identified when comparing the levels of
prosocial behavior of the four parenting profiles, supposing that our findings are inconsis-
tent with prior findings that indicated that parenting dimensions are related to adolescents’
prosocial behavior [
70
,
71
]. Considering that we used SDQ parent reports regarding their
children’s prosocial behavior, our study examined prosocial behavior as a global construct,
ignoring differentiation between the subtypes of this behavior (e.g., altruistic, compliant,
emotional, and public) [57], as well as between the motivations underlying it.
While our research on Hypotheses 3 challenges the assumption that parents’ age
and education are strong determinants of parenting patterns [
108
–
110
], it is essential to
note that the existing literature suggests some weak associations. Therefore, it is crucial
to interpret our findings with caution. Nonetheless, our study underscores the need for
further investigation into the multifaceted factors that influence parenting behaviors and
the potential role of intervention programs, such as the newly developed profiles, in
shaping these behaviors.
Children 2023,10, 1126 14 of 20
The implications of our findings on Hypothesis 3 are twofold. Firstly, it is suggested
that other factors not considered in our research may have a more substantial impact on
parenting patterns. It is possible that aspects such as cultural influences, personal values,
or individual experiences may play a more significant role in shaping how parents interact
with their children. Secondly, the reduced effects of parents’ age and education observed in
our study could be attributed to the effectiveness of the newly developed profiles. These
profiles might have facilitated a greater homogenization of parenting practices, potentially
minimizing the impact of individual characteristics, such as age and education.
6. Limitations
Even if the insights gained by the chosen analytic design clearly expand the previ-
ous knowledge on parenting styles, there are a few limitations. As patterns of parental
styles are not traits but states, we needed, instead of the chosen cross-sectional approach,
a full longitudinal design. In future research, a latent transition analysis (LTA) should be
applied to indicate significant differences in the longitudinal classification of the identi-
fied parenting patterns. LTA, the longitudinal extension of LCA, is a statistical tool that
models possible parenting style pattern transitions over time. Especially. the findings
regarding the “highly authoritative parenting style” as the least connected to children’s
internalizing or externalizing problems should be approached with caution. There may
be other confounding factors not considered in the analysis that could influence these
associations, such as autonomy support and controlling parenting [
135
,
136
] or child–parent
communication [
137
]. We also used parents’ self-perceptions of their parenting styles.
Including the children’s perceptions of the respective parenting styles would have been
interesting. Given that relations with parents play a distinct role in children’s development,
the respective qualities of the relationship between parents and children are significant
predictors of children’s academic, personal, and social development [138].
In addition, as our sample only included participants from a specific cultural context
(Greek parents), the generalization of the findings to other countries and cultural con-
texts is rather limited. Furthermore, the sample restrictions and our specific sampling
approach via the Internet can be considered another study limitation, even if our sample
was large enough to be considered stable against minor deviations. Nevertheless, Mann
and Stewart [
139
] noticed the risk of losing sight of who responds to online questionnaires.
For example, about 90% of mothers answered our questionnaire. Although these surveys
do not represent the total population of internet users, non-probability samples can be
valuable, as they may be representative of a subgroup of the total population [
113
]. Another
limitation is that marital status did not indicate if the parents were single mothers or fathers.
In a future study, we could ask for this additional information, because it may matter to the
chosen parenting styles [
5
]. We also did not ask for family income or migration status, both
conditions that can also affect parenting styles [91,140].
7. Conclusions
To sum up, our results succeeded in extending parental types beyond the traditional
authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative styles. The current study brings to light the
person-centered approach in which parenting styles are better expanded into four parenting
profiles, with the authoritative style predominating. Given the importance of the finding
that one-third of children and adolescents exhibit behavior problems, the socio-emotional
development in childhood and adolescence reaffirms the necessity of parenting programs
to guide parenting practices.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, A.V. and W.K.; methodology, A.V., W.K. and A.K.; formal
analysis, W.K.; data collection, A.K.; original draft preparation, A.V. and W.K.; writing—review and
editing, A.V., W.K., A.K., D.A., C.A.F. and S.T.; funding acquisition, W.K. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Children 2023,10, 1126 15 of 20
Funding:
This research was supported by The Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) through the
SNF-Project 100019_185481 “Understanding the resilience pathways of adolescent students with expe-
rience of physical family violence: The interplay of individual, family and school class risk and protec-
tive factors”, awarded to WK (University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland).
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki and did not have to be approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hellenic Open University
because of the sample (participants’ age) and the topic.
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in
the study.
Data Availability Statement:
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made
available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Bronfenbrenner, U.; Morris, P.A. The Bioecological Model of Human Development. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Theoretical
Models of Human Development, 6th ed.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; Volume 1, pp. 793–828.
2.
Pastorelli, C.; Lansford, J.E.; Kanacri, B.P.L.; Malone, P.S.; Di Giunta, L.; Bacchini, D.; Bombi, A.S.; Zelli, A.; Miranda, M.C.;
Bornstein, M.H.; et al. Positive parenting and children’s prosocial behavior in eight countries. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry
2016
,
57, 824–834. [CrossRef]
3.
Gryczkowski, M.; Jordan, S.S.; Mercer, S.H. Moderators of the relations between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting practices and
children’s prosocial behavior. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 2018,49, 409–419. [CrossRef]
4.
Lan, X. Perceived parenting styles, cognitive flexibility, and prosocial behavior in Chinese Youth with an immigrant background:
A three-group comparison. Curr. Psychol. 2022, 1–19. [CrossRef]
5. Marcone, R.; Affuso, G.; Borrone, A. Parenting styles and children’s internalizing-externalizing behavior: The mediating role of
behavioral regulation. Curr. Psychol. 2020,39, 13–24. [CrossRef]
6.
Bowers, E.P.; Johnson, S.K.; Buckingham, M.H.; Gasca, S.; Warren, D.J.A.; Lerner, J.V.; Lerner, R.M. Important nonparental adults
and positive youth development across mid- to late-adolescence: The moderating effect of parenting profiles. J. Youth Adolesc.
2014,43, 897–918. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Kim, S.Y.; Wang, Y.; Orozco-Lapray, D.; Shen, Y.; Murtuza, M. Does “tiger parenting” exist? Parenting profiles of Chinese
Americans and adolescent developmental outcomes. Asian Am. J. Psychol. 2013,4, 7–18. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8.
Teuber, Z.; Tang, X.; Sielemann, L.; Otterpohl, N.; Wild, E. Autonomy-related Parenting Profiles and their Effects on Adolescents’
Academic and Psychological Development: A Longitudinal Person-oriented Analysis. J. Youth Adolesc.
2022
,51, 1333–1353.
[CrossRef]
9. Darling, N.; Steinberg, L. Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychol. Bull. 1993,113, 487. [CrossRef]
10.
Coplan, R.J.; Hastings, P.D.; Lagacé-Séguin, D.G.; Moulton, C.E. Authoritative and authoritarian mothers’ parenting goals,
attributions, and emotions across different childrearing contexts. Parenting 2002,2, 1–26. [CrossRef]
11. Baumrind, D. Current patterns of parental authority. Dev. Psychol. Monogr. 1971,4, 1–103. [CrossRef]
12. Baumrind, D. Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth Soc. 1978,9, 239–276. [CrossRef]
13.
Baumrind, D. Rearing competent children. In Child Development Today and Tomorrow; Damon, W., Ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco,
CA, USA, 1989; pp. 349–378.
14. Baumrind, D. Necessary distinctions. Psychol. Inq. 1997,8, 176–229. [CrossRef]
15. Baumrind, D. Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Dev. 1966,37, 887–907. [CrossRef]
16. Baumrind, D. Authoritarian vs. authoritative parental control. Adolescence 1968,3, 255.
17.
Aloia, L.S.; Warren, R. Quality parent–child relationships: The role of parenting style and online relational maintenance behaviors.
Commun. Rep. 2019,32, 43–56. [CrossRef]
18.
Williams, L.R.; Degnan, K.A.; Perez-Edgar, K.E.; Henderson, H.A.; Rubin, K.H.; Pine, D.S.; Steinberg, L.; Fox, N.A. Impact of
behavioral inhibition and parenting style on internalizing and externalizing problems from early childhood through adolescence.
J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2009,37, 1063–1075. [CrossRef]
19.
Yaffe, Y. Convergent validity and reliability of the hebrew version of the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ)
in hebrew-speaking Israeli-Arab families. Interpersona 2018,12, 133–144. [CrossRef]
20.
Clark, C.M.; Dahlen, E.R.; Nicholson, B.C. The role of parenting in relational aggression and prosocial behavior among emerging
adults. J. Aggress. Maltreatment Trauma 2015,24, 185–202. [CrossRef]
21.
Liu, M.; Guo, F. Parenting practices and their relevance to child behaviors in Canada and China. Scand. J. Psychol.
2010
,
51, 109–114. [CrossRef]
22.
Arifiyanti, N. Relationship between authoritative parenting style and preschools prosocial behavior. J. Obs. J. Pendidik. Anak Usia
Dini 2019,3, 311. [CrossRef]
23.
Bagán, G.; Tur-Porcar, A.M.; Llorca, A. Learning and parenting in Spanish environments: Prosocial behavior, aggression, and
self-concept. Sustainability 2019,11, 5193. [CrossRef]
Children 2023,10, 1126 16 of 20
24.
Achenbach, T.M.; Edelbrock, C.S. The classification of child psychopathology: A review and analysis of empirical efforts. Psychol.
Bull. 1978,85, 1275–1301. [CrossRef]
25.
Bohlin, G.; Eninger, L.; Brocki, K.C.; Thorell, L.B. Disorganized attachment and inhibitory capacity: Predicting externalizing
problem behaviors. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2012,40, 449–458. [CrossRef]
26.
Roelofs, J.; Meesters, C.; Ter Huurne, M.; Bamelis, L.; Muris, P. On the links between attachment style, parental rearing behaviors,
and internalizing and externalizing problems in non-clinical children. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2006,15, 319. [CrossRef]
27.
Zahn-Waxler, C.; Klimes-Dougan, B.; Slattery, M.J. Internalizing problems of childhood and adolescence: Prospects, pitfalls, and
progress in understanding the development of anxiety and depression. Dev. Psychopathol. 2000,12, 443–466. [CrossRef]
28.
Hinshaw, S.P. Externalizing behavior problems and academic underachievement in childhood and adolescence: Causal relation-
ships and underlying mechanism. Psychol. Bull. 1992,111, 127–155. [CrossRef]
29. Mash, E.J.; Barkley, R.A. Child Psychopathology; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1996.
30.
Roeser, R.W.; Eccles, J.S.; Strobel, K.R. Linking the study of schooling and mental health: Selected issues and empirical illustrations
at. Educ. Psychol. 1998,33, 153–176. [CrossRef]
31.
Modesto-lowe, V.; Danforth, J.S.; Brooks, D. Clinical pediatrics ADHD: Does parenting style matter? Clin. Pediatr.
2008
,
47, 865–872. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32.
Molina, M.F. Perceived parenting style and self-perception in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Int. J. Psychol.
Res. 2015,8, 61–74. [CrossRef]
33.
Molina, M.F.; Musich, F.M. Perception of parenting style by children with ADHD and its relation with inattention, hyperactiv-
ity/impulsivity and externalizing symptoms. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2016,25, 1656–1671. [CrossRef]
34.
Monastra, V.J.; Monastra, D.M.; George, S. The effects of stimulant therapy, EEG biofeedback, and parenting style on the primary
symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback 2002,27, 231–249. [CrossRef]
35.
Ruiz-Ortiz, R.; Braza, P.; Carreras, R.; Muñoz, J.M. Differential effects of mother’s and father ’s parenting on prosocial and
antisocial behavior: Child sex moderating. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2017,26, 2182–2190. [CrossRef]
36.
Alizadeh, S.; Talib, M.B.A.; Abdullah, R.; Mansor, M. Relationship between parenting style and children’s behavior problems.
Asian Soc. Sci. 2011,7, 195–200. [CrossRef]
37.
Yahav, R. The relationship between children’s and adolescents’ perceptions of parenting style and internal and external symptoms.
Child Care Health Dev. 2007,33, 460–471. [CrossRef]
38.
Windle, M.; Brener, N.; Cuccaro, P.; Dittus, P.; Kanouse, D.E.; Murray, N.; Wallander, J.; Schuster, M.A. Parenting predictors
of early-adolescents’ health behaviors: Simultaneous group comparisons across sex and ethnic groups. J. Youth Adolesc.
2010
,
39, 594–606. [CrossRef]
39.
Webster-Stratton, C.; Reid, M.J.; Hammond, M. Preventing conduct problems, promoting social competence: A parent and teacher
training partnership in Head Start. J. Clin. Child Psychol. 2001,30, 283–302. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40.
Oxford, M.; Cavell, T.A.; Hughes, J.N. Callous/unemotional traits moderate the relation between ineffective parenting and child
externalizing problems: A partial replication and extension. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol.
2003
,32, 577–585. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41.
De Kemp, R.A.T.; Overbeek, G.; De Wied, M.; Engels, R.C.M.E.; Scholte, R.H.J. Early adolescent empathy, parental support, and
antisocial behavior. J. Genet. Psychol. 2007,168, 5–18. [CrossRef]
42.
Reijntjes, A.; Kamphuis, J.H.; Prinzie, P.; Boelen, P.A.; Van der Schoot, M.; Telch, M.J. Prospective linkages between peer
victimization and externalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis. Aggress. Behav. 2011,37, 215–222. [CrossRef]
43.
Kapi, A.; Veltista, A.; Kavadias, G.; Lekea, V.; Bakoula, C. Social determinants of self-reported emotional and behavioral problems
in Greek adolescents. Soc. Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2007,42, 594–598. [CrossRef]
44. Steinberg, L.; Morris, A.S. Adolescent development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001,52, 83–110. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45.
Oberle, E.; Ji, X.R.; Molyneux, T.M. Pathways from prosocial behaviour to emotional health and academic achievement in early
adolescence. J. Early Adolesc. 2023,43, 632–653. [CrossRef]
46.
Caputi, M.; Lecce, S.; Pagnin, A.; Banerjee, R. Longitudinal effects of theory of mind on later peer relations: The role of prosocial
behavior. Dev. Psychol. 2012,48, 257–270. [CrossRef]
47.
Longobardi, C.; Settanni, M.; Lin, S.; Fabris, M.A. Student–teacher relationship quality and prosocial behaviour: The mediating
role of academic achievement and a positive attitude towards school. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2021,91, 547–562. [CrossRef]
48.
Ma, T.L.; Zarrett, N.; Simpkins, S.; Vandell, D.L.; Jiang, S. Brief report: Patterns of prosocial behaviors in middle childhood
predicting peer relations during early adolescence. J. Adolesc. 2020,78, 1–8. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Padilla-Walker, L.M.; Carlo, G. Prosocial Development: A Multidimensional Approach; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015.
50. Wentzel, K.R. Teacher-student relationships. In Handbook of Motivation at School; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 211–230.
51.
Snippe, E.; Jeronimus, B.F.; Rot, M.A.H.; Bos, E.H.; de Jonge, P.; Wichers, M. The reciprocity of prosocial behavior and positive
affect in daily life. J. Personal. 2018,86, 139–146. [CrossRef]
52.
Caprara, G.V.; Barbaranelli, C.; Pastorelli, C.; Bandura, A.; Zimbardo, P.G. Prosocial foundations of children’s academic achieve-
ment. Psychol. Sci. 2000,11, 302–306. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53.
Caprara, G.V.; Kanacri, B.P.L.; Gerbino, M.; Zuffiano, A.; Alessandri, G.; Vecchio, G.; Bridglall, B. Positive effects of promoting
prosocial behavior in early adolescence: Evidence from a school-based intervention. Int. J. Behav. Dev.
2014
,38, 386–396.
[CrossRef]
Children 2023,10, 1126 17 of 20
54.
Gerbino, M.; Zuffianò, A.; Eisenberg, N.; Castellani, V.; Luengo Kanacri, B.P.; Pastorelli, C.; Caprara, G.V. Adolescents’ prosocial
behavior predicts good grades beyond intelligence and personality traits. J. Personal. 2018,86, 247–260. [CrossRef]
55.
Jones, D.E.; Greenberg, M.; Crowley, M. Early social-emotional functioning and public health: The relationship between
kindergarten social competence and future wellness. Am. J. Public Health 2015,105, 2283–2290. [CrossRef]
56.
Malecki, C.K.; Elliot, S.N. Children’s social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. Sch. Psychol.
Q. 2002,17, 1. [CrossRef]
57.
Eisenberg, N.; Fabes, R.A.; Spinrad, T.L. Prosocial development. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, Personality
Development; Eisenberg, N., Damon, W., Lerner, R.M., Eds.; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; Volume 3, pp. 646–718.
58.
Shi, R.; Qi, W.; Ding, Y.; Liu, C.; Shen, W. Under what circumstances is helping an impulse? Emergency and prosocial traits affect
intuitive prosocial behavior. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2020,159, 109828. [CrossRef]
59.
Yu, G.; Li, S.; Zhao, F. Childhood maltreatment and prosocial behavior among Chinese adolescents: Roles of empathy and
gratitude. Child Abus. Negl. 2020,101, 104319. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60.
Zhang, Y.; Yang, X.; Liu, D.; Wang, Z. Chinese college students’ parental attachment, peer attachment, and prosocial behaviors:
The moderating role of respiratory sinus arrhythmia. Biol. Psychol. 2020,150, 107844. [CrossRef]
61.
Memmott-Elison, M.K.; Holmgren, H.G.; Padilla-Walker, L.M.; Hawkins, A.J. Associations between prosocial behavior, externaliz-
ing behaviors, and internalizing symptoms during adolescence: A meta-analysis. J. Adolesc. 2020,80, 98–114. [CrossRef]
62.
Lai, F.H.Y.; Siu, A.M.H.; Shek, D.T.L. Individual and social predictors of prosocial behavior among Chinese adolescents in Hong
Kong. Front. Pediatr. 2015,3, 39. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63.
Steinberg, L. We know some things: Parent–adolescent relationships in retrospect and prospect. J. Res. Adolesc.
2001
,11, 1–19.
[CrossRef]
64.
Wood, J.J.; McLeod, B.D.; Sigman, M.; Hwang, W.C.; Chu, B.C. Parenting and childhood anxiety: Theory, empirical findings, and
future directions. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2003,44, 134–151. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65.
Hart, C.H.; Newell, L.D.; Olsen, S.F. Parenting skills and social-communicative competence in childhood. In Handbook of
Communication and Social Interaction Skills; Greene, J.O., Burleson, B.R., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA,
2003; pp. 753–797.
66.
Pettit, G.S.; Bates, J.E.; Dodge, K.A. Supportive parenting, ecological context, and Children’s adjustment: A seven-year longitudi-
nal study. Child Dev. 1997,68, 908–923. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67.
Gadeyne, E.; Ghesquiere, P.; Onghena, P. Longitudinal relations between parenting and child adju stment in young children. J.
Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 2004,33, 347–358. [CrossRef]
68.
Deater-Deckard, K.; Dodge, K. Externalizing problems and discipline revisited: Nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context
and gender. Psychol. Inq. 1997,8, 161–175. [CrossRef]
69.
Peiser, N.C.; Heaven, P.C.L. Family influences on selfreported delinquency among high school students. J. Adolesc.
1996
,
19, 557–568. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70.
Laible, D.J.; Kumru, A.; Carlo, G.; Streit, C.; Selcuk, B.; Sayil, M. The longitudinal associations among temperament, parenting,
and Turkish children’s prosocial behaviors. Child Dev. 2017,88, 1057–1062. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71.
Spinrad, T.L.; Gal, D.E. Fostering prosocial behavior and empathy in young children. Curr. Opin. Psychol.
2018
,20, 40–44.
[CrossRef]
72.
Carlo, G.; Mestre, M.V.; Samper, P.; Tur, A.; Armenta, B.E. The longitudinal relations among dimensions of parenting styles,
sympathy, prosocial moral reasoning, and prosocial behaviors. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2011,35, 116–124. [CrossRef]
73.
Ngai, S.S.Y.; Xie, L.; Ng, Y.H.; Ngai, H.L. The effects of parenting behavior on prosocial behavior of Chinese adolescents in Hong
Kong. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2018,87, 154–162. [CrossRef]
74.
Fanti, K.A.; Henrich, C.C.; Brookmeyer, K.A.; Kuperminc, G.P. Toward a transactional model of parent-adolescent relationship
quality and adolescent psychological adjustment. J. Early Adolesc. 2008,28, 252–276. [CrossRef]
75.
Zhang, Y.; Miller, M.; Halgunseth, L.C. Parenting Styles and Children’s Development: A Review of the Literature. Encycl. Child
Adolesc. Health 2023,2, 609–619.
76.
Stice, E.; Ragan, J.; Randall, P. Prospective relations between social support and depression: Differential direction of effects for
parent and peer support? J. Abnorm. Psychol. 2004,113, 155. [CrossRef]
77.
Zimmerman, M.A.; Ramirez-Valles, J.; Zapert, K.M.; Maton, K.I. A longitudinal study of stress-buffering effects for urban
African-American male adolescent problem behaviors and mental health. J. Community Psychol. 2000,28, 17–33. [CrossRef]
78.
Kaur, A.; Yusof, N.; Awang-Hashim, R.; Ramli, R.; Dalib, S.; Sani, M.A.M.; Isa, N.M. The role of developmental assets for prosocial
behaviours among adolescents in Malaysia. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2019,107, 104489. [CrossRef]
79.
Mesurado, B.; Richaud, M.C. The Relationship Between Parental Variables, Empathy and Prosocial-Flow with Prosocial Behavior
Toward Strangers, Friends, and Family. J. Happiness Stud. 2017,18, 843–860. [CrossRef]
80.
Marcone, R.; Borrone, A.; Caputo, A. Peer Interaction and social competence in childhood and early adolescence: The affects of
parental behaviour. J. Fam. Stud. 2018,27, 178–195. [CrossRef]
81.
Chung, S.; Zhou, Q.; Anicama, C.; Rivera, C.; Uchikoshi, Y. Language Proficiency, Parenting Styles, and Socioemotional
Adjustment of Young Dual Language Learners. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2019,50, 896–914. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82.
Weiss, B.; Dodge, K.A.; Bates, J.E.; Pettit, G.S. Some consequences of early harsh discipline: Child aggression and maladaptive
social infor-mation processing study. Child Dev. 1992,63, 1321–1335. [CrossRef]
Children 2023,10, 1126 18 of 20
83.
Lefkowitz, M.M.; Eron, L.D.; Walder, L.O.; Huesmann, L.R. Growing Up to Be Violent: A Longitudinal Study of the Development of
Aggression; Pergamon: New York, NY, USA, 1977.
84. Moore, B.; Eisenberg, N. The development of altruism. Annu. Child Dev. 1984,1, 107–174.
85.
Flamant, N.; Haerens, L.; Mabbe, E.; Vansteenkiste, M.; Soenens, B. How do adolescents deal with intrusive parenting? The role
of coping with psychologically controlling parenting in internalizing and externalizing problems. J. Adolesc.
2020
,84, 200–212.
[CrossRef]
86.
Scharf, M.; Goldner, L. “If you really love me, you will do/be”: Parental psychological control and its implications for children’s
adjustment. Dev. Rev. 2018,49, 16–30. [CrossRef]
87.
Carpenter, J.L.; Mendez, J. Adaptive and challenged parenting among African American mothers: Parenting profiles relate to
head start children’s aggression and hyperactivity. Early Educ. Dev. 2013,24, 233–252. [CrossRef]
88.
Zhang, W.; Wei, X.; Ji, L.; Chen, L.; Deater-Deckard, K. Reconsidering parenting in Chinese culture: Subtypes, stability, and
change of maternal parenting style during early adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc. 2017,46, 1117–1136. [CrossRef]
89.
Rodríguez-Meirinhos, A.; Vansteenkiste, M.; Soenens, B.; Oliva, A.; Brenning, K.; Antolín- Smits, I.A.; Theunissen, M.H.;
Reijneveld, S.A.; Nauta, M.H.; Timmerman, M.E. Measurement invariance of the parent version of the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire (SDQ) across community and clinical populations. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2016,34, 238–246.
90.
Goodman, R. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry
1997
,38, 581–586. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
91.
Achenbach, T.M.; Becker, A.; Döpfner, M.; Heiervang, E.; Roessner, V.; Steinhausen, H.C.; Rothenberger, A. Multicultural
assessment of child and adolescent psychopathology with ASEBA and SDQ instruments: Research findings, applications, and
future directions. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2008,49, 251–275. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
92.
Stone, L.L.; Otten, R.; Engels, R.C.M.E.; Vermulst, A.A.; Janssens, J.M.A.M. Psychometric properties of the parent and teacher
versions of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire for 4- to 12-year-olds: A review. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev.
2010
,
13, 254–274. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
93.
Murray, A.L.; Speyer, L.G.; Hall, H.A.; Valdebenito, S.; Hughes, C. A longitudinal and gender invariance analysis of the
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire across ages 3, 5, 7, 11, 14, and 17 in a large UK-representative sample. Assessment
2022
,
29, 1248–1261. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
94.
Murray, A.L.; Speyer, L.G.; Hall, H.A.; Valdebenito, S.; Hughes, C. Teacher versus parent informant measurement invariance of
the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 2021,46, 1249–1257. [CrossRef]
95.
Chiorri, C.; Hall, J.; Casely-Hayford, J.; Malmberg, L.E. Evaluating measurement invariance between parents using the Strengths
and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Assessment 2016,23, 63–74. [CrossRef]
96.
Rogge, J.; Koglin, U.; Petermann, F. Do they rate in the same way? Testing of measurement invariance across parent and teacher
SDQ ratings. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2018,34, 69–78. [CrossRef]
97.
Palmieri, P.A.; Smith, G.C. Examining the structural validity of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in a US sample
of custodial grandmothers. Psychol. Assess. 2007,19, 189–198. [CrossRef]
98.
Stone, L.L.; Otten, R.; Ringlever, L.; Hiemstra, M.; Engels, R.C.M.E.; Vermulst, A.A.; Janssens, J.M.A.M. The parent version of the
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Omega as an alternative to alpha and a test for measurement invariance. Eur. J. Psychol.
Assess. 2013,29, 44–50. [CrossRef]
99.
Dickey, W.C.; Blumberg, S.J. Revisiting the factor structure of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire: United States, 2001. J.
Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2004,43, 1159–1167. [CrossRef]
100.
Foley, S.; Ronchi, L.; Lecce, S.; Feng, X.; Chan, M.H.; Hughes, C. Cross-cultural equivalence of parental ratings of child difficulties
during the pandemic: Findings from a six-site study. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 2023,32, e1933. [CrossRef]
101.
Robinson, C.C.; Mandleco, B.; Olsen, S.F.; Hart, C.H. The Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ). In Handbook of
Family Measurement Techniques; Perlmutter, B.F., Touliatos, J., Holden, G.W., Eds.; Sage: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2001; Volume 3,
pp. 319–321.
102.
Antonopoulou, K.; Alexopoulos, D.A.; Maridaki-Kassotaki, K. Perceptions of father parenting style, empathy, and self-esteem
among Greek preadolescents. Marriage Fam. Rev. 2012,48, 293–309. [CrossRef]
103.
Antonopoulou, K.; Hadjikakou, K.; Stampoltzis, A.; Nikolaou, N. Parenting styles of mothers with deaf or hard-of-hearing
children and hearing siblings. J. Deaf. Stud. Deaf. Educ. 2012,17, 306–318. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
104.
Smogorzewska, J.; Osterhaus, C. A matter of style? Parenting behaviors of mothers of typically-developing children, children
with mild intellectual disability, and deaf or hard-of-hearing children. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 2023,20, 86–106. [CrossRef]
105.
Winsler, A.; Madigan, A.; Aquilino, A. Correspondence between maternal and paternal parenting styles in early childhood. Early
Child. Res. Q. 2005,20, 1–12. [CrossRef]
106.
Hamel, K.; Abdelmaseh, M.; Bohr, Y. An exploration of parenting styles, cultural values, and infant development in a sample of
Latin American immigrants in Canada. Infant Ment. Health J. 2023,44, 319–334. [CrossRef]
107.
Boivin, J.; Rice, F.; Hay, D.; Harold, G.; Lewis, A.; van den Bree, M.M.; Thapar, A. Associations between maternal older age, family
environment and parent and child wellbeing in families using assisted reproductive techniques to conceive. Soc. Sci. Med.
2009
,
68, 1948–1955. [CrossRef]
108.
Rohner, R.; Veneziano, R. The importance of father love: History and contemporary evidence. Rev. Gen. Psychol.
2001
,5, 382–405.
[CrossRef]
Children 2023,10, 1126 19 of 20
109.
Wang, X.; Haft, S.L.; Zhou, Q. Reasons for Migration, Post-Migration Sociocultural Characteristics, and Parenting Styles of
Chinese American Immigrant Families. Children 2023,10, 612. [CrossRef]
110.
Wu, P.; Robinson, C.C.; Yang, C.; Hart, C.H.; Olsen, S.F.; Porter, C.L.; Jin, S.; Wo, J.; Wu, X. Similarities and differences in mothers’
parenting of preschoolers in China and the United States. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2002,26, 481–491. [CrossRef]
111.
Lund, B. The questionnaire method in systems research: An overview of sample sizes, response rates and statistical approaches
utilized in studies. VINE J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. Syst. 2023,53, 1–10. [CrossRef]
112.
Mickelson, K.D. Seeking social support: Parents in electronic support groups. In Culture of the Internet; Kiesler, S., Ed.; Lawrence
Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1997; pp. 157–178.
113. Van Selm, M.; Jankowski, N.W. Conducting online surveys. Qual. Quant. 2006,40, 435–456. [CrossRef]
114.
Bibou-Nakou, I.; Kiosseoglou, G.; Stogiannidou, A. Strengths and difficulties of school-aged children in the family and school
context. Psychol. J. Hell. Psychol. Soc. 2001,8, 506–525.
115.
Goodman, R.; Renfrew, D.; Mullick, M. Predicting type of psychiatric disorder from Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
(SDQ) scores in child mental health clinics in London and Dhaka. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2000,9, 129–134. [CrossRef]
116.
Goodman, R.; Meltzer, H.; Bailey, V. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A pilot study on the validity of the self-report
version. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 1998,7, 125–130. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
117.
Mellor, D. Normative data for the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in Australia. Aust. Psychol.
2005
,40, 215–222.
[CrossRef]
118. Muthén, L.K.; Muthén, B.O. Mplus Version 8.9 User’s Guide; Muthén & Muthén: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2023.
119.
Jackson, D.L.; Gillaspy, J.A., Jr.; Purc-Stephenson, R. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some
recommendations. Psychol. Methods 2009,14, 6. [CrossRef]
120.
Marsh, H.W.; Hau, K.T.; Wen, Z. In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for
fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Struct. Equ. Model. 2004,11, 320–341. [CrossRef]
121. Lanza, S.T.; Cooper, B.R. Latent Class Analysis for Developmental Research. Child Dev. Perspect. 2016,10, 59–64. [CrossRef]
122.
Celeux, G.; Soromenho, G. An Entropy Criterion for Assessing the Number of Clusters in a Mixture Model. J. Classif.
1996
,
13, 195–212. [CrossRef]
123.
Collins, L.M.; Lanza, S.T. Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis: With Applications in the Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences;
John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009.
124.
Nylund, K.L.; Asparouhov, T.; Muthén, B.O. Deciding on the Number of Classes in Latent Class Analysis and Growth Mixture
Modeling: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2007,14, 535–569. [CrossRef]
125.
Nylund-Gibson, K.; Grimm, R.; Quirk, M.; Furlong, M. A Latent Transition Mixture Model Using the Three-Step Specification.
Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2014,21, 439–454. [CrossRef]
126. Hagenaars, J.; McCutcheon, A. Applied Latent Class Analysis; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002.
127.
Geiser, C. Latent-class-analyse [Latent class analysis]. In Lehrbuch. Datenanalyse mit Mplus: Eine Anwendungsorientierte Einführung,
1st ed.; Geiser, C., Ed.; VS Verl. für Sozialwiss: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2010; pp. 235–271.
128.
Muthén, B.; Muthén, L.K. Integrating person-centered and variable-centered analyses: Growth mixture modeling with latent
trajectory classes. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2000,24, 882–891. [CrossRef]
129.
Bergman, L.R.; Trost, K. The person-oriented versus the variable-oriented approach: Are they complementary, opposites, or
exploring different worlds? Merrill-Palmer Q. 2006,52, 601–632. [CrossRef]
130.
Manzeske, D.P.; Stright, A.D. Parenting styles and emotion regulation: The role of behavioral and psychological control during
young adulthood. J. Adult Dev. 2009,16, 223–229. [CrossRef]
131.
Nelson, L.J.; Padilla-Walker, L.M.; Christensen, K.J.; Evans, C.A.; Carroll, J.S. Parenting in emerging adulthood: An examination
of parenting clusters and correlates. J. Youth Adolesc. 2010,40, 730–743. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
132.
Baumrind, D. Differentiating between confrontive and coercive kinds of parental power-assertive disciplinary practices. Hum.
Dev. 2012,55, 35–51. [CrossRef]
133.
Kaniušonyt
˙
e, G.; Laursen, B. Parenting styles revisited: A longitudinal person-oriented assessment of perceived parent behavior.
J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2021,38, 210–231. [CrossRef]
134.
Masud, H.; Ahmad, M.S.; Cho, K.W.; Fakhr, Z. Parenting styles and aggression among young adolescents: A systematic review of
literature. Community Ment. Health J. 2019,55, 1015–1030. [CrossRef]
135.
Peng, X. An Evaluation of Authoritative Parenting Style Through Comparative Discussion of Autonomy Support and Psychologi-
cal Control: Inspired by the Success of Eileen Gu. J. Educ. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2023,7, 135–143. [CrossRef]
136.
Tanaka, A.; Tamura, A.; Ishii, R.; Ishikawa, S.I.; Nakazato, N.; Ohtani, K.; Sakaki, M.; Suzuki, T.; Murayama, K. Longitudinal
association between maternal autonomy support and controlling parenting and adolescents’ depressive symptoms. J. Youth
Adolesc. 2023,52, 1058–1073. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
137.
Wei, H.; Su, Z. The Ways of Communication with Parents and The Parenting Styles During Adolescence. J. Educ. Humanit. Soc.
Sci. 2023,7, 144–147. [CrossRef]
138.
Kassis, W.; Govaris, C.; Chouvati, R.; Sidler, P.; Janousch, C.; Ertanir, B. Identification and comparison of school well-being
patterns of migrant and native lower secondary-school students in Greece and Switzerland: A multigroup latent profile analysis
approach. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2021,110, 101863. [CrossRef]
Children 2023,10, 1126 20 of 20
139.
Mann, C.; Stewart, F. Internet Communication and Qualitative Research; A Handbook for Researching Online; Sage: London,
UK, 2000.
140.
Gariepy, G.; Elgar, F.J.; Sentenac, M.; Barrington-Leigh, C. Early-life family income and subjective well-being in adolescents.
PLoS ONE 2017,12, e0179380. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Content uploaded by Aikaterini Vasiou
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aikaterini Vasiou on Jun 30, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
