classification essay parenting styles

Parenting Styles Classification

Authoritative parenting, authoritarian parenting, indulgent parenting, neglectful parenting.

Different parenting styles can greatly affect the independence and social competence of a child. There is a variety of various styles, but this paper will focus on the four most widely recognized: authoritative, authoritarian, indulging, and neglectful.

Authoritative parenting has been described as the most desirable style by the researcher Diana Baumrind, who has described it first (Baumrind 1966). It involves being responsive and demanding of the child. Responsive parenting refers to the parents being attentive to their child’s needs and interests. Demanding parents set high expectations for their children. They expect certain levels of competence and success. Making the child follow certain behavioral patterns is also a part of demanding to parent. This style has been preferred by Baumrind since she stated that parents should create rules while being affectionate with their children. This approach answers both concerns. An authoritative parent sets goals for their child and helps them achieve them. They also support autonomy, as long as the child remains within the rules. The parents teach their children ways to achieve the goals and instruct them on proper interpersonal interactions. They reinforce good behavior and success with praise and rewards. When this approach is taken, the child develops high social competence and is able to adapt and act independently as a member of society. They also learn to follow certain rules and restrain themselves. That allows for better self-control and self-discipline, increasing the child’s chances to become successful in the future. There have been a lot of debates about parenting approaches, but authoritative parenting is widely recognized as one of the best possible styles.

Authoritarian parenting is characterized by the parents being demanding and unresponsive. Unresponsive parents ignore their children and do not pay attention to their personalities or wishes. It is important to consider that responsiveness is not measured by the amount of time spent with the child. Without emotional connection and consideration, responsiveness is impossible. This style is sometimes named a “Strict Father Model.” It was considered “too hard” by Baumrind. A child growing up in such an environment will face a lot of demands and no support in achieving them. The authoritarian parents are often distant, only paying attention to the child when punishing them or setting new goals for them. Corporal punishment is a widespread instrument of authoritarian parents. Instead of supporting children in their attempts to follow the rules and achieve the goals, such parents prefer to punish for the lack of results. The child’s initiative and preferences are ignored or even punished. The parents consider themselves the ultimate authority their child must follow without a doubt (Willams, Ciarrochi & Heaven 2012). Often, the only reward a child receives for the good results is the lack of punishment.

This approach to parenting can be highly destructive to the child’s social competence and mental health. Children of authoritarian parents tend to suffer from low self-esteem and lack of self-identification (Stassen Berger 2011). They often struggle with interpersonal interactions since parents fail to teach them how to judge human behavior and react properly. They also tend to fail in setting their own goals without parents telling them what to do and how. This style of parenting is typical for Asian countries which show high teenage suicide rates. Some researchers link this phenomenon with the downsides of authoritarian upbringing which fails to properly prepare the child for their role as a member of society (Santrock 2007). It is focused on the short-term success of the child and creates rigid behavioral patterns which cannot be used adaptively when the child reaches adulthood. This approach can be productive if the child is mentally resilient and can cope with the lack of affection. However, in such cases authoritative parenting is still likely to present better results.

Indulgent parenting is characterized by being responsive but undemanding. The parents respond to the traits of character their child displays and try to satisfy all of their needs. They do not set any goals or expect anything of their child, treating them as a friend and companion rather than somebody who depends on them and needs tutoring. Baumrind states that this style of parenting is “too soft.” This approach can have positive results under certain conditions. If the child easily gets interested with new activities and is competitive by nature, the parents utilizing this approach can allow him to explore and participate in activities at his own pace.

On the other hand, if the child is lazy and lacks initiative, this style of parenting will reinforce those qualities making them inert and socially incompetent in the future. The children raised like this can also lack self-control and discipline since their parents did not promote such behaviors. That can lead to drug or alcohol abuse, as well as violent behavior in the future (Baumrind 1991). This style of parenting also fails to relate the importance of success to the child. As a result, a child can become uncompetitive decreasing their chances to become successful. This approach also presents a serious issue if a child has violent or deviant tendencies. While authoritative parents can teach the child self-control, growing up in an indulgent family helps the tendencies become pathologies.

Neglectful parenting is characterized as unresponsive and undemanding. This style of parenting was not even considered by Braumind when she was creating her first classification since she did not consider it a variation of normal parenting practices. Neglectful parents pay minimum attention to their child. They are cold and detached. They do not set any goals or control the child’s upbringing in any meaningful way. This approach combines the negative sides of authoritarian and indulgent parenting styles without the benefits of either of those. The lack of guidance and teaching slows down the development and increases the risks of developing destructive tendencies. The lack of attachment can be more detrimental to the psychosocial development than violence.

The research by Maccoby and Martin conducted in 1983 discovered that children raised by neglectful parents were underdeveloped psychosocially, showed poor school performance, while experiencing high levels of internalized distress and problem behavior (Steinberg et al. 1994). That shows, that without affection and guidance, children fail to set their goals properly, cannot adequately interact with their peers and suffer from developing psychological issues. Such upbringing can result in long-term issues with motivation, self-image, and personal development. Many dysfunctional families display either neglectful or authoritarian approach to upbringing, highlighting them as the two least desirable parenting styles.

While some psychologists describe other parenting styles, the four described in this paper are the most basic ones. They relate to almost any family, and while there are variations, this classification covers the most important aspects of parenting. Any family can use this system to analyze their own parenting style and address some mistakes or imperfections preventing them from raising their child properly.

Baumrind, D 1966, ‘Effects of Authoritative Parental Control on Child Behavior’, Child Development , vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 887-907.

Baumrind, D 1991, ‘The Influence of Parenting Style on Adolescent Competence and Substance Use’, The Journal of Early Adolescence , vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 56-95.

Santrock, JW 2007, A Topical Approach to Life-Span Development , McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Stassen Berger, K 2011, The Developing Person Through the Lifespan , Worth Publishers, London, UK.

Steinberg, L, Lamborn, S, Darling, N, Mounts, N & Dornbusch, S 1994, ‘Over-Time Changes in Adjustment and Competence among Adolescents from Authoritative, Authoritarian, Indulgent, and Neglectful Families’, Child Development , vol. 65, no.3, pp.754-770.

Williams, K, Ciarrochi, J, & Heaven, P 2012, ‘Inflexible Parents, Inflexible Kids: A 6-Year Longitudinal Study of Parenting Style and the Development of Psychological Flexibility in Adolescents’, Journal Of Youth and Adolescence, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1053–1066.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

4.1: Baumrind's Parenting Styles

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 77360

• Iowa State University

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Diana Baumrind’s Parenting Styles

The parenting style used to rear a child will likely impact that child’s future success in romantic, peer and parenting relationships. Diana Baumrind, a clinical and developmental psychologist, coined the following parenting styles: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive/indulgent, Later, Maccoby and Martin added the uninvolved/neglectful style. [1]

It is beneficial to evaluate the support and demandingness of a caregiver in order to determine which style is being used and how to effectively use it. Support refers to the amount of affection, acceptance, and warmth a parent provides to a child. Demandingness refers to the degree a parent controls a child’s behavior.

Authoritative Parenting

In general, children tend to develop greater competence and self-confidence when parents have high-but reasonable and consistent- expectations for children’s behavior, communicate well with them, are warm and responsive, and use reasoning rather than coercion to guide children’s behaviors. This kind of parenting style has been described as authoritative . [2] Parents who use this style are supportive and show interest in their kids’ activities but are not overbearing and allow children to make constructive mistakes. This “tender teacher” approach deemed the most optimal parenting style to use in western cultures. Children whose parents use the authoritative style are generally happy, capable, and successful. [3]

Authoritarian Parenting

Parents using the authoritarian (“rigid ruler”) approach are low in support and high in demandingness. These parents expect and demand obedience because they are “in charge” and they do not provide any explanations for their orders. [4] Parents also provide well-ordered and structured environments with clearly stated rules.

Many would conclude that this is the parenting style used by Harry Potter’s harsh aunt and uncle, and Cinderella’s vindictive stepmother. Children reared in environments using the authoritarian approach are more likely to be obedient and proficient, but score lower in happiness, social competence, and self-esteem.

Permissive Parenting

Parents who are high in support and low in demandingness are likely using the permissive- also called the indulgent-style. Their children tend to rank low in happiness and self-regulation, and are more likely to have problems with authority. Parents using this approach are lenient, do not expect their children to adhere to boundaries or rules, and avoid confrontation. [5]

Uninvolved Parenting

Children reared by parents who are low in both support and demandingness tend to rank lowest across all life domains, lack self-control, have low self-esteem, and are less competent than their peers. Parents using the uninvolved (or sometimes referred to as indifferent or neglectful) approach are neglectful or rejecting of their children and do not provide most, if any, necessary parenting responsibilities.

Video Example

Watch this video about Baumrind’s parenting styles.

Parenting Styles and Outcomes for Children

Parenting style has been found to predict child well-being in the domains of social competence, academic performance, psychosocial development, and problem behavior. Research in the United States, based on parent interviews, child reports, and parent observations consistently finds:

• Children and adolescents whose parents use the authoritative style typically rate themselves and are rated by objective measures as more socially and instrumentally competent than those whose parents do not use the authoritative style (Baumrind, 1991; Weiss & Schwarz, 1996; Miller et al., 1993).
• Children and adolescents whose parents are uninvolved typically perform most poorly in all domains.

In general, parental responsiveness tends to predict social competence and psychosocial functioning, while parental demandingness is typically associated with instrumental competence and behavioral control (e.g., academic performance and deviance). These findings indicate:

• Children and adolescents reared in households using the authoritarian style (high in demandingness, but low in responsiveness) tend to perform moderately well in school and be uninvolved in problem behavior, but tend to have poorer social skills, lower self-esteem, and higher levels of depression when compared to their peers who are reared in households using the authoritative approach.
• Children and adolescents reared in homes using the indulgent style (high in responsiveness, low in demandingness) tend to be more involved in problem behavior and perform less well in school, but they have been shown to have higher self-esteem, better social skills, and lower levels of depression when compared to their peers who are not reared using the indulgent style. [6]

In reviewing the literature on parenting styles, it is apparent that using the authoritative parenting style is associated with both instrumental and social competence and lower levels of problem behavior at all developmental stages for youth in the United States. The benefits of using the authoritative parenting style and the detrimental effects of the uninvolved parenting style are evident as early as the preschool years and continue throughout adolescence and into early adulthood.

Support for Baumrind’s Authoritative Parenting

Support for the benefits of authoritative parenting has been found in countries as diverse as the Czech Republic, [7] India, [8] China, [9] Israel, [10] and Palestine. [11] In fact, authoritative parenting appears to be superior in Western, individualistic societies—so much so that some people have argued that there is no longer a need to study it. [12]

Other researchers are less certain about authoritative parenting and point to differences in cultural values and beliefs. For example, while many children reared in European-American cultures fare poorly with too much strictness (authoritarian parenting), children reared in Chinese cultures often perform well, especially academically. The reason for this likely stems from Chinese culture viewing strictness in parenting as related to training, which is not central to American parenting beliefs. [13]

As children mature, parent-child relationships should naturally adapt to accommodate developmental changes. Parent-child relationships that do not adapt to a child’s abilities can lead to high parent-child conflict and ultimately a reduced parent-child relationship quality. [14]

Key Takeaways

• The authoritative (the “tender teacher”) approach is the most optimal style for use in the U.S.
• The ways in which parents rear children can have lifelong impacts on children’s development.
• Baumrind's Parenting Styles is an adaptation of Child, Family, and Community ( Chapter 6: A Closer Look at Parenting ) by Laff & Ruiz (2019), licensed CC BY 4.0 and Social and Personality Development in Childhood by Ross Thompson, licensed CC BY NC SA . ↵
• Baumrind, D. (2013). Authoritative parenting revisited: History and current status. In R. E. Larzelere, A. Sheffield, & A. W. Harrist (Eds.), Authoritative parenting: Synthesizing nurturance and discipline for optimal child development . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ↵
• Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28 (6), 1006–1017. ↵
• Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, R. M. Lerner, & A. C. Petersen (Eds.), The encyclopedia on adolescence (pp. 746-758). New York: Garland Publishing. ↵
• Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, R. M. Lerner, & A. C. Petersen (Eds.), The Encyclopedia on Adolescence (pp. 746-758). New York: Garland Publishing. ↵
• Darling, N. (1999). Parenting style and its correlates. ERIC digest. Retrieved from https://www.ericdigests.org/1999-4/parenting.htm ↵
• Dmitrieva, J., Chen, C., Greenberger, E., & Gil-Rivas, V. (2004). Family relationships and adolescent psychosocial outcomes: Converging findings from Eastern and Western cultures. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14 , 425-447. ↵
• Carson, D., Chowdhurry, A., Perry, C., & Pati, C. (1999). Family characteristics and adolescent competence in India: Investigation of youth in southern Orissa. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 211-233. ↵
• Pilgrim, C., Luo, Q., Urberg, K.A., & Fang, X. (1999). Influence of peers, parents, and individual characteristics on adolescent drug use in two cultures. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 45 , 85-107. ↵
• Mayseless, O., Scharf, M., & Sholt, M. (2003). From authoritative parenting practices to an authoritarian context: Exploring the person-environment fit. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17 , 23-50. ↵
• Punamaki, R., Qouta, S., & Sarraj, E. (1997). Models of traumatic experiences and children’s psychological adjustment: The roles of perceived parenting and the children’s own resources and activity. Child Development, 68 , 718-728. ↵
• Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Adolescent-parent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11 , 1-19. ↵
• Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65 , 1111-1119. ↵
• Support for Baumrind's Authoritative Parenting is taken from The Family by Joel A Muraco, licensed CC BY NC SA . ↵

Baumrind's Parenting Styles by Joel A. Muraco, Wendy Ruiz, Rebecca Laff, Ross Thompson, and Diana Lang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Baumrind’s Parenting Styles

Joel A Muraco; Wendy Ruiz; Rebecca Laff; Ross Thompson; and Diana Lang

Diana Baumrind’s Parenting Styles

The parenting style used to rear a child will likely impact that child’s future success in romantic, peer and parenting relationships.  Diana Baumrind, a clinical and developmental psychologist, coined the following parenting styles: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive/indulgent, Later, Maccoby and Martin added the uninvolved/neglectful style. [1]

It is beneficial to evaluate the support and demandingness of a caregiver in order to determine which style is being used and how to effectively use it.  Support refers to the amount of affection, acceptance, and warmth a parent provides to a child.  Demandingness refers to the degree a parent controls a child’s behavior.

Authoritative Parenting

In general, children tend to develop greater competence and self-confidence when parents have high-but reasonable and consistent- expectations for children’s behavior, communicate well with them, are warm and responsive, and use reasoning rather than coercion to guide children’s behaviors.  This kind of parenting style has been described as authoritative . [2]   Parents who use this style are supportive and show interest in their kids’ activities but are not overbearing and allow children to make constructive mistakes.  This “tender teacher” approach deemed the most optimal parenting style to use in western cultures.  Children whose parents use the authoritative style are generally happy, capable, and successful. [3]

Authoritarian Parenting

Parents using the authoritarian (“rigid ruler”) approach are low in support and high in demandingness.  These parents expect and demand obedience because they are “in charge” and they do not provide any explanations for their orders. [4]   Parents also provide well-ordered and structured environments with clearly stated rules.

Many would conclude that this is the parenting style used by Harry Potter’s harsh aunt and uncle, and Cinderella’s vindictive stepmother.  Children reared in environments using the authoritarian approach are more likely to be obedient and proficient, but score lower in happiness, social competence, and self-esteem.

Permissive Parenting

Parents who are high in support and low in demandingness are likely using the permissive- also called the indulgent-style.  Their children tend to rank low in happiness and self-regulation, and are more likely to have problems with authority.  Parents using this approach are lenient, do not expect their children to adhere to boundaries or rules, and avoid confrontation. [5]

Uninvolved Parenting

Children reared by parents who are low in both support and demandingness tend to rank lowest across all life domains, lack self-control, have low self-esteem, and are less competent than their peers.  Parents using the uninvolved (or sometimes referred to as indifferent or neglectful) approach are neglectful or rejecting of their children and do not provide most, if any, necessary parenting responsibilities.

Video Example

Watch this video about Baumrind’s parenting styles.

Parenting Styles and Outcomes for Children

Parenting style has been found to predict child well-being in the domains of social competence, academic performance, psychosocial development, and problem behavior.  Research in the United States, based on parent interviews, child reports, and parent observations consistently finds:

• Children and adolescents whose parents use the authoritative style typically rate themselves and are rated by objective measures as more socially and instrumentally competent than those whose parents do not use the authoritative style. [6] [7] [8]
• Children and adolescents whose parents are uninvolved typically perform most poorly in all domains.

In general, parental responsiveness tends to predict social competence and psychosocial functioning, while parental demandingness is typically associated with instrumental competence and behavioral control (e.g., academic performance and deviance). These findings indicate:

• Children and adolescents reared in households using the authoritarian style (high in demandingness, but low in responsiveness) tend to perform moderately well in school and be uninvolved in problem behavior, but tend to have poorer social skills, lower self-esteem, and higher levels of depression when compared to their peers who are reared in households using the authoritative approach.
• Children and adolescents reared in homes using the indulgent style (high in responsiveness, low in demandingness) tend to be more involved in problem behavior and perform less well in school, but they have been shown to have higher self-esteem, better social skills, and lower levels of depression when compared to their peers who are not reared using the indulgent style. [9]

In reviewing the literature on parenting styles, it is apparent that using the authoritative parenting style is associated with both instrumental and social competence and lower levels of problem behavior at all developmental stages for youth in the United States.  The benefits of using the authoritative parenting style and the detrimental effects of the uninvolved parenting style are evident as early as the preschool years and continue throughout adolescence and into early adulthood.

Support for Baumrind’s Authoritative Parenting

Support for the benefits of authoritative parenting has been found in countries as diverse as the Czech Republic, [10] India, [11] China, [12] Israel, [13] and Palestine. [14] In fact, authoritative parenting appears to be superior in Western, individualistic societies—so much so that some people have argued that there is no longer a need to study it. [15]

Other researchers are less certain about authoritative parenting and point to differences in cultural values and beliefs.  For example, while many children reared in European-American cultures fare poorly with too much strictness (authoritarian parenting), children reared in Chinese cultures often perform well, especially academically.  The reason for this likely stems from Chinese culture viewing strictness in parenting as related to training, which is not central to American parenting beliefs. [16]

As children mature, parent-child relationships should naturally adapt to accommodate developmental changes.  Parent-child relationships that do not adapt to a child’s abilities can lead to high parent-child conflict and ultimately a reduced parent-child relationship quality. [17]

Key Takeaways

• The authoritative (the “tender teacher”) approach is the most optimal style for use in the U.S.
• The ways in which parents rear children can have lifelong impacts on children’s development.
• Baumrind's Parenting Styles is an adaptation of Child, Family, and Community ( Chapter 6: A Closer Look at Parenting ) by Laff & Ruiz (2019), licensed CC BY 4.0 and Social and Personality Development in Childhood by Ross Thompson, licensed CC BY NC SA . ↵
• Baumrind, D. (2013). Authoritative parenting revisited: History and current status. In R. E. Larzelere, A. Sheffield, & A. W. Harrist (Eds.), Authoritative parenting: Synthesizing nurturance and discipline for optimal child development . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ↵
• Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28 (6), 1006–1017. ↵
• Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, R. M. Lerner, & A. C. Petersen (Eds.), The encyclopedia on adolescence (pp. 746-758). New York: Garland Publishing. ↵
• Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, R. M. Lerner, & A. C. Petersen (Eds.), The Encyclopedia on Adolescence (pp. 746-758). New York: Garland Publishing. ↵
• Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11 (1), 56-95. ↵
• Weiss, L. H., & Schwarz, J. C. (1996). The relationship between parenting types and older adolescents' personality, academic achievement, adjustment, and substance use. Child Development, 67 (5), 2101-2114. EJ 539 840. ↵
• Miller, N. B., Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., & Hetherington, E. M. (1993). Externalizing in preschoolers and early adolescents: A cross-study replication of a family model. Developmental Psychology, 29 (1), 3-18. EJ 461 700. ↵
• Darling, N. (1999). Parenting style and its correlates. ERIC digest. Retrieved from https://www.ericdigests.org/1999-4/parenting.htm ↵
• Dmitrieva, J., Chen, C., Greenberger, E., & Gil-Rivas, V. (2004). Family relationships and adolescent psychosocial outcomes: Converging findings from Eastern and Western cultures. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14 , 425-447. ↵
• Carson, D., Chowdhurry, A., Perry, C., & Pati, C. (1999). Family characteristics and adolescent competence in India: Investigation of youth in southern Orissa. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 211-233. ↵
• Pilgrim, C., Luo, Q., Urberg, K.A., & Fang, X. (1999). Influence of peers, parents, and individual characteristics on adolescent drug use in two cultures. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 45 , 85-107. ↵
• Mayseless, O., Scharf, M., & Sholt, M. (2003). From authoritative parenting practices to an authoritarian context: Exploring the person-environment fit. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17 , 23-50. ↵
• Punamaki, R., Qouta, S., & Sarraj, E. (1997). Models of traumatic experiences and children’s psychological adjustment: The roles of perceived parenting and the children’s own resources and activity. Child Development, 68 , 718-728. ↵
• Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Adolescent-parent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11 , 1-19. ↵
• Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65 , 1111-1119. ↵
• Support for Baumrind's Authoritative Parenting is taken from The Family by Joel A Muraco, licensed CC BY NC SA . ↵

Baumrind's Parenting Styles Copyright © 2020 by Joel A Muraco; Wendy Ruiz; Rebecca Laff; Ross Thompson; and Diana Lang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Children (Basel)
• PMC10378631

Exploring Parenting Styles Patterns and Children’s Socio-Emotional Skills

Aikaterini vasiou.

1 Department of Primary Education, University of Crete, 74100 Rethymno, Greece

Wassilis Kassis

2 Department of Research & Development, School of Education, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, 5210 Windisch, Switzerland; [email protected] (W.K.); [email protected] (D.A.); [email protected] (C.A.F.)

Anastasia Krasanaki

3 School of Humanities, Hellenic Open University, 26335 Patras, Greece; moc.liamtoh@ikanasarka

Dilan Aksoy

Céline anne favre, spyridon tantaros.

4 Department of Psychology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15784 Athens, Greece; rg.aou.hcysp@natgs

Associated Data

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

In this study, we adopted parenting styles as a multidimensional and latent construct that includes different aspects of parenting, rather than solely focusing on a single parenting style. In a Web-based survey with 1203 Greek parents, we identified parenting styles and their SDQ reports on their children. According to our results by Latent Profile Analysis, we must use a more complex approach concerning parenting styles. We identified a “Highly Authoritative style” profile with high levels of authoritative, low levels of authoritarian and middle levels of permissive parenting styles. We additionally identified a profile called “Relaxed Authoritative style”, with still high but lower levels of authoritative style, low but slightly heightened levels of authoritarian style, and middle levels of permissive style. A further profile, named “Permissive Focused Authoritative style”, had a mix of high levels of authoritative, moderate levels of permissive, and elevated levels of authoritarian parenting styles. Finally, in a profile named “Inconsistent Parenting style”, we identified parents with a blend of still high, but the lowest of all four levels of authoritative and highest levels of permissive and authoritarian parenting styles. When combining the four identified parenting patterns with the SDQ results, we identified the “highly authoritative parenting style” profile to be the least connected to internalizing or externalizing problems of the respective children.

1. Introduction

Bronfenbrenner’s socioecological framework [ 1 ], understanding development as a social process, as a result of the interaction between people and their environment, suggests that, among the proximal (microsystem) socialization agents, parents play the most pivotal role in children’s development [ 2 ]. As such, researchers have conducted numerous empirical investigations which focused on isolating the contribution of parenting styles to children’s and adolescents’ behavior, such as externalizing and internalizing problems and prosocial behavior [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Nevertheless, most studies have adopted variable-centric perspectives to explore the overall strength of associations between the examined variables in a larger population. Additionally, this approach primarily used single parenting styles, such as authoritarian, permissive, or authoritative, to understand the effects of particular parental behavior. This led to the understanding that parents apply a specific and characteristic style. Nevertheless, the use of analytical techniques, such as latent profile analysis, focused on people characteristics, often intervenes with the possibility of developing a fully realized understanding of the predictors and outcomes of within-subject variation in parenting styles [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Consequently, the present study is conducted to identify unique parenting style profiles and considers parenting styles as a multidimensional and latent construct that includes different aspects of parenting, not just a single one. Using latent profile analysis and exploring the possible relationship between the identified profiles and children’s and adolescents’ externalizing and internalizing problems and prosocial behavior, we attempt to develop a more complex and adequate picture of parenting styles and their effects on children’s behavior.

1.1. Parenting Styles

Parenting style is a collection of parents’ attitudes, behaviors, and emotions [ 9 ]. Therefore, we can conceptualize parenting styles as representing general types of child-rearing that characterize parents’ typical strategies and responses [ 10 ]. In particular, parental behavior is established in four specific behavioral dimensions: control, maturity demands, clarity of communication, and nurturance [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Baumrind [ 15 , 16 ], resulting from a blending of these dimensions and not from any single one of them, identified three primary parenting styles: Authoritarian (high levels of control and maturity demands, and low levels of nurturance and clarity of communication), Permissive (high levels of nurturance and clarity of communication, and low levels of control and maturity demand) and Authoritative (control, nurturance, clarity of communication, and maturity demands).

The behavior of authoritarian parents, which is not characterized by parental responsiveness and emotional availability, but by parental control, leads to limiting the independence of the children, valuing blind obedience, as well as adopting aggressive one-way communication [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. In contrast to the authoritarian parenting style, permissive parents encourage responsiveness in the absence of parental control and maturity requirements as well as clear, consistent discipline and communication [ 17 , 19 , 20 ]. Permissive parenting style includes loose or contradictory discipline, indifference to the child’s disobedience, and lack of confidence regarding the parental role [ 18 ]. Permissive parents rarely punish, encourage independence, and offer unconditional support to their children [ 17 , 19 ]. On the other hand, authoritative parents emphasize responsiveness and control. They avoid, however, interacting with their children by being intrusive, criticizing, scolding, and threatening, as authoritarian parents are wont to do [ 17 , 21 ]. In addition, they try to understand the needs of their children. They behave warmly, lovingly, and dialogically. They also provide guidance and direction through suggestions, explanations, and argumentation. In addition, they set developmentally appropriate expectations while demonstrating receptivity and flexibility by offering children opportunities to practice independence and autonomy [ 17 , 22 , 23 ].

1.2. Children’s Behavior Problems

Empirically formulated classifications of child behavior have distinguished social-emotional and behavior problems as externalizing and internalizing [ 24 ]. Externalizing problem behaviors are considered aggressive and dysfunctional conducts aimed at others, while internalizing problem behaviors refer to negative emotions and moods such as depression, anxiety, and guilt [ 25 , 26 , 27 ]. Both aspects of dysfunction are related to impaired academic, social, and emotional development in children, such as the risk of several poor outcomes, including poor peer relationships, underachievement at school, poor personal adjustment, and poor mental health [ 28 , 29 , 30 ].

In detail, externalizing problems include the most common childhood disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), in which a wide range of cognitive, interpersonal, social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties exist. Its main characteristics are aggression and disobedience, while other Disruptive Behavioral Disorders often coexist [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]. In addition, externalizing problems include conduct problems and behavioral disorders, in which the child comes into conflict with the environment, such as aggression, violence, reactivity, disobedience, drug use, and delinquency, problems which are observed when there is a lack of parental support [ 18 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. Parental supervision, parental care, and normative parental expectations constitute the three dimensions of parenting that are systematically related to multiple behavioral problems in children and adolescents [ 38 ]. Research found associations between extreme types of control (harsh parenting, physical punishment, psychological control, overprotection, overactive parenting) or lack of control and supervision, and a strong presence of externalizing problems, such as conduct problems [ 33 , 39 ]. It is further considered that ineffective parenting (corporal punishment, inconsistency, poor supervision, and low involvement) and specific personal characteristics, such as sentimentality, also lead to externalizing problems [ 40 ]. Especially for girls, the lack of parental support is an essential factor in developing behavioral problems [ 41 ]. Moreover, the manifestation of externalizing problems leads to peer victimization and vice versa [ 42 ].

Conversely, problems related to depression, anxiety, shyness, irritability, withdrawal, low self-esteem, poor physical health, negative relationships with peers and emotional problems are recognized as internalizing problems [ 18 , 36 , 37 , 43 ], which possibly stem from early experiences of rejection [ 23 ]. Regarding peer relationships, research shows that children without close friends have internalizing problems, while peer rejection and victimization are associated with internalizing and externalizing problems [ 44 ]. The lack of parental supervision regarding their friends is associated with internalizing problems in girls. In contrast, the lack of parental supervision during free time is associated with internalizing problems for both sexes [ 43 ].

1.3. Children’s Prosocial Behavior

Prosocial behavior is the critical component in development that contributes to positive children’s and adolescents’ development and thriving [ 45 ]. Recent decades’ research has shown associations between prosocial behavior and social, emotional, and psychological benefits in children and adolescents, including better relationships with peers and adults [ 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ], optimal functioning in terms of well-being [ 51 ], academic success [ 47 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 ], and positive mental health [ 57 , 58 ].

Prosocial behavior refers to all voluntary behaviors aimed to benefit others [ 57 ]. They are positive social acts that promote the well-being of others and self-motivated behaviors that benefit others, demonstrating the existence of social conscience [ 22 , 58 , 59 , 60 ]. Some manifestations of positive social behavior can be caring, comforting, sharing, cooperating, volunteering, donating, and offering physical or emotional help to others [ 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 ]. The demonstration of prosocial behavior by children and adolescents, however, is influenced by factors such as parents, peers, school, teachers, and culture [ 22 , 62 ].

1.4. Parenting Styles and Children’s Behavior

For many years, parenting style’s role in children’s and adolescents’ problem behavior was the main focus of research [ 63 , 64 ]. In particular, studies have examined the role of parenting styles in internalizing and externalizing problem behavior [ 65 ], both during childhood [ 66 , 67 ] and adolescence [ 68 , 69 ]. Prior studies also proposed that parenting styles are associated with adolescents’ prosocial behavior [ 70 , 71 ]. Specifically, warm and supportive parenting reinforces self-regulatory abilities, strengthens prosocial behavior and moral values, and enhances adolescents’ acceptance of others’ needs [ 72 , 73 ].

Regarding the influence of parental factors on children’s social behavior, it is considered that the mother–child relationship and parenting practices play an important role in children’s overall development and the development of externalizing and internalizing problems specifically, regardless of gender, during early adolescence [ 74 , 75 ]. Some research suggests that parental support may predict a reduction in adolescent anxiety and depression in addition to preventing future depressive behavior [ 76 , 77 ], whereas parental support also appears to influence the development of prosocial behavior in children and adolescents [ 78 , 79 ].

Regarding the authoritative parenting style, its high responsiveness and demandingness have been scientifically associated with fewer behavioral problems [ 36 ]. In particular, authoritative parents promote the development of social and academic skills during childhood and adolescence [ 80 ]. The authoritative parenting style also has associations with less disobedience, reduced tendency to internalize problems and dangerous behaviors, high ability to regulate behavior, increased self-perception for acceptance by peers, and better adjustment [ 23 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 80 , 81 ]. Moreover, the authoritative parenting style continues to have a positive effect on children’s development from childhood until later adulthood [ 36 , 79 ]. Finally, an authoritative parenting style helps children become more compassionate, helpful, and kind to other people [ 79 ].

Conversely, due to their high responsiveness and low demandingness, permissive parents do not seek control and authority over their children, guide them to regulate their behavior, and let them decide for themselves [ 36 ]. Thus, children of permissive parents learn to be passive and unresponsive in their interactions with others, developing antisocial behavior. As a result, they become dependent and present low levels of cognitive development and self-control, as well as low self-concept for acceptance by peers, especially in girls [ 36 , 80 ]. In addition, a permissive parenting style positively correlates with externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems and delinquency [ 36 ].

Concerning the authoritarian parenting style, which is characterized by low responsiveness and high demandingness, it is significantly positively correlated with reduced ability to regulate behavior, reduced self-esteem and self-confidence, low social skills, adjustment difficulties, depression, delinquency, externalizing and internalizing problems, aggression in boys and hyperactivity in girls, as well as problems in interactions with peers [ 23 , 36 , 80 , 81 ]. Thus, authoritarianism and corporal punishment, especially during childhood, can lead to suicide, depression in adulthood, or problems in the later stages of the child’s life [ 36 ]. Furthermore, regardless of the intramarital conflicts in the family, socioeconomic level, and children’s temperament, harsh punitive discipline predicts child aggression at school [ 82 ]. However, a ten-year longitudinal study [ 83 ] showed no relationship between early parental punitiveness and subsequent aggression. Furthermore, Moore and Eisenberg [ 84 ] found no negative relationship between authoritarian parenting style and children’s positive social development. Finally, according to research, psychologically controlling parenting has detrimental effects on the psychosocial development of adolescents, increasing the risk of externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems [ 85 , 86 ].

1.5. Recent Studies on Parenting Styles Using a Person-Centered Approach

The importance of exploring naturally occurring patterns of parenting styles is increasingly recognized by recent empirical studies. These studies use a person-centered approach, which permits researchers to include multiple parenting types and expand their understanding of the determinants and outcomes of parenting styles. For example, Carpenter and Mendez [ 87 ] examined longitudinal parenting profile differences in children’s behavioral adjustment by measuring aggression and hyperactive behavior of preschool children twice during the academic year. In their study, Bowers et al. [ 6 ], based on latent profiles of youth-reported parenting styles, examined the effect of parenting profiles in promoting positive youth development [ 6 ]. Kim et al. also used latent profile analyses in a three-wave longitudinal study lasting eight years, from early adolescence to emerging adulthood, to identify parenting profiles in Chinese American families and explore their consequences on adolescent adjustment [ 7 ], while Zhang et al. examined subtypes and their stability, and changes in Chinese maternal parenting style during early adolescence [ 88 ]. Grounded in Self-Determination Theory, multigroup latent profile analyses showed that the high monitoring–high autonomy support profile yielded the most optimal outcomes on adolescent adjustment, while the low monitoring–high psychological control profile yielded the worst [ 89 ]. More recently, Teuber et al. used longitudinal person-oriented perspectives to examine the stability and possible changes in autonomy-related parenting profiles and to further explore their consequences on adolescents’ academic and psychological functioning [ 8 ].

1.6. The Current Study

In the current study, to investigate children’s and adolescents’ behavior, we used the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) [ 90 ], which is globally the most widely used tool for assessing children’s social, emotional, and behavioral problems and has also been translated into over 60 languages [ 91 ]. The parent version of the scale has interestingly indicated good psychometric properties: validity evidence based on internal structure (i.e., internal consistency), test–retest reliability of the scores, and inter-rater agreement on the scores [ 92 ]. In addition, recent findings from nationally representative data from the United Kingdom (UK) demonstrated that parent SDQ ratings show measurement invariance across the broad developmental period from preschool to adolescence [ 93 , 94 ]. Supportive evidence for measurement invariance of the parent version of the SDQ have also been provided across informants [ 95 , 96 ], community and clinical samples [ 89 ], gender and age of the child [ 97 ] and parent education level [ 98 ]. Specifically, we chose the three-factor model, which makes a broader distinction between prosocial, internalizing, and externalizing behaviors and indicated the best-fitting model in a sample of parents with 4- to 17-years old children in the US [ 99 ]. Recent results [ 100 ] reveal that the parent-version of the SDQ was a suitable tool for use and comparison across different contexts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition, to explore how the dimensions of control, maturity demands, clarity of communication, and nurturance are combined with different parenting profiles, we examined how specific parenting profiles are related to children’s and adolescents’ behavior problems and prosocial behavior, expanding previous research in this area [ 6 , 7 , 88 ]. A review of the existing literature indicates a lack of research that follows a person-centered approach to examine the effects of parenting styles on children’s and adolescents’ behavioral problems and prosocial behavior. Therefore, the current study was designed to address this gap by stiving to isolate unique parental profiles using latent profile analysis. We used the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ) [ 101 , 102 , 103 ] which is known as one of the few psychometrically robust scales measuring parenting practices [ 104 ] and has also been used in multiple different cultural groups [ 105 ]. This choice is justified by the idea that parents can engage in practices that align with any parenting style at different moments to different degrees [ 106 ].

Based on prior research using person-centered analytic approaches, we hypothesize that we will identify distinct parental profiles using latent profile analysis (H1). Aiming to define the predictive utility of the identified parental profiles, we also hypothesize that types of parenting profiles will display statistically significant differences in children’s and adolescents’ externalizing/internalizing behavior problems and prosocial behavior (H2). Finally, attempting to isolate personal and demographic characteristics that predict parental profiles, we expected that demographic factors such as parents age [ 107 , 108 ] and education [ 109 , 110 ] would be associated with children’s and adolescents’ externalizing/internalizing behavior problems and prosocial behavior profile membership (H3) and expected that younger and more educated parents would be more authoritative and less authoritarian.

2. Materials and Methods

The study is a web-based survey conducted in Greece via the Internet, in the framework of the third author’s master thesis, which was approved by the Hellenic Open University. Participants were recruited to voluntarily fill in an electronic form questionnaire created on Google Forms and posted in parent groups on social media by the same author. To achieve a sufficient response rate [ 111 ], the questionnaire was distributed multiple times for a period of 1 month; November until December 2019. Participants were instructed through a debrief describing the objective of the study and the confidential nature of their participation. In addition, to remove potential biases, the form elaborated on issues of protection of privacy and ethics and provided contact details for the third author. Participants were asked to confirm that they had read the form and were willing to participate in the study. Upon receipt of this confirmation, they were directed to the measures described below. Participants were asked to respond to all the answers and informed that participation would be anonymous. Participation duration was 15 min.

One of the reasons for choosing this kind of survey is the nature of the characteristics of population support, as groups are frequently established in which personal experiences are shared [ 112 ]. This research method was selected to ensure a diverse group of participants with varying levels of education, social status, and age. Online surveys were chosen for their convenience in reaching potential respondents who may be spread out over a large geographic area [ 113 ].

1203 parents participated in the study; 90.9% were women, while 9.1% were men. A total of 54% were 41–50 years old, 34.8% were 31–40, 9% were 51–60, 2% were 20–30, and 0.2% were over 60 years old. Regarding marital status, 88% were married, 8% were divorced, 1.4% were cohabiting, 1.3% were unmarried, 0.9% were widowed, and 0.4% were separated. Regarding their educational level, 41.8% were University or Applied sciences graduates, 28.4% PhD or master’s degree holders, 16.9% were general or vocational high school graduates, 9.9% were vocational training graduates, 2% were high school or technical school graduates, and 1% students. In terms of their occupational status, 83.3% were employed, and 16.7% were unemployed. Regarding their children’s gender, 47.8% were female. Finally, in regard to their children’ s age, the children were 6–12 (61.3%) and 13–18 (38.7%). By the DETECTANOMALY-procedure in SPSS (IBM, 2021), an option for detecting anomalies, we identified two cases out of 1205, which had to be removed because of their high anomaly index (case 933 = 9.70, respectively, for case 987 = 13.20) regarding the three parenting styles. Due to this, the analyses were performed with N = 1203 participants.

3. Measures

3.1. parenting styles.

The Greek version of the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ) by Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, and Hart [ 101 , 102 , 103 ] was used, adapted to the Greek population by Maridaki-Kassotaki [ 102 ]. It is a self-administered questionnaire, grounded in Baumrind’s model of parental types based on two dimensions of parental behavior: responsiveness and demandingness [ 103 ]. It explores the parent–child relationship, communication, and parenting methods, distinguishing parents into three dominant parental types: the authoritative, the authoritarian, and the permissive types [ 102 ]. The sub-scale “authoritative parenting style” includes 12 statements (e.g., I understand my child’s feelings), the sub-scale “authoritarian parenting style” includes four statements (e.g., I use punishment as a means of discipline), and the sub-scale “permissive parenting style” includes three statements (e.g., I think it is hard to teach my child to discipline). All parenting scales had the same response format: 1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, and 4 = always. Finally, regarding the internal consistency of the three parenting scales, Cronbach’s α was good for the authoritative type at 0.82, for the permissive type 0.75, and just satisfactory for the authoritarian type at 0.68.

3.2. Children’s and Adolescents’ Behavior

The parents’ version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) [ 90 ] was completed by participants, created to assess children’s and adolescents’ behavioral and emotional problems in their everyday life. Specifically, the Greek version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire—SDQ [ 90 ] was used and completed by parents of children and adolescents. The questionnaire has been adapted to the Greek population by Bibou-Nakou et al. [ 114 ]. It includes 25 statements and three answers (not true, somewhat true, and true). The main scale (of 25 statements) is made up of five sub-scales with five items each: 1. Hyperactivity/attention deficit (e.g., (S)He is restless and hyperactive, cannot remain calm, still for long periods of time), 2. Conduct disorder (e.g., (S)He often has tantrums or is irritable), 3. Relationships with peers (e.g., (S)He is rather lonely, tends to play alone), 4. Emotional disorders (e.g., (S)He often complains of headaches, stomach aches, or feeling sick) and 5. Positive social behavior with five items (e.g., (S)He takes into account the feelings of others). The subscales “Hyperactivity/attention deficit” and “Conduct disorder” make up the SDQ-dimension “Externalizing problems”. In contrast, the subscales “Relationships with peers” and “Emotional disorders” make up the SDQ-dimension “Internalizing problems”. The positive social behavior scale makes the SDQ-dimension “prosocial behavior”. As for internal consistency, Cronbach’s α was suitable for all three SDQ-dimensions: for the positive social behavior, 0.70; for externalizing problems, 0.76 and for internalizing problems, 0.71.

We performed the multinomial computations of banding scores, enabling us to identify non-clinical or “at risk/clinical” cases. To achieve this, we followed the same criteria employed by Goodman in the original version of the SDQ [ 90 ], supported by empirical research on the detection and prevalence of mental health issues [ 24 , 115 ]. Based on the fact that approximately 10% of children and adolescents exhibit some form of mental health problem, and another 10% have a borderline problem, we designated threshold values as follows: scores above the 80th percentile fall into the “at risk/clinical = 1” range, scores, and scores below the 80th percentile fall into the “non-clinical = 0” category [ 90 , 116 , 117 ]. This categorization was applied to all subscales except for Prosocial behavior, where scores equal to or below the 20th percentile was considered “at risk/clinical = 1” and scores below the 20th percentile were considered “non-clinical = 0”.

3.3. Covariates

Parents Education: To assess parents’ education level, we asked for the following six educational levels: University or Applied sciences graduates, PhD, or master’s degree holders, general or vocational high school graduates, vocational training graduates, high school or technical school graduates, and students.

Parents Age: Parents’ age was assessed by five categories: 20–30 years, 31–40 years, 41–50 years, 51–60 years, and over 60 years old.

4.1. Analytic Strategy

The statistical analysis for this study was conducted in four steps: in step one, sociodemographic differences in the applied measures were examined using t -tests. In step two, because we regrouped the items to the scales, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis to test construct validity. In step three, parents’ parenting style patterns were identified by computing latent profile analyses (LPA) using three classification variables. In step four, we ran a multinomial regression analysis of the identified parenting style patterns related to SDQ to understand children and adolescents’ social behavior. For the conducted confirmatory factor analysis and the LPA, we used Mplus version 8.9 [ 118 ]. For the t -test and multinomial regression, SPSS 28 was used.

4.1.1. Results Analytic Step One: Sociodemographic Differences of All Measures and Intercorrelations

We ran t -tests (see Table 1 ) to analyze for mean differences in the SDQ dimensions and parenting styles by age group of the respective children and adolescents. Referring first to the three introduced SDQ dimensions, we identified only small but still significant effects (displayed Cohen’s d is low) between children and adolescents, with children having higher externalizing problems. When comparing the levels of the three parenting styles, we identified significantly higher levels for younger children than older children for both authoritarian and permissive parenting styles.

Sample Mean Levels (and Standard Deviations) of the SDQ-Dimensions and Parenting Styles by Age Group of the Respective Child.

Note. * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001. between younger and older children.

When looking at the connections between the SDQ dimensions and the parenting styles that were found (as shown in Table 2 ), there were low to moderate intercorrelations, which means there was no issue with multicollinearity.

Intercorrelations of the SDQ-Dimensions and Parenting Styles.

Note. *** = p < 0.001.

4.1.2. Results Analytic Step Two: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for Testing Construct Validity

To test for construct validity and to verify the factor structure we performed a confirmatory factor analysis. CFA allows testing of the assumption that a hypothesized relationship between observed variables and their underlying latent constructs exists. The RMSEA, TLI, and CFI are deemed particularly important for accurately estimating CFAs [ 119 ]. Following Marsh et al. [ 120 ], we established the benchmark for a satisfactory model fit as RMSEA values below 0.08, coupled with CFI and TLI values above 0.90 and SRMR values below 0.08, indicating a strong fit for the model. The fit indices obtained from the confirmatory factor analysis applied were sufficient for the three parenting style scales, as evidenced by the following: (χ 2 (149) = 453.384, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.041 [90% CI = 0.037–0.046]; SRMR = 0.028 CFI = 0.923; TLI = 0.912), as for the five SDQ-parents sub-scales (χ 2 (231) = 587.411, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.036 [90% CI = 0.032–0.039]; SRMR = 0.042 CFI = 0.926; TLI = 0.903). This confirms the construct validity for each scale of the study.

4.1.3. Analysis Step Three: Identifying Parenting Style Patterns by Latent Profile Analysis (LPA)

We utilized three indicators, namely authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative parenting style, to group parents into distinct parenting style classes through the statistical application of Latent Profile Analysis (LPA). This allowed us to examine patterns of latent parenting styles, which encompassed multiple indicators and their interrelationships within the parenting style classes. By employing LPA as a comprehensive method, our objective was to assess the continuity of parenting style levels. The primary goal of this study was to use LPA to examine the proposed conceptualization of parenting styles, considering three aspects of parenting within an overarching latent structure, and to empirically classify latent variables into subgroups based on similar observations.

The models used in this study were non-nested. To determine the best model, different criteria were applied [ 121 ], including the entropy value, as well as information criteria such as the Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and Sample-Adjusted BIC (ABIC). The smaller values indicate a better fit [ 122 ]. Entropy was also considered, with values above 0.7 deemed sufficient to indicate certainty in the estimation, but with models of entropy of 1.0 being overidentified [ 123 , 124 ]. The final latent profile analysis (LPA) model was chosen based on various statistical indicators and theoretical considerations. Additionally, model fit criteria such as the Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ration test (LMR-LRT), the Lo-Mendell-Rubin Adjusted Likelihood Ratio test (aLMR-LRT), and the Bootstrapped Likelihood Ratio test (BLRT) were used for the LPA. A significant p -value indicated an improvement to the previous model with k − 1 profiles. The ultimate model for an LPA, which determines the number of profiles, is selected based on a combination of statistical measures and pre-existing theoretical frameworks and the rule of the most parsimonious solution [ 125 ], which means that the interpretability and the additional information provided by a more complex solution has to be established. There are currently no established guidelines for determining the appropriate size of profiles [ 121 ]. Following Nylund [ 124 ], we are arguing against having profile sizes with less than 50 cases or these profiles being less than 5% of the total sample.

The analysis was conducted for a range of two to six latent patterns. Statistical tests of model fit can be found in Table 3 . A model consisting of four profiles was selected, as it had a lower aBIC score than a profile 3 solution, and the entropy was higher. For the comparison between the profile 3 the profile 4 solutions, we additionally applied model fit criteria with significant p -values for profile 3 over the profile two solutions, indicating an improvement to the previous model, but non-significant p -values on LMR-LRT and aLMR-LRT when comparing profile 3 and profile 4 but with still significant p -values on the BLRT, indicating an improvement for the profile 4 to the profile three models. When comparing the profile 4 to the 5 or 6 profile solution, we noticed several criteria decreasing. In comparison to the profile 4 solutions, we detected for profile 5 (aBIC Delta to profile 4 = 777) and 6 (aBIC Delta to profile 5 = 948) solutions a significant drop in aBIC differences, and for both solutions an Entropy of 1.0, which suggested weak evidence [ 126 ] and an overidentification of the model [ 127 ], leading us favoring the profile 4 solution.

Model Fit Indices for Latent Profile Analysis on Parenting Styles, N = 1203.

Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; ABIC = Sample-size adjusted BIC; LMR LR = Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test; ALMR LR = Lo-Mendell-Rubin Adjusted LRT Test; BLRT = Bootstrap likelihood ratio test.

For the 5 (one profile with n = 18 participants, 2.3% of the sample) and 6 profile (one profile with n = 49, 3.9% of the sample; one profile with n = 44, 3.6% of the sample; one profile with n = 9, 0.7% of the sample), solutions had far too small sample sizes [ 124 , 128 ]. Additionally, for both the 5 and 6 profile solutions, the new profiles did not offer new theoretical insights. but merely split already existing small profiles. Based on the abovementioned criteria and the principle of favoring more restricted and simple models, the profile 4 solutions were ultimately chosen. Along with empirical measures, the selection of the profile 4 solutions was also influenced by its interpretability and alignment with existing theoretical frameworks.

By the three introduced parenting styles and the consecutive tests on a different number of profiles (two to six profiles), we identified the four-profile solution as the best fitting. Regarding the distribution of the four profiles (see Figure 1 ), we identified a profile (profile 1, 66.6% of the participants) called Highly Authoritative style (HA) with high levels of authoritative, the lowest levels of authoritarian and middle levels of permissive parenting styles. We additionally identified a profile called Relaxed Authoritative style (RA) (profile 2, 16.3% of the participants) with still high but lower levels of authoritative style than in profile 1, low but elevated levels of authoritarian style, and middle levels of permissive style. Profile 4 (12.4% of the participants), named Permissive Focused Authoritative style (PFA), had a mix of the second highest levels of authoritative and middle levels of permissive and slightly higher levels of authoritarian parenting styles. Finally, in profile 3 (4.4% of the participants), named Inconsistent Parenting style (IP), we identified parents with a blend of higher levels of authoritative and middle levels of permissive and authoritarian parenting levels. From the solution chosen, we could detect that parenting styles are a complex mix and multidimensional latent construct encompassing authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive styles, rather than a distinct single parenting style as commonly assumed.

Diagrammatic Representation of the four identified parenting style profiles by LPA.

We analyzed if there were differences in the patterns concerning parental education and parents’ age to control for any effects caused by these two covariates by using multinomial-regression analysis. Neither for education (Wald chi2(12) = 9.830, p = 0.631) nor for age (Wald chi2(6) = 6.091, p = 0.413) have significant effects been identified.

4.1.4. Analysis Step Four: Multinomial Regression Analysis on the Identified Parenting Patterns Related to the Three SDQ Dimensions to Understand the Social Behavior of the Respective Children

For the three SDQ dimensions (internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and prosocial behavior), we identified significantly lower levels of problems when comparing the “highly authoritative style” profile to the other three parenting profiles (see Table 4 ). This was especially the case when comparing the “highly authoritative style” profile to the “permissive focused authoritative style” or the “inconsistent parenting style” profile. No significant differences were identified (see Table 4 ) when comparing the levels of prosocial behavior of the four parenting profiles. In summary, we identified the “highly authoritative parenting style” profile to be the least connected to internalizing or externalizing problems of the respective children when studying the answers by their parents.

Multinomial logistic regression of SDQ-dimensions in the four LPA profiles.

Note: S.E. = Standard Error; OR = Odds Ratio. Reference LPA profile is the profile we called “Highly Authoritative style”. For all three SDQ-dimensions: (0 normal; 1 at risk/clinical).

5. Discussion

Given the lack of studies that capture parenting styles as a heterogeneous construct and therefore solely focus on the individual and the well-known parenting styles, i.e., authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive, we pursued the research question as to whether there are distinct parenting style profiles. We conceptualized parenting style as a multidimensional and latent construct encompassing diverse aspects of parenting rather than a single one. We, therefore, defined parenting style as a collection, a mix of parents’ attitudes, behaviors, and emotions [ 9 ].

By using latent profile analysis and examining the association between the identified profiles and adolescents’ externalizing and internalizing behavior problems and prosocial behavior, our study is able to confirm the relevance of presenting the different parenting dimensions in a more complex and appropriate picture of parenting profiles and their influence on adolescents’ socio-emotional skills. Person-centered approaches extend beyond commonly used methods for establishing these parenting styles or profiles, such as the scale-mean or median-split methods, which can be problematic when dealing with multiple dimensions [ 129 ].

The present study adopted a person-oriented method to overcome these limitations and address the complex interplay of multiple dimensions. This approach allowed, following Hypotheses 1, identification of distinct parental profiles using latent profile analysis, for an adequate representation of the combinations of parenting styles. Interestingly, previous studies using person-centered approaches have revealed different combinations of parenting styles but have not confirmed distinct forms of permissive parenting profiles [ 88 , 110 ] or authoritarian profiles [ 130 , 131 ]. Our results supported these findings by considering parenting styles as a multidimensional construct rather than mere forms of distinct parenting styles. These findings build on previous research and demonstrate how person-oriented methods can provide insights that are difficult to achieve with variable-oriented techniques. Detecting the latent profiles used in this study to identify parenting styles would be challenging, if not impossible, to confirm using traditional variable-oriented analyses.

Confirming Hypothesis 1, we found four distinct profiles regarding a mix of all three parenting styles. We could not identify a parenting style that was uniquely focused on authoritarian, authoritative, or permissive styles, demonstrating that parenting styles should be captured as a multidimensional, latent concept. Interestingly, all four patterns were very high in the authoritative style, suggesting that some form of responsiveness and control characterizes all profiles. This finding is in line with other studies [ 87 ], which also found several parenting profiles consisted of authoritative (i.e., adaptive) parenting practices. Additionally, in our research, most parents had middle levels of authoritarian style (i.e., negative features). Specifically, three out of four profiles showed some authoritarian parenting style combined with authoritative and permissive styles. This means that a third of the children and adolescents do experience intrusive, critical, scolding, and threatening behaviors common to authoritarian parents [ 17 , 22 , 23 ], in addition to some levels of warm, loving, and dialogical behaviors [ 17 , 21 ], as well as loose or contradictory discipline [ 18 ].

Notably, analyses of the latent profile frequencies indicated that most parents in our sample perceived their practices as exhibiting a relatively positive parenting style/profile. Given that the concept of equifinality (i.e., different early experiences in life) is helpful for interpreting how parenting styles are associated with adaptive or maladaptive behavioral outcomes over time [ 87 ], the results of the current study extend the research on multiple manifestations of adaptive parenting by Greek parents of children and adolescents. We found it surprising that the permissive style was present to a moderate degree in all four profiles. This means that, although permissiveness alone is negative for socio-emotional development in children and adolescents, our results demonstrate that it was not determinant for profile affiliation in combination with high authoritative and low authoritarian styles.

Confirming Hypothesis 2, the present study demonstrated that the socio-emotional development in childhood and adolescence is strongly linked to the parenting style experienced. Children and adolescents with parents with primarily authoritative parenting styles, characterized by high levels of behavioral control and support and lower levels of psychological control, show a positive developmental status. In contrast, adolescents with affective controlling parents manifest problems in externalizing and internalizing behavior. This aligns with the existing empirical evidence, which consistently shows that the authoritative parenting style is positive for adaptive socio-emotional development, while the others are not [ 132 , 133 , 134 ]. These findings propose that children and adolescents have fewer behavioral problems [ 36 ] and a reduced tendency to internalize problems and dangerous behaviors [ 80 , 81 ].

Although the majority of parenting programs aimed at parents have focused on improving communication with their children, there are limited studies addressing parenting strategies [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Thus, we assume that parents may need more support in coping with their children’s behavioral problems and improving their parenting abilities to decrease the problem behavior. By identifying different patterns of parenting styles, it becomes clear that not all parents have the same needs. Interventions can be tailored to parents’ individual needs and challenges based on their specific profile patterns. This is important because, if parents can learn to create a positive and supportive environment for their children, they can reduce the risk of externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems, especially as parent–child conflict starts early in a child’s life and is very stable over time [ 31 ]. Thus, we adopt Teuber’s et al. [ 8 ] suggestion that the person-oriented results pointed out that it is useful to reinforce parents with guidance on positive parenting skills through parenting programs that focus on adaptive parenting practices, and direct the several maladaptive effects of different forms of dysfunctional practices. Contrary to our expectations regarding prosocial behavior, no significant differences were identified when comparing the levels of prosocial behavior of the four parenting profiles, supposing that our findings are inconsistent with prior findings that indicated that parenting dimensions are related to adolescents’ prosocial behavior [ 70 , 71 ]. Considering that we used SDQ parent reports regarding their children’s prosocial behavior, our study examined prosocial behavior as a global construct, ignoring differentiation between the subtypes of this behavior (e.g., altruistic, compliant, emotional, and public) [ 57 ], as well as between the motivations underlying it.

While our research on Hypotheses 3 challenges the assumption that parents’ age and education are strong determinants of parenting patterns [ 108 , 109 , 110 ], it is essential to note that the existing literature suggests some weak associations. Therefore, it is crucial to interpret our findings with caution. Nonetheless, our study underscores the need for further investigation into the multifaceted factors that influence parenting behaviors and the potential role of intervention programs, such as the newly developed profiles, in shaping these behaviors.

The implications of our findings on Hypothesis 3 are twofold. Firstly, it is suggested that other factors not considered in our research may have a more substantial impact on parenting patterns. It is possible that aspects such as cultural influences, personal values, or individual experiences may play a more significant role in shaping how parents interact with their children. Secondly, the reduced effects of parents’ age and education observed in our study could be attributed to the effectiveness of the newly developed profiles. These profiles might have facilitated a greater homogenization of parenting practices, potentially minimizing the impact of individual characteristics, such as age and education.

6. Limitations

Even if the insights gained by the chosen analytic design clearly expand the previous knowledge on parenting styles, there are a few limitations. As patterns of parental styles are not traits but states, we needed, instead of the chosen cross-sectional approach, a full longitudinal design. In future research, a latent transition analysis (LTA) should be applied to indicate significant differences in the longitudinal classification of the identified parenting patterns. LTA, the longitudinal extension of LCA, is a statistical tool that models possible parenting style pattern transitions over time. Especially. the findings regarding the “highly authoritative parenting style” as the least connected to children’s internalizing or externalizing problems should be approached with caution. There may be other confounding factors not considered in the analysis that could influence these associations, such as autonomy support and controlling parenting [ 135 , 136 ] or child–parent communication [ 137 ]. We also used parents’ self-perceptions of their parenting styles. Including the children’s perceptions of the respective parenting styles would have been interesting. Given that relations with parents play a distinct role in children’s development, the respective qualities of the relationship between parents and children are significant predictors of children’s academic, personal, and social development [ 138 ].

In addition, as our sample only included participants from a specific cultural context (Greek parents), the generalization of the findings to other countries and cultural contexts is rather limited. Furthermore, the sample restrictions and our specific sampling approach via the Internet can be considered another study limitation, even if our sample was large enough to be considered stable against minor deviations. Nevertheless, Mann and Stewart [ 139 ] noticed the risk of losing sight of who responds to online questionnaires. For example, about 90% of mothers answered our questionnaire. Although these surveys do not represent the total population of internet users, non-probability samples can be valuable, as they may be representative of a subgroup of the total population [ 113 ]. Another limitation is that marital status did not indicate if the parents were single mothers or fathers. In a future study, we could ask for this additional information, because it may matter to the chosen parenting styles [ 5 ]. We also did not ask for family income or migration status, both conditions that can also affect parenting styles [ 91 , 140 ].

7. Conclusions

To sum up, our results succeeded in extending parental types beyond the traditional authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative styles. The current study brings to light the person-centered approach in which parenting styles are better expanded into four parenting profiles, with the authoritative style predominating. Given the importance of the finding that one-third of children and adolescents exhibit behavior problems, the socio-emotional development in childhood and adolescence reaffirms the necessity of parenting programs to guide parenting practices.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by The Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) through the SNF-Project 100019_185481 “Understanding the resilience pathways of adolescent students with experience of physical family violence: The interplay of individual, family and school class risk and protective factors”, awarded to WK (University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.V. and W.K.; methodology, A.V., W.K. and A.K.; formal analysis, W.K.; data collection, A.K.; original draft preparation, A.V. and W.K.; writing—review and editing, A.V., W.K., A.K., D.A., C.A.F. and S.T.; funding acquisition, W.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and did not have to be approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hellenic Open University because of the sample (participants’ age) and the topic.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

• Testimonials
• How it works
• Paper Writers Team
• Essay Writing Guide
• Free plagiarism checker
• Essay title generator
• Conclusion Generator
• Citation Generator
• Can ChatGPT Write Essays?
• Types of Essays
• Essay Writing Formats
• Essay Topics
• Best Research Paper Topics
• Classification Essay

YOUR GUIDE TO CLASSIFICATION ESSAY

Table of contents, what is a classification essay, how to write a classification essay, defining categories for your essay, classification essay topic ideas, writing a classification essay, classification essay structure, additional classification essay writing tips, do you still need help.

What is a classification essay? Some parents are permissive. Some parents are authoritative. Still, other parents are authoritarian. Each parenting style gets different results, and the choice parents make can impact their relationship with their children as they become adults. This makes parenting a good choice for writing a classification essay. This is an essay where people, concepts, events, and things are sorted into predetermined categories.

A classification essay can be assigned to any class. They aren’t the most common essay type. In fact, you may not encounter one of these assignments at all. Still, it’s good to be prepared. In this piece, we’ll go over all of the important steps required to write a classification essay. This includes topic selection, writing your classification essay outline, writing your rough draft, and finishing your final draft. We will close with some other writing tips. If you follow the guidelines we’ve laid out here, you should be able to write a classification paper fairly easily.

The first thing that you have to do is create your different classifications, and to define those. It’s important that you are consistent in the criteria that you use, and that your criteria are clear. Remember that it doesn’t matter if another writer would choose different criteria. What matters is that yours are well defined. 

Here are some ideas for sorting things:

• Observe how similar objects are used differently.
• Observe how people with similar interests approach those interests differently.
• Look for categories according to personality traits.
• Look for similarities based on physical traits.

Consider making a simple list of things that interest you . Next, think about how you can create categories within each subject.

For example, if you have a favorite television show, you could research online to learn more about the different people who watch the show as well. You may notice that there are ‘shippers’ who only care about a particular pair of characters. There may also be ‘spoilers’ who run to social media at the end of every episode to blab about the plot. Another group of fans might be the ‘newbies’ who just started watching, and have constant questions about the backstory and characters.

Here are some good classification essay topics:

• Animated Television Shows
• Movie Theater Patrons
• Weight Loss Plans
• Online Daters
• Styles of Dance
• Extracurricular Activities at School
• Christmas Gifts
• Ways to Stop a Bad Habit
• Restaurants
• Teaching Styles
• Coaching Styles
• Political Views
• Sibling Relationships
• Late Night Snackers
• Television Advertising
• Charitable Giving

This classification essay topics list shows just a few of your options. As you can see, t he possibilities range from simple topics that you can define off the top of your head, to serious and complex topics that would require research.

Classification Essay Research

Depending on the nature of your essay topic, you may need to do some research. For example, if you selected parenting styles, you might read up on those. It would be important to have a clear definition of each. 

In any case, you will also need to write out the different characteristics that each item will need to fall into the classifications you’ve created. A spreadsheet will work well for this. If you are more of a visual or tactile learner, try graph paper, a whiteboard, or a bullet journal.

Writing Your Thesis Statement

When you write your paper, your introductory paper will lead up to your thesis statement. This will clearly state the topic along with the classifications you have created. For example, ‘Parents may borrow from each style, but most parents fall into one of three categories: permissive, authoritative, and authoritarian.

Classification Essay Outline

Nearly every good essay will begin with an outline. An outline will help you to organize your thoughts, and determine how you will present each of your classifications. Here’s a brief example of a classification essay example.

• Hook: Everyone is responsible for the type of adult they become, but your parents play a major role in that. 
• What type of parents were yours? What type of parent will you be?
• There are three types of parenting styles, authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive.
• Examples of authoritarian parenting.
• Statistics on the impact of authoritarian parenting.
• Examples of permissive parenting.
• Statistics on the impact of permissive parenting.
• Examples of authoritative parenting.
• Statistics on the impact of permissive parenting

In this outline, you can use parenting examples to classify different parenting behaviors. You could even find some real-life examples. Perhaps you could find a good or bad parenting story from the news that you think exemplifies each parenting style.

Classification Essay Rough Draft

Your outline is a great starting point. The next step is to turn that outline into the beginnings of a classification essay. The first thing to do is create a rough draft. Just like you imagine, you’ll be turning the outline into a rough draft by creating paragraphs, sentences, and a powerful introduction and conclusion. 

You may follow a standard three paragraph structure. However, you don’t have to. For example, you could use the first body paragraph to get deeper into the definition of each of your categories. Then follow up with one body paragraph for each. You could also write two or more paragraphs for each of your classifications.

Here you should focus on backing up your points , making good use of your sources, and transitioning easily from one point to the next. Remember that your body paragraphs should have a clear, main idea sentence.

Classification Essay Final Draft

Once it’s time to write your final draft, most of the hard work should be done. Now, focus on polishing things. Fix any spelling and grammar mistakes. Go back to your assignment, and make sure you have followed all of the instructions. Check your word count, and your citations. With a bit of work, your paper should be absolutely ready to turn in.

Best classification paper topics

Here are some additional tips you should follow when writing your classification essay.

• Avoid stereotyping or slamming any groups of people. You could offend the person grading your paper.
• Focus on one set of classifications, and don’t add new classifications as you go .
• Run your classifications by someone else to get a second opinion.
• Make sure your classifications are relevant to your course.
• Clearly define your criteria to your audience.
• Find and use interesting examples of each classification.
• Use anecdotes to help your audience understand.
• Back any statements you make with data.
• Only use academic sources to support your points.
• Double check your citation format. Be certain that you are adhering to the criteria.

We created this guide to provide students with a step by step format to follow along with some examples. We understand that you may need additional assistance on top of this. If that is the case, we are always here to help. Do not hesitate to contact us with additional questions, or to check out our other writing tools. Our experts are available to you 24/7.

External links

• Classification Essay. (2020). Retrieved February 3, 2020, from Boun.edu.tr website: http://www.buowl.boun.edu.tr/students/types%20of%20essays/Classification%20Essay.htm
• Writing A Classification Paper - TIP Sheet - Butte College. (2020). Retrieved February 3, 2020, from Butte.edu website: http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/style_purpose_strategy/classification_paper.html
• Classification Essay . (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.spot.pcc.edu/~dramirez/262Writing8/Handouts/ExcerptHandbookClassification.pdf
• https://www.facebook.com/thoughtcodotcom. (2019). How to Write a Classification Essay. Retrieved February 3, 2020, from ThoughtCo website: https://www.thoughtco.com/develop-and-organize-a-classification-essay-1690712

How ready is your essay?

Don`t have an account?

Password recovery instructions have been sent to your email

Back to Log in

Importance of Parenting Concepts Classification Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Parenting is a continuous process that usually does not produce immediate results. This implies that parents have to be actively involved in child rearing to ensure positive development and nurture desired norms and values.

Parenting is termed as a gift and a privilege since parents are given the opportunity to positively impact a person’s life. This paper highlights the definitions of parenting, explains different parenting styles, drawbacks to successful parenting and reviews emerging issues in the area. It also seeks to examine the ecological model and its relation to parenting.

Definitions of Parenting

Parenting, often referred to as child rearing, refers to the process of providing emotional, physical, social and financial support towards the full growth of a child. It can be carried out by biological parents or adoptive parents who take it upon themselves to ensure that a child develops progressively from infancy to adulthood.

Upon reaching adulthood, children are in better positions to assume independence. Competent parenting is achieved through a gradual process of acquiring skills and adapting to different environments (which a child and a parent are often exposed to).

Competent parenting

Competent parenting is achieved through a combination of several features. To ensure positive growth in a child, parents need to be sensitive to a variety of factors.

Parenting depends on pre-existing conditions of a child which include traits, abilities, characteristics and type of temperament. Competent parenting entails several features which parents should strive to cultivate: perceptiveness, flexibility, responsiveness and persistence (Parenting Today, 2013).

Perceptiveness calls for the need to be aware and observant of a childs’ emotional and behavioral changes. This facilitates identification and regulation of child behavior. Observance requires parents to be attentive to small details that often go unnoticed.

Some events that occur during child growth require parents to be sensitive to different changes which influence them. Upon identifying these changes, parents can thereby act accordingly. This eliminates the problem of ‘passive parenting’, which is evident in some families.

Flexibility refers to the ability to adapt to different situations appropriately. This implies that parents should be armed with a wide range of problem solving skills, usually acquired from experience and previous learning. This facilitates the possibility of effectively responding to different demands and situations, as and when need arises.

Different situations present themselves (ranging from academics, social and personal issues) during child development. It is the responsibility of the parent to ensure that they are armed with adequate problem solving skills to deal with these situations adequately.

Responsiveness is aimed at fostering adjustment based on changing needs of a child. Parents should be aware of what their children are going through and in the process understand that a parents’ warmth is vital for child development.

Affection should be expressed in all situations including rebuke. Gradual persistence builds on optimism which arises from positive attitudes. Children often learn from parents’ behavior through observation and this affects impartation of skills.

Challenges to successful parenting

Certain factors impinge on successful parenting. Cultivating positive parenting is arguably vital for growth in children. However, various aspects act as drawbacks to successful parenting. One major drawback arises from lack of cohesion between two parents. This usually occurs when one of the parents upholds certain values, often relating to discipline, that the other considers irrelevant.

In this case, the child is aware of the conflict transpiring between parents and may be torn between whom to follow and who not to. Children should be oblivious of any conflict between parents.

Parents should display consistency in matters relating to discipline and decisions that have a great effect on a child. Failure to do this may lead to emergence of rifts and favoritism arising from a child preferring one parent over the other because of the values they uphold.

Parenting is also affected by dysfunctionalaities in individual parents. These dysfunctionalaities arise from poor backgrounds of the child’s’ parents which leave them clueless on how to practice good parenting. Involvement of parents in drugs, alcohol or crime affects child upbringing negatively.

Issues pertaining to depression and lack of good family standings contribute to setbacks in child development. The common scenario is where parents concentrate on other things (like drugs, gambling and excessive drinking) at the expense of their children. They forget their parental responsibilities meaning that they are not in a position to execute responsibilities. This amounts to negligence

Negative media also influences parenting. The media is filled with all sorts of negative messages that children are exposed to. As a result, children believe what they see and acquire a perception of ‘I want a mommy or daddy’ like that. This is evident from many reality shows where parental values and acceptable norms are often ignored.

Despite the drawbacks mentioned above, there are several key ingredients to successful parenting. They include enforcement of rewards and punishment to support good behavior and manners. Children should be reminded of consequences that emerge as a result of the decisions they make.

Another key ingredient is ensuring consistency disciplinary values to serve as a reminder to children. These setbacks can be alleviated by exercising a variety of things which include counseling and attending parenting programs to assist in acquisition of desired skills and abilities (Guhl & Fontenelle, 2000).

Parenting styles

There are a variety of parenting styles that have been defined by scholars and psychologists alike. These styles are based on how parents respond to situations and their level of control. Failure to strike a balance between responsiveness and control can be detrimental to a child’s’ growth and lead to a disaster in parenting (Schaffer, 2009).

Children who grow up in settings where one of the requirements is overemphasized tend to have issues relating to esteem, discipline and more often than not, academic performance may be negatively affected. This may trigger depression and anxiety at later stages in life.

The four major types of parenting styles include authoritative, authoritarian, permissive and uninvolved parenting. These styles represent constructs and strategies that parents apply in parenting (Balter, 2000).

Authoritative parenting

It is categorized as one of the most balanced and democratic types of parenting which is geared towards wholeness and positive maturity of child. This is due to the fact that parents are both responsive and demanding. It is based on a collective approach to parenting which involves children in the problem solving process.

This form of parenting gives a child a sense of freedom in making decisions hence cultivating independence. However, parents initially determine standards and continuously monitor their children to ensure they act responsibly. Disciplinary measures are characterized by a level of objectiveness rather than violent bursts which would otherwise engrave a negative image on the importance of discipline in a child (Brooks, 2000).

Authoritarian parenting

Authoritarian parenting is also referred to ‘strict parenting’. Authoritarian parenting is characterized by parents who are not responsive, however they are demanding. Parents usually set principles and standards that are to be religiously adhered to, with little or no discussions with the child. No form of explanation is provided to the child regarding the rules and regulations that have been defined by parents.

The result of such strictness leads to growth of ‘social dwarfs’. In this case, children are socially incompetent of developing relations due to the fact that they are accustomed to being told what to do and are seldom allowed to follow their hearts. Most children who have underwent this form of parenting end up feeling very insecure and are incapable of developing lasting social relations (Schaffer & Kipp, 2009).

Permissive parenting

Permissive parenting is considered a form of lenient parenting. It is responsive yet not demanding. Parents exercise little control over their children. Responsiveness emerges from the fact that parents are sensitive to the children’s’ needs despite failure to set strict rules and standards relating to behavior and manners.

The major disadvantage of this type of parenting is the fact that children from such homes end up engaging in misconduct as they are used to having their way in doing things (Bjorklund & Blasi, 2011).

Uninvolved parenting

Uninvolved parenting is mainly passive. Parents are unaware and insensitive to child growth and development. It is characterized by lack of responsiveness and demand in raising up a child. This form of parenting is neglectful due to the fact that it does not take into consideration any of the important strategies. Parents are completely detached and unsupportive to emerging needs of a child.

Such parents normally have other priorities (and values) other than child growth. They are totally unaware of events that children go through. As a result of this, children develop a sense of false independence because they are left to mature on their own.

Children who are a product of such parenting have social relation issues and find it difficult to observe any set rules and regulations. Neglect usually arises from a variety of things which include addiction to harmful and illegal substances, financial issues and failure to prioritize the importance of child upbringing (Sigelman & Rider, 2011).

Parenting should not be regarded as an ‘in house’ task. The community plays a major role in ensuring that parents are kept on their toes in exercising positive parenting. The community should cultivate a culture where acceptable norms, values and mannerisms of behavior are encouraged and emphasized.

The community has a role in ensuring that parental programs, to instill parental values and encourage competency in parenting, are conducted to promote child growth and development (Fisher & Lerner, 2004).

The ecological model and parenting

The ecological model supports the idea that children’s growth and development is equally determined by external factors. Healthy maturity depends on settings that are beyond the confines of a home. The ecological model places a child at the center of micro systems which the child is in constant interaction with. External events, values and norms are learned by children depending on the environments they are in.

Child development is evidently affected by settings like educational institutions, extended families and community neighborhoods. As a child grows and time passes by, contexts change and each of the new developments affect the growth of the child hence parenting should accommodate these changes (Luster & Okagaki, 2005).

Skills of a competent parent

Parenting has been termed as a demanding task despite being a natural process. A parent needs to invest time in ensuring proper upbringing of a child. Becoming a better parent calls for acquisition of certain skills to foster good health, success and development of a child. The most important is love.

Parents should be affectionate to their children and create time to bond with them. This in turn creates a feeling of appreciation.(10 Skills of Competent Parents, 2013).

Relationship skills allow the parent and child to have a healthy relationship and in turn the child is in a better position to establish healthy relations with others. Parents should be respectful and encourage autonomy.

The child should be encouraged to understand their sense of purpose in life and reminded that they are self sufficient. Other skills that are vital in parenting include stress management, behavior management, safety and support of spiritual development (Golombok, 2000).

Communication quality and parenting

Communication is a key aspect in ensuring good parenting. Failure to communicate effectively leads to conflicts due to lack of understanding between the parties involved. Communication between a parent and a child should be open, and should not require the presence of a mediator. The right quality of interactions and communication affects the positive growth of a child.

Communication calls for the parent to be attentive to emerging needs and changes. The parent should simply listen to the child. The quality of relationships which children make is directly linked with parenting. Communication ensures that both the parent and child are aware of their environments and are in a position to express themselves adequately irrespective of the situations (Macklem, 2008).

Media and parenting

The medias’ role in parenting has recently evolved over the years. The media has played an important role in parenting in several ways. Parents are increasingly looking to the media for information on child rearing through access to a wide array of topics on parenting. Parenting information is available online where parents can borrow lessons from true stories and other experienced parents.

Psychologists also offer chunks of advice to assist parents in child growth and development. The TV also provides a considerable amount of content on parenting which parents can learn from. The print media equally discusses topics on child rearing and other child related stories. Several media owners in the print industry have devoted several pages to discussions on issues relating to family life (Simpson, n.d., para 11).

Despite the positive influence of media, there are several challenges that the media has generated. TV has largely been viewed as the major source of parenting advice hence overlooking other important aspects that build parenting like family and religion.

Sometimes, application of parenting advice varies from situation to situation. Therefore, what is portrayed in the media may be confusing and fail to apply efficiently in different situations. This implies that parents should not treat the media as ‘gospel truth’ hence they should discern what is right and applicable (DeGaetano,2004).

10 Skills of Competent Parents. (2013). Web.

Balter, L. (2000). Parenthood in America: An Encyclopaedia. California, USA: ABC, CLIO.

Bjorklund, D. F. ,& Blasi, C. H (2011). Child and Adolescent Development: An Integrated Approach. California:,USA:Cengage Learning.

Brooks, J. (2000). Parenting. USA: Mc Graw-hill.

DeGaetano, G. (2004). Parenting Well in a Media Age: Keeping our Kids Human. California, USA: Personhood Press.

Fisher, C. B. , & Lerner, R. M. (2004). Encyclopaedia of Applied Developmental Science. USA: Sage Publications Ltd.

Golombok, S. (2000). Parenting: What Really Counts? New York, USA: Taylor and Francis Group.

Guhl, B. , & Fontenelle, D. H. (2000). Purrfect Parenting. Arizona, USA: Fisher Books.

Luster, T., & Okagaki, L. (2005). Parenting: An Ecological Perspective. New Jersey, USA: Routlege.

Macklem, G. L. (2008). Practitioner’s Guide to Emotion Regulation in School-Aged Children. Massachusetts, USA: Springer.

Parenting Today. (2013). Web.

Schaffer, D. (2009). Social and Personality Development. California, USA: Cengage Learning.

Schaffer, D. R., & Kipp, K. (2009). Developmental Psychology: Childhood and Adolescence. California, USA: Cengage Learning.

Sigelman, C. K., & Rider, E. A. (2011). Life Span Human Development. California, USA: Cengage Learning.

Simpson, A. R. Role of Mass Media in Parenting Education. Web.

• Parenting Style in Japan and USA
• Four Styles of Parenting
• Parenting Styles and Overweight Status
• Effects of Childhood Experiences on Self Injurious Behavior in Adulthood
• Overmedication in School-Age Children
• Comparison of Preschool and Middle School Child Development
• Diagnosis in Child Psychopathology
• A True Nature of the Effects of Child Abuse and Neglect in a Society
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, July 1). Importance of Parenting Concepts. https://ivypanda.com/essays/parenting-concepts/

"Importance of Parenting Concepts." IvyPanda , 1 July 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/parenting-concepts/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Importance of Parenting Concepts'. 1 July.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Importance of Parenting Concepts." July 1, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/parenting-concepts/.

1. IvyPanda . "Importance of Parenting Concepts." July 1, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/parenting-concepts/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Importance of Parenting Concepts." July 1, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/parenting-concepts/.

Advertisement

Parenting Styles: A Closer Look at a Well-Known Concept

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 18 September 2018
• Volume 28 , pages 168–181, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Sofie Kuppens   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3433-0465 1 , 2 &
• Eva Ceulemans 3  

153k Accesses

133 Citations

239 Altmetric

41 Mentions

Explore all metrics

Although parenting styles constitute a well-known concept in parenting research, two issues have largely been overlooked in existing studies. In particular, the psychological control dimension has rarely been explicitly modelled and there is limited insight into joint parenting styles that simultaneously characterize maternal and paternal practices and their impact on child development. Using data from a sample of 600 Flemish families raising an 8-to-10 year old child, we identified naturally occurring joint parenting styles. A cluster analysis based on two parenting dimensions (parental support and behavioral control) revealed four congruent parenting styles: an authoritative, positive authoritative, authoritarian and uninvolved parenting style. A subsequent cluster analysis comprising three parenting dimensions (parental support, behavioral and psychological control) yielded similar cluster profiles for the congruent (positive) authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles, while the fourth parenting style was relabeled as a congruent intrusive parenting style. ANOVAs demonstrated that having (positive) authoritative parents associated with the most favorable outcomes, while having authoritarian parents coincided with the least favorable outcomes. Although less pronounced than for the authoritarian style, having intrusive parents also associated with poorer child outcomes. Results demonstrated that accounting for parental psychological control did not yield additional parenting styles, but enhanced our understanding of the pattern among the three parenting dimensions within each parenting style and their association with child outcomes. More similarities than dissimilarities in the parenting of both parents emerged, although adding psychological control slightly enlarged the differences between the scores of mothers and fathers.

Similar content being viewed by others

Father-Child Attachment Relationships

From parental personality over parental styles to children psychopathic tendencies

Associations of Parenting Styles with Self-Esteem in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Parenting has gained ample research attention from various scientific disciplines. Many theoretical frameworks emphasize that parenting plays a vital role in child development, which has fueled research investigating the impact of parenting on child development for over 75 years. When studying parenting, researchers can take various strategies by considering parenting practices, parenting dimensions or parenting styles. Parenting practices can be defined as directly observable specific behaviors that parents use to socialize their children (Darling and Steinberg 1993 ). For example, parenting practices intended to promote academic achievement are showing involvement by attending parent–teacher meetings or regular supervision of children’s homework. Other parenting practices pertain to positive reinforcement, discipline, or problem solving.

Rather than focusing on specific parenting practices, other researchers have identified overarching parenting dimensions that reflect similar parenting practices, mostly by modeling the relationships among these parenting practices using factor analytic techniques. There is consensus among scientists about the existence of at least two broad dimensions of parenting, labeled parental support and parental control. Parental support pertains to the affective nature of the parent-child relationship, indicated by showing involvement, acceptance, emotional availability, warmth, and responsivity (Cummings et al. 2000 ). Support has been related to positive development outcomes in children, such as the prevention of alcohol abuse and deviance (Barnes and Farrell 1992 ), depression and delinquency (Bean et al. 2006 ) and externalizing problem behavior (Shaw et al. 1994 ).

The control dimension has been subdivided into psychological and behavioral control (Barber 1996 ; Schaefer 1965 ; Steinberg 1990 ). Parental behavioral control consists of parenting behavior that attempts to control, manage or regulate child behavior, either through enforcing demands and rules, disciplinary strategies, control of rewards and punishment, or through supervisory functions (Barber 2002 ; Maccoby 1990 ; Steinberg 1990 ). An appropriate amount of behavioral control has been considered to positively affect child development, whereas insufficient (e.g., poor parental monitoring) or excessive behavioral control (e.g., parental physical punishment) has been commonly associated with negative child developmental outcomes, such as deviant behavior, misconduct, depression and anxious affect (e.g., Barnes and Farrell 1992 ; Coie and Dodge 1998 ; Galambos et al. 2003 ; Patterson et al. 1984 ). While parental behavioral control refers to control over the child’s behavior, parental psychological control pertains to an intrusive type of control in which parents attempt to manipulate children’s thoughts, emotions, and feelings (Barber 1996 ; Barber et al. 2005 ). Due to its manipulative and intrusive nature, psychological control has almost exclusively been associated with negative developmental outcomes in children and adolescents, such as depression, antisocial behaviour and relational regression (e.g., Barber and Harmon 2002 ; Barber et al. 2005 ; Kuppens et al. 2013 ). The three parenting dimensions (support, psychological control, and behavioral control) have been labelled conceptually distinct, although they are related to some extent (Barber et al. 2005 ; Soenens et al. 2012 ).

Other authors have taken yet a different approach to studying parenting by emphasizing that specific combinations of parenting practices within a parent particularly impact child development rather than separate parenting practices or dimensions (e.g., Baumrind 1991 ; Maccoby and Martin 1983 ). Within such a configurational approach, one examines which patterns of parenting practices occur within the same parent and how these patterns—commonly labelled as parenting styles— are related to children’s development. Such parenting styles have the clear advantage of accounting for different parenting practices at the same time within the same person. As such, it comprises a person–centered approach that focuses on configurations within individuals rather than a variable–centered approach that focuses on relationships among variables across individuals as has been used to identify parenting dimensions (Magnusson 1998 ).

Baumrind ( 1966 , 1967 , 1971 ) is commonly considered a pioneer of research into parenting styles. She introduced a typology with three parenting styles to describe differences in normal parenting behaviors: the authoritarian, authoritative and permissive parenting style. Baumrind ( 1971 ) suggested that authoritarian parents try to shape, control, and evaluate their children’s behavior based on the absolute set of standards; whereas permissive parents are warmer and more autonomy granting than controlling. She considered an authoritative parenting style to fall between those two extremes. Later on in the 1980s, Maccoby and Martin ( 1983 ) attempted to bridge Baumrind’s typology and parenting dimensions. Based on the combination of two dimensions – demandingness and responsiveness – they defined four parenting styles: authoritative (i.e., high demandingness and high responsiveness); authoritarian (i.e., high demandingness and low responsiveness); indulgent (i.e., low demandingness and high responsiveness); and neglectful (i.e., low demandingness and low responsiveness). These two parenting dimensions are similar, yet not identical to the dimensions ‘parental support’ and ‘parental behavioral control’. Based on Maccoby and Martin’s work, Baumrind ( 1989 , 1991 ) expanded her typology with a fourth parenting style, namely the ‘neglectful’ parenting style.

Maccoby and Martin ( 1983 ) research efforts primarily focused on the configuration of the parenting styles and to a lesser extent on their association with children’s development. Baumrind, in contrast, has also extensively studied the association between parenting styles and child development (1967, 1971, 1989, 1991). This work consistently demonstrated that youth of authoritative parents had the most favorable development outcomes; authoritarian and permissive parenting were associated with negative developmental outcomes; while outcomes for children of neglectful parents were poorest. These aforementioned associations have also been replicated by other researchers. An authoritative parenting style has consistently been associated with positive developmental outcomes in youth, such as psychosocial competence (e.g., maturation, resilience, optimism, self-reliance, social competence, self-esteem) and academic achievement (e.g., Baumrind 1991 ; Lamborn et al. 1991 ; Steinberg et al. 1994 ). Findings regarding permissive/indulgent parenting have been inconsistent yielding associations with internalizing (i.e., anxiety, depression, withdrawn behavior, somatic complaints) and externalizing problem behavior (i.e., school misconduct, delinquency), but also with social skills, self–confidence, self–understanding and active problem coping (e.g., Lamborn et al. 1991 ; Steinberg et al. 1994 ; Williams et al. 2009 ; Wolfradt et al. 2003 ). An authoritarian parenting style has consistently been associated with negative developmental outcomes, such as aggression, delinquent behaviors, somatic complaints, depersonalisation and anxiety (e.g., Hoeve et al. 2008 ; Steinberg et al. 1994 ; Williams et al. 2009 ; Wolfradt et al. 2003 ). Children of neglectful parents have shown the least favorable outcomes on multiple domains, such as lacking self-regulation and social responsibility, poor self-reliance and social competence, poor school competence, antisocial behavior and delinquency, anxiety, depression and somatic complaints (e.g., Baumrind 1991 ; Hoeve et al. 2008 ; Lamborn et al. 1991 ; Steinberg et al. 1994 ).

Baumrind’s typology (1966) was initially determined on theoretical grounds, although with time she did conduct empirical validation research (1967, 1971, 1989, 1991). Nonetheless, the empirical studies always started with parenting styles that were predefined in a prototypical score profile in terms of minimum or maximum limit scores (e.g., scores above or below the median) on the different parenting practices; thus parents were first classified using cut–off scores for these predefined parenting styles and afterwards associations with child developmental outcomes were examined. However, such a confirmatory approach is not preferred to investigate parenting styles types (Mandara 2003 ) as it does not allow the identification of the naturally occurring typology, because people are actually forced into some predefined category defined on theoretical grounds. To empirically identify typologies in a certain population an exploratory clustering approach is needed (Everitt et al. 2001 ; Mandara 2003 ). Such clustering methods entail that persons are assessed on different variables (e.g., parenting practices) and patterns that naturally occur in the data are identified. Persons with a similar score profile are classified in the same cluster and those with distinctly different profile scores are classified into other clusters; with the number of clusters and associated score profiles being unknown a priori. The literature shows that researchers started to adopt such clustering methods in research into parenting styles about 15 to 20 years ago (Aunola et al. 2000 ; Beato et al. 2016 ; Brenner andand Fox 1999 ; Carlson and Tanner 2006 ; Chaudhuri et al. 2009 ; Dwairy et al. 2006 ; Gorman-Smith et al. 2000 ; Heberle et al. 2015 ; Hoeve et al. 2008 ; Lee et al. 2006 ; Mandara and Murray 2002 ; Martin et al. 2007 ; McGroder 2000 ; McKinney and Renk 2008 ; Meteyer and Perry-Jenkins 2009 ; Metsäpelto and Pulkkinen 2003 ; Pereira et al. 2008 ; Russell et al. 1998 ; Shucksmith et al. 1995 ; Tam and Lam 2004 ; van der Horst and Sleddens 2017 ; Wolfradt et al. 2003 ). These studies have generally identified three or four parenting styles that resemble the initial theoretical parenting styles.

Although Baumrind’s typology has greatly influenced parenting research, two issues have largely been overlooked in the existing knowledge. A first issue relates to the psychological control dimension which is currently considered the third parenting dimension. Initially, Baumrind paid little attention to the role of psychological control because her control dimension solely referred to parental socializing practices aimed at integrating the child in the family and society (Darling and Steinberg 1993 ). In her later work (1971, 1989, 1991), Baumrind did incorporate aspects of psychological control but the confirmatory nature of that research (cf. using predefined clusters) makes it impossible to determine which parenting styles would naturally evolve when psychological control would be taken into account. Empirical studies have also rarely explicitly included parental psychological control when modeling parenting styles. So far, the limited research including psychological control indices (e.g., Pereira et al. 2008 ; Wolfradt et al. 2003 ) has mostly identified four parenting styles that match the theoretically distinct styles. Within these parenting styles psychological control coincided with behavioral control levels in the authoritarian parenting style, yet cumulative knowledge remains too limited to draw firm conclusions.

A second issue is that existing research provides little insight into the coexistence of maternal and paternal parenting styles and their joint impact on child development. Although Baumrind included both parents in her studies, she assigned a (pre-defined) parenting style to each one separately. In some studies (1991), data was limited to mothers if both parents were assigned a different parenting style; in others (1971) families were entirely excluded in such instances. Not only Baumrind, but research on parenting styles in general has paid less attention to the impact of joint parenting styles on child development (Martin et al. 2007 ; McKinney and Renk 2008 ; Simons and Conger 2007 ), but has mainly focused on the unique, differential or interaction effects of maternal and paternal parenting styles adopting a variable-oriented perspective (e.g., Beato et al. 2016 ; Miranda et al. 2016 ). Children in two-parent households are influenced by the combined practices of both parents (Martin et al. 2007 ); and some studies have clearly shown that mothers and fathers can differ in their parenting style (Conrade and Ho 2001 ; McKinney and Renk 2008 ; Russell et al. 1998 ). Considering how the parenting styles of both parents cluster together, therefore, aligns more closely with the real experiences of children growing up in two-parent households. Only such an approach can shed light onto possible additive and compensatory effects (Martin et al. 2007 ). For example, Simons and Conger ( 2007 ) found evidence for an additive effect as having two authoritative parents was associated with the most favorable outcomes in adolescents, as well as a compensatory effect where one parent’s authoritative parenting style generally buffered the less effective parenting style of the other parent. Similarly, McKinney and Renk ( 2008 ) suggested that in late adolescence perceiving one parent as authoritative while the other parent has a different parenting style, partly buffered for emotional adjustment problems.

Only two studies have simultaneously clustered maternal and paternal practices into joint parenting styles and examined how they are associated with child development (for other approaches, see Martin et al. 2007 ; Simons and Conger 2007 ; Steinberg et al. 1994 ). Meteyer and Perry-Jenkins ( 2009 ) modeled the warmth and dysfunctional discipline practices of both parents resulting in three parenting styles that aligned with Baumrind’s typology, namely supportive parents (i.e., similar to Baumrind’s authoritative style), mixed–supportive parents (i.e., mother’s parenting style is similar to Baumrind’s ‘good enough parenting’–style and father’s to Baumrind’s authoritarian style) and non–supportive parents (i.e., similar to Baumrinds’ authoritarian style). Although insightful, this study did not incorporate aspects of psychological control; was limited to early elementary school children (6– to 7– year olds); and was based on a rather small sample size (85 families). McKinney and Renk ( 2008 ) identified four joint parenting styles in their cluster analyses using late adolescents’ (18–22 years) reports of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting: congruent authoritative (i.e., an authoritative parenting style by both parents), congruent authoritarian (i.e., an authoritarian parenting style by both parents), an authoritarian father–authoritative mother combination, and a permissive father–authoritarian mother combination. This study used ratings of parenting styles as input for cluster analysis leaving the role of separate parenting dimensions unclear.

We aimed to extend the existing research on the well-known parenting styles concept by identifying joint parenting styles in an exploratory manner using data on three major parenting dimensions (i.e., support, behavioral control and psychological control) and their associations with child behavioral outcomes in a large sample of mothers and fathers raising elementary school children. In particular, we first examined whether the configuration of exploratory identified parenting styles differed when the – often neglected – psychological control dimension was considered in addition to the support and behavioral control dimensions. Secondly, we identified how parenting practices of mothers and fathers clustered together into joint parenting styles. We were particularly interested in exploring whether similarity or dissimilarity would depict the joint parenting styles. Incongruence could be expected from attachment or gender theories that particularly stress differences between parents’ roles, while assortative or socialization processes could result in highly congruent parenting styles. Thirdly, we associated these joint parenting styles to child behavioral outcomes. For incongruent parenting styles, we particularly examined whether the different parenting styles may buffer each other’s impact on child outcomes. For congruent parenting styles, we looked at additive effects in which parents’ (very) similar styles may reinforce each other’s impact on child outcomes.

Participants

Participants were 600 Flemish families with an elementary-school child (301 boys; 299 girls). The children’s age ranged from 8 to 10 years ( M =  9.27, SD  = 0.83). For 556 children both parents participated, while for the remaining children only the mother ( n  = 40) or father ( n  = 4) took part in the study. The participating mothers and fathers were on average 38.09 ( SD  = 4.00) and 40.39 years old ( SD  = 4.85), respectively. Most parents received 12 to 15 years of education. The vast majority of children (92%) were of Belgian origin (i.e., children and both parents born in Belgium). The remaining children mostly originated from another European country ( n =  28); a limited number had an African ( n  = 7), US ( n  = 4), Middle East ( n =  1), Asian ( n =  1) or unknown origin ( n  = 7). Most children (84%) lived in traditional two-parent families with married biological parents; others belonged to a blended family (5%), a household with shared custody (2%), or a single-parent household (9%). In this study, we focused on the subsample of families for which both parents consented to participate. Of the initial 556 families, data were available for a final sample of 527 families due to some non-response.

We used data on parenting collected in a Flemish large-scale study on social determinants of child psychosocial functioning including three cohorts: 8–, 9– and 10– year olds. To safeguard representativeness, a two-stage proportional stratified random sample of elementary school children enrolled in mainstream Flemish schools was drawn. In a first stage, 195 Flemish schools were randomly selected taking into account the distribution of schools across the five Flemish provinces and the Brussels region of which 55 schools agreed to participate. In a second stage, 913 children (2nd to 4th grade) were randomly selected within the participating schools. Parents received an introductory letter and consent form via the teachers. Informed consent to participate in the study was obtained for 600 families with both parents participating for 556 children. We used information on parenting practices collected from both parents. The parents received their questionnaires via the teacher during the second trimester and were asked to complete them individually and independently of each other. Given that 583 mothers (98%), and 538 fathers (96%) actually completed the questionnaire, non-response was fairly low.

Parental behavioral control

Parental behavioral control was operationalized via 19 items of the subscales Rules (8 items; α mother  = 0.79; α father  = 0.82)), Discipline (6 items; α mother  = 0.78; α father  = 0.80) and Harsh Punishment (5 items; α mother  = 0.76; α father  = 0.80) of the Ghent Parental Behavior Scale (Van Leeuwen and Vermulst 2004 ). Each item was scored on a 5–point Likert scale from 1 = never true to 5 = always true. The subscale Rules reflects the extent to which parents provide rules for their children’s behavior (e.g., “I teach my child that it is important to behave properly”; “I teach my child to obey rules”). The subscale Discipline pertains to effective punishments after unwanted behavior (e.g., ‘…taking away something nice’; ‘… give him/her a chore for punishment); whereas the subscale Harsh Punishment points towards parental physical punishment when children misbehave (e.g., “I slap my child in the face when he/she misbehaves”; “I spank my child when he/she doesn’t obey rules”; “I shake my child when we have a fight”). We included multiple subscales to represent the multidimensional nature of the behavioral control dimension, as demonstrated by others (Van Leeuwen and Vermulst 2004 ). In addition, we consider aspects of adequate (i.e., subscales Rules and Discipline) and inadequate behavioral control (i.e., subscale Harsh Punishment) in this study, given the differential association with child outcomes. While the first has been linked to positive child development, the latter has commonly been associated with negative child outcomes. Correlations between maternal and paternal reports were moderate for the subscales Rules ( r  = .31; p <  .001) and Discipline ( r  = 0.47; p <  0.001), but strong for the subscale Harsh Punishment ( r  = 0.52; p <  0.001). Within each parent, weak-to-moderate positive correlations were found between the subscales Rules and Discipline ( r mother  = 0.32; r father  = 0.26; p <  0.001); weak positive correlations between the subscales Discipline and Harsh Punishment ( r mother  = 0.22; r father  = 0.22; p <  0.001); and small negative correlations between the subscales Rules and Harsh Punishment ( r mother  = −0.14, p  = 0.009; r father  = −0.11; p =  0.001).

Parental support

Parental support was operationalized by 11 items (1 = never true to 5 = always true) of the subscale Positive Parenting of the Ghent Parental Behavior Scale (Van Leeuwen and Vermulst 2004 ). This subscale (α mother  = 0.85; α father  = 0.88) pertains to parental involvement, positive reinforcement and problem solving (e.g., “I make time to listen to my child, when he/she wants to tell me something”; “I give my child a compliment, hug, or a tap on the shoulder as a reward for good behavior”). Maternal and paternal reports were moderately correlated ( r  = 0.35, p <  0.001).

Parental psychological control

Parents assessed their own psychologically controlling behavior by means of a Dutch version of the Psychological Control Scale (Barber 1996 ; Kuppens et al. 2009a ) via a 5–point Likert scale from 1 = never true to 5 = always true. This scale (α mother  = 0.70; α father =  0.71) included 8 items pertaining to invalidating feelings, constraining verbal expressions, personal attack, and love withdrawal (e.g., “I am less friendly with my child when (s)he doesn’t see things my way”; “If my child has hurt my feelings, I don’t speak to him/her until (s)he pleases me again”; “I change the subject when my child has something to say”). Correlations between maternal and paternal reports were moderate ( r  = 0.32, p <  0.001).

Child behavioral outcomes

Both parents completed the 20-item Dutch Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; van Widenfelt et al. 2003 ) using a 3–point scale in order to assess child psychosocial behavior (0 = not true to 2 = certainly true). Externalizing problems were operationalized via the subscales Conduct Problems (5 items; α mother  = .60; α father  = 0.61) and Hyperactivity (5 items; α mother =  0.80; α father  = 0.76), while internalizing problems were reflected by the subscale Emotional Symptoms (5 items; α mother =  0.73; α father  = 0.72). We also included the subscale on Prosocial Behavior (5 items; α mother =  0.67; α father  = 0.64). Because high correlations ( r =  0.54–0.71; p <  0.001) between mother and father reports was obtained, an average parental score was created for each subscale.

Data Analyses

To identify joint parenting styles, we conducted cluster analysis in MATLAB. Cluster analysis is an overarching term for procedures used to identify groups or clusters of individuals based on their scores on a number of variables (Everitt et al. 2001 ). Greater similarity emerges between individuals of the same cluster (or who lie geometrically closer according to some distance measure) than between individuals from different clusters (Steinly and Brusco 2011 ). We first ran a cluster analysis based on the four parenting subscales of mothers and fathers (i.e., eight variables as input) that reflect parental support and parental behavioral control to identify joint parenting styles based on these two parenting dimensions (i.e., without considering parental psychological control). To gain insight into the role of parental psychological control in identifying joint parenting styles, we subsequently conducted a cluster analysis on all five parenting subscales of mothers and fathers (i.e., ten variables as input) representing the three parenting dimensions.

We used the conceptual framework of Milligan for a stepwise implementation of cluster analysis (Steinly & Brusco 2011 ) by (1) determining the observations to be clustered; (2) selecting the variables to be included in the clustering procedure; (3) determining whether and how the selected variables should be standardized; (4) selecting a cluster algorithm and association measure (e.g., a distance measure); (5) determining the number of clusters; and (6) validating clustering (i.e., interpretation, testing, and replication). During steps 1 through 3, we performed analyses on the sum scores of the different parenting subscales which were standardized to give each variable equal weight in the analysis. In step 4, we chose Mac Queens K–means cluster algorithm which aims to identify K –clusters with the largest possible between–cluster differences and the smallest possible within–cluster differences (Everitt et al. 2001 ), while the value of K is specified by the user. K-means consists of a reallocation procedure by which persons, starting from an initial random or rational clustering, are reallocated in clusters as long as this yields a decrease in the loss function (i.e., sum of squared Euclidean distance from the corresponding cluster mean). Because the resulting clustering strongly depends on the initial clustering (Steinley 2003 ), we used 1000 random starts and retained the clustering with the lowest loss function value. To determine the optimal number of clusters in step 5, or in other words to define the value of K , we used the CHull procedure (Ceulemans and Kiers 2006 ; Wilderjans et al. 2013 ). CHull is an automated model selection procedure that scans a complexity versus fit plot to find the model with the best complexity versus fit balance. Applied to K-means clustering, this means that we look for the model after which allowing for additional clusters does not substantially decrease the loss function. To interpret the resulting clusters (step 6), we visually inspected the pattern emerging in the cluster profile plots. When comparing the cluster-specific profile scores between parents, we focused on the position of the corresponding profile scores compared to zero (i.e., the standardized mean of the sample) and differences in its substantial interpretation. For example, the terms above and below average mean that a parent scores higher or lower than the standardized mean of the sample.

To assess the validity of the empirically identified joint parenting styles representing all parenting dimensions, we examined their association with child behavioral outcomes via four analyses of variance (ANOVA) using SPSS Version 23 with the SDQ-subscales as dependent variables and the identified joint parenting styles based on the three parenting dimensions as the independent variable. Analyses of residuals did not reveal meaningful violations of model assumptions.

In the following sections, the empirically identified joint parenting styles based on the four subscales reflecting the two parenting dimensions ‘support’ and ‘behavioral control’ are first presented; followed by the results of analyses also considering ‘parental psychological control’ as input behavior. We end with linking the identified joint parenting styles based on three parenting dimensions to child behavioral outcomes.

Clusters with Two Parenting Dimensions

In a first step, we conducted a K –means cluster analysis on the maternal and paternal ratings only using the four parental support and behavioral support subscales for each parent (i.e., eight variables) as input, representing the two parenting dimensions. The analysis was conducted for 1 to 8 clusters each with a 1000 random starts. The corresponding number of clusters versus loss function plot is shown in Fig. 1 . Applying the CHull procedure to this plot pointed towards a solution with four clusters.

Number of clusters vs. loss function plots for the cluster analyses based on the two parenting dimensions (left) and on the three parenting dimensions (right)

Parents belonging to the first cluster (Fig. 2 ) scored above average on positive parenting, rules and discipline; and scored below average on harsh punishment. A visual inspection of the cluster plot did not reveal notable differences between mothers and fathers. These parents show warmth and involvement in their interaction with their child, but at the same time set clear rules and expectations for children’s behavior. They also discipline the child’s undesirable behavior, but rarely use strict physical punishment when doing so. Because these parents demonstrate elevated support and (adequate) behavioral control levels, we labeled this parenting style as the congruent authoritative parenting style.

Cluster profiles of the analysis based on two parenting dimensions

Parents belonging to the second cluster (Fig. 2 ) also scored above average on positive parenting and rules, but clearly below average on effective (subscale Discipline) and harsh disciplining (subscale Harsh Punishment). Based on a visual inspection, levels of positive parenting and providing rules of mothers seemed somewhat higher, while effective discipline was somewhat lower compared to fathers, but the substantive interpretation was similar across parents. These parents show warmth and involvement in their parenting while also setting clear rules for children’s behavior, yet they hardly discipline their child in any manner after showing unwanted behavior. Because these parents showed elevated support levels combined with aspects of behavioral control that focus on promoting desired behavior (instead of discouraging unwanted behavior), we labeled this cluster as the congruent positive authoritative parenting style.

The third cluster (Fig. 2 ) included parents who scored clearly above average on harsh punishment, above average on discipline, and below average on positive parenting and rules; without any notable visual differences between mothers and fathers. These parents are therefore less warm and involved in the relationship with their child. Their parenting is particularly characterized by strict physical punishment following unwanted behavior, without setting clear rules for their children’s behavior. This cluster reflected the congruent authoritarian parenting style .

A fourth cluster (Fig. 2 ) was identified that yielded below average scores for both parents on all subscales; without salient visual differences between mothers and fathers. These parents do not show marked warmth and involvement with their child, and also do not prominently provide rules or discipline unwanted behavior. Because these parents demonstrated below average scores on both dimensions, we labeled this cluster as a congruent uninvolved parenting style.

Clusters with Three Parenting Dimensions

In a second step, we performed the same K –means cluster analysis, but now psychological control was included as a third parenting dimension. The analysis was again conducted for 1 to 8 clusters each time using 1000 random starts. Applying the CHull procedure to the number of clusters versus loss function plot (Fig. 1 ) pointed toward a solution with 2 or 3 clusters. However, to enable comparisons between the cluster solution based on the two parenting dimensions, we again selected the solution with four clusters of which the cluster profiles are visualized in Fig. 3 .

Cluster profiles of the analysis based on three parenting dimensions

When comparing both cluster solutions, a remarkable similarity in the cluster profiles was observed with the cluster scores on parental psychological control for the congruent authoritative, congruent positive authoritative and congruent authoritarian parenting styles covarying with scores on harsh punishment. These three clusters could thus be interpreted and labeled in a similar manner as earlier. For the congruent uninvolved parenting styles, the pattern for parental support and behavioral control remained fairly unchanged, but both showed slightly above-average psychological control scores. It seems that these parents are thus less supportive and behavioral controlling, yet showing somewhat elevated levels of psychologically intrusive practices. As such, we relabeled the congruent uninvolved cluster as a congruent intrusive parenting style. Adding the psychological control dimension slightly enlarged the differences between the scores of mothers and fathers within each parenting style, but the substantive interpretation remained similar across parents

Given the substantial similarity in emerging parenting styles after including two or three parenting dimensions, we computed the agreement in classification of the corresponding parents. Analyses revealed that parents were generally assigned to the same parenting style if psychological control was taken into account, (Cramer’s V  = .87). Note that the agreement was substantial regardless of the retained number of clusters (2 clusters: V =  .77; 3 clusters: V =  .86; 5 clusters: V =  .83; 6 clusters: V =  .69; 7 clusters: V =  .68; 8 clusters: V =  .65).

Parenting Styles and Child Behavioral Outcomes

The four joint parenting styles were associated to significantly different behavioral outcomes: Prosocial Behavior [ F (3, 520) = 20.15, p <  0.001, R 2 = 0.10]; Hyperactivity [ F (3, 520) = 12.98, p <  0.001, R 2 =  0.07]; Emotional Symptoms [ F (3, 520) = 3.77, p =  .011, R 2 = 0.02]; and Conduct Problems [ F (3, 520) = 20.15, p <  0.001, R 2 = 0.10]. The mean subscale score per joint parenting style are presented in Fig. 4 . To gain more insight into the nature of the differences, pairwise contrasts (Tukey–Kramer) were computed for each ANOVA.

Mean subscale scores on child behavioral outcomes per parenting style

For each child behavioral outcome, a significant difference ( p  < 0.05) was established between the congruent authoritarian parenting style and at least one other parenting style. Children of authoritarian parents demonstrated more negative (i.e., hyperactivity, conduct problems, emotional symptoms) and less positive (i.e., prosocial behavior) child outcomes compared to children whose parents belonged to another parenting style. For conduct problems, the associated standardized mean difference involving authoritarian parents was most pronounced compared to positive authoritative parents ( d =  1.06, p <  0.001), whereas a medium difference (range d =  0.67 – 0.73, p <  .001) with the authoritative and intrusive parenting styles was found. Similarly, for hyperactivity standardized mean differences involving authoritarian parents were large ( d =  0.85, p <  0.001) compared to positive authoritative parents; and medium (range d =  0.60 – 0.63, p <  0.001) compared to authoritative and intrusive parents. Standardized mean differences involving authoritarian parents were large (range d =  0.83–0.93, p <  0.001) for prosocial behavior, but only a small difference ( d =  0.37, p =  0.031) with the intrusive parenting style emerged. Standardized mean differences for emotional symptoms between the authoritarian parenting style were small in magnitude (range d =  0.40 – 0.43, p <  0.05), except for a non-significant ( d =  0.28, p =  0.159) difference with the intrusive parenting style.

In addition, the congruent positive authoritative parenting style yielded significantly lower conduct problem levels in children (range d =  0.33 – 0.39, p <  0.05) compared to authoritative and intrusive parents. In contrast, significantly less prosocial child behavior (range d =  0.46–0.56, p ≤  0.001) was found for the congruent intrusive parenting style compared to (positive) authoritative parents.

With this study, we aimed to add to the parenting styles literature by identifying empirically derived joint parenting styles based on data regarding the three major parenting dimensions as perceived by both mothers and fathers raising elementary school children. These resulting joint parenting styles were subsequently associated with child behavioral outcomes. As highlighted in the introduction, the commonly used parenting typologies have a theoretical underpinning, although empirical studies have generally identified three or four similar parenting styles. Our empirically derived parenting styles based on the two parenting dimensions Support and Behavioral Control bear resemblance to the initial authoritative, authoritarian, and neglectful parenting styles, yet some differences also emerged.

The authoritative parenting style was further broken down into a disciplinary and non-disciplinary subtype. Similarly, although differences between parents within each parenting style were minor, they were more pronounced for the non-disciplinary than for the disciplinary control strategies. These findings highlight that all parenting practices aimed at controlling, managing or regulating child behavior are not necessarily simultaneously used by the same parent, suggesting that considering a variety of parenting practices is crucial to identifying naturally occurring parenting substyles. Some parents seem to provide clear rules, guidelines and expectations for child behavior, but hardly have deviant child behavior followed by an effective disciplinary strategy. One subgroup appears to reflect parents that mostly adopt positive parenting practices (i.e., high support, high rule setting), whereas another subgroup uses a combination of positive (i.e., high support, high rule setting) and negative (i.e., high effective discipline) parenting practices. The latter closely resembles the authoritative parenting style as originally defined (Baumrind 1966 , 1967 , 1971 ), while the former clustering aligns more with a second–order positive dimension obtained in research adopting a variable–oriented approach (Van Leeuwen et al. 2004 ).

In this study, the positive dimension tapped into parenting practices such as parental involvement, positive reinforcement, rule setting, and autonomy–stimulating behavior, while the negative dimensions pertained to negatively controlling efforts such as effective discipline, ignoring or harsh punishment following children’s unwanted behavior. In the uninvolved parenting style, parenting practices bear a resemblance to the neglectful parenting style given the below average scores on all subscales suggesting that parents show less warmth, place fewer restraints on and display little monitoring of children’s behavior. However, we did not identify extreme low scores on parenting dimensions that would suggest a truly neglectful parenting style as originally defined; thus an uninvolved parenting style seems a more appropriate label. Although parent self-reports could overestimate scores of positive parenting and underestimate scores of negative parenting due to social desirability bias, it should be noted that a previous study using adolescent reports also did not find extreme scores for the parenting style clusters (McKinney and Renk 2008 ).

We were not able to empirically identify the originally proposed permissive parenting style reflecting parents that are very loving, warm and involved (high support), yet have relatively few rules for children’s behavior and hardly discipline (low behavioral control). This finding diverges from some previous empirical studies in which the latter parenting style did emerge using an a theoretical (Aunola et al. 2000 ; Carlson and Tanner 2006 ; Shucksmith et al. 1995 ; Wolfradt et al. 2003 ) or empirical clustering approach (McKinney and Renk 2008 ). Our operationalization of the support dimension via the positive parenting subscale of the Ghent Parental Behavior Scale could underlie this divergent finding, because the subscale does not only pertain to warm and responsive parenting practices, but also includes items on problem solving. In contrast to other studies tapping only into warmth and responsiveness, lower scores on solving problems together with the child can attenuate overall scores on parental support. As a result, the pronounced scores on parental support which typify a permissive parenting style may have been somewhat masked in the present study. Alternatively, the parent self-reports may not accurately reflect their actual parenting practices due to a social desirability bias, hampering the identification of the permissive parenting style.

Regarding the role of psychological control in empirically deriving parenting styles, cluster analyses revealed a very similar configuration with four parenting styles when parental psychological control was taken into account. Thus, its addition did not lead to the identification of additional parenting styles, but the third parenting dimension did enhance our understanding. Results clearly pointed toward a substantial overlap between parental psychological control and parental harsh punishment for the congruent authoritarian, authoritative and positive authoritative parenting styles. This finding coincides with research suggesting that inadequate behavior control (e.g., physical punishment) and psychological control by parents are correlated, whereas parental psychological control and adequate behavioral control are considered orthogonal dimensions (Barber 1996 ; Gray andand Steinberg 1999 ; Steinberg 1990 ). For example, Pettit et al. ( 2001 ) found that parental psychological control was preceded in adolescence by harsh, restrictive disciplinary parenting during childhood. Barber and Harmon ( 2002 ) have further argued that parental psychological control may be a marker of a hostile and dysfunctional parent – child relationship, including the use of harsh disciplinary parenting practices.

For the congruent uninvolved parenting style, including parental psychological control actually led to an improved understanding of the previously considered uninvolved parents. As it turned out these parents did use psychologically controlling strategies to some extent, regardless of their lower levels on the other parenting dimension. This pattern could mean that in the parents–child relationship these parents are not so much concerned with the child and their behavior, but with manipulating children’s thoughts, emotions, and feelings to fit their own. It is commonly recognized that by using psychologically controlling strategies, parents intrude into children’s ‘psychological world’, exert parental authority over the children’s own life, and intervene in the individuation process (Barber and Xia 2013 ; Steinberg 2005 ). A recent study by Zhang et al. ( 2015 ) also demonstrated that parental psychological control indeed positively correlated with parent–centered intentions, implying that parents intend to satisfy their own needs by applying controlling behaviors with their children.

Several theories point towards differences in parenting between mother and father (McKinney and Renk 2008 ). For example, psychoanalytic theory argues that mothers are children’s primary attachment figure whereas a greater distance between fathers and their children occurs; the gender and role theory link differences in child rearing to male and female characteristics (e.g., expressiveness and instrumentality) with the traditional mother role as caring figures and fathers taking on the role of authority figure and family provider. The literature also indicates that differences in parenting between mothers and fathers may arise if one parent wants to compensate for the other parent (Meteyer and Perry-Jenkins 2009 ; Simons and Conger 2007 ). Nonetheless, our results revealed more similarities than dissimilarities in the parenting styles of both parents, despite small-to-moderate correlations between mother and father reports. These similarities may reflect an assortative process when choosing a partner, meaning that people tend to look for a partner with similar characteristics (Botwin et al. 1997 ; Buss 1984 , 1985 ; Larsen and Buss 2010 ). Similarity in parenting could also result from socialization processes (Simons and Conger 2007 ); through a process of mutual influence or reciprocity partners gradually form similar views and beliefs on parenting. The slight differences that emerged pertained particularly to a dissimilar position on positive parenting and rule setting. Although less pronounced, this finding aligns with the study by Meteyer and Perry-Jenkins ( 2009 ) that yielded congruent parenting styles for mothers and fathers of 7-year old children, except for a dissimilar position on self-reported parental warmth. Another study using adolescent reports of parenting (McKinney and Renk 2008 ) found more pronounced sex differences. Perhaps sex differences in parenting styles become more apparent as children grow older or when children’s perspectives are considered.

Results on associations between the joint parenting styles and child behavioral outcomes indicated that children of two authoritarian parents showed the poorest behavioral outcomes. These children were perceived as showing significantly more internalizing and externalizing problem behavior and less prosocial behavior compared to children of parents adopting other parenting styles. In contrast, children of two positive authoritative parents demonstrated the lowest levels of conduct problems. These findings could suggest an additive effect in which the impact of similar parenting styles is reinforced as having two authoritarian and two positive authoritative parents was associated with the least and most favorable child behavioral outcomes, respectively.

The obtained associations between parenting styles and child behavioral outcomes partially align with previous research. Firstly, it has repeatedly been demonstrated that an authoritative parenting style coincides most with positive developmental outcomes in children (e.g., Aunola et al. 2000 ; Baumrind 1967 , 1971 , 1989 , 1991 , Darling and Steinberg 1993 ; Dornbusch et al. 1987 ; Lamborn et al. 1991 ; Querido et al. 2002 ; Shucksmith et al. 1995 ; Steinberg et al. 1994 ; Steinberg et al. 1992 ). Our findings confirm this pattern for the children having parents who employ an authoritative parenting style, but children with parents both using a positive authoritative parenting style even showed less conduct problems. This finding could point towards the value of rule setting – in contrast to disciplinary strategies – in preventing behavioral problems. However, as parenting is a reciprocal process with children and parents mutually influencing each other, it is equally likely that parents show less disciplinary strategies simply because their children pose fewer behavior problems as demonstrated by others (Kerr et al. 2012 ; Kuppens et al. 2009b ; Laird et al. 2003 ).

Secondly, previous research has repeatedly linked an authoritarian parenting style with externalizing and internalizing behavior problems in children (e.g., Hoeve et al. 2008 ; Lamborn et al. 1991 ; Steinberg et al. 1994 ; Williams et al. 2009 ; Wolfradt et al. 2003 ). The present findings extend this body of research, although the association was most pronounced for externalizing behavior problems which may be due to children’s age (8 to 10 year olds). In younger children, having authoritarian parents may be more strongly associated with externalizing problem behavior, whereas the association with internalizing problems only emerges as children grow older. The shift in the nature of behavior problems as children age has been linked to the physical, cognitive and social maturation of children and the associated changes in social demands and expectations.

Thirdly, the neglectful parenting style has been associated with the poorest developmental outcomes in children (Baumrind 1991 ; Lamborn et al. 1991 ; Mandara and Murray 2002 ; Shucksmith et al. 1995 ; Steinberg et al. 1994 ). As this parenting style did not emerge in the present study, we were not able to model its association with child outcomes. Even children having parents who were less involved, but intrusive, were doing better than children having authoritarian parents. Findings did reveal that prosocial behavior and conduct problems were significantly lower for children having parents who adopted an intrusive parenting style compared to children of (positive) authoritarian parents. This findings coincides with a growing body of evidence on the deleterious of impact of psychologically controlling parenting in children and adolescents adopting a variable approach (Barber et al. 2005 ; Kuppens et al. 2013 ; Soenens et al. 2012 ), but likewise extends this evidence-base with person-oriented findings on the impact of an intrusive parenting style on child development.

Limitations and Future Research

Although the present study has several merits, it falls short in that only parent self-reports were used to assess parenting and child behavioral outcomes; children’s perspective on their parenting practices may be quite different. For example, Smetana ( 1995 ) found that adolescents perceived their parents as being more permissive and authoritarian compared to parents’ own view on the matter, whereas parents perceived themselves as being more authoritative than their adolescent children. Although a significant convergence between child and parent reports on parenting dimensions has been established in elementary school (Kuppens et al. 2009a ), future research should explicitly take a multiple informant approach when identifying parenting styles as informant perspectives on parenting styles in this age period may differ. In a related vein, multiple informant assessments of child behavioral problems have been shown to be context–specific with differences occurring according to the context (e.g., home, school) that forms the basis for informant’s assessment (Achenbach et al. 1987 ). Involving informants other than parents in the assessment of child behavioral outcomes therefore seems particularly interesting in future research on parenting styles.

Furthermore, inspecting a normally developing sample generally results into a low occurrence of inadequate parenting practices and child behavioral problems. Studying parenting styles in a clinical sample could certainly supplement this view because more variation in parenting practices may yield more or different parenting styles. Hoeve et al. ( 2008 ) have conducted one of the few studies using a sample of children with a high or low risk of antisocial and behavioral problems; and they were able to identify a neglectful parenting style. In addition, the role of parental psychological control in identifying parenting styles may be more pronounced in a clinical sample; an issue that to date remains unresolved.

The present sample closely resembled the population distribution with regard to family composition and paternal educational level, but it was rather homogeneous for ethnicity and mothers were more highly educated. As such, the present findings may not generalize to minority groups or families with less educated mothers; an issue that should be resolved by future studies. For example, previous research has demonstrated that harsh punishment and psychological control are more common among lower SES parents (e.g., Eamon 2001 ; El‐Sheikh et al. 2010 ) and that Caucasian caregivers were more prevalent in an authoritative parenting style cluster (van der Horst and Sleddens 2017 ). The present study clearly complements the scarce body of research on naturally occurring joint parenting styles conducted in US samples, but additional research is needed to replicate these findings. Moreover, as parenting occurs within a cultural belief system that influences attitudes towards particular parenting practices (Durrant et al. 2003 ), cross-cultural research could further clarify the role of culture in identifying naturally occurring (joint) parenting styles incorporating three parenting dimensions. Finally, the cross-sectional associations among joint parenting styles and child outcomes should be complemented by longitudinal research to gain more insight into the directionality of these associations. Longitudinal research covering the entire childhood and adolescence period could also increase our understanding of age-of-child and sex-of parent differences in naturally occurring parenting styles.

Despite these limitations, this study adds to the literature by further empirically validating well-known parenting styles and by increasing our understanding of the role of parental psychological control and joint parenting. The overlap between harsh punishment and parental psychological control in congruent parenting styles and its unique role in the uninvolved parenting style suggests that this intrusive parenting dimension should be routinely considered in practice settings. We also found that adequate behavior controlling practices may be particularly interesting in preventing behavioral problems; and that not only an authoritarian but also a (psychologically) intrusive parenting style can impede upon child development.

Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin , 101 , 213–232.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Aunola, K., Stattin, H., & Nurmi, J. E. (2000). Parenting styles and adolescents’ achievement strategies. Journal of Adolescence , 23 , 205–222.

Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development , 67 , 3296–3319.

Barber, B. K. (2002). Reintroducing parental psychological control. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents (pp. 3–11). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Barber, B. K., & Harmon, E. L. (2002). Violating the self: Parental psychological control of children and adolescents. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents (pp. 15–52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Barber, B. K., Stolz, H. E., Olsen, J. A., Collins, W. A., & Burchinal, M. (2005). Parental support, psychological control, and behavioral control: Assessing relevance across time, culture, and method. Monographs of the society for research in child development , 70 , i -147.

Barber, B. K., & Xia, M. (2013). The centrality of control to parenting and its effects. In R. E. Larzelere, A. S. Morris & A. W. Harrist (Eds), Authoritative parenting: Synthesizing nurturance and discipline for optimal child development (pp. 61–87). Washington: APA.

Barnes, G. M., & Farrell, M. P. (1992). Parental support and control as predictors of adolescent drinking, delinquency, and related problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 54 , 763–776.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development , 37 , 887–907.

Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behaviour. Genetic Psychology Monographs , 75 , 43–88.

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

Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In W. Damon (Ed.), Child Development Today and Tomorrow (pp. 349–378). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Google Scholar  

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance abuse. Journal of Early Adolescence , 11 , 56–95.

Bean, R. A., Barber, B. K., & Crane, D. R. (2006). Parental support, behavioral control, and psychological control among African American youth: The relationships to academic grades, delinquency, and depression. Journal of Family Issues , 27 , 1335–1355.

Beato, A., Pereira, A. I., Barros, L., & Muris, P. (2016). The relationship between different parenting typologies in fathers and mothers and children’s anxiety. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 25 , 1691–1701.

Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality , 65 , 107–136.

Brenner, V., & Fox, R. A. (1999). An empirically derived classification of parenting practices. The Journal of Genetic Psychology , 160 , 343–356.

Buss, D. M. (1984). Toward a psychology of Person-Environment (PE) correlation: the role of spouse selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 47 , 361–377.

Buss, D. M. (1985). Human mate selection: Opposites are sometimes said to attract, but in fact we are likely to marry someone who is similar to us in almost every variable. American Scientist , 73 , 47–51.

Carlson, L., & Tanner, J. F. (2006). Understanding parental beliefs and attitudes about children: Insights from parental style. Journal of Consumer Affairs , 40 , 144–162.

Ceulemans, E., & Kiers, H. A. L. (2006). Selecting among three-mode principal component models of different types and complexities: A numerical convex hull based method. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology , 59 , 133–150.

Chaudhuri, J. H., Easterbrooks, M. A., & Davis, C. R. (2009). The relation between emotional availability and parenting style: cultural and economic factors in a diverse sample of young mothers. Parenting: Science and Practice , 9 , 277–299.

Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology. 3: Social, Emotional and Personality Development (pp. 779–862). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

Conrade, G., & Ho, R. (2001). Differential parenting styles for fathers and mothers. Australian Journal of Psychology , 53 , 29–35.

Cummings, E. M., Davies, P. T., & Campbell, S. B. (2000). Developmental Psychopathology and Family Process. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: an integrative model. Psychological Bulletin , 113 , 487–496.

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Liederman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development , 58 , 1244–1257.

Durrant, J. E., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Broberg, A. G. (2003). Physical punishment and maternal beliefs in Sweden and Canada. Journal of Comparative Family Studies , 34 , 585–604.

Dwairy, M., Achoui, M., Abouserie, R., Farah, A., Sakhleh, A. A., Fayad, M., & Khan, H. K. (2006). Parenting styles in Arab societies: a first cross-regional research study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 37 , 230–247.

Eamon, M. K. (2001). Antecedents and socioemotional consequences of physical punishment on children in two-parent families. Child Abuse & Neglect , 25 (6), 787–802.

El‐Sheikh, M., Hinnant, J. B., Kelly, R. J., & Erath, S. (2010). Maternal psychological control and child internalizing symptoms: vulnerability and protective factors across bioregulatory and ecological domains. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 51 (2), 188–198.

Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., & Leese, M. (2001). Cluster analyses . 4th Ed. London: Hodder Arnold.

Galambos, N. L., Barker, E. T., & Almeida, D. M. (2003). Parents do matter: trajectories of change in externalizing and internalizing problems in early adolescence. Child Development , 74 , 578–594.

Heberle, A. E., Briggs‐Gowan, M. J., & Carter, A. S. (2015). A person‐oriented approach to identifying parenting styles in mothers of early school‐age children. Infant and Child Development , 24 , 130–156.

Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., & Henry, D. B. (2000). A developmental-ecological model of the relation of family functioning to patterns of delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology , 16 , 169–198.

Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 61 , 574–587.

Hoeve, M., Blokland, A., Dubas, J. S., Loeber, R., Gerris, J. R. M., & van der Laan, P. H. (2008). Trajectories of delinquency and parenting styles. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 36 , 223–235.

Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Özdemir, M. (2012). Perceived parenting style and adolescent adjustment: revisiting directions of effects and the role of parental knowledge. Developmental Psychology , 48 , 1540.

Kuppens, S., Grietens, H., Onghena, P., & Michiels, D. (2009a). Measuring parenting dimensions in middle childhood: multitrait-multimethod analysis of child, mother, and father ratings. European Journal of Psychological Assessment , 25 , 133–140.

Kuppens, S., Grietens, H., Onghena, P., & Michiels, D. (2009b). Relations between parental psychological control and childhood relational aggression: reciprocal in nature? Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology , 38 , 117–131.

Kuppens, S., Laurent, L., Heyvaert, M., & Onghena, P. (2013). Associations between parental psychological control and relational aggression in children and adolescents: A multilevel and sequential meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology , 49 , 1697–1712.

Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2003). Parents’ monitoring-relevant knowledge and adolescents’ delinquent behavior: Evidence of correlated developmental changes and reciprocal influences. Child Development , 74 , 752–768.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development , 62 , 1049–1065.

Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2010). Personality and Social Interaction. In R. J. Larsen & D. M. Buss (Eds.), Personality Psychology. Domains of Knowledge about Human Nature . 4th Ed. (pp. 464–491). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Lee, S. M., Daniels, M. H., & Kissinger, D. B. (2006). Parental influences on adolescent adjustment: Parenting styles versus parenting practices. The Family Journal , 14 , 253–259.

Maccoby, E. M. (1990). Social Development: Psychological Growth and the Parent–child Relationship. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetheringtono(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol . IV . Socialization, Personality and Social Development (4 th Ed., pp. 1-101). New York: Wilepy.

Magnusson, D. (1998). The logic and implications of a person-oriented approach. In R. B. Cairns, L. R. Bergman & J. Kagan (Eds.), Methods and Models for Studying the Individual (pp. 33–63). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mandara, J. (2003). The typological approach in child and family psychology: a review of theory, methods, and research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review , 6 , 129–146.

Mandara, J., & Murray, C. B. (2002). Development of an empirical typology of African American family functioning. Journal of Family Psychology , 16 , 318–337.

Martin, A., Ryan, R. M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2007). The joint influence of mother and father parenting on child cognitive outcomes at age 5. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 22 , 423–439.

McGroder, S. H. (2000). Parenting among low-income, African-American single mothers with preschool-age children: patterns, predictors, and developmental correlates. Child Development , 71 , 752–771.

McKinney, C., & Renk, K. (2008). Differential parenting between mothers and fathers. implications for late adolescents. Journal of Family Issues , 29 (6), 806–827.

Meteyer, K. B., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2009). Dyadic parenting and children’s externalizing symptoms. Family Relations , 58 , 289–302.

Metsäpelto, R. L., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Personality traits and parenting: neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience as discriminative factors. European Journal of Personality , 17 , 59–78.

Miranda, M. C., Affuso, G., Esposito, C., & Bacchini, D. (2016). Parental acceptance–rejection and adolescent maladjustment: mothers’ and fathers’ combined roles. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 25 (4), 1352–1362.

Patterson, G. R., Dishion, T. J., & Bank, L. (1984). Family interaction: a process model of deviancy training. Aggressive Behavior , 10 , 253–267.

Pereira, A. I., Canavarro, C., Cardoso, M. F., & Mendonça, D. (2008). Patterns of parental rearing styles and child behaviour problems among Portuguese school-aged children. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 18 , 454–464.

Pettit, G. S., Laird, R. D., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Criss, M. M. (2001). Antecedents and behavior-problem outcomes of parental monitoring and psychological control in early adolescence. Child Development , 72 (2), 583–598.

Querido, J. G., Warner, T. D., & Eyberg, S. M. (2002). Parenting styles and child behavior in African American families of preschool children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology , 31 , 272–277.

Russell, A., Aloa, V., Feder, T., Glover, A., Miller, H., & Palmer, G. (1998). Sex-based differences in parenting styles in a sample with preschool children. Australian Journal of Psychology , 50 , 89–99.

Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children’s reports of parental behavior: an inventory. Child Development , 36 , 413–424.

Shaw, D. S., Keenan, K., & Vondra, J. I. (1994). Developmental precursors of externalizing behavior: ages 1 to 3. Developmental Psychology , 30 , 355–364.

Shucksmith, J., Hendry, L. B., & Glendinning, A. (1995). Models of parenting: Implications for adolescent well-being within different types of family contexts. Journal of Adolescence , 18 , 253–270.

Simons, L. G., & Conger, R. D. (2007). Linking mother-father differences in parenting to a typology of family parenting styles and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Family Issues , 28 , 212–241.

Soenens, B., Park, S. Y., Vansteenkiste, M., & Mouratidis, A. (2012). Perceived parental psychological control and adolescent depressive experiences: A cross-cultural study with Belgian and South-Korean adolescents. Journal of Adolescence , 35 , 261–272.

Smetana, J. G. (1995). Parenting styles and conceptions of parental authority during adolescence. Child Development , 66 , 299–316.

Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the Threshold: The developing Adolescent (pp. 255–276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Steinberg, L. (2005). Psychological control: Style or substance? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development , 108 , 71–78.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development , 65 , 754–770.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: authoritative parenting, school involvement and encouragement to succeed. Child Development , 63 , 1266–1281.

Steinley, D. (2003). Local Optima in K-Means Clustering: what you don’t know may hurt you. Psychological Methods , 8 , 294–304.

Steinly, D., & Brusco, M. J. (2011). Choosing the number of clusters in K-means clustering. Psychological Methods , 16 (3), 285–297.

Tam, V. C., & Lam, R. S. (2004). A cultural exploration based on structured observational methods in Hong Kong. Marriage & Family Review , 35 , 45–61.

van der Horst, K., & Sleddens, E. F. (2017). Parenting styles, feeding styles and food-related parenting practices in relation to toddlers’ eating styles: a cluster-analytic approach. PloS One , 12 (5), e0178149.

Van Leeuwen, K. G., Mervielde, I., Braet, C., & Bosmans, G. (2004). Child personality and parental behavior as moderators of problem behavior: variable-and person-centered approaches. Developmental Psychology , 40 , 1028–1046.

Van Leeuwen, K. G., & Vermulst, A. (2004). Some psychometric properties of the Ghent Parental Behavior Scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment , 20 , 283–298.

van Widenfelt, B. M., Goedhart, A. W., Treffers, P. D., & Goodman, R. (2003). Dutch version of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ). European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 12 , 281–289.

Wilderjans, T. F., Ceulemans, E., & Meers, K. (2013). CHull: a generic convex hull based model selection method. Behavior Research Methods , 45 , 1–15.

Williams, L. R., Degnan, K. A., Perez-Edgar, K. E., Henderson, H. A., Rubin, K. H., Pine, D. S., & Fox, N. A. (2009). Impact of behavioral inhibition and parenting style on internalizing and externalizing problems from early childhood through adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 37 , 1063–1075.

Wolfradt, U., Hempel, S., & Miles, J. N. (2003). Perceived parenting styles, depersonalisation, anxiety and coping behaviour in adolescents. Personality and Individual differences , 34 (3), 521–532.

Zhang, L., Wan, W. W., Tam, V. C., Wu, P., & Luk, C. L. (2015). An exploratory study on school children’s intent attributions for parental structuring behaviors. Psychological Reports , 116 , 249–273.

Download references

Author Contributions

SK: designed and executed the study, conducted part of the data-analysis, and wrote the paper. EC: conducted the cluster analyses, and collaborated in the writing and editing of the final manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Sofie Kuppens

Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Eva Ceulemans

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sofie Kuppens .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the KU Leuven (University of Leuven) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kuppens, S., Ceulemans, E. Parenting Styles: A Closer Look at a Well-Known Concept. J Child Fam Stud 28 , 168–181 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1242-x

Download citation

Published : 18 September 2018

Issue Date : 15 January 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1242-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Parenting styles
• Cluster analysis
• Psychological control
• Psychosocial outcomes
• School-aged children
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Home — Essay Types — Classification Essay

Classification Essay Examples

Classification essay topics are a way to organize and categorize different ideas, objects, or people into specific groups or classes based on certain characteristics. These topics can cover a wide range of subjects, such as types of animals, different styles of music, various types of diets, different personality types, or even different types of parenting styles.

Examples of Classification Essay Topics

• Types of social media users
• Different types of teachers
• Varieties of pets
• Types of vacation destinations
• Types of political systems

The Importance of Writing a Classification Essay

Writing a classification essay is important because it helps to organize and categorize information in a clear and concise manner. This type of essay allows the writer to break down complex subjects into smaller, more manageable parts, making it easier for the reader to understand and comprehend. By categorizing different groups or classes, the writer can highlight the similarities and differences between them, providing a deeper understanding of the topic. Classification essays also help to improve critical thinking and analytical skills, as they require the writer to carefully examine and evaluate different elements. Overall, writing a classification essay is important for improving communication skills and providing a deeper insight into various subjects.

How to Choose a Good Topic for a Classification Essay

• Consider your interests: Choose a topic that you are passionate about and that you have knowledge of. This will make the writing process more enjoyable and will also make it easier to come up with categories for classification.
• Think about your audience: Consider who will be reading your essay and choose a topic that will be relevant and interesting to them. Make sure that the topic is something that can be easily understood and appreciated by your audience.
• Research potential topics: Take the time to research different potential topics for your classification essay. Look for topics that have clear and distinct categories that can be easily classified.

Exploring Classification Essay Topics

Classification essay topics are a great way to explore and analyze different groups or classes based on specific characteristics. Whether it's different types of animals, music, diets, personality types, or parenting styles, there are endless possibilities for classification essay topics. Here are some examples:

• Domestic pets vs. exotic pets
• Mammals vs. reptiles
• Herbivores vs. carnivores
• Endangered species vs. non-endangered species
• Domesticated animals vs. wild animals
• Classical music vs. modern music
• Rock music vs. pop music
• Jazz vs. blues
• Hip-hop vs. electronic
• Country music vs. folk music
• Vegetarian vs. vegan diets
• Mediterranean diet vs. ketogenic diet
• Low-carb vs. low-fat diets
• Gluten-free vs. dairy-free diets
• Paleo diet vs. Atkins diet

Personality types

• Introverts vs. extroverts
• Type A vs. Type B personalities
• Optimists vs. pessimists
• Realists vs. idealists
• Ambiverts vs. omniverts

Parenting styles

• Authoritarian vs. authoritative parenting
• Helicopter parenting vs. free-range parenting
• Permissive vs. uninvolved parenting
• Attachment parenting vs. tiger parenting
• Single parenting vs. co-parenting

In summary, classification essay topics are a valuable tool for organizing and analyzing different groups or classes based on specific characteristics. Whether it's exploring the different types of animals, music, diets, personality types, or parenting styles, classification essays provide a deeper understanding of the subject matter and the relationships between different groups. By carefully examining and categorizing different elements, classification essays help to improve critical thinking and analytical skills, and provide insight into understanding the world around us. When choosing a topic for a classification essay, it's important to consider your interests, your audience, and to research potential topics to ensure a clear and focused essay. Overall, classification essay topics are a great way to delve into various subjects and gain a deeper understanding of the world around us.

What is a Classification Essays: Definition

A classification essay is a type of academic writing that requires the writer to organize and categorize a set of items, people, or ideas into groups based on certain criteria. This type of essay aims to help readers understand the relationships between the different categories and gain a deeper insight into the subject matter.

When writing a classification essay, it is important to follow some key tips to ensure a successful and effective piece of writing. First, it is crucial to clearly define the categories and criteria that will be used to classify the items or ideas. This will help the writer stay organized and focused throughout the essay.

Additionally, it is important to provide clear and specific examples for each category to support the classification. These examples should be relevant and representative of the category they are placed in.

How to Write a Classification Essay: Tips

When writing a classification essay, it is important to organize your thoughts and ideas in a clear and coherent manner. Here are some tips to help you effectively write a classification essay:

• Choose a topic: Select a topic that is broad enough to be classified into different categories but specific enough to be manageable.
• Identify categories: Once you have chosen a topic, identify the different categories or groups that the topic can be divided into. Make sure that each category is distinct and has clear characteristics.
• Develop a thesis statement: Your thesis statement should clearly state the purpose of your classification essay and the categories you will be discussing.
• Organize your essay: Start with an introduction that provides background information on the topic and introduces the categories you will be discussing. Then, in the body of the essay, discuss each category in detail, providing examples and evidence to support your classification. Finally, conclude your essay by summarizing the main points and reiterating your thesis statement.
• Use transitions: Use transitional words and phrases to guide your reader through the different categories and to create a smooth and coherent flow in your essay.

By following these tips, you can effectively write a classification essay that is well-organized and easy to understand.

Structure a Classification Essay: Outline

A classification essay is a type of essay in which the writer organizes, or sorts, things into categories. When writing a classification essay, it is important to have a clear and logical structure to effectively convey your ideas to the reader. Here are the key elements to consider when structuring a classification essay:

• Introduction

The introduction should provide a brief overview of the topic and clearly state the categories that will be discussed in the essay. It should also include a thesis statement that identifies the purpose of the classification and the categories that will be used.

• Body paragraphs

Each body paragraph should focus on a specific category and provide detailed examples and evidence to support the classification. It is important to use clear and concise language to effectively convey the characteristics of each category.

• Transition words

Use transition words and phrases to smoothly transition between categories and to maintain a cohesive flow throughout the essay.

The conclusion should summarize the main points of the essay and restate the thesis statement. It should also provide a final thought or recommendation based on the classification.

By following these guidelines , you can effectively structure a classification essay and present your ideas in a clear and organized manner.

Why Use Classification Essay Examples

Classification essay examples are essential for students and writers to understand how to categorize and organize different items, ideas, or people into specific groups. These examples provide a clear understanding of how to structure a classification essay and how to effectively present information in a logical and coherent manner.

The Usefulness of Classification Essay Examples

Classification essay examples are useful for students who are learning how to write classification essays for the first time. By using examples, students can learn the proper format, organization, and language to use when writing their own classification essays. Additionally, examples can help writers understand how to effectively categorize and group similar items or ideas together, making their essays more cohesive and well-organized.

How to Use Classification Essay Examples Correctly

To use classification essay examples correctly, students and writers should carefully analyze the structure, language, and organization of the example essays. They should pay attention to how the examples categorize and group different items or ideas, and how they present information in a clear and logical manner. By studying these examples, students can gain valuable insight into how to effectively write their own classification essays.

In conclusion, classification essay examples are an essential tool for students and writers to learn how to effectively categorize and organize information in their essays. By using examples, they can improve their writing skills and create well-structured and coherent classification essays.

Classification Essay Writing Checklist

Classification essays categorize a subject into different groups based on a specific set of criteria. For example, classifying types of music, different styles of leadership, or various types of animal species.

• Identify the categories or groups to classify the subject into.
• Provide clear and specific criteria for each category.
• Ensure that each category is mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.
• Support each category with relevant examples, evidence, and details.
• Use a consistent and logical organization throughout the essay.
• Include a strong thesis statement that presents the purpose and criteria for classification.
• Use transitional words and phrases to guide the reader through the classification process.
• Review and revise the essay to ensure coherence and clarity of classification.
• Check for any bias or stereotyping in the classification process.
• Provide a clear and effective conclusion that summarizes the main points and reinforces the significance of the classification.

A well-written classification essay effectively organizes a subject into distinct categories, providing clarity and insight for the reader. By following the checklist, writers can ensure that their classification essay is well-structured and effectively communicates the purpose and criteria for classification.

In conclusion, classification essay examples are an essential tool for students and writers to learn how to effectively categorize and organize information in their essays. By using examples, they can improve their writing skills and create well-structured and coherent classification essays. By following the checklist provided, writers can ensure that their classification essay is well-organized, coherent, and free of any bias or stereotyping. Ultimately, classification essays aim to help readers understand the relationships between different categories and gain a deeper insight into the subject matter. With the use of examples and careful attention to structure, writers can effectively create informative and engaging classification essays.

Types of Vacations and Their Benefits

Introduction Vacations are essential for individuals to recharge, relax, and explore new places. It is a time where people can break away from their daily routine and experience new things. There are different types of vacations that cater to people’s interests and preferences. In this…

The World of Sports Fandom: A Classification Paper

Sports fandom is a diverse and passionate community that transcends borders and cultures. Within this vast world of sports enthusiasts, there are distinct categories of fans, each characterized by their unique behaviors, preferences, and levels of devotion. In this classification essay, we will explore and…

The Importance of Different Types of Friends

Friendship is one of the most important aspects of life. It’s a bond that can bring joy, comfort, and support to an individual. Friends are an integral part of our lives, and we all have different types of friends. In this classification essay, we aim…

The Classification and Importance of Books

Books are an essential part of our lives, and they have been around for centuries. They serve various purposes, from providing entertainment to imparting knowledge. The classification of books helps readers to find the type of book they want to read easily. This essay will…

Get professional help in 5 minutes

Study Habits: The Key to Effective Learning and Academic Success

Good study habits are essential for academic success. Study habits refer to the practices and techniques that students use to learn and retain information. Having effective study habits can help students manage their time, absorb information, and perform well on exams. This essay will discuss…

Music: Its Significance and Diversity

Music is a form of art that has been present in human life for centuries. It is an expression of emotion, culture, and creativity that can evoke different feelings and sensations. Music is an essential component of our daily lives, and it is difficult to…

Exploring the Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering

Introduction Genetic engineering is the process of altering the genetic makeup of an organism by adding, deleting or changing its DNA. The process involves the manipulation of genes and their transfer from one organism to another, thereby creating new traits or characteristics. Genetic engineering has…

Classifying Movies: Genre, Target Audience, and Production Era

Introduction Movies play a significant role in popular culture, entertaining and inspiring audiences worldwide. A classification essay is an effective way of organizing these movies into distinct categories based on their genre, target audience, and production era. In this essay, we will classify movies into…

Classification of Drivers Based on Behavior, Skills, and Attitude on the Road

Dring is an integral part of our daily life, and responsible dring behavior is essential for ensuring the safety of oneself and others on the road. Drivers can be classified based on their behavior, skills, and attitudes on the road. This essay aims to discuss…

Car Classification: An Overview of Vehicle Types

Automobiles have become an integral part of modern life, offering diverse options to cater to various needs, preferences, and lifestyles. From compact cars to powerful SUVs, the automotive industry produces a wide array of vehicles. In this classification essay, we will explore the distinct categories…

What is a Classification essay?

A Classification essay type categorizes and organizes a topic into different groups or classifications based on certain criteria.

How to write Classification essay?

To write a Classification essay, first choose a topic, then identify the different categories or classifications within the topic, and finally, provide examples and evidence to support each category.

How to structure a Classification essay?

A Classification essay should start with an introduction that presents the topic and its classifications, followed by body paragraphs that discuss each category in detail, and conclude with a summary of the main points.

What is the purpose of the Classification essay?

The purpose of a Classification essay is to organize and categorize a topic to help readers understand it better and see the relationships between different groups within the topic.

How to choose a topic for a Classification essay?

When choosing a topic for a Classification essay, consider selecting a broad topic that can be divided into distinct categories, and make sure the categories are clear and can be supported with examples.

The most popular topics for Classification Essay

• Cyber Security
• Film Analysis
• Competitive Sports
• Advertisement
• Social Media
• Film Editing
• Mental Health
• Video Games

Students also browse

• Analytical Essay
• Memoir Essay
• Problem Solution Essay
• Personal Narrative Essay
• Synthesis Essay
• Evaluation Essay
• Exemplification Essays
• Process Essay
• Expository Essays
• Explication Essay

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free