Warm and harsh parenting, self-kindness and self-judgment, adolescent well-being: An examination of developmental differences

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2126840/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Warm and harsh parenting, self-kindness and self-judgment, adolescent well-being: An examination of developmental differences

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2126840/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Objectives

This study aimed to examine the associations between warm and harsh parenting and adolescent well-being and the mediating effects of self-kindness and self-judgment in the relationships. Moreover, this study investigated different developmental across three adolescence stages (early, middle, and late).

Methods

Totally 14776 Chinese adolescents (mean age = 13.53 ± 2.08, 52.3% males) participated in this study. All adolescents rated the levels of warm parenting and harsh parenting, self-kindness and self-judgment, and well-being.

Results

Both warm and harsh parenting were related to adolescent well-being through the mediating effects of self-kindness and self-judgment. But warm parenting exerted a more substantial impact on adolescent well-being. Self-kindness demonstrated a more robust mediating effect compared to self-judgment in the relationships. Moreover, harsh parenting in late adolescence had a weaker impact on adolescent well-being than those in early and middle adolescence. Warm parenting had a more significant impact on adolescent well-being in early adolescence than in middle and late adolescence.

Conclusions

Overall, warm parenting had a more substantial effect on adolescent well-being than harsh parenting. The findings also highlighted the crucial mediating effect of self-kindness in the relationships between parenting and adolescent well-being. Moreover, this study also indicated the importance of warm parenting in early adolescence.

Warm parenting

Harsh parenting

Self-kindness

Self-judgment

Adolescent well-being

Well-being has been recognized as an essential element of adolescent development. Based on the ecological model of adolescent development (Lerner & Castellino, 2002), family and parent factors have been consistently treated as influential antecedents of adolescent well-being (Leung & Shek, 2019; Shek et al., 2021; Shek & Liang, 2018; Zhu & Shek, 2021). Parenting style, reflecting the emotional attitudes that parents demonstrate toward the child in the integrative model of parenting (Darling & Steinberg, 1993), would influence the ways adolescents treat and connect to themselves (Moreira & Canavarro, 2018), and finally influence adolescent well-being (Medeiros et al., 2016). The current study investigated whether warm and harsh parenting, as two typical representations of parenting style dimensions (Baumrind, 1991; Zhang et al., 2017), could relate to adolescent well-being through the mediating effects of adolescent self-kindness and self-judgment. Due to the nature of turbulence in the adolescence stage (Liu et al., 2022), associations between warm and harsh parenting, self-kindness and self-judgment, and adolescent well-being may be different across early, middle, and late adolescence stages (Moreira & Canavarro, 2018), which have yet to be fully addressed in the existing literature. Therefore, this study further investigated whether there are developmental differences in the relationships across adolescence stages.

Parenting and adolescent well-being

Well-being is widely acknowledged to be the primary concern of most people. It refers to subjective feelings of happiness and enjoyment as well as healthy and prosperous individual functioning (King et al., 2018; Moreira & Canavarro, 2018). With particular reference to adolescents, their well-being is highly susceptible to external factors during the crucial developmental period (King et al., 2018; Moreira & Canavarro, 2018; Shek et al., 2021; Shek & Liang, 2018; Zhu & Shek, 2021). According to the ecological framework of adolescent development (Lerner & Castellino, 2002), adolescent well-being is shaped by individual-context interactions at different levels, including family, school, community, and society (Moreira & Canavarro, 2018). Among them, the family has been acknowledged as the primary socialization environment that exerts an immediate and direct on adolescents (King et al., 2018; Lerner & Castellino, 2002; Li et al., 2019; Moreira & Canavarro, 2018; Shek et al., 2021; Willroth et al., 2021; Yap & Baharudin, 2016). The current study focused on parenting styles parents adopted toward adolescents as a crucial family factor for adolescent well-being.

According to the integrative model of parenting (Darling & Steinberg, 1993), parenting style refers to the emotional attitude of parents toward the child and thus plays a crucial role in shaping a good parent-child relationship and the development of children’s well-being (Abidin et al., 2022; Zhu & Shek, 2021). Parenting styles have been classically conceptualized as including two broad parenting dimensions: responsiveness and demandingness (Baumrind, 1991). Responsiveness refers to the extent to which parents provide support, attainment, and sensitive responses to children’s need to facilitate their development, while demandingness refers to supervision and disciplinary efforts that parents make on children to meet the demands (Baumrind, 1991; Zhang et al., 2017). Therefore, the current study focused on warm and harsh parenting as the representative parenting variables corresponding to responsiveness and demandingness. Warm and harsh parenting have been demonstrated as pivotal in shaping the parent-child relationship and have significant associations with children’s multiple psychological adjustment outcomes (Chong et al., 2014; Etkin et al., 2014; Li et al., 2018; Liu & Wang, 2021; Medeiros et al., 2016). But few studies have included both warm and harsh parenting styles simultaneously to compare their relative importance for adolescent well-being. Moreover, previous studies assessing adolescent well-being have mainly used other indicators such as life satisfaction and helplessness rather than adolescent well-being (Leung & Shek, 2019; Shek et al., 2021; Shek & Liang, 2018). In this case, the current study examined the relationships between warm and harsh parenting and adolescent well-being.

The mediating roles of self-kindness and self-judgment

To better guide intervention programs, there is a need to clarify potential mediating mechanisms in the relationships between parenting and adolescent well-being. According to attachment theory, parental emotional attitudes, reflected in parenting styles (warm and harsh parenting), would be internalized by children and influence the way the children treat themselves internally (Bowlby, 1982; Medeiros et al., 2016; Moreira & Canavarro, 2018). Therefore, the current study focused on self-kindness and self-judgment as potential mediators in relationships. Self-kindness has been described as a beneficial way of relating to oneself, while self-judgment reflects harshness and strictness with oneself (Guo et al., 2021). In Gilbert’s social mentality theory, self-kindness could be considered as a kind of self-soothing behavior in the safeness system, which could downregulate the activated threat system leading to better psychological outcomes (Gilbert & Procter, 2006; Guo et al., 2021). Yet self-judgment may stimulate the threat-defense system, leading to elevating stressful responses (Gilbert & Procter, 2006; Guo et al., 2021), and thus finally lead to decreasing levels of well-being.

The attachment theory could help us understand the mediating effects of self-kindness and self-judgment (Bowlby, 1982; Medeiros et al., 2016; Moreira & Canavarro, 2018). According to attachment theory, individuals gradually develop internal representations of the self and others from interaction with important caregivers, especially parents (Bowlby, 1982). The attachment representations not only indicate the expectations about the availability of other important figures but also indicate feelings of self-worth and self-evaluation (Ko et al., 2019; Krieger et al., 2016; Moreira & Canavarro, 2018). Adolescents are likely to internalize the emotional attitude of their parents and formulate their attachment representations (Liu & Wang, 2021; Moreira & Canavarro, 2018). For example, suppose parents adopt harsh parenting toward adolescents and demonstrate intolerance toward their mistakes; in that case, the adolescents may formulate the beliefs that they are “bad” or unworthy of love, and become less self-kind but rather demonstrate more self-judgment (Moreira & Canavarro, 2018), which may influence their well-being.

Moreover, according to the parental acceptance-rejection theory (Dwairy, 2010; Miranda et al., 2016), children’s psychological adjustment can be predicted by the extent of their parents’ acceptance or rejection perceived by them. Children who owned perceptions of acceptance from parents have better psychological outcomes such as greater emotional functioning and healthier personality dispositions (Dwairy, 2010; Miranda et al., 2016). Parental warmth could make children feel that they are being accepted and loved unconditionally (Li et al., 2018; Liu & Wang, 2021), promote trust and reciprocity in the parent-child relationship (Liu & Wang, 2021), promote their self-esteem levels (Chong et al., 2014) and facilitate the children’s well-being. However, harsh parenting may make children perceive emotional rejection from parents, formulate negative evaluations about themselves, and finally experience devastating consequences such as hostility, negative mood states, and emotional instability (Di Giunta et al., 2020; Dwairy, 2010; Li & Gong, 2022; Miranda et al., 2016). Children who received signals of rejection from parents tended to attachment negative evaluations of themselves and develop low levels of self-esteem, self-worth, and self-efficacy(Di Giunta et al., 2020; Dwairy, 2010; Li & Gong, 2022; Miranda et al., 2016), more likely to have self-judgment, which may devastate their well-being.

Developmental differences

Warm and harsh parenting may affect adolescent well-being differently in different developmental stages (i.e., early, middle, and late adolescence) because adolescents undergo rapid and profound changes across adolescence (Sameroff & Mackenzie, 2003). The differences may exist at both variable and relationship levels. In terms of the variable level, adolescence is a critical period for decreasing levels of well-being (Zhu & Shek, 2021) and life satisfaction (Shek & Liang, 2018) but rather more and more hopelessness (Shek & Liang, 2018; Zhu & Shek, 2021). Moreover, previous research also revealed gradual declines in negative parenting behaviors and parent-child relationship quality (Zhu & Shek, 2021). In terms of the relationship level, a previous study found that the impact of parental psychological control on adolescents’ meaning of life was more significant in early adolescence than in late adolescence (Shek et al., 2021). Researchers have attributed this to adolescents' growing autonomy and competence, making them less susceptible to parenting behaviors (Shek et al., 2021). But no previous studies have investigated the developmental differences in relationships among warm and harsh parenting, self-kindness, self-judgment, and adolescent well-being.

The current study

This study first examined the relationships among warm and harsh parenting, self-kindness and self-judgment, and adolescent well-being. Secondly, this study investigated the developmental differences across early, middle, and late adolescent stages. We hypothesize that warm and harsh parenting could relate to adolescent well-being through increased self-kindness and decreased self-judgment. Moreover, we hypothesized that the direct and indirect relationships between parenting behaviors and adolescent well-being might differ by adolescent stages, such that warm and harsh parenting may have a greater impact on adolescent well-being in the early adolescence stage.

__________________________________________________

Insert Figure 1 here

__________________________________________________

Procedure

In December 2021, we collected the data in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, China. With the support of the Shenzhen Academy of Educational Sciences, a convenience sampling method was used to collect the data in 28 primary and secondary schools. The Human Research Ethics Committee of the corresponding authors’ university approved the study generating the data used in the study (Code number: PN-2021-0069). Teachers informed participants about the study before data collection. Participants completed online questionnaires in the school computer room upon giving consent. All personal information would be kept strictly confidential.

Participants

Participants included 15,492 students, of which 14,776 (95.38%) returned valid questionnaires. A total of 7728 boys and 7048 girls were enrolled in the current study. The participants’ mean age was 13.53 (SD = 2.08). Adolescents belong to three developmental stages (Liu et al., 2022; Zou et al., 2020), including early (10–12 years old, N = 5055), middle (13–15 years old, N = 6714), and late adolescence (16–18 years old, N = 3007). In the sample, 25.6% of the participants were the only children in their families. In the total model, age, gender, and the only-child status were treated as control variables in the analysis.

Insert Table 1 here

Table 1

Demographic information of participants
Variables	Adolescents
	N/M	%/SD
Age	13.53	2.08
Gender
Boys	7728	52.3%
Girls	7048	47.7%
Only-child status
The only child	3777	25.6%
Non-only child	10999	74.4%
Educational status
Primary school	3098	21.0%
Lower general secondary school	7228	49.0%
Higher general secondary school	4450	30.0%

Measurements

Warm and harsh parenting

Warm and harsh parenting were assessed by two subscales of the brief version of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ) (Lu et al., 2019). The warm parenting subscale includes three items (e.g., “My parents praise me if I behave well.”, “My parents let me know when I am doing a good job with something.”, and “My parents compliment me when I do something well.”). The harsh parenting subscale also includes three items (e.g., “My parents spank me with hands when I have done something wrong.”, “My parents slap me when I have done something wrong.”, and “My parents hit me with a belt, switch, or other objects when I have done something wrong.”). Each item is rated on a Likert scale of 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). The Chinese version of APQ has been validated and widely used in Chinese populations (Liang et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2019). In the current study, the Cronbach α of warm and harsh parenting reported by adolescents were 0.94 and 0.85, respectively.

Self-kindness and self-judgment

Adolescent self-kindness and self-judgment were assessed using the Self-Compassion Scale—Youth version (SCS-Y), which has demonstrated good reliability and validity in Chinese adolescents (Huang, 2022; Neff et al., 2021). It consists of seventeen items divided into six subscales: self-kindness, self-judgment, common humanity, isolation, mindfulness, and over-identification. Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). The items of self-kindness and self-judgment were used in the current study. Higher scores indicate higher levels of self-kindness and self-judgment. The Cronbach α of self-kindness and self-judgment in the present study were 0.80 and 0.70, respectively.

Well-Being

Adolescent well-being was assessed by the WHO-Five Well-Being Index (Allgaier et al., 2012), which was developed by the World Health Organization. Each item is rated on a six-point scale ranging from 0 (all of the time) to 5 (at no time). Higher scores indicate higher levels of well-being. Good reliability and validity have been reported in Chinese populations (Allgaier et al., 2012). The Cronbach α in this study was 0.95.

Control variables

In the children’s questionnaires, we collected the child’s age, gender (male or female), and the only child status (only one child or more than one child). All of these variables were controlled in the subsequent analysis.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlational analysis were conducted in SPSS 23.0. The present study performed the structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the mediation model in Mplus 8.0. The bootstrap analysis with 2000 replicates and a 95% confidence interval was used to examine the significance of the mediation effects. Adolescent characteristics, including age, gender, and the only child status, were treated as control variables in the analysis. Standardized coefficients were used in the SEM analysis. Then we conducted a multi-group analysis to investigate differences in the mediation model across different developmental stages.

Preliminary analysis

Table 1 presents the study variables' means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations.

Insert Table 2 here

Table 2

Intercorrelations, means, and standard deviations for study variables
Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1 gender	1
2 age	0.044^**	1
3 siblings	0.007	0.079	1
4 WAP	-0.129^**	-0.044^**	-0.060^**	1
5 HAP	-0.140^**	-0.064^**	0.043^**	-0.249^**	1
6 self-kindness	-0.027^**	-0.054^**	-0.053^**	0.396^**	-0.157^**	1
7 self-judgment	0.197^**	0.076^**	0.033^**	-0.106^**	0.089^**	-0.049^**	1
8 adolescent well-being	-0.176^**	-0.096^**	-0.014	0.432^**	-0.192^**	0.529^**	-0.238^**	1
M				8.781	10.279	9.533	7.911	12.906
SD				2.743	2.899	2.623	2.550	4.575
Note. p<0.05, *p<0.01; WAP = Warm parenting, HAP = Harsh parenting;

The Mediation Model

After controlling for a series of confounding variables, the tested model obtained acceptable fit indices (RMSEA = 0.070, CFI = 0.961, TLI = 0.952, SRMR = 0.042). The details of the mediation model are shown in Table 2, and the specific paths of relationships appear in Fig. 2. As Table 2 illustrates, the 95% bootstrap confidence interval of the mediation effects of self-kindness and self-judgment did not include zero. Thus, these mediation effects were all statistically significant. In the overall model, warm and harsh parenting were also directly related to adolescent well-being (β = 0.199, β=-0.073, p<0.001). The bootstrap tests showed that warm parenting had a greater impact on adolescent well-being than harsh parenting (95%CI [0.229, 0.280]).

We also conducted the bootstrap analysis to examine the mediating effect differences (the mediating effect of self-kindness versus the mediating effect of self-judgment). The results showed that the mediating effect of self-kindness was more robust in the relationships between warm parenting and adolescent well-being than in self-judgment (95%CI [0.126, 0.147]). In the relationships between harsh parenting and adolescent well-being, self-kindness also demonstrated a stronger mediating effect than self-judgment (95%CI [-0.022, -0.007]).

Insert Table 3 and Fig. 2 here

Table 3

The bootstrap confidence interval and effect size of the mediation model in total samples
	Mediation paths	Estimate	P	95% CI
Total sample	WAP→Self-kindness→WEL	0.150	<0.001	[0.141, 0.159]
	WAP→Self-judgement→WEL	0.014	<0.001	[0.011, 0.017]
	HAP→Self-kindness→WEL	-0.025	<0.001	[-0.032, -0.018]
	HAP→Self-judgement→WEL	-0.010	<0.001	[-0.013, -0.007]
	Total effect of WAP (direct plus indirect)	0.363	<0.001	[0.347, 0.379]
	Total effect of HAP (direct plus indirect)	-0.109	<0.001	[-0.124, -0.093]
Early adolescence	WAP→Self-kindness→WEL	0.164	<0.001	[0.148, 0.181]
	WAP→Self-judgement→WEL	0.011	<0.001	[0.005, 0.016]
	HAP→Self-kindness→WEL	-0.024	<0.001	[-0.035, -0.013]
	HAP→Self-judgement→WEL	-0.018	<0.001	[-0.023, -0.012]
	Total effect of WAP (direct plus indirect)	0.400	<0.001	[0.370, 0.431]
	Total effect of HAP (direct plus indirect)	-0.129	<0.001	[-0.154, -0.104]
Middle adolescence	WAP→Self-kindness→WEL	0.165	<0.001	[0.151, 0.179]
	WAP→Self-judgement→WEL	0.011	<0.001	[0.006, 0.016]
	HAP→Self-kindness→WEL	-0.025	<0.001	[-0.037, -0.014]
	HAP→Self-judgement→WEL	-0.013	<0.001	[-0.018, -0.008]
	Total effect of WAP (direct plus indirect)	0.370	<0.001	[0.345, 0.395]
	Total effect of HAP (direct plus indirect)	-0.117	<0.001	[-0.142, -0.092]
Late adolescence	WAP→Self-kindness→WEL	0.141	<0.001	[0.121, 0.160]
	WAP→Self-judgement→WEL	0.006	0.046	[<0.001, 0.013]
	HAP→Self-kindness→WEL	-0.016	0.091	[-0.035, 0.003]
	HAP→Self-judgement→WEL	-0.019	<0.001	[-0.028, -0.011]
	Total effect of WAP (direct plus indirect)	0.376	<0.001	[0.344, 0.409]
	Total effect of HAP (direct plus indirect)	-0.063	0.002	[-0.102, -0.023]
Note. WAP = Warm parenting, HAP = Harsh parenting, WEL = Adolescent well-being

Multi-group Analysis Across Developmental Stages Of Adolescence

In multi-group analysis, the metric invariance and scalar invariance of the measurement model across adolescent developmental stages were verified. The model with free estimated structural paths fitted data well (χ² = 2076.899, df = 117, RMSEA = 0.058, CFI = 0.976, TLI = 0.970, SRMR = 0.025). The model with constrained estimated structural paths also fitted data well (χ² = 2178.556, df = 133, RMSEA = 0.056, CFI = 0.975, TLI = 0.972, SRMR = 0.030). The differences between the model with free estimated paths and the model with constrained paths have achieved significance levels (△χ² = 101.657, △df = 16, p<0.001). This indicated developmental differences across three adolescence stages.

Insert Table 4 and Table 5 here

Insert Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 5 here

The current study constructed a mediation model in which warm and harsh parenting were related to adolescent well-being through self-kindness and self-judgment. This study revealed both warm and harsh parenting could influence adolescent well-being through the mediating effects of self-kindness and self-judgment. But warm parenting exerted a more substantial impact on adolescent well-being than harsh parenting. Moreover, self-kindness demonstrated a more robust mediating effect than self-judgment in the relationships. Besides, warm parenting exerted a greater impact on adolescent well-being in early adolescence than in middle and late adolescence. Harsh parenting in early and middle adolescence had a greater impact on adolescent well-being than in late adolescence. Notably, even though the effect of warm parenting was a little weaker in middle and late adolescence than in early adolescence, it is still much more significant across all developmental stages, thereby highlighting the importance of warm parenting for adolescent well-being.

Warm And Harsh Parenting And Adolescent Well-being

The current study found warm and harsh parenting were related to adolescent well-being through the mediating effects of self-kindness and self-judgment. Moreover, warm parenting exerted a more substantial impact on adolescent well-being. Warm parenting could convey parents’ love and care to children, fulfill the basic psychological demands of children (Dotterer & Day, 2019; Janssen et al., 2021; Liu & Wang, 2021; Rickert & Skinner, 2022), and improve their well-being. Through warm parenting, parents could establish a warm emotional climate in the family (Liu & Wang, 2021), promote a good parent-child relationship (Liu & Wang, 2021), and improve emotional communications, which all could improve adolescents’ well-being (Janssen et al., 2021). However, harsh parenting may lead to emotional fluctuations, hinder the parent-child relationships (Chung et al., 2020), and influence adolescent well-being. Moreover, harsh parenting may be developmentally inappropriate for adolescents as they tend to obtain more and more independence and autonomy (Kim et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2017). Under harsh parenting, adolescents may gradually lose confidence in their academic performance, have more negative perceptions of their competence in multiple domains (Loeb et al., 2021), develop a pessimistic attitude toward the world and themselves, and finally experience little well-being.

The Mediating Effects Of Self-kindness And Self-judgment

The current study found significant mediating effects of self-kindness and self-judgment in the relationships. But notably, it is mainly through increasing or decreasing self-kindness that parenting impacts adolescent well-being. This is similar to some precious results demonstrating a stronger connection between self-kindness and positive psychological indicators than self-judgment (Phillips, 2019; Sun et al., 2016). In a previous study (Sun et al., 2016), researchers have the significant effects of self-kindness on children’s positive personal growth. But self-judgment could not significantly influence adolescents’ personal growth (Sun et al., 2016). Another study also revealed stronger associations between self-kindness and positive psychological indicators such as the meaning of life and life satisfaction compared to self-judgment (Phillips, 2019). In contrast, self-judgment demonstrated stronger relationships with negative psychological adjustments (Bluth & Blanton, 2015; Muris & Petrocchi, 2017). Therefore, this study highlighted the importance of enhancing self-kindness in adolescents to facilitate their well-being.

According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982; Medeiros et al., 2016; Moreira & Canavarro, 2018) and parental acceptance-rejection theory (Dwairy, 2010; Miranda et al., 2016), warm parenting could promote more positive interactions in the family (Liu & Wang, 2021), which may help children develop self-compassion skills (Moreira & Canavarro, 2018). Researchers have proposed that individuals could better develop self-soothing skills within security-boosting interactions with significant attachment figures (Gilbert & Procter, 2006; Liu & Wang, 2021; Neff & McGehee, 2010). Warm parenting could provide more caring, love, and sensitive responsiveness, and improve the attachment relationships between parents and the child (Liu & Wang, 2021), thereby creating the necessary foundations for the soothing system and the development of self-kindness(Guo et al., 2021), finally improve their well-being. In contrast, harsh parents toward adolescents do not provide the fundamental conditions for developing secure attachment and, consequently, self-compassion (Moreira & Canavarro, 2018). In such an emotional context, the soothing system is insufficiently developed, and the child is more likely to be self-judgmental rather than self-kind (Guo et al., 2021), leading to decreasing well-being levels.

Developmental Differences

In the current study, warm parenting could significantly improve adolescent well-being across early, middle, and late adolescence, thereby highlighting the importance of warm parenting for adolescents. But there were still differences. Specifically, the total effect of warm parenting in early adolescence was higher than that in middle and late adolescence. Perhaps during early and middle adolescence, the development from early to middle parallels the transition from elementary to middle school (Liu et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2017). During this period, adolescents experience dramatic changes (Loeb et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2017) and may be more emotionally susceptible to family influences. Moreover, previous studies also revealed the significance of parental behaviors, especially parental responses to adolescent emotions during early adolescence (Loeb et al., 2021; Schwartz et al., 2014).

The total effect of harsh parenting on adolescent well-being in early adolescence was similar to that in middle adolescence. However, the effect in late adolescence was much weaker. Moreover, harsh parenting was not significantly related to self-kindness and not directly related to adolescent well-being in late adolescence. The decreasing susceptibility of adolescent well-being toward harsh parenting can be attributed to the more salient developmental autonomy in late adolescence (Liu et al., 2022; Shek et al., 2021). As adolescents grow older, they may become more independent (Liu et al., 2022) and less likely to be affected by others.

Limitations

Some limitations need to be noticed. First, the cross-sectional research design precluded us from exploring the causal links between parenting and adolescent well-being. Future research should adopt a longitudinal design to explore the developmental trend of the relationships between parenting and adolescent well-being. Second, we only collected data about parenting based on adolescents’ reports. Future research might collect multiple sources of data (e.g., parent and adolescent mutual reported) to test the relationships. Third, we only explored the mediating effects of individual adolescent characteristics in the relationships between parenting and adolescent well-being. Future research might include both relational (i.e., parent-child attachment) and individual adolescent factors simultaneously to investigate the influence on adolescent well-being.

In conclusion, both warm and harsh parenting were related to adolescent well-being through the mediating effects of self-kindness and self-judgment. But warm parenting exerted a more substantial impact on adolescent well-being. Self-kindness demonstrated a more robust mediating effect compared to self-judgment in the relationships. Moreover, there are developmental differences in the relationships. Harsh parenting in late adolescence had a weaker impact on adolescent well-being than in early and middle adolescence. Warm parenting exerted a greater impact on adolescent well-being in early adolescence than in middle and late adolescence.

Funding: The research was funded by Shenzhen Education Science Planning Project (grant number cgpy21001), Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (grant number 2021A1515011330), and Shenzhen University-Lingnan University Joint Research Programme (grant number 202202001).

Competing interests: The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethics approval: The project obtained ethical clearance from the Human Research Ethics Committee of Shenzhen University (Code number: PN-2021-0069).

Authors’ contribution statements

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were conducted by Ying Zhang. Data analysis was performed by Liuyue Huang, Yizhen Ren, Di Zeng, and Hao Shan. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Yizhen Ren and Xinli Chi. He Bu and Shaofan Wang edited and reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Data availability statements： The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abidin, F. A., Yudiana, W., & Fadilah, S. H. (2022). Parenting Style and Emotional Well-Being Among Adolescents: The Role of Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction and Frustration. Frontiers in psychology, 13, p.901646-901646. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.901646
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431691111004
Bluth, K., & Blanton, P. W. (2015). The influence of self-compassion on emotional well-being among early and older adolescent males and females. J Posit Psychol, 10(3), 219-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.936967
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: retrospect and prospect. Am J Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664-678. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.tb01456.x
Chong, C.-H., Yeo, K.-J., & Mislan, N. (2014). A Preliminary Study on Relationship between Warmth Parenting and Self-esteem among Young Adults based on Parental Acceptance-rejection Theory. Journal Of Humanities And Social Science, 19(9), 51-57.
Chung, G., Lanier, P., & Wong, P. Y. J. (2020). Mediating Effects of Parental Stress on Harsh Parenting and Parent-Child Relationship during Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic in Singapore. Journal of Family Violence, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00200-1
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting styles context : an integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487-496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487
Di Giunta, L., Rothenberg, W. A., Lunetti, C., Lansford, J. E., Pastorelli, C., Eisenberg, N., Thartori, E., Basili, E., Favini, A., Yotanyamaneewong, S., Pena Alampay, L., Al-Hassan, S. M., Bacchini, D., Bornstein, M. H., Chang, L., Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Oburu, P., Skinner, A. T., . . . Uribe Tirado, L. M. (2020). Longitudinal associations between mothers' and fathers' anger/irritability expressiveness, harsh parenting, and adolescents' socioemotional functioning in nine countries. Dev Psychol, 56(3), 458-474. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000849
Dotterer, A. M., & Day, E. (2019). Parental Knowledge Discrepancies: Examining the Roles of Warmth and Self-Disclosure. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(3), 459-468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0926-2
Dwairy, M. (2010). Parental Acceptance–Rejection: a Fourth Cross-Cultural Research on Parenting and Psychological Adjustment of Children. J Child Fam Stud, 19, 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-009-9338-y
Etkin, R. G., Koss, K. J., Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2014). The Differential Impact of Parental Warmth on Externalizing Problems among Triangulated Adolescents. J Genet Psychol, 175(0), 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.414
Gilbert, P., & Procter, S. (2006). Compassionate mind training for people with high shame and self-criticism: overview and pilot study of a group therapy approach. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13(6), 353-379. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.507
Guo, T., Huang, L., Hall, D. L., Jiao, C., Chen, S. T., Yu, Q., Yeung, A., Chi, X., & Zou, L. (2021). The relationship between childhood adversities and complex posttraumatic stress symptoms: a multiple mediation model. Eur J Psychotraumatol, 12(1), 1936921. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2021.1936921
Huang, L., Chen, Z., Jiang, W., Qu, D., Wang, Y., Fang, X., Han, H., Huang, C., Li, Z., & Chi, X. . (2022). Validation of the Chinese Version of Self-Compassion Scale for Youth (SCS-Y). Mindfulness, Under review.
Janssen, L. H. C., Verkuil, B., van Houtum, L., Wever, M. C. M., & Elzinga, B. M. (2021). Perceptions of Parenting in Daily Life: Adolescent-Parent Differences and Associations with Adolescent Affect. J Youth Adolesc, 50(12), 2427-2443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01489-x
Kim, S. Y., Wang, Y., Orozco-Lapray, D., Shen, Y., & Murtuza, M. (2013). Does "Tiger Parenting" Exist? Parenting Profiles of Chinese Americans and Adolescent Developmental Outcomes. Asian Am J Psychol, 4(1), 7-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030612
King, V., Boyd, L. M., & Pragg, B. (2018). Parent–Adolescent Closeness, Family Belonging, and Adolescent Well-Being Across Family Structures. Journal of Family Issues, 39(7), 2007-2036. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X17739048
Ko, A., Hewitt, P. L., Cox, D., Flett, G. L., & Chen, C. (2019). Adverse parenting and perfectionism: A test of the mediating effects of attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, and perceived defectiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.06.017
Krieger, T., Berger, T., & Holtforth, M. g. (2016). The relationship of self-compassion and depression: Cross-lagged panel analyses in depressed patients after outpatient therapy. Journal of Affective Disorders 202, 39-45. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.05.032
Lerner, R. M., & Castellino, D. R. (2002). Contemporary Developmental Theory and
Adolescence: Developmental Systems and Applied
Developmental Science. Journal of adolescent health, 31(6), 122-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00495-0
Leung, J. T. Y., & Shek, D. T. L. (2019). Parental Control and Adolescent Wellbeing in Chinese Adolescents in Hong Kong. Child Indicators Research, 13(2), 703-727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-019-09642-6
Li, M., & Gong, H. (2022). Spare the rod, spoil the child?--Predictive effects of parental adult attachment on adolescent anxiety: The mediating role of harsh parenting. J Affect Disord, 312, 107-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.06.027
Li, R., Yao, M., Liu, H., & Chen, Y. (2019). Chinese Parental Involvement and Adolescent Learning Motivation and Subjective Well-Being: More is not Always Better. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(7), 2527-2555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00192-w
Li, S., Lei, H., & Tian, L. (2018). A meta-analysis of the relationship between parenting style and Internet addiction among mainland Chinese teenagers. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 46(9), 1475-1487.
Liang, J., Shou, Y., Wang, M. C., Deng, J., & Luo, J. (2021). Alabama Parenting Questionnaire-9: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. Psychol Assess, 33(10), 940-951. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001031
Liu, Q., & Wang, Z. (2021). Associations between parental emotional warmth, parental attachment, peer attachment, and adolescents’ character strengths. Children and Youth Services Review, 120(12), 105765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105765
Liu, S., Wang, X., Zou, S., & Wu, X. (2022). Adolescent problematic Internet use and parental involvement: The chain mediating effects of parenting stress and parental expectations across early, middle, and late adolescence. Fam Process. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12757
Loeb, E. L., Kansky, J., Tan, J. S., Costello, M. A., & Allen, J. P. (2021). Perceived Psychological Control in Early Adolescence Predicts Lower Levels of Adaptation into Mid-Adulthood. Child Dev, 92(2), e158-e172. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13377
Lu, S., Wu, M., Liu, S., Dong, S., Wang, Z., & Hao, Y. (2019). The predictive effects of maternal life event stress in early childhood on 5-year-old child behavioral problems: A chained mediation model. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(1). https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.J.1041.2019.00085
Medeiros, C., Gouveia, M. J., Canavarro, M. C., & Moreira, H. (2016). The Indirect Effect of the Mindful Parenting of Mothers and Fathers on the Child’s Perceived Well-Being Through the Child’s Attachment to Parents. Mindfulness, 7(4), 916-927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0530-z
Miranda, M. C., Bacchini, D., Affuso, G., & C{Miranda, o. E. (2016). Parental Acceptance-Rejection and Adolescent Maladjustment Mothers’ and Fathers’ Combined Roles. J Child Fam Stud, 25, 1352–1362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0305-5
Moreira, H., & Canavarro, M. J. G. M. C. (2018). Is Mindful Parenting Associated with Adolescents’ Well-being in Early and Middle/Late Adolescence? The Mediating Role of Adolescents’ Attachment Representations, Self-Compassion and Mindfulness. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 1771–1788 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0808-7
Muris, P., & Petrocchi, N. (2017). Protection or Vulnerability? A Meta-Analysis of the Relations Between the Positive and Negative Components of Self-Compassion and Psychopathology. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 24, 373–383. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2005
Neff, K. D., Bluth, K., Toth-Kiraly, I., Davidson, O., Knox, M. C., Williamson, Z., & Costigan, A. (2021). Development and Validation of the Self-Compassion Scale for Youth. J Pers Assess, 103(1), 92-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2020.1729774
Neff, K. D., & McGehee, P. (2010). Self-compassion and Psychological Resilience Among Adolescents and Young Adults. Self and Identity, 9(3), 225-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860902979307
Phillips, W. J. (2019). Self-compassion mindsets: The components of the self-compassion scale operate as a balanced system within individuals. Current Psychology, 40(10), 5040-5053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00452-1
Rickert, N. P., & Skinner, E. A. (2022). Parent and teacher warm involvement and student's academic engagement: The mediating role of self-system processes. Br J Educ Psychol, 92(2), e12470. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12470
Schwartz, O. S., Byrne, M. L., Simmons, J. G., Whittle, S., Dudgeon, P., Yap, M. B. H., Sheeber, L. B., & Allen, N. B. (2014). Parenting During Early Adolescence and Adolescent-Onset Major Depression: A 6-Year Prospective Longitudinal Study. Clinical psychological science, 2(3), 272-286. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702613505531
Shek, D. T. L., Chai, C. W. Y., & Dou, D. (2021). Parenting factors and meaning of life among Chinese adolescents: A six-wave longitudinal study. J Adolesc, 87, 117-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.01.004
Shek, D. T. L., & Liang, L. Y. (2018). Psychosocial Factors Influencing Individual Well-Being in Chinese Adolescents in Hong Kong: a Six-Year Longitudinal Study. Appl Res Qual Life, 13(3), 561-584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-017-9545-4
Sun, X., Chan, D. W., & Chan, L.-k. (2016). Self-compassion and psychological well-being among adolescents in Hong Kong: Exploring gender differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 288-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.011
Willroth, E. C., Atherton, O. E., & Robins, R. W. (2021). Life satisfaction trajectories during adolescence and the transition to young adulthood: Findings from a longitudinal study of Mexican-origin youth. J Pers Soc Psychol, 120(1), 192-205. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000294
Yap, S. T., & Baharudin, R. (2016). The Relationship Between Adolescents’ Perceived Parental Involvement, Self-Efficacy Beliefs, and Subjective Well-Being: A Multiple Mediator Model. Soc Indic Res, 126(1), 257-278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0882-0
Zhang, W., Wei, X., Ji, L., Chen, L., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2017). Reconsidering Parenting in Chinese Culture: Subtypes, Stability, and Change of Maternal Parenting Style During Early Adolescence. J Youth Adolescence 46, 1117–1136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0664-x
Zhu, X., & Shek, D. T. L. (2021). Parental factors and adolescent well-being: Associations between developmental trajectories. Children and Youth Services Review, 127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106071
Zou, S., Wu, X., & Li, X. (2020). Coparenting Behavior, Parent-Adolescent Attachment, and Peer Attachment: An Examination of Gender Differences. J Youth Adolesc, 49(1), 178-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01068-1

Tables 4 and 5 are not available with this version

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Warm and harsh parenting, self-kindness and self-judgment, adolescent well-being: An examination of developmental differences

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Procedure

Participants

Measurements

Warm and harsh parenting

Self-kindness and self-judgment

Well-Being

Control variables

Data analysis

Results

Preliminary analysis

The Mediation Model

Multi-group Analysis Across Developmental Stages Of Adolescence

Discussion

Warm And Harsh Parenting And Adolescent Well-being

The Mediating Effects Of Self-kindness And Self-judgment

Developmental Differences

Limitations

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Tables 4-5

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1