For decades, the study of parental socialization has been conducted using a theoretical framework with two orthogonal or unrelated dimensions (i.e., warmth and strictness) and four parenting styles (i.e., authoritarian, authoritative, indulgent, and neglectful) (Lamborn et al., 1991; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Warmth refers to the extent to which parents show affection or warmth, and the level of involvement with their children (Gimenez-Serrano, Alcaide et al., 2022; Martinez et al., 2019). Other labels that share the meaning of warmth include responsiveness (Baumrind, 1983), acceptance (Symonds, 1939), love (Schaefer, 1959), care (Orlansky, 1949; Watson, 1928), nurturance (Freud, 1933), or acceptance/involvement (Steinberg et al., 1994). Strictness refers to the extent to which parents use strict rules and limits, tend to apply physical and/or verbal corrections, as well as demanding practices (Dakers & Guse, 2020; Martinez et al., 2017). Other labels that share the meaning of strictness include demandingness (Baumrind, 1991), hostility (Baldwin, 1955), domination (Symonds, 1939), inflexibility (Sears et al., 1957), supervision (Steinberg et al., 1994), control (Schaefer, 1959; Watson, 1928), or firm control (Steinberg et al., 1989). Four parenting styles were defined by examining the combined effects of warmth and strictness: authoritarian (characterized by strictness without warmth), authoritative (characterized by strictness and warmth), indulgent (characterized by warmth without strictness), and neglectful (characterized by a lack of strictness and warmth).

Much research, mainly conducted in the US with European-American families, reveals the benefits of strictness when accompanied by warmth (i.e., authoritative parenting) (Baumrind, 1967; Baumrind, 1971; Lamborn et al., 1991; Mounts & Steinberg, 1995; Steinberg, 2001; Steinberg, Lamborn, et al., 1992). Authoritative parenting is related to some benefits such as good school grades (Dornbusch et al., 1987; Steinberg, Lamborn, et al., 1992), greater maturity and development (Steinberg, 2001; Steinberg et al., 1989), less behavioral problems (Fletcher et al., 1995; Steinberg et al., 1991), and decreased drug use (Baumrind, 1991; Steinberg et al., 1991). However, the benefits of the authoritative parenting style may not be common to all contexts and settings (Palacios et al., 2022; Pinquart & Kauser, 2018; Rudy & Grusec, 2001). Some research conducted in the United States with ethnic minorities, such as African American (Baumrind, 1972; Deater-Deckard et al., 1996), Hispanic American (Pinquart & Kauser, 2018; Zayas & Solari, 1994), and Asian-American (Chao, 1994, 2001) has revealed certain benefits of parental strictness without warmth (authoritarian parenting). For example, authoritarian parenting has detrimental consequences on European-American children, but not on African American children (Deater-Deckard et al., 1996), who even report advantages such as assertiveness and independence (Baumrind, 1972).

Asian-American families have received special attention given how they tend to prioritize preserving their culture of origin, which can be different from that of the host country (i.e., US) in certain aspects (Chao, 1994, 2001). In this context, authoritarian parenting seems to not be related to harmful consequences in Asian-American individuals and even adolescents raised in authoritarian families do very well in school (Chao, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2001), especially those from China, Japan, and South Korea (Chao, 2000). As Chao (2000) points out, Asian-American adolescents from authoritarian families tend to maintain the highest grades. In the same line, some research conducted in poor and risky neighborhoods also identified some benefits associated with authoritarian parenting (Baldwin et al., 1990; Furstenberg et al., 1999).

In addition, results on the optimal parenting style reveal inconsistent empirical findings; authoritative parenting is not always related to universal benefits (Chao, 2001; Palacios et al., 2022). To explain these discrepant findings on optimal parenting styles, some studies suggest the importance of social and cultural context (Garcia & Gracia, 2009; Rudy & Grusec, 2001). It is speculated that, despite having the same parents, there may be variations in the degree to which children feel loved, valued, and strongly connected to their family (i.e., the so-called family self-perceptions) depending on the specific background (Baumrind, 1972; Deater-Deckard et al., 1996; Martinez et al., 2021). For instance, among ethnic minorities, who are more likely to live in more dangerous neighborhoods with fewer opportunities, the use of strictness, despite the lack of warmth, could make children find in their parents the security and protection that the community does not offer (Baldwin et al., 1990; Furstenberg et al., 1999). It is argued that in authoritarian homes (characterized by less warmth and more strictness), European-American children may feel that their parents are intrusive, unloving, and uncaring, while African-American children may feel loved, valued, and recognized by their family (Baumrind, 1972; Deater-Deckard et al., 1996).

In any part of the world it is possible to study parenting based on warmth and strictness and its relation to child adjustment. However, optimal parenting, mainly studied in Western countries (e.g., United States and Europe), may not be the same for Eastern countries. Families in Eastern societies, including Asian and Arab cultures, are raising children within a cultural context that is typically characterized by collectivist and vertical values (Rudy & Grusec, 2001; Triandis, 1989). The individual (e.g., the child) might be a part of a collective (e.g., the family) in which the relationships between the members (e.g., parents and child) are hierarchical and non-egalitarian (Chen et al., 1997; Dwairy et al., 2006; Rudy & Grusec, 2001). Traditional societies (e.g., Turkey or China) seem to have especially delimited social roles. Relationships tend to be lower on egalitarianism, but higher on power distance, which could be related in the context of the family to a higher frequency of the use of strictness, but less of warmth. However, unlike in Western countries, the relationship with parents based on authority and discipline could be accepted by the children (Kisbu et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023).

Within Asian societies, China has been studied for decades in part due to its cultural characteristics especially influenced by Confucianism (Chao, 1994; Leung et al., 1998) and the pursuit of jen as the core virtue of life (Chen et al., 2020). According to the principles of Confucian thought, an individual is defined by his or her relationships with others, relationships are organized hierarchically, and social order and harmony are preserved if each party fulfills the responsibilities and requirements of role relationships (Chao, 1994; Ho, 1986; Leung et al., 1998). In the Chinese culture, parents and children are expected to assume certain roles to keep the home running smoothly and to foster family harmony (Ho, 1986; Leung et al., 1998; Yang, 1986). Parents are required to govern, teach, and discipline their children (e.g., chiao shun and guan) (Chao, 1994; Nelson et al., 2006), whereas children are required obey, honor, and respect their parents (e.g., filial piety) (Leung et al., 1998; Wu & Chao, 2011). Because of family interdependence, child adhering to socially desirable and culturally approved behavior directly affects the family as a whole (Ho, 1986; K. Yang, 1986). For example, academic success is especially valued in Chinese families (Chen & Uttal, 1988; Sue & Okazaki, 1990). If children perform poorly academically, they will have disappointed their parents, but also parents will have failed in socialization by being inadequate rulers and caretakers of their family (Chao, 1994, 2000). It has been suggested that parenting based on parental strictness and authority, without making use of involvement and warmth, fits very well with Chinese cultural traits (Ho, 1986). However, empirical findings about the optimal parenting style among Chinese families offer mixed results.

On the one hand, some evidence seems to suggest benefits associated with a parenting style characterized by strictness without warmth (i.e., the authoritarian style) (Chao, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2001). In this sense, studies with immigrant families in the United States (the so-called Chinese-American homes) have revealed that authoritarian parenting is associated with important benefits, especially academically (Chao, 1994, 2001). However, for their counterparts from European-American families, authoritarian parenting is related to poor developmental outcomes (Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994). Other scholars, who have examined ethnic differences in adolescent achievement in the United States, indicate that Chinese-American and other Asian students had the highest grades regardless of family type (maybe due to the cultural repercussions of doing well in school) (Steinberg, Dornbusch, et al., 1992).

The benefits of authoritarian parenting are also found in some studies conducted in China (Ekblad, 1986; Leung et al., 1998; Li et al., 2010; Quoss & Zhao, 1995). Compared to children from Western countries, it is possible that children from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) might feel loved, valued, and protected by their family (the collective) even though their parents tend to be stricter and show less warmth (e.g., praising, hugging, and kissing the child) (Chao, 2000). In this sense, the authoritarian style appears to have no detrimental consequences and is even associated with positive outcomes, such as family satisfaction (Quoss & Zhao, 1995), less depression (Li et al., 2010), and good school adjustment (Ekblad, 1986; Leung et al., 1998; Li et al., 2010). However, benefits related to authoritarian parenting practices have been identified (e.g., using shame to correct sons), without considering the relationship of parental practices with the two dimensions (Ekblad, 1986). Another limitation is that parenting styles are based on global measures for each style (mainly authoritative and authoritarian), but without considering the two main dimensions and the four types of families (Leung et al., 1998; Li et al., 2010; Quoss & Zhao, 1995).

On the other hand, emergent research from China, mainly focused on parenting practices, also seems to suggest the benefits of parental strictness accompanied by high warmth (i.e., authoritative parenting) (Chen et al., 1997; Chen et al., 2000; Xia et al., 2015). According to these studies, parenting practices that define the authoritative parenting (i.e., the authoritative style), such as those found in European-American families, seem to also be positive in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (Wang et al., 2007; Xu et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2004). However, comparisons are mainly limited to some parenting practices corresponding to authoritative or authoritarian parenting styles without considering the two dimensions (i.e., warmth and strictness) to define the four parenting styles (Chen et al., 1997; Zhou et al., 2004). Additionally, some inconsistent results have been described when the effect of authoritarian practices are examined. For example, monitoring and involvement (common to authoritative parents) were related to more school adjustment and less behavioral problems, but parental support (a parental practice based on greater warmth) was surprisingly related to more behavioral problems (see Xia et al., 2015). The limited emergent evidence seems to detect the positive effect of discipline and surveillance (parental strictness), but within a relationship based on dialogue, affection, and trust between parents and children (parental warmth) (Xia et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2017).

Optimal parenting may not be the same all over the world (Garcia & Gracia, 2009; Pinquart & Kauser, 2018; Rudy & Grusec, 2001). Currently, a new paradigm of optimal parenting has been suggested based on three historical stages, extending the traditional paradigm of only two stages (i.e., authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles) to include the indulgent parenting style (for a review, see Garcia et al., 2019). According to the old paradigm, two optimal stages of optimal parenting (i.e., authoritative and the authoritarian parenting) have been suggested over the past century. The first historical stage corresponded to the benefits of parenting characterized by strictness without warmth (i.e., the authoritarian style). At the beginning of the last century, John B. Watson (Watson, 1928) advised parents about the risk of spoiling their children with unnecessary displays of warmth, while proposing strict parenting to get children to develop regular habits and self-discipline. Laurence Steinberg (Steinberg, 2001) supports the idea that, for contemporary industrialized societies, parenting based on strictness is effective only when combined with warm parenting (i.e., the authoritative style or second stage). Furthermore, current emergent research in the digital era seriously questions if parenting based on strictness is still needed to achieve the highest child and adolescents’ personal and social well-being. The three stages occur simultaneously in different contexts, settings, and cultures, so for each specific context the optimal one must be analyzed.

Specifically, the so-called third stage of optimal parental socialization (i.e., the indulgent style) seems to have empirical support based on a growing body of research mainly conducted in European and Latin American countries (Calafat et al., 2014; Climent-Galarza et al., 2022; Garcia & Gracia, 2009; Garcia & Serra, 2019; Martinez & Garcia, 2007, 2008; Martinez et al., 2020; Rodrigues et al., 2013; Villarejo et al., 2020). In contrast to the main findings from studies with European-American families, parenting based on warmth without strictness (i.e., the indulgent style) is associated with optimal scores in different indicators of adjustment and competence such as self-concept and self-esteem (Martinez & Garcia, 2007; Perez-Gramaje et al., 2020), cognitive and affective empathy (Fuentes et al., 2022), less drug use (Riquelme et al., 2018; Villarejo et al., 2023), including motivations for drinking and non-drinking (Garcia, Serra, et al., 2020), greater internalization of social values and environmental values (Queiroz et al., 2020), school achievement, and other academic outcomes (Fuentes et al., 2019; Reyes et al., 2023). In this sense, it seems that the indulgent style might be associated with equal or even more positive scores than the authoritative style. It is possible that adolescents might especially benefit from close relationships with their parents based on warmth, without strictness (Martinez-Escudero et al., 2023). Some emergent results extend the benefits of the third emerging stage (i.e., warmth without strictness) beyond adolescence (Garcia, Serra, et al., 2018; Martinez-Escudero et al., 2020; Martinez-Escudero et al., 2023). Indulgent parenting seems to be associated with positive scores once parenting socialization is over, throughout adulthood (Alcaide et al., 2023; Palacios et al., 2022). As in adolescence, adult children who were raised by warm but not strict parents during the socialization years exhibit good adjustment and competence according to different indicators (Climent-Galarza et al., 2022; Garcia, Fuentes, et al., 2020; Gimenez-Serrano, Garcia, et al., 2022).

Regardless of the cultural and country context, it is important to detect optimal parenting styles, especially in Eastern societies, which are based on different cultural norms and values than Western ones. Contemporary China has undergone significant social, cultural, and economic changes that might affect families (Li, 2020). As Li (2020) summarized in her review, Chinese parents traditionally were expected to act as emotionally distant educators and disciplinarians of their children, but the role of parents has evolved during modern social transformations from the Confucian hierarchical ideal based on parental authority and child obedience to more egalitarian relationships between family members. Today, in Chinese societies, parents are more involved in child-rearing and warmer with their children than their predecessors. However, the optimal Chinese parenting based on warmth and strictness (i.e., authoritarian, authoritative, indulgent, and neglectful) still remains unclear. Additionally, family studies in People’s Republic of China (PRC) have serious methodological shortcomings, and even discrepant and contradictory empirical findings.

One of the most important goals of parental socialization is for children to achieve self-confidence as competent members of their society (Baumrind, 1978; Maccoby, 1992; Veiga et al., 2023). Self-esteem arises from an overall appraisal of oneself as a valuable person with good qualities (Gudjonsson & Sigurdsson, 2003; Rosenberg, 1965) and is associated with important benefits for health and well-being as well as protection against emotional and behavioral problems (Coopersmith, 1967; Ybrandt & Armelius, 2010). However, not all children develop a good confidence in themselves and in their abilities. Low self-esteem is related to broad aspects of maladjustment. The lower the self-esteem, the higher the likelihood of aggressive behaviors, including proactive and reactive aggression (Yang et al., 2023). Meta-analytic evidence suggests that low self-esteem may have a significant potential negative impact on real-world life experiences, rather than merely being an epiphenomenon of failure in relevant life domains (Orth et al., 2012). Low self-esteem is related to high levels of negative affect, health problems, poor satisfaction with life, depression, and anxiety (Orth & Robins, 2013; Orth et al., 2012; Sowislo & Orth, 2013).

But global self-worth is formed from appraisal in different relevant personal areas (i.e., self-concept) (Chen et al., 2020; Garcia, Martinez, et al., 2018; Marsh & Martin, 2011; Shavelson et al., 1976). Self-perceptions as a competent student who is able to adapt to school demands (the so-called academic self-concept) are positively related to school performance (Marsh & Martin, 2011; Veiga et al., 2015), as well as being processes conducive to learning (Marsh & Shavelson, 1985; Musitu-Ferrer et al., 2019). However, lower academic self-concept is associated with higher likelihood of problems in school and low academic achievement (Marsh & Martin, 2011). Additionally, the correct adjustment of the individual to society also requires other dimensions of self-concept which are quite relevant (Esnaola et al., 2020). The non-academic components of self-concept (social, emotional, family, and physical) have also been positively associated with well-being and psychosocial adjustment (Fuentes et al., 2020; Fuentes et al., 2011). By contrast, low social self-concept is a risk factor for drug use (Fuentes et al., 2020) and low levels of emotional self-concept are associated with likelihood of anxious insecure attachment (Cornella-Font et al., 2020), whereas low family and physical self-concept are associated with increased risk of childhood trauma (Cornella-Font et al., 2020) and eating disorders (Maiz & Balluerka, 2018), respectively.

The present study analyzes the relationship between parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative, indulgent, and neglectful) and scores among adolescent and young adult children based on one unidimensional (self-esteem) but also multidimensional approach which includes the academic dimension (academic self-concept) and other non-academic but highly relevant dimensions for personal and social adjustment (social, emotional, family, and physical self-concept). Low self-esteem and self-concept are not only explained by parenting, but also by broad intrafamily and extrafamily influences, as well as multiple biological, personal, social, and cultural factors (Harter et al., 1993; Orth et al., 2012; Shavelson et al., 1976). However, despite the multiple influences, parenting has consistently been identified as a protective or risk factor for self-concept and self-esteem problems (Fuentes et al., 2020; Lamborn et al., 1991; Pinquart & Kauser, 2018). Probably due to the importance of academic achievement in Asian culture, many studies in Chinese families have focused on academic outcomes (e.g., grade point average), without considering other relevant adjustment criteria. Another limitation of previous studies is examining the effect of parental socialization only while it is occurring (e.g., in adolescents), but not beyond, once parental socialization has ended (in adult children). It is expected that parenting styles characterized by high warmth (authoritative and indulgent) would be related to more self-esteem and self-concept (academic, social, emotional, family, and physical) than those parental styles without warmth (authoritarian and neglectful).

The sample was composed of 1,282 participants ranging from 12 to 31 years of age (M = 17.68, SD = 3.37), 676 females (52.7%) and 606 males (47.3%). Participants included 581 adolescents (45.3%) ranging from 12 to 18 years (M = 15.08, SD = 3.14) and 701 young adults (54.7%) ranging from 19 to 31 years (M = 19.84, SD = 1.53). The software G-power 3.1 was used to estimate the statistical power (Faul et al., 2009). The a priori power analysis revealed that a lowest sample of 1,200 participants was needed to identify the medium-low effect size usually described for parenting styles, f = . 12 (Cohen, 1977; Garcia et al., 2008; Lamborn et al., 1991) based on a statistical power of .95 (Type I and Type II errors, α = .05; 1 - β = .95). Considering the study’s sample size (N = 1,282, α = β = .05), a sensitivity power analysis indicated that statistically significant differences with a slightly lower small effect size can be detected in the main effects between the four parenting styles (f = .116) (Cohen, 1977; Garcia, Martinez, et al., 2018; Lamborn et al., 1991).

The adolescent participants were recruited from high schools. The heads of all potential participating high schools were invited to participate. When a high school declined the invitation, another school was selected until completing the sample size required (Garcia & Gracia, 2009; Riquelme et al., 2018). Young adults were recruited in undergraduate education courses (Garcia et al., 2021; Manzeske & Stright, 2009). This study follows ethic principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Data were compiled by using an online survey. The survey consisted of mandatory questions. To guarantee data protection measures, identifiers of participants, as well as survey data, were gathered in different and separate archives; sensitive files were protected and passwords to web directories were stored in an encryption-protected system (Garcia et al., 2021). The questionnaires were studied for doubtful response patterns, such as describing implausible inconsistencies between responses in positively and negatively worded items (Garcia et al., 2011; Garcia et al., 2021; Tomás & Oliver, 2004). All participants in the present study were Chinese-speaking, as were their parents and four grandparents, had received approval from their parents (in the case of adolescents), had given written consent, and anonymity of their responses was assured.

A 4 × 2 × 2 multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted for self-esteem and self-concept (academic, social, emotional, family, and physical) with the independent variables being parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative, indulgent, and neglectful), sex (females vs. males), and age group (adolescents vs. young adults). Follow-up univariate F tests were applied in each source in which multivariate statistically significant differences were found. Statistical results on the univariate tests were also followed up by post hoc comparisons (Bonferroni) among all possible pairs of means.

The participants were distributed by parenting styles according to their levels of both parental warmth and strictness (see Table 1). The authoritative parenting (M = 68.74, SD = 5.21) and indulgent parenting (M = 68.78, SD = 5.27) styles were associated to higher levels of warmth than the authoritarian parenting (M = 52.32, SD = 8.33) and neglectful parenting (M = 53.08, SD = 6.62). Furthermore, authoritative (M = 38.14, SD = 2.47) and authoritarian parenting (M = 38.76, SD = 3.30) were associated with greater levels of strictness than indulgent (M = 31.56, SD = 3.10) and neglectful parenting (M = 30.94, SD = 3.68).

Differences reached the statistically significant differences for the main effects of parenting style, Λ = .743, F(18, 3567.1) = 21.90, p < .001; sex, Λ = .957, F(6, 1261.0) = 9.43, p < .001; and age, Λ = .977, F(6, 1261.0) = 5.00, p < .001, and for the interaction effects between parenting and age, Λ = .965, F(18, 3567.1) = 2.55, p < .001 (see Table 2).

Although not the focus of the study, some sex- and age-related differences reached statistically significant level (see Table 3). Regarding sex-related differences, male individuals reported greater self-esteem than female individuals. On the contrary, female individuals showed greater social and family self-concept, but lower emotional self-concept, than male individuals. Regarding age-related differences, adolescents reported higher self-esteem and social self-concept than young adults, whereas young adults had higher physical self-concept than adolescents.

Overall, parenting styles characterized by greater warmth were associated with greater scores on self-esteem and self-concept than parenting without warmth (see Table 4). Additionally, the interaction between parenting style and age was statically significant on self-esteem, F(3, 1266) = 6.61, p < .001, academic self-concept, F(3, 1266) = 5.85, p < .001, emotional self-concept, F(3, 1266) = 3.69, p = .012, and family self-concept, F(3, 1266) = 4.92, p = .002.

With regard to self-esteem, authoritative and indulgent parenting were related to higher scores in self-esteem than the authoritarian and neglectful styles. The family profile by age revealed higher differences between parenting styles in adolescence than in young adults. Overall, an age-related decrease in self-esteem was found in warm families, but the highest scores for both adolescents and young adults corresponded to those raised in authoritative and indulgent homes (see Figure 1, section A). Parenting characterized by a lack of warmth was related to poor self-esteem. However, the lowest scores among adolescents were associated with authoritarian parenting, while among young adults the lowest scores were associated with neglectful parenting.

A similar pattern as in self-esteem was found in self-concept dimensions. The highest scores on the academic dimension were associated with the authoritative style, the lowest corresponded to authoritarian and neglectful styles, and the indulgent parenting was in a middle position. The family profile by age revealed an interesting trend among warm families and the authoritative parenting was associated to higher academic self-concept in adolescence, but not in young adulthood (see Figure 1, section B). Fewer scores related to age were found among authoritative families, and it was observed that young adults raised by authoritative parents scored equally as their peers from indulgent homes. Again, poor academic self-concept was related to non-warm parenting in the adolescent and young adult groups.

Individuals with authoritative and indulgent parents reported higher social self-concept than their peers from authoritarian and neglectful families. Regarding emotional self-concept, warm parenting (i.e., authoritative and indulgent styles) was associated with higher scores than non-warm parenting (i.e., authoritarian and neglectful styles). This general pattern was more pronounced among adolescents than in young adults (see Figure 1, section C). Although relatively lower scores related to age were observed among authoritative and indulgent homes (the opposite seems to appear among authoritarian families), young adults raised in warm parenting families also tend to report the highest emotional self-concept.

Differences in family self-concept revealed that individuals with authoritative and indulgent parents scored more positively than their peers from authoritarian and neglectful homes (within non-warmth styles, authoritarian were related to lower scores than neglectful parenting). The family age profile revealed an interesting pattern in adolescence and young adulthood. Adolescents from indulgent homes tend to score more similarly than peers from authoritative homes, whereas young adults tend to report better scores when raised by indulgent parents compared to those from authoritative homes (see Figure 1, section D). Conversely, authoritarian and neglectful parenting were associated with low family self-concept. In adolescence the lowest scores corresponded to the authoritarian parenting whereas in young adulthood both authoritarian and neglectful parenting were associated with the lowest scores. Finally, regarding differences in physical self-concept, authoritative and indulgent parenting were related to higher scores compared to authoritarian and neglectful parenting.