Relations of Collectivism Socialization Goals and Training Beliefs to Chinese Parenting

Abstract

Parenting behaviors may be influenced by multiple factors, including parental values, beliefs, socialization goals, and children’s characteristics (e.g., personality, age). This study examined relations between Chinese mothers’ collectivism socialization goals and “training” beliefs and their parenting styles and behaviors with their children (youth ages 9-17 years), using structural equation modeling (SEM). In addition, in an exploratory manner, the associations between youth’s age and mothers’ parenting styles and behaviors were also explored. In all, 652 youth (female 46.2% and male 52.9%) and their mothers were recruited from urban areas in mainland China. Youth answered questionnaires about their mothers’ parenting (i.e., parenting styles, behavioral control, and psychological control), and mothers reported their endorsement of collectivism socialization goals and “training” beliefs. The findings suggest that Chinese mothers’ endorsement of collectivism socialization goals was positively associated with their authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles and behavioral control, but negatively associated with psychological control. Chinese mothers’ “training” beliefs were negatively associated with the use of behavioral control. Youth age was negatively associated with Chinese mothers’ use of authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles and behavioral control. Therefore, the current study suggests that mothers’ collectivism socialization goals and “training” beliefs and youth age may have an impact on parenting styles and parenting behaviors in mainland Chinese mothers.

Keywords

collectivism socialization goals “training” beliefs parenting styles behavioral control psychological control Chinese mothers

Parenting behaviors are influenced by a variety of factors, including parents’ values and beliefs. Previous studies have examined how culturally guided socialization goals and beliefs influence parenting practices and, in turn, children’s outcomes (Chao, 1994, 2000; Chen & French, 2008; Fu & Markus, 2014; Kim, Wang, Orozco-Lapray, Shen, & Murtuza, 2013; Rudy & Grusec, 2006). However, few studies have directly explored the possible association between culturally relevant parenting socialization goals and beliefs and parenting styles and behaviors for Chinese families. The current study examines whether there are associations between mainland Chinese mothers’ collectivism socialization goals and “training” beliefs (a culturally relevant parenting philosophy) and four aspects of their parenting: two parenting styles (i.e., authoritative and authoritarian) and two specific parenting behaviors (i.e., psychological and behavioral control). Parents may adjust their parenting according to their children’s developmental needs (Chao, 1994; Kim et al., 2013); this study uses a sample of mothers of older children and adolescents (ages 9-17 years) because older children and adolescents may have quite different developmental needs than younger children.

Parenting in Contemporary China

Research on parenting has been heavily influenced by Baumrind’s (1971) typology of the authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles (Smetana, 2017). According to Baumrind (1966, 1971), authoritative parents maintain control while also recognizing the child’s individual needs and rights and maintaining open communication. In contrast, authoritarian parents value obedience, are relatively emotionally detached from their children, are more likely to address disciplinary problems with coercion or physical punishment, and are less likely to explain the reasons for rules or punishments to their children (Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart, 1995). Permissive parents are highly responsive but make few demands for mature behavior and are reluctant to discipline their children (Baumrind, 1967, 1971; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Robinson et al., 1995). Generally speaking, youth raised in authoritative homes have better outcomes than their peers across a range of domains, including academic performance, social competence, and mental health (Baumrind, 1967, 1971; Dornbusch et al., 1987; Spera, 2005; Wolfradt, Hempel, & Miles, 2003).

Previous research indicates that both authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles are observed in contemporary China (Chen, Liu, & Li, 2000; Xu et al., 2005), but the general trend in research has viewed Chinese parents as more authoritarian and less authoritative than their Western counterparts (Chao, 1994; Kelley, 1992; Pearson & Rao, 2003). Although much research has emphasized cross-cultural differences in parenting, it is also important to remember that there is substantial variation in cultural value endorsement and in parenting within cultural contexts (Okazaki, 2018). Parents may vary in their culturally relevant goals and beliefs and in how these attitudes influence their parenting.

In the extant research literature, different arguments have been made regarding the applicability of Baumrind’s system in Chinese cultural contexts. For example, Chao (1994) argued that Chinese parenting is better characterized by the Chinese construct of guan (“training”). However, other scholars argued that the existence of indigenous parenting dimensions (e.g., guan) did not preclude the generalizability of Baumrind’s parenting styles to Asian families and that the relations between parenting style and child outcomes are similar for Asian and Western families (Chen, Dong, & Zhou, 1997; Chen, Liu, Li, Cen et al., 2000; Hart et al., 1998; Zhou et al., 2012).

In addition to parenting styles, parental control has been central in family process research in recent years. Parental control has multiple aspects, including psychological control and behavioral control (Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, 1994). Behavioral control is direct, overt, and aimed at inducing compliance with parental directives (Schaefer, 1965). Parental behavioral control (e.g., setting limits and monitoring behavior) generally predicts adaptive child development (Barber, 1996; Barber, Stolz, & Olsen, 2005). Parents tend to exert greater control over children’s behavior in cultures that emphasize interdependence than in cultures that emphasize independence (Chao, 1994; Dornbusch et al., 1987; Park, Kim, Chiang, & Ju, 2010) and Chinese parents tend to place greater emphasis on conformity and obedience than their Western counterparts (Chao, 1994; Rudy & Grusec, 2006).

In contrast to behavioral control, psychological control is indirect, covert, and intrusive, aimed at manipulating the child’s psychological world and personal identity (Schaefer, 1965). Chinese parents tend to apply more psychological control than Western parents (Cheung & Pomerantz, 2011; Wuyts, Chen, Vansteenkiste, & Soenens, 2015). Psychological control is generally associated with negative outcomes, including poorer academic performance and greater internalizing and externalizing problems (Barber et al., 1994; Barber et al., 2005). However, it is unclear the extent to which these relations will be present in Chinese families (Fung & Lau, 2012; Wang, Chan, & Lin, 2012; Yu, Cheah, Hart, Sun, & Olsen, 2015). The relation between parenting practices and developmental outcomes is moderated by the extent to which these practices are viewed as normative (Gershoff et al., 2010; Lansford et al., 2005) and thus psychological control may not be detrimental if it is perceived as normative or necessary to achieve socialization goals by children and parents (see Fu & Markus, 2014).

Chinese society has undergone rapid social, cultural, economic, and educational changes in recent decades (Yoshikawa, Way, & Chen, 2012). In this new context, many Chinese parents must negotiate between Chinese heritage cultural values and newer global influences (Lau & Fung, 2013). For example, mainland Chinese parents have begun to place greater emphasis on children’s independence, creativity, self-sufficiency, and emotional well-being, and less emphasis on academic performance, over the last decade (Chen-Bouck, Duan, & Patterson, 2017; Wang & Chang, 2008; Way et al., 2013; Woronov, 2007). These trends are consistent with global sociodemographic trends (e.g., from rural to urban residence and higher technology environments) and concomitant trends in human development (e.g., more independent social behavior; Greenfield, 2009). It is possible that, in this rapidly changing context, Chinese parents may apply characteristics of both authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles to promote desired behaviors in their children (e.g., apply supportive supervision and close involvement—a characteristic of authoritative parenting—to promote emotional well-being and use strict and direct conduct rules—a characteristic of authoritarian parenting—to cultivate obedience). In fact, studies showed that mainland Chinese parenting practices correlated with both authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles (Lieber, Fung, & Leung, 2006; Xu et al., 2005).

Parenting Socialization Goals and Beliefs

Many factors may influence why parents adopt different parenting styles and behaviors. Possible influences include parents’ emotional and material resources, parents’ and children’s personalities, and parental values, beliefs, and socialization goals (Belsky, 1984). Parents’ beliefs about their roles as parents, the nature of children, and desirable qualities for children to possess will influence parenting practices (Baumrind, 1968; Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Dornbusch et al., 1987; Symonds, 1939). Individuals from different cultural backgrounds tend to apply different parenting methods, with the goal of promoting different socialization outcomes (Graf, Röder, Hein, Müller, & Ganzorig, 2014; Rudy & Grusec, 2006; Wu et al., 2002).

One central value in Chinese culture is collectivism (i.e., maintaining connectedness and interdependence among individuals; Hsu, 1985; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Ryan, 1985). In Chinese culture, the interests of the individual are considered as subordinate to those of the group; thus, Chinese parents encourage children to develop behaviors that promote the harmony and welfare of the collective (Chen, Wu, Chen, Wang, & Cen, 2001), and their collectivism-related socialization goals often focus on producing children who are self-disciplined, hardworking, and obedient (Chao, 2000).

Another key feature of Chinese parenting is the belief in guan. Guan is viewed as an essential part of parenting beliefs and is believed be unique to Chinese culture (Chao, 1994, 2000; Jose, Huntsinger, Huntsinger, & Liaw, 2000; Lieber et al., 2006). Guan involves a high degree of parental guidance and monitoring, firm directives, and high expectations for child behavior, accompanied by enormous devotion and sacrifice on the part of the mother (Chao, 1994, 2000).

Few studies have explored the relations between culturally relevant parenting socialization goals and beliefs and parenting in China, and the findings of extant studies are inconsistent. Some studies found no direct associations between mothers’ endorsement of Chinese cultural values (e.g., Confucian ideologies) and their parenting (Chang, Schwartz, Dodge, & McBride-Chang, 2003). Other studies have found associations between mothers’ values or parenting beliefs and their parenting attributes. For instance, Chinese mothers’ adherence to Chinese values (e.g., collectivism) was associated with their authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles (Wu et al., 2002; Xu et al., 2005) and beliefs related to guan were associated with both authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles (Chao, 2000; Chen & Luster, 2002; Pearson & Rao, 2003). Similarly, a study on Chinese immigrant mothers revealed a positive association between mothers’ attachment to Chinese culture and their use of Chinese-specific parenting strategies (e.g., love withdrawal, protection; Huang & Lamb, 2014).

Scholars (Chao, 1994, 2000; Xu et al., 2005) argued that due to the philosophical bases of Chinese culture (e.g., rejecting individuality, maintaining self-control and interpersonal harmony, and achieving family reputation through individual achievement), Chinese parents expect children to be obedient and respectful, but meanwhile parents are expected to be responsible for children’s development and passing along cultural values and life experiences. Therefore, it is possible that parents with strong endorsement of Chinese cultural values and beliefs (e.g., collectivism and guan) will maintain a distance associated with the traditional status hierarchy when interacting with children, which resembles some characteristics of authoritarian parenting style; however, Chinese parents also take their roles seriously, sacrifice for their children, and treat them with affection and warmth. These behaviors have some characteristics of authoritative parenting style (Xu et al., 2005).

Numerous studies have found that cultures that emphasize interdependence (e.g., China, India, and Turkey) usually exert higher levels of control over children than those that emphasize independence (e.g., the United States and Canada; Chao, 1994; Dornbusch et al., 1987; Park et al., 2010; Wuyts et al., 2015). Parenting practice in collectivist societies also tends to place greater emphasis on conformity and obedience than parenting practice in more individualistic societies (Chao, 1994; Ho, 1989; Rudy & Grusec, 2006). Chinese collectivism places a greater priority on accommodating to others in the society, thus emphasizing obedience, self-discipline, and self-control (e.g., Kim & Sherman, 2007; Ryan, 1985). And “training” beliefs involve a high degree of parental monitoring and firm directives (Chao, 1994, 2000). It is possible that Chinese mothers, who have strong adherence to collectivism socialization goals and “training” beliefs, are likely to rely on some aspects of both behavioral control (e.g., setting limits and monitoring behavior) and psychological control (e.g., guilt induction and love withdrawal) to regulate children’s personal desires and to inhibit individual self-expression to promote harmony and connectedness among individuals, and to maintain family and social order (e.g., Eisenberg, Zhou, Liew, Champion, & Pidada, 2006). However, comparatively few studies have examined the direct associations between Chinese mothers’ endorsement of collectivism socialization goals and “training” beliefs and specific aspects of parental control (i.e., behavioral control and psychological control).

In addition, the extant studies that directly examined possible associations among socialization goals and beliefs and parenting have typically involved either Chinese American mothers (e.g., Chao, 2000) or mainland Chinese mothers of young (e.g., preschool-aged) children (e.g., Wu et al., 2002; Xu et al., 2005). Under the rapidly changing social context, mainland Chinese mothers, compared with Chinese American mothers, have far greater challenges in finding balance between Chinese traditional cultural values and beliefs and new global influences and societal expectations (Lau & Fung, 2013). Mothers may thus apply an approach of using both authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles to cultivate optimal behaviors in their children (Chen-Bouck et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2005). Therefore, the associations between mainland Chinese mothers’ cultural values and beliefs and their parenting could be different than those among Chinese American mothers. In addition, the child-rearing behaviors of mothers of preschool-aged children could be different than those of mothers of teenagers (e.g., focus more on closely monitoring behaviors with young children but more on guidance with teenagers); however, there is limited empirical research that examines the associations between mothers of older children’s cultural values and beliefs and their parenting since they may not be the same as the associations for mothers of young children. With the large population of mainland Chinese, the unique rapid social changes, the limited understanding of the reasons that Chinese parents adopt their parenting styles and behaviors, and aforementioned inconsistent findings and limited samples, it is important to further explore the direct associations between mainland Chinese mothers’ collectivism socialization goals and parenting beliefs and their parenting styles and behaviors.

Youth Age and Parenting

Parents modify their parenting based on their beliefs about a child’s developmental needs (Chao, 1994; Kim et al., 2013). For example, in a child’s early years, a mother might provide more nurturance and prompt attention to the child’s needs, whereas when the child reaches school age, the mother might focus more on helping the child to achieve in school and meet societal and familial expectations for success (Chen-Bouck et al., 2017; Wu, 1985). Consistent with these shifts as children age, many Chinese parents are inclined to be indulgent when children are young and become stricter as children grow more mature (Ho, 1989). Thus, Chinese parents’ parenting styles and behaviors with adolescents may be quite different from those used with younger children. For example, a recent study revealed that as children entered adolescence, Chinese mothers started to use physical actions (e.g., hugging) less frequently to express their affection since adolescents would feel awkward about having physical contact with their mothers, and when educating their children, mothers would use less physical punishment and more reasoning (Chen-Bouck et al., 2017).

However, there is very little information about how contemporary Chinese parents adjust their specific parenting styles and behaviors to meet children’s different developmental challenges. Limited extant prior research suggested that Chinese parents decrease their control (i.e., refraining from making decisions for their children about personal issues) as children progress through the early adolescent years (Qin, Pomerantz, & Wang, 2009). A study with mainland Chinese junior high school students revealed a significant negative correlation between students’ age and parents’ behavioral control (Li, Zhang, & Wang, 2015). Another study with mainland Chinese children suggested that some aspects of parenting style (i.e., parental warmth and control) significantly declined as children aged (i.e., from Grade 6 to 8; Chen, Liu, & Li, 2000), and scholars argued that the decline may be associated with children seeking more social and emotional support outside of the family (e.g., from peers) and becoming increasingly competent in self-reliance and self-control during adolescence (Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Chen, Liu, & Li, 2000).

Due to a lack of extant empirical research and comparatively limited theoretical support, the current study tries to explore the associations between youth’s age and mothers’ parenting styles and behavioral and psychological control in an exploratory manner as an ancillary question.

The Current Study

Previous studies showed a possible association between Chinese mothers’ cultural values and parenting beliefs and their choices of parenting styles and parenting behaviors. The purpose of the current study was to examine whether mainland Chinese mothers’ endorsement of collectivism socialization goals and “training” beliefs were associated with their parenting styles and parenting behaviors (i.e., psychological control and behavioral control), as perceived by their children (ages 9-17 years). Also, this study explored whether mothers’ parenting styles and behaviors varied by youth age. See Figure 1 for the initial theoretical model.

Figure 1.

The initial theoretical model.

Hypotheses

Collectivism socialization goals and parenting

Parents’ socialization goals could be one of the factors that influence their parenting styles (Belsky, 1984; Chao, 2000). Previous research showed that mainland Chinese mothers who scored high in both authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles adhered most strongly to Chinese cultural values (e.g., collectivism; Xu et al., 2005). Thus, we hypothesized a positive relationship between collectivism socialization goals and both authoritative and authoritarian parenting.

Traditional Chinese culture advocates for the rejection of individuality and self-assertion and the maintenance of harmony and interdependence (Ryan, 1985). These socialization goals could be possibly cultivated through parental psychological control including invalidating feelings and constraining verbal expressions. Therefore, we hypothesized a positive relationship between mothers’ endorsement of collectivism socialization goals and mothers’ use of psychological control.

Chinese culture values the importance of children serving and obeying parents (Ho, 1994; Huang, Ying, & Arganza, 2003) and maintenance of connection among individuals (Hsu, 1985). These cultural values could be cultivated through parental behavioral control (i.e., monitoring of children’s actions and whereabouts); therefore, we hypothesized a positive relationship between mothers’ endorsement of collectivism socialization goals and mothers’ use of behavioral control.

Training beliefs and parenting

Parents’ beliefs about their roles as parents and the nature of children will influence parenting styles (Baumrind, 1968; Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Dornbusch et al., 1987). Studies of Chinese American mothers suggested that child-rearing beliefs related to “training” have been associated with both mothers’ authoritative and authoritarian parenting (Chao, 2000). Thus, we hypothesized a positive relationship between mothers’ “training” beliefs and both authoritative and authoritarian parenting.

Studies showed that “training” represented an essential part of parenting beliefs that was assumed to be unique to Chinese culture (Chao, 1994; Lieber et al., 2006). We hypothesized that Chinese mothers who more strongly endorsed “training” beliefs would apply more psychological and behavioral control over their children to cultivate appropriate socialization goals (e.g., interdependence, harmony).

In addition, in an exploratory manner, the associations between youth’s age and mothers’ parenting styles and behavioral and psychological control were explored without specific predictions regarding the direction of the associations.

Method

Procedure

The data were collected as a part of a larger study that examined the relations among mothers’ cultural values and parenting and children’s academic, socioemotional, and behavioral outcomes. Participants were recruited through four cooperating schools (one elementary and three middle schools) from a single large city in northwestern China. Mothers were asked to report on their endorsement of collectivism socialization goals and “training” beliefs. Youths were asked to report on their mothers’ parenting styles and behaviors. We asked children, rather than mothers, to report on parenting styles and practices because previous research indicates that children’s reports of parenting practices may differ from parents’ reports (e.g., Chen-Bouck et al., 2017). In addition, consistent with parental acceptance-rejection theory (Rohner, 1986; Rohner, Khaleque, & Cournoyer, 2005) and research on the importance of perceived normativeness (Gershoff et al., 2010; Lansford et al., 2005), children’s perceptions of their parents’ actions may have a greater impact on children’s outcomes than the actions per se.

Participants

In total, 652 youths (ages 9-17 years, M = 12.09, SD = 2.15; female 46.2%, male 52.9%, 0.9% did not identify their gender; 95.2% Han nationality, 3.1% minority, 1.7% did not identify their nationality) and their mothers (ages 30-54 years, M = 39.14, SD = 3.77) were recruited. Among mothers, 0.3% received no education, 6.3% had elementary education, 48.5% had secondary school education, 40.8% had college education, and 3.5% had postgraduate education. For family annual income, 10.3% had less than 10,000 RMB, 13.5% had 10,000 to 30,000 RMB, 14.9% had 30,001 to 50,000 RMB, 10.3% 50,001 to 70,000 RMB, 23.5% 70,001 to 100,000 RMB, 24.4% had more than 100,000 RMB, and 3.2% did not report their income (the mean of per capita annual disposable income of urban households of the city was RMB 33,100; Xi’an Municipal Bureau of Statistics and NBS Survey Office in Xi’an, 2014).

Measures

All of the measures were translated into Chinese using a back-translation method (Werner & Campbell, 1970) and bilingual checking (Punnett & Shenkar, 1996). A pilot study was conducted to test participants’ understanding of content and wording of the translated measures. Forty students (20 middle school students and 20 elementary school students) and 20 mothers were recruited for the pilot study. A few minor adjustments to the translation were made according to pilot participants’ feedback.

Collectivism socialization goals

Mothers completed a five-item Collectivism Socialization Goal measure (Li, Costanzo, & Putallaz, 2010). Items reflected parental socialization goals that emphasize social harmony and collectivism (e.g., I want my child to know the role he or she should play in a social group). Response options ranged from not at all important (1) to very important (5).

“Training”

Mothers’ “training” beliefs were measured by a “Training” questionnaire (Chao, 1994). This measure consists of 13 items derived from the culturally specific concepts of jiao xun (training) and guan. Two areas were covered by the training questionnaire: beliefs about child development and learning (seven items, for example, parents must begin training a child as soon as he or she is ready) and beliefs about the mother–child relationship (six items, for example, mothers should do everything for a child’s education and make many sacrifices). Response options ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

Parenting styles

Youths’ perceptions of their mothers’ parenting styles were assessed by using a modified version of Block’s Child-Rearing Practices Report (CRPR; Rickel & Biasatti, 1982). There are 40 items in this measure that tap different types of parenting practices such as punishment, encouragement of independence, and expression of affection. The authoritative parenting subscale consists of 18 items describing parent–child communication, rational guidance, and expression of affection (e.g., my mother encourages me to talk about my troubles). The authoritarian parenting style subscale consists of 22 items describing punishment, power-assertive strategies, and discouragement of the child’s emotional expression and of verbal give-and-take between parent and child (e.g., my mother does not allow me to question her decisions). Two items from the original authoritarian subscale were not included because they referenced mothers’ attitudes toward sexual information (e.g., my mother dreads answering my questions about sex), which might not be appropriate for the younger participants in the current sample; thus, the measure participants responded to included 20 items. Participants were asked to indicate if each statement described their mothers accurately on a scale ranging from least descriptive (1) to most descriptive (7).

Psychological control

Mothers’ perceived psychological control over their children was assessed by Barber’s (1996) eight-item Psychological Control Scale–Youth Self-Report (PCS-YSR). Items reflected various aspects of psychological control such as love withdrawal (e.g., my mother is a person who will avoid looking at me when I have disappointed her) and constraining verbal expression (e.g., my mother is a person who often interrupts me). Participants rated if the statement is like their mothers ranging from not like her (1) to a lot like her (3).

Behavioral control

Mothers’ perceived behavioral control was measured with a five-item monitoring scale often used in family research with adolescents (e.g., Brown, Mounts, Lamborn, & Steinberg, 1993). Participants rated how much their mothers knew about various aspects of their lives, such as where you are most afternoons after school on a scale from does not know (1) to knows a lot (3).

Data Preparation

Originally, 652 youths and their mothers answered the questionnaires. After deleting cases with more than 60% of the total responses missing based on the selected variables included in the current study, 640 mother-youth dyads remained. For these cases, missing data were accounted for using full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation method. This estimation method does not impute missing values, but directly estimates model parameters and standard errors using all available raw data. It works by estimating a likelihood function for each individual based on the variables that are present so that all the available data are used. Collinearity was detected by calculating a squared multiple correlation between each variable and all the rest, and the results suggested no extreme multivariate collinearity.

Results

Analytic Strategy

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was implemented using R (version 3.2.3) package Lavaan (Rosseel, 2012) to test the theoretical model on the overall sample. Analyses proceeded in the following steps. First, several confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were performed to evaluate the measurement model to verify the associations between the latent constructs and their observed indicators (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The multiple linear regression (MLR) estimation procedure was used due to high levels of skewness and kurtosis for some variables (e.g., 7.68 for skewness and 37.39 for kurtosis). Second, we evaluated the fit of the initial theoretical model from Figure 1.

A variety of indices were used to assess model fit. To assess the overall goodness of fit, we used the chi-square test statistic. We also included the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), the root mean square error approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), which are among the most widely reported approximate fit indexes in the SEM literature. Hu and Bentler (1999) suggested the following cutoffs for good fitting models: CFI > .95, TLI > .95, RMSEA < .06, and SRMR < .08. However, recent studies have suggested that there are no “golden rules” for cutoff values for SEM fit indexes (Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004) and that multiple criteria should be used, so we take the combination of CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR values obtained here as indicating an acceptable fit.

Measurement Models and Correlations Among Variables

The viability of the latent factors was established through the use of CFA measurement models. Measurement models were achieved by examining the loadings of the measured variables onto the latent factors. Several separate measurement models were tested on each measure used in the analyses: (a) collectivism socialization goals, (b) “training” beliefs, (c) authoritative parenting style, (d) authoritarian parenting style, (e) psychological control, and (f) behavioral control.

The measurement model for collectivism socialization goals included all five items from the original measure. CFA revealed good model fit, χ²(df = 3) = 6.96, p = .07, CFI = 1.00, TLI = .99, RMSEA = .05, 90% confidence interval (CI) = [.00, .09], and SRMR = .01. See Table 1 for αs of all measurement models, and Table 2 for factor loading of items in measurement models.

Table 1.

Summary of Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Variables in Theoretical Model, and Internal Consistency (α) for Measurement Models.

Variables	α	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Youth age		12.09 (2.15)
2. Authoritarian	.70	5.21 (0.95)	−.23**
3. Authoritative	.88	5.00 (1.12)	−.26**	.71**
4. Psychological control	.79	1.62 (0.45)	.03	−.07	−.32**
5. Behavioral control	.68	2.42 (0.42)	−.28**	.28**	.35**	−.16**
6. Collectivism socialization goals	.83	4.52 (0.54)	−.17**	.21**	.24**	−.07	.16**
7. “Training” beliefs	.75	3.32 (0.55)	.13**	.05	.05	.03	−.10*	.10*

p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 2.

Summary of Factor Loadings of Items in Measurement Models.

Measurement model	Unstandardized coefficient	Standardized coefficient
Collectivism socialization goals
I want my child to have harmonious relationships with people around him or her.	1.00^a	.71
When in a group, I want my child to be cooperative with people.	1.02 (.07)	.64
When my child succeeds, I want him or her to think about the help he or she received from others.	1.04 (.07)	.68
I want my child to be modest and learn from others.	1.07 (.07)	.77
I want my child to know the role he or she should play in a social group.	1.13 (.09)	.64
“Training” beliefs
Mothers primarily express love by helping child succeed, especially in school.	0.52 (.04)	.52
Parents must begin training child as soon as he or she is ready.	0.25 (.04)	.30
A mother’s sole interest is in taking care of her child.	0.67 (.05)	.64
Children can improve in almost anything if they work hard.	0.34 (.04)	.39
Child should be in the constant care of their mothers or family.	0.64 (.04)	.62
Mothers must train children to work very hard and be disciplined.	0.40 (.04)	.50
Mothers should do everything for child’s education and make many sacrifices.	0.70 (.04)	.69
Mothers teach child by pointing out good behavior in others.	0.41 (.04)	.44
The best way child learns how to behave is by being around adults.	0.37 (.04)	.43
Authoritative parenting style
My mother and I have warm intimate moments together.	1.00^a	.62
My mother encourages me to talk about my troubles.	1.20 (.08)	.67
My mother jokes and plays with me.	1.15 (.10)	.59
My mother makes sure I know that they appreciate what I try to accomplish.	1.16 (.10)	.64
My mother encourages me to wonder and think about life.	0.94 (.09)	.51
My mother expresses her affection by hugging, kissing, and holding me.	1.23 (.12)	.54
My mother talks it over and reasons with me when I misbehave.	1.10 (.09)	.62
My mother finds it interesting and educational to be with me for long periods.	1.12 (.10)	.59
My mother encourages me be curious, to explore, and question things.	1.02 (.09)	.57
My mother finds some of her greatest satisfactions in me.	0.82 (.09)	.46
My mother respects my opinion and encourages me to express it.	1.27 (.10)	.69
My mother feels that a child should be given comfort and understanding when he is scared or upset.	1.07 (.09)	.64
My mother is easy going and relaxed with me.	0.75 (.10)	.36
My mother trusts me to behave as I should, even when she is not with me.	1.08 (.10)	.59
My mother believes in praising a child when he is good and thinks it gets better results than punishing him when he is bad.	0.85 (.09)	.47
My mother usually takes into account my preference when making plans for the family.	1.06 (.09)	.61
Authoritarian parenting style
My mother believes I should be aware of how much they sacrifice for me.	1.00^a	.55
My mother expects me to be grateful and appreciate all advantages I have.	1.11 (.12)	.64
My mother teaches me to keep control of my feelings at all times.	0.94 (.11)	.51
My mother does not allow me to say bad things about my teacher.	0.61 (.11)	.28
My mother lets me know how ashamed and disappointed she is when I misbehave.	0.67 (.11)	.33
My mother wants me to make a good impression on others.	0.68 (.08)	.49
My mother thinks a child should be encouraged to do things better than others.	0.77 (.10)	.42
My mother doesn’t want me to be looked upon as different from others.	0.88 (.11)	.48
My mother doesn’t think that children of different sexes should be allowed to see each other naked.	0.70 (.11)	.34
My mother believes in toilet training a child as soon as possible.	0.83 (.11)	.44
Psychological control
is always trying to change how I feel or think about things	1.00^a	.39
changes the subject whenever I have something to say	0.86 (.14)	.37
often interrupts me	1.58 (.20)	.63
blames me for other family members’ problems	1.67 (.20)	.63
brings up past mistakes when she criticizes me	1.91 (.24)	.61
is less friendly with me if I do not see things her way	2.08 (.25)	.73
will avoid looking at me when I have disappointed her	1.54 (.20)	.56
if I have hurt her feelings, stops talking to me until I please her again	1.45 (.20)	.48
Behavioral control
Where you go at night	1.00^a	.46
Where you are most afternoons after school	1.06 (.12)	.49
How you spend your money	1.59 (.22)	.62
What you do with your free time	1.83 (.26)	.64
Who your friends are	0.69 (.15)	.30

Note. Standard Errors are in parentheses. SEM = structural equation modeling.

According to requirements for SEM analyses, one variable loading on each latent factor was set equal to 1.00 to set the metric for that factor. As a result, significance values are not calculated for these variable loadings.

The measurement model for “training” beliefs included nine items from the original “training” scale. Conducting CFAs on two subscales of “training” did not reveal any acceptable model fit, which suggested that the originally suggested construct did not fit the current data. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was then conducted to further test the links between the 13 items. A one-factor solution with nine items was implied. Further investigation of the four low loading factors revealed that the wording of these items might not reflect mainland Chinese mothers’ “training” beliefs about raising their 9- to 17-year-old children (e.g., child should be allowed to sleep in mother’s bed; when a child continues to disobey you, he or she deserves a spanking). In addition, inspecting the content of factors revealed that the nine-item one-factor solution comprised of reasonable item clustering. This factor structure produced a significant chi-square statistic, χ²(df = 24) = 80.74, p < .001, but other global fit indices suggested an acceptable fit (CFI = .94, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .06, 90% CI = [.05, .08], and SRMR = .04). Thus, the four low loading factors were excluded, and the one-factor model was used in further analysis.

The measurement model for authoritative parenting style included 16 items from the original 18 item authoritative parenting subscale. CFA revealed an acceptable model fit, χ²(df = 102) = 249.97, p < .001, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .05, 90% CI = [.04, .06], and SRMR = .04. Further investigation of the two low loading factors revealed that the item (i.e., my mother feels that I should have time to daydream, think, and even loaf sometimes) might not apply to Chinese youth considering the intense nature of the Chinese educational system. The wording of the other item (i.e., when my mother is angry with me, she lets me know about it) was vague and allowed for a wide variety of means by which a mother might express anger (e.g., language, tone, body language). Thus, the two low loading factors were excluded in further analysis.

The measurement model for authoritarian parenting style included 10 items from the original 20 item authoritarian parenting subscale. CFA revealed an acceptable model fit, χ²(df = 35) = 78.23, p < .001, CFI = .93, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .05, 90% CI = [.03, .06], and SRMR = .04. Further investigation of the 10 low loading factors revealed that some items were not age appropriate for the participants (e.g., my mother instructs me not to get dirty when I am playing), and some other items might not reflect Chinese youth’s experience of daily parenting (e.g., my mother tries to keep me away from children or families whose ideas or values are different from our own). Thus, the 10 low loading factors were excluded in further analysis.

The measurement model for psychological control included all eight items from the original scale. CFA revealed an acceptable model fit, χ²(df = 18) = 34.39, p = .01, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .04, 90% CI = [.02, .06], and SRMR = .03.

The measurement model for behavioral control included all five items from the original measure. CFA revealed a good model fit, χ²(df = 3) = 2.77, p = .43, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, 90% CI = [.00, .07], and SRMR = .01.

The correlations among the theoretical factors are shown in Table 1. The pattern of correlations was generally consistent with theoretical expectations. The only exception to expectations was that “training” beliefs were inversely related to mothers’ use of behavioral control (r = −.10, p < .05). In sum, despite the few nonsignificant correlations and one exception, the general pattern of correlations followed theoretical expectations and showed potential for testing the full model.

Full Structural Equation Model

In line with the hypotheses, direct paths were formulated between collectivism socialization goals and each of the parenting attributes (i.e., authoritative parenting style, authoritarian parenting style, psychological control, and behavioral control), between “training” beliefs and each of the parenting attributes, and between youth age and each of the parenting attributes (see Figure 1). Two control variables—mothers’ education level and family annual income—were included in the model. We assumed some associations between three exogenous variables—collectivism socialization goals, “training” beliefs, and youth age. Furthermore, to account for potential additional relations among the parenting attributes, correlations were allowed between the disturbance terms for four endogenous variables—authoritative parenting style, authoritarian parenting style, psychological control, and behavioral control.

For the sample, the model differed significantly from the data, χ²(df = 1425) = 2,201.21, p < .001, yet fit acceptably according to the CFI = .91, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .029, 90% CI = [.027, .031], and SRMR = .048. The model was the final structural model (see Table 3 and Figure 2).

Table 3.

Summary of Unstandardized, Standardized Coefficients, and Significance Levels for the Final Structural Model.

Structural model	Unstandardized coefficient	Standardized coefficient	p
Collectivism socialization goals → Authoritative parenting style	0.29 (.05)	.26	.00
Training beliefs → Authoritative parenting style	0.03 (.04)	.02	.56
Youth age → Authoritative parenting style	−0.12 (.02)	−.23	.00
Collectivism socialization goals → Authoritarian parenting style	0.28 (.06)	.26	.00
Training beliefs → Authoritarian parenting style	0.05 (.06)	.05	.32
Youth age → Authoritarian parenting style	−0.12 (.02)	−.23	.00
Collectivism socialization goals → Psychological control	−0.11 (.04)	−.11	.01
Training beliefs → Psychological control	0.07 (.04)	.07	.07
Youth age → Psychological control	−0.00 (.02)	−.00	.95
Collectivism socialization goals → Behavioral control	0.17 (.06)	.16	.00
Training beliefs → Behavioral control	−0.13 (.06)	−.12	.03
Youth age → Behavioral control	−0.15 (.03)	−.29	.00
Residuals covariance between authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles	0.86 (.03)	.86	.00
Residuals covariance between authoritative style and psychological control	−0.40 (.05)	−.40	.00
Residuals covariance between authoritative style and behavioral control	0.38 (.06)	.38	.00
Residuals covariance between authoritarian style and psychological control	−0.10 (.06)	−.10	.09
Residuals covariance between authoritarian style and behavioral control	0.32 (.07)	.32	.00
Residuals covariance between psychological and behavioral control	−0.22 (.06)	−.22	.00
Residuals covariance between youth age and training beliefs	0.41 (.10)	.19	.00
Residuals covariance between youth age and collectivism socialization goals	−0.43 (.10)	−.20	.00
Residuals covariance between training beliefs and collectivism socialization goals	0.02 (.05)	.02	.68

Note. Model fit: χ²(1425) = 2,201.21, p < .001, CFI = .91, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .03, and SRMR = .05. Standard Errors are in parentheses. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

Figure 2.

The final structural model.

In inspecting the coefficients of the final structural model, we expected positive associations between collectivism socialization goals and each of the parenting attributes, and positive associations between “training” beliefs and each of the parenting attributes. Collectivism socialization goals were positively associated with authoritative parenting style, authoritarian parenting style, and behavioral control (βs ranging from .16 to .26). However, contrary to our expectation, collectivism socialization goals were negatively associated with psychological control (β = −.11). In addition, the results revealed that “training” beliefs were negatively associated with mothers’ use of behavioral control (β = −.12), but not significantly associated with either parenting style or with psychological control.

We hypothesized that there would be a negative association between youth age and mothers’ use of behavioral control; results confirmed the hypothesis (β = −.29). In addition, youth age was significantly negatively associated with mothers’ use of authoritative and authoritarian parenting (βs = −.23, –.23, respectively); however, youth age was not significantly associated with mothers’ use of psychological control.

Discussion

Prior research indicates that cultural values can influence parents’ parenting beliefs and socialization goals, which in turn influence child-rearing practices (Chao, 2000). Previous studies showed a possible association between mothers’ adherence to Chinese cultural values and culturally relevant parenting beliefs and their parenting practices; however, these studies either involved Chinese American mothers or mothers of young children. The current findings add to a limited body of work addressing how mainland Chinese mothers’ collectivism socialization goals and “training” beliefs may influence their parenting attributes.

In this study, we sought empirical support for a theoretically derived model of the association of Chinese mothers’ collectivism socialization goals and “training” beliefs with their authoritarian and authoritative parenting and behavioral and psychological control. After controlling for mothers’ education level and family annual income, results indicated that mothers’ endorsement of collectivism socialization goals was significantly associated with all four parenting attributes, whereas mothers’ “training” beliefs were only significantly associated with their use of behavioral control. In addition, there were significant associations between youth age and authoritarian and authoritative parenting and behavioral control, but not psychological control.

Collectivism Socialization Goals and Parenting

Extant studies with Chinese immigrant mothers and mainland Chinese mothers of young children found that mothers’ adherence to Chinese cultural values was associated with their authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles (Chao, 2000; Wu et al., 2002; Xu et al., 2005). Consistent with these findings, the current study suggested that the greater Chinese mothers’ endorsement of collectivism socialization goals, the more their children reported experiences of both authoritative and authoritarian parenting.

In addition, the analysis revealed that Chinese mothers’ perceived authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles were positively correlated in the current sample; so, for Chinese youth, there may be more internal consistency than distinction between these two parenting styles. It is possible that the mothers who strongly endorse Chinese cultural values may have to adopt characteristics and simultaneously apply approaches from both authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles to better raise their children to be self-sufficient in a new economic, cultural, and social context. One of the basic beliefs underlying Chinese collectivism is that group well-being depends upon the collective effort of all group members (Leung, 2010); however, when a group is operating within a highly competitive context, simply agreeing to whatever a leader suggests may not be sufficient to achieve group success. Thus, parents need to adopt strategies from both parenting styles to teach their children to express their thoughts and feelings—an authoritative approach—without losing control of their emotions or offending anyone in the group—more of an authoritarian approach. Future studies are needed to explore a proper characterization of contemporary Chinese parenting, and to understand the potential mechanism(s) behind the positive correlation between authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles observed in this study.

It should be noted that after the CFAs, the measure of authoritarian and authoritative parenting used in the current study included only a subset of the original items (i.e., 16 out of 18 items for authoritative style and 10 out of 20 items for authoritarian style); therefore, the underlying constructs of the two subscales could be different from those assessed by the original measure. Some removed items (e.g., my mother instructs me not to get dirty when I am playing) may not reflect the parenting characteristics especially appropriate for the age group of current participants (youth ages 9-17 years). In addition, the original CRPR was developed in 1982. After 35 years, some of the items may no longer be appropriate measures of contemporary Chinese mothers’, especially urban Chinese mothers’, typical parenting styles (e.g., my mother teaches me that in one way or another, punishment will find me when I am bad; my mother believes that a child should be seen and not heard). Keeping this in mind, the current research suggests that we should be cautious when applying Baumrind’s parenting styles in contemporary Chinese contexts. Chinese parents may frequently combine characteristics of authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles, instead of being characterized as solely or primarily authoritarian as in previous studies (see Chen-Bouck et al., 2017).

Given that parenting practice in collectivist societies tends to place greater emphasis on conformity and obedience than does parenting practice in more individualistic societies (Chao, 1994; Ho, 1989; Rudy & Grusec, 2006), we expected to observe a positive association between mothers’ endorsement of collectivism socialization goals and their use of psychological control. However, contrary to expectations, collectivism socialization goals and psychological control were negatively related. One possible explanation is that although Grusec, Rudy, and Martini (1997) suggested that in collectivist cultures, individuals must learn to inhibit the expression of their own needs and feelings and to attend to the needs of others in the in-group, inhibiting the expression of personal needs and feelings differs from denying the existence of such feelings. It is possible that to cultivate appropriate social skills and behaviors (e.g., maintain interdependence, prioritize the interests of the group), Chinese mothers emphasize respecting others’ opinions when people disagree and empathizing with others, rather than eliminating personal opinions and feelings. Another possible explanation is that Barber’s measure did not capture other benign forms of psychological control commonly practiced by Chinese parents (e.g., shaming, guilt induction; Fung, 1999; Fung & Lau, 2012; Wu et al., 2002; Yu et al., 2015), but predominantly focused on harsh forms of psychological control (e.g., love withdrawal, personal attack; Yu et al., 2015). For example, a study suggested that Taiwanese parents mainly used shaming to promote children’s awareness of and sensitivity to social rules (Fung, 1999). Therefore, to fully examine the relationship between Chinese mothers’ endorsement of collectivism socialization goals and their use of psychological control, all forms of psychological control should be included.

As expected, greater collectivism socialization goals were associated with higher scores on behavioral control. Contextual development models propose that parents endorsing culturally prescribed values adjust their parenting practices to promote culturally desirable behavior in their children (Chen & French, 2008). Chinese culture values obedience to parents (Ho, 1994; Huang et al., 2003) and maintenance of connection among individuals (Hsu, 1985); therefore, it is understandable that Chinese mothers who strongly endorse collectivism socialization goals would be likely to use strategies like behavioral control to monitor and control children’s activities to help them develop social and behavioral skills (e.g., connectedness, interdependence) that are beneficial for thriving in a Chinese context. It should be noted here that when youth were older, mothers’ use of behavioral control did decrease; such declines with age are developmentally appropriate and associated with positive outcomes for youth (Pomerantz & Wang, 2009).

“Training” Beliefs and Parenting

In contrast to previous research on Chinese American mothers suggested that child-rearing beliefs related to “training” are associated with both mothers’ authoritative and authoritarian parenting (Chao, 2000), we found that mothers’ “training” beliefs were not associated with either parenting style. The idea of guan was originally developed based on studies with Chinese American mothers, it is possible that mainland Chinese mothers’ understanding of guan could be different than Chinese American mothers’ understanding. During the analysis of the measurement model, the original two subscales construct did not fit the current data; a one-factor model (with nine out of the original 13 items retained) was implied after the EFA, so the underlying construct of “training” beliefs could be different than what Chao (2000) tested in her study. Consistent with this possibility, a recent study on Chinese mothers’ parenting for adolescents (Chen-Bouck et al., 2017) argued that the interpretation of guan for the mothers in their sample differed from those described in previous studies with mothers of younger children (e.g., a high degree of parental monitoring and firm directives; Chao, 1994, 2000), and the focus of guan for mothers of adolescents changed to providing education and guidance. Further research is needed to test whether the understanding of guan or the relation between guan and parenting behaviors differ between Chinese and Chinese American parents, and between Chinese mothers with younger and older children.

In addition, there was a lack of association between mothers’ “training” beliefs and their use of psychological control. Guan involves high expectations to help children develop into well-functioning members of society (Chao, 1994, 2000), and contemporary Chinese parents intentionally cultivate psychological well-being so their children can be well-adjusted in society (Chen-Bouck et al., 2017; Way et al., 2013), so it is understandable that mothers’ endorsement of “training” beliefs may not have much impact on their use of psychological control.

Contrary to expectations, analyses yielded a significant negative association between mothers’ training beliefs and their use of behavioral control. In a study identifying key dimensions of Chinese child-rearing beliefs, Lieber et al. (2006) found that among the four key dimensions—training, shame, autonomy, and authoritativeness—the training dimension was positively related to the autonomy dimension. If training is positively associated with autonomy, it is reasonable to observe a negative association between mothers’ “training” beliefs and their use of behavioral control, since using behavioral control usually aims to induce compliance with parental directives (Schaefer, 1965).

In addition, the way behavioral control was measured may not reflect some aspects of behavioral control that Chinese mothers might exert. For example, Chinese parents are typically directive in scheduling their children’s time and thus may exert control over a child’s friendships through intentional scheduling. Furthermore, the behavioral control scale measured parental knowledge of children’s whereabouts and activities, but Chinese youth might not perceive mothers having this knowledge as mothers exerting behavioral control over them. Perceptions of parental control (i.e., whether control is perceived as fair and loving vs. unreasonable or controlling) are generally viewed as more important to children’s outcomes than the actual amount or type of control exerted (Chen-Bouck & Patterson, 2017; Rohner et al., 2005). Future research should include measures of behavioral control specifically designed for use with Chinese families.

Youth Age and Parenting

Given the wide range of youths’ ages (9-17 years of age), we explored whether parenting attributes varied based on youth age. The results revealed that the older the youth, the less they perceived their mothers’ use of authoritative and authoritarian parenting and behavioral control. Our finding is consistent with extant findings that Chinese parents’ parental control decreased as children moved into adolescence (Chen-Bouck et al., 2017; Qin et al., 2009).

Some scholars argued that because parenting style is a constellation of attitudes, behaviors, and interactions between parents and children, it could be more stable over time than specific parenting behaviors (Dallaire & Weinraub, 2005). The observation of decreased usage of authoritarian and authoritative parenting could be partially explained by the way mothers’ responsiveness was measured in the current study. Some items, such as “my mother jokes and plays with me” and “my mother expresses her affection by hugging, kissing, and holding me,” may not have been appropriate measures of warmth for older youth in our sample. It is possible that, with older children, mothers express their affection and warmth differently (e.g., expressing their warmth in a subtler or more implicit fashion by being supportive and sensitive to their children’s needs). Chen-Bouck et al. (2017) found that Chinese mothers and adolescents reported that after entering adolescence, mothers used physical actions to express their affection less frequently. Mothers may apply other age-appropriate strategies that were not captured by the items used in the study. For example, Chinese adolescents reported that their mothers sacrificed a large amount of time helping them with homework and exam preparation and prioritizing their needs and wants (Chen-Bouck et al., 2017). Future research might benefit from revisions to the measurement of parenting styles to include more age-appropriate and culturally sensitive items for Chinese adolescents.

Limitations

Although the current study makes a contribution to the existing literature on the factors that may influence Chinese mothers’ choice of parenting, we are aware of certain limitations. First and foremost, after the CFAs, some items were excluded from the original “training” scale, authoritative parenting style scale, and authoritarian parenting style scale, and the underlying construct of the three scales measured could be different than what past studies used, therefore the interpretation and comparison between the results of the current study and previous studies should be very cautious. More research (e.g., factor analysis and measurement invariance analysis) is needed to further validate those scales among a larger sample of mainland Chinese participants.

Second, given that all measures were self-report, and mothers’ parenting attributes were only reported by youth, there may be possible common rater biases. Multiple informants (e.g., mothers, fathers, and children) reporting on mothers’ parenting attributes, and other possible sources of data (e.g., behavioral observations) could provide a more thorough evaluation. In addition, since all participants were recruited from urban areas and most were from middle-class families, the results of the study might not be representative of mainland Chinese mothers as a whole, and the findings should not be generalized to Chinese mothers from other socioeconomic status backgrounds or nonurban areas.

Fourth, the study used a cross-sectional design and all data were collected at a single point in time. As a result, strong claims about causal nature of the relationships cannot be made. Longitudinal studies may be conducted as a follow-up to examine the predictive relations among socialization goals and beliefs and parenting attributes and to investigate changes in parenting as their children reach different ages. Longitudinal studies may also allow for more thorough examination of bidirectional influences between parents and children. Also, more qualitative data are needed to further explain relations between socialization goals and beliefs and parenting and how these relations might vary with child age.

Conclusion and Implications

The findings of the current study suggest that both mothers’ collectivism socialization goals and “training” beliefs and youth age may have an impact on parenting styles and parenting behaviors. Previous studies implied that mothers from collectivistic cultural backgrounds tend to apply more authoritarian parenting practices, compared with mothers from individualistic cultural backgrounds (Rudy & Grusec, 2006). However, the current study suggests that mothers who are high in collectivism socialization goals adopted both authoritarian and authoritative parenting practices. Evidence suggested that under the condition of rapid social changes, mainland Chinese parents’ parenting is changing rapidly in an individualistic direction such that they use less control and encourage independence in their children (Chen, Bian, Xin, Wang, & Silbereisen, 2010). A study comparing parenting between mainland China and Chinese societies not experiencing rapid economic growth (i.e., Hong Kong and Taiwan) revealed that mainland Chinese parents exert less control than their Hong Kong and Taiwan counterparts (Berndt, Cheung, Lau, Hau, & Lew, 1993; Lai, Zhang, & Wang, 2000). In addition, with increased competition in education and employment in recent years (Lee, 2007) and the implementation of a one-child policy, psychological well-being has become one of the major foci of parenting in mainland China (Chang, 2006; Chen-Bouck et al., 2017; Way et al., 2013). Along with this goal, mainland Chinese parents may have adjusted their parenting practices to promote psychological well-being. For example, Chen and Chen (2010) compared parenting attitudes among parents of elementary school children in two cohorts (1998 and 2002) in Shanghai and found that parents in the 2002 cohort scored higher on parental warmth and lower on power assertion than did those in the 1998 cohort. Therefore, mainland Chinese parents may be adjusting their parenting in response to the changing economic, cultural, and social context of contemporary China. The findings of the current study remind us that parenting is not only a social and cultural phenomenon but also a constantly changing phenomenon. Future research should explore how Chinese mothers balance traditional socialization goals (e.g., obedience, harmony, interdependence, and collectivism) with newer demands for independence, self-assertion, and self-reliance. In addition, the associations between Chinese mothers’ cultural socialization goals and parenting beliefs and other dimensions of parenting (e.g., autonomy support) are also relevant to our framework and worthy of investigation in the future.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.

Barber

B. K.

(1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296-3319.

Barber

B. K.

Olsen

J. E.

Shagle

S. C.

(1994). Associations between parental psychological and behavioral control and youth internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Child Development, 65, 1120-1136.

Barber

B. K.

Stolz

H. E.

Olsen

J. A.

(2005). Parental support, psychological control, and behavioral control: Assessing relevance across time, culture, and method. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 70, 1-137. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5834.2005.00365.x

Baumrind

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

Baumrind

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

Baumrind

(1968). Authoritarian vs. authoritative parental control. Adolescence, 3, 255-272.

Baumrind

(1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4, 1-103.

Belsky

(1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83-96.

10.

Berndt

Cheung

P. C.

Lau

Hau

K. T.

Lew

W. J. F.

(1993). Perceptions of parenting in Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong: Sex differences and societal differences. Developmental Psychology, 29, 156-164. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.29.1.156

11.

Brown

B. B.

Mounts

Lamborn

S. D.

Steinberg

(1993). Parenting practices and peer group affiliation in adolescence. Child Development, 64, 467-482.

12.

Cairns

R. B.

Cairns

B. D.

(1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Chang

(2006, July). Confucianism or confusion: Parenting only children in urban China. Keynote address at the 19th biennial convention of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Melbourne, Australia.

14.

Chang

Schwartz

Dodge

K. A.

McBride-Chang

(2003). Harsh parenting in relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 598-606.

15.

Chao

(1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111-1119.

16.

Chao

(2000). The parenting of immigrant Chinese and European American mothers: Relations between parenting styles, socialization goals, and parental practices. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 233-248.

17.

Chen

F.-M.

Luster

(2002). Factors related to parenting practices in Taiwan. Early Child Development and Care, 172, 413-430.

18.

Chen

Bian

Xin

Wang

Silbereisen

R. K.

(2010). Perceived social change and childrearing attitudes in China. European Psychologist, 15, 260-270. doi:10.1027/10169040/a000060

19.

Chen

(2010). Children’s socioemotional functioning and adjustment in the changing Chinese society. In Silbereisen

R. K.

Chen

(Eds.), Social change and human development: Concepts and results (pp. 209-226). London, England: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446252161.n10

20.

Chen

Dong

Zhou

(1997). Authoritative and authoritarian parenting practices and social and school performance in Chinese children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 855-873.

21.

Chen

French

D. C.

(2008). Children’s social competence in cultural context. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 591-616.

22.

Chen

Liu

(2000). Parental warmth, control, and indulgence and their relations to adjustment in Chinese children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 401-419.

23.

Chen

Liu

B. S.

Cen

Chen

Wang

(2000). Maternal authoritative and authoritarian attitudes and mother-child interactions and relationships in urban China. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 119-126.

24.

Chen

Wang

Cen

(2001). Parenting practices and aggressive behaviors in Chinese children. Parenting: Science and Practice, 1, 159-183.

25.

Chen-Bouck

Duan

Patterson

M. M.

(2017). A qualitative study of urban Chinese middle-class mothers’ parenting for adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 32, 479-508. doi:10.1177/0743558416630815

26.

Chen-Bouck

Patterson

M. M.

(2017). Perceptions of parental control in China: Effects of cultural values, cultural normativeness, and perceived parental acceptance. Journal of Family Issues, 38, 1288-1312.

27.

Cheung

C. S. S.

Pomerantz

E. M.

(2011). Parents’ involvement in children’s learning in the United States and China: Implications for children’s academic and emotional adjustment. Child Development, 82, 932-950.

28.

Dallaire

D. H.

Weinraub

(2005). The stability of parenting behaviors over the first 6 years of life. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 201-219.

29.

Darling

Steinberg

(1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496.

30.

Dornbusch

S. M.

Ritter

P. L.

Leiderman

P. H.

Roberts

D. F.

Fraleigh

M. J.

(1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.

31.

Eisenberg

Zhou

Liew

Champion

Pidada

S. U.

(2006). Emotion, emotion-related regulation, and social functioning. In Chen

French

D. C.

Schneider

B. H.

(Eds.), Peer relationships in cultural context (pp. 170-198). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499739.008

32.

A. S.

Markus

H. R.

(2014). My mother and me: Why tiger mothers motivate Asian Americans but not European Americans. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 739-749.

33.

Fung

(1999). Becoming a moral child: The socialization of shame among young Chinese children. Ethos, 27, 180-209. doi:10.1525/eth.1999.27.2.180

34.

Fung

Lau

A. S.

(2012). Tough love or hostile domination? Psychological control and relational induction in cultural context. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 966-975.

35.

Gershoff

E. T.

Grogan-Kaylor

Lansford

J. E.

Chang

Zelli

Deater-Deckard

Dodge

K. A.

(2010). Parent discipline practices in an international sample: Associations with child behaviors and moderation by perceived normativeness. Child Development, 81, 487-502.

36.

Graf

F. A.

Röder

Hein

Müller

A. R.

Ganzorig

(2014). Cultural influences on socialization goals and parenting behaviors of Mongolian parents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 1317-1327.

37.

Greenfield

P. M.

(2009). Linking social change and developmental change: Shifting pathways of human development. Developmental Psychology, 45, 401-418.

38.

Grusec

J. E.

Rudy

Martini

(1997). Parenting cognitions and child outcomes: An overview and implications for children’s internalization of values. In Grusce

J. E.

Kuczynski

(Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 259-282). New York, NY: John Wiley.

39.

Hart

C. H.

Yang

Nelson

D. A.

Jin

Bazarskaya

Nelson

(1998). Peer contact patterns, parenting practices, and preschoolers’ social competence in China, Russia, and the United States. In Slee

Rigby

(Eds.), Children’s peer relations (pp. 3-30). London, England: Routledge.

40.

D. Y. F.

(1989). Continuity and variation in Chinese patterns of socialization. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 149-163.

41.

D. Y. F.

(1994). Cognitive socialization in Confucian heritage cultures. In Greenfield

Cocking

(Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 285-313). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

42.

Hsu

F. L. K.

(1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. In Marsella

A. J.

De Vos

Hsu

F. L. K.

(Eds.), Culture and self (pp. 24-55). London, England: Tavistock.

43.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

44.

Huang

C.-Y.

Lamb

M. E.

(2014). Acculturation and parenting in first-generation Chinese immigrants in the United Kingdom. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 150-167.

45.

Huang

L. N.

Ying

Y.-W.

Arganza

G. F.

(2003). Chinese American children and adolescents. In Gibbs

J. T.

Huang

L. N.

(Eds.), Children of color: Psychological interventions with culturally diverse youth (pp. 187-228). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

46.

Jose

P. E.

Huntsinger

C. S.

Huntsinger

P. R.

Liaw

F.-R.

(2000). Parental values and practices relevant to young children’s social development in Taiwan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 677-702.

47.

Kelley

M. L.

(1992). Cultural differences in child rearing: A comparison of immigrant Chinese and Caucasian American mothers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23, 444-455.

48.

Kim

H. S.

Sherman

D. K.

(2007). “Express yourself”: Culture and the effect of self-expression on choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1-11. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.1

49.

Kim

S. Y.

Wang

Orozco-Lapray

Shen

Murtuza

(2013). Does “tiger parenting” exist? Parenting profiles of Chinese Americans and adolescent developmental outcomes. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 4, 7-18.

50.

Lai

A. C.

Zhang

Wang

(2000). Maternal child-rearing practices in Hong Kong and Beijing Chinese families: A comparative study. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 60-66. doi:10.1080/002075900399529

51.

Lansford

J. E.

Chang

Dodge

K. A.

Malone

P. S.

Oburu

Palmérus

. . . Quinn

(2005). Physical discipline and children’s adjustment: Cultural normativeness as a moderator. Child Development, 76, 1234-1246.

52.

Lau

A. S.

Fung

(2013). On better footing to understand parenting and family process in Asian American families. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 4, 71-75.

53.

Lee

C. K.

(2007). Working in China: Ethnographies of labor and workplace transformation. New York, NY: Routledge.

54.

Leung

(2010). Beliefs in Chinese culture. In Bond

M. H.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 221-240). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

55.

Zhang

Wang

(2015). Parental behavioral control, psychological control and Chinese adolescents’ peer victimization: The mediating role of self-control. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 628-637. doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9873-4

56.

Costanzo

P. R.

Putallaz

(2010). Maternal socialization goals, parenting styles, and social-emotional adjustment among Chinese and European American young adults: Testing a mediation model. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 171, 330-362.

57.

Lieber

Fung

Leung

P. W.

(2006). Chinese child-rearing beliefs: Key dimensions and contributions to the development of culture-appropriate assessment. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 140-147.

58.

Marsh

H. W.

Hau

K.-T.

Wen

(2004). 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. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341.

59.

Okazaki

(2018). Culture, psychology, and social justice: Toward a more critical psychology of Asians and Asian Americans. In Hammack

P. L.

(Ed.), Oxford handbook of social psychology and social justice (pp. 141-156). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

60.

Oyserman

Coon

H. M.

Kemmelmeier

(2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.

61.

Park

Y. S.

Kim

B. S. K.

Chiang

C. M.

(2010). Acculturation, enculturation, parental adherence to Asian cultural values, parenting styles, and family conflict among Asian American college students. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 1, 67-79.

62.

Pearson

Rao

(2003). Socialization goals, parenting practices, and peer competence in Chinese and English preschoolers. Early Child Development and Care, 173, 131-146.

63.

Pomerantz

E. M.

Wang

(2009). The role of parental control in children’s development in Western and East Asian countries. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 285-289.

64.

Punnett

B. J.

Shenkar

(1996). Handbook for international management research. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

65.

Qin

Pomerantz

E. M.

Wang

(2009). Are gains in decision-making autonomy during early adolescence beneficial for emotional functioning? The case of the United States and China. Child Development, 80, 1705-1721.

66.

Rickel

A. U.

Biasatti

L. L.

(1982). Modification of the block child rearing practices report. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 129-134.

67.

Robinson

C. C.

Mandleco

Olsen

S. F.

Hart

G. H.

(1995). Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting practices: Development of a new measure. Psychological Reports, 77, 819-830.

68.

Rohner

R. P.

(1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental acceptance/rejection theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

69.

Rohner

R. P.

Khaleque

Cournoyer

D. E.

(2005). Parental acceptance-rejection: Theory, methods, cross-cultural evidence, and implications. Ethos, 33, 299-334.

70.

Rosseel

(2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-36.

71.

Rudy

Grusec

J. E.

(2006). Authoritarian parenting in individualist and collectivist groups: Associations with maternal emotion and cognition and children’s self-esteem. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 68-78.

72.

Ryan

A. S.

(1985). Cultural factors in casework with Chinese-Americans. Social Casework, 66, 333-340.

73.

Schaefer

E. S.

(1965). A configurational analysis of children’s reports of parent behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29, 552-557.

74.

Smetana

J. G.

(2017). Current research on parenting styles, dimensions, and beliefs. Current Opinion in Psychology, 15, 19-25.

75.

Spera

(2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 125-146.

76.

Symonds

P. M.

(1939). The psychology of parent-child relationships. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

77.

Wang

Chan

H.-W.

Lin

(2012). Antecedents of Chinese parents’ autonomy support and psychological control: The interplay between parents’ self-development socialization goals and adolescents’ school performance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 1442-1454.

78.

Wang

Chang

(2008). Multidimensional parental warmth and its relations to pupils’ social development: A comparison between paternal and maternal parenting (in Chinese). Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 9, 121-147.

79.

Way

Okazaki

Zhao

Kim

J. J.

Chen

Yoshikawa

. . . Deng

(2013). Social and emotional parenting: Mothering in a changing Chinese society. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 4, 61-70.

80.

Werner

Campbell

D. T.

(1970). Translating, working through interpreters, and the problem of decentering. In Naroll

Cohen

(Eds.), Handbook of method in cultural anthropology (pp. 398-420). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

81.

Wolfradt

Hempel

Miles

J. N. V.

(2003). Perceived parental styles, depersonalisation, anxiety and coping behavior in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 521-532.

82.

Woronov

T. E.

(2007). Chinese children, American education: Globalizing child rearing in contemporary China. In Cole

Durham

(Eds.), Generations and globalization: Youth, age, and family in the new world economy (pp. 29-51). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

83.

D. Y. H.

(1985). Child training in Chinese culture. In Tseng

W. S.

D. Y. H.

(Eds.), Chinese culture and mental health (pp. 113-134). New York, NY: Academic Press.

84.

Robinson

C. C.

Yang

Hart

C. H.

Olsen

S. F.

Porter

C. L.

. . . Wu

(2002). Similarities and differences in mothers’ parenting of preschoolers in China and the United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 481-491.

85.

Wuyts

Chen

Vansteenkiste

Soenens

(2015). Social pressure and unfulfilled dreams among Chinese and Belgian parents: Two roads to controlling parenting via child-invested contingent self-esteem. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 1150-1168.

86.

Xi’an Municipal Bureau of Statistics and NBS Survey office in Xi’an. (2014). Statistical communique of Xi’an city on 2013 national economic and social development. Retrieved from http://tjj.xa.gov.cn/ptl/def/def/2014/tjnj/indexeh.htm

87.

Farver

J. A. M.

Zhang

Zeng

Cai

(2005). Mainland Chinese parenting styles and parent-child interaction. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 524-531.

88.

Yoshikawa

Way

Chen

(2012). Large-scale economic change and youth development: The case of urban China. New Directions in Youth Development, 135, 39-55.

89.

Cheah

C. S. L.

Hart

C. H.

Sun

Olsen

J. A.

(2015). Confirming the multidimensionality of psychologically controlling parenting among Chinese-American mothers: Love withdrawal, guilt induction, and shaming. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39, 285-292.

90.

Zhou

Tao

Chen

S. H.

Mai

Lee

. . . Li

(2012). Asset and protective factors for Asian American children’s mental health adjustment. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 312-319. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00251.x