Parenting Styles and Adolescents’ Problem Behaviors: The Mediating Effect of Adolescents’ Self-Control

Abstract

The study examined the mediating role of adolescents’ self-control on the relationship between parenting styles and problem behaviors. A parenting style questionnaire, adolescents’ self-control questionnaire, and the Youth Self-Report were administered to 611 adolescents (335 boys, and 276 girls, M_age = 13.17, SD = 0.46) to assess their parenting styles, self-control, and problem behaviors. The results indicated that paternal rejection was positively associated with externalizing problems and maternal rejection was positively associated with internalizing problems. Moreover, adolescents’ self-control played a mediating role in the relationship between paternal rejection and externalizing problems and between paternal rejection and internalizing problems. The findings showed that paternal and maternal rearing styles have different influences on adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems, respectively, and adolescents’ self-control played a mediating role in these different relationships. This study has great significance for revealing the mechanism of parenting styles on adolescents’ problem behaviors.

Keywords

parenting styles problem behaviors mediating role self-control adolescent

Introduction

Problem behaviors refer to the behavioral difficulties that prevent adolescents from adapting to changing environments, including internalizing and externalizing problems (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1978). Internalizing problems include anxiety, depression, social withdrawal, and somatic complaints without apparent medical cause, and other problem behaviors that point to the individual’s mental internal state. Externalizing problems includes fighting, attacking people, threatening people, temper outbursts, lying, stealing, truancy, and other behaviors that individuals use to negatively interact with the environment (Achenbach et al., 2016). Adolescents’ problem behaviors are closely related to various maladaptive outcomes (Papachristou & Flouri, 2020). A large number of studies have explored the factors that contribute to the occurrence of adolescents’ problem behaviors, which could help to prevent or reduce problem behaviors effectively in adolescents.

The occurrence and development of adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems are influenced by environmental factors, such as, parenting styles (Eun et al., 2018), negative life events (Zhang & Wang, 2021), social support (Mo et al., 2018), parental emotion expressiveness (Peng et al., 2018), and individual internal factors such as self-control (Chan & Chui, 2017), cognitive function (Zhang, Yang, et al., 2020), trait impulsiveness (Cooper et al., 2003), empathy (Morosan et al., 2020), and gender (MJ & Kim, 2014). Among the external environmental factors, parenting style was proved to be a crucial factor influencing problem behaviors (Rebecka et al., 2020; Ruiz-Hernández et al., 2019). Among the individual factors, self-control has been demonstrated to be closely associated with problem behaviors (Baumeister et al., 2007; Chan & Chui, 2017). Moreover, parenting styles have been found to influence self-control, which in turn affect adolescents’ problem behaviors (Kim, 2014; Liu et al., 2021). According to the family system theory (Rothbaum et al., 2002), fathers and mothers play different roles and influence each other in the process of rearing adolescents. In the context of Chinese culture, it has traditionally been emphasized that “men work outside and women dominate the family.” In terms of children’s education, it is often seen that husbands played the bad police officer while wives played the good police officer. “A kind mother and a strict father” has been the typical image of a traditional Chinese family. These different parenting styles adopted by fathers and mothers may play different roles in adolescents’ problem behaviors as well as self-control. These different parenting styles of fathers and mothers may interact with adolescents’ self-control to contribute to adolescents’ problem behaviors differently. Furthermore, the influence of different parenting styles on adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems may be different for boys and girls. However, previous studies have not explored this question from this perspective. Our research aims to explore this questions among junior middle school students.

Parenting Style and Adolescents’ Problem Behaviors

Parenting style can be defined as a synthesis of parental attitudes, practices, behaviors, and nonverbal expressions, used in the process of educating children, that characterizes the nature of parent-child interaction across diverse situations (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Research has found that different parenting styles have different influences on adolescents’ problem behaviors. Specifically, positive parenting styles were related to fewer problem behaviors while negative parenting styles were related to more problem behaviors; these findings were consistent and universal across races, ethnicities, and cultures (Dwairy, 2010). Rejection, overprotection, and warmth are three important parenting styles, and numerous studies have examined how these three parenting styles relate to adolescents’ problem behaviors (Lieb et al., 2000). Parental rejection and overprotection have been found to be positive predictors of adolescents’ problem behaviors, while parental warmth as a positive parenting style has been found to be a negative predictor of adolescents’ problem behaviors (Pinquart, 2017). Parental rejection refers to the absence of parental warmth, love, comfort, care, nurturing, support, or love, as well as the existence of various physically and psychologically harmful behaviors and has been demonstrated to be significantly positively associated with adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems (Akse et al., 2004). Adolescents who perceive themselves to be rejected appear to be more disposed to develop emotional and behavioral problems such as depression or depressed affect, substance abuse, and other mental health-related issues (Mendo-Lázaro et al., 2019). Parental overprotection is a mismatch between parental involvement and the developmental needs of adolescents (Petegem et al., 2020). Parental overprotection is a positive predictor of adolescents’ problem behaviors (Janssens et al., 2009). As a positive parenting style, parental warmth—believed to be supportive and consistent with the needs and demands of the child (Gauvain & Huard, 1999), has been demonstrated to be negatively associated with adolescents’ problem behaviors; higher levels of parental warmth have been associated with fewer maladjustments and lower levels of substance use in adolescents (Chinchilla & Kosson, 2016).

Although different parental rearing styles have different effects on adolescents’ problem behaviors, there remains a paucity of evidence on the different roles of paternal and maternal rearing styles on adolescents’ problem behaviors. As mentioned above, fathers and mothers play different roles and influence each other in the process of rearing adolescents (Rothbaum et al., 2002). According to the “parental rejection-acceptance” theory, parental rejection increases adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors (Mendo-Lázaro et al., 2019; Rohner, 2004). Paternal rejection is experienced through receiving corporal punishment (Qi, 2019), and when the child-raising styles are hostile, refusing, or physically aggressive, children are more likely to have externalizing problems (DeKlyen et al., 1998; Kim et al., 2013). According to the social learning theory, adolescents will develop externalizing problems such as aggressive behaviors in the process of observing paternal corporal punishment (Bandura & Walters, 1977). Numerous studies have found that maternal negative rearing styles are positively associated with adolescents’ internalizing problems such as anxiety and depressive symptoms (El-Sheikh et al., 2010; Kiel & Maack, 2012; Rousseau & Scharf, 2015). In the context of Chinese culture, compared with fathers, mothers put more effort into raising and caring for their children, and children have a stronger sense of intimacy with their mothers. The mother is an important object of security, support, and dependence for the child, and the maternal rejection would trigger internal conflict in their children, leaving them insecure and lacking in support and trust, which can trigger their internalizing problems (Drake & Ginsburg, 2012; Xu et al., 2017). Based on these findings, it is reasonable to consider that negative paternal parenting styles might be related to externalizing problems while negative maternal parenting styles might be related to internalizing problems. However, no study to date has examined this issue.

Self-control and Adolescents’ Problem Behaviors

Self-control can be defined as the ability of individuals to restrain and manage their behaviors, emotions, and cognitive activities to meet social standards or pursue their best interests in the long-term (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). The general theory of crime claims that low levels of self-control could account for “all crime, at all times” (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). The self-control theory posits that low levels of self-control could cause aggression and other behaviors in adolescents (Baumeister et al., 2007).

Adolescents with low levels of self-control are characterized as impulsive, adventurous, unsympathetic, self-centered, bad-tempered, short-sighted, and pursuing instant gratification (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). In terms of the relationship between self-control and problem behaviors, the results of previous studies can be grouped into the following two views. One view is that there is a linear relationship between self-control and problem behaviors. Self-control is fundamentally adaptive, and good self-control predicts better outcomes in almost all domains of functioning (such as thinking, impulsivity, emotions, and behavioral performance), therefore the effective way to prevent and reduce problem behaviors in adolescents is to improve their self-control (Finkenauer et al., 2005; Tangney et al., 2004). Another view is that there is a curvilinear relationship between self-control and problem behaviors and that both lower and higher levels of self-control could lead to problem behaviors. Specifically, individuals with higher levels of self-control are prone to internalizing problems such as anxiety and depression due to excessive restraint and inhibition of their own needs, while individuals with lower levels of self-control are prone to externalizing problems due to their high impulsivity and low delayed gratification (Finkenauer et al., 2005; Robins et al., 1996), and some researchers pointed out that individuals with low levels of self-control are at risk for internalizing and externalizing problems simultaneously because they cannot control their emotions and behaviors (Dubas et al., 2002). Although a few studies have indicated that higher self-control may lead to internalizing problems, a large body of research supports a linear relationship between self-control and problem behaviors, specifically, self-control not only negatively predicted adolescents' externalizing problems (Augimeri et al., 2018; Chan & Chui, 2017; Gino et al., 2011), but also negatively predicted adolescents' internalizing problems (Situ et al., 2019; Tangney et al., 2004). Mood disorders are the key indicators of internalizing problems in adolescents (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1978). The self-regulation model believes that internalizing problems such as depression arise from a functional disorder caused by the failure of self-regulation. Adolescents with low levels of self-control often cannot achieve set goals, and this might trigger irritability and anxiety in them, which in turn can lead to internalizing problems. Additionally, failing to achieve set goals might damage their self-esteem and self-efficacy, making them more prone to anxiety and depression (Strauman, 2002). According to the general theory of crime and the self-regulation model, we hypothesized that self-control not only negatively predicted adolescents' externalizing problems, but also negatively predicted adolescents' internalizing problems.

Parenting Style, Self-control, and Adolescents’ Problem Behaviors

The self-control theory postulates that negative parenting styles could decrease the level of adolescents’ self-control, and low levels of self-control could increase adolescents' externalizing (Baumeister et al., 2007; van Prooijen et al., 2018) and internalizing problems (Situ et al., 2019). Positive parenting styles such as a high level of parental involvement and warmth could enhance adolescents’ self-control, and a high level of self-control would prevent the occurrence of problem behaviors (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Empirical research has demonstrated that self-control could play a mediating role between parenting styles and problem behaviors; that is, negative parenting styles would damage children’s self-control and indirectly increase their problem behaviors, while positive parenting styles would improve children’s self-control and indirectly decrease their problem behaviors (Blokland et al., 2001; Zhang, Yang, Liu, Lü, et al., 2020). Therefore, we hypothesized that self-control might play a mediating role between parenting styles and problem behaviors.

As previously noted, family system theory holds that fathers and mothers play different roles and influence each other in the process of rearing adolescents (Rothbaum et al., 2002). Therefore, the mechanisms of self-control in the parenting styles of fathers and mothers on adolescents’ problem behaviors might be different. Although one study demonstrated that junior middle school students’ self-control plays a mediating role between maternal rejection, paternal warmth, paternal overprotection, and problem behaviors (Jiang, 2018), they did not distinguish between internalizing and externalizing problems. Moreover, adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems frequently co-occur (Pesenti-Gritti et al., 2008; Wiggins et al., 2015); however, they are different. Thus, it is necessary to discuss how adolescents’ self-control plays a mediating role between paternal and maternal child raising styles and adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems. Furthermore, a previous study has found that there are gender differences in the impact of self-control on problem behaviors (Chui & Chan, 2016). Specifically, self-control has a stronger effect on problem behavior in boys. This may be because peer influence and social expectations differ in the boys and girls groups. Boys' behaviors are more dependent on their own judgment, while girls' behaviors are more susceptible to peer group influence, which weakens the influence of girls' own attributes such as self-control on their behavior (Lei et al., 2020). Therefore, we hypothesized that there were gender differences in the mediating effect. Specifically, the mediating effect of self-control in the relationship between parenting styles and problem behaviors was more significant in the boy group. Therefore, this study sought to examine how adolescents’ self-control plays a mediating role between paternal and maternal rearing styles and adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems, while also examining whether there was a significant gender difference in the mediating effect.

Present Study

In summary, our study investigated the relationship between paternal and maternal rejection, warmth, overprotection, and adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems, as well as the mediating effect of adolescents’ self-control. We further examined whether there were significant gender differences in the mediating effect model among Chinese adolescents. We hypothesized that: (1) Paternal rejection and overprotection were positively related to adolescents’ externalizing problems, while maternal rejection and overprotection were positively related to adolescents’ internalizing problems; and (2) adolescents’ self-control would play a mediating role in the relationship between paternal rejection, maternal rejection, maternal overprotection, and adolescents’ problem behaviors, and the mediation effect was more significant in the boy’s group.

Method

Participants

Before the study, we conducted a power analysis using G*power (Faul et al., 2009); 444 adolescents were the minimum sample size required to detect the effect size (Cohen’s f²= 0.05) with 95% statistical power (α error = 0.05). We randomly selected two junior middle schools in North China to be involved in the investigation, and we recruited 611 adolescents to participate in our study. Participants ranged in age from 12–15 years old (M_age = 13.17, SD = 0.46), including 335 boys (54.8%) and 276 girls (45.2%). The average age of boys was 13.25 (SD = 0.31), and the average age of girls was 13.07 (SD = 0.27); 34 students, 23 boys and 11 girls, did not fill in their age.

Procedures

This study was approved by the University Research Ethics Committee. Furthermore, informed consent was obtained from adolescents’ parents before data collection. Then, the data collection was carried out by three trained research assistants. After obtaining informed consent, we took the class as a unit, and the questionnaires were handed out and collected back on the spot. In our study, all questionnaires were completed by the adolescents in one survey. Most participants completed the survey in around 20 minutes, and we reclaimed the questionnaires within 30 minutes. All participants joined the experiment voluntarily, and they were not paid or given any other compensation.

Measures

Adolescents’ parenting styles

Adolescents’ parenting styles were measured using the simplified parenting style questionnaire (Jiang et al., 2010), which comprises two parts covering the roles of father and mother, each part with 21 questions using a four-point scoring system (1 = never, 4 = always). The questionnaire was divided into three dimensions: rejection, emotional warmth, and overprotection. This questionnaire was widely used among Chinese college students and has good reliability and validity (Li et al., 2014). In our study, Cronbach’s α for rejection, emotional warmth, and overprotection dimensions, were 0.79, 0.84, and 0.69 respectively for the paternal version, and 0.77, 0.84, and 0.71, respectively for the maternal version.

Youth Self-Report

Adolescents' problem behaviors were measured by a self-reported version of problem behaviors for adolescents (Achenbach, 1991). There are 31 items for internalizing problems and 30 items for externalizing problems. The internalizing scale comprises items pertaining to being withdrawn, somatic complaints, and anxious/depressed, three subscales, such as “I feel lonely”; the externalizing scale comprises delinquent and aggressive behaviors, two subscales, with items such as “I was truant or absent from school” for delinquent behaviors, and “I threatened to hurt someone” for aggressive behaviors. Participants were asked to rate the frequency of their engagement in each behavior based on their experience within the most recent 6 months. Three levels of scoring were used: 0 indicates the absence of symptoms or problem behaviors, one indicates that the symptom is present some of the time or applies to some extent; and two indicates that the symptom is present most of the time or applies well. Domestic researchers tested its reliability and validity and found that the scale had good reliability and validity (Liu & Yang, 1997). In our study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.92 for the scale of internalizing problems and 0.87 for the scale of externalizing problems.

Self-control

Adolescents' self-control was measured by the Middle School Students' Self-control Ability Questionnaire (Wang & Lu, 2004). It is divided into three dimensions: emotion, behavior, and thinking. There are a total of 36 items and five levels of scoring, ranging from “completely inconsistent,” to “completely consistent” which are represented by numbers 1–5. The total score range of the questionnaire is between 36 and 180. Higher scores indicated higher levels of self-control. This questionnaire was widely used among Chinese adolescents and had good reliability and validity (Chen et al., 2019). In our study, the Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.91 for this questionnaire.

Statistical Analysis

First, we used SPSS 22.0 for descriptive statistical tests, correlational analysis, and the common method deviation test. We then used Mplus 7.0 to examine the mediating effect. The missing rates for the variables of paternal rejection, maternal rejection, paternal warmth, maternal warmth, paternal overprotection, maternal overprotection, internalizing problems, and externalizing problems were 1%, 1.6%, 3.9%, 4.6%, 3.6%, 3.6%, 5.7%, and 2.8%, respectively. We used Full information maximum likelihood to deal with missing data. The bias-corrected 5000 bootstrap technique was used to test the mediation effects.

Results

Common Method Biases Checking

Our research data were collected by adolescents’ self-reported questionnaires; therefore, we used Harman’s One-factor Test to assess common method bias. The results of Harman’s One-factor Test showed that there were 37 factors with feature roots greater than 1, and the variance explained by the first factor was 16.84% (less than 40% of the critical value), indicating the common method bias in our study was within acceptable limits (Zhou & Long, 2004).

Describing Statistics and Correlation Analysis

Means, SD, and Pearson correlation analysis results for these study variables are shown in Table 1. Gender was significantly negatively correlated with paternal rejection (p = 0.000), paternal overprotection (p = 0.000) maternal rejection (p = 0.000), maternal overprotection (p = 0.003), externalizing problems (p = 0.004), and gender was also significantly positively correlated with self-control (p = 0.031). Paternal rejection, paternal overprotection, maternal rejection, and maternal overprotection were significantly negatively correlated with adolescents’ self-control (p = 0.000) and were significantly positively correlated with internalizing and externalizing problems (p = 0.000). Paternal and maternal warmth were significantly positively correlated with adolescents’ self-control (p = 0.000) and were significantly negatively correlated with internalizing and externalizing problems (p = 0.000). Adolescents’ self-control was significantly negatively correlated with internalizing and externalizing problems (p = 0.000). Additionally, the correlation analysis reveals that gender was related to problem behaviors (p = 0.01), therefore we used gender as a control variable when testing the mediation effect.

Table 1.

The mean (M), standard deviation (SD) and correlation matrix of each variable.

Items	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1Gender	1
2FR	−.17***	1
3FW	−.04	−.33***	1
4FO	−.16***	.56***	−.17***	1
5MR	−.15***	.67***	−.26***	.42***	1
6MW	.02	−.25***	.84***	−.11**	−.32***	1
7MO	−.12**	.41***	−.13**	.74***	.60***	−.14**	1
8SC	.10*	−.37***	.31***	−.30***	−.39***	.31***	−.32***	1
9IN	.03	.32***	−.29***	.29***	.41***	−.24***	.38***	−.48***	1
10EX	−.11*	.35***	−.17***	.26***	.37***	−.18***	.33***	−.58***	.60***	1
M	0.45	1.39	2.80	1.93	1.44	2.92	2.10	3.80	0.35	0.21
SD	0.50	0.49	0.71	0.52	0.51	0.69	0.55	0.56	0.31	0.20

Note. ^**p<0.01, ^*p<0.05. Boy:0, Girl:1, FR: paternal rejection, FW: paternal warmth, FO: paternal overprotection, MR: maternal rejection, FW:maternal warmth, FO: maternal overprotection, SC: self-control, IN: internalizing problems, EX: externalizing problems.

Mediating Effect Test

We used Mplus7.0 to investigate the mediation effect of adolescents’ self-control in parenting styles (rejection, warmth, overprotection) and problem behaviors (internalizing and externalizing problems) through structural equation models (Wang, 2014). Parenting styles (rejection, warmth, overprotection) were the independent variables in the model, and gender was the control variable. Adolescents’ self-control was a mediator variable in the model. Internalizing and externalizing problems were the dependent variables in the model. Using the bootstrap method of the bias correction, 5000 bootstrap samples were randomly selected to examine the mediation effect.

According to the mediation effect test procedure (Wen & Ye, 2014), first we tested the direct effect of parenting styles on adolescents' problem behaviors, and then examined the change in the mediation effect coefficient and the model fitting condition after adding the mediator variables. The direct effects test results indicated that the model fit well (χ²=50.269, df=25, CFI=0.983, TLI=0.970, RMSEA=0.043, SRMR=0.023). Paternal rejection could significantly positively influence adolescents’ externalizing problems (β=0.16, p=0.042), but the effect on adolescents’ internalizing problems was not significant (β = −0.01, p > 0.05). Paternal warmth could significantly negatively influence the internalizing problems (β = −0.32, p = 0.000), but the effect on the externalizing problems of adolescents was not significant (β = −0.08, p > 0.05). Paternal overprotection had no significant effect on the internalizing and externalizing problems of adolescents (β_{paternal overprotection-internalizing} = −0.01, β_{paternal overprotection-externalizing} = −0.08, p > 0.05). Maternal rejection could significantly positively influence the internalizing problems of adolescents (β = 0.20, p = 0.01), but the effect on the externalizing problems of adolescents was not significant (β = 0.15, p > 0.05). Maternal warmth had no significant effect on adolescents’ problem behaviors (β_{maternal warmth-internalizing} = 0.13, β_{maternal warmth-externalizing} = 0.01, p > 0.05). Maternal overprotection could not only significantly positively influence adolescents’ internalizing problems (β = 0.28, p = 0.000), but could also significantly positively influenced adolescents’ externalizing problems (β = 0.27, p = 0.001).

Previous studies have found that even if the direct path was not significant, the indirect path might be significant (Wen et al., 2005); therefore, we measured all indirect paths even if some direct paths were not significant. After conducting the mediating effect test, it was found that the model of the mediation effect fit well (χ² = 54.531, df = 29, CFI = 0.986, TLI = 0.972, RMSEA = 0.040, SRMR = 0.023). After adding the mediator variables, paternal rejection had no significant effect on adolescents’ externalizing problems (β = 0.09, p > 0.05), and the effect on adolescents’ internalizing problems was still not significant (β = −0.05, p > 0.05). Paternal warmth could still significant negatively influence the internalizing problems (β = −0.28, p = 0.003), but the effect was lower than the direct effect model, and the effect on the externalizing problems among adolescents was still not significant (β = −0.02, p > 0.05). Paternal overprotection had no significant effect on the internalizing and externalizing problems of adolescents (β_{paternal overprotection-internalizing} = −0.01,β_{paternal overprotection-externalizing} = −0.08, p>0.05). Maternal rejection could still significantly positively influence the internalizing problems of adolescents (β = 0.16, p = 0.035), and the effect on the externalizing problems of adolescents was still not significant (β = 0.08, p > 0.05). Maternal warmth still had no significant effect on the internalizing and externalizing problems of adolescents (β_{mother warmth-internalizing} = 0.16, β_{mother warmth-externalizing} = 0.07, p > 0.05); maternal overprotection could also significantly positively influence adolescents’ internalizing (β = 0.23, p = 0.001) and externalizing problems (β = 0.20, p = 0.003), but the effect was lower than the direct effect model. Adolescents’ self-control could significantly negatively influence adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems (β_{internalizing} = −0.34, β_{externalizing} = −0.53, p = 0.000). The 95% deviation-corrected confidence interval (CI) shows that adolescents’ self-control had a significant mediating effect of paternal rejection on internalizing problems (95%CI = [0.000,0.097]), paternal rejection on externalizing problems (95%CI = [0.005,0.145]). Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The mediation effect of adolescents’ self-control in parenting styles and problem behaviors. (Note. The coefficients in the figure are standardized coefficients).

We further used a multi-group structural equation model to examine whether self-control has cross-group consistency in the mediation effect. The results found that there was no significant gender difference in the mediation effect of self-control between parenting styles and adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems (∆χ² = 16.425, ∆df = 20, p > 0.05).

Discussion

Consistent with the research hypothesis, paternal rejection was positively associated with adolescents’ externalizing problems, while maternal rejection was positively associated with adolescents’ internalizing problems. Paternal warmth was negatively associated with internalizing problems, and maternal overprotection was positively associated with adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems. Adolescents' self-control was negatively associated with adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems. Moreover, adolescents’ self-control had a significant mediation effect of paternal rejection on internalizing problems and paternal rejection on externalizing problems.

Different Effects of Paternal and Maternal Rearing Styles

As per our hypothesis, paternal and maternal rearing styles play different roles in affecting adolescents’ problem behaviors. Specifically, our study found that paternal rejection was positively associated with adolescents’ externalizing problems, while maternal rejection was positively associated with adolescents’ internalizing problems. This may be because, in the Chinese cultural context, paternal rejection occurs along with corporal punishment (Qi, 2019). Previous studies have suggested that when paternal rearing styles are hostile, refusing, or physically aggressive, children are more likely to have externalizing problems (DeKlyen et al., 1998). Additionally, Social learning theory posits that adolescents may develop externalizing problems such as aggressive behaviors while observing paternal corporal punishment. In the context of Chinese culture, compared with fathers, mothers put more effort into raising and caring for their children, and children have a stronger sense of intimacy with their mothers. Mothers are an important source of family support for their children, and the maternal rejection would trigger children’ internal conflict, leaving them insecure and lacking in support and trust, which can trigger their internalizing problems (Drake & Ginsburg, 2012; Xu et al., 2017). In addition, compared with fathers, mothers might be accustomed to adopt psychological control and verbal aggression when they interact negatively with their children (El-Sheikh et al., 2010; Lansford et al., 2014), which might lead teenagers to doubt themselves and produce a depressed affect, which in turn lead to internalizing problems such as depression.

We found that paternal but not maternal warmth was negatively related to adolescents’ internalizing problems. Previous studies also found that paternal warmth reduced the likelihood of internalizing problems among adolescents (Sekaran et al., 2020). This may be because the parenting style of warmth is often accompanied by care and understanding, which could bring about a sense of security and confidence in adolescents, and could effectively prevent the occurrence of internalizing problems. Compared to mothers, fathers who adopt the parenting style of warmth would guide and help adolescents explain and cope with the stressful problems they face in a more adaptive way; the more active coping strategies adolescents acquire from their fathers would effectively prevent or reduce adolescents’ internalizing problems (Holahan et al., 1995; Mahedy et al., 2018). In addition, paternal warmth helps to establish a good parent–child relationship between the father and the adolescent. This makes adolescents more willing to confide in their fathers or seek advice from them when they encounter pressure or difficulties.

We found that maternal overprotection was positively associated with adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems. As stated above, a high level of maternal overprotection was related to adolescents’ internalizing problems, for example, more distress (Rousseau & Scharf, 2015). A small number of recent studies also showed that maternal overprotection was positively associated with adolescents’ externalizing problems such as aggressive behaviors (Petegem et al., 2020; Roelofs et al., 2006). In China, there is usually “a kind mother and a strict father” and fathers are not prone to adopt over-protective parenting styles; thus, the rearing style of overprotection is more commonly adopted by mothers than fathers, which might be why paternal overprotection had no significant effect on adolescents’ problem behaviors.

The Mediating Role of Self-control

Consistent with most previous studies (Chan & Chui, 2017; Situ et al., 2019), our study demonstrated that adolescents' self-control was negatively associated with adolescents’ problem behaviors. As stated previously, adolescents with low levels of self-control are characterized as impulsive, adventurous, unsympathetic, self-centered, bad-tempered, short-sighted, and pursuing instant gratification (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990); these characteristics cause them to be more prone to externalizing problems. Consistent with the study by Situ et al. (2019), we found that adolescents' self-control was negatively related to adolescents’ internalizing problems, which support the linear relationship between self-control and problem behaviors, and good self-control predicts better outcomes in almost all areas (Tangney et al., 2004), which inspires us to increase our awareness of the importance of self-control and to consciously cultivate and improve our self-control ability.

In addition, we found that adolescents’ self-control played a mediating role in the relationship between parenting styles and adolescents’ problem behaviors. The 95% deviation-corrected CI shows that adolescents’ self-control had a significant mediating effect of paternal rejection on internalizing problems and paternal rejection on externalizing problems. As mentioned above, paternal rejection could decrease the level of adolescents’ self-control, and low levels of self-control could increase adolescents' externalizing (Baumeister et al., 2007; van Prooijen et al., 2018) and internalizing problems (Situ et al., 2019). In most instances, paternal rejection accompanied a loss of control, and adolescents reduced their levels of self-control by observing their out-of-control parents, where the low levels of self-control subsequently contributed to a series of problem behaviors. Furthermore, we found no significant gender difference in the mediating effect model, which was consistent with the findings of Wang et al. (2017). This may be because a low level of self-control is an important factor for all adolescents, both boys and girls, that can cause problem behaviors (Baumeister et al., 2007).

Limitations

Our study has the following limitations: First, we used self-reported approaches to measure adolescents’ problem behaviors, parenting styles, and self-control. Future research could collect environmental data from multiple information providers to reduce measurement bias. Second, in this study, we collected cross-sectional data to explore these relationships, but cross-sectional data cannot make causal inferences about the relationship since there may be interactions between parenting styles and the problem behaviors; thus, it is necessary to use tracking data in future studies. Finally, we did not consider other variables, such as family socioeconomic status, that may also play an important role in adolescents' internalizing and externalizing problems. They could be used as control variables in future similar studies.

Implications

Our study examines the effect of parenting style on adolescents’ problem behaviors and the mediating role of adolescents’ self-control in it, and this study has great significance for revealing the mechanism of parenting styles on adolescents’ problem behaviors. The results of this study provide some important insights. First, paternal rejection can significantly and positively affect adolescents' externalizing problems, and maternal rejection can significantly and positively affect adolescents' internalizing problems. This suggests that parents should pay attention to the adverse effects of parental rejection on adolescents and that parents should be cautious of using rejection as a parenting style. Second, paternal warmth can significantly negatively affect adolescents' internalizing problems. Fathers should guide their adolescent children to use a broader and more adaptive perspective in dealing with problems, effectively preventing adolescents from internalizing them. This suggests that the importance of paternal warmth on adolescents’ healthy growth cannot be understated. Third, our research found that maternal overprotection can promote the occurrence of internalizing and externalizing problems in adolescents. Therefore, we should pay attention to the adverse effects of maternal overprotection of adolescents, and mothers should learn to give children appropriate space. Last, the study found that self-control significantly and negatively predicted internalizing and externalizing problems and that paternal rejection can affect adolescents' internalizing and externalizing problems by weakening their self-control. Therefore, improving adolescents' self-control is an effective way to prevent or reduce their problem behaviors. Additionally, parents should try their best not to adopt negative parenting methods such as rejection and overprotection.

Besides, it is worth noting that this study found that paternal parenting styles play an irreplaceable role in the healthy growth of adolescents. In the traditional Chinese background where “men work outside and women dominate the family,” the concept that fathers earn money to support the family and mothers take care of children, is deeply ingrained. Many fathers do not sufficiently fulfill their responsibilities and obligations toward educating their children because of their busy work schedules. In other words, many fathers are absent from the education and growth of their children. Our study prompts us to pay attention to the important role that fathers play in the process of adolescents’ healthy development.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the adolescents for their participation to this research. This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant numbers 31671152).

Author contributions

The first author conceptualized the study, performed data analyses, and wrote the manuscript. The second and corresponding author contributed to the conceptualization of the study and manuscript writing and editing.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant numbers 31671152) awarded to Zhenhong Wang.

Ethical Approval

All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study approved and reviewed by the Institutional Review Board of the Psychology School of Shaanxi Normal University.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

ORCID iD

Zhenhong Wang

Author Biographies

Zhenhong Wang is a professor in School of Psychology, Shaanxi Normal University, China. His research areas of expertise include emotion and social behavior development and its neurophysiological basis, adolescents’ personality, problem behaviors and moral education.

Wen Zhang is a doctoral candidate in School of Psychology, Shaanxi Normal University, China. Her research interests are adolescents’ personality, parenting ways and problem behaviors.

References

Achenbach

T. M

. ( 1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist 4-18 and 1991 profile: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach

T. M.

Edelbrock

C. S.

(1978). The classification of child psychopathology: A review and analysis of empirical efforts. Psychological Bulletin, 85(6), 1275-1301. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.85.6.1275

Achenbach

T. M.

Ivanova

M. Y.

Rescorla

L. A.

Turner

L. V.

Althoff

R. R.

(2016). Internalizing/externalizing problems: Review and recommendations for clinical and research applications. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 55(8), 647-656. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2016.05.012

Akse

Hale

W. W.

Engels

R. C.

Raaijmakers

Q. A.

Meeus

W. H.

(2004). Personality, perceived parental rejection and problem behavior in adolescence. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 39(12), 980-988. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-004-0834-5

Augimeri

L. K.

Walsh

Donato

Blackman

Piquero

A. R.

(2018). SNAP (Stop Now and Plan): Helping children improve their self-control and externalizing behavior problems. Journal of Criminal Justice, 56, 43-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.08.010

Bandura

Walters

R. H.

(1977). Social learning theory: Prentice-Hall.

Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

Tice

D. M.

(2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351-355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x

Blokland

E. A. D. E.

Engels

R. C.

Finkenauer

(2001). Parenting-styles, self-control and male juvenile delinquency Prevention and control of aggression and the impact on its victims (pp. 201-207): Springer.

Chan

H. C.

Chui

W. H.

(2017). The influence of low self-control on violent and nonviolent delinquencies: A study of male adolescents from two Chinese societies. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 28(5), 599-619. http://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2015.1012534

10.

Chen

X. Z.

H. Y.

Chen

Yang

J. Y.

Huang

L. J.

(2019). The relation between psychological capital and academic achievement among junior high school students: The mediating effects of self-control and the moderating effects of gratitude. Psychological Development and Education, 35(01), 79-87. http://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2019.01.09

11.

Chinchilla

M. A.

Kosson

D. S.

(2016). Psychopathic traits moderate relationships between parental warmth and adolescent antisocial and other high-risk behaviors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(6), 722-738. http://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815617216

12.

Chui

W. H.

Chan

H. C.

(2016). The gendered analysis of self-control on theft and violent delinquency: An examination of Hong Kong adolescent population. Crime & Delinquency, 62(12), 1648-1677. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128712470992

13.

Cooper

M. L.

Wood

P. K.

Orcutt

H. K.

Albino

(2003). Personality and the predisposition to engage in risky or problem behaviors during adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 390-410. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.390

14.

Darling

Steinberg

(1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487-496. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487

15.

DeKlyen

Biernbaum

M. A.

Speltz

M. L.

Greenberg

M. T.

(1998). Fathers and preschool behavior problems. Developmental Psychology, 34(2), 264-275. http://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.2.264

16.

Drake

K. L.

Ginsburg

G. S.

(2012). Family factors in the development, treatment, and prevention of childhood anxiety disorders. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 15(2), 144-162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-011-0109-0

17.

Dubas

J. S.

Gerris

J. R.

Janssens

J. M.

Vermulst

A. A.

(2002). Personality types of adolescents: Concurrent correlates, antecedents, and type X parenting interactions. Journal of Adolescence, 25(1), 79-92. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2001.0450

18.

Dwairy

(2010). Parental acceptance–rejection: A fourth cross-cultural research on parenting and psychological adjustment of children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19(1), 30-35. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-009-9338-y

19.

El‐Sheikh

Hinnant

J. B.

Kelly

R. J.

Erath

(2010). Maternal psychological control and child internalizing symptoms: Vulnerability and protective factors across bioregulatory and ecological domains. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(2), 188-198. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02140.x

20.

Eun

J. D.

Paksarian

J. P.

Merikangas

K. R.

(2018). Parenting style and mental disorders in a nationally representative sample of US adolescents. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 53(1), 11-20. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-017-1435-4

21.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. http://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

22.

Finkenauer

Engels

Baumeister

(2005). Parenting behaviour and adolescent behavioural and emotional problems: The role of self-control. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(1), 58-69. http://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000333

23.

Gauvain

Huard

R. D.

(1999). Family interaction, parenting style, and the development of planning: A longitudinal analysis using archival data. Journal of Family Psychology, 13(1), 75-92. http://doi.org/110.1037/0893-3200.13.1.75

24.

Gino

Schweitzer

M. E.

Mead

N. L.

Ariely

(2011). Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 191-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.001

25.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime: Stanford University Press.

26.

Holahan

C. J.

Valentiner

D. P.

Moos

R. H.

(1995). Parental support, coping strategies, and psychological adjustment: An integrative model with late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24(6), 633-648. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01536948

27.

Janssens

K. A.

Oldehinkel

A. J.

Rosmalen

J. G.

(2009). Parental overprotection predicts the development of functional somatic symptoms in young adolescents. The Journal of Pediatrics, 154(6), 918-923. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.12.023

28.

Jiang

Z. R.

Jiang

B. J.

(2010). Revision of the short-form egna minnen av barndoms uppfostran for Chinese. Psychological Development and Education, 26(1), 94-99. http://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2010.01.017

29.

Jiang

(2018). Research on the relationship of middle school students’ patenting, self-control and problem behaviors (Master’s dissertation): Hebei Normal University.

30.

Kiel

E. J.

Maack

D. J.

(2012). Maternal BIS sensitivity, overprotective parenting, and children’s internalizing behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(3), 257-262. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.026

31.

Kim

D. H.

Kim

Y. S.

Koh

Y. J.

Leventhal

B. L.

(2013). Relationship between behaviour problems and perceived parenting practices in Korean youth. Child: Care, Health and Development, 39(2), 194-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2011.01343.x

32.

Kim

Y. H.

(2014). The effects of individual, family, and peer factors on the internalizing and externalizing problem behavior of adolescents. Family and Environment Research, 52(4), 371-382. http://doi.org/10.6115/fer.2014.032

33.

Lansford

J. E.

Laird

R. D.

Pettit

G. S.

Bates

J. E.

Dodge

K. A.

(2014). Mothers’ and fathers’ autonomy-relevant parenting: Longitudinal links with adolescents’ externalizing and internalizing behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(11), 1877-1889. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0079-2

34.

Lei

Chiu

M. M.

Quan

Zhou

(2020). Effect of self-control on aggression among students in China: A meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 116, 105107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105107

35.

X. T.

Wang

X. L.

Wang

D. H.

Yan

(2014). The relationship between early parenting behavior and the belief of filial piety among young adults. Psychological Development and Education, V30(6), 601-608. http://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2014.06.006

36.

Lieb

Wittchen

H. U.

Höfler

Fuetsch

Stein

M. B.

Merikangas

K. R.

(2000). Parental psychopathology, parenting styles, and the risk of social phobia in offspring: A prospective-longitudinal community study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57(9), 859-866. http://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.57.9.859

37.

Liu

Wang

Yang

Zhang

Lin

(2021). Perceived autonomy-supportive parenting and internet addiction: Respiratory sinus arrhythmia moderated the mediating effect of basic psychological need satisfaction. Current Psychology, 40(9), 4255-4264. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00485-6

38.

Liu

X. C.

Yang

(1997). Reliability and validity of the youth self report of Achenbach^′s behavior checklist. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 11(4), 200-203. http://.doi:CNKI:SUN:ZXWS.0.1997-04-002

39.

Mahedy

Harold

G. T.

Maughan

Gardner

Araya

Jones

R. B.

Hammerton

Sellers

Thapar

Collishaw

(2018). Resilience in high-risk adolescents of mothers with recurrent depressive disorder: The contribution of fathers. Journal of Adolescence, 65, 207-218. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.03.016

40.

Mendo-Lázaro

León-del-Barco

Polo-del-Río

M. I.

Yuste-Tosina

López-Ramos

V. M.

(2019). The role of parental acceptance–rejection in emotional instability during adolescence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(7), 1194. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071194

41.

Kim

M. J.

(2014). An study of gender differences on Influencing factors of internalizing/externalizing problem behaviors of adolescents: Focusing on marital conflict and attachment of parents. Journal of Critical Social Policy, 1(45), 267-303.

42.

P. K.

Chan

V. W.

Chan

S. W.

Lau

J. T.

(2018). The role of social support on emotion dysregulation and internet addiction among Chinese adolescents: A structural equation model. Addictive Behaviors, 82, 86-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.01.027

43.

Morosan

Ghisletta

Badoud

Toffel

Eliez

Debbané

(2020). Longitudinal relationships between reflective functioning, empathy, and externalizing behaviors during adolescence and young adulthood. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 51(1), 59-70. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-019-00910-8

44.

Muraven

Baumeister

R. F.

(2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247-259. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247

45.

Papachristou

Flouri

(2020). Distinct developmental trajectories of internalising and externalising symptoms in childhood: Links with mental health and risky behaviours in early adolescence. Journal of Affective Disorders, 276, 1052-1060. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.07.130

46.

Peng

Zhu

Wang

Z. H.

(2018). Association between parental emotion expressiveness and adolescents’ behavior problem: The mediating role of the parent- child attachment and loneliness. Psychological Development and Education, 34(4), 504-512. http://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2018

47.

Pesenti-Gritti

Spatola

C. A.

Fagnani

Ogliari

Patriarca

Stazi

M. A.

Battaglia

(2008). The co-occurrence between internalizing and externalizing behaviors. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 17(2), 82-92. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-007-0639-7

48.

Petegem

S. V.

Antonietti

J. P.

Nunes

C. E.

Kins

Soenens

(2020). The relationship between maternal overprotection, adolescent internalizing and externalizing problems, and psychological need frustration: A multi-informant study using response surface analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(1), 162-177. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01126-8

49.

Pinquart

(2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 873-932. http://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000295.supp

50.

(2019). Harsh parenting and child aggression: Child moral disengagement as the mediator and negative parental attribution as the moderator. Child Abuse & Neglect, 91, 12-22. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.02.007

51.

Rebecka

Susanne

Kent

N. W.

Cecilia

Å.

(2020). The influence of parenting styles and parental depression on adolescent depressive symptoms: A cross-sectional and longitudinal approach. Mental Health & Prevention, 20, 200193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhp.2020.200193

52.

Robins

R. W.

John

O. P.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Stouthamer-Loeber

(1996). Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled boys: Three replicable personality types. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 157-171. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.157

53.

Roelofs

Meesters

Ter Huurne

Bamelis

Muris

(2006). On the links between attachment style, parental rearing behaviors, and internalizing and externalizing problems in non-clinical children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15(3), 319-332. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-006-9025-1

54.

Rohner

R. P.

(2004). The parental" acceptance-rejection syndrome": Universal correlates of perceived rejection. American Psychologist, 59(8), 830-840. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.830

55.

Rothbaum

Rosen

Ujiie

Uchida

(2002). Family systems theory, attachment theory, and culture. Family Process, 41(3), 328-350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.41305.x

56.

Rousseau

Scharf

(2015). I will guide you” the indirect link between overparenting and young adults׳ adjustment. Psychiatry Research, 228(3), 826-834. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.05.016

57.

Ruiz-Hernández

J. A.

Moral-Zafra

Llor-Esteban

Jiménez-Barbero

J. A.

(2019). Influence of parental styles and other psychosocial variables on the development of externalizing behaviors in adolescents: A sytematic review. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 11(6), 9-21. http://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2018a11

58.

Sekaran

V. C.

Kamath

V. G.

Ashok

Kamath

Hegde

A. P.

Devaramane

(2020). Parenting attitudes and dimensions as predictors of adolescent behavioural problems in the Indian context: A community-based study. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 50, 1-24. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.101941

59.

Situ

Q. M.

J. B.

Dou

Wang

Y. J.

(2019). Bidirectional association between self-control and internalizing problems among college freshmen: A cross-lagged study. Emerging Adulthood, 1–7(4), 401-407. http://doi.org/10.1177/2167696819862174

60.

Strauman

T. J.

(2002). Self-regulation and depression. Self and Identity, 1(2), 151-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/152988602317319339

61.

Tangney

J. P.

Baumeister

R. F.

Boone

A. L.

(2004). High self‐control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271-324. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x

62.

van Prooijen

D. L.

Hutteman

Mulder

van Aken

M. A.

Laceulle

O. M.

(2018). Self-control, parenting, and problem behavior in early childhood: A multi-method, multi-informant study. Infant Behavior and Development, 50, 28-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2017.11.001

63.

Wang

H. J.

J. M.

(2004). The compilation of the middle school students' self-control ability questionnaire. Journal of Psychological Science, 27(6), 1477-1482. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2004.06.055

64.

Wang

Fan

Tao

Gao

(2017). Age and gender differences in self‐control and its intergenerational transmission. Child: Care, Health and Development, 43(2), 274-280. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12411

65.

Wang

M. C.

(2014). Latent variable modeling using Mplus: Chongqing University Press.

66.

Wen

Z. L.

Hou

J. T.

Zhang

ZHUGE

WANG

M. X.

HUANG

M. R.

(2005). A comparison of moderator and mediator and their applications. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 37(2), 268-274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2005.00136.x

67.

Wen

Z. L.

B. J.

(2014). Analyses of mediating effects: The development of methods and models. Advances in Psychological Science, 22(5), 731-745. http://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.00731

68.

Wiggins

J. L.

Mitchell

Hyde

L. W.

Monk

C. S.

(2015). Identifying early pathways of risk and resilience: The codevelopment of internalizing and externalizing symptoms and the role of harsh parenting. Development and Psychopathology, 27(4pt1), 1295-1312. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579414001412

69.

Ran

Zhang

(2017). The relationship between parenting styles and adolescents’ social anxiety in migrant families: A study in guangdong, China. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 626. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00626

70.

Zhang

Yang

Liu

Lü

Wang

(2020). Intraindividual reaction time variability, respiratory sinus arrhythmia, and children's externalizing problems. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 157, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2020.08.001

71.

Zhang

Wang

Z. H.

(2021). Negative life events and the internalizing problems of adolescents: The mediating role of social support and the moderating role of parent-adolescent cohesion. Psychological Development and Education. to be published.

72.

Zhang

X. H.

Wang

M. F.

Liu

(2020). Parental harsh discipline and child problem behaviors: The mediating effect of child self-control. Psychological Development and Education, 36(6), 725-733. http://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2020.06.11

73.

Zhou

Long

L. R.

(2004). Statistical remedies for common method biases. Advances in Psychological Science, 12(6), 942-950. http://journal.psych.ac.cn/adps/EN/Y2004/V12/I06/942