The Mediating Effects of Self-concept on The Relationship Between Parenting Styles and Young Children’s Social Problem-Solving in Turkey

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3773576/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The Mediating Effects of Self-concept on The Relationship Between Parenting Styles and Young Children’s Social Problem-Solving in Turkey

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3773576/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The aim of this study was to investigate the associations between parenting styles, young children's social problem-solving skills, and the mediating role of self-concept in a sample of 200 Turkish preschoolers aged 48-72 months, with an equal distribution of male and female participants. The results supported the proposed model, demonstrating that the impact of democratic style on social problem-solving skills was partially mediated by self-concept, specifically self-esteem, as a parenting measure. These findings suggest that self-esteem is an essential individual characteristic to consider in relation to preschoolers' social relationships, in addition to the influence of democratic parenting behaviors.

Educational Psychology

parenting styles

parenting

self-esteem

self-efficacy

social problem-solving

48-72-month-old-children

Social Problem Solving (SPS) refers to the cognitive-emotional-behavioral process that enables individuals to identify and use effective coping strategies for specific problem situations encountered in daily life. It is related to establishing social interaction and adapting to the social environment, which is crucial for leading a healthy life. SPS has been extensively researched over the past fifty years (Chang et al., 2020; D'zurilla & Goldfried, 1971). The lack of effective, positive, and diverse strategies for social problems in the social environment of children is considered an important developmental risk factor (Rubin & Rose-Krasnor, 1992).

SPS are considered key developmental skills for children's social, and emotional adaptation (Ziv, 2013). Children with SPS are not isolated from their peers and have higher acceptance among peers (Paswan et al., 2014). High acceptance supports school adjustment, and increases academic achievement (Dubow et al., 1991). On the contrary, low levels of SPS are associated with behavioral (Malik et al., 2006), and psychological problems (Chang et al., 2020).

Researchers conducted in the past fifty years has consistently found a connection between parenting and SPS. Factors such as exposure to aggression, restrictive discipline (Pettit et al., 1988), maternal sensitivity, attachment (Raikes & Thompson, 2008), maternal acceptance-rejection (Tepeli & Yılmaz, 2013), positive parenting, and socio-demographic variables have been shown to impact a child's SPS (Su et al., 2020). From the research findings it can be concluded that negative family experiences, such as harsh discipline, low acceptance, insensitivity to the child's needs and insecure attachment, have a detrimental effect on children's SPS. Conversely, positive family experiences, including warmth, sensitivity and parental guidance, have a positive effect on children's SPS.

Research has shown that both family dynamics and child characteristics have direct and interactive effects on self-concept, similar to SPS (Brown et al., 2009). Meta-analyses and cross-cultural studies have found that the immediate social environment of the child, including peers, teachers, and family, has a mutual and continuous influence on self-concept, with the family playing the most important role (Brown et al., 2009; Harris & Orth, 2020). Studies have provided evidence that parental sensitivity to the interests and needs of their children has positive effects on their self-concept (Paulus et al., 2018), while neglect, low acceptance, and high expectations have negative effects (Smith, 2007).

Both SPS and self-concept play a significant role in an individual's adaptation to their environment, and since they are both affected by parent-child interactions, they are closely interrelated. These two concepts are particularly relevant in the context of behavior problems (D'zurilla et al., 2003) and peer relationships in young children (Öneren Şendil & Erden, 2014). Previous studies that directly investigated the relationship between SPS and self-concept have supported the idea that they are interconnected (D'zurilla et al., 2003; Verschueren et al., 2012). Family experiences, in turn, can significantly impact both SPS and self-concept. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate whether self-concept (self-esteem and self-efficacy) plays a mediating role between parental attitudes and SPS in young children. As children transition from their family environment to preschool, which is their first significant social environment, they begin to reflect on their parental experiences (Amerijckx & Humblet, 2015). Developing effective problem-solving skills (Petersen, 2012; cited in Appl et al., 2017) is crucial to helping children adapt to this new social structure and succeed in learning tasks. Preschool children with high SPS levels demonstrate a greater ability to adapt to their peers (Paswan et al., 2014) and teachers (Weyns et al., 2019), which in turn, supports academic achievement (Walker & Henderson, 2012). Additionally, children who demonstrate high SPS levels in the preschool period tend to maintain this trend in primary school and beyond (Coulombe & Yates, 2018). Therefore, this study aims to identify the variables that impact SPS during the early childhood period.

Conceptual Framework

There are four major perspectives on the theoretical basis of social problem-solving (SPS) falling within the scope of social competence. These include a multidimensional problem-solving skill process (Goldfried & D'Zurilla, 1969), Interpersonal Cognitive Problem-Solving Skills (ICPS) (Spivack & Shure, 1974), the Social Information Processing Model (SIP) (Rubin & Rose-Krasnor, 1986), and the social-cognitive based SIP model (Dodge, 1986). All models highlight that solving social problems is a process requiring a series of steps and influenced by cognitive development, experiences, environmental factors, emotions, and self-perception. In this study, SPS data was collected using a measurement tool based on the ICPS and SIP models (Spivak & Shure, 1985; Rubin-Krasnor, 1986 cited in Yılmaz, 2012).

The study investigated parental attitudes using the typologies proposed by Baumrind (1971) and Maccoby and Martin (1983), which evaluate parents' interest/acceptance (responsiveness) and demanding behaviors (demandingness) towards their children (Baumrind, 1991, 2005). Baumrind (1971, 1991) identified three basic parenting styles as authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive, while Maccoby and Martin (1983) proposed four parenting styles based on the vertical relationship of responsiveness and demandingness. For this study, the neglectful style was replaced with the overprotective style, which involves parents not supporting the child's individuality and doing tasks that the child can do on their own (Karabulut-Demir & Şendil, 2008).

Self-concept is a complex construct that describes an individual's perception and evaluation of their own mental, physical, and social functional status. It has a dynamic and reciprocal relationship with behavior and is characterized by a hierarchical, stable, evaluative, and differentiated structure (Shavelson et al., 1976; Ling et al., 2013). This study examines two sub-dimensions of self-concept, namely self-esteem and self-efficacy. Self-esteem refers to a person's positive or negative attitude towards themselves (Rosenberg et al., 1995), whereas self-efficacy refers to the belief in one's ability to organize and execute actions necessary to manage prospective situations (Bandura, 1997, pp. 3). This study considers the conceptual framework of self-concept based on sensitivity to school (self-efficacy) and sensitivity towards self (self-esteem), as proposed by Demoulin (1998).

Relationship between SPS and Parenting

The development of SPS begins early in a child's life through family interactions and is heavily influenced by parents (Mott & Krane, 1994). Children learn problem-solving strategies by observing how their parents handle similar situations (Pettit et al., 1988). Parenting styles have been found to be closely associated with children's social skills, behavioral problems, and overall well-being. Research has shown that preschool children with democratic/authoritative parents exhibit higher levels of social competence, and positive peer relationships, as well as increased self-confidence and emotional regulation abilities, compared to children with permissive or authoritarian parents (Baumrind, 1971). Recent studies support these findings, showing that democratic parenting reduces behavior problems in children, while permissive, authoritarian, and neglectful/uninvolved parenting styles increase such problems (Eisenberg et al., 2009; Stülb et al., 2019). Additionally, overprotective parenting has been linked to socialization problems, exclusion from peers, anxiety, and fear behaviors in children (Zhu et al., 2021). Thus, parenting styles remain one of the most critical factors influencing children's social competence. In summary, effective parenting has a direct and positive impact on children's social behaviors, while dysfunctional parenting is linked to children's aggressive and introverted behaviors (Kim & Shin, 2020).

According to the SPS perspective, children who possess high social competence and exhibit socially acceptable behaviors (Kim & Shin, 2020) are more likely to utilize effective problem-solving strategies when faced with interpersonal conflicts, in contrast to their counterparts who exhibit behavioral problems and low social competence and struggle to employ appropriate strategies (Baumrind, 1971; Rudolph & Heller, 1997). Building upon these findings, we hypothesized that parenting styles have a significant impact on the development of SPS in children.

Relationship between Parenting and Self-concept

Regarding attachment, children develop beliefs about their own selves based on the sensitivity and sensibility of their caregivers. These beliefs become central to their personalities functioning throughout life (Bowlby, 1983). Parents, the attachment figures for children from the moment they are born, continue to have psychosocial effects on their children even in adulthood (Martinez-Escudero et al., 2020). The results of the current studies examining self-esteem, which is one of the concepts in psychosocial development, provide evidence of the long-term effects generated by parents (Krauss et al., 2020; Orth, 2018).

Family dynamics and child characteristics directly and interactively affect children's self-concept (Brown et al., 2009). According to meta-analysis and review studies, parental attitudes (even though age groups are different) affect individuals' self-esteem (Jadon & Tripathi, 2017; Pinquart & Gerke, 2019) and authoritarian and neglectful parenting had negative effects, while democratic/authoritative and tolerant parenting had positive effects (Jadon & Tripathi, 2017; Martinez et al., 2020; Pinquart & Gerke, 2019). Similar to the results about self-esteem, it was found that a democratic style positively affects general self-efficacy and academic self-efficacy, but authoritarian and permissive styles are not related to self-efficacy (Masud et al., 2016; Qazi, 2009). Therefore, supportive parental behaviors were found to have positive effects on self-efficacy (Yomtov et al., 2015).

The influence of family on children's development is a topic that requires consideration of cultural differences. In a study conducted by Rudy and Grusec (2006), it was noted that the effect of family influence on children's behavior varies across different cultures. For example, in Chinese culture where family ties are stronger, the controlling behaviors of parents were reported to have a negative impact on children's self-esteem and confidence (Chao, 1994). Additionally, in more collectivist cultures such as Turkish culture, it is said that the influence of family on children's development is stronger, and the cultural values of the family play an important role in shaping children's behaviors (Hofstede et al., 2010; Özdemir et al., 2017). However, in individualistic cultures like Western culture, where independence and autonomy are valued, the influence of family is less (Belsky, 1984). Therefore, considering cultural variables is crucial as the role of family in children's development is related to these variables. In this context, it can be argued that a relationship exists between parenting and self-esteem and self-efficacy. Therefore, a hypothesis was developed for this relationship in the present research.

Self-concept as a Mediator

As stated above, self-concept is affected by parent-child relationships. Some studies found associations between self-concept and SPS (D'zurilla et al., 2003). There are many studies examining the mediating roles of self-concept and self-esteem in the literature. The mediating role of self-esteem between parenting and adolescents' social problem-solving skills was examined, and it was found that self-esteem had a positive role in solving social problems when positive parenting (democratic style) were involved while self-esteem had a negative role in solving social problems when negative styles (authoritarian and protective) were identified (Kayaalp & Gündüz, 2018).

The studies also provided evidence that self-concept played a mediating role in the relationship between the negative parenting and children’s social behaviors (Wang et al., 2007) and maternal child-rearing style and adolescents' peer relationships (Deković & Meeus, 1997). Regarding self-esteem, the full or partial mediating role of self-esteem was presented between inappropriate parenting and peer attachment (Lim, 2020), mother attachment and peer attachment (Doğruyol & Yetim, 2019), and parental closeness, monitoring, peer approval, and adolescent aggression (Özdemir et al., 2017). In addition, academic self-concept was found to play a mediating role between negative parenting and prosocial behaviors (Sangawi et al., 2018). In addition, few research results revealed that self-efficacy mediated the relationship between democratic parenting style and academic performance (Masud et al., 2016).

Based on these findings, it is understood that the self-concept plays a mediating role between family characteristics (such as parenting styles, behaviors, relationships, attachment) and the relationships of individuals with their environment (such as social behaviors, peer relations, emotional intelligence, behavioral problems, and prosocial behaviors). Therefore, the findings regarding the mediating role of self-concept support the hypothesis of this study that self-concept plays a mediating role in the relationship between parenting styles and SPS.

The Present Study

The cited studies on the mediating role of self-concept were conducted with adolescents and primary school children (Deković & Meeus, 1997; Özdemir et al., 2017; Sangawi et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2007). However, there is a need for studies with young children in Turkey that examine parenting styles, SPS, and self-concept together. These studies will provide insights into the mediating role of self-concept and enable comparisons between research results on self-concept in young children (Marsh & Ayotte, 2003) with research results reporting that multidimensional self-concept emerges at a very early age (4-4.5-year-old) (Dapp & Roebers, 2018; Measelle et al., 1998). Moreover, examining the self-esteem and self-efficacy dimensions of self-concept (Bandura, 1993) will contribute to the relevant literature. The impact of parenting on child outcomes can vary depending on the culture being studied (Rudy & Grusec, 2006). Therefore, investigating the links between parenting, self-concept, and SPS in young children in Turkish culture, which has both individualistic and collectivist characteristics (Hofstede et al., 2010; Özdemir et al., 2017) may facilitate cultural comparisons. This study investigates the relationship between parenting styles, self-concept, and SPS in Turkish children. More specifically, this study aims to examine the mediating role of self-concept in the relationship between parenting styles, and SPS in young Turkish children. It is hypothesised that positive parenting will lead to a positive self-concept, which in turn will have an impact on young children's SPS. The research model and hypotheses are presented below:

The present study was designed using a cross-sectional survey model in order to achieve the descriptive and predictive aims of the research (Christensen et al., 2015). This model was chosen because the study aimed to examine the relationships between parenting styles, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and SPS in children aged 48–72 months. The study also aimed to determine the mediating role of self-esteem and self-efficacy in the relationship between parenting styles and the SPS of children.

Participants

The research sample for this study comprised 200 preschool children and their mothers, who were residing in Erzurum, a province located in the eastern region of Turkey. Of the participating children, 52.5% were aged between 48–60 months (n = 105, mean age = 56.3, SD = 2.8), while the remaining 47.5% were between 60–72 months old (n = 95, mean age = 64.7, SD = 3.3). The gender distribution of the children was equal, with 50% males (n = 100) and 50% females (n = 100). In terms of preschool attendance, 63.5% of the children had attended for one year, 24.5% had attended for over a year, and 12% had attended for less than six months. Regarding the mothers who participated in the study, 10% had completed primary school (n = 10), 5.5% had completed secondary school (n = 11), 25% had graduated from high school (n = 50), 19.5% held an associate degree (n = 39), and 40% had completed higher education (n = 80). In terms of age, 11% of the mothers were between 18–25 years old (n = 22), 25% were in the 26–33 age range (n = 50), 47.5% were between 34–41 years old (n = 95), and 16.5% were in the age range of 42–49 (n = 33).

Measures

Social Problem-Solving (SPS)

Wally Social Problem-Solving Test was created by combining Spivak and Shure's (1985) "Preschool Problem-Solving Test" and Rubin-Krasnor's (1986) "Child Social Problem-Solving Test". The test was compiled by Carolyn Webster Stratton as part of the “The Incredible Years” project and adapted to Turkish culture by Yılmaz and Tepeli (2013). In the context of the Wally Social Problem-Solving Test, children are shown 15 color pictures describing hypothetical problem situations and asked what they would do if they encountered such a problem. The behaviors cited by the child are grouped as prosocial and non-prosocial. Each prosocial behavior is scored “1” point while non-prosocial behaviors are scored “0”. The test consists of separate picture cards for boys and girls. As a result of the validity and reliability studies, the internal consistency reliability coefficient (KR 20) of the items was determined as .79. In addition, test-retest reliability was calculated as .96.

Parenting Styles

Parental Attitude Scale (PAS) was developed by Karabulut-Demir and Şendil (2008) to measure parental behaviors towards children between the ages of 2–6. The 5-point Likert type scale, which can be applied to parents with children between the ages of 2–6, has 4 sub-dimensions and 46 items. These sub-dimensions are Democratic (DA-17 items), Authoritarian (AA-11 items), Overprotective (OA-9 items), and Permissive (PA-9 items). On the scale, parents are asked to express how often they display the behavior in question. Scores from each dimension are calculated separately, and a score is obtained for each dimension. Obtaining a high score on a dimension means adopting the behavior style represented by that dimension. Cronbach's alpha reliability values for the PAS authoritarian, authoritative, overprotective, and permissive subscales were .83, .76, .75, and .74, respectively.

Self-Concept

DeMoulin Self-Concept Developmental Scale developed by Donald DeMoulin between 1995 and 1998, the measuring tool provides both a diagnosis and a systematic and comparative analysis of children's self-concept. The scale consists of two sub-dimensions as “Self-esteem” (15 items) and “Self-efficacy” (15 items) with a total of 30 items. Afterward, the validity and reliability studies of the scale were repeated for 36–72-month-old children by Kuru Turaşlı et al., (2015), and based on the analysis, Item 15 was removed from the scale. Hence, a structure consisting of two sub-dimensions “Self-esteem” (14 items) and “Self-efficacy” (15 items) was obtained with a total of 29 items. The total Cronbach Alpha value of the scale was .810, while the Cronbach Alpha for the “Self-Esteem” subscale was .68 and the Cronbach Alpha for the “Self-efficacy” subscale was .69. In the assessment form, 3 points are awarded for each smiley face, 2 points for faces with no expression, and 1 point for each unhappy face.

Procedure

Data Collection

After the research was designed, ethics committee approval was obtained from the Department of Educational Sciences Ethics Committee of Ataturk University. The study adhered to ethical guidelines by obtaining consent forms from families to ensure voluntary participation, and by seeking permission from teachers and school administrators to obtain the necessary data. Data collection was carried out in schools that approved voluntary participation. Furthermore, measurement tools were not administered to children who expressed their reluctance to participate in the data collection process. The study involved one-on-one sessions with children in suitable, minimally-distracting areas, such as the parent-teacher association room. The researcher was introduced to the children by the classroom teacher and spent time with all of them. Data collection tools, including the Wally Social Problem-Solving Test and the DeMoulin Self-Concept Developmental Scale were administered to each child during 30-minute sessions. Additionally, mothers of the children in the study group completed the Parental Attitude Scale and Personal Information Form.

Statistical Data Analyses

SPSS 22 statistical package program was used in data analysis. First of all, the distribution of the data was examined. Secondly in this study, skewness and kurtosis values in the range of -/+2 were taken into consideration (George & Mallery, 2010; Hair et al., 2010; Tabachnick & Fidel, 2007). Subsequently, the third step involved assessing the presence of multicollinearity among the independent variables by examining their tolerance and VIF values. According to Hair et al. (2010), the cases where the tolerance value does not exceed .10 and the VIF value does not exceed 10 are acceptable. In this study, tolerance and VIF values obtained from regression models were found below the acceptable threshold values. Finally, the Durbin-Watson coefficient was used to test for autocorrelation and it was found to be below 2 for all models tested. A coefficient below 2 indicates no autocorrelation (Kalaycı, 2010).

PROCESS MACRO software was used in the study to examine the mediating role of self-esteem and self-efficacy in the relationship between parental attitudes and SPS PROCESS MACRO is used to calculate path coefficients, standard errors, and t and p values of all variables in the tested model by using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. It also calculates the Bootstrap confidence intervals of the obtained values. The Bootstrap method was used for the mediating effect of self-esteem and self-efficacy. The mediating role of the variables was considered to be statistically significant when the lower limit (BootLLCI) and upper limit (BootULCI) of the Bootstrap analysis results did not include zero values at the 95% confidence interval (Hayes, 2013). Values from mediation analyzes are presented based on mediation typologies specified by Zhao et al., (2010).

The current study's results comprise the outcomes of regression analyses that investigated the mediating roles of self-esteem and self-efficacy in the link between parenting styles and SPS. The mediator analysis was conducted using the PROCESS MACRO, and four models were examined. The following section presents the study's results.

Table 1

Relationships between the variables, and descriptive statistics
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Skew	Kurtosis	M	SD
DA (1)	1							-,467	-,492	67,80	10,00
AA (2)	-,500^**	1						,350	-,508	25,13	7,35
OA (3)	,228^**	-,060	1					-,291	-,497	32,70	5,95
PA (4)	-,266^**	,530^**	,060	1				,074	-,315	21,62	5,17
SPS (5)	,405^**	-,177^*	-,084	-,193^**	1			-,421	1,794	9,95	2,60
Self-esteem (6)	,166^*	,027	-,187^**	-,154^*	,407^**	1		-,353	-1,041	29,82	7,15
Self-efficacy (7)	,236^**	-,032	-,136	-,145^*	,416^**	,867^**	1	-,359	-1,363	30,92	9,23
Note. DA (Democratic style), AA (Authoritarian style), OA (Overprotective style), PA (Permissive style), SPS (Social problem solving)

In Table 1, The study found that there were significant correlations between several variables. There was a moderate positive relationship between DA and SPS, and low positive relationships between DA, self-esteem, and self-efficacy. AA and SPS were negatively correlated, while OA and SPS had no significant relationship. Self-esteem was negatively correlated with OA but not self-efficacy. PA was negatively correlated with SPS, self-esteem, and self-efficacy. There were moderate, positive relationships between SPS, self-esteem, and self-efficacy. Gender and age were not found to be associated with the variables. These relationships formed the starting point for testing the hypotheses established in the research.

Figure 2 shows that the overall effect of DA on SPS (path c) was positive and significant (b=,11, SE=,02, t ₍₁₉₈₎ = 6,230, p < .001 and 95% CI [,072; ,138]). The direct effect of DA on self-esteem (path a) (b=,12, SE=,05, t ₍₁₉₈₎ = 2,364, p<,05 and 95% CI [,020; ,217]) and the direct effect of self-esteem on SPS (path b) was found to be positive and significant (b=,09, SE=,04, t ₍₁₉₆₎ = 1,991, p<,05 and 95% CI [,001; ,175]).

The direct effect of DA on self-efficacy (path a_i) was positive and significant (b=,22, SE=,06, t ₍₁₉₈₎ = 3,424, p<,01 and 95% CI [,093; ,346]), but the direct effect of self-efficacy on SPS (path b_i) was not significant (b=,04, SE=,04, t ₍₁₉₆₎ = 1,991, p=,302 and 95% CI [-,032; ,104]). In addition, the direct effect of DA on SPS (path c') was also found to be significant (b=,09, SE = .02, t (196) = 5,373, p<,001 and 95% CI [,055; ,119]). The indirect effect of DA on SPS was significant. Therefore, self-esteem was the mediating variable in the relationship between DA and SPS (b=,010; 95% CI [,001; ,026]). However, the mediating effect of self-efficacy in the relationship between DA and SPS was not significant (b=,008; 95% CI [-,004; ,021]).

Figure 3 shows that the overall effect of AA on SPS (path c) was negative and significant (b=-,06, SE=,03, t ₍₁₉₈₎ =-2,525, p<,05 and 95% CI [-,111; -,014]). However, the direct effect of AA on self-esteem (path a) (b=,03, SE=,07, t ₍₁₉₈₎ = ,375, p=,707 and 95% CI [-,110; ,162]) and the direct effect of self-esteem on SPS (path b) were not significant b=,08, SE=,05, t ₍₁₉₆₎ = 1,777, p=,077 and 95% CI [-,009; ,174]).

Similarly, the direct effect of AA on self-efficacy (path a_i) (b=-,040, SE=,09, t (198) =-,450, p=,653 and 95% CI [-,217; ,137]), and the direct effect of self-efficacy on SPS (path b_i) were not significant (b=,06, SE=,04, t ₍₁₉₆₎ = 1,668, p=,097, and 95% CI [-, 011; ,130]). However, the direct effect of AA on SPS (path c') was negative and significant (b=-,06, SE = .02, t ₍₁₉₆₎ =-2,756, p<,01 and 95% CI [-,107; -,018]). The indirect effect of AA on SPS was not significant. Therefore, the mediating effects of both self-esteem (b=,002; 95% CI [-,010; ,016]) and self-efficacy were not significant (b=-,002; 95% CI [-,010; ,016]).

Figure 4 shows that the overall effect of OA on SPS (path c) was not significant ((b=-,04, SE=,03, t ₍₁₉₈₎ =-1,186, p=,236 and 95% CI [(-,098; ,024]). However, the direct effect of OA on self-esteem (path a) was negative and significant (b=-,22, SE=,08, t ₍₁₉₈₎ =-2,675, p<,01 and 95% CI [-,390; -,059]). The direct effect of self-esteem on SPS (path b) was not significant ((b=,07, SE=,05, t ₍₁₉₆₎ = 1,412, p=,159 and 95% CI [-,027; ,161]).

The direct effect of OA on self-efficacy (path a_i) (b=-,21, SE=,11, t ₍₁₉₈₎ =-1,928, p=,055 and 95% CI [-,429; ,005]), the direct effect of self-efficacy on SPS (path b_i) (b=,07, SE=,04, t ₍₁₉₆₎ = 1,956, p=,051 and 95% CI [-,001; ,143]), and the direct effect of OA on SPS (path c’) were not significant (b=-,01, SE = .02, t ₍₁₉₆₎ =-,229, p=,819 and 95% [-,063; ,050]). The indirect effect of OA on SPS was not found to be significant. Therefore, the mediating effects of both self-esteem (b=-,015; 95% CI [-,040; ,001]) and self-efficacy were not significant (b=-,015; 95% CI [-,038; ,002]).

Figure 6 demonstrates that the overall effect of PA on SPS (path c) was negative and significant (b=-,10, SE=,04, t ₍₁₉₈₎ =-2,773, p<,01 and 95% CI [(-,166; -,028]). Similarly, the direct effect of PA on self-esteem (path a) was negative and significant (b=-,21, SE=,09, t ₍₁₉₈₎ =-2,197, p<,05 and 95% CI [-,404; -,022]). The direct effect of self-esteem on SPS (path b) was not significant (b=,06, SE=,05, t ₍₁₉₆₎ = 1,352, p=,178 and 95% CI [-,029; ,155]).

The direct effect of PA on self-efficacy (path a_i) was found to be negative and significant (b=-,26, SE=,12, t ₍₁₉₈₎ =-2,057, p<,05 and 95% CI [-,509; -,011]). However, the direct effect of self-efficacy on SPS (path b_i) was not significant (b=,07, SE=,04, t ₍₁₉₆₎ = 1,922, p=,056 and 95% CI [-,002; ,140]). The direct effect of PA on SPS (path c’) was negative and significant (b=-,07, SE = .03, t ₍₁₉₆₎ =-2,023, p<,05 and 95% CI [-,130; -,002]). The indirect effect of PA on SPS was not significant. Therefore, the mediating effects of both self-esteem (b=-,013; 95% CI [-,039; ,002]) and self-efficacy were not significant (b=-,018; 95% CI [-,044; ,003]).

This study examined the relationships between parenting styles towards preschoolers, self-concept (self-esteem and self-efficacy), and SPS, focusing on the mediating role of self-concept. The results of the mediation analyses revealed that self-esteem mediated the relationship between democratic style and SPS, whereas self-efficacy did not have a mediating role. The mediating role of self-esteem was found to be an "integrated" type of mediation (Zaho et al., 2010). In this context, it can be argued that functional parenting and high self-esteem help children produce more frequent and positive solutions to social problems in an interactive manner. This finding is consistent with another study conducted with adolescents, where it was found that adolescents' self-esteem partially mediated the relationship between democratic parenting and constructive problem-solving. Adolescents who grew up in a family environment with a democratic parenting had higher self-esteem and solved problems with more effective and constructive strategies (Kayaalp & Gündüz, 2018).

This study provides further evidence for the mediating role of self-concept, specifically self-esteem, in the relationship between parenting styles and children's social outcomes. This finding is consistent with previous research examining the mediating role of self-concept in the relationship between parenting styles and adolescent peer relationships (Deković & Meeus, 1997). In that study, it was found that positive self-concept and warm, supportive parenting significantly contributed to adolescents' peer relationships, particularly in the context of high maternal acceptance. Similarly, a study conducted with primary school students reported that positive parenting support for academic self-concept could decrease children's behavioral problems and increase their prosocial behaviors, which in turn contributed to their social relationships with peers at school (Sangawi et al., 2018). Recent studies have highlighted the bidirectional effect of positive family support on the SPS of young children and adolescents. This bidirectional effect can be interpreted as the family's indirect contribution to SPS by supporting children's social skills and self-esteem

In the current study, it was found that a democratic style had direct and positive effects on children's self-esteem, self-efficacy, and SPS. This result supports previous research that has shown that a democratic parenting style is most suitable for enhancing SPS, self-esteem, and self-efficacy in young children (Metwally & Akyol, 2018; Şenol & Karaca, 2020).

International cross-sectional and meta-analysis studies conducted with samples of children and adolescents have also demonstrated that democratic parenting, which involves parental warmth combined with strictness, enhances SPS (Su et al., 2020) and has positive effects on self-esteem (Jadon & Tripathi, 2017; Martinez et al., 2020; Pinquart & Gerke, 2019), self-efficacy (Yomtov et al., 2015), and self-concept (LeCuyer & Swanson, 2016). Based on the results of this study and in line with previous literature, it can be inferred that the positive effects of democratic parenting on self-concept and SPS are not contingent upon cultural differences, suggesting that these effects may be universal.

Democratic parents have high acceptance for their children, set manageable goals, and take into account the views of both parents and children in family communication (Baumrind, 1991). They use regulative power, which is clear, direct, rational, and goal-oriented, leading children to use more useful techniques in achieving their goals (Baumrind, 2012). Such children tend to be socially responsible, cooperative, and high in self-regulation, and may effectively solve social problems through interaction and useful techniques (Bloomquist et al., 1996; Su et al., 2020).

Discussions between parents and children during problem-solving provide an opportunity for individualization and autonomy development in children (Vuchinich et al., 1996). Parents’ guidance and modeling transfer to children's peer relationships. Studies indicate that closeness, intimacy, and cooperation with peers are positively related to SPS (Mize & Cox, 1990). Children's social information processing and problem-solving skills can be affected by social experiences with parents and peers (Raikes et al., 2013; Raikes & Thompson, 2008). Cross-sectional studies and meta-analyses suggest that democratic parenting is negatively associated with children's behavioral problems, and children with fewer behavioral problems use more effective problem-solving strategies (Eisenberg et al., 2009; Pinquart, 2017; Rudolph & Heller, 1997). Positive parenting, including warmth, sensitivity, high acceptance, and appropriate use of power, positively affects children's self-control, emotion regulation, and self-regulation skills (Kochanska & Aksan, 1995; Kochanska & Knaack, 2003). Research has also shown that self-regulation is related to SPS (Jelvegar et al., 2014). In this regard, it can be argued that democratic parenting affects children's SPS both directly and indirectly by reducing problem behaviors and supporting their self-control, emotion regulation, self-regulation skills, and sociability. Based on the results of previous research, it is reasonable to conclude that children with democratic parents use prosocial solution strategies more frequently when solving social problems due to their experiences of cooperation and reconciliation within the family, their parents' guidance and modeling, and their own self-regulation skills.

According to research, self-esteem plays a more direct and significant role in the development of SPS in children than self-efficacy (Özer & Saçkes, 2016). In fact, studies have shown that individuals with high self-esteem display positive problem orientation, while those with low self-esteem exhibit avoidance behavior and negative problem orientation (Hamarta, 2009; D'zurilla et al., 2003). This finding is supported by research conducted with older age groups, such as college students and adolescents (D'zurilla et al., 2003; Kayaalp & Gündüz, 2018). Additionally, students with high self-concept tend to be more popular, cooperative, extroverted, and dominant with their peers, as well as displaying positive social interaction skills (Hay et al., 1998). Thus, it can be concluded that self-esteem has a more significant impact on effective and desirable SPS in children, particularly in the early period of their development.

The results of the study on authoritarian parenting revealed that self-esteem and self-efficacy did not act as mediators in the relationship between authoritarian style and SPS. This implies that self-esteem did not have any positive or negative effect on the strategies used by children of mothers with authoritarian style while solving social problems. This finding contrasts with a previous study conducted in Turkey with adolescents, which reported that self-esteem played a mediating role between authoritarian parenting and SPS, and that negative problem-solving approaches were more severe in adolescents with low self-esteem (Kayaalp & Gündüz, 2018). The study also found that the authoritarian style did not have any direct effect on children's self-esteem and self-efficacy. Therefore, it was concluded that the self-concept of children who grew up with authoritarian parents was not negatively impacted by this style. However, the literature provides mixed findings regarding the relationships between authoritarian parenting and self-concept (self-esteem, self-efficacy). While some studies with young children reported similar results to this study (Şenol & Karaca, 2020), other studies have reported that authoritarian style negatively affects self-esteem in young children and adolescents (Kayaalp & Gündüz, 2018; Martinez-Escudero et al., 2020; Pinquart & Gerke, 2019; Tunç & Tezer, 2006), and even affects the self-esteem and self-efficacy of university students in a negative manner (Smith, 2007). A systematic review also suggested that authoritarian parenting has a consistently negative impact on self-esteem, causing damage to children's self-esteem and increasing feelings of inferiority (Jadon & Tripathi, 2017). Interestingly, the present study suggests that the impact of parenting, particularly in the context of authoritarian parenting, may be influenced by the differences between individualistic and collectivist cultures (Sahithya et al., 2019; Martinez et al., 2020; Rudy & Grusec, 2006), as well as the level of demands placed on children by authoritarian parents (Boer & Tranent, 2013).

Another finding indicate that authoritarian parenting did not directly affect the self-concept of children and their SPS strategies (Johnson & Smith, 2020). In other words, the self-concepts of children with authoritarian parents did not influence the strategies they used to solve social problems. However, this result contradicts previous research suggesting a possible negative relationship between SPS and self-concept in children who grew up with authoritarian parents and were negatively affected by this style (D'zurilla et al., 2003; Hamarta, 2009; Kayaalp & Gündüz, 2018).

We concluded that the authoritarian style, which did not affect children’s self-concept, explained SPS directly, and negatively. In other words, children with authoritarian parents preferred more non-prosocial strategies for solving social problems. In this context, this result regarding authoritarian style is compatible with the relevant literature. There are numerous studies examining the links between parenting quality and SPS in the early period and adolescence. In general, these studies determined that authoritarian style such as restraint, low acceptance, aggression, and criticism predicted the use of negative strategies for SPS (Jones et al., 1980; Kayaalp & Gündüz, 2018; Metwally & Akyol, 2018). For example, it was found that children used the avoidance strategy more in solving social problems, could not develop a negotiation strategy, and produced lower-level solution suggestions when the mother's restraint increased (Dodge et al., 1994; Jones et al., 1980; Kayaalp & Gündüz, 2018; Vuchinich et al., 1996). These findings are consistent with the negative association between authoritarian parenting and SPS. Authoritarian parents, who tend to use coercive power, focus on hierarchical status in family relations as well as domineering (such as orders and threats) and arbitrary practices. Children have to conform to the expectations and wishes of these types of parents. There is no mutual exchange of ideas in solving a problem. Therefore, children are restrained, suppressed, and forced to comply with the wishes of the adult (Baumrind, 2012). These tactics used by parents are shown to cause children to exhibit behaviors such as resentment, conflict, and avoidance (Baumrind, 1991). In this context, the authoritarian style emerged as a variable that directly affects children's SPS independent of their self-concept.

Examination of the results regarding overprotective style, it was first concluded that (similar to the authoritarian style) self-esteem and self-efficacy did not have a mediating role in the relationship between this style and SPS. The predictions that the overprotective style negatively affects children’s both self-concept and SPS, and that the low self-concept causes children to select more non-prosocial solutions in solving social problems were not confirmed. No other studies with young children were found regarding these variables. However, a study conducted with adolescents concluded the mediating role of self-esteem between overprotective style and SPS, and the severity of the negative approaches used by adolescents increased while solving social problems (Kayaalp & Gündüz, 2018). Another study determined that dysfunctional parenting (e.g., parental rejection, anxious rearing, and overprotection) had a negative effect on children’s self-esteem and peer relationships. In addition, evidence was presented that these effects explained children's behavioral problems (Georgiou et al., 2016). However, further studies need to be conducted with young children.

According to the results regarding direct effects, an overprotective style directly and negatively affect self-esteem. It was concluded that the self-esteem of the children who grew up with an overprotective style was negatively affected by this style. It was found that overprotective style did not have a direct effect on children's self-efficacy. The results of a limited number of studies conducted with young children in Turkey yielded similar evidence to this study (Şenol & Karaca, 2020). In addition, studies with adolescents and university students concluded that overprotection negatively affected self-esteem (Herz & Gullone, 1999; Kayaalp & Gündüz, 2018). Overprotective parents who internally control their children can send the message that they lack security and competence without parental assistance. This style then may harm their self-worth (Laurin et al., 2015), increase their anxiety (Vreeke et al., 2013), and cause children to experience internalization difficulties in the early period (Bayer et al., 2006). Therefore, the self-esteem of the children of parents with overprotective style may have been adversely affected by their low self-worth, perceptions of inadequacy, anxiety, and behavioral problems.

On the other hand, the self-esteem and self-efficacy of children with overprotective parents did not directly affect their SPS. Similar to the results of authoritarian style, the self-concepts of the children of overprotective parents did not affect the strategies they used in solving social problems. This finding in the present research is different from the relevant literature (D'zurilla et al., 2003; Kayaalp & Gündüz, 2018). While it was expected that children whose self-concept was negatively affected by overprotective style would choose strategies that were more dissocial, anxious, or avoidant when solving social problems, the results of the present study were not in line with this prediction. In addition, it was concluded that the overprotective style did not have a total and direct effect on SPS. The results of research examining the relationships between overprotective parenting and SPS are mixed, similar to the results regarding authoritarian style. Cross-sectional studies conducted in Turkey reported that overprotective parenting negatively affected young children's SPS (Kayaalp & Gündüz, 2018; Metwally & Akyol, 2018). It can be argued that this negativity stems from the fact that children with overprotective parents are indecisive, dependent on others (especially parents), insecure, low in self-worth, and anxious (Karabulut Demir & Şendil, 2008; Laurin et al., 2015). In addition, the results of current research conducted with the young age group also showed that the children of overprotective parents exhibited low sociability and were alienated by their peers (Cooklin et al., 2013; Zhu et al., 2021). However, the fact that overprotective parenting is not associated with children's SPS may be due to the multidimensional nature of this parenting styles with various implications on children's adjustment (Power & Hill, 2008), inability to fully clarify parental overprotection, and the differences regarding the antecedents and consequences of such behaviors (Thomasgard & Metz, 1993). Additionally, attention should be paid to both intercultural and intracultural differences in parenting practices (Sahithya et al., 2019).

The study found that self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-concept did not mediate the relationship between permissive style and SPS strategies in children of permissive parents. The literature did not provide diverse studies for comparison, and the national and international results failed to explain the effect of permissive parenting on children's self-concept. Furthermore, studies with young children were limited. The study concluded that a permissive style directly and negatively affected children's self-esteem and self-efficacy. The warmth displayed by permissive parents encourages positive emotions, but the lack of control may hinder children's development of competence and achievement. Therefore, the effects of these two dimensions should be taken into account when gathering data on permissive parents. One study found no relationship between permissive parenting and young children’s self-concept (Şenol & Karaca, 2020). Studies with adolescents and a meta-analysis showed that permissive parenting positively affected self-esteem (Sharma & Pandey, 2015), while another study found a negative effect on self-concept (Rezai et al., 2013). A recent review reported mixed results on the relationship between permissive parenting and self-esteem (Singh, 2017). Permissive parenting warmth encourages positive emotions, but the lack of control may hinder children's competence and achievement (Pinquart & Gerke, 2019). In this context, both dimensions should be considered when studying permissive parenting.

The self-esteem and self-efficacy of children raised by permissive parents did not directly influence their SPS. Similar to the results of authoritarian, overprotective parents, this style of permissive parents did not differentiate children's self-concept or SPS strategies. This finding in the present study is different from the findings in the relevant literature (D'zurilla et al., 2003; Hamarta, 2009; Kayaalp & Gündüz, 2018). On the other hand, the total and direct effect of permissive style on children's SPS was negative (Hu & Feng, 2021).

Permissive parenting has been linked to a tendency for children to use non-prosocial strategies when attempting to solve social problems, and some studies have supported a negative relationship between permissive style and young children's prosocial behaviors, such as cooperation, sharing, helping, and comforting (Hu & Feng, 2021). It is possible that the anxious and atypical behaviors exhibited by children with permissive parents could also contribute to difficulties in solving social problems (Cucu Ciuhan, 2021). However, some studies have found no significant relationship between permissive style and children's SPS (Metwally & Akyol, 2018). This suggests that other variables not considered in this study may also be impacting the results. Permissive parenting, which is marked by low control and high acceptance, can at times be equated with neglect. Children may have unrestricted access to food, sleep, television, and outdoor activities. Parents who adopt this approach may avoid disciplining their children, shirk their responsibilities, and have minimal expectations for their child's behavior (Baumrind et al., 2010; Baumrind, 1991; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Permissive parenting has been linked to several negative outcomes in children. Research has suggested that children with permissive parents may have less autonomy and show immature social-emotional development (Baumrind et al., 2010). Additionally, permissive parenting has been associated with internalizing and externalizing problems, aggressive behavior, and attachment issues with peers (Rinaldi & Howe, 2012; Llorca et al., 2017). Furthermore, children with permissive parents may have difficulty experiencing and expressing emotions (Wischerth et al., 2016). These findings shed light on the possible reasons behind the results obtained in the current study regarding permissive style. As permissive parenting is characterized by low control and high acceptance, children raised in such an environment may develop their own ways of solving social dilemmas within the family, without criticism or correction from their parents. This acceptance of the children's solutions may lead them to believe that their strategies are effective, which could result in the use of similar strategies in other social situations.

Limitations and Recommendations

The study had several limitations. First of all, data on parenting styles were obtained only from mothers, not from children. It is known that obtaining parenting data from children or from parents may differentiate the findings (Şenol & Karaca, 2020; Tunç & Tezer, 2006). On the other hand, the lack of data from fathers may have affected the depth of our findings as well (Winsler et al., 2005). In addition, the number of participants was small, and the data lacked observation. It is suggested to support the participation of parents in further research through observation and collecting data from a larger participant sample. Another limitation in the current study was related to examining self-concept on the basis of school sensitivity (self-efficacy) and self-sensitivity (self-esteem) as proposed by Demoulin (1998). In particular, this theoretical basis may have created the prominence of self-esteem in this study and generated self-efficacy findings that did not allow for making effective inferences. It is believed that self-concept data obtained by using different measurement tools can make significant contributions to the literature. Finally, besides the relationship between parental styles, children's SPS, and the mediating role of self-concept in these relationships, further studies should investigate all variables in conjunction and address behavioral problems (D'zurilla et al., 2003) which are included in the relevant literature, and which will immensely contribute to the understanding of these relationships.

The study provides evidence that democratic parenting may be the most appropriate and culture-independent style for young children's self-concept, and SPS. The findings of the study indicated that the democratic style supported young children in selecting more effective strategies, and solving social problems, resulting in high self-esteem levels. However, a hierarchical structure was not observed in young children's self-concept, and self-esteem played an important role in these relationships, rather than self-efficacy. Conversely, the study found no evidence of a mediating effect of either self-esteem or self-efficacy in the association between authoritarian, overprotective, and permissive styles and the SPS of young children. Furthermore, the study did not observe a statistically significant relationship between the self-concept of young children raised under these parenting styles and their SPS.

In addition, the study found that democratic parenting style had a direct positive impact on young children's SPS, while authoritarian and permissive style had a negative impact. It was concluded that overprotective parenting was not associated with SPS. Consequently, the results of this study suggest that democratic style play a crucial role in young children's SPS, while authoritarian, overprotective, and permissive styles produced mixed relationships.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Consent was obtained from families and permission was obtained from teachers and school administrators. Data collection was carried out in schools where consent for voluntary participation was obtained. Measurement tools were not administered to children who did not want to participate.

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval was obtained from the Atatürk University, Social Sciences and Humanities ethics committee, Approval Code: Decision-16; Approval Date: 20.07.2022. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent

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

Funding information

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Amerijckx, G., & Humblet, P. C. (2015). The transition to preschool: A problem or an opportunity for children? A sociological perspective in the context of a ‘split system’. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 23(1), 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2014.991098
Appl, D. J., Hoffman, B., & Hughes, M. A. (2017). Readiness skills that support toddlers’ transition into preschool. Young Exceptional Children, 20(4), 151-165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096250615593328
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman & Company.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current theories of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4(1, part 2), 1–103.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431691111004
Baumrind, D. (2005). Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, (108), 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.128
Baumrind, D. (2012). Differentiating between confrontive and coercive kinds of parental power-assertive disciplinary practices. Human Development, 55(2), 35-51. https://doi.org/10.1159/000337962
Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Owens, E. B. (2010). Effects of preschool parents' power assertive patterns and practices on adolescent development. Parenting: Science and Practice, 10(3), 157-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295190903290790
Bayer, J. K., Sanson, A. V., & Hemphill, S. A. (2006). Parent influences on early childhood internalizing difficulties. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27(6), 542-559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2006.08.002
Bloomquist, M. L., August, G. J., Brombach, A. M., Anderson, D. L., & Skare, S. S. (1996). Maternal facilitation of children's problem solving: Relation to disruptive child behavior and maternal characteristics. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25(3), 308-316. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2503_7
Boer, O. E., & Tranent, P. J. (2013). Conceptualizing the relationship between maternal parenting style and adolescent self-esteem: A pragmatic approach. Journal of Relationships Research, 4.E5. doi:10.1017/jrr.2013.5. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2013.5
Bowlby, J. (1983). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1: Attachment, 2nd Ed. Basic Books.
Brown, G. L., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Neff, C., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., & Frosch, C. A. (2009). Young children’s self-concepts: Associations with child temperament, mothers’ and fathers’ parenting, and triadic family interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 55(2), 184–216. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.0.0019
Chang, E. C., Liu, J., Yi, S., Jiang, X., Li, Q., Wang, R., ... & Chang, O. D. (2020). Loneliness, social problem solving, and negative affective symptoms: Negative problem orientation as a key mechanism. Personality and Individual Differences, 167, Article 110235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110235
Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2015). Araştırma yöntemleri. (A. Aypay, Çev.), Anı Yayıncılık.
Cooklin, A. R., Giallo, R., D'Esposito, F., Crawford, S., & Nicholson, J. M. (2013). Postpartum maternal separation anxiety, overprotective parenting, and children’s social-emotional well-being: Longitudinal evidence from an Australian cohort. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(4), 618-628. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033332
Coulombe, B. R., & Yates, T. M. (2018). Prosocial pathways to positive adaptation: The mediating role of teacher-child closeness. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 58, 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2018.08.003
Cucu Ciuhan, G. (2021). Relationship between permissive parenting style and atypical behaviour in preschool children, with generalized anxiety as mediator. Early Child Development and Care, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2021.2017908
Dapp, L. C., & Roebers, C. (2018). Self-concept in kindergarten and first grade children: A longitudinal study on structure, development, and relation to achievement. Psychology, 9(7), 1605-1629. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.97097
Deković, M., & Meeus, W. (1997). Peer relations in adolescence: Effects of parenting and adolescents' self-concept. Journal of Adolescence, 20(2), 163-176. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.1996.0074
Demoulin, D. F. (1998). In Practice: Reading empowers self-concept. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 35(1), 31-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.1998.10518407
Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information processing model of social competence in children. In Garber., J. & Dodge., K. A. (Eds), The development of emotional regulation and dysregulation (pp. 159–181). Cambridge University Press.
Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Socialization mediators of the relation between socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. Child Development, 65(2), 649-665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00774.x
Doğruyol, S., & Yetim, Ü. (2019). Ebeveyne bağlanma, algılanan anne/baba tutumu ile akran ilişkileri arasındaki ilişkide benlik saygısının aracılık rolü. Nesne Dergisi, 7(14), 34-51. retrieved from: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=782949
Dubow, E. F., Tisak, J., Causey, D., Hryshko, A., & Reid, G. (1991). A two‐year longitudinal study of stressful life events, social support, and social problem‐solving skills: Contributions to children's behavioral and academic adjustment. Child Development, 62(3), 583-599. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01554.x
D'zurilla, T. J., & Goldfried, M. R. (1971). Problem solving and behavior modification. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 78(1), 107-126. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031360
D'zurilla, T. J., & Nezu, A. M. (1990). Development and preliminary evaluation of the Social Problem-Solving Inventory. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2(2), 156-163. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.2.2.156
D'zurilla, T. J., Chang, E. C., & Sanna, L. J. (2003). Self-esteem and social problem solving as predictors of aggression in college students. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22(4), 424-440. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.22.4.424.22897
Eisenberg, N., Chang, L., Ma, Y., & Huang, X. (2009). Relations of parenting style to Chinese children's effortful control, ego resilience, and maladjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 21(2), 455-477. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457940900025X
George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference,17.0 update (10a ed.), Pearson.
Georgiou, N. A., Stavrinides, P., & Georgiou, S. (2016). Parenting and children’s adjustment problems: the mediating role of self-esteem and peer relations. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 21(4), 433-446. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2016.1236228
Goldfried, M. R., & D'Zurilla, T. J. (1969). A behavioral-analytic model for assessing competence. In C.D. Spielberger (Ed.), Current topics in clinical and community psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 151– 196). Academic Press.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (Seventh ed., global ed.,), Pearson.
Hamarta, E. (2009). A prediction of self-esteem and life satisfaction by social problem solving. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 37(1), 73-82. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2009.37.1.73
Harris, M. A., & Orth, U. (2020). The link between self-esteem and social relationships: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(6), 1459-1477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000265
Hay, I., Ashman, A. F., & Van Kraayenoord, C. E. (1998). Educational characteristics of students with high or low self‐concept. Psychology in the Schools, 35(4), 391-400. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(199810)35:4<391::AID-PITS10>3.0.CO;2-%23
Hayes, Andrew F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
Herz, L., & Gullone, E. (1999). The relationship between self-esteem and parenting style: A cross-cultural comparison of Australian and Vietnamese Australian adolescents. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 30(6), 742-761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022199030006005
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., & Minkow, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. (3rd edition). McGrawHill USA.
Hu, Q., & Feng, Q. (2021). Parenting style and prosocial behaviour among Chinese Preschool children: A moderation model. Early Child Development and Care, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2021.1888942
Jadon, P. S., & Tripathi, S. (2017). Effect of authoritarian parenting style on self-esteem of the child: A systematic review. International Journal of Advanced Research and Innovative Ideas, 3, 909-913. retrieved from: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=1dbe3c4475adb3b9462c149a8d4d580ee7e85644
Jelvegar, A., Kareshki, H., & Asghari Nekah, M. (2014). The effect of self-regulation training on social problem solving of male and female preschoolers. Research in Cognitive and Behavioral Sciences, 4(1), 155-166. retrieved from: https://cbs.ui.ac.ir/article_17317_50e1ffbffc0d2a8a34734c02f6202a14.pdf?lang=en
Jones, D. C., Rickel, A. U., & Smith, R. L. (1980). Maternal child-rearing practices and social problem-solving strategies among preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 16(3), 241-242. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.16.3.241
Kalaycı, Ş. (2010). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri (5th ed.). Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
Karabulut-Demir, E., & Şendil, G. (2008). Ebeveyn tutum ölçeği (ETÖ). Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 11(21), 15-25. retrieved from: https://psikolog.org.tr/tr/yayinlar/dergiler/1031828/tpy1301996120080000m000153.pdf
Kayaalp, İ., & Gündüz, B. (2018). Ergenlerin anne baba tutumları ile problem çözme becerileri arasındaki ilişkide benlik saygısının aracı rolü. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (48), 514- 536. retrieved from: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/555245
Kim, S., & Shin, N. (2020). The effects of maternal parenting behavior on preschoolers' social behavior: The mediating effect of preschoolers' executive function. Korean Journal of Childcare and Education, 16(5), 47-67. https://doi.org/10.14698/jkcce.2020.16.05.047
Kochanska, G., & Aksan, N. (1995). Mother‐child mutually positive affect, the quality of child compliance to requests and prohibitions, and maternal control as correlates of early internalization. Child Development, 66(1), 236-254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00868.x
Kochanska, G., & Knaack, A. (2003). Effortful control as a personality characteristic of young children: Antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Personality, 71(6), 1087-1112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.7106008
Krauss, S., Orth, U., & Robins, R. W. (2020). Family environment and self-esteem development: A longitudinal study from age 10 to 16. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(2), 457–478. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000263
Laurin, J. C., Joussemet, M., Tremblay, R. E., & Boivin, M. (2015). Early forms of controlling parenting and the development of childhood anxiety. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(11), 3279-3292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0131-9
LeCuyer, E. A., & Swanson, D. P. (2016). African American and European American Mothers’ limit setting and their 36-month-old children’s responses to limits, self-concept, and social competence. Journal of Family Issues, 37(2), 270-296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X135158
Lim, Y. (2020). Self-esteem as a mediator in the longitudinal relationship between dysfunctional parenting and peer attachment in early adolescence. Children and Youth Services Review, 116, 105224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105224
Ling, H., Luo, Y. M., & Zhang, J. R. (2013). Relationship between self-supporting behaviors and self-concept among primary school students in China. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 41(8), 1245-1251. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.8.1245
Llorca, A., Cristina Richaud, M., & Malonda, E. (2017). Parenting, peer relationships, academic selfefficacy, and academic achievement: Direct and mediating effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2120. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02120
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology. 4th ed. (pp. 1–101). Wiley. vol. 4.
Malik, S., Balda, S., & Punia, S. (2006). Socio-emotional behavior and social problem solving skills of 6–8 years old children. Journal of Social Sciences, 12(1), 55-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.2006.11978340
Marsh, H. W., & Ayotte, V. (2003). Do multiple dimensions of self-concept become more differentiated with age? The differential distinctiveness hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 687– 706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.687
Martinez, I., Garcia, F., Veiga, F., Garcia, O. F., Rodrigues, Y., & Serra, E. (2020). Parenting styles, internalization of values and self-esteem: A cross-cultural study in Spain, Portugal and Brazil. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7), 2370. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072370
Martinez-Escudero, J. A., Villarejo, S., Garcia, O. F., & Garcia, F. (2020). Parental Socialization and its Impact across the Lifespan. Behavioral Sciences, 10(6), 101.doi:10.3390/bs10060101
Masud, H., Ahmad, M. S., Jan, F. A., & Jamil, A. (2016). Relationship between parenting styles and academic performance of adolescents: Mediating role of self-efficacy. Asia Pacific Education Review, 17(1), 121-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9413-6
Measelle, J. R., Ablow, J. C., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (1998). Assessing young children’s views of their academic, social, and emotional lives: An evaluation of the self‐perception scales of the Berkeley puppet interview. Child Development, 69(6), 1556–1576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06177.x
Metwally, E. O., & Akyol, A. K. (2018). A study of problem solving skills of children attending preschool and parental attitudes. In R. Efe, I. Koleva, H. A. Başal, M. Tufan, & E. Atasoy (Eds.) Educational Sciences Research in the Globalizing World, (pp.106-117), St. Kliment Ohridski University Press.
Mize, J., & Cox, R. A. (1990). Social knowledge and social competence: Number and quality of strategies as predictors of peer behavior. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 151(1), 117-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1990.9914648
Mott, P., & Krane, A. (1994). Interpersonal cognitive problem-solving and childhood social competence. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18(2), 127-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357220
Musun-Miller, L. (1993). Social acceptance and social problem solving in preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 14(1), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(93)90023-O
Orth, U. (2018). The family environment in early childhood has a long-term effect on self-esteem: A longitudinal study from birth to age 27 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114, 637–655. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000143
Öneren Şendil, Ç., & Erden, F. T. (2014). Peer preference: A way of evaluating social competence and behavioural well-being in early childhood. Early Child Development and Care, 184(2), 230-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2013.778254
Özdemir, Y., Vazsonyi, A. T., & Cok, F. (2017). Parenting processes, self-esteem, and aggression: A mediation model. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14(5), 509-532. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2016.1240674
Paswan, S., Sanjeev, K., & Bansal I. (2014). Peer ratings and social problem-solving skills of 6-8 years old children. J Psychology. 5(1),75-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/09764224.2014.11885507
Paulus, M., Licata, M., Gniewosz, B., & Sodian, B. (2018). The impact of mother-child interaction quality and cognitive abilities on children’s self-concept and self-esteem. Cognitive Development, 48, 42-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.07.001
Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Brown, M. M. (1988). Early family experience, social problem solving patterns, and children's social competence. Child Development. 107-20. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130393
Pinquart, M. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 873-932. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000295
Pinquart, M., & Gerke, D. C. (2019). Associations of parenting styles with self-esteem in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(8), 2017-2035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01417-5
Qazi, T. (2009). Parenting style, locus of control and self-efficacy: A correlational study. Revista Costarricense de Psicología, 28(41-42), 75-84. retrieved from: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/4767/476748706008.pdf
Raikes, H. A., & Thompson, R. A. (2008). Attachment security and parenting quality predict children's problem-solving, attributions, and loneliness with peers. Attachment & Human Development, 10(3), 319-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730802113620
Raikes, H. A., Virmani, E. A., Thompson, R. A., & Hatton, H. (2013). Declines in peer conflict from preschool through first grade: Influences from early attachment and social information processing. Attachment & Human Development, 15(1), 65-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.728381
Rezai Niaraki, F., & Rahimi, H. (2013). The impact of authoritative, permissive and authoritarian behavior of parents on self-concept, psychological health and life quality. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2(1), 78-85. retrieved from: https://european-science.com/eojnss/article/view/24/pdf
Rinaldi, C. M., & Howe, N. (2012). Mothers’ and fathers’ parenting styles and associations with toddlers’ externalizing, internalizing, and adaptive behaviors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(2), 266-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.08.001
Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosenberg, F. (1995). Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem: Different concepts, different outcomes. American Sociological Review, 60(1), 141-156. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096350
Rubin, K. H., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1992). Interpersonal problem solving and social competence in children. In V. B. Van Hasselt & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of social development (pp. 283– 323). Plenum.
Rubin, K. H., Daniels-Beirness, T., & Bream, L. (1984). Social isolation and social problem solving: A longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.52.1.17
Rubin, K.H. & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1986). Social Cognitive and Social Behavior Perspectives on Problem-Solving, in M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, Vol. 18. Erlbaum.
Rudolph, K. D., & Heller, T. L. (1997). Interpersonal problem solving, externalizing behavior, and social competence in preschoolers: A knowledge-performance discrepancy?. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18(1), 107-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(97)90017-4
Rudy, D., & Grusec, J. E. (2006). Authoritarian parenting in individualist and collectivist groups: Associations with maternal emotion and cognition and children's self-esteem. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.68
Sahithya, B. R., Manohari, S. M., & Vijaya, R. (2019). Parenting styles and its impact on children–a cross cultural review with a focus on India. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 22(4), 357-383. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2019.1594178
Sangawi, H., Adams, J., & Reissland, N. (2018). Effects of parental intervention on behavioral and psychological outcomes for Kurdish parents and their children. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, 24(5), 459-468. https://doi.org/10.26719/2018.24.5.459
Sharma, G., & Pandey, N. (2015). Parenting styles and its effect on self-esteem of adolescents. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(1), 28-39. retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Neelam-Pandey-4/publication/347103425_Parenting_Styles_and_Its_Effect_on_Self-Esteem_of_Adolescents/links/616dd59f25467d2f0059d9e9/Parenting-Styles-and-Its-Effect-on-Self-Esteem-of-Adolescents.pdf
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46(3), 407-441. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543046003407
Shure, M. B., & Spivack, G. (1980). Interpersonal problem solving as a mediator of behavioral adjustment in preschool and kindergarten children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1(1), 29-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(80)90060-X
Singh, S. (2017). Parenting style in relation to children’s mental health and self-esteem: A review of literature. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 8, 1522–1527. Retrieved from https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=bb44b411-8205-46c4-b1a6-cbb97548a309%40redis
Smith, G. (2007). Parenting effects on self-efficacy and self-esteem in late adolescence and how those factors impact adjustment to college. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED497430.pdf.
Spivack, G., & Shure, M. B. (1974). Social adjustment of young children. Jossey-Bass.
Stülb, K., Messerli-Bürgy, N., Kakebeeke, T. H., Arhab, A., Zysset, A. E., Leeger-Aschmann, C. S., ... & Munsch, S. (2019). Prevalence and predictors of behavioral problems in healthy Swiss preschool children over a one-year period. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 50(3), 439-448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-018-0849-x
Su, S., Pettit, G. S., Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (2020). Children's competent social‐problem solving across the preschool‐to‐school transition: Developmental changes and links with early parenting. Social Development, 29(3), 750-766. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12426
Şenol, F. B., & Karaca, N. H. (2020). Okul öncesi dönem çocuklarının benlik kavramı ve ebeveyn tutumları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (54), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.606614
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Tepeli, K., & Yilmaz, E. (2013). Social problem-solving skills of children in terms of maternal acceptance-rejection levels. US-China Education Review, 3(8), 581-592. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED568874.pdf
Thomasgard, M., & Metz, W. P. (1993). Parental overprotection revisited. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 24(2), 67-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02367260
Tunç, A., & Tezer, E. (2006). The Relationship between parenting style and self-esteem. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 3(25), 37-44. https://doi.org/10.17066/pdrd.11972
Verschueren, K., Doumen, S., & Buyse, E. (2012). Relationships with mother, teacher, and peers: Unique and joint effects on young children's self-concept. Attachment & Human Development, 14(3), 233-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.672263
Vreeke, L. J., Muris, P., Mayer, B., Huijding, J., & Rapee, R. M. (2013). Skittish, shielded, and scared: Relations among behavioral inhibition, overprotective parenting, and anxiety in native and non-native Dutch preschool children. Journal of anxiety disorders, 27(7), 703-710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.09.006
Vuchinich, S., Angelelli, J., & Gatherum, A. (1996). Context and development in family problem solving with preadolescent children. Child Development, 67(3), 1276-1288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01795.x
Walker, O. L., & Henderson, H. A. (2012). Temperament and social problem solving competence in preschool: Influences on academic skills in early elementary school. Social Development, 21(4), 761-779. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00653.x
Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Xu, O., Chen, S., & Liu, J. (2007). Mediating effect of children's self-concept on the relationship between parents' negative punishments and children's social behaviours. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15(6), 603– 605.
Weyns, T., Colpin, H., Engels, M. C., Doumen, S., & Verschueren, K. (2019). The relative contribution of peer acceptance and individual and class-level teacher–child interactions to kindergartners’ behavioral development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47, 259-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.12.009
Winsler, A., Madigan, A. L., & Aquilino, S. A. (2005). Correspondence between maternal and paternal parenting styles in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2005.01.007
Wischerth, G. A., Mulvaney, M. K., Brackett, M. A., & Perkins, D. (2016). The adverse influence of permissive parenting on personal growth and the mediating role of emotional intelligence. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 177(5), 185-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2016.1224223
Yilmaz, E., & Tepeli, K. (2013). 60-72 aylık çocukların sosyal problem çözme becerilerinin duyguları anlama becerileri açısından incelenmesi. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 17(2), 117-130. https://doi.org/10.20296/tsad.48978
Yomtov, D., Plunkett, S. W., Sands, T., & Reid, A. (2015). Parenting and ninth graders’ self‐efficacy and relational self‐esteem in Latino immigrant families. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 43(3), 269-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12102
Zembat, R., Kuru-Turaşlı, N., Güven, G., Sezer, T., Akşin, E., Yılmaz, E. ve Bayındır, D. (2015). Validity and reliability of the DeMoulin Self-Concept Developmental Scale for the 36-72 month old children. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(2), 143-158. http:// dx.doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i2.1156
Zhao, X., Lynch Jr, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197-206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257
Zhu, J., Ooi, L. L., Wu, M., Li, Y., Coplan, R. J., & Cao, Y. (2021). Exploring the links between unsociability, parenting behaviors, and socio-emotional functioning in young children in Suburban China. Early Education and Development, 32(7), 963-980. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1821538
Ziv, Y. (2013). Social information processing patterns, social skills, and school readiness in preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 306–320. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.08.009

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The Mediating Effects of Self-concept on The Relationship Between Parenting Styles and Young Children’s Social Problem-Solving in Turkey

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Conceptual Framework

Relationship between SPS and Parenting

Relationship between Parenting and Self-concept

Self-concept as a Mediator

The Present Study

Method

Participants

Measures

Social Problem-Solving (SPS)

Parenting Styles

Self-Concept

Procedure

Data Collection

Statistical Data Analyses

Results

Discussion

Limitations and Recommendations

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1