Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study explored a longitudinal data-base that assessed a set of psychological and socio-demographic factors associated with parenting styles in a sample of 1,053 parents (55% mothers) with a mean age of 41.2 years (SD = 6.7) who had children aged 10 years. We were interested in the correlates of three distinct parenting styles: Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Permissive Parenting (criterion variables), along with the various predictor variables: gender, age, the Big-Five personality factors, cognitive ability, self-efficacy, mental health problems, educational qualifications and occupational levels. Regression analyses revealed that traits Agreeableness and Openness, self-efficacy, and gender (being mothers) were significant (p < .01 to p < .001) and positive, independent predictors of Authoritative Parenting, accounting for 17% of the variance. Trait Agreeableness, age (negatively), and mental health problems (positively) were significant (p < .05 to p < .001) and independent predictors of Authoritarian Parenting, accounting for 13% of the variance. Trait Conscientiousness, occupational levels, and gender (being mothers) were significant (p < .05) and negative independent predictors of Permissive Parenting, accounting for 10% of the variance. Implications are discussed as well as limitations of the study.

Keywords

parenting style big-five personality cognitive ability self-efficacy mental health

Introduction

In this study we explored an established, British longitudinal data base to examine how parental demographic variables, personality, intelligence as well as mental health related to their parenting styles. Whereas most studies in this area are concerned with the effect of parenting styles on children, this is concerned with the determinants of those styles. It is a large and representative sample which allowed us to examine the incremental validity of trait and ability variables over demographic variables in understanding different parenting styles. Our particular focus was on the relationship between personality, ability and mental health and the adoption of particular parenting styles. Whilst most studies in this area have examined the consequences of parenting style on children’s developmental outcome this study looks at individual difference correlates of parental style.

There is extensive literature on parenting style (Delvecchio et al., 2020; Eden & Tal, 2024), derived primarily from the classification of Baumrind’s (1971) theory (Kuppens & Ceulemans, 2019). As a consequence, there are a number of reviews and meta-analyses surrounding the relationship between parenting style and a range of behaviours like well-being (Huang et al., 2024), aggression (Masud et al., 2019), self-esteem (Pinquart & Gerke, 2019), externalising behaviours (Ruiz-Hernández et al., 2019), behavioural problems (Kinrade et al., 2025; Sun et al., 2024) and general development (Jiang et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2023). Research has examined the relationship between parenting styles and many child behaviours, including children’s behaviour problems (Alizadeh et al., 2011), healthy lifestyles (Alonso-Stuyck, 2019), materialism (Bi et al., 2024), thinking styles (Fan & Zhang, 2014), creativity (Gralewski & Jankowska, 2020), learning (Kong & Yasmin, 2022), mental health (Peng et al., 2021), career decision making (Tian et al., 2021), and academic performance (Teuber et al., 2022; Yang & Zhao, 2020). This study examines the relationship between parenting style and Big-Five personality factors, cognitive ability, self-efficacy, and mental health problems in a large representative population.

This is a longitudinal study which are often considered crucial to look at causal relationships. There have been a number of longitudinal studies in the area (Aaron & Oliver, 2022; Kaniušonytė & Laursen, 2021; Kassis et al., 2025; Pan et al., 2024) all aimed at exploring the central hypothesis that parenting styles have significant long-term consequences for children. This study is different from these in that parenting style is essentially the dependent variable in that we are interested in understanding what determines adults parenting styles. We were able to examine how various individual differences like personality and intelligence influence preferred parenting style some years later.

According to the Baumrind model, Authoritative Parents are supportive in nature; they have clear guidelines for their behavioural expectations and explain their reasons associated with disciplinary actions. On the other hand, Authoritarian Parents tend to expect their children to obey the instructions of their parents and the rules are not usually explained; mistakes often lead to punishment. Permissive Parents tend to leave their children free to have their own preferences; limited rules can lead to children with unhealthy habits, as the parents do not provide much guidance and rarely use discipline.

Parenting styles result in behavioural and psychological adjustments in children (Chan & Koo, 2011). In a systematic review of parenting styles and aggression among young adolescents, based on 34 studies, Masud et al. (2019) state that Authoritative Parenting plays a positive role in psychological behaviour in children while Authoritarian Parenting and Permissive Parenting result in aggressive and negative behaviours in children. Authoritative Parenting is also associated with academic achievement (Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1989), self-reliance and social competence (Steinberg et al., 1999), whereas Authoritarian Parenting and Permissive Parenting are associated with substance use (Baumrind, 1991) and adolescent delinquency (Barnes & Farrell, 1992).

In a meta-analysis study on the relationship between parents’ Big Five personality factors and parenting, based on 5,853 parent-child dyads that were included in 30 studies, Prinzie and colleagues report that higher levels of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness and lower levels of Neuroticism were related to more warmth and behavioural control. While higher levels of Agreeableness and lower levels of Neuroticism were related to more autonomy (Prinzie et al., 2009). However, this study did not use the three types of parenting styles from Baumrind’s theory (1971). The current study is able to explore the associations between the Big Five personality factors of parents and all three types of parenting styles.

In a recent meta-analysis on perceived parenting styles and the Big Five personality factors, based on 11,061 adolescents in 28 studies, Tehrani and colleagues (2024) report that results provided evidence that Authoritative Parenting style was positively associated with Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Agreeableness and negatively related to Neuroticism. A positive association was also found between Authoritarian Parenting style and Neuroticism. Indifferent or neglectful (Permissive) Parenting style was associated negatively with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness and positively with Neuroticism. The study provides evidence that parenting styles are important correlates of personality traits among adolescents (Tehrani et al., 2024). However, studies included in this review involve perceived parenting style rather than the actual parenting style of participants. The present research explores the associations between parents’ actual parenting style and their personality traits.

This Study

What makes this study original is the combination of variables we were able to examine, given the particular data set we were exploring. Whilst studies have looked at trait correlates of parenting style it seems far fewer have examined ability. There are many studies on the consequences of parenting style on childrens’ cognitive and emotional intelligence (Lanjekar et al., 2022) it seems few have looked at parental cognitive ability and the adoption of a particular parenting style. Similarly, studies have looked at the consequences of parenting style on children’s mental health, not the mental health of the parents and the style they adopt. The same is true of parental self-efficacy which we examine (Qazi, 2009). This unique data set allows us to look at the relationship between parental individual differences and the adoption of particular parenting styles.

Further, few studies, if any, have examined the associations between the three types of parenting styles and the Big Five personality factors together with other psychological factors like cognitive ability, self-efficacy, and mental health to ascertain the independent effects of these psychological factors on each of the three types of parenting style. That is, whereas there are various studies examining some of the variables we have one at a time, our data set allowed us to examine them all at the same time, thus being able to determine their relative power. From the available variables assessed in the longitudinal study we choose the Big Five personality factors, cognitive ability, self-efficacy, and mental health problems. We also account for the effects of gender, age, education and occupation on the outcome variables.

Hypotheses

Based on the literature reviewed above, five hypotheses were emulated. (H1) Traits Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Openness would be significantly and positively associated with Authoritative Parenting and significantly and negatively associated with Authoritarian Parenting and Permissive Parenting, whereas trait Neuroticism would be significantly and positively associated with Authoritarian Parenting and Permissive Parenting. (H2) Cognitive ability would be significantly and positively associated with Authoritative Parenting and significantly negatively associated with Authoritarian Parenting and Permissive Parenting. (H3) Self-efficacy would be significantly positively associated with Authoritative Parenting and significantly negatively associated with Authoritarian Parenting and Permissive Parenting. (H4) Mental health problems would be significantly negatively associated with Authoritative Parenting and significantly positively associated with Authoritarian Parenting and Permissive Parenting. (H5) Educational qualifications and occupational levels would be significantly positively associated with Authoritative Parenting and negatively associated with Authoritarian Parenting and Permissive Parenting.

Method

The UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS), labelled Understanding Society, is an innovative world-leading study following the lives of 40,000 UK households to provide valuable evidence about 21^st-century UK life and how it is changing (Knies, 2014). Since 2009, it annually captures important information about peoples’ social and economic circumstances, attitudes, behaviours and health. The study is longitudinal in its design and of high quality. Data Wave 3 (2011), Wave 5 (2013), and Wave 7 (2015) were used in the study.

Participants

The study was based on a sample of 1,053 parents (55% mothers) with ages ranging from 26 to 70 years old (Mean = 41.17, SD = 6.42) who had 10-years-old children in Wave 7 (in 2015) from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS).

Measures

(1) The Big Personality Factors. Personality traits are classified according to the ‘Big Five’ taxonomy: Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), Extraversion (E), Neuroticism (N), and Openness (O). The Big Five personality traits were assessed in Wave 3 (in 2011) using a 15-item version of the Big Five Inventory (John et al., 2008). Three items were used to assess each of the five dimensions. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.57 for A, 0.55 for C, 0.60 for E, 0.71 for N, and 0.66 for O. Although reliability coefficients for these five factors may appear modest by traditional standards, past research suggests that these alpha coefficients underestimate the actual reliability of these scales due to their brevity.

(2) Cognitive ability tests. A set of four sets of cognitive ability tests were used in Wave 3 (in 2011). They include Immediate Word Recall, Subtraction, Verbal Fluency and Numeric Ability. The standardised cognitive ability test scores were combined.

(3) General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). Mental health was measured by GHQ in Wave 5 (in 2013). It is a 12-item instrument measuring depression, anxiety and psychosomatic illness (Goldberg & Williams, 1988), The alpha for the total score was .83.

(4) Educational qualifications. Educational qualifications ranged from 0 = no qualification to 5 = university degree in Wave 5 (in 2013).

(5) Occupational levels. Current occupation in Wave 5 (in 2013) was measured by the Registrar General’s measure of social class (RGSC). RGSC is defined according to occupational status and lifestyle (Marsh, 1986). It was coded on a six-point scale: I unskilled, II partly skilled, IIIM skilled manual, IIIN skilled non-manual, V managerial/technical, and VI professional (Leete & Fox, 1977).

(6) Parenting style. Parenting style was measured in Wave 7 (2015) with 32 items based on Baumrind’s theory (Baumrind, 1971). It includes three distinct types of parenting: Authoritative, consisting of 15 items and an Alpha of .86; Authoritarian Parenting, which consists of 12 items, with an Alpha of .78; Permissive Parenting, which consists of five items, the Alpha was .66 (see Appendix I).

Results

Correlational Analysis

Correlation analysis was conducted to examine the associations between parenting style and a set of psychological and socio-demographic variables in the study. Results are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Pearson Correlations Matrix Between Parenting Style, Personality Factors, Cognitive Ability, Self-Efficacy and Mental Health Problems, and Socio-Demographic Indicators

	Variables	Mean SD	Correlation
	Variables	Mean SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1	Authoritative parenting wave 7	60.63 (8.49)	_
2	Authoritarian parenting wave 7	19.79 (5.61)	−.16**	_
3	Permissive parenting wave 7	10.87 (3.57)	−.08**	.49**	_
4	Gender wave 7	0.55 (.50)	.23**	.01	−.05*	_
5	Age wave 7	41.17 (6.42)	.01	−.13**	−.08**	.02	_
6	Extraversion wave 3	4.58 (1.29)	.06*	−.07*	−.06*	.01	−.02	_
7	Neuroticism wave 3	3.62 (1.34)	−.04	.06*	.10**	.02	−.11**	−.14**	_
8	Agreeableness wave 3	5.56 (1.01)	.22**	−.17**	−.14**	.25**	−.02	.15**	−.06*	_
9	Conscientiousness wave 3	5.49 (1.05)	.11**	−.16**	−.18**	−.02	.10	.21**	−.15**	.27**	_
10	Openness wave 3	4.52 (1.21)	.14**	−.09**	−.11**	−.11**	.12**	.18**	−.12**	.16**	.28**	_
11	Cognitive ability wave 3	.93 (2.47)	.04	−.16**	−.18**	−.10**	.21**	.02	−.09**	−.03	.16**	.20**	_
12	Self-efficacy wave 5	31.16 (4.57)	.15**	−.09**	−.20**	−.09**	.16**	.20**	−.32**	.06*	.29**	.35**	.31**	_
13	Mental health problems wave 5	23.83 (5.74)	.02	.13**	.15**	.03	−.02	−.15**	.28**	−.11**	−.08**	−.13**	−.12**	−.47**	_
14	Educational qualifications wave 5	3.24 (1.53)	.02	−.09**	−.16**	−.02	.22**	−.04	−.10*	−.03	.12**	.19**	.41**	.21**	−.02	_
15	Occupational levels wave 5	3.99 (1.27)	.03	−.08**	−.14**	−.06*	.16**	−.03	−.04	−.04	.09**	.03	.34**	.05	.09**	.42**

Note. Standard deviations (SD) are given in parentheses. Variables were scored such that a higher score indicated being female and older in age when children were born, higher scores on three types of parenting, higher cores on personality factors and cognitive ability tests, higher scores on self-efficacy and mental health problems, highest educational qualification and a more professional occupation. Correlations between the outcome variables and other variables measured are in bold. Correlation analysis was weighted with UK sampling weight.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Table 1 indicates that traits Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Openness, self-efficacy, educational qualifications and occupational levels were all significantly and positively associated with Authoritative Parenting and significantly negatively associated with Authoritarian Parenting and Permissive Parenting. Whereas trait Neuroticism and mental health problems were significantly positively associated with Authoritarian Parenting and Permissive Parenting (p < .05 to p < .001). Thus, (H1), (H3) and (H5) were supported. (H2) and (H4) were partially supported, as cognitive ability and mental health problems were not significantly associated with Authoritative Parenting. Gender (being mothers) was significantly and positively associated with Authoritative Parenting and significantly negatively associated with Permissive Parenting. Age was significantly negatively associated with Authoritarian Parenting and Permissive Parenting.

Regression Analysis

Following this, a series of hierarchical regression analyses were carried out using each parenting style measure as a dependent variable respectively. Three models were designed for each hierarchical regression analysis. We chose to enter these in three blocks: demography first, then personality and finally socioeconomic variables. Model 1 contains the demographic factors gender and age; in Model 2, a set of psychological factors (the Big Five, IQ, self-efficacy and general health) were entered into the equation; in Model 3, socio-economic factors, education and occupation were entered into the equation. Tables 2 –4 display the results.

Table 2.

Predicting Authoritative Parenting From Gender and Age, Personality Factors and Cognitive Ability, Self-Efficacy and Mental Health Problems, Educational Qualifications and Occupational Levels

Measures	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
Measures	Beta	t	Beta	t	Beta	T	p ^a
Gender	.27***	5.13	.26***	4.71	.25***	4.52	<.001
Age	.05	.83	.04	.74	.03	0.63	.53
Extraversion			.01	0.07	.02	0.28	.78
Neuroticism			.03	0.56	.04	0.70	.49
Agreeableness			.14**	2.67	.15**	2.79	.01
Conscientiousness			.01	0.09	.01	0.09	.93
Openness			.14**	2.68	.15**	2.76	.01
Cognitive ability tests			.02	1.17	.03	1.54	.57
Self-efficacy			.18**	2.83	.18**	2.69	.01
Mental health problems			.03	1.18	.03	0.92	.35
Educational qualifications					.04	0.61	.54
Occupational levels					.02	1.30	.23
Variance explained	R ² = .06 F = 12.59***		R ² = .15 F = 6.68***		R ² = .17 F = 5.47***

^aSignificance in the final model. Regression analyses were weighted with UK sampling weight.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 3.

Predicting Authoritarian Parenting From Gender and Age, Personality Factors and Cognitive Ability, Self-Efficacy and Mental Health Problems, Educational Qualifications and Occupational Levels

Measures	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
Measures	Beta	T	Beta	t	Beta	T	p ^a
Gender	−.09	1.73	−.05	0 .83	−.04	0.68	.50
Age	−.17**	3.08	−.13*	2.35	−.12*	2.21	.03
Extraversion			−.02	0.04	−.03	0.79	.49
Neuroticism			.06	0.98	.05	0.81	.42
Agreeableness			−.18**	3.16	−.19***	3.33	<.001
Conscientiousness			−.09	1.69	−.09	1.69	.09
Openness			−.02	0.28	−.02	0.33	.74
Cognitive ability tests			−.07	1.37	−.07	0.59	.56
Self-efficacy			−.06	1.09	−.06	1.27	.20
Mental health problems			.14**	2.38	.16**	2.68	.01
Educational qualifications					−.05	0.87	.38
Occupational levels					−.08	1.54	.12
Variance explained	R ² = .03 F = 5.32***		R ² = .11 F = 4.19***		R ² = .13 F = 3.89***

^aSignificance in the final model. Regression analyses were weighted with UK sampling weight.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 4.

Predicting Permissive Parenting From Gender and Age, Personality Factors and Cognitive Ability, Self-Efficacy and Mental Health Problems, Educational Qualifications and Occupational Levels

Measures	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
Measures	Beta	T	Beta	t	Beta	T	p ^a
Gender	−.15**	2.79	−.12*	2.27	−.12*	2.19	.03
Age	−.14**	2.69	−.11	1.94	−.10	1.78	.08
Extraversion			−.01	1.08	−.01	0.13	.90
Neuroticism			.03	0.66	.04	0.83	.50
Agreeableness			−.08	1.78	−.05	1.53	.13
Conscientiousness			−.11*	2.35	−.12*	2.11	.04
Openness			.02	0.32	.01	0.23	.82
Cognitive ability tests			−.08	1.38	−.04	1.67	.50
Self-efficacy			−.12*	1.98	−.11	1.73	.08
Mental health problems			.07	1.19	.09	1.52	.13
Educational qualifications					−.02	0.37	.73
Occupational levels					−.12*	2.86	.04
Variance explained	R ² = .04 F = 6.18***		R ² = .09 F = 3.20***		R ² = .102 F = 3.16***

^aSignificance in the final model. Regression analyses were weighted with UK sampling weight.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 2 depicts that in Model 1, gender (being mothers) was a significant and positive predictor of Authoritative Parenting. Model 1 explains 6.3% of the variance. In model 2, after entering a set of psychological variables into the equation, traits Agreeableness and Openness, and self-efficacy became significant and positive predictors of Authoritative Parenting, and gender remained the significant predictor of the outcome variable. Model 2 explains 9.1% of the variance. In Model 3, after entering social variables, education, and occupation into the equation, the model explained an additional 1.4% of the variance. In the final model, traits Agreeableness and Openness, self-efficacy, and gender were significant predictors of Authoritative Parenting, accounting for 16.8% of the total variance.

Table 3 exhibits that in Model 1, age was a significant and negative predictor of Authoritarian Parenting. Model 1 explains 3% of the variance. In Model 2, after entering a set of psychological variables into the equation, trait Agreeableness was a significant and negative predictor of Authoritarian Parenting, mental health problems was a significant positive predictor of Authoritarian Parenting, whilst age remained a significant predictor of the outcome variable. Model 2 additionally explains 8.2% of the variance. Model 3 - after entering social variables, education, and occupation into the equation-explains a further 1.3% of the variance. In the final model, trait Agreeableness, mental health problems, and age were significant predictors of Authoritarian Parenting, accounting for 12.5% of the total variance.

Table 4 shows that in Model 1, gender and age were significant and negative predictors of Permissive Parenting. Model 1 explains 3.5% of the variance. In Model 2, after entering a set of psychological variables into the equation, trait Consciousness and self-efficacy were significant negative predictors of Permissive Parenting, whilst gender remained a significant predictor of the outcome variable. Model 2 further explained 5.2% of the variance. In Model 3, after entering social variables into the equation, occupational levels was a significant and negative predictor of Permissive Parenting, trait Conscientiousness and gender remained significant predictors of the outcome variable; however, self-efficacy ceased to be a significant predictor of the outcome variable. Model 3 explains 1.5% of the variance. In the final model, trait Conscientiousness, occupational levels, and gender were significant predictors of Permissive Parenting, accounting for 10.2% of the total variance.

Discussion

The current study is among the first to examine the association between the three distinct types of parenting styles in relation to parents’ personality traits, cognitive ability, self-efficacy, mental health problems, and socio-demographic factors. Results of the current study portray the critical role of specific Big Five personality factors and self-efficacy in parenting style. It confirms a number of other studies on the relationship between the Big Five and parenting styles (e.g. Hardjanto & Triman, 2024).

The correlational results, shown in Table 1, show the most noticeable result is that nearly all correlations displayed the opposite pattern for Authoritative vs Authoritarian and Permissive Parenting, with more correlations being significant with the latter styles compared to the former style. The four highest sets of correlations suggest that parents higher on Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness, and Self-efficacy tend to be more Authoritative and less Authoritarian/Permissive. Further, whilst factors like cognitive ability and mental health problems were not associated with Authoritative parenting, they were negatively associated with Authoritarian and Permissive parenting. The authoritative parent tends to be a Stable Extravert and particularly high on Agreeableness. On the other hand, both Authoritarian and Permissive parents appear to be younger, less well educated, with more mental health problems and lower self-efficacy, scoring lower on all traits except Neuroticism. These results confirm most previous studies in the area and out hypotheses. That is, happier and psychological healthier people adopt the more adaptive Authoritative parenting style.

The role of self-efficacy is an important in all aspects of life including child-rearing. Indeed a number of studies on parenting efficacy (Hamovitch et al., 2019) and general self-efficacy (Harpaz et al., 2021) have demonstrated both how it relates to parenting style but also the self-efficacy beliefs of their children.

With regard to socio-demographic associations, we confirmed previous findings, noting that mothers tend to engage in more Authoritative Parenting and less Permissive Parenting than fathers; older parents tend to engage in less Authoritarian Parenting and Permissive Parenting; and more professional parents tend to engage in less Permissive Parenting. It would be interesting to trace these associations over time as it seems possible that there are trends in what is thought to be ideal parenting from a time when both aspects of Permissive and Authoritarian parenting were thought of at least partly desirable to the situation today where there seems more agreement on the desirability of Authoritative parenting (Lam et al., 2019).

The regressions are most informative; results reveal that four variables-traits Agreeableness and Openness, self-efficacy, and gender-were significant positive predictors of Authoritative Parenting, accounting for 17% of the variance. Three variables, namely trait Agreeableness (negatively), mental health problems (positively), and age (negatively), were significant predictors of Authoritarian Parenting, accounting for 13% of the variance. Finally, three variables, trait Conscientiousness, occupational levels, and gender, were significant negative predictors of Permissive Parenting, accounting for 10% of the variance. Research in this area tends to examine specific relationships such as that between demography or personality and parenting styles while this examines a dozen variables and there relative contribution to adult parenting styles.

A further three points are noticeable from the regressions. First, many variables were not significant in the third step of all three regressions: Traits Extraversion and Neuroticism, IQ, educational qualifications, and mental health issues. This suggests that parenting style is less affected by classic personality variables (Galen’s humours), intellect and education. Second, despite the comprehensiveness of the variables assessed, all together in each regression, they account for only between 10 and 20% of the variance. It raises the question, what are the variables not measured in this study accounting for much more of the variance in any chosen parenting style? For instance, there was no data on the participants religious and political beliefs, or indeed their perceptions of their own parents’ style. Third, as demonstrated by the correlations, trait Agreeableness seemed most closely linked to 2/3 of the parenting styles. Trait Agreeableness is associated with being selfless, appreciative, compliant, trusting and tender-minded. People high in Agreeableness tend to be generous, kind, sympathetic and warm (Furnham & Cheng, 2015). Similarly disagreeable people are seen as cold, competitive and blunt which are not usually considered ideal characteristics in a parent.

One question not answered by this data is whether we all parent as we were parented. Theorising that we adopt a style that our parents chose for us, and this may account for most of the variance. However it is important to answer the nature-nurture question: that is we in some way inherit a parenting style or that we learn to parent as we were parented. This is an important, but very difficult question to answer.

Limitations

A major limitation of this study is that it was based on self-report, albeit that personality and IQ was assessed four years before Parenting Style. Ideally, we would have had observational data along with some measures of participants children’s actual beliefs and behaviour. Further, some measures, notably the Big Five, were very short, which possibly lead to their relatively low internal reliability. Finally, some of the results could have been exaggerated by social desirability and impression management effects.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Adrian Furnham

Ethical Considerations

The University of Essex Ethics Committee has approved all data collection on Understanding Society main study, the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) and innovation panel waves, including asking consent for all data linkages. Approval for the collection of biosocial data by trained nurses in Waves 2 and 3 of the main survey was obtained from the National Research Ethics Service (Understanding Society – UK Household Longitudinal Study: A Biosocial Component, Oxfordshire A REC, Reference: 10/H0604/2).

Consent to Participate

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

Author Contribution

A.F: Visualisation, Writing - review & editing, HC: Data Curation and Analysis.

Funding

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

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Author Biographies

Adrian Furnham is a Professor at the Norwegian Business School and author of over 1500 peer reviewed papers.

Helen Cheng worked for many years at University College London. Dr Cheng was a PhD student under Professor Furnham's supervision.

Appendix

References

Aaron

Oliver

(2022). A longitudinal study of the association between parenting styles and adolescent mental health outcomes. Archives of Clinical Psychiatry, 49(6), 85–92.

Alizadeh

Talib

M. B. A.

Abdullah

Mansor

(2011). Relationship between parenting style and children’s behavior problems. Asian Journal of Social Science, 7(12), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v7n12p195

Alonso-Stuyck

(2019). Which parenting style encourages healthy lifestyles in teenage children? Proposal for a model of integrative parenting styles. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(11), 2057. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16112057

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 Family, 54(4), 763–776. https://doi.org/10.2307/353159

Baumrind

(1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4(1), 1–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030372

Baumrind

(1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431691111004

Cui

Pan

Liu

Chen

(2024). The influence of positive parenting styles on adolescents’ materialism: Moderated mediating effect. Current Psychology, 43(22), 19747–19756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05821-z

Chan

T. W.

Koo

(2011). Parenting style and youth outcomes in the UK. European Sociological Review, 27(3), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcq013

Delvecchio

Germani

Raspa

Lis

Mazzeschi

(2020). Parenting styles and child's well-being. Europes Journal of Psychology, 16(3), 514–531. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v16i3.2013

10.

Eden

Tal

(2024). Why do parenting styles matter? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194241301051

11.

Fan

Zhang

(2014). The role of perceived parenting styles in thinking styles. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.03.004

12.

Furnham

Cheng

(2015). Early indicators of adult trait agreeableness. Personality and Individual Differences, 73, 67–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.025

13.

Goldberg

Williams

P. A.

(1988). User’s guide to the general health questionnaire. NFER-Nelson.

14.

Gralewski

Jankowska

D. M.

(2020). Do parenting styles matter? Perceived dimensions of parenting styles, creative abilities and creative self-beliefs in adolescents. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38, Article 100709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100709

15.

Hamovitch

E. K.

Acri

M. C.

Bornheimer

L. A.

(2019). An analysis of the relationship between parenting self-efficacy, the quality of parenting, and parental and child emotional health. Journal of Family Social Work, 22(4–5), 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2019.1635939

16.

Hardjanto

N. N.

Triman

(2024). Correlation between parenting styles and big five personality of adolescents. Journal Psikogenesis, 11(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.24854/jps.v11i2.2840

17.

Harpaz

Grinshtain

Yaffe

(2021). Parental self-efficacy predicted by parents’ subjective well-being and their parenting styles with possible role of help-seeking orientation from teachers. Journal of Psychology, 155(6), 571–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2021.1926896

18.

Huang

Yang

(2024). Parenting style and subjective well-being in children and youth: A meta-analysis. Psychological Reports, Article 332941241256883. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941241256883

19.

Jiang

Zhang

Yan

Tan

H. Y.

Zhang

Yue

(2024). Effects of parenting styles on adult personality traits, depressive trait, and brain structure. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 93(1), Article 103939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2024.103939

20.

John

O. P.

Naumann

L. P.

Soto

C. J.

(2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big-five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In John

O. P.

Robins

R. W.

Pervin

L. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). Guilford Press.

21.

Kaniušonytė

Laursen

(2021). Parenting styles revisited: A longitudinal person-oriented assessment of perceived parent behavior. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(1), 210–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520960818

22.

Kassis

Vasiou

Aksoy

Favre

C. A.

Talmon-Gros

A. S.

Magnusson

(2025). Parenting style patterns and their longitudinal impact on mental health in abused and non abused adolescents. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 3(16), Article 1548549. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1548549

23.

Kinrade

Hart

Castagna

P. J.

(2025). The lasting effects of bad parenting: Effects of dysfunctional parenting on functional impairment through antisocial personality. Psychological Reports, Article 332941251329782. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941251329782

24.

Knies

(2014). Understanding society - The UK household longitudinal study: Waves 1-4, 2009–2012, user manual. University of Essex. https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/documentation/mainstage

25.

Kong

Yasmin

(2022). Impact of parenting style on early childhood learning: Mediating role of parental self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 928629. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.928629

26.

Kuppens

Ceulemans

(2019). Parenting styles: A closer look at a well-known concept. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(1), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1242-x

27.

Lam

C. M.

Kwong

W. M.

S. M.

(2019). Has parenting changed over past decade? Aqualitative study of generational shifts in parenting. International Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 9(2), 42–47. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijssh.2019.v9.988

28.

Lamborn

S. D.

Mounts

N. S.

Steinberg

Dornbusch

S. M.

(1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62(5), 1049–1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01588.x

29.

Lanjekar

P. D. ,

Joshi

S. H.

Lanjekar

P. D.

Wagh

(2022). The effect of parenting and the parent-child relationship on a child's cognitive development: A literature review. Cureus, 14(10):Article e30574. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.30574

30.

Leete

Fox

(1977). Registrar General’s social classes: Origins and users. Population Trends, 8, 1–7.

31.

Marsh

(1986). Social class and occupation. In Burgess

(Ed.), Key variables in social investigation (1st ed., pp. 123–152). Routledge.

32.

Masud

Ahmad

M. S.

Cho

K. W.

Fakhr

(2019). Parenting styles and aggression among young adolescents: A systematic review of literature. Community Mental Health Journal, 55(6), 1015–1030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-019-00400-0

33.

Pan

Wang

Gong

Zhao

Miao

(2024). The complex longitudinal influence of paternal and maternal parental psychological flexibility on child problem behavior: Exploring the role of parenting styles. BMC Psychology, 12(1), 793. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02291-7

34.

Peng

Xiao

Luo

(2021). Parenting style and adolescent mental health: The chain mediating effects of self-esteem and psychological inflexibility. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(1), Article 738170. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.738170

35.

Pinquart

Gerke

D. C.

(2019). Associations of parenting styles with self-esteem in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(8), 2017–2035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01417-5

36.

Prinzie

Stams

G. J. J.

Deković

Reijntjes

A. H.

Belsky

(2009). The relations between parents’ big five personality factors and parenting: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015823

37.

Qazi

(2009). Parenting styles; locus of control and self efficacy: A correlational study. Revista Costarricense de Psicologia, 28(41), 75–84.

38.

Ruiz-Hernández

J. A.

Moral-Zafra

Llor-Esteban

Jiménez-Barbero

J. A.

(2019). Influence of parental styles and other psychosocial variables on the development of externalizing behaviors in adolescents: A systematic review. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 11(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2018a11

39.

Steinberg

Elmen

J. D.

Mounts

N. S.

(1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60(6), 1424–1436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1989.tb04014.x

40.

Steinberg

Mounts

N. S.

Lamborn

S. D.

Dornbusch

S. M.

(1999). Authoritative parenting and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. In Lerner

R. M.

Castellino

D. R.

(Eds.), Adolescents and their families (1st ed., pp. 129–146). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315827063

41.

Sun

Chen

Zhao

Zhu

(2024). Mediating and moderating effects of authoritative parenting styles on adolescent behavioral problems. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1336354. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1336354

42.

Tehrani

H. D.

Yamini

Vazsonyi

A. T.

(2024). Parenting styles and big five personality traits among adolescents: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 216, Article 112421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112421

43.

Teuber

Tang

Sielemann

Otterpohl

Wild

(2022). Autonomy-related parenting profiles and their effects on adolescents’ academic and psychological development: A longitudinal person-oriented analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51(7), 1333–1353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01538-5

44.

Tian

Huang

Xie

Afzal

(2021). How parenting styles link career decision-making difficulties in Chinese college students? The mediating effects of core self-evaluation and career calling. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 661600. https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2021.661600

45.

Yang

Zhao

(2020). Parenting styles and children’s academic performance: Evidence from middle schools in China. Children and Youth Services Review, 113(1), Article 105017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105017

46.

Zhang

Miller

Halgunseth

L. C.

(2023). Parenting styles and children’s development: A review of the literature. Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Health, 2(1), 609–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-818872-9.00082-0

Correlates of Parenting Style: Findings From the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS)

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

This Study

Hypotheses

Method

Participants

Measures

Results

Correlational Analysis

Regression Analysis

Discussion

Limitations

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ethical Considerations

Consent to Participate

Author Contribution

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

Author Biographies

Appendix

References