Parental Influence on Values and Character Building: Insights from Indonesian Parents in the World Values Survey

Abstract

Value serves as a fundamental guiding principle, shaping individuals’ lives and character. Parenting styles reflect diverse background and generational values. This study aims to examine parental preferences in instilling values in children and explores the link between parental characteristics and these choices. It uses data on 2,282 Indonesian parents from the World Values Survey 2018. Findings show that parents commonly prioritize values like good manners, religiosity, responsibility, and independence, with less emphasis on imagination. Logistic regression analysis reveals that younger parents prioritize human relationship values over imagination. Internet access influences an emphasis on tolerance and respect, while higher education correlates with work-related values. Male parents tend to select less popular values and geographical factors reflect cultural influences on parental preferences. This study examines parental priorities in value instillation, emphasizing common preferences and demographic characteristics influencing parenting approaches.

Keywords

character children education parents values

Introduction

The character of an individual serves as a reflection of their identity, including thoughts, words, and attitudes (Schneiderman & Barrera, 2009). Character building stands as the foundational pillar of modern education. It is constructed through the embodiment of compassion, altruistic living, selflessness, and a commitment to serving others (Vaswani, 2012). The four objectives of education encompass acquiring knowledge, developing practical skills, cultivating personal growth, and fostering social cohesion (Sobe, 2021). The teachings imparted by parents emerge as the primary and influential factors in shaping the character and behaviors of children. They assume a crucial role in imparting values through verbal communication, actions, and diverse methods that serve as invaluable learning opportunities for their children. These invaluable lessons may not always be adequately addressed within the school setting (Khrisna, 2019).

Family values encompass the traditional or cultural values passed down through generations, shaping a family's collective identity and influencing individual perspectives and behaviors (Schneiderman & Barrera, 2009). Families instill different principles into their children based on their cultural background. Independent families prioritize self-reliance, assertiveness, and autonomy, whereas interdependent families prioritize obedience, harmony, and unity. Hofstede's cultural dimensions indicate that individualistic cultures promote personal goals while collectivist cultures emphasize group cohesion (Sorge & Hofstede, 1983). Individuals from independent families view themselves as separate, while those from interdependent families see their identities as connected to their social groups, influencing their parenting values (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Parents in countries such as Japan and South Korea prioritize respect, regardless of their educational level (Georgas, 2003). Meanwhile, parents in the USA place a high value on responsibility and hard work in their children's education (Pew Research Center, 2014).

Active parental engagement in instilling values during childhood plays in shaping children's overall growth and development (Rodríguez-Gutiérrez et al., 2016; Susilo, 2020). However, most Indonesian working parents currently work longer hours, resulting in worse quality parent-child interaction and harming children's development (Gemellia & Wongkaren, 2021). The fast development of technology makes information more accessible to younger generations; however, a lack of supervision may ruin moral ideals, tolerance, partnership, and respect among people.

In Indonesia's educational framework, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology initiated the Pelajar Pancasila program, which aims to develop student's global competency while instilling values aligned with Pancasila principles. These principles emphasize faithfulness to the Almighty God, noble character, tolerance, mutual aid, independence, critical thinking, and innovation (Ministry of Education and Culture of Republic Indonesia, 2023a). Study by Saesaputri et al. (2024) highlights that the program, specifically implemented at the senior high school level, supports high school students in identifying their strengths and challenges across various future contexts, including learning, social, and professional environment. Moreover, it also helps students recognize the importance of adaptability, encouraging them to develop strategies and plans to overcome potential challenges they may encounter. While the program itself is excellent, it is critical to establish these values at a young age, beginning with family settings. Modifying children's behavior proves to be considerably simpler than adults. Compared to individuals aged 60 years who require approximately 100 months to effectively transform their behavior, it only needs 2.5 months to train and reshape the behavior of a 10-year-old (Ayudhya, 1997). Unfortunately, there is limited study on characteristics and other aspects of parents that contribute to character development, even though parents’ perspectives could reflect their ideas on how children develop (Siu & Keung, 2022).

The Present Study

The present study aims to discover the common values that parents prioritize for their children, examine how some factors influence these choices, and explore the implications for child and family development. Understanding parental value instillation is critical in determining how children develop fundamental life principles and moral foundations. The findings of this study will contribute to the establishment of strategies for promoting optimal child development and strong family relationship, especially in the context of Indonesia. However, it is also important to acknowledge that to effectively cultivate children's character development, parents must accompany their perspective with tangible actions and serve as role models.

Data and Methods

Data Source and Participants

Data from the World Value Survey Indonesia (WVS) is used, which was conducted in 2018 by the University of Melbourne and SurveyMETER. It included N = 3,200 individuals aged 18 years and older, sampled from 320 census blocks across 20 out of Indonesia's 34 provinces (Haerpfer et al., 2022). In the present study, we focus on respondents aged 22 years or older from WVS dataset, who reported having children and were either married, cohabiting, or divorced (N = 2,282). Age limit was started at 22 since we classified respondents by generations for the analysis. In WVS, each response of important values represents an individual's opinion rather than a combined viewpoint of both parents. Thus, our analysis focused on understanding individual parental preferences.

Variables

The parent's values preferences were determined by their responses to a question that asked them to choose the five most important values for children to learn at home from a list of 11 values. These values included good manners, independence, hard work, responsibility, imagination, tolerance and respect, thrift, persistence, religiosity, altruism, and obedience. Various socio-demographic factors and technology-use habits were investigated as possible influences on parenting decisions. Age (categorized into baby boomers aged 54 years or older, Generation X aged 38–53 years, and millennials aged 22–37 years), marital status (grouped as married/cohabitating, divorced/separated, and widowed), educational level (junior high school/lower and senior high school/higher), breadwinner status (yes/no), self-perceived household income level (categorized as lower-middle income for scores 1–6 and upper-middle income for score 7–10 on a 1–10 scale), social class (self-described as lower class, working class, lower-middle class, upper-middle class, or upper-class), ethnicity (Javanese and other ethnic groups), religiosity (self-perceived as religious person/not), settlement type (rural/urban), living region (Java island/outside Java), and internet access frequency for obtaining information (categorized as daily access or not).

Values orientation and political attitudes were also measured. Utilizing 4-item Postmaterialism Index, for the questions on the first and second most important national priorities, respondents selecting both “maintaining order in the nation” and “fighting rising prices” were categorized as materialists, while those selecting both “giving people more say in decisions on the government” and “protecting freedom of speech” were classified as postmaterialists, and those selecting both a “materialist” and a “postmaterialist” item are classified as mixed (Inglehart, 1977). The reliability of the 4-item Postmaterialism Index, indicated by correlation values ranging from 0.21 to 0.27, suggest a significant relationship among the items and demonstrated its effectiveness in measuring cultural values across various societies, thereby supporting its utility in both exploratory research and comparative analyses (Davis & Davenport, 1999; Inglehart & Welzel, 2005). Political attitudes were assessed using political discussion frequency, which was categorized as never, rarely, or frequently.

Thorough methods were employed to ensure the validity and reliability of the measurement strategies in this study (Haerpfer et al., 2022). For reliability, data entry program was developed after finalizing the survey's instrument. This program underwent testing prior to training editors and interviewers, including internal tests and a full pilot study in the field. The program demonstrated high efficiency in error detection and correction during data collection, contributing to the overall reliability of the measurement process. Validity was ensured through careful design and translation of the instrument, followed by a comprehensive audit of the sample design and thorough review of findings from a pilot study by the University of Melbourne team. This process verified the questionnaire's content and structure, ensuring that it effectively measured the intended construct.

Analysis

All statistical analysis were conducted using STATA MP software, version 17.0 (StataCorp, 2021). Descriptive statistics were utilized to summarize parent's characteristics as well as the distribution of selected values in order of popularity. Logistic regression models were used to investigate the relationship between parental characteristics and value choices. The dependent variable in this analysis represents the value selected by parents (good manners, independence, hard work, responsibility, imagination, tolerance and respect, thrift, persistence, religiosity, altruism, and obedience), while the independent variables include various socio-demographic factors, technology-use habits, value orientations, and political attitudes. In this study, average marginal effects (AMEs) were calculated and presented to identify the effects of changes in parental characteristics on the probability of selecting specific values. The following equation describes the estimated model used in this study:

A M E_{j} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i = 1}^{N} \frac{\partial P (Y i = k | X i)}{\partial X i j}

AMEj represents the Average Effect for the j-th independent variable, N is the number of observations, P(Yi = k | Xi) is the probability that parent i chooses value k for their child, conditional on parent's characteristics Xi, Xij is the j-th independent variable,

\frac{\partial P (Y i = k | X i)}{\partial X i j}

is the marginal effect of a one unit change in the independent variable Xij on the probability of choosing value k. By using AMEs, this study quantified the average change in the probability of selecting a specific value based on changes in individual characteristics, such as transitioning from lower to higher education. This method provides clearer insights into how parents select the values they want to teach their children.

Results

The total eligible sample consists of N = 2,282 individuals with 57% being female and 39% aged between 36 and 49 years. Most individuals have junior high school/lower level of education (61%), 51% are not the family's breadwinner, 84% have lower-middle income, 75% of individuals live in rural areas, 54% reside on Java, and 23% access information from the Internet daily (Table 1).

Table 1.

Characteristics of Parents.

Variables	N (%)
Gender
Female	1,284 (56.3%)
Male	998 (43.7%)
Age
54 years or older	447 (19.6%)
38–53 years	947 (41.5%)
22–37 years	888 (38.9%)
Marital Status
Married/cohabitating	2,040 (89.4%)
Divorced/separated	77 (3.4%)
Widowed	165 (7.2%)
Highest educational level
Junior high school/lower	1,338 (58.6%)
Senir high school/higher	944 (41.4%)
Family's breadwinner
Not family's breadwinner	1,169 (51.2%)
Family's breadwinner	1,113 (48.8%)
Household income level
Lower-middle income	1,895 (83%)
Upper-middle income	387 (17%)
Social class
Lower class	612 (26.8%)
Working class	552 (24.2%)
Lower-middle class	840 (36.8%)
Upper-middle class	244 (10.7%)
Upper-class	34 (1.5%)
Ethnicity
Other ethnic	1,330 (58.3%)
Javanese	952 (41.7%)
Self-perceived religiosity
Self-perceived as not religious person	144 (6.3%)
Self-perceived as religious person	2,138 (93.7%)
Settlement type
Rural	1,695 (74.3%)
Urban	587 (25.7%)
Respondent's living region
Outside of Java Island	1,081 (47.4%)
Java Island	1,201 (52.6%)
Daily internet access for obtaining information
No daily information access from internet	1,699 (74.5%)
Daily information access from internet	583 (25.5%)
Value orientation (Postmaterialism Index)
Materialist	534 (23.4%)
Postmaterialist	142 (6.2%)
Mixed	1,606 (70.4%)
Political discussion frequency
Never	1,113 (48.8%)
Occasionally	995 (43.6%)
Frequently	174 (7.6%)
N Total	2,282 (100%)

Source: World Value Survey (2018).

Parental perspectives on essential values to be instilled in children reveal three categories. The most popular values, selected by 58% to 87% of individuals, include good manners, religiosity, responsibility, and independence, followed by obedience, tolerance and respect, as well as hard work chosen by 30% to 49%. Altruism, persistence, thrift, and imagination received less attention, selected by less than 30% (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Categories of values by popularity. Source: World Value Survey (2018).

This study examined demographic, social, and economic variations in parental value selections for their children, using logistic regression models to calculate AMEs, as shown in Table 2. Despite the low pseudoR-squared values (<10%), our logistic regression models revealed statistically significant relationships between predictors and outcomes. Gender differences were noticeable, with male individuals prioritizing persistence and altruism (5–7% higher), while females prefer tolerance, respect, religiosity, and responsibility (6–9% higher). Generational differences indicated that younger individuals, particularly those of the X generation (aged 38–53 years), preferred societal behavior-related values such as good manners, obedience, religiosity, as well as tolerance and respect over survival-centric ones, with 5–15 points higher percentage when compared to older generations (aged 54 years or older). Widowed individuals were more likely to prioritize altruism, tolerance, and respect than those married (by 8% difference for each value). Educational attainment was important, with more educated respondents emphasizing tolerance, respect, good manners, religiosity, responsibility, and independence (by 3–10% difference) over attributes such as tenacity, thrift, hard work, and obedience.

Table 2.

Association of Parents’ Characteristics and the Chosen Values.

Variables	The Least Popular Values
	Persistence		Thrift		Altruism		Imagination
	AME	SE	AME	SE	AME	SE	AME	SE
Gender
Female (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Male	0.07**	0.03	−0.02	0.03	0.05*	0.03	0.02	0.02
Age
54 years or older (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
38–53 years	−0.05**	0.02	0.00	0.02	0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.02
22–37 years	−0.02	0.03	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.02	−0.00	0.02
Marital status
Married/cohabitating (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Divorced/separated	0.02	0.05	−0.01	0.05	−0.02	0.04	−0.01	0.03
Widowed	−0.02	0.03	−0.04	0.03	0.08**	0.04	0.01	0.03
Highest educational level
Junior high school/lower (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Senior high school/higher	−0.04**	0.02	−0.04**	0.02	−0.02	0.02	0.02	0.01
Family's breadwinner
No (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Yes	−0.00	0.03	0.03	0.03	−0.03	0.02	−0.01	0.02
Household income level
Lower-middle income (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Upper-middle income	−0.06***	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.03	0.02	−0.02	0.01
Social class
Lower class (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Working class	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.02
Lower-middle class	−0.02	0.02	0.00	0.02	−0.01	0.02	−0.00	0.01
Upper-middle class	−0.02	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.02	0.03	−0.01	0.02
Upper class	0.03	0.08	0.04	0.07	0.03	0.07	−0.04	0.03
Ethnicity
Other ethnic (Ref)
Javanese	−0.00	0.02	−0.01	0.02	−0.00	0.02	−0.01	0.01
Self-perceived religiosity
Self-perceived as not religious person (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Self-perceived as religious person	0.03	0.03	0.07**	0.03	−0.04	0.03	−0.00	0.02
Settlement type
Rural (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Urban	−0.05**	0.02	−0.02	0.02	0.04**	0.02	−0.01	0.01
Respondent's living region
Outside of Java Island (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Java Island	0.00	0.02	−0.05***	0.02	−0.03	0.02	0.00	0.01
Daily internet access for obtaining information
No daily information access from internet (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Daily information access from internet	−0.04*	0.02	−0.07***	0.02	−0.02	0.02	0.03**	0.01
Value orientation (Postmaterialism Index)
Materialist (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Postmaterialist	−0.01	0.04	−0.08**	0.03	0.05	0.04	−0.01	0.02
Mixed	0.02	0.02	0.00	0.02	−0.00	0.02	0.02**	0.01
Political discussion frequency
Never (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Occasionally	−0.04*	0.02	−0.01	0.02	0.03	0.02	−0.02	0.01
Frequently	−0.01	0.04	0.02	0.03	−0.04	0.03	0.00	0.02
Observations	2,282		2,282		2,282		2,282
Pseudo R-squared	0.0311		0.0230		0.0184		0.0198

Note. Estimated using average marginal effects of logistic regressions with robust standard errors. *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1. AME = Average Marginal Effects; SE = Standard Error. Pseudo R² used in the analysis is the McFadden Pseudo R² (McFadden, 1973).

Table 2.

continued.

Variables	The Second Most Popular Values
	Tolerance and Respect		Hard work		Obedience
	AME	SE	AME	SE	AME	SE
Gender
Female (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-
Male	−0.09***	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.01	0.03
Age
54 years or older (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-
38–53 years	0.10***	0.03	−0.10***	0.03	0.04	0.03
22–37 years	0.15***	0.03	−0.23***	0.03	0.12***	0.03
Marital status
Married/cohabitating (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-
Divorced/separated	0.05	0.06	0.00	0.06	−0.02	0.06
Widowed	0.08*	0.04	0.02	0.04	−0.03	0.04
Highest educational level
Junior high school/lower (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-
Senior high school/higher	0.10***	0.02	−0.04*	0.02	−0.09***	0.02
Family's breadwinner
No (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-
Yes	−0.02	0.03	0.07**	0.03	−0.00	0.03
Household income level
Lower-middle income (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-
Upper-middle income	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.03	0.01	0.03
Social class
Lower class (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-
Working class	0.07**	0.03	−0.00	0.03	0.02	0.03
Lower-middle class	0.10***	0.03	−0.00	0.03	−0.00	0.03
Upper-middle class	0.02	0.04	0.05	0.04	0.00	0.04
Upper class	0.02	0.09	0.21**	0.08	−0.08	0.07
Ethnicity
Other ethnic (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-
Javanese	−0.00	0.02	−0.03	0.02	0.03	0.02
Self-perceived religiosity
Self-perceived as not religious person (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-
Self-perceived as religious person	−0.14***	0.04	−0.01	0.04	0.08**	0.04
Settlement type
Rural (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-
Urban	0.02	0.02	−0.00	0.02	−0.04*	0.02
Respondent's living region
Outside of Java Island (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-
Java Island	0.04*	0.02	0.00	0.02	−0.06***	0.02
Daily internet access for obtaining information
No daily information access from internet (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-
Daily information access from internet	0.08***	0.03	−0.00	0.03	0.02	0.03
Value orientation (Postmaterialism Index)
Materialist (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-
Postmaterialist	−0.01	0.05	−0.10**	0.04	−0.06	0.04
Mixed	0.00	0.02	−0.08***	0.02	0.03	0.02
Political discussion frequency
Never (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-
Occasionally	0.05**	0.02	−0.02	0.02	−0.02	0.02
Frequently	0.06	0.04	0.10**	0.04	−0.06	0.04
Observations	2,282		2,282		2,282
Pseudo R-squared	0.0607		0.0507		0.0235

Table 2.

continued.

Variables	The Most Popular Values
	Good manners		Religiosity		Responsibility		Independence
	AME	SE	AME	SE	AME	SE	AME	SE
Gender
Female (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Male	−0.01	0.02	−0.06**	0.03	−0.07**	0.03	−0.00	0.03
Age
54 years or older (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
38–53 years	0.08***	0.02	0.08***	0.03	0.03	0.03	−0.03	0.03
22–37 years	0.08***	0.02	0.10***	0.03	0.01	0.03	−0.06*	0.03
Marital status
Married/cohabitating (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Divorced/separated	−0.06	0.05	0.01	0.05	−0.07	0.06	0.08	0.06
Widowed	−0.01	0.03	−0.03	0.04	−0.04	0.04	−0.01	0.04
Highest educational level
Junior high school/lower (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Senior high school/higher	0.03*	0.02	0.05***	0.02	0.10***	0.02	0.08***	0.02
Family's breadwinner
No (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Yes	−0.00	0.02	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.03	−0.05	0.03
Household income level
Lower-middle income (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Upper-middle income	0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.03	−0.01	0.03	−0.00	0.03
Social class
Lower class (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Working class	−0.02	0.02	−0.00	0.03	0.01	0.03	−0.04	0.03
Lower-middle class	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.05**	0.02	−0.02	0.03
Upper-middle class	−0.04	0.03	0.00	0.03	0.06	0.03	−0.07*	0.04
Upper class	0.03	0.05	−0.05	0.08	0.13**	0.06	−0.12	0.09
Ethnicity
Other ethnic (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Javanese	−0.00	0.02	−0.02	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.04	0.02
Self-perceived religiosity
Self-perceived as not religious person (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Self-perceived as religious person	0.01	0.03	0.02	0.04	−0.04	0.04	−0.08*	0.04
Settlement type
Rural (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Urban	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.04	0.02
Respondent's living region
Outside of Java Island (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Java Island	−0.01	0.02	−0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.07***	0.02
Daily internet access for obtaining information
No daily information access from internet (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Daily information access from internet	0.01	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.01	0.02	−0.00	0.03
Value orientation (Postmaterialism Index)
Materialist (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Postmaterialist	−0.00	0.03	−0.01	0.04	0.04	0.04	0.02	0.05
Mixed	0.02	0.02	−0.02	0.02	−0.00	0.02	−0.01	0.02
Political discussion frequency
Never (Ref)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Occasionally	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.00	0.02	0.02	0.02
Frequently	−0.00	0.03	−0.03	0.04	−0.05	0.04	0.08*	0.04
Observations	2,282		2,282		2,282		2,282
Pseudo R-squared	0.0244		0.0250		0.0259		0.0185

From a socioeconomic standpoint, family breadwinners tended to place a higher value on hard work. There were notable financial discrepancies observed, with individuals from upper-middle-income families being less likely to emphasize persistence (lower by 6%). As social class rose, there was an increasing tendency to choose tolerance, respect, hard work, and responsibility, with difference ranged from 5 to 21 percentage points. However, upper-middle-class respondents placed less importance on independence. In addition, religiosity also influenced preferences, with self-perceived religious people valuing thrift and obedience while being less drawn to tolerance, respect, and independence (lower by 8–14%).

Geographical factors were also found to influence parental values choices. The urban-rural disparity found that urban dwellers prioritized altruism more than persistence and compliance. In comparison to other regions, respondents from Java Island valued tolerance, respect, and independence (5–7% higher), while less likely to choose thrift and obedience (5–6% lower).

In the digital era, access to information through the internet influences parenting decisions. Internet use was linked to a decline in persistence and thrift choice (by 4–7%) but increase in imagination, tolerance, and respect (by 3–8%) among regular internet users. According to our analysis, respondents with postmaterialist and mixed values were less inclined to prioritize hard work and thrift (8–10% lower). Furthermore, occasional political discussion was associated with a lower emphasis on persistence, but an increase in tolerance and respect choice. Meanwhile, frequent discussions were associated with a higher emphasis on hard work and independence by 8–10% difference.

Discussion

The study finds that parental value choices are influenced by a range of demographic, social, and economic factors. Gender differences show that males prioritize persistence and altruism, while females focus more on religiosity and responsibility. Younger individuals, particularly from Generation X, tend to value societal behaviors like good manners and obedience more than survival-oriented values, which older generations favor. Educational attainment influences preferences, with more educated individuals prioritizing tolerance and independence. Breadwinners and those from higher social classes emphasize hard work and responsibility, while religious individuals tend to value thrift and obedience. Geographic factors indicate that urban dwellers and those from Java favor tolerance and independence, while regular internet users lean toward imagination and tolerance. Political engagement also affects these preferences, with frequent discussions linked to hard work and independence.

From a developmental psychology standpoint, gender and developmental phase play a role, with a bidirectional influence between parents and children (Roest et al., 2010). The transmission of gender roles and occupation-specific resources from parents to children highlights the intergenerational nature of value transmission (Philipp, 2023). Generational differences indicate societal shifts in value preferences (Camerini et al., 2018). Meanwhile, education shapes cognitive development and socialization (Arfayan & Kasingku, 2023). This explains that parental values and behaviors directly impact children's values and behaviors, emphasizing the importance of parental socialization practices (Meneses et al., 2022). Therefore, parental communication, parenting styles, and cultural context are crucial in the intergenerational transmission of values (Liping, 2013).

In the present study, differences in age, gender, marital status, and religion show a variety of family experiences. Younger parents are less likely to emphasize teaching their children the value of hard work, which is concerning given its significant association with improved academic performance (Jayadi et al., 2019). Male parents frequently prioritize teaching their children persistence and altruism, in contrast to conventional perceptions that women are more altruistic (Brañas-Garza et al., 2018). This suggests that male parents are more inclined to instill in their children the significance of resilience, persistence, and performing altruistic acts, particularly in challenging or high-risk situations. Males demonstrate a higher frequency of engaging in altruistic acts, displaying their ability to remain composed, think rationally, and act selflessly during emergencies (Eagly & Crowley, 1986). Widowed parents are also more likely to emphasize values such as persistence and avoiding conflicts. More religious parents prioritize religious ideals for their children, such as obedience and thrift, to prevent negative behaviors and encourage pro-social behaviors (Bornstein et al., 2017; Elsinbawi & Wolosin, 2023; Smith, 2003).

Parents’ value preferences are greatly influenced by their educational achievement and economic level. More educated parents emphasize values associated with social and intellectual growth, whereas family breadwinners prioritize hard work. These disparities highlight the significance of resolving educational and economic inequality in shaping children's values and goals. Because of financial constraints and the possibility of poverty, parents with lower levels of education frequently prioritize work-related values such as hard work, obedience, persistence, and thrift. Lower educational attainment increases the chance of poverty, making it harder to pay for education (Suryadarma & Suryahadi, 2009). Furthermore, the family's breadwinners emphasize teaching hard work as a way to overcome financial difficulties. Parents with lower-middle incomes tend to choose persistence, since it is strongly linked to children's academic and social progress. This perspective may be influenced by upbringing and environmental factors, as children's self-control and social development are linked to maternal perseverance and parenting style (Imafuku et al., 2021).

Parents in higher social levels are more likely to prioritize teaching their children the importance of hard work than those in lower social groups. They value qualities required for success and social status maintenance, with hard work considered as crucial to accomplishing or maintaining their socioeconomic standing (Jarness & Strømme, 2022). Meanwhile, postmaterialist parents prioritize non-materialistic concerns such as self-expression, quality of life, and environmental sustainability over traditional economic goals like hard work and thrift (Inglehart, 2009). In addition, participating in political discussions contributes to broadening people's viewpoints, encouraging openness and acceptance, while it can also foster a sense of agency and responsibility, emphasizing the importance of individual work and independence (Boulianne & Koc-Michalska, 2022).

Geographic variables affect parents’ perspectives on the values they seek to instill in their children. Java is home to more than half of Indonesia's population and development, therefore cultural traditions and values are strongly embedded and passed down through generations (Minkov et al., 2018). This cultural influence will most likely influence how parents nurture and guide their children. Exploring these cultural subtleties and their impact on parenting practices could provide useful insights and information.

In this study, we also highlight the impact of internet access on parental values, particularly among frequent internet users who value imagination, tolerance, and respect for their children's learning. Imagination, described as the ability to develop thoughts and images without direct sensory input, is critical for problem-solving and creative thinking, both of which are required talents in many adult jobs (Dewey, 2005; Egan, 1992). According to educators, curiosity and imagination foster creativity in early life (Maksić & Pavlović, 2011). Children with high imaginative features tend to have better coping skills and cognitive ability (Smith & Mathur, 2009). Consequently, nurturing imagination during children's development is advised to ensure its acquisition before transitioning into adulthood. A person's extraordinary imagination is shaped by past experiences, and literature can broaden this capacity by bringing attention to unnoticed experiences (Peacocke, 2021). Recognizing the importance of encouraging critical thinking, the Indonesian Ministry of Education has established literacy programs, utilizing over fifteen million books tailored to students’ preferences by 2022 (Ministry of Education and Culture of Republic Indonesia, 2023b). Furthermore, in today's society, internet technologies have a significant impact on parental attitudes, with a large proportion of Indonesian adults using online resources (Rahayu & Haningsih, 2021). Younger parents, particularly millennials, rely significantly on the internet for parenting guidance (Novianti et al., 2023). Access to a variety of internet material exposes people to a wide range of perspectives, encouraging tolerance and minimizing disputes and discrimination (Pew Research Center, 2008). Furthermore, increasing internet understanding among parents is related to better-educated children and enhanced problem-solving skills (Hinostroza et al., 2018; Lei et al., 2023).

Children's education and character development are heavily influenced by their families. Children learn by observing how their parents interact with others and form relationships (Majelis Luhur Persatuan Taman Siswa, 2004). Parents, as teachers and role models, have a major effect on children by consistently exhibiting positive behaviors (Green et al., 2018; Thoma et al., 2021). Attending school meetings, taking parenting seminars, and supporting character-building activities for children are all examples of parental involvement in education (Ministry of Education and Culture of Republic Indonesia, 2017). Parents must be role models for their children by establishing a good example with their acts and behaviors. They can achieve this by paying attention, improving their intellectual talents, and efficiently managing their emotions. When developing their children's personalities, parents should remember their developmental stages, particularly during the formative years of four to six, when toddlers are very impressionable and learn through imitation. Between the ages of six and twelve, parents can actively participate in community events and positively impact their environment. During adolescence, parenting entails creating consistent family standards based on honesty and responding to each child's qualities and requirements. When raising sensitive children, parents should express gratitude and acceptance, recognizing their unique characteristics while enforcing discipline and developing talents in peaceful and supportive situations (Sutanto & Andriyani, 2019).

Limitations

Our study is limited by the relatively small sample size. Because the WVS in Indonesia has only been conducted twice, only data from 2006 and 2018 are available. Combining data from multiple survey waves could have increased our sample size and statistical power, but the long interval between surveys may have created biases related to different generation's perspectives, particularly on technology. This study used only the most recent survey data in 2018 and classified respondents into generational groups (millennials, Generation X, and baby boomers) to account for any potential age disparities in values and technology perceptions. Furthermore, our study was unable to analyze family preferences or collaborative decision-making since the survey primarily collects individual opinions. Improving approaches for incorporating perspectives in household level might provide better understanding on collaborative decision-making. Despite these limitations, the findings from this study provide valuable insight regarding the unique factors that shape child-rearing practices in Indonesia. Future research can explore how these insights align or contrast with parenting values in different countries, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of global child development and family dynamics.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the most popular values for children to learn at home are good manners, religiosity, responsibility, and independence, followed by tolerance and respect, hard work, and obedience. Male parents appear to favor values like persistence and altruism over tolerance and respect. Younger parents favor good manners, religiosity, tolerance, respect, and obedience, whereas lower-education parents value hard work, obedience, persistence, and thrift. Lower-middle-income parents are unlikely to choose persistence, while rural parents prefer altruism. In Java, parents value responsibility and independence over obedience and thrift. Parents who often use the internet prioritize tolerance and respect over persistence and thrift.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

There is no acknowledgement for this study.

ORCID iDs

Ernis Asanti

Dwi Oktarina

Indrawan Firdauzi

Ethical Considerations

Not applicable.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the World Values Survey (WVS). Restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. However, the data are available directly from the WVS upon reasonable request. More details on accessing the data can be found at [].

Author Biographies

Ni Wayan Suriastini was the late Executive Director of SurveyMETER. She had a PhD in Population Policy from Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. She had played key roles as survey manager or team leader of more than two dozen surveys including multi-purpose surveys, RCTs, impact evaluations for over 28 years.

Ernis Asanti is a Research Analyst in SurveyMETER. She holds a Master degree in Nutrition Science from IPB University, Indonesia. Her research interests are on children's growth, especially stunting, population aging, and health economics.

Dwi Oktarina is currently a researcher in SurveyMETER. She holds a Master degree in public health from the University of Melbourne, Australia. Her research interests are population ageing, rural health, maternal and child health, as well as sexual and reproductive health.

Indrawan Firdauzi was a Research Analyst in SurveyMETER and currently is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Economics and Development Studies, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman. His research interests are development economics, economics education, behavioral studies, and poverty economics.

Dani Alfah completed his Master degree in Public Administration at Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia and currently concentrates his work on assistance and development region as one of the structural divisions of SurveyMETER, particularly in the topic of policy and poverty.

Bondan Sikoki has experience working with RAND on large-scale quantitative surveys. She has more than 25 years of experience managing surveys in Indonesia and 5 years of experience working with CPPS at UGM. As a co-PI on IFLS4, Sikoki works primarily in locations in Indonesia, leading efforts to test survey instruments, recruit and train field staff, and oversee field work.

Nasirudin completed the Master of Economic Development program at Gadjah Mada University and is currently at SurveyMETER as Survey Division Coordinator. He has experience of managing projects and surveys across Indonesia for more than 20 years.

Ragil Safitri earned a M.Ed. degree in English Education from State University of Yogyakarta. She is currently working in SurveyMETER, a research institution in Yogyakarta. Her research is especially focused on culture, values, and education.

References

Arfayan

A. E. S.

Kasingku

J. D.

(2023). The relationship of socioeconomic status with motivation for learning in religious studies at SMA Advent Nabire. Edumaspul - Jurnal Pendidikan, 7(2), 3401–3406. https://doi.org/10.33487/edumaspul.v7i2.6768

Ayudhya

A. J.

(1997). Lima Nilai Kemanusiaan dan Keutamaan Manusia [Five humanitarian values and human priorities]. Yayasan Pendidikan Sathya Sai Indonesia.

Bornstein

M. H.

Putnick

D. L.

Lansford

J. E.

Al-Hassan

S. M.

Bacchini

Bombi

A. S.

Chang

Deater-Deckard

Di Giunta

Dodge

K. A.

Malone

P. S.

Oburu

Pastorelli

Skinner

A. T.

Sorbring

Steinberg

Tapanya

Tirado

L. M. U.

Zelli

Alampay

L. P.

(2017). ‘Mixed blessings’: Parental religiousness, parenting, and child adjustment in global perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(8), 880–892. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12705

Boulianne

Koc-Michalska

(2022). The role of personality in political talk and like-minded discussion. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(1), 285–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161221994096

Brañas-Garza

Capraro

Rascon

(2018). Gender differences in altruism on Mechanical Turk: Expectations and actual behaviour. SSRN Electronic Journal, 170, 19–23. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2796221

Camerini

Schulz

Jeannet

(2018). The social inequalities of internet access, its use, and the impact on children’s academic performance: Evidence from a longitudinal study in Switzerland. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2489–2508. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817725918

Davis

D. W.

Davenport

(1999). Assessing the validity of the Postmaterialism Index. American Political Science Review, 93(1), 649–664. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585580

Dewey

(2005). Art as experience. Perigee Books.

Eagly

A. H.

Crowley

(1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 283–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283

10.

Egan

(1992). Imagination in teaching and learning. University of Chicago Press.

11.

Elsinbawi

Wolosin

(2023). The effects of gender on tolerance. International Journal of Social Science and Human Research, 6(2), 996–1006. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v6-i2-31

12.

Gemellia

P. A.

Wongkaren

T. S.

(2021). Pengaruh jam kerja orang tua terhadap kognitif anak di Indonesia [The impact of parents’ working hours on children's cognition in Indonesia]. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Pembangunan Indonesia, 21(1), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.21002/jepi.2021.02

13.

Georgas

(2003). Family: Variations and changes across cultures. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 6(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1061

14.

Green

L. M.

Missotten

Tone

E. B.

Luyckx

(2018). Empathy, depressive symptoms, and self-esteem in adolescence: The moderating role of the mother–adolescent relationship. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(12), 3964–3974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1216-z

15.

Haerpfer

Inglehart

Moreno

Welzel

Kizilova

Diez-Medrano

Lagos

Norris

Ponarin

Puranen

(Eds.). (2022). World values survey: Round Seven – Country-Pooled Datafile Version 6.0. [Dataset]. https://doi.org/10.14281/18241.24

16.

Hinostroza

J. E.

Ibieta

Labbé

Soto

M. T.

(2018). Browsing the internet to solve information problems: A study of students’ search actions and behaviors using a ‘think aloud’ protocol. Education and Information Technologies, 23(5), 1933–1953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9698-2

17.

Imafuku

Saito

Hosokawa

Okanoya

Hosoda

(2021). Importance of maternal persistence in young children’s persistence. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 726583. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.726583

18.

Inglehart

(1977). The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among western publics. Princeton University Press.

19.

Inglehart

(2009). Postmaterialist values and the shift from survival to self-expression values. The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199270125.003.0012

20.

Inglehart

Welzel

(2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790881

21.

Jarness

Strømme

T. B.

(2022). Advantages of upper-class backgrounds: Forms of capital, school cultures and educational performance. The Sociological Review, 70(6), 1199–1219. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261211061946

22.

Jayadi

Margon

Suyono

(2019). Investigating the impact of hard work on the achievement of Islamic education and discipline: Focus on the cognitive abilities of vocational high school students. In Proceedings of the international conference on educational sciences and teacher profession (ICETeP 2018) (pp. 183–185). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/icetep-18.2019.45

23.

Khrisna

(2019). Bringing the best in the child. Anand Chrisna Global Co-Operation.

24.

Lei

Zhou

(2023). Better educated children, better internet-connected elderly parents. Research Policy, 52(4), Article 104743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104743

25.

Liping

(2013). Intergenerational transmission of educational attainment: Three levels of parent–child communication as mediators. Psych Journal, 2(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.16

26.

Majelis Luhur Persatuan Taman Siswa. (2004). Karya Ki Hajar Dewantara [Works of Ki Hajar Dewantara]. Majelis Luhur Persatuan Taman Siswa.

27.

Maksić

Pavlović

(2011). Educational researchers’ personal explicit theories on creativity and its development: A qualitative study. High Ability Studies, 22(2), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2011.628850

28.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

29.

McFadden

(1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Zarembka

(Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105–142). Academic Press.

30.

Meneses

Santos

Biermann

Farias

Plutarco

(2022). Influence of values and parenting styles perceived by children in the value transmission. Psicologia Teoria E Pesquisa, 38, Article e38318. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e38318.en

31.

Ministry of Education and Culture of Republic Indonesia. (2017). Minister of Education and Culture Regulation No.30 of 2017. Ministry of Education and Culture of Republic Indonesia.

32.

Ministry of Education and Culture of Republic Indonesia. (2023a). Profil Pelajar Pancasila [Profile of Pancasila’s students]. http://ditpsd.kemdikbud.go.id/hal/profil-pelajar-pancasila

33.

Ministry of Education and Culture of Republic Indonesia . (2023b). Merdeka Belajar episode 23: Buku bacaan untuk literasi Indonesia [Freedom to Learn episode 23: Reading books for Indonesian literacy] . https://ditsmp.kemdikbud.go.id/%20merdeka-belajar-episode-23-%20buku-bacaan-untuk-literasiindonesia/

34.

Minkov

Dutt

Schachner

Jandosova

Khassenbekov

Morales

Sanchez

C. J.

Mudd

(2018). What values and traits do parents teach to their children? New data from 54 countries. Comparative Sociology, 17(2), 221–252. https://doi.org/10.1163/15691330-12341456

35.

Novianti

Mahdum

Suarman

Elmustian

Firdaus

Hadriana

Sumarno

Rusandi

M. A.

Situmorang

D. D. B.

(2023). Internet-based parenting intervention: A systematic review. Heliyon, 9(3), e14671–e14679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14671

36.

Peacocke

(2021). How literature expands your imagination. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 103(2), 298–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12716

37.

Pew Research Center. (2008). The future of the Internet III. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2008/12/14/the-future-of-the-internet-iii/

38.

Pew Research Center. (2014). Teaching the children: Sharp ideological differences, some common ground. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/09/18/teaching-the-children-sharp-ideological-differences-some-common-ground/

39.

Philipp

(2023). Gendered university major choice: The role of intergenerational transmission. Journal of Population Economics, 36(2), 1049–1097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-022-00900-6

40.

Rahayu

N. W.

Haningsih

(2021). Digital parenting competence of mother as informal educator is not inline with internet access. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 29, e14671–e14679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100291

41.

Rodríguez-Gutiérrez

Martín-Quintana

J. C.

Cruz-Sosa

(2016). “Living adolescence in family” parenting program: Adaptation and implementation in social and school contexts. Psychosocial Intervention, 25(2), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psi.2016.03.004

42.

Roest

A. M.

Dubas

J. S.

Gerris

J. R.

(2010). Value transmissions between parents and children: Gender and developmental phase as transmission belts. Journal of Adolescence, 33(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.05.017

43.

Saesaputri

S. M.

Fuad

Zulaikha

(2024). Evaluasi Projek Penguatan Profil Pelajar Pancasila (P5) Sekolah Penggerak di SMA Negeri 6 Bekasi [Evaluation of the pancasila students profile strengthening project “Sekolah Penggerak” at SMA Negeri 6 Bekasi]. Mutiara: Multidiciplinary Scientifict Journal, 2(1), 794–799. https://doi.org/10.57185/mutiara.v2i1.131

44.

Schneiderman

Barrera

(2009). Family traditions and generations. Family & Community Health, 32(4), 354–357. https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0b013e3181b91fe3

45.

Siu

A. F. Y.

Keung

C. P. C.

(2022). Perceptions among Hong Kong parents on play in early childhood: A qualitative study. Pacific Early Childhood Education Research Association, 16(1), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.17206/apjrece

46.

Smith

. (2003). Theorizing religious effects among American adolescents. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5906.t01-1-00158

47.

Smith

Mathur

. (2009). Children's imagination and fantasy: Implications for development, education, and classroom activities. Research in the Schools, 16(1), 52–63. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ862783

48.

Sobe

N. W

. (2021). Reworking four pillars of education to sustain the commons. UNESCO Futures of Education Ideas LAB. https://en.unesco.org/futuresofeducation/ideas-lab/sobe-reworking-four-pillars-education-sustain-commons

49.

Sorge

Hofstede

(1983). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(4), 625–629. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393017

50.

StataCorp. (2021). Stata statistical software: Release 17. StataCorp LLC.

51.

Suryadarma

Suryahadi

. (2009). The contrasting role of ability and poverty on education attainment: Evidence from Indonesia (Working Paper). SMERU Research Institute. https://smeru.or.id/sites/default/files/publication/abilitypovertyoneducation.pdf

52.

Susilo

(2020). The role of families in cultivating children’s personality values: An analysis of social psychology education. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 11(4), 275–303. https://jsser.org/index.php/jsser/article/view/2858

53.

Sutanto

A. V.

Andriyani

(2019). Positive parenting: Membangun karakter positif anak [Positive parenting: Building children's positive character]. Pustaka Baru Press.

54.

Thoma

M. V.

Bernays

Eising

C. M.

Maercker

Rohner

S. L.

(2021). Child maltreatment, lifetime trauma, and mental health in Swiss older survivors of enforced child welfare practices: Investigating the mediating role of self-esteem and self-compassion. Child Abuse & Neglect, 113, Article 104925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104925

55.

Vaswani

D. J. P.

(2012). New education can make the world new. Gita Publishing House.