Parenting for Success: Exploring the Link Between Parenting Styles and Adolescents’ Academic Achievement Through Their Learning Engagement

Abstract

Adolescents’ interaction with their parents at home is pivotal for their physical and mental health, which can further influence their academic achievement at school. However, every culture has distinctive parenting elements which are distinguishable from other cultures. This study explored the influence of parenting styles on adolescents’ academic achievement through the mediation role of learning engagement in a Chinese cultural context. A questionnaire was distributed among parents and students, and 1,557 valid responses were received and analyzed using SPSS software, PROCESS macro, Microsoft Excel, and JASP. The results indicated a positive and significant effect of parenting styles on students’ academic achievement, with students’ learning engagement partially mediating such relationship. Dimension-wise, parents’ emotional acceptance positively influenced students’ academic achievement, but rejecting and overprotecting them had negative repercussions. A comparison between fathers and mothers showed a higher effect of mothers’ parenting styles compared to that of fathers. Generally, students’ behaviors result from different forces which act in and outside them, making this study a wake-up call for cherishing collective efforts from parents, teachers, and students toward improving academic performance.

Plain Language Summary

This study examined how parenting styles in the Chinese cultural context impact adolescents’ academic achievement through their level of engagement in learning. Survey data from 1557 participants were analyzed to uncover key findings. The results revealed that parenting styles significantly influence students’ academic success, with their level of engagement in learning partially mediating this relationship. Specifically, parents’ emotional acceptance positively affected academic achievement, while rejection and overprotection had negative effects. Mothers’ parenting styles were found to have a stronger influence than fathers’. Overall, the study highlights the importance of parental involvement and positive interactions in shaping adolescents’ academic outcomes. It emphasizes the need for collaboration between parents, teachers, and students to enhance academic performance effectively.

Keywords

parenting styles learning engagement academic achievement emotional engagement behavioral engagement

Introduction

Learning is essential to humanity, for it is an indispensable tool for nourishing people’s minds and gaining knowledge, skills, values, and understanding (Stern, 2017). Part of the role of adults in teaching or influencing youths is to help them become learned, as it fosters curiosity and motivates them toward further learning (McCulloch, 2013). Being a responsible citizen who can solve problems is one indicator of being on a good track of learning (Bergin, 2022). In formal education institutions (i.e., schools), students’ academic achievement is the most important indicator, which shows the degree to which the institution, teachers, and students have achieved their goals (Yu et al., 2022). Parents are integral to students’ successful learning (Widyawati et al., 2021), for every interaction they may have with their adolescents influences developmental pathways (van der Gaag et al., 2019). Family is a fundamental social institution in adolescents’ well-being, and physical and mental growth, which further influences learning processes (Zahra et al., 2016).

Studies of outside-school factors for students’ academic achievement have attracted a number of scholars, but less has been reported about family issues, as parent-adolescent interaction takes up a large proportion of adolescents’ time spent outside schools (Reschly & Christenson, 2019). Theories suggest a positive influence of healthy interaction between parents and adolescents on adolescents’ intellectual (cognitive) development (Madarevic et al., 2022). Being a parent entails a unique opportunity of supporting adolescents throughout their growth period (Solmi et al., 2022), a support that can be exhibited through the parenting styles adopted (Khaleque, 2013), the styles which are proximal and influential toward adolescents’ well-being (Sameroff, 2010). Parenting styles characterized by few conflicts (e.g., disagreement) and warmth (love, support, and affection) are influential on adolescents’ cognitive and behavioral development (Weymouth et al., 2016). The reported relationship between parenting styles and adolescents’ behaviors triggers a further investigation of the relationship which may exist between parenting styles and students’ academic achievement at schools. Can the adolescents’ learning engagement explain how parenting styles affect academic achievement?

Literature Review

Theoretical Review: The Dynamic Systems Theory

Dynamic system theory (DST) has intellectual roots drawn from biology, physics, mathematics, meteorology, and astronomy (Cullen et al., 2022; Mandal et al., 2023; Sujith & Unni, 2021). Its contribution to studies of human development and behaviors was introduced by Shweder et al. (2009), who applied it to cognitive development, and Thelen & Bates (2003) who applied the theory to motor development. Parent-adolescent relationships and effective support for school transitions are among the multilevel interventions the theory has guided (Smith & Thelen, 2003). It serves as an ideal framework for researching family influences (processes) on adolescents’ behaviors that can change over time (Perrig & Grob, 2013). According to DST, a time of human life (with its associated behaviors) is a phase that results from different forces which act outside the person. It is argued that present-day patterns of human behavior (i.e., disruptive behavior in youths) are shaped by current and historical factors acting over time. The theory provides a framework through which multiple pathways of effective interventions to human behaviors can be considered.

Similar to disruptive behaviors (Kuhn et al., 2015; Rivard et al., 2022), studies of adolescents’ learning engagement at school can also be studied under the framework of dynamic system theory. Learning engagement is among the behaviors exhibited by students at different levels, but little is known about the influence of their family, especially parenting styles, on their learning engagement and academic achievement at school. Can adolescents’ experience with different parenting styles be one of the influential factors for their varied academic achievement at school? Can their learning engagement significantly explain the mechanism through which the relationship between parenting style and their academic achievements? These and several other questions must be addressed to raise awareness among teachers, parents, and students over the possible factors influencing students’ academic achievement.

Empirical Literature Review

The literature proposes diverse parenting styles with a varied set of parent-adolescent interaction behaviors (Madarevic et al., 2022), whereby cultural backgrounds greatly influence it (Terrence & Magda, 2021). When researching parenting styles, dimensions and practices are very important to explore (Selland et al., 2021). Practices are observable behaviors parents use in socializing with adolescents about discipline, problem-solving, and positive reinforcement (Masud et al., 2019). Parenting dimensions include effective parental support and control by showing availability, responsiveness, acceptance, and warmth, which lead to positive social and cognitive growth outcomes (Sekaran et al., 2020). Control in parenting is psychological (i.e., attempts to manipulate feelings, emotions, and thoughts) and behavioral (i.e., regulation of adolescent behavior). The appropriate amount and quality of behavioral control can positively affect adolescents’ behavioral development (Kuppens & Ceulemans, 2019).

Parenting and Its Influences on Adolescents’ Behaviors

Parenting can be categorized based on Diana Baumrind’s works (Baumrind, 1971, 1989) and other subsequent works of literature which focus on two scopes: affection and authority (Dade, 2011). Baumrind considers authoritarianism, authoritative, and permissive as categories of parenting, while other studies add uninvolved parenting as the third category (Gao et al., 2021; Krause & Dailey, 2011; Leeman et al., 2014; H. Zhang et al., 2020). In authoritarianism, parents establish rules that are usually not explained, there is no room for negotiation, and adolescents must obey without errors or otherwise be punished (Masud et al., 2019). Adolescents from these families are well-behaving and good at adhering to precise instruction, but they have low self-esteem (Hayek et al., 2021; Martínez & García, 2007). In authoritative, parents develop a close relationship with adolescents, with very clear rules for their expectations, while reasons associated with each rule and disciplinary action are explained (Xiong et al., 2020). Adolescents from these families are responsible, confident, and good at self-regulation (Morris et al., 2007; Selland et al., 2021).

Permissive parents impose very limited rules on their adolescents, with less or no expectations, and let their adolescents figure out issues for themselves with very rare use of disciplinary actions or punishment (Langer et al., 2014; Lo et al., 2020; Piotrowski et al., 2013). Parent-adolescent communication is like friends, not parents (Leeman et al., 2014; Rönsch, 2020). Adolescents from these families have moderate self-esteem, lack self-regulation skills, and are very demanding (Lopez et al., 2017). More like permissive; in uninvolved parenting, parents stay out of the way with no disciplinary strategies for their adolescents and low expectations while giving them more freedom and fulfilling almost every basic requirement (B. Chen et al., 2021). Adolescents from these families are more likely to face emotional control problems, academic challenges, and social interaction (Kuppens & Ceulemans, 2019). Exploring the relationship between parenting styles and students’ academic achievement is important for both parents and students because it informs the responsibility each has to play toward students’ successful learning.

Parenting Styles and Students’ Learning Engagement at School

Learning engagement is a multidimensional construct consisting of emotional, cognitional and behavioral investment of efforts toward achieving a goal (Ben-Eliyahu et al., 2018; Mullins & Panlilio, 2021). Family and parenting styles influence adolescents’ emotional, attitudinal, and behavioral growth (Moreira et al., 2018). Issues like the availability of learning resources at home and parents’ monitoring, supervision, expectations, and motivational support greatly influence students’ learning engagement at school (L. Zhang et al., 2022). The existing literature suggests that learning engagement is acquiescent to intervention, as it can be influenced by contextual factors like families, peers, communities, and schools (Reschly & Christenson, 2019). Studies of families and their influence on students’ learning process are imperative because 90% of students’ time is spent outside the school, with parents occupying a large proportion of it (Reschly & Christenson, 2019). Conceptual literatures have suggested that parenting style influences adolescents’ self-esteem, discipline, and confidence (B. Chen et al., 2021). It is reasonable to hypothesize that these traits may further affect their learning engagement at school and consequently their academic achievement because several psychological theories have suggested so.

Students’ Learning Engagement and Their Academic Achievement

Learning engagement is an important aspect of educational achievement among students (H. Liu et al., 2020; Rahmati, 2015). Previous studies have indicated the predicting role of parental engagement, especially among adolescents from low socio-economic-status families (Tong et al., 2021), frequent parent-adolescent communication, motivation, courage, teaching style, and availability of books at school on students’ academic achievement in school (Bacher-Hicks et al., 2021; Davis et al., 2022; Shaari et al., 2014). It is now imperative to turn the attention toward students’ self-efforts, especially by examining the influence of their learning engagement on academic achievement (da Fonseca et al., 2019; Park et al., 2022). Building from the previous literature, we further provide the theoretical claim by hypothesizing that students’ learning engagement can further influence their academic achievement.

The Research Gap

Numerous studies from Western cultures have indicated the relationship between parenting and adolescents’ academic achievement in school (Brown, 2018; Fibbi & Truong, 2015; Slijper et al., 2022; Terrence & Magda, 2021; Wang et al., 2021). However, Chinese culture is very different and distinguishable from the rest of the world (I. H. Chen et al., 2020). A set of distinctive patterns of behaviors and beliefs among Chinese people that regulate their daily living, including caring for their offspring and adolescents, may differently influence learning behavior (Bornstein, 2013). In addition, although literature indicates the relationship which exists between students’ learning engagement and their academic achievement (Brown, 2018; Leeman et al., 2014; Li et al., 2020; W. Liu et al., 2021; Moreira et al., 2018), less is known about the influence of different parenting styles on the two outcome variables. Do students from different families with varied parenting styles engage similarly in their academics at school? Is the varied students’ engagement reflected in their academic achievement? These are questions that remain unanswered, especially in a Chinese context.

The Objective of This Study

This study examined the impact of parenting styles on students’ academic achievement at school through the mediation role of learning engagement. The objective was partly built from the literature findings, which suggested the differences in parenting styles between mothers and fathers (Dong et al., 2022; Fu & Cao, 2019; L. Liu & Wang, 2018; W. Liu et al., 2021). It is suggested from theoretical literature that mothers’ parenting styles have a higher effect on students’ behaviors than fathers because of the differences in their availability at home (Guerrero et al., 2019; Pajo & Cohen, 2013). Mothers are reported to spend more time with their adolescents than fathers (Fallesen & Gähler, 2020), so we expect a great influence of mothers’ parenting style on students’ academic achievement and performance compared to that of fathers’. In this study, the father and mother’s parenting styles are treated separately to explore the influence of each on students’ learning achievement. In the model, we test the mediating role of students’ learning engagement in the relationship between parenting styles and students’ academic achievement. We also explored the interrelationship between the three dimensions of learning engagement (affective/emotional, cognitive, and behavioral) and how each dimension is affected by parenting behavior and further affects students’ academic achievement.

Hypotheses of the Study

Hypothesis 1. Parenting styles have a positive and direct significant effect on students’ academic achievement.

Hypothesis 2. Parenting styles positively and significantly affect students’ learning engagement at school.

Hypothesis 3. Learning engagement has a direct and significant effect on academic achievement.

Hypothesis 4. Students’ learning engagement mediates the relationship between parenting styles and academic achievement.

Hypothesis 5. The effect of mothers’ parenting style on adolescents’ academic achievement is significantly higher than that of fathers.

Model of the Study

Based on the theoretical review, empirical research gap, objectives of this study, and the hypotheses formulated, we present the model through Figure 1 below, which is used as a guiding framework. Parenting styles affect students’ academic achievement in two major ways; directly through path “B” and indirectly through the mediation role of learning engagement with paths “A” and “C.” Each of the three dimensions of learning engagement (emotional, cognitive, and behavioral) has a different influence on academic achievement through paths C1, C2, and C3, as parenting styles also influence them through paths A1, A2, and A3. Generally, A’s paths are for the direct effect of parenting style on learning engagement, while C’s paths are for the direct effect of learning engagement on academic achievement.

Figure 1.

Direct and indirect effect of parenting style on students’ academic achievement through learning engagement.

Methodology

Procedure

The participants participated in an online survey platform between September 2021 and November 2021. All participants were granted anonymity, and researchers would adhere to the confidentiality of their responses during the analysis and reporting of their responses. The participants completed the survey in about 15 min, while the Ethics Committee of the local university’s College of Teacher Education approved the study, and it followed the Declaration of Helsinki.

Participants

The participants included students and their parents in different cities and provinces in China, with the final 1,557 valid responses (89.61%) for this study. Distributional-wise, there were 519 high school students aged 16 to 19 years (M = 18.1, SD = 0.63) and 519 parents aged 41 to 56 years (M = 47.69, SD = 2.07). The majority of parents (59.2%) had bachelor’s degrees, while others had master’s (17.5%), PhD (3.7%), and other qualifications below degree level (19.6%). In regards to occupations, very few parents were unskilled workers (5.8%), as many of them were professional (46.9%), semi-professional (21.7%), skilled (11.5%) and semi-skilled workers (14.1%). No parent participant identified themselves as unemployed.

Measurement Tools

Parenting Style

In this study, we adopted a Chinese Simplified Parental Style Scale (CSPSS) from Jiang et al. (2010), which measures participants’ perceptions of their parents’ parenting style. It consists of three dimensions: emotional acceptance (love, care, and warmth), rejection and overprotection. The scale was developed specifically for Chinese participants based on Chinese parenting styles, and over time it has demonstrated strong test–retest reliability (I. H. Chen et al., 2020). The scale comprises 21 total items, scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). Rejection and over-protection items were reversely coded to ensure that a high score for each dimension meant good parenting styles by parents (Langer et al., 2014). The validity and reliability of items and scales were within the acceptable range, for all items had loadings above .7 (Lo et al., 2020) with the Cronbach’s alpha of .87, above the suggested threshold of .7 (Pong et al., 2010).

Learning Engagement

Wilma Shafili’s learning engagement scale was adopted in this study, which was translated and revised by Xiying in 2010. The revised version of Wilmar Schaufeli’s UWES-S learning engagement scale (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale student) consists of 17 Items with three dimensions: emotional, cognitive, and behavioral engagement. The items are scored on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (always true) to 7 (always not true). The factor loadings for all the items were above the threshold of .7 (Lo et al., 2020), and Cronbach’s alpha was .95, above the suggested threshold of .7 (Pong et al., 2010).

The Structural Model of Latent Variables (Parenting Styles and Learning Engagement)

Figure 2 below presents a full structural model in which the sub-parts of the measurement model and structural model are shown. Measurement model results in structural equation modeling (SEM) were used to assess the validity of the indicators for each construct by observing the factor loadings (λ≥70). With these factor loadings, the construct’s quality criteria are considered high (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2023). The measurement of the structural relationship (covariance) between learning engagement (LE) and parenting style (PS) was moderate (r = .48), indicating that the two variables change together on a reliable and consistent basis (Srivastava, 2010). See Figure 2 below.

Figure 2.

The full structural model of the latent variables.

Academic Achievement

Academic achievement (AA) in this study was a one-item variable (Question: What was the annual score for your adolescent last year?) which was scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (below 20%) to 5 (above 95%). AA is a one-item observed factor as we mainly focused on students’ academic achievement (scores), and for being a manifest or observed variable, it was not included in structural analysis (Figure 1). In this case, the test–retest procedure was suitable for examining the reliability of the factor (Boyle & Saklofske, 2015). Generally, test–retest reliability assumes that the scores measured over a certain interval of time are the same (Kurtz, 2020). The correlation coefficient of students’ academic scores was calculated at two separate points in 3 weeks (21 days), and the results yielded acceptable reliability (r = .98).

Statistical Analysis Strategy

All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS, SPSS PROCESS, JASP, and Microsoft Excel software. The correlations among the main variables were obtained with Pearson’s correlation. Preliminary analyses of the validity and reliability of items and constructs, the descriptive statistics and the correlation between variables were done before hypotheses testing. Model number 4 was used during regression analysis because it is suitable for exploring the mediation role of one mediator in the relationship between the predictors and outcome variables (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). In this study, we used Andrew F. Hayes’s SPSS PROCESS macro to explore the mediating role of LE in the relationship between PS and AA (Hayes, 2017).

Results

Validity and Reliability of the Constructs

Construct reliability assessment allows evaluation of the extent to which a variable is consistent in what it intends to measure (Roldán & Sánchez-Franco, 2012). Using the formula “A” below, we used SPSS and Microsoft Excel to calculate composite reliability (CR). The CR for parenting style (.914) and learning engagement (.979) were above the threshold of .60. In addition, the dimensionality and reliability were measured by average variance extracted (AVE) estimates using the formula “B.” The AVE for both PS (.701) and LE (.885) were above the threshold of .50 (Bornmann & Tekles, 2021).

Model Fitness Test in This Study

To test our hypotheses, we primarily conducted the discriminant validity of measurement model for our latent variables (parenting style and learning engagement) by using a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) of comparative fit index (CFI), the goodness of fit index (GFI), standardized root mean squared residuals (SRMR), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and expected cross-validation index (ECVI). The results showed SRMR values within the maximum acceptable threshold of .05 and RMSEA values below the acceptable maximum threshold of .08 (Pavlov et al., 2021; Xia & Yang, 2019). The latent variables’ CFI, GFI, TLI, and ECVI values were above the minimum acceptable threshold of .90 (Polit et al., 2007).

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of the Variables

The mean scores for PS (M = 3.8004, SD = .59984), LE (M = 5.7189, SD = .59734), and AA (M = 3.8769, SD = .66727) were high. Pearson’s correlation analysis showed stronger correlations between the three main variables. PS was positively correlated with LE (r = .658, p < .01) and AA (r = .391, p < .01). The correlation between LE and AA was also strong and significant (r = .715, p < .01). Parents’ occupations had the highest correlation with our main variables (r = ≥.391, p < .01) compared to that of other demographic variables. Education significantly correlated with occupation (r = .291, p < .01) and AA (r = .148, p < .05). More detailed results of Pearson’s correlation analysis are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Inter-Correlations Between the Main Variables (n = 1,557).

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Age	2.7090	.93075	1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Gender	.3507	.47810	.045	1	—	—	—	—	—	—
Income	3.1418	1.17178	.460**	.145*	1	—	—	—	—	—
Education	3.0112	.90559	.515**	.069	.348**	1	—	—	—	—
Occupation	4.8963	.70936	.026	.109	.274*	.291**	1	—
PS	3.8004	.59984	−.103	−.062	−.123*	.102	.428**	1	—	—
LE	5.7189	.59734	−.014	−.167**	−.141*	.020	.318**	.658**	1	—
AA	3.8769	.66727	−.018	−.111	−.072	.148*	.560**	.391**	.715**	1
Cronbach’s α								.87	.95	.97

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; PS = parenting styles; LE = learning engagement; AA = academic achievement.

Correlation is significant at .05 levels. **Correlation is significant at .01 levels.

Hypotheses Testing

Hypotheses Testing Approach

To test our hypotheses, we employed a hierarchical regression analysis approach, as it helps to determine a unique contribution of a variable (Huang, 2023). The approach is suitable because it indicates whether the variables of interest can explain a significant variance to the dependent variable, especially after accounting for other variables (Peláez-Rodríguez et al., 2022). In this approach, predicting variables were entered into the regression in steps, and the framework worked as an approach for model comparison (Schriesheim, 1995). Five regression models (five steps) were established, and with a mediator, the study analyzed the quality of predicting role. The study evaluated the incremental variances explained, and analyzed the incremental tests of statistical significance.

In Model 1, academic achievement (AA) was the dependent variable, and the control variables (age, gender, and grade) were entered into regression as independent variables. In Model 2, AA being the dependent variable, an independent variable (PS) was entered into regression with control variables to test the first hypothesis (H1). In Model 3, learning engagement (LE) was the dependent variable, while an independent variable (PS) with control variables was entered into regression to test the second hypothesis (H2). In Model 4, AA was the dependent variable, while LE with control variables were entered into regression to test the third hypothesis (H3). In Model 5, control variables, an independent variable (PS) and the mediator (LE), were entered into regression to test the fourth hypothesis (H4).

Hierarchical Regression Results on Direct Effects of PS and LE

In line with our first hypothesis (H1), the results from step 2 (model 2) indicated a positive a significant effect of parenting style (β = .718, p < .001) on students’ academic achievement. The third step (model 3) of hierarchical regression analysis indicated a positive and significant direct effect of parenting style (β = .662, p < .001) on students’ learning engagement, supporting our second hypothesis (H2). Model 4 indicates a direct effect of learning engagement (LE) (β = .795, p < .001) on students’ academic achievement (AA), supporting our third hypothesis (H3). All these regression analyses were set at 95% of the confidence interval.

The Mediation Effect of LE in the Relationship Between PS and AA

Model 5 aimed at testing the fourth hypothesis (H4), which proposed a mediation effect of LE in the relationship between PS and AS. In this step (step 5), the effect of PS was still positive and significant (β = .342, p < .001) after adding LE, whose effect on AA was also significant. However, the effect of PS on AA was lowered significantly after adding LE (β = .342, p < .001), especially compared to the effect indicated in model 2 (β = .718, p < .001) when LE was not added to the regression. From these results, we conclude that LE partially mediates the relationship between PS and AA, supporting our third hypothesis. Table 2 below indicates the hierarchical regression results in detail.

Table 2.

Results of Hierarchical Mediated Regression Analysis (The Dependent Variable Is AA).

Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Constant	3.755**	.995**	1.305**	.697**	.252**
Controls
Age	−.064 (−1.196)	.013 (.302)	.089 (2.439)	−.079 (−2.098)	−.038 (−1.054)
Gender	−.152 (−1.794)	−.104 (−1.604)	−.144 (−2.517)	.002 (−.039)	−.022 (−.387)
Income	−.055 (−1.404)	−.011 (−.361)	−.039 (−1.469)	.008 (.302)	.011 (.433)
Education	.173** (3.324)	.063 (1.538)	−.056 (−1.557)	.137* (3.735)	.094 (2.666)
Occupation	.218** (4.814)	.193* (3.375)	.102* (2.968)	.109* (3.061)	.097 (2.741)
Main effects
PS		.718** (13.649)	.662** (14.251)		.342** (5.623)
LE				.795** (16.517)	.569** (9.386)
Model summary
F	3.851**	42.513**	45.324**	60.829**	61.885**
R	.235**	.669**	.681**	.733**	.766**
R²	.055**	.448**	.464**	.537**	.587**
Adjusted R²	.041**	.437**	.454**	.528**	.578**
ΔR²	.055**	.393**	.464**	.537**	.587**
F change for ΔR²	3.851**	186.304**	45.324**	60.829**	61.885**

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported for main effects and standardized for controls; t-values are in parentheses. ΔR² means the increase in R² from the model to the previous model. PS = parenting style; LE = learning engagement.

The effect is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). **The effect is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

Comparing the Effect of Fathers’ PS and Mothers’ PS on Students’ AA

Our fifth hypothesis (H5) predicted that the effect of mothers’ parenting styles is bigger than that of fathers. To test this hypothesis, we used the split file command to separate parents’ data based on gender, and then we ran two regressions; one with the data for female parents (mothers) only and the other with the data for male parents (fathers) only. The regression coefficients (Table 3) supported the hypothesis. Mother’s parenting style had a stronger effect (β = .745, SD = .639) on students’ academic achievement at school than fathers’ (β = .691, SD = .082). In addition, the mothers’ parenting style had a stronger effect (β = .681, SD = .491) on students’ learning engagement than the fathers (β = .643, SD = .205). Standardized coefficients are reported for effect size. Table 3 below shows the results clearly.

Table 3.

The Effect of Father’s and Mothers’ Parenting Styles on Academic Achievement.

Group	Model	Variable	β	SD	t	Sig.
Father	1	Parenting style	.691	.082	11.696	.000
Mother	1	Parenting style	.745	.639	18.388	.000

Note. Dependent variable: academic achievement. SD means the standard deviation of the effect. The unstandardized effect is reported.

The effects were compared to test the null hypothesis (H0): β_mp = β_fp, where β_mp is the effect of mothers’ parenting styles and β_fp is the effect of fathers’ parenting styles. The results were significant at the acceptable threshold of t-values (Hoffman, 2019), suggesting that the effect of mothers’ parenting style (β_mp) was significantly different from that of fathers’β_fp). Behavioral learning engagement was the most affected dimension of learning engagement by parenting styles from both parents. However fathers’ effect (β = .485, p < .001) was lower than that of mothers’ (β = .479, p < .001). From the dimensions to AA, emotional learning engagement had a higher effect (β = .626, p < .001) than other dimensions for both parents. Figures 3 and 4 indicated the effect in a detailed way.

Figure 3.

Mathematical formula for calculating composite reliability (‘a’ figure on the left) and average variance extracted (‘b’ figure on the right).

Figure 4.

The direct effect of the father’s parenting style and students learning engagement on their academic achievement through the pathways (p < .001).

Assessing the Effect of Each Parenting Dimension on Students’ Academic Achievement

As previously suggested by literature (Y. Zhang et al., 2023), parenting style consists of three dimensions: Emotional acceptance (love, care, and warmth), rejection and overprotection. While acceptance is a positive parenting attribute, rejection, and overprotection are negative attributes. In the hierarchical regression above (Table 2), items for rejection and overprotection were reversely codded so that high scores correspond to a high-quality parenting style. However, in this section, to explore the influence of each dimension of parenting style, all the items (including those for rejection and overprotection) were not reversely coded; meaning higher scores in each dimension corresponded to higher usage of particular parenting style by respondents’ parents. The effects of each parenting style on adolescents’ learning engagement and academic achievement are reported.

The results indicated that the direct effect of emotional acceptance on students’ academic achievement (AA) was positive and significant (β = .640, SE = 0.057, p < .001), while rejection (β = −.504, SE = 0.060, p < .001) and overprotection (β = −.289, SE = 0.048, p < .01), negatively influenced students’ academic achievement at school. The same applied to students’ learning engagement (LE), as only the dimension of emotional acceptance had a positive and significant effect on students learning engagement (β = .543, SE = .017, p < .001) when the other two negatively affected the same variable. The indirect effect of each dimension of parenting style on students’ academic achievement through their learning engagement is also reported in detail in Table 4 below.

Table 4.

Testing the Direct and Indirect Effect of Dimensions of Parenting Styles on Students’ Academic Achievement.

The effect	β	SE	p	95% Level of confidence interval
The effect	β	SE	p	LLCI	ULCI
Parenting dimensions to “AA”
Emotional acceptance → AA	.640	0.057	.000	0.401	0.167
Rejection → AA	−.504	0.060	.000	0.087	0.322
Overprotection → AA	−.289	0.048	.002	0.365	0.219
Parenting dimensions to “LE”
Emotional acceptance → LE	.543	0.017	.000	0.342	0.443
Rejection → LE	−.204	0.060	.000	0.088	0.301
Overprotection → LE	−.307	0.314	.001	0.275	0.099
Indirect effect through “LE”
Emotional acceptance → LE → AA	.284	0.027	.000	0.233	0.340
Rejection → LE → AA	−.407	0.034	.000	0.342	0.466
Overprotection → LE → AA	−.017	0.061	.000	0.184	0.471

Note. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. LE = learning engagement; AA = academic achievement; LLCI = a lower confidence interval limit; ULCI = an upper limit of confidence interval.

Discussion

The contribution of parents and parenting on adolescents’ academic achievement at school cannot be undermined. In support of the previous findings (Widyawati et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2022), this study has highlighted the extent to which each parent (fathers and mothers) in a dual-parent family contributes to improving adolescents’ learning and academic success. Although mothers are reported to spend the most time with adolescents at home compared to fathers (Guryan et al., 2008), the results from this study suggest that adolescents’ academic performance improves significantly when both parents are highly involved in nurturing their adolescents. Research from around the world supports the proposition. With the sample from Chinese families in this study, the results have implicated the exact causal relationship between parenting styles and adolescents’ academic success. Although Chinese cultures, especially child rearing, are reported to be distinctive from other parts of the world (Dong et al., 2023; Evans et al., 2021), parenting has remained a critical and influential factor in students’ academic achievement at school across cultures.

Parents’ emotional acceptance (love, care, and warmth) is a positive attribute of parenting (Leung & Man, 2014). It refers to parents’ mindset of permitting themselves to experience their adolescents’ emotions (bad and good) and being in a perspective that they are humanly rather than silly. With the results from this study, it is suggested that parents accept their adolescents’ emotions because they have shown a positive link to learning engagement and academic achievement. The love, care, and warm environment at home provide a favorable climate for healthy parent-adolescent interaction, building adolescents’ confidence and establishing their self-esteem, which further contributes to their academic achievement. On the other hand, the findings have implicated that parental rejection and overprotection (as parenting dimensions) negatively affect students learning engagement and academic achievement. These findings align with several existing studies (Gralewski & Jankowska, 2020; Otani, 2019) from various cultural contexts, suggesting that every parenting behavior has a unique implication for adolescents, learning process at school. Generally, moderately protective parents with high emotional acceptance contribute significantly to their adolescents’ academic achievement.

In this study and the existing literature (Zahra et al., 2016), students’ learning engagement has positively affected their academic achievement. However, the forces of family background and the difference in their upbringing at home make them engage differently in school and achieve different educational outcomes. These results imply that the adolescents’ efforts in their studies at school are largely influenced by the upbringing they received from their parents. Moreover, even with a direct causal relationship between parenting and adolescents’ academic achievement, the findings have highlighted the importance of student-based efforts (academically engaging). Effective learning engagement (behaviorally, cognitively, and emotionally) magnifies the causal relationship between parenting styles and academic achievement. Generally, we can use these findings to suggest that parenting is the foundation of adolescents’ academic success.

Students’ learning engagement behavior seems to be different from one to another within schools (Smogorzewska et al., 2022). Therefore, it is scientific to try to motivate students by being sensitive to their different family backgrounds. Exploring predictors of these engagement variations has been very important for parents and their adolescents and teachers who always work hard to ensure that adolescents learn effectively and achieve their pre-determined goals. From these findings, we can suggest that students’ behavioral engagement at school is the most affected dimension of learning engagement by parenting styles compared to other dimensions like cognitive and emotional. However, they generally play a significant role in students’ academic achievement, and parents must be reminded that they have a decisive role in this process.

Limitations of This Study

While this study provides valuable insights into issues related to antecedents, or preconditions for students’ academic achievement, it is very important to acknowledge several limitations which can help future researchers. To begin with, the reliance on self-reported data (information) through online or printed surveys may create a response bias, as participants might provide socially desirable responses or sometimes inaccurately recall their lived experiences. In addition to self-reporting style, the cross-sectional design of the study limits the ability to establish causal relationships between variables concerned. As researchers are working to achieve different goals but aiming to contribute to the filed, it can be advisable for future researcher on this topic to consider longitudinal design. The approach may add to the findings of this study, and finally offer a more robust understanding of how parenting styles influence learning engagement and academic achievement over time.

Looking at the same aspect of approach, this study primarily focused on quantitative measures (because it was designed to be purely quantitative), neglecting qualitative insights that could provide a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics between parents and students. Future studies may incorporate both qualitative and quantitative approaches (Mixed method). Qualitative methodologies such as interviews or focused group discussion may help to explore the nuances of parenting styles and their impact on students’ academic outcomes. Furthermore, the sample of the study predominantly consists of high school students and their parents from urban areas in China, which may, in one way or the other limit the generalizability of findings to other demographics or cultural contexts. Including a more diverse sample in future studies will enhance the study’s external validity and provide broader understanding of the topic.

Conclusion

Every parent expects their adolescents to perform well in school and ultimately succeed. However, achieving these aspirations is under the condition that every education stakeholder (i.e., parents, students, and the government) plays their roles correctly. Parents are free to choose the type of upbringing they want for their adolescents. However, it is imperative that the chosen upbringing is aligned with the expectations for their adolescents’ learning at school and post-school life. For example, parents’ overprotective behavior should be discouraged, especially adolescents’ behaviors that contradict school rules and learning in general.

Conversely, emotional acceptance is encouraged because it has positively affected adolescents’ learning engagement and academic achievement. It is also essential to underline that every parent in a duo-parent family plays a significant role in ensuring their adolescents perform well in school. Although mothers’ parenting style has proven to affect adolescents learning engagement and academic achievement at school more than that of fathers, we suggest that duo-parenting is more effective in ensuring the highest academic achievement for the adolescent. A causal relationship between parenting and academic achievement has been indicated in this study, with effects that are partially mediated by adolescents’ learning engagement.

Footnotes

Author Note

This research was conducted while Antony Fute and Mohamed Oubibi were at Zhejiang Normal University. They are now at Yulin University and Beijing Normal University respectively, and may be contacted at yulincollegegjc06@163.com and xwzx@bnu.edu.cn respectively.

Author Contributions

All the authors fully participated in accomplishing this article. A.F. and M.O. designed the study and analyzed the data by using SPSS. B.S. and Y.Z. wrote the first draft of the manuscript, worked on ethical approval and collected all the information from the college. M.B. and G.C. prepared all the figures, collected data from students, codded them, proofread the manuscript and prepared the last version of the manuscript.

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 the Late-stage Subsidy Programme of the National Social Science Foundation of China, with project number 22FJKA002.

Ethical Approval

Ethics approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Zhejiang Normal University’s College of Teacher Education (Protocol code: 20210069), approved in April 1, 2021.

ORCID iD

Antony Fute

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Asparouhov

Muthén

(2023). Multiple group alignment for exploratory and structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 30(2), 169–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2022.2127100

Bacher-Hicks

Goodman

Mulhern

(2021). Inequality in household adaptation to schooling shocks: Covid-induced online learning engagement in real time. Journal of Public Economics, 193, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104345

Baumrind

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

Baumrind

(1989). Rearing competent children. In Damon

(Ed.), Child development today and tomorrow (pp. 349–378). Jossey-Bass/Wiley Publishers.

Ben-Eliyahu

Moore

Dorph

Schunn

C. D.

(2018). Investigating the multidimensionality of engagement: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement across science activities and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53, 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.01.002

Bergin

D. A.

(2022). Inspiring motivation in children and youth. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003046516

Bornmann

Tekles

(2021). Convergent validity of several indicators measuring disruptiveness with milestone assignments to physics papers by experts. Journal of Informetrics, 15(3), 101159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101159

Bornstein

M. H.

(2013). Cultural approaches to parenting. Parenting Science and Practice, 12, 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2012.683359.Cultural

Boyle

G. J.

Saklofske

D. H.

(2015). Measures of personality and social psychological constructs. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2010-0-68427-6

10.

Brown

(2018). Knowledge, education, and cultural change: Papers in the sociology of education. Taylor & Francis Group.

11.

Chen

Kattelmann

Comstock

McCormack

Wey

Meendering

(2021). Parenting styles, food parenting practices and dietary intakes of preschoolers. Nutrients, 13(10), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13103630

12.

Chen

I. H.

Lee

Z. H.

Dong

X. Y.

Gamble

J. H.

Feng

H. W.

(2020). The influence of parenting style and time management tendency on internet gaming disorder among adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(23), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17239120

13.

Cullen

A. C.

Alpcan

Kalloniatis

A. C.

(2022). Adversarial decisions on complex dynamical systems using game theory. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 594, 126998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2022.126998

14.

Dade

(2011). Encyclopedia of child behavior and development. Reference Reviews, 25(6), 10–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/09504121111155932

15.

da Fonseca

J. R. F.

Calache

A. L. S. C.

dos Santos

M. R.

da Silva

R. M.

Moretto

S. A.

(2019). Association of stress factors and depressive symptoms with the academic performance of nursing students. Revista Da Escola de Enfermagem, 53, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1980-220X2018030403530

16.

Davis

E. M.

Garcia

Andrew Rothenberg

Barnett

M. L.

Davidson

Espinosa

Tonarely

N. A.

Robertson

E. L.

Alonso

San Juan

Jent

J. F.

(2022). A preliminary analysis of parent-child interaction therapy plus natural helper support to increase treatment access and engagement for low-income families of color. Children and Youth Services Review, 134, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106370

17.

Dong

Chen

(2022). Mothers’ parenting stress, depression, marital conflict, and marital satisfaction: The moderating effect of fathers’ empathy tendency. Journal of Affective Disorders, 299(2), 682–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.079

18.

Dong

Dubas

J. S.

Deković

Verhoeven

Wang

(2023). To excel and to be happy: Parenting behaviors, parenting stress, and sociocultural contexts in Dutch and urban Chinese families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 62, 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.08.004

19.

Evans

Klas

Mikocka-Walus

German

Rogers

G. D.

Ling

Fernando

J. W.

Kothe

Westrupp

E. M.

(2021). “Poison” or “protection”? A mixed methods exploration of Australian parents’ COVID-19 vaccination intentions. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 150, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2021.110626

20.

Fallesen

Ghler

(2020). Family type and parents time with children: Longitudinal evidence for Denmark. Acta Sociologica, 63(4), 361–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699319868522

21.

Fibbi

Truong

(2015). Parental involvement and educational success in Kosovar families in Switzerland. Comparative Migration Studies, 3(13), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-015-0010-y

22.

Cao

(2019). An uncertain optimization method based on interval differential evolution and adaptive subinterval decomposition analysis. Advances in Engineering Software, 134, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2019.05.001

23.

Gao

Liu

Bullock

Chen

(2021). Transactional models linking maternal authoritative parenting, child self-esteem, and approach coping strategies. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 73, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101262

24.

Gralewski

Jankowska

D. M.

(2020). Do parenting styles matter? Perceived dimensions of parenting styles, creative abilities and creative self-beliefs in adolescents. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38, 100709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100709

25.

Guerrero

M. D.

Barnes

J. D.

Chaput

J.-P.

Tremblay

M. S.

(2019). Screen time and problem behaviors in children: Exploring the mediating role of sleep duration. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 16(1), 105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-019-0862-x

26.

Guryan

Hurst

Kearney

(2008). Parental education and parental time with children. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(3), 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.22.3.23

27.

Hayek

Tueni

Schneider

de Vries

(2021). Parenting style as longitudinal predictor of adolescents’ health behaviors in Lebanon. Health Education Research, 36(1), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyaa045

28.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.

29.

Hoffman

J. I. E.

(2019). Comparison of two groups: t-Tests and nonparametric tests. In Basic biostatistics for medical and biomedical practitioners (pp. 341–366). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817084-7.00022-X

30.

Huang

(2023). Linear regression analysis. In Tierney

R. J.

Rizvi

Ercikan

(Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (4th ed., pp. 548–557). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.10067-3

31.

Jiang

(2010). Preliminary revision of the Chinese version of the simplified parenting style questionnaire. Psychological Development and Education, 26(1), 94–99.

32.

Khaleque

(2013). Perceived parental warmth, and children’s psychological adjustment, and personality dispositions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22(2), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9579-z

33.

Krause

P. H.

Dailey

T. M.

(2011). Handbook of parenting styles, stresses, and strategies. In Krause

P. H.

Dailey

T. M.

(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Styles, stresses, and strategies. Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

34.

Kuhn

T. M.

Ebert

J. S.

Gracey

K. A.

Chapman

G. L.

Epstein

R. A.

(2015). Evidence-based interventions for adolescents with disruptive behaviors in school-based settings. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 24(2), 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2014.11.005

35.

Kuppens

Ceulemans

(2019). Parenting styles: A closer look at a well-known concept. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(1), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1242-x

36.

Kurtz

J. E.

(2020). Test-retest reliability. In Shackelford

T. K.

Zeigler-Hill

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 5459–5460). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_1351

37.

Langer

S. L.

Crain

A. L.

Senso

M. M.

Levy

R. L.

Sherwood

N. E.

(2014). Predicting child physical activity and screen time: Parental support for physical activity and general parenting styles. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39(6), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsu021

38.

Leeman

R. F.

Patock-Peckham

J. A.

Hoff

R. A.

Krishnan-Sarin

Steinberg

M. A.

Rugle

L. J.

Potenza

M. N.

(2014). Perceived parental permissiveness toward gambling and risky behaviors in adolescents. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(2), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1556/JBA.3.2014.012

39.

Leung

Man

S. T. K.

(2014). Parenting style. In Michalos

A. C.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 4608–4611). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2071

40.

Xia

Xiong

Chen

(2020). Coercive parenting and adolescent developmental outcomes: The moderating effects of empathic concern and perception of social rejection. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(10), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103538

41.

Liu

Yao

(2020). Chinese adolescents’ achievement goal profiles and their relation to academic burnout, learning engagement, and test anxiety. Learning and Individual Differences, 83–84, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101945

42.

Liu

Wang

(2018). Parental harsh discipline and adolescent problem behavior in China: Perceived normativeness as a moderator. Child Abuse & Neglect, 86, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.09.009

43.

Liu

Guo

Qiu

Zhang

S. X.

(2021). Corporal punishment and adolescent aggression: An examination of multiple intervening mechanisms and the moderating effects of parental responsiveness and demandingness. Child Abuse and Neglect, 115, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105027

44.

B. C. Y.

Lai

R. N. M.

T. K.

Wang

(2020). Worry and permissive parenting in association with the development of internet addiction in children. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217722

45.

Lopez

N. V

Schemre

Belcher

B. . R.

O’Connor

Maher

J. P.

Arbel

Margolin

Dunton

G. F.

(2017). Parenting styles, food-related parenting practices, and children’s healthy eating: A mediation analysis to examine relationships between pareenting and child diet. Physiology & Behavior, 176(12), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.06.021.Parenting

46.

Madarevic

van Esch

Lambrechts

Ceulemans

Van Leeuwen

Noens

(2022). Parenting behaviours among mothers of pre-schoolers on the autism spectrum: Associations with parenting stress and children’s externalising behaviour problems. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 90, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2021.101901

47.

Mandal

Chakraborty

Mishra

Biswas

S. K.

(2023). A study of interacting scalar field model from the perspective of the dynamical systems theory. Physics of the Dark Universe, 40, 101210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2023.101210

48.

Martínez

García

J. F.

(2007). Impact of parenting styles on adolescents’ self-esteem and internalization of values in Spain. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10(2), 338–348. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600006600

49.

Masud

Ahmad

M. S.

Cho

K. W.

Fakhr

(2019). Parenting styles and aggression among young adolescents: A systematic review of literature. Community Mental Health Journal, 55(6), 1015–1030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-019-00400-0

50.

McCulloch

(2013). The Routledge International Encyclopedia of Education (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315830674

51.

Moreira

P. A. S.

Dias

Matias

Castro

Gaspar

Oliveira

(2018). School effects on students’ engagement with school: Academic performance moderates the effect of school support for learning on students’ engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 67, 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.07.007

52.

Morris

A. S.

Silk

J. S.

Steinberg

Myers

S. S.

Robinson

L. R.

(2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16(2), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x

53.

Mullins

C. A.

Panlilio

C. C.

(2021). Exploring the mediating effect of academic engagement on math and reading achievement for students who have experienced maltreatment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 117, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105048

54.

Otani

(2019). Relationships between parental involvement and adolescents academic achievement and aspiration. International Journal of Educational Research, 94, 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.01.005

55.

Pajo

Cohen

(2013). Time Spent With Children and Working Parents’ Willingness to Medicate ADHD-Like Behaviors. SAGE Open, 3(4), 215824401351213. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013512134

56.

Park

Moon

S. H.

(2022). Predictors of academic achievement in distance learning for nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 108, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105162

57.

Pavlov

Maydeu-Olivares

Shi

(2021). Using the Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR) to Assess Exact Fit in Structural Equation Models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 81(1), 110–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164420926231

58.

Peláez-Rodríguez

Pérez-Aracil

Fister

Prieto-Godino

Deo

R. C.

Salcedo-Sanz

(2022). A hierarchical classification/regression algorithm for improving extreme wind speed events prediction. Renewable Energy, 201, 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.11.042

59.

Perrig

W. J.

Grob

(Eds.) (2013). Control of human behavior, mental processes, and consciousness. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410605412

60.

Piotrowski

J. T.

Lapierre

M. A.

Linebarger

D. L.

(2013). Investigating correlates of self-regulation in early childhood with a representative sample of English-Speaking American Families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22(3), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9595-z

61.

Polit

D. F.

Beck

C. T.

Owen

S. V.

(2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199

62.

Pong

Johnson

Chen

(2010). Authoritarian parenting and Asian Adolescent school performance: Insight from the US and Taiwan. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34(1), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025409345073.Authoritarian

63.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553

64.

Rahmati

(2015). The study of academic burnout in students with high and low level of self-efficacy. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.087

65.

Reschly

A. L.

Christenson

S. L.

(2019). The intersection of student engagement and families: A critical connection for achievement and life outcomes. In Fredricks

J. A.

Reschly

A. L.

Christenson

S. L.

(Ed.), Handbook of student engagement interventions: Working with disengaged students. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813413-9.00005-X

66.

Rivard

Le Corff

Déry

Bégin

Lapalme

(2022). Personality heterogeneity in adolescents with disruptive behavior disorders: A conceptual replication study. Journal of Research in Personality, 99, 104240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2022.104240

67.

Roldán

J. L.

Sánchez-Franco

M. J.

(2012). Variance-based structural equation modeling: Guidelines for using partial least squares in information systems research. In Mora

(Ed.), Research Methodologies, Innovations and Philosophies in Software Systems Engineering and Information Systems (Issue January 2012). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-0179-6.ch010

68.

Rönsch

(2020). Effectiveness of laws and policies governing permissive parenting in pursuit of the reduction of severe child abuse in Germany. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105510

69.

Sameroff

(2010). A unified theory of development: A dialectic integration of nature and nurture. Child Development, 81(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01378.x

70.

Schriesheim

C. A.

(1995). Multivariate and moderated within- and between-entity analysis (WABA) using hierarchical linear multiple regression. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90002-0

71.

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, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.101941

72.

Selland

C. A.

Huber-Johnson

E. C.

Bowne

Meendering

J. R.

(2021). Influence of parenting style on body mass index, physical activity, and sedentary time. Global Pediatric Health, 8, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333794X211045528

73.

Shaari

A. S.

Yusoff

N. M.

Ghazali

I. M.

Osman

R. H.

Dzahir

N. F. M.

(2014). The relationship between lecturers’ teaching style and students’ academic engagement. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.002

74.

Shweder

Bidell

Dailey

Dixon

Miller

Modell

(2009). The child: An encyclopedic companion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226756110

75.

Slijper

Urquhart

Poortvliet

P. M.

Soriano

Meuwissen

M. P. M.

(2022). Exploring how social capital and learning are related to the resilience of Dutch arable farmers. Agricultural Systems, 198, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103385

76.

Smith

L. B.

Thelen

(2003). Development as a dynamic system. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(8), 343–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00156-6

77.

Smogorzewska

Szumski

Bosacki

Grygiel

Karwowski

(2022). School engagement, sensitivity to criticism and academic achievement in children: The predictive role of theory of mind. Learning and Individual Differences, 93, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102111

78.

Solmi

Radua

Olivola

Croce

Soardo

Salazar de Pablo

Il Shin

Kirkbride

J. B.

Jones

Kim

J. H.

Kim

J. Y.

Carvalho

A. F.

Seeman

M. V.

Correll

C. U.

Fusar-Poli

(2022). Age at onset of mental disorders worldwide: Large-scale meta-analysis of 192 epidemiological studies. Molecular Psychiatry, 27(1), 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-021-01161-7

79.

Srivastava

(2010). Analysis of variance and covariance: How to choose and construct models for the life sciences. Journal of Applied Statistics, 37(6), 1059–1060. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664760902885203

80.

Stern

(2017). Individual differences in the learning potential of human beings. Npj Science of Learning, 2(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-016-0003-0

81.

Sujith

R. I.

Unni

V. R.

(2021). Dynamical systems and complex systems theory to study unsteady combustion. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 38(3), 3445–3462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2020.07.081

82.

Terrence

Magda

D. M.

(2021). Types of parenting styles and effects on children. StatPearls Publishing LLC.

83.

Thelen

Bates

(2003). Connectionism and dynamic systems: Are they really different? Developmental Science, 6(4), 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00294

84.

Tong

Zhang

Zhen

Irby

B. J.

Lara-Alecio

(2021). Supporting home literacy practices in promoting Chinese parents’ engagement in their children’s English education in low-SES families: An experimental study. International Journal of Educational Research, 109(1–16), 101816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101816

85.

van der Gaag

M. A. E.

de Ruiter

N. M. P.

Jeronimus

B. F.

Kunnen

E. S.

(2019). What we can gain from a dynamic systems approach to psychosocial development in adolescence. In Kunnen

E. S.

De Ruiter

N. M. P.

Jeronimus

B. F.

(Ed.), Psychosocial Development in Adolescence (pp. 223–238). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165844-14

86.

Wang

Huebner

E. S.

Tian

(2021). Parent-child cohesion, self-esteem, and academic achievement: The longitudinal relations among elementary school students. Learning and Instruction, 73, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101467

87.

Weymouth

B. B.

Buehler

Zhou

Henson

R. A.

(2016). A meta-analysis of parent-adolescent conflict: Disagreement, hostility, and youth maladjustment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12126

88.

Widyawati

Scholte

R. H.

Kleemans

Otten

(2021). Positive parenting and its mediating role in the relationship between parental resilience and quality of life in children with developmental disabilities in Java Island, Indonesia. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 112, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2021.103911

89.

Xia

Yang

(2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2

90.

Xiong

De Li

Xia

(2020). A longitudinal study of authoritative parenting, juvenile delinquency and crime victimization among Chinese adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041405

91.

Xiying

(2010). Huang Rong a revised report of the University Student Learning Engagement Scale (UWES-S)[J]. Psychological Research, 1, 84–88.

92.

Liu

Guo

(2022). “How does my family affect me?” The family cultural capital impact on Chinese junior high school students’ academic achievement. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 46, 101146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101146

93.

Zahra

Z. Z.

Rezaee

Yazdani

Bagheri

Nabeiei

(2016). The influence of parenting style on academic achievement and career path. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism, 4(3), 130–134. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27382580

94.

Zhang

Qin

Zhou

(2020). Do tiger moms raise superior kids? The impact of parenting style on adolescent human capital formation in China. China Economic Review, 63, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2020.101537

95.

Zhang

Cao

Lin

(2022). Family socioeconomic status and chinese preschoolers’ anxious symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic: The roles of parental investment, parenting style, home quarantine length, and regional pandemic risk. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 60, 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.01.007

96.

Zhang

Miller

Halgunseth

L. C.

(2023). Parenting styles and children’s development: A review of the literature. In Halpern-Felsher

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of child and adolescent health (Vol. 2, pp. 609–619). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818872-9.00082-0