Servicios personalizados
Inglés (pdf)
Articulo en XML
Referencias del artículo
Traducción automática
Enviar articulo por email
Citado por SciELO 
Citado por Google 
Similares en
SciELO 
Similares en Google 
Permalink
Introduction
Parenting styles and socialisation in the context of the family contribute to the emergence and acquisition of personal skills (Baumrind, 1967; 1971; Espinoza-García, 2020), as well as behaviours, habits and attitudes. Although other personal and contextual factors also play a part, the family is a key influence, directly affecting the education of the individual (Ahmetoglu, 2018; Cámara & López, 2011).
Baumrind’s (1967, 1971) pioneering study of the effect of parenting styles on personal skills were later complemented by MacCoby and Martin (1983), who divided parenting styles into four categories (authoritative, democratic, permissive and neglectful), which resulted from the combination of two dimensions: affect and control (Darling & Stenberg, 1993; Huang et al., 2022). A widely agreed definition of parenting styles presents it as the way adults interact with children and adolescents, as models of everyday behaviour, decision making and problem-resolution, which is stable and consistent over time, and which creates expectations, draws boundaries and regulates the emotions and behaviour of children and adolescents throughout their life (Jorge & González, 2017; Morris et al., 2021).
Families use different socialisation strategies for the development and social integration of their children (Bhattacharyya & Pradhan, 2015). These can be divided according to the presence and intensity of the following variables: 1) communication level; 2) tone of the relationship; and 3) strategies to channel behaviour. The various combinations of these variables lead to different parenting styles, which are bi-directional; that is, the behaviour of children also affects parents’ conduct, and global behavioural trends can be detected in this mutual relationship (Bocanegra, 2007; González-García et al., 2018). As such, variables like the tone of the parent-children relationship (affect vs hostility); the level of communication, which determines the proximity or distance between parents and their children; acceptance-rejection; warmth-coldness; parental strategies to channel their children’s behaviour, including degrees of autonomy, control, flexibility and rigidity of norms, permissiveness and the restriction of given behaviours, etc. all are factors that affect parenting styles. Based on these premises, wide agreement exists about the classification of parenting styles into four categories (authoritative, democratic, permissive and neglectful), although it is also widely accepted that they can combine and change over time as a result of events in the life of the family and the development of the parent-children relationship.
Families in which democratic parental styles are followed are characterised by explicit expressions of affection; decisions are explained to children; the children’s needs are taken into account; desirable behaviours are encouraged; communication is fluid and open; reprimands are justified; family relationships are marked by emotional warmth and a democratic approach. Children educated according to this style tend to develop adequate social skills; they are highly motivated; they present high self-esteem, self-control, initiative, autonomous morals and a realistic self-concept; they are happy, spontaneous, sociable, both inside and outside the household (altruism, solidarity) and present high levels of achievement-focused motivation; in these households, parent-children conflicts are infrequent and low in intensity.
Households in which authoritative styles prevail are characterised by an abundance of precise and rigid rules; punishment is more prevalent than rewards; communication is closed or unidirectional (absence of dialogue); power relationships are recurrently stated, and the household is ruled autocratically. Children educated under this style are less autonomous and lack in self-confidence; they present poor social skills, limited autonomy and creativity, as well as high aggression and impulsiveness; they are less joyful and spontaneous.
In permissive parental styles, parents show indifference to both the positive and negative behaviour of children. Parents react to the needs of their children passively and permissively; they rarely resort to punishment, tolerating their children’s impulses, not affirming their authority and caving in to their children’s wishes. Children educated according to this style tend to present low social skills, low motivation, low self-esteem, uncertain self-identity and poor academic performance. They are emotionally unstable and are dominated by negative self-concept, insecurity, lack of respect for norms and other people, and low degree of self-control and hetero-control.
In neglectful parenting styles, parents are emotionally detached from the children’s issues, and show little interest, or no interest at all, in their academic motivation and performance. Parents invest as little time as possible in their children; their relationship is immature, even if outwardly it may look happy and lively. Consequently, the children present poor social skills, are immature, have little control over their impulses and are highly aggressive; they are unmotivated and have little inclination for effort, but they are joyful and lively (Torío et al., 2008: Yang & Zhao, 2020).
Parenting styles, family, friends and school, as well as other factors, such as affective components and aggressive beliefs, determine adolescent behaviour (Aguirre-Dávila, 2015). Aggressive behaviours, on the other hand, are part of social cognition, and are important to understand behaviour (Cai et al., 2021; De la Osa et al., 2021;Frost et al., 2007; Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006; Michel et al., 2014; Oliver et al., 2011). These cognitions can be implicit and explicit, and they explain the structure of personality, comprising thoughts related to beliefs, attitudes and behaviours. Implicit social cognitions relate to effortless, automatic and subconscious processes while explicit social cognitions refer to introspective, controlled and conscious thoughts (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Greenwald & Lai, 2020; Rivers et al., 2016). It can be argued that explicit social cognitions, in contrast to implicit ones, occur in consciousness, and are easily accessible to introspection; they help to understand behaviour and can predict aggression (Greenwald & Lai, 2020; Rawolle et al., 2013). Based on this premise, it is argued that aggressive persons often think and understand their actions as reasonable, in opposition to non-aggressive persons (Levenson, 2020; Newcorn et al., 2016). From this perspective, aggressive persons rely on implicit cognitive bias to justify their behaviour (James, 1998). The scientific literature (James, & Mazerolle, 2002; James et al., 2005; Schmidt, & Vereenooghe, 2021; Zhao et al., 2022) has defined the following such biases: 1) Hostile intent attribution: tendency to see the actions of others as a threat; 2) Strength: tendency to frame thoughts in terms of strength and weakness; 3) Revenge: tendency to prioritise reprisals over reconciliation; 4) Victimisation vis-à-vis the powerful: tendency to see oneself as a victim and an object of exploitation by the powerful; 5) Derogation of targets: tendency to picture the target as deserving of the aggression; and 6) Social discount: tendency to look at the socially different at the socially different and antisocial behaviours to interpret and analyse relationships.
In this research, one of the starting points was to evaluate whether the parental styles with which the person has been educated, have relationship with the affections and aggressive beliefs that shows in his adult life. Affects are part of a broader construct, subjective wellbeing, which refers to all kinds of evaluations, both positive and negative, that people make about their own life (Diener, 1999) and includes both cognitive perceptions (satisfaction with life) and emotional reactions to events (affects). Positive affects are related to pleasant emotions (motivation, energy, gregariousness, achievement and success), and are reflected in extroversion, optimism and resilience. A person with high positive affects experiences satisfaction, enthusiasm, energy, friendship and trust. In contrast, negative affects are related to unpleasant feelings (fear, insecurity, frustration, and failure), which are reflected in lack of interest, guilt, boredom, sadness, shame and envy. A person with high negative affects will react temperamentally to negative stimuli: vegetative lability, stress and unfavourable environments (Clark & Watson, 1991; Ditcheva et al., 2018; Flores-Kanter et al., 2021; Watson et al., 1988).
Parenting styles, aggressive beliefs and affects.
The three constructs at hand (parenting styles, aggressive beliefs and affects) converge on the main socialization contexts of the person, so their importance for personal development cannot be overemphasised. Adolescence, which brings a newly gained autonomy, changes in intra-family and social relationships, and a cognitive shift from concrete to formal thinking, is a key stage in the person’s psychosocial development, in which family plays a major part. Parenting styles and intra-family relationships are crucial variables in the emotional, social and personal development of adolescents (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Hunter et al., 2015; Samper-García et al., 2015). It is important to stress that parenting styles need to adapt to the characteristics of the family and each of its members; that is, there is no good or bad parenting styles, but better and worse fits to the personal, social and family structure (Aroca & Cánovas, 2012). To this, we must add our other two variables, affects and aggressive beliefs, which can operate as risk or protection factors towards conflictive behaviour. These concepts (parenting styles, affects and aggressive beliefs) can be related, with parenting styles affecting the other two variables.
The objectives of this study were three: 1) to evaluate parental styles, affects and aggressive beliefs by gender; 2) to analyse the relationship between parenting styles, affects and aggressive beliefs; and 3) assess the mediating effect of the affects on the relationship between parental styles and the person’s aggressive beliefs.
The study’s hypotheses are: 1) parenting styles, aggressive beliefs and affects are related; and 2) affects are a mediating variable in the relationship between parenting styles and aggressive beliefs.
Method
Participants
The sample comprised 787 participants from the city of Zaragoza (teaching degree students, Universidad de Zaragoza). All participants were volunteers; incomplete questionnaires were removed (n = 18), leading to a final study sample of 769 respondents: 359 men (46.68%) and 410 women (53.32%). The average age of respondents was 21.89 years (DT = 2.65). All participants signed an informed consent form. The study met all ethical criteria for research with human beings (volunteer participation; informed consent and right to information; protection of personal data and full confidentiality; no discrimination; gratuity; and, possibility to abandon the study at any point). The study was endorsed by the ethics committee of research group OPIICS (S46_20R), Universidad de Zaragoza, and met all the ethical criteria set out in the Declaration of Helsinki. The sample was found to be representative of the province of Zaragoza, with a 95% confidence level and 5% sampling error. The study was designed as an ex-post facto retrospective study (Ato & Vallejo, 2015). Results were analysed anonymously.
Instruments
Taking into account the objectives and hypotheses of the research, as well as the sample, TAMAI questionnaire was selected to measure parental styles; PANAS to evaluate affects; and ABAS-SF to measure participants' aggressive beliefs. All of them are characterized by their suitability for the constructions to be evaluated, for their brevity and for being adapted to Spanish.
Parenting styles
Data concerning parenting styles was collected using the Self-informed Multifactorial Children Adaptation Test (TAMAI, for the Spanish acronym; Hernández-Guanir, 1998). The TAMAI is a self-informed test which comprises 175 items designed to measure personal inadaptation. The test consists of several scales: 1) personal inadaptation; 2) academic inadaptation; 3) social inadaptation; 4) family dissatisfaction; 5) adequation of father-mother education; 6) educational discrepancies; and 7) reliability criteria or contestation style. For this study, only the 78 items concerned with parenting styles (adequation of father-mother education) were used; these assess parenting styles in the children’s perspective. Participants were asked to answer the items based on their own parents’ parenting style. Therefore, the survey was retrospective, like earlier similar studies (Hernández et al., 2018). The questionnaire returned a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .87 (Ω= .88).
PANAS of positive and negative affects (Watson et al., 1988)
Positive and Negative Affect Scales PANAS comprise 20 items, 10 for positive affects and (AP) and 10 for negative affects (AN), expressed in a Likert scale. Responses must refer to the present, at the time the participant is filling the questionnaire, and range from 0 (absence of the emotion) to 5 (frequent presence of the emotion). The questionnaire returned a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.87 for positive affects (Ω = .88) and .87 for negative affects (Ω = .87).
Aggressive Beliefs and Attitudes Questionnaire-Short format ABA-SF (Michel et al., 2015)
Explicit aggressive beliefs were assessed through an 8-item scale developed and validated by Michel et al. (2015) based on a more extensive, earlier 30-item scale (Michel et al. 2014); the scale assesses aggressive beliefs and attitudes. It assumes a multidimensional construct constituted by three different but interrelated factors: 1) victimisation; 2) derogation; and 3) revenge. It comprises 8 items and responses are presented in a 7-point Likert scales. It is regarded as highly reliable (α = .80). In the present study α = .82 (Ω = .83).
Protocol
When the questionnaires were handed out in the presence of the principal investigator, the purpose of the study was explained to participants. The importance of fully completing the questionnaires was emphasised. Participants were reminded that all data would be treated anonymously, confidentially and globally. All participants signed an informed consent form before entering the study. Participants were given 45 minutes to complete the questionnaire. The data was collected in April and May 2021.
Data analysis
For data analysis, SPSS 26.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA) software was used. After conducting normal distribution and equality of variance tests, it was decided to use parametric techniques. In order to better characterise the sample, central tendency (median) basic descriptive analysis was undertaken, as well as those of percentages, frequencies and dispersion (standard deviation) for each variable. In order to establish median differences when variables were continuous and normal, Student’s t test was undertaken for independent samples. In all cases, the lowest signification level possible was used; differences p < .05 were regarded as significant. In order to establish effect size, Cohen’s (1988) d, which allows for the magnitude of the differences revealed by Student’s t to be determined, was used. Based on this value, the effect size may be regarded as follows: d = .20 (small), d = .50 (moderate) and d = .80 (large). Interactions were created following Aiken & West (1991) and Campbell & Kashy (2002). In order to facilitate interpretation, effect in dichotomic variables were codified (-1, 1). Clusters were established to divide participants into groups based on parenting styles, affects and aggressive beliefs. Finally, following Baron & Kenny (1986), mediation analyses were undertaken to establish the potential mediating role of affects in the relationship between parenting styles and aggressive beliefs.
Results
The distribution of participants in four groups according to their parents’ parenting styles is presented in Table 1. Democratic and neglectful parenting styles present no significant gender differences, but permissive parenting styles were significantly more prevalent among women (28.3%) than among men (18.1%), and the opposite happened for authoritative parenting styles (26.7% among men vs. 20.0% among women).
Results concerning affects and aggressive beliefs styles are presented in Table 2. No significant gender differences were found in terms of positive affects and aggressive beliefs, but women significantly higher scores in terms of negative affects (d = -.298).
Concerning the relationship between parenting styles, aggressive beliefs and affects (Table 3), significant differences were found. Participants educated with democratic parenting styles obtained the highest positive scores, followed by permissive parenting styles. In turn, participants educated according to a permissive parenting style returned the highest negative affects scores. The highest scores in terms of aggressive beliefs were yielded by participants educated according to a neglectful parenting style, while the lowest scores were returned by participants educated according to a democratic parenting style.
Table 3. Affect and aggressive beliefs scores by parenting style.
*In bold the highest percentage in each category.
Afterwards, individual scores were divided into three groups based on averages and standard deviations, and low, medium and high levels were defined for each variable. The results are presented in Table 4. Participants educated with a democratic style, showed medium and high values in positive affects, with 87.7% in total. According to the results, permissive and authoritative parenting styles lead to the highest prevalence of high scores in terms of negative affects (one in five members of this group). Participants educated according to authoritative parenting styles returned the highest percentage of high and low negative affect scores. Finally, participants educated according to a neglectful parenting style, yielded the highest percentage of high negative affects scores and the highest percentage of high and low aggressive beliefs scores.
Table 4. Grouping of results according to parenting styles.
*In bold the highest percentage in each category.
Finally, mediation analyses were undertaken, following Baron & Kenny (1986), to establish whether affects play a mediating role in the relationship between parenting styles and aggressive beliefs (second hypothesis). After establishing that the study met all necessary requisites, Hayes’ (2018) SPSS 24.0 Process 3.5 macro was used. Mediation analyses took into consideration gender and age variables, which were found not to have a significant impact on the relationship between parenting styles and aggressive beliefs.
In order to determine whether the mediation effect is statistically significant, bootstrapping analysis (10000 runs) and Sobel’s test were undertaken. It was found that affects, both positive and negative, play a mediating role in the relationship between parenting styles and aggressive beliefs. The results suggest that parenting styles (IV) have an effect on positive affects (-.39) and negative affects (-.09) (in both cases p <.001). It was also found that positive affects (.97) and negative affects (-.31) have an effect on aggressive beliefs (DV). Zero was not included in the bootstrap interval, IC 95% (.01,.41), and Sobel’s test suggests that c’ value is statistically significant (z = 2.17; p = .005); therefore, it can be argued that the mediation effect is total (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Simple mediation model of positive and negative affects in the relationship between parenting styles and aggressive beliefs, taking age and gender into consideration.
Therefore, it was found that parenting styles have a positive effect on aggressive beliefs of .68 (p < .001) and a total effect (direct + indirect effect) mediated by affects of .83 (p < .001). This demonstrates that affects play a mediating role in the relationship between parenting styles and aggressive beliefs. The proportion of variance explained by the model was R2 = .11 (p < .001).
Discussion
This study first examined one of the most extensively researched issues in relation to parenting styles, gender differences. Many studies have addressed differences in parenting styles according to the gender of parents and children (Morris et al., 2021; Gámez-Guadix, & Almendros, 2015; Tur-Porcar et al., 2015). Different studies found that authoritative styles are more prevalent among fathers, while more inductive methods are more common among mothers (Sorbring et al., 2003; Winsler et al., 2005; Zervides & Knowles, 2007). Our results suggest that democratic parenting styles are the most common, among both men and women. It was also found that authoritative parenting styles are more often applied to male children, and the permissive style to female children. Finally, our results also suggest that the neglectful style is somewhat more commonly applied to male children. It could be argued that these results reflect the fact that behavioural problems are more prevalent among male children, leading to tighter parental discipline (Calvete & Cardeñoso, 2005) and, especially, punishment (Sorbring et al., 2003; Straus, 2001). It was found that parenting styles are related to affects, as well as to aggressive beliefs. This is in line with previous studies, which suggest that the psychological wellbeing of children is directly linked to the expression of affection by their parents (Alonso & Román, 2005; Kim & Chung, 2003; Mestre, & Frías, 1997; Torío et al., 2008); this is confirmed by our results. It is also worth pointing out that female respondents returned higher scores in negative affects, as also pointed out in previous studies (Salavera et al., 2017).
Afterwards, the scores were divided into three groups (low, medium and high) based on averages and standard deviations. It was found that respondents educated according to a democratic parenting style returned medium and high scores in terms of positive affects, in line with the suggestion that consistent rules lead children not to see their parents’ directives as rigid and to comply voluntarily (MacCoby & Martin, 1983). Some works, however, have challenged the idea that a democratic parenting style is the best option for the socialisation of children (García, & Gracia, 2009; Martínez, & García, 2007; Martínez-López et al., 2014). Respondents educated according to a permissive parenting style yielded intermediate scores, in many cases close to the average in terms of positive, negative affects and aggressive beliefs scores than the other groups. This agrees with previous studies, which suggest that a permissive parenting style leads to similar, and even slightly better, results in terms of the psychosocial fit of children than democratic parenting styles (De la Torre et al., 2015; González-García, et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2012). Respondents educated according to an authoritative parenting style returned higher and lower scores in terms of negative affects. This group presents a lower percentage of medium scores in positive and negative affects than the democratic and permissive groups, which can be explained by the fact that authoritative parenting styles lead to low scores in variables related to subjective wellbeing, for instance affects (Lawall et al., 2021; Quintana, 1993). Finally, it was found that respondents educated according to a neglectful parenting style yield the highest percentage of both high and low aggressive beliefs scores (one in four), as well as low positive affects scores. These results suggest that the neglectful parenting style leads to the worst results in terms of the socialisation of children, in line with previous studies (Aziz et al., 2021; Torío et al., 2008).
In order to test the second hypotheses, the potential mediating role of affects on the relationship between parenting styles and aggressive beliefs was examined. Mediation analyses took into consideration age and gender variables, which were found not to play a significant role in the relationship. The study’s results suggest that parenting styles are a mediating variable for positive and negative affects, that is, parenting styles will to a large extent determine positive and negative affects in the individual. These results agree with previous studies, which relate subjective wellbeing and parenting styles (Chan & Koo, 2011; Milevsky et al., 2007). In addition, the study’s results indicate that aggressive beliefs are positively correlated with positive affects and negatively correlated with negative affects. The study’s second hypothesis was confirmed; the data indicates that the effect of the mediation model is total, demonstrating the mediating role played by affects in the relationship between parenting styles and aggressive beliefs, as partially argued in earlier studies (Gámez-Guadix, & Almendros, 2015; Pacheco & Osorno, 2021; Torío, et al., 2008); our study, however, leads to a more comprehensive result.
The limitations of this study must be taken into account for the interpretation of the results and to design future studies. First, it was designed as a lateral study, which prevents causal relationship from being inferred. Similarly, as the participants were recruited in a very specific context (teaching degree university students in a single city), it is risky to extrapolate the results. Finally, self-administered questionnaires were used, leading to possible sources of bias, for instance social convenience. Therefore, the results can only be compared with those of other studies with extreme caution. In order for richer and better contextualised results to be reached, future research should explore the relationship of this constructs through more detailed questionnaires, preferably including qualitative information. Different family models should also be included as a variable, namely: 1) nuclear families; 2) extended, simultaneous or superimposed families; 3) single-parent and/or large families; 4) singularized family; 5) communal families; 6) other forms of family organisation; 8) foster homes; and 9) domestic units (Ayarza et al., 2014). Therefore, the interaction and complex relationships of these variables (family model, parenting styles, affects and aggressive beliefs) should be investigated further in the future. In any case, the study’s results present direct evidence for the relationship between the constructs at hand. It is important to continue investigating this relationship, and to design specific educational programs concerning parenting styles, particularly involving families, whose role in the personal development of children cannot be overemphasised.
Conclusions
Thus study shows that the democratic is the most used parental style, both with men and women, providing the person with average scores in affects and low aggressive beliefs. He also noted how authoritarian style is most used in raising men and permissive style with women. In terms of affects, women showed higher rates of negative affects, and no significant gender differences were found in aggressive beliefs. In addition, the study provided evidence that affects play a mediating role in the relationship between parenting styles and aggressive beliefs. Finally, given the importance and implications of parenting styles for the psychological, social and personal development of the individual, it is important to work with families, not only to explore the relationship of parenting styles with affects and aggressive beliefs, but with other important variables for personal development as well. Our results encourage us to continue searching for new questions, defining new methodologies and finding new answers that allow us to contribute to the psychological and socioemotional development of the person.
