Perspectives of Early Adolescents,Parents,and Grandparents on Parenting Behaviors in China

Abstract

In China, both parents and grandparents play an important role in child-rearing. However, it is unclear whether parenting behaviors reported by early adolescents, parents, and grandparents are comparable. Therefore, this study investigated (a) cross-generational validity of reporting (grand)parenting behavior based on perspectives of adolescents, parents, and grandparents; (b) mean differences in parenting across informants; and (c) how (grand)parenting is related to adolescent’s problem behaviors. The sample included 1,149 early adolescents, 1,038 mothers, 926 fathers, and 248 grandparents. Confirmatory factor analyses showed scalar measurement invariance for a five-factor parenting model, including parental support, proactive control, punitive control, harsh punitive control, and psychological control, across informants. Pearson correlations indicated evidence for agreement between informant dyads. Paired samples t-tests showed the lowest scores for grandparents on all parenting variables. By comparing covariance matrices, the results suggested that interrelations of parenting dimensions and associations between parenting and problem behaviors differ for different family members.

Keywords

parenting grandparenting measurement invariance multiple informants problem behaviors

Different from western counterparts and influenced by patrilineal tradition and filial piety (e.g., Ko & Hank, 2014), Chinese grandparents play an important role in their grandchildren’s upbringing. They often are involved in full-time childcare because of a high rate of grandparent co-residence (F. Chen, 2005), even when the families of young parents are intact (Goh, 2009). It is common that co-resident grandparents are involved in parenting, together with parents. Therefore, in this study parenting is defined as behaviors or practices in the upbringing of children (Darling & Steinberg, 1993) that both parents and grandparents adopt. In research, there are multiple parenting dimensions, such as parental support, behavioral, and psychological control, that have shown a significant effect on children’s development (Janssens et al., 2015). For example, meta-analyses by Pinquart (2017a, 2017b) showed that psychological and harsh control are related to more externalizing and internalizing problems. According to the definition of problem behavior by Achenbach and Edelbrock (1978), externalizing problem behavior in this study can be defined as negative behavior manifested toward the external environment, such as conduct problems and hyperactivity, whereas internalizing problem behavior refer to depressive and anxious feelings. Most recent studies in China on problem behaviors have shown a prevalence of 10.7% (based on Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaires [SDQs], R. Goodman, 1997) for Chinese adolescents aged 11 to 18 years in a northeast city (J. N. Wang, Liu, & Wang, 2014), and 10.5% (based on Child Behavior Checklist [CBCL]) for adolescents aged 12 to 17 years in an eastern city (Ma, Yao, & Zhao, 2013) in the last 6 months.

Studies have also found that grandparents have a direct effect on children’s academic outcomes (Zeng & Xie, 2014) and problem behaviors (McHale, Kuerstan-Hogan, & Rao, 2004). However, little is known about whether parenting behavior can be validly measured across generations in a Chinese context, whether reports on parental behaviors from parents, grandparents, and early adolescents show differences, and how (grand)parenting behaviors are associated with early adolescent problem behaviors.

Previously, research has pointed out that studying multiple informants on parenting is necessary, because perceptions of parents and their adolescent offspring may differ. According to Tein, Roosa, and Michaels (1994), adolescents may be affected more by their perceptions of parental behaviors rather than the actual behaviors or parent reported behaviors. Moreover, parental behaviors probably yield anticipated effects on child behavior, only if they are conceptualized in the same way by parents and adolescents. It has also been stated that differences in early adolescent and parent reports on parenting practices are associated with adolescent behaviors, such as emotional problems and psychological adjustment (Barry, Frick, & Grafeman, 2008; Guion, Mrug, & Windle, 2009). Recent studies have found that informant discrepancies between early adolescents and parents’ reports predict early adolescent’s psychological outcomes longitudinally (e.g., Ohannessian, Laird, & De Los Reyes, 2016). Parent–adolescent discrepancies were also associated with more aggressive and rule-breaking behaviors of early adolescents cross-sectionally, but not longitudinally (de Haan, Prinzie, Sentse, & Jongerling, 2018). Not only disagreement but also agreement between informants predicted adolescent psychosocial outcomes. For example, a study by Van Heel et al. (2019b) showed that mother–adolescent agreement on maternal psychological control predicted aggressive behavior of early adolescents. Most Chinese studies on the association between parenting and early adolescent’s problem behaviors have mainly focused on a single informant reporting on parenting, therefore this study addresses this gap.

A Model With Five Parenting Dimensions

Concrete parenting behaviors can be grouped into more global parenting dimensions. Research has focused on broad parenting dimensions such as parental support, behavioral control, and psychological control (Barber, Maughan, & Olsen, 2005), but there is no consensus in the parenting literature about the number of parenting dimensions. A study by Janssens and colleagues (2015) identified five parenting dimensions in questionnaire data from a sample of adolescents aged 12 to 14 years and their parents: Apart from parental support and psychological control, behavioral control was further subdivided into proactive control, punitive (nonphysical) control, and harsh punitive (physical) control. Confirmatory factor analyses showed configural and metric invariance across informants (adolescents, fathers, and mothers; Janssens et al., 2015). Spithoven, Bijttebier, Van Leeuwen, and Goossens (2016) replicated this five-factor parenting model among young adolescents and found evidence for four parenting dimensions: parental support, and proactive, reactive and psychological control. These are the dimensions of the five-factor model used in this study and the included parenting dimensions can be described as follows.

Parental support refers to the involvement, acceptance, emotional availability, and responsivity showed by parents to support their children’s needs and demands (Janssens et al., 2015). Parental support promotes child and adolescent development and reduces problem behaviors (e.g., Yap, Fowler, Reavley, & Jorm, 2015). Proactive control denotes preventive actions by parents to advance adolescent desirable behaviors through establishing rules and supervision. It has been found that more proactive control is related to less externalizing problem behaviors (e.g., Galambos, Barker, & Almeida, 2003). Punitive control refers to nonphysical punishment to control adolescent behavior, such as verbal punishment and lecturing (Van Heel et al., 2019a). Harsh punitive control is physical punishment adopted by parents to control undesirable behavior. A meta-analysis found that more physical punishment is related to more problem behaviors and aggression (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016). Psychological control consists of intrusive parental behavior to control their children’s feelings and thoughts through psychological manipulation such as guilt induction or love withdrawal (Barber, 1996). Studies have consistently found that more psychological control is associated with more internalizing problem behaviors like depression and anxiety (e.g., Barber, 1996) and more externalizing problems like aggression (e.g., Kuppens, Laurent, Heyvaert, & Onghena, 2013). In this study, both the five-factor model (Janssens et al., 2015) and the four-factor model, which combines punitive and harsh punitive control into reactive control (Spithoven et al., 2016), are tested.

Theoretical Framework

The family systems theory suggests that children develop not only in the context of dyadic relationships with mothers and fathers but also in the extended family network (Minuchin, 1985). It posits that a family is a complex system, consisting of different subsystems, namely, the mother–father subsystem, the parent–child subsystem, the parent–grandparent subsystem, and the grandparent–child subsystem. It also has been pointed out that these subsystems are interrelated or interdependent (Bonds & Gondoli, 2007). Guided by this theory and previous studies (e.g., R. Kong, 2017; P. Kong, Guo, & Xing, 2013), we hypothesize that early adolescents, parents, and grandparents may have different perceptions on parenting and these different perceptions may have different associations with adolescents’ problem behaviors.

This study is also based on the social learning theory to explain children’s externalizing behavior (Capaldi & Patterson, 1989; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). The main idea is that ineffective parenting practices like harsh punishment can lead to maladaptive child behavior, whereas parenting practices such as rule setting, monitoring, and parental involvement can prevent problem behaviors (Capaldi & Patterson, 1989). Lack of parental involvement and discipline may lead to later delinquency (Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1998). Therefore, we hypothesize that support and proactive control have negative associations with adolescent problem behaviors, whereas harsh punitive control and psychological control are positively related to adolescent problem behaviors.

Previous Studies on Parenting in Chinese Context

In the Chinese context, most studies have been conducted on the relationship between global parenting styles (showing more or less warmth and control in parenting; Pinquart, 2017a) and problem behaviors. For example, authoritarian (i.e., low warm and high-controlling) parenting has been related to higher levels of externalizing and internalizing problems, whereas authoritative parenting has been associated with fewer internalizing problems (e.g., Muhtadie, Zhou, Eisenberg, & Wang, 2013). Chinese studies have only investigated some aspects of parenting behavior in association with child outcome. Researchers have mainly focused on positive parenting and harsh parenting and found that harsh parenting is positively associated with child problem behavior, and negatively associated with emotion regulation and social competence (e.g., Xing & Wang, 2017), whereas warm parenting contributed to children’s psychological well-being (e.g., J. L. Chen & Liu, 2012), better self-esteem, and less problem behaviors in Hong Kong samples (Shek, 2002). Nonphysical punishment (i.e., punitive control), such as verbal punishment, has received less attention in Chinese research (Liu, Wang, & Xing, 2011). A study has shown that nearly 54% of Chinese mothers and 48% of fathers reported harsh punishment and 80% of mothers and 75% of fathers reported nonphysical punishment toward their children (M. Wang & Liu, 2014). Chinese parents resort to more physical punishment for boys than girls, because in the Chinese patrilineal system, parents have higher expectations for their sons than their daughters (Tang, 2006). Boys usually receive stricter parenting and control from fathers (X. Li & Lamb, 2015). A recent study also has found that maternal hostility strengthens the association between paternal physical punishment and external problem behaviors for boys, whereas paternal hostility strengthens the association between paternal physical punishment and externalizing problem behavior for girls (Xing & Wang, 2017).

Previously, parenting research in China has usually focused on broad parenting dimensions like support and control. Studies have not distinguished between different forms of discipline. For example, harsh parenting control has been studied as a mixture of both corporal punishment and verbal assaults (Y. Xu, Farver, & Zhang, 2009). It is useful to differentiate between forms of punishment, because their variety in intrusiveness may have different associations with early adolescents’ outcome (Janssens et al., 2015) and prevent ambiguity in conclusions. This study contributes to the literature by examining multiple parenting dimensions, which have not been studied before in China, and their associations with early adolescent’s outcomes.

Chinese Culture-Specific Grandparenting

In recent years, Chinese scholars started to pay more attention to grandparenting, but empirical studies are limited (Gu & Wu, 2012). It has been pointed out that the prevalence of grandparent child-rearing is ranging from nearly 40% in most of urban China to even more than 90% in some rural places in recent years (Sun, 2013). Some western scholars posited the importance of considering the role of grandparents in their grandchildren’s behavioral and emotional development (Attar-Schwartz, Tan, Buchanan, Flouri, & Griggs, 2009). It has been empirically found in China that grandparents have a direct effect on children’s (aged 7–18 years) academic achievement and social competence through sociopsychological pathways (Zeng & Xie, 2014). Pei (2005) found that grandparents of 3 to 5 years olds reported lower nurturance and psychological pressure than parents, and mainly adopted a neglectful parenting style. There was no significant association between grandparenting and child problem behavior. P. Kong and colleagues (2013) examined the association between maternal parenting (nurturance and psychological pressure), grandparenting, and children’s (Grade 3) externalizing behavior in China and found that grandparents had a direct impact on children’s externalizing behavior when controlling for mother’s parenting. R. Kong (2017) found that grandparents mainly took authoritarian and neglectful parenting styles that were positively associated with early adolescents’ (Grades 4–6) anxiety, academic achievement, and impulsivity-hyperactivity. Moreover, when the difference in parenting between parents and grandparents was smaller, early adolescents showed better academic achievement and emotional and behavioral adjustment. Recent research has also found that grandmothers are more involved in child-rearing than grandfathers in China (e.g., X. W. Li, Xie, & Song, 2016; maternal grandmother 47%, paternal grandmother 43.8%, grandfathers 9.2%). Grandmothers had a closer relationship with their grandchildren, especially paternal grandmothers in rural areas because of the patrilineal kinship system in China (L. Xu, Silverstein, & Chi, 2014). To conclude, most Chinese study designs examined parenting and grandparenting separately, the early adolescent’s perspective on parenting and grandparenting has not been included, and few studies investigated the association between grandparenting and adolescent problem behaviors.

The Present Study

This study has four main objectives. First, we investigate whether the five-factor model of parenting (including support, proactive control, punitive control, harsh punitive control, and psychological control) suggested by Janssens and colleagues (2015) can be replicated in a Chinese sample with early adolescents (10–13 years old), their mothers, fathers, and grandparents. An alternative four-factor model is also investigated, because Spithoven et al. (2016) found support for four parenting dimensions in a different sample, using the same questionnaires. Second, we examine the measurement invariance of this parenting model across different informants (mothers, fathers, grandparents, and adolescents). Once measurement invariance is established, further analyses can be conducted to compare informants. The third aim is to examine (a) the rank-order agreement between informants, and (b) mean-level differences on parenting dimensions among different dyads (mother–grandparent, father–grandparent, early adolescent–grandparent, mother–father, and early adolescent–grandparent). We expect mean-level grandparent scores to be lower than all other informants on all parenting variables according to previous research (Pei, 2005). Fourth, we study the associations between parenting dimensions and early adolescents’ problem behavior by comparing covariance matrices across different family members. From previous studies (e.g., Muhtadie et al., 2013) and theoretical assumptions, the association between (grand)parenting behavior and early adolescents’ problem behaviors can be expected to be significant. Specifically, we hypothesize that more harsh parenting (i.e., punitive, harsh punitive and psychological control) is associated with more adolescent problem behaviors and that more warm parenting (i.e., support and proactive control) is associated with less problem behaviors.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Early adolescents (from 10–13 years) were selected from fourth to sixth grade from Chinese primary schools. The sample included 1,149 early adolescents (55% girls, Mage = 10.98 years, SD = 0.82), their mothers (N = 1,038, Mage = 37.85 years, SD = 4.15), their fathers (N = 926, Mage = 40.13 years, SD = 4.44), and one of their grandparents (N = 248, Mage = 66.13 years, SD = 29.32; 48.4% paternal grandmothers, 33.3% maternal grandmothers, 13.4% paternal grandfathers, and 4.9% maternal grandfathers). Even though there is a one-child policy, some families (have the right to) have a second baby: In this sample, 41.3% of the adolescents had siblings. The most frequently reported parental educational levels were Middle School (38.5% for mothers and 43.4% for fathers), Technical Secondary School (12.9% and 11.7%), Graduate Degree (10.4% and 11.4%), and College Graduation (11.1% and 9.7%). With respect to the educational levels of the grandparents, 37.1% completed Elementary School, 29.8% completed Middle School, and 15.2% did not complete Elementary School. No national statistics are available to check whether the sample is representative for the Chinese population. Of the grandparents, 59.7% reported to live with their grandchildren. The frequency that grandparents took care of their grandchildren before and after entering primary school, respectively, was 12.6% and 7.3% for “seldom,” 1.6% and 2% for “once per month,” 4.8% and 14.9% for “several times per month,” 4.8% and 14.9% for “at least once per week,” 28.6% and 47.2% for “every day for part of the day,” and 47.6% and 15.7% for “the entire day.” Median family income reported by mothers corresponded to the category “from 50,000 to 100,000” CNY (Chinese Yuan).

Data were collected as part of a larger doctoral project that explores the associations between (co)parenting and early adolescents’ well-being in China. We included primary schools in both urban and suburban districts in two cities in China, namely, Ningbo city (in the east of China) and Xian city (in the northwest). These two medium-sized cities were chosen because they are the economical centers in the east and in the northwest of China, but with a different educational background. With convenience sampling, three schools (two classes from each school) were contacted in each district, so in total 12 schools participated (six schools from urban areas and six from suburbs).

First, we contacted schools and invited them to participate in the study. Then the study material was given to each adolescent, including a consent form (for adolescents, parents and grandparents), instructions with study intentions, the questionnaires, and a return envelope. Early adolescents from selected classes completed questionnaires at school during a class period (about half an hour) under teachers’ supervision and after the teacher provided instructions. One pack of study material for each parent and one grandparent who was considered as a main caregiver of the grandchild was sent home. Mothers, fathers, and grandparents completed consent forms and questionnaires at home independent of each other if they were willing to participate in the study, and returned completed questionnaires in the envelope to school. Written instructions mentioned that parents could read questions to grandparents when they were illiterate, but it was stipulated that under no circumstances parents could reply for them.

Measures

Parenting behavior

We used nearly the same parenting questionnaire as in Janssens et al. (2015), which included 57 items from seven subscales from different well-established parenting questionnaires. We did not include the Responsivity subscale because (a) this scale is correlated highly with the positive parenting and autonomy support subscales and (b) to reduce the large number of items. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “(almost) never” (1) to “(almost) always” (5). Mothers, fathers, and grandparents rated their own behaviors toward the early adolescent. Adolescents assessed their grandparents’ grandparenting and parents’ parenting without differentiating between maternal and paternal parenting because (a) research has found significant correlations between children’s rating of their fathers’ and mothers’ behavior (e.g., Gaylord, Kitzmann, & Coleman, 2003) and (b) to reduce children’s burden to complete questionnaires. A Chinese version of all questionnaires was developed from an English version, using translation and back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1980). Minimum and maximum Cronbach’s alpha values for the subscales that constitute the five parenting dimensions, calculated for ratings by mothers, fathers, early adolescents and grandparents, are reported below. Cronbach’s alphas for parenting dimensions in the final model are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Cronbach’s Alphas and Pearson Correlations Among the Five Parenting Dimensions and Adolescent Problem Behavior.

Respondent	Parenting	SUP	PRO	PUN	HAR	PSY
Adolescent P	SUP	.89
	PRO	.21*	.75
	PUN	−.18*	.33*	.76
	HAR	−.24*	.20*	.68*	.74
	PSY	−.41*	.27*	.46*	.44*	.83
	INTc	−.32*	.08**	.21*	.23*	.38*
	EXTc	−.39*	−.01	.19*	.28*	.36*
	INTp	−.24*	−.05	.08**	.16*	.19*
	EXTp	−.26*	.01	.21*	.27*	.23*
Adolescent GP	SUP	.89
	PRO	.36*	.83
	PUN	−.12**	.27*	.80
	HAR	−.16*	.22*	.75*	.80
	PSY	−.26*	.27*	.53*	.55*	.85
	INTc	−.15*	.01	.12**	.18*	.28*
	EXTc	−.25*	−.02	.15*	.24*	.33*
	INTp	−.17*	−.04	.10***	.16*	.20*
	EXTp	−.12**	.04	.21*	.24*	.20*
Mother	SUP	.86
	PRO	.28*	.76
	PUN	−.08**	.21*	.71
	HAR	−.27*	.07***	.57*	.75
	PSY	−.34*	.17*	.31*	.38*	.79
	INTc	−.16*	.04	.09**	.14*	.20*
	EXTc	−.24*	.04	.12*	.15*	.20*
	INTp	−.27*	−.05	.08***	.23*	.26*
	EXTp	−.29*	−.03	.21*	.27*	.28*
Father	SUP	.87
	PRO	.25*	.78
	PUN	−.05	.25*	.75
	HAR	−.23*	.07***	.55*	.78
	PSY	−.33*	.17*	.35*	.47*	.82
	INTc	−.13*	.04	.05	.12*	.15*
	EXTc	−.13*	.02	.12*	.20*	.20*
	INTp	−.18*	−.01	.08***	.24*	.25*
	EXTp	−.25*	−.02	.21*	.29*	.29*
Grandparent	SUP	.89
	PRO	.36*	.81
	PUN	−.16**	.11	.79
	HAR	−.27*	−.00	.68*	.83
	PSY	−.37*	.19**	.52*	.59*	.86
	INTc	−.17**	−.04	.05	.16***	.09
	EXTc	−.22*	−.02	.26*	.28*	.30*
	INTp	−.22*	.05	.26*	.37*	.30*
	EXTp	−.23*	−.02	.22*	.27*	.24*

Note. The table presents Cronbach’s alpha (presented on the diagonal) and Pearson correlations among the five parenting dimensions reported by adolescent, mother, father, and grandparent, and the associations between parenting dimensions and problem behaviors by different informants’ ratings. The informant ratings (variables referenced along the row and column) include adolescent P (adolescent’s rating of parent’s parenting), adolescent GP (adolescent’s rating of grandparent’s parenting), mother’s, father’s, and grandparent’s rating by adolescent. SUP = support; PRO = proactive control; PUN = punitive control; HAR = harsh punitive control; PSY = psychological control; INTc = adolescent’s rating of internalizing problem behaviors; EXTc = adolescent’s rating of externalizing problem behaviors; INTp = mother’s rating of internalizing problem behaviors; EXTp = mother’s rating of externalizing problem behaviors; adolescent GP = adolescents reporting on grandparents’ parenting.

p ≤ .001. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .05.

Parental support items were based on two measures (12 items, α = .86–.89): the subscale positive parenting (e.g., “I ask my child about his/her hobbies and interests”) from the Parental Behavior Scale–Short Version (PBS-S; Van Leeuwen & Vermulst, 2004), and the subscale autonomy support (e.g., “I help my child to choose her/his own direction”) from the Perceptions of Parents Scale (POPS; Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991) and the Research Assessment Package for Schools (RAPS; Institute for Research and Reform in Education, 1998).

Proactive control items (11 items, α = .75–.83; for example, “I have reasonable expectations for his/her behavior”) were derived from the Setting Expectations subscale and Monitoring subscale from the Parental Regulation Scale (PRS-YSR; Barber, 1996).

Punitive control items originated from the Punishment subscale (four items, α = .71–.80; for example, “When my child does something he/she is not allowed to do, I punish him/her”) from the Parental Behavior Scale—Short Version (PBS-S; Van Leeuwen & Vermulst, 2004).

Harsh punitive control items were derived from the Harsh Punishment subscale (four items, α = .74–.83; for example, “I shake my child when we have a fight”) from the Parental Behavior Scale—Short Version (PBS-S; Van Leeuwen & Vermulst, 2004).

Psychological control items came from two subscales (12 items, α = .79–.86): psychological control (e.g., “I often interrupt my child”) from Psychological Control Scale–Youth Self-Report (PCS-YSR; Barber, 1996) and hostility (e.g., “I argue with my child”) from the Verbal Hostility Scale (Nelson & Crick, 2002).

Adolescent problem behavior

The SDQ (R. Goodman, 1997) was rated by mothers (Chinese parent informant rating scale for children aged 3–16 years) and early adolescents (Chinese self-rating version for children aged 11–17 years). Items were rated on a 3-point Likert-type-scale ranging from “Not True” to “Certainly true.” The SDQ has five subscales with five items for each subscale, including emotional symptoms (α = .64–.65; for example, “I am often unhappy, downhearted, or tearful”), conduct problems (α = .42–.48; for example, “I often fight with other children or bully them”), hyperactivity/inattention problems (α = .60–.69; for example, “I’m easily distracted, concentration wanders”), and peer problems (α = .21 to .29; for example, “I have one good friend or more”), which constitutes emotional and behavioral difficulties. The prosocial behavior subscale, which assesses strengths in children, was not used in this study. The internal consistency of subscales was sometimes low, which is consistent with previous studies using English (R. Goodman, 2001), French (Capron, Thérond, & Duyme, 2007), and Dutch (Widenfelt, Goedhart, Treffers, & Goodman, 2003) versions. This may be explained by the heterogeneity of the items describing divergent problem behaviors or the fact that early adolescents are not always aware of their problems (Widenfelt et al., 2003). We combined the emotional symptoms and peer problems subscales into an internalizing problem scale (α = .61–.63, M = 2.57–2.89, SD = 1.54–1.59) and conduct problems and hyperactivity/inattention problems subscales into an externalizing problem scale (α = .65–.69, M = 2.70–2.95, SD = 1.55–1.57). A. Goodman, Lamping, and Ploubidis (2010) suggested this approach for screening problem behavior in low-risk population samples.

Analysis Strategy

Confirmatory factor analyses

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), using MPlus version 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012), was performed to investigate two parenting models. Model 1 had a four-factor structure (i.e., support, and proactive, reactive and psychological control), and Model 2 a five-factor structure, which further divided reactive control into punitive and harsh punitive control.

The following indexes were reported to evaluate model fit: comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Values of CFI/TLI greater than .90 and less than .95 indicated acceptable model fit, greater than .95 indicated good fit; RMSEA/SRMR less than or equal to .08 indicated an acceptable model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-square values (S-Bχ²), Akaike information criterion (AIC), and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) were examined to evaluate the equivalence of the two models. A significant S-Bχ² difference and lower AIC and BIC values indicated better model fit.

Measurement invariance analyses

After selecting the best fitting parenting model, measurement invariance analyses, using multigroup CFA, were performed to investigate whether the factorial structure of the parenting model is comparable across different informants (i.e., early adolescents, mothers, fathers, and grandparents). Three nested, increasingly restrictive models were tested by constraining parameters one at a time (Meredith, 1993). In the first step, we tested configural invariance evaluating whether the same number and pattern of latent factors (i.e., parenting dimensions) are present across different informants. An acceptable model fit means that informants (i.e., early adolescents, mothers, fathers, and grandparents) conceptualize the parenting constructs similarly. Second, metric invariance was tested by fitting the model where factor loadings are equal across informants, whereas intercepts are allowed to differ (Meredith, 1993). Metric invariance is present if the model fit does not worsen, which implies that the latent parenting constructs are measured in the same way across informants and score differences indicate actual different responses that are not attributed to measurement error. In the third step, scalar invariance was tested by constraining both factor loadings and intercepts to be invariant across informants. A good model fit indicates that it is meaningful to compare (latent) means across informants and that observed scores are related to latent scores. Difference in values of CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR was used to evaluate model fit because it has been suggested a more practical method for comparing different models than S-Bχ² difference test in measurement invariance analyses (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). It has been suggested that such differences should be less than .01 for the CFI (ΔCFI < .010), .015 for the RMSEA (ΔRMSEA < .015), and .010 for the SRMR (ΔSRMR < .010; F. F. Chen, 2007).

Agreement and mean-level differences

Pearson correlations were used to investigate agreement in dyads. Paired samples t-tests were conducted in SPSS 24.0 to examine differences between paired means on the parenting constructs (i.e., early adolescents–mothers, early adolescents–fathers, mothers–fathers, early adolescents–grandparents, mothers–grandparents, and fathers–grandparents). Cohen’s d as a measure of effect size was calculated (Lenhard & Lenhard, 2016).

Comparing covariance matrices

Covariance matrices for the interrelations of parenting dimensions and associations between parenting dimensions and early adolescent problem behaviors for different family members (children, mother, father, and grandparent) were statistically compared using a model-free approach (Rowe, Vazsonyi, & Flannery, 1994), which is suitable for cross-sectional data. It is more efficient to test whether the statistical associations in these covariance matrices are similar or different in groups than to examine causal models (Rowe et al., 1994). Goodness of fit was tested by using MPlus version 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012).

Results

Factor Structure of the Parenting Dimensions Model Across Informants

CFA results showed that the five-factor model had a better fit compared with the four-factor model except for the model of adolescent reporting of grandparenting. The five-factor model of adolescent reporting on grandparenting did not significantly differ from the four-factor model (p > .01). The five-factor model of adolescents’, mothers’ and fathers’ reporting of parenting and grandparents’ reporting of grandparenting had a significant lower S-Bχ², lower AIC and BIC values, higher CFI/TLI (i.e., ≥.95), and lower RMSEA/SRMR (i.e., ≤.08). Factor loadings of the two models are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses Fit Indices.

Respondent	Model	S-Bχ²	df	p	SCF	ΔS-Bχ2	df	p	AIC	BIC	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
Adolescent P	Four-factor	62.72	9	<.001	1.10				17,114.65	17,245.86	.98	.94	.07	.03
Adolescent P	Five-factor	36.77	7	<.001	1.14	28.49	2	<.001	17,091.85	17,233.16	.99	.96	.06	.02
Adolescent GP	Four-factor	26.26	9	.002	1.16				9,750.68	9,867.52	.99	.97	.06	.03
Adolescent GP	Five-factor	22.36	7	.002	1.20	3.53	2	.172	9,751.13	9,876.95	.99	.97	.06	.03
Mother	Four-factor	83.90	9	<.001	0.99				11,970.00	12,098.57	.95	.89	.09	.04
Mother	Five-factor	41.42	7	<.001	1.03	46.69	2	<.001	11,933.24	12,071.70	.98	.93	.07	.02
Father	Four-factor	111.53	9	<.001	1.10				10,949.74	11,075.34	.93	.84	.11	.04
Father	Five-factor	53.53	7	<.001	1.08	71.93	2	<.001	10,898.72	11,033.98	.97	.91	.08	.03
Grandparent	Four-factor	17.92	9	.036	1.27				3,056.90	3,148.25	.98	.96	.06	.04
Grandparent	Five-factor	12.04	7	.099	1.36	6.66	2	.036	3,054.49	3,152.86	.99	.97	.05	.03

Note. The table presents the scaled CFA fit indices for the four- and five-factor parenting model separately. The four-factor model includes support, proactive control, reactive control, and psychological control. The five-factor model divides reactive control into punitive control and harsh punitive control. S-Bχ² = Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-square values; df = degrees of freedom; SCF = scaling correction factor; ΔS-Bχ² = Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-square difference test; AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; adolescent P = adolescents reporting on parents’ parenting; adolescent GP = adolescents reporting on grandparents’ parenting; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis.

Table 1 shows the Cronbach’s alphas and Pearson correlations among the five parenting dimensions reported by early adolescents, mothers, fathers, and grandparents. Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .71 for mother-reported punitive control to .89 for early adolescent- and grandparent-reported support. Pearson correlations showed positive associations between punitive control, harsh punitive control, and psychological control. Support was negatively correlated with punitive control, harsh punitive control, and psychological control. Proactive control was positively related to support, punitive, harsh punitive, and psychological control.

Measurement Invariance Analyses Using Multi-Group CFA

Results of the multigroup CFA, conducted for the five-factor parenting model, are presented in Table 3. First, we assessed configural invariance for the five-factor parenting model without parameter constraints. Results showed a good model fit. In the second step, metric invariance was investigated by constraining factor loadings. The CFI difference (ΔCFI) was less than .010 and changes in RMSEA (ΔRMSEA) and SRMR (ΔSRMR) were less than .015 and .030, respectively (F. F. Chen, 2007), providing support for metric invariance. In the third step, scalar invariance was assessed by constraining both factor loadings and intercepts. ΔCFI, ΔRMSEA, and ΔSRMR were less than .010, .015, and .010, respectively (F. F. Chen, 2007), indicating that it is meaningful to compare parenting dimensions across informants.

Table 3.

Measurement Invariance of the Five-Factor Parenting Behavior Model.

Model	S-Bχ2	df	p	SCF	CFI	ΔCFI	RMSEA	ΔRMSEA	SRMR	ΔSRMR
Adolescent P–Adolescent GP–mother–father–grandparent
Configural	159.68	35	<.001	1.16	.98		.07		.03
Metric	194.78	43	<.001	1.17	.98	.00	.07	.00	.04	.01
Scalar	301.57	51	<.001	1.14	.97	−.01	.08	.01	.05	.01

Note. Results of measurement invariance of five-factor parenting model are presented, using CFA, for adolescent, mother, father, and grandparent simultaneously. S-Bχ² = Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-square values; df = degrees of freedom; SCF = scaling correction factor; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; adolescent P = adolescents reporting on parents’ parenting; adolescent GP = adolescents reporting on grandparents parenting.

Agreement Between Informants

Table 4 shows that two out of 50 correlations were not significant, whereas four rs were significant at p < .01. All other correlations survived Bonferroni correction and remained significant, with p < .001. Significant correlations were all positive and mostly medium in size. This indicates that regarding scores on the parenting dimensions across dyads, the rank-order of one informant in the group is quite similar to the rank-order in the group of the other informant. For support, all associations between dyads were moderate, with rs ranging from .24 to .55. For proactive control, associations were mostly medium (rs ranging from .22 to .49). There was no significant agreement for the adolescent ratings of parenting on proactive control and grandparents and only weak associations for child ratings of parenting between adolescent–mother and adolescent–father ratings. For punishment, there was no significant agreement for the adolescent ratings of parenting by parents and grandparent self-ratings with punitive control, weak associations between mother–grandparent, mother–adolescent GP (adolescent perception of grandparenting), father–grandparent and father–adolescent GP, but other rs ranged from .22 to .44. Finally, psychological control showed all significant rs ranging from .15 to .42.

Table 4.

Paired Samples T-Test.

	Adolescent P(1)		Mother (2)		Father (3)		Grandparent (4)		Adolescent GP (5)		Comparison (r)
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	Comparison (r)
SUP	3.51	0.82	3.66	0.59	3.52	0.60	3.48	0.74	3.49	0.83	1 vs. 2* (.38) 1 vs. 3 (.31) 1 vs. 4 (.32) 1 vs. 5 (.55) 2 vs. 3* (.40) 2 vs. 4 (.39)2 vs. 5 (.27) 3 vs. 4 (.46) 3 vs. 5 (.24) 4 vs. 5 (.44)
PRO	3.26	0.66	3.24	0.53	3.21	0.54	3.05	0.65	3.03	0.74	1 vs. 2 (.16) 1 vs. 3 (.16) 1 vs. 4** (.08) 1 vs. 5* (.49) 2 vs. 3 (.30) 2 vs. 4* (.38)2 vs. 5 (.17) 3 vs. 4* (.44) 3 vs. 5 (.22) 4 vs. 5 (.28)
PUN	2.65	0.98	2.66	0.75	2.57	0.77	1.91	0.77	1.89	0.85	1 vs. 2 (.39) 1 vs. 3* (.27) 1 vs. 4 (.11) 1 vs. 5* (.36) 2 vs. 3 (.39) 2 vs. 4 (.17*)2 vs. 5 (.15) 3 vs. 4 (.18*) 3 vs. 5 (.15*) 4 vs. 5 (.30)
HAR	2.04	0.86	1.97	0.68	1.86	0.67	1.55	0.72	1.58	0.76	1 vs. 2** (.44) 1 vs. 3 (.30) 1 vs. 4 (.26) 1 vs. 5 (.42) 2 vs. 3 (.42) 2 vs. 4 (.26)2 vs. 5 (.27) 3 vs. 4 (.35) 3 vs. 5 (.22) 4 vs. 5 (.42)
PSY	2.33	0.72	2.20	0.51	2.18	0.54	1.99	0.63	1.99	0.67	1 vs. 2* (.23) 1 vs. 3 (.24) 1 vs. 4 (.21) 1 vs. 5 (.42) 2 vs. 3 (.26) 2 vs. 4* (.28)2 vs. 5 (.15) 3 vs. 4 (.38) 3 vs. 5 (.24) 4 vs. 5 (.31)

Note. The table presents the results of paired samples t-test evaluating the differences in means and correlations (r) about (grand)parenting dimensions among adolescent P-mother (n = 800), adolescent P-father (n = 913), adolescent P-grandparent (n = 247), adolescent P-adolescent GP (n = 658), mother–father (n = 806), mother–grandparent (n = 235), mother-adolescent GP (n = 600), father–grandparent (n = 218), father-adolescent GP (n = 508) and grandparent-adolescent GP (n = 220) dyads. Significant values are marked in bold. Means and standard deviations are the average of between groups comparisons for each dimension of each informant. Adolescent P = adolescents reporting on parents’ parenting; adolescent GP = adolescents reporting on grandparents parenting; SUP = support; PRO = proactive control; PUN = punitive control; HAR = harsh punitive control; PSY = psychological control.

p ≤ .001. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .05.

The Mplus model fit indices for the comparison of covariance matrices (Table 5) showed that the interrelations of parenting dimensions (χ² = 654.74, df = 60, p < .001) significantly differed for different family members. Pairwise comparisons between dyads of family members with Pearson correlations showed the same results that all dyad pairs, except the mother–father dyad, differ significantly from one another.

Table 5.

Model Fit of Covariance Matrices among Dyads.

	Model	S-Bχ2	df	p	SCF	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR
Parenting intercorrelations	Adolescent P–adolescent GP–mother–father–grandparent	654.74	60	<.001	1.25	.84	.11	.35
	Adolescent P-mother	300.67	15	<.001	1.21	.85	.13	.36
	Adolescent P-father	268.49	15	<.001	1.16	.87	.13	.32
	Adolescent P-grandparent	76.29	15	<.001	1.23	.96	.08	.13
	Adolescent P-adolescent GP	88.01	15	<.001	1.36	.96	.07	.12
	Mother–father	14.00	15	.525	1.12	1.00	.00	.04
	Mother–grandparent	53.74	15	<.001	1.18	.96	.06	.15
	Mother-adolescent GP	308.02	15	<.001	1.25	.81	.15	.40
	Father–grandparent	40.14	15	<.001	1.16	.98	.05	.13
	Father-adolescent GP	268.69	15	<.001	1.21	.84	.15	.37
Parenting to problem behavior correlations	Adolescent P–adolescent GP–mother–father–grandparent	8,374.17	180	<.001	1.13	.05	.19	.30
	Adolescent P-mother	3,759.56	57	<.001	1.14	.06	.24	.31
	Adolescent P-father	3,777.53	57	<.001	1.12	.04	.24	.30
	Adolescent P-grandparent	3,057.27	57	<.001	1.12	.10	.21	.27
	Mother–father	2,867.92	57	<.001	1.12	.13	.21	.20
	Mother–grandparent	2,622.30	57	<.001	1.12	.04	.20	.25
	Mother-adolescent GP	3,345.59	57	<.001	1.16	.00	.22	.32
	Father–grandparent	2,985.54	57	<.001	1.10	.00	.21	.24
	Father-adolescent GP	3,345.41	57	<.001	1.14	.00	.22	.31
	Grandparent-adolescent GP	2,754.07	57	<.001	1.14	.00	.20	.28

Note. The table presents the results of model fit to matrix of parenting intercorrelations and parenting to problem behaviors correlations among adolescent, mother, father, and grandparent. S-Bχ² = Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-square values; df = degrees of freedom; SCF = scaling correction factor; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; adolescent P = adolescents reporting on parents’ parenting; adolescent GP = adolescents reporting on grandparents parenting.

Differences in Means Between Informants

Table 4 shows the differences in means on (grand)parenting among dyads (see also Table S1 in supplementary materials for details). Bonferroni correction was used to correct for multiple testing (.05/50= .001). Therefore, only variables with p < .001 remained significant. Results of the paired-samples t-test showed that grandparents rated their own parenting and adolescent ratings of parenting by grandparents significantly lower than self-reports by mothers on all parenting variables (support: d = 0.34 and 0.23; proactive control: d = 0.30 and 0.38; punitive control: d = 0.87 and 0.99; harsh punitive control: d = 0.50 and 0.56; psychological control: d = 0.38 and 0.39) and by fathers on punitive control (d = 0.81 and 0.86), harsh punitive control (d = 0.37 and 0.40), and psychological control (d = 0.35 and 0.29). Adolescent ratings of grandparent’s parenting were also significantly lower than self-reports by fathers on proactive control (d = 0.32). Grandparents’ self-rated parenting mean scores were also significantly lower than child ratings of their parents’ punitive control (d = 0.69), harsh punitive control (d = 0.47), and psychological control (d = 0.47). Self-reported parenting by mothers was higher than adolescent ratings of parent’s parenting on support (d = 0.21), and lower on psychological control (d = 0.23). Fathers rated their own parenting significantly higher than their children on harsh punitive control (d = 0.27), psychological control (d = 0.27), and lower than self-reports by mothers on support (d = 0.22), punitive control (d = 0.16), and harsh punitive control (d = 0.16). Adolescents rated parents’ parenting significantly higher than grandparents’ parenting on proactive control (d = 0.34), punitive control (d = 0.86), harsh punitive control (d = 0.57), and psychological control (d = 0.56).

Moreover, parents reported significantly more punitive control, harsh punitive control, and psychological control for boys. Fathers reported significantly more proactive control for boys. Boys significantly reported more proactive control and harsh punitive control than girls for both parental parenting and grandparenting, and reported more punitive control for parental parenting. For grandparents, significantly more support was reported for girls rather than for boys (for details, see Table S2 in supplementary materials).

Associations between parenting dimensions and adolescent problem behaviors

The Mplus model fit indices for the comparison of covariance matrices (Table 5) showed that the associations between parenting dimensions and problem behaviors (χ² = 8,374.17, df = 180, p < .001) significantly differed for different family members. Pairwise comparisons showed the same result. However, the direction of associations did not differ for support (negative association), and for punitive, harsh punitive, and psychological control (positive association). Covariance matrices are presented in Table S3 of supplementary materials.

Pearson correlations between parenting dimensions and adolescent problem behaviors are presented in Table 1. Support, harsh punitive control, and psychological control were consistently related to problem behaviors, across informants, with low to moderate correlations. Specifically, more support was associated with less internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors, regardless of informant. More psychological control was associated with more internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors, except the association between grandparent-reported psychological control and adolescent-reported internalizing behavior. More punitive and harsh punitive control were weakly associated with more problem behaviors, except the association between father- and grandparent-reported punitive control and adolescent-reported internalizing behavior. For proactive control, only a weak association was found between adolescent ratings of parental proactive control and adolescent-reported internalizing behavior.

Discussion

Evidence for a Five-Factor Parenting Model in a Chinese Context

CFA mostly supported the five-factor parenting model by Janssens and colleagues (2015), consisting of support, proactive control, punitive (nonphysical) control, harsh punitive (physical), and psychological control. Only for adolescent ratings of grandparent’s parenting, a four-factor model seemed to fit the data better. However, to be consistent and to be able to compare parenting constructs, we used the five-factor parenting model for all family members. Our results showed that it is necessary to differentiate between different forms of control, because they showed different associations with problem behaviors. Overall, our results indicated that it is valid to use this five-factor parenting model in a Chinese context, especially in middle class families where grandparents are living together. However, it is the first time this five-factor parenting model was used in China. Chinese adolescents and (grand)parents may view the Western concept of parenting in a different way (Shek, 2006). More studies with diverse methods (e.g., interviews, observations) are needed to see whether the most relevant parenting practices and dimensions in China are captured by this model.

Cross-Generational Validity of the Five-Factor Parenting Model

Measurement invariance was tested for a five-factor parenting model and the results supported (a) configural invariance, suggesting that early adolescents, mothers, fathers, and grandparents conceptualized the parenting constructs similarly; (b) metric invariance, suggesting that informants rated parenting items in the same manner; and (c) scalar invariance, indicating that (latent) means can be compared reliably across informants. This is the first time that measurement invariance of parenting dimensions in a Chinese context is reported, which is important, because without establishing measurement invariance, it may be invalid to draw conclusions with regard to the role of parenting dimensions in early adolescent outcomes.

Evidence for Agreement Between Informant Dyads

The large number of significant positive associations on the parenting dimensions across informant dyads suggest to some extent agreement between informants. The degree of concordance between dyads was most salient for the parenting dimension support whereas there was least concordance for proactive and punitive control, two parenting dimensions that have gained little attention in China. Nonsignificant or weak associations were mostly present when early adolescent ratings on (grand)parenting were compared with self-ratings by (grand)parents, which suggests that early adolescents rated the frequency of parenting behaviors differently, relative to other parent groups. Thus, it is possible that different family members perceive parenting differently, as suggested by the family systems theory and by the interrelations of parenting dimensions. However, the result of interrelations of parenting dimensions between mothers and fathers was not significant. It is possible that ratings by mothers and fathers are related because they (implicitly) agree to the same approach to child rearing (Y. Wang, Qian, Li, Wang, & Chen, 2018). It is also possible that they do a lot of parenting together, which can result in similar strategies.

Evidence for Differences in Means Across Parents, Grandparents and Adolescents

Results indicated that grandparents report less parenting behaviors than parents, both in the view of parents and early adolescents. This finding is consistent with the results of Pei (2005), but is in contrast to the study by P. Kong et al. (2013) in which mothers reported lower scores than grandparents on the parenting construct nurturance. This could be explained by the fact that in the latter study where children were younger and spent more time with grandparents. Nearly half of the grandparents in our study reported spending time with their grandchildren once or less per week because they are not living together. In Mainland China, some authors hold the opinion that most grandparents have outdated and inadequate parenting skills because of their lower educational level (Ji, 2013), so that they express less warmth and are more likely to use strict and controlling methods to correct their grandchildren’s mistakes (P. Kong, Xing, & Quan, 2012). Consistent with the study by L. Xu et al. (2014), grandmothers, especially paternal grandmothers, were more involved in child-rearing than grandfathers. Although grandparents scored the lowest on all parenting variables, they reported significantly more support for girls. Boys received significantly more punitive, harsh punitive, and psychological control, as reported by parents. Even boys themselves perceived more proactive control and harsh punitive control than girls for parenting and grandparenting, and more punitive control for parenting. This is in line with the observation that caregivers have higher expectations for boys, in line with the patrilineal system that emphasizes generational succession (Tang, 2006). Therefore, guided by family systems theory, schools or communities should notice and highlight differential perceptions of family members on parenting. They could provide guidelines on parenting skills and promote parenting awareness to grandparents, especially for families in which grandparents live together with their grandchildren.

Moreover, the results showed that mothers scored significantly higher than fathers on support, punitive control, and harsh punitive control. This finding is in contrast to the traditional Chinese notion that reflects “strict father and kind mother,” indicating that with the development of society and influenced by western culture, fathers may have realized the importance of child-rearing and intimacy with their children, adopting less harsh punishment and more warm child-rearing than before (Jankowiak & Li, 2014). However, mothers scored significantly higher than adolescents on support, but significantly lower on psychological control, whereas fathers scored higher than adolescents on harsh punitive and psychological control, which suggests that “strict father and kind mother” still exists in the perception of early adolescent. One possible explanation is that even though fathers show more concern and care to their children (Chuang & Su, 2008), this concern is still limited compared with mother’s support. Another explanation is that adolescents rated joint parenting behaviors of parents. In this respect, early adolescents may be dominated by their perception on either parenting of mother or father (Janssens et al., 2015). Future research could explore adolescents’ perceptions of maternal and paternal parenting separately.

Associations Between Parenting Dimensions and Adolescent Problem Behavior

The main result was that associations between parenting dimensions and adolescent problem behaviors differed for ratings by different family members. Results mostly confirmed our expectations that harsher parenting (i.e., the more frequent use of punitive, harsh punitive, and psychological control) was associated with more problems and supportive parenting was related to fewer problems, no matter which informant reported. This is consistent with previous studies (e.g., Bayer, Sanson, & Hemphill, 2006; Muhtadie et al., 2013) and the theoretical assumption that ineffective parenting leads to maladaptive child behavior (Capaldi & Patterson, 1989).

Proactive control was not clearly associated with adolescent problem behaviors. A first possible reason may be that the Setting Expectations subscale and the Monitoring subscale from the Parental Regulation Scale (Barber, 1996) may not fully capture the spectrum of proactive control, especially in a Chinese culture. Another explanation might be that positive parenting in early adolescents may be more focused on support or autonomy than cultivating the specific behaviors in adolescent (Janssens et al., 2015). Further research could investigate different forms of behavioral control, especially the understudied concept of proactive control.

Parent- and grandparent-reported punitive control was more associated with externalizing problem behavior, whereas parental punitive control rated by adolescents was associated with both internalizing and externalizing behaviors. This is an important finding, especially because adolescent internalizing problem behaviors have been largely neglected and conceived less important in Chinese communities (X. Chen & Li, 2000). Chinese still emphasize the importance of adolescent conduct and academic achievement nowadays to increase competition in the market economy (M. Wang & Liu, 2014). Another possible explanation for the lack of associations between parent- and grandparent-reported punitive control and internalizing behavior is that it may be difficult for parents to detect internalizing problem behaviors (Meesman & Koot, 2000). Thus, practitioners and researchers should differentiate between specific forms of parenting (e.g., behavior control and psychological control, separating behavior control into punitive control and harsh punitive control). Evaluating differential effects of parenting by multiple family members on early adolescent problem behavior can provide specific suggestions about how to work clinically with parenting dynamics that benefit both adolescents and families.

Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research

Even though this study has several strengths, for example, it is the first to include grandparent’s perspectives on parenting in addition to the perspectives of adolescent, mothers, and fathers, several limitations should be mentioned. First, the sample was drawn from urban and suburban areas in more developed cities, so our results may not generalize to rural samples. It has been reported that the prevalence of grandparent child-rearing in some rural areas, where the emphasize is on more patriarchal tradition, is more than twice in urban areas (e.g., Sun, 2013), which may lead to different parenting processes and associations with adolescent problem behavior. Future studies could be conducted to compare parenting behavior across rural, suburban, and urban areas. Second, this study has a cross-sectional design, thus we cannot make any causal inferences about (grand)parenting predicting adolescent outcome. A longitudinal research design could help to better understand how parenting behaviors rated by multiple informants are associated with adolescent problem behaviors over time. Third, this study did not differentiate parenting of maternal grandmother and grandfather, and paternal grandmother and grandfather. Future studies could explore differential grandparenting and its associations with outcomes. Fourth, some authors posited that Chinese adolescents might conceive Western parenting concepts in a different manner (e.g., Shek, 2006). For example, based on the Western literature of psychological control (e.g., Barber, 1996), Shek (2006) also developed a self-report parental psychological control for Chinese specific culture that emphasizes filial piety and dependence of family members. Although the factor structure of the Western version of the five-factor model of parenting behavior could be replicated in a Chinese context, further research on specific Chinese parenting behaviors (e.g., parental psychological control, Shek, 2006) should be conducted. Finally, only a single method was used to measure parenting that is questionnaires. We chose this option to be able to assess parenting behavior in a large sample and to better reach (grand)parents. Bias may arise if a parent helped a grandparent to complete the questionnaire, especially when grandparents were illiterate. Although parents were explicitly instructed not to discuss questionnaire items with grandparents, we cannot exclude this possibility. In future research, it is advisable to include other methods, such as observations or interviews, especially for grandparents.

Conclusion

A five-factor parenting model was supported for the Chinese sample in this study. Results supported scalar measurement invariance across mothers, fathers, grandparents, and early adolescents, which allows cross-generational comparisons. Grandparents showed less parenting behavior than parents. The five parenting dimensions were differentially associated with behavioral problems for different family members. Parenting support programs may help (grand)parents to update their child-rearing notions and skills, to assist child development. However, the sample in this study is not nationally representative. More studies are needed, for example, on whether the parenting model and its associations with adolescent outcome are valid in other samples (e.g., countryside populations, samples from less developed districts) and whether measurement invariance and mean differences hold over time.

Supplemental Material

Supplementary_materials – Supplemental material for Perspectives of Early Adolescents, Parents, and Grandparents on Parenting Behaviors in China

Supplemental material, Supplementary_materials for Perspectives of Early Adolescents, Parents, and Grandparents on Parenting Behaviors in China by Na Luo, Martijn Van Heel and Karla Van Leeuwen in The Journal of Early Adolescence

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.

ORCID iD

Na Luo

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Na Luo holds a Master in Education and is a PhD student at the Parenting and Special Education Research Unit, KU Leuven, Belgium. Her doctoral project is about to investigate the relationship between parenting dimensions, coparenting, and early adolescents’ behavior problems, with early adolescents, parents, and grandparents in Chinese communities as informants.

Martijn Van Heel holds a Master in Psychology and is a PhD student at the Parenting and Special Education Research Unit, KU Leuven, Belgium. His doctoral project concerns the interaction between adolescent characteristics (temperament, personality, genes) and parenting associated with adolescent externalizing problem behavior.

Karla Van Leeuwen, PhD in Psychology, holds a chair in Family studies at the Parenting and Special Education Research Unit at KU Leuven, Belgium. She has expertise in (a) (longitudinal) studies on the interaction between child/adolescent characteristics (temperament, personality, genes) and the environment (parenting, family characteristics, peers) associated with child/adolescent outcomes; (b) assessment of parenting; (c) parenting in specific samples (e.g., children with developmental disorders); and (d) parenting support programs.

References

Achenbach

T. M.

Edelbrock

C. S.

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

Attar-Schwartz

Tan

Buchanan

Flouri

Griggs

(2009). Grandparenting and adolescent adjustment in two-parent biological, lone-parent, and step-families. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 67-75. doi:10.1037/a0014383

Barber

B. K.

(1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296-3319. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01915.x

Barber

B. K.

Maughan

S. L.

Olsen

J. A.

(2005). Patterns of parenting across adolescence. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 108, 5-16. doi:10.1002/cd.124

Barry

C. T.

Frick

P. J.

Grafeman

S. J.

(2008). Child versus parent reports of parenting practices: Implications for the conceptualization of child behavioral and emotional problems. Assessment, 15, 294-303. doi:10.1177/1073191107312212

Bayer

J. K.

Sanson

A. V.

Hemphill

S. A.

(2006). Parent influences on early childhood internalizing difficulties. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 542-559. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2006.08.002

Bonds

D. D.

Gondoli

D. M.

(2007). Examining the process by which marital adjustment affects maternal warmth: The role of coparenting support as a mediator. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 288-296. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.288

Brislin

R. W.

(1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In Triandis

H. C.

Berry

J. W.

(Eds.), Methodology: Vol. 2. Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 389-444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Capaldi

Patterson

G. R.

(1989). Psychometric properties of fourteen latent constructs from the Oregon Youth Study. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

10.

Capron

Thérond

Duyme

(2007). Psychometric properties of the French version of the self-report and teacher Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 79-88. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.23.2.79

11.

Chen

(2005). Residential patterns of parents and their married children in contemporary china: A life course approach. Population Research and Policy Review, 24, 125-148. doi:10.1007/s11113-004-6371-9

12.

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 464-504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834

13.

Chen

J. L.

Liu

(2012). The mediating role of perceived parental warmth and parental punishment in the psychological well-being of children in rural China. Social Indicators Research, 107, 483-508. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9859-9

14.

Chen

B. S.

(2000). Depressed mood in Chinese children: Development significance for social and school adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 472-479. doi:10.1080/016502500750038026

15.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

16.

Chuang

S. S.

(2008). Transcending Confucian teachings on fathering: A sign of the times or acculturation? In Chuang

S. S.

Moreno

R. P.

(Eds.), On new shores: Understanding immigrant fathers in North America (pp. 129-150). Lanham, MD: Lexington.

17.

Darling

Steinberg

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

18.

De Haan

Prinzie

Sentse

Jongerling

. (2018). Latent difference score modeling: A flexible approach for studying informant discrepancies. Psychological Assessment, 30, 358-369. doi:10.1037/pas0000480

19.

Deater-Deckard

Dodge

K. A.

Bates

J. E.

Pettit

G. S.

(1998). Multiple risk factors in the development of externalizing behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 469-493. doi:10.1017/s0954579498001709

20.

Galambos

N. L.

Barker

E. T.

Almeida

D. M.

(2003). Parents do matter: Trajectories of change in externalizing and internalizing problems in early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 578-594. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.7402017

21.

Gaylord

N. K.

Kitzmann

K. M.

Coleman

J. K.

(2003). Parents’ and children’s perceptions of parental behavior: Associations with children’s psychosocial adjustment in the classroom. Parenting, 3, 23-47. doi:10.1207/s15327922par0301_02

22.

Gershoff

E. T.

Grogan-Kaylor

(2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 453-469. doi:10.1037/fam0000191

23.

Goh

E. C.

(2009). Grandparents as childcare providers: An in-depth analysis of the case of Xiamen, China. Journal of Aging Studies, 23, 60-68. doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2007.08.001

24.

Goodman

Lamping

D. L.

Ploubidis

G. B.

(2010). When to use broader internalizing and externalizing subscales instead of the hypothesized five subscales on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Data from British parents, teachers and children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 1179-1191. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9434-x

25.

Goodman

(1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581-586. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0176605

26.

Goodman

(2001). Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1337-1145. doi:10.1097/00004583-200111000-00015

27.

Grolnick

W. S.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(1991). Inner resources for school achievement: Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 508-517. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.4.508

28.

(2012). Grandparents’ upbringing in Mainland China: The status and prospect of research. Cross-Cultural Communication, 8, 58-64. doi:10.3968/j.ccc.1923670020120803.1160

29.

Guion

Mrug

Windle

(2009). Predictive value of informant discrepancies in reports of parenting: Relations to early adolescents’ adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 17-30. doi:10.1007/s10802-008-9253-5

30.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

31.

Institute for Research and Reform in Education. (1998). Research Assessment Package for Schools (RAPS) manual. Philadelphia, PA: Institute for Research and Reform in Education.

32.

Jankowiak

(2014). The decline of the chauvinistic model of Chinese masculinity. Chinese Sociological Review, 46(4), 3-18. doi:10.2753/CSA2162-0555460401

33.

Janssens

Goossens

Van Den Noortgate

Colpin

Verschueren

Van Leeuwen

(2015). Parents’ and adolescents’ perspectives on parenting evaluating conceptual structure, measurement invariance, and criterion validity. Assessment, 22, 473-489. doi:10.1177/1073191114550477

34.

W. X.

(2013). On China’s rural alternate-generation education. Journal of Yan’an Vocational & Technical Institute, 27, 27-29. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-6198.2013.01.012

35.

Hank

(2014). Grandparents caring for grandchildren in China and Korea: Findings from CHARLS and KLoSa. Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences, 69, 646-651. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbt129

36.

Kong

Guo

X. H.

Xing

X. P.

(2013). The association between parenting, grandparenting and children’s externalizing behavior. Journal of Educational Development, 7, 34-36. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-3476.2013.07.010

37.

Kong

Xing

X. P.

Quan

F. J.

(2012). The impact of grandparenting on Children’s peer relationship: Mediating role of children’s problem behavior. Journal of Shandong Normal University (Humanities and Social Science), 57(5), 151-154.

38.

Kong

(2017). Grandparents’ parenting style, parental rearing style and children’s problem behavior (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://www.doc88.com/p-7068663277328.html

39.

Kuppens

Laurent

Heyvaert

Onghena

(2013). Associations between parental psychological control and relational aggression in children and adolescents: A multilevel and sequential meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1697-1712. doi:10.1037/a0030740

40.

Lenhard

(2016). Calculation of effect sizes. Retrieved from https://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html

41.

Lamb

M. E.

(2015). Fathering in Chinese culture: Traditions and transitions. In Roopnarine

(Ed.), Fathers across cultures: The importance, roles, and diverse practices of dads (pp. 273-306). New York, NY: Praeger.

42.

X. W.

Xie

Song

Y. T.

(2016). Grandparents-parents co-parenting and its relationship with maternal parenting stress and children’s behavioral problems. Chinese Journal of Special Education, 4, 71-78. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1007-3728.2016.04.011

43.

Liu

Wang

Xing

(2011). Parental psychological aggression: Intergenerational transmission and the moderating effect of spouse’s psychological aggression. Advances in Psychological Science, 19, 328-335. doi:118.145.16.229:81

44.

Yao

Zhao

(2013). Prevalence of behavioral problems and related family functioning among middle school students in an eastern city of China. Asia-Pacific Psychiatry, 5(1), E1-E8. doi:10.1111/j.1758-5872.2012.00211.x

45.

McHale

Kuerstan-Hogan

Rao

(2004). Growing points for coparenting theory and research. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 221-234. doi:10.1023/B:JADE.0000035629.29960.ed

46.

Meesman

Koot

H. M.

(2000). Child-reported depression and anxiety in preadolescence: Associations with parent- and teacher-reported problems. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 1371-1378. doi:10.1097/00004583-200011000-00011

47.

Meredith

(1993). Measurement invariance, factor-analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525-543. doi:10.1007/BF02294825

48.

Minuchin

(1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56, 289-302. doi:10.2307/1129720

49.

Muhtadie

Zhou

Eisenberg

Wang

(2013). Predicting internalizing problems in Chinese children: The unique and interactive effects of parenting and child temperament. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 653-667. doi:10.1017/S0954579413000084

50.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2012). Mplus statistical analysis with latent variables user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

51.

Nelson

D. A.

Crick

N. R.

(2002). Parental psychological control: Implications for childhood physical and relational aggression. In Barber

B. K.

(Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents (pp. 168-189). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

52.

Ohannessian

M. C.

Laird

De Los Reyes

(2016). Discrepancies in adolescents’ and mothers’ perceptions of the family and mothers’ psychological symptomatology. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 2011-2021. doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0477-3

53.

Patterson

G. R.

Reid

Dishion

(1992). Antisocial Boys: Vol. 4. A social interactional approach. Eugene, OR: Castalia.

54.

Pei

L. Y.

(2005). The characteristics of grandparenting and its effect on child’s development personality (Master dissertation). Jinan, China: Shandong Normal University.

55.

Pinquart

(2017a). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with internalizing symptoms in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Marriage & Family Review, 53, 613-640. doi:10.1080/01494929.2016.1247761

56.

Pinquart

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

57.

Rowe

D. C.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Flannery

D. J.

(1994). No more than skin deep: Ethnic and racial similarity in developmental process. Psychological Review, 101, 396-413. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.3.396

58.

Shek

D. T. L.

(2002). The relation of parental qualities to psychological well-being, school adjustment, and problem behavior in Chinese adolescents with economic disadvantage. American Journal of Family Therapy, 30, 215-230. doi:10.1080/019261802753577548

59.

Shek

D. T. L.

(2006). Assessment of perceived parental psychological control in Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Research on Social Work Practice, 16, 382-391. doi:10.1177/1049731506286231

60.

Spithoven

Bijttebier

Van Leeuwen

Goossens

(2016). Factor structure of parenting behavior in early adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 53, 91-94. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.09.002

61.

Sun

(2013). Chinese older adults taking care of grandchildren: Practices and policies for productive aging. Ageing International, 38, 58-70. doi:10.1007/s12126-012-9161-4

62.

Tang

(2006). Corporal punishment and physical maltreatment against children: A community study on Chinese parents in Hong Kong. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 893-907. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.02.012

63.

Tein

J.-Y.

Roosa

M. W.

Michaels

(1994). Agreement between parent and child reports on parental behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56, 341-355. doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0524-0

64.

Van Heel

Bijttebier

Claes

Colpin

Goossens

Van Den Noortgate

Van Leeuwen

. (2019a). Measuring parenting throughout adolescence: Measurement invariance across informants, mean-level and differential continuity. Assessment, 26, 111-124. doi:10.1177/1073191116686827

65.

Van Heel

Bijttebier

Colpin

Goossens

Van Den Noortgate

Verschueren

Van Leeuwen

. (2019b). Adolescent-parent discrepancies in perceptions of parenting: Associations with adolescent externalizing problem behavior. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28, 3170-3182. doi:10.1007/s10826-019-01493-7

66.

Van Leeuwen

Vermulst

. (2004). Some psychometric properties of the Ghent parental behavior scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20, 283-298. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.1028

67.

Wang

J. N.

Liu

Wang

(2014). Prevalence and associated factors of emotional and behavioural problems in Chinese school adolescents: A cross-sectional survey. Child: Care, Health and Development, 40, 319-326. doi:10.1111/cch.12101

68.

Wang

Liu

(2014). Parental harsh discipline in Mainland China: Prevalence, frequency, and coexistence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 1128-1137. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.02.016

69.

Wang

Qian

Y. M.

H. Y.

Wang

S. F.

Chen

B. B.

(2018). A study on the “red face and white face” under the three-dimensional construct of coparenting in Chinese families. Journal of Soochow University (Educational Science Edition), 1, 100-111. doi:10.19563/j.cnki.sdjk.2018.01.010

70.

Widenfelt

Goedhart

Treffers

P. A.

Goodman

(2003). Dutch version of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ). European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, 281-289. doi:10.1007/s00787-003-0341-3

71.

Xing

Wang

(2017). Gender differences in the moderating effects of parental warmth and hostility on the association between corporal punishment and child externalizing behaviors in China. Journal of Child Family Studies, 26, 928-938. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-0610-7

72.

Silverstein

Chi

(2014). Emotional closeness between grandparents and grandchildren in rural China: The mediating role of the middle generation. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 12, 226-240. doi:10.1177/0192513x06293893

73.

Farver

J. A. M.

Zhang

(2009). Temperament, harsh and indulgent parenting, and Chinese children’s proactive and reactive aggression. Child Development, 80, 244-258. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01257.x

74.

Yap

M. B. H.

Fowler

Reavley

Jorm

A. F.

(2015). Parenting strategies for reducing the risk of childhood depression and anxiety disorders: A Delphi consensus study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 183, 330-338. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2015.05.031

75.

Zeng

Xie

(2014). The effects of grandparents on children’s schooling: Evidence from rural China. Demography, 51, 599-617. doi:10.1007/s13524-013-0275-4

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB