Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

One of the factors affecting the functionality of the family is parenting attitudes. This study examines the effect of the parenting attitudes of women on the functionality of the family they establish. The study was designed with a quantitative research method and conducted in a relational screening model. The study group consists of 626 married women aged 18–65, having at least 5 years of marital experience. Data were collected using the “Family Assessment Scale” and the “Young Parenting Scale” and analyzed using the IBM SPSS 22 program. According to the results obtained from the study, it was determined that the parenting attitudes of the women included in the study significantly affected the family functionality of their mothers by 5% to 12%. The functionality of the families women establish is negatively affected by the condescending, emotionally depriving, and prescriptive parenting attitudes of their mothers.

Keywords

family functioning root parenting attitudes social work married women family

Entrance

Family is the institution where individuals first learn to be members of society as a means of socialization. Although there are many different definitions of family, there is no universal definition that has been agreed upon. In the most general acceptance, family is a social unit that ensures the continuity of the generation, where adaptation to society is first experienced, where relationships are established within the framework of certain rules, and which ensures the intergenerational transfer of material and spiritual wealth, and has biological, psychological, economic, legal, etc., dimensions (Zeybekoğlu Dündar, 2020).

The family is important for the well-being of the individual and society because it organizes the relationships and social life between people. The child begins to develop a personality from the moment he enters the family environment. The family can be considered a factory that produces personality (Parsons & Bales, 1956). The family provides children with experience in the complex rules of trust, closeness, empathy, control, and social interaction, sees role models for the expression of their behavior and feelings, and learns to respond to and cope with difficulties and stress factors (Repetti et al., 2015).

The development of family members is shaped according to the structural characteristics and functioning of the family (Mavili Aktaş, 2015). It is the most effective system on the functionality of the individual and is responsible for meeting the needs of individuals (Duyan, 2003). While the family can have a structure that provides positive life experiences such as love, attention, warmth, closeness, happiness, support, and entertainment to its members, it can also have a structure where they experience negative emotions such as anger, sadness, disappointment, and fear. As a social system, the family has functions that it is expected to fulfill. In the most general terms, these functions are economic function, biological function, educational function, love function, protective function, socialization function, and leisure time evaluation function (Ogburn, 1963).

It is seen that the functionality of families is effective in children’s cognitive and emotional development, problem solving, and academic success (Aydilek Çiftçi, 2017; Dam, 2008; Karaağaç & Erbay, 2015). Psychological health, anxiety, depression, suicide, marital satisfaction, divorce, diabetes, and eating disorders have been investigated as variables affected by family functionality (Fan et al., 2017; Keitner & Miller, 1990).

Parents, who play an important role in the functioning of the family and hold a significant portion of the power, adopt various parenting attitudes while raising their children. These parenting attitudes, which are sometimes applied consciously and sometimes unconsciously, play an important role in the socialization of children and are decisive in the emotional, social, cognitive, and behavioral development of children (Bester, 2015). While Baumrind (1966) evaluated parenting attitudes in three groups as authoritarian parenting, authoritative parenting, and permissive parenting, Apgar (2018) examines them in four groups as authoritarian parenting, authoritative parenting, permissive parenting, and indifferent parenting.

In the mid to late 1950s, Robert Sears and Eleanor Maccoby, by conducting one-on-one interviews with parents, classified maternal discipline techniques into two groups: love-focused and object-focused. In the love-focused approach, the mother uses (and withdraws) warmth, praise, and emotional affection, while in the object-oriented approach, the mother uses (and withdraws) tangible objects such as toys and extra play time (Spera, 2005).

Sheffield and Colleagues (2005) grouped parenting styles as emotionally depriving, overprotective, condescending, anxious, controlling, emotionally repressing, punitive, conditional/narcissistic, and perfectionist parenting.

This research focuses on the effect of parenting attitudes within the scope of the Young Model applied by mothers on the functionality of the family established by women. When the literature is examined, it is seen that the effect of parenting attitudes on adults has not been studied enough. It is also seen that the number of studies investigating the effect of parenting attitudes applied in the origin families on the functionality of the families established by individuals is limited. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of origin parenting attitudes on the functionality of families established by women. In this context, it will be examined how the normative, condescending, emotionally depriving, exploitative, conditional, unlimited, anxious, closed to changes/emotionally suppressing attitudes of the mothers of married women affect the sub-dimensions of family functionality such as problem solving, communication, roles, emotional responsiveness, showing necessary attention, behavioral control, and general functions.

Method

This is a correlational study in the relational screening model designed with the quantitative research method. In the quantitative approach, the researcher tests a theory by collecting data to support or refute the hypotheses he has determined (Creswell, 2009). Scientific research that examines the connections and relationships between different variables is called correlational research. Studies conducted to determine the relationship between two or more variables and to establish the connection between the cause and the result are called correlational research (Büyüköztürk et al., 2018).

The dependent variables of the study are the sub-dimensions of family functionality, namely, problem solving, communication, roles, emotional responsiveness, showing the necessary interest, behavioral control, and general functions. The independent variables are maternal parenting attitudes. These attitudes are prescriptive parenting, condescending parenting, emotionally depriving parenting, exploitative parenting, protective parenting, conditional parenting, unlimited parenting, anxious parenting, punitive parenting, and closed to change/emotionally suppressing parenting in the Turkish adaptation of Young Parenting Attitudes.

The universe of the study is married women between the ages of 18 and 65 living in Sakarya Province. Individuals under the age of 18 and over the age of 65 were not included in the study because they are a sensitive group. The number of married women in Sakarya is 254,226 according to TÜİK 2020 data.

Purposive sampling, one of the non-probability sampling methods, was used to determine participants with certain characteristics that were thought to be suitable for the research problem (Büyüköztürk et al., 2018; Gürbüz & Şahin, 2018).

In order to ensure the validity and reliability of the study, to ensure normal distribution, and to obtain healthy results from statistical analyses, the sample was calculated as 619 with 95% power, 5% margin of error, and 0.04 effect size using G Power analysis. Considering the possibility of invalid data and the possibility of excluding extreme values in order to ensure normality assumptions for healthy analyses, 654 married women were reached within the scope of the study.

Women who had at least 5 years of marriage experience, were mentally healthy, literate, and lived in the city center and districts of Sakarya Province were included in the study. Support was received from Sakarya University Women and Family Research Center (SAÜKAM) while reaching the participants.

Data collection tools are the sociodemographic information form, Young Parenting Scale (YPS), and Family Assessment Scale (FAS).

The test–retest reliability of the Family Assessment Scale ranged from r = .62 to r = .89. Cronbach’s alpha value for internal consistency values was determined as α = .80 for problem solving, α = .71 for communication, α = .42 for roles, α = .59 for emotional responsiveness, α = .38 for showing due concern, α = .52 for behavioral control, and α = .86 for general functions (Bulut, 1990).

In this study titled “The Effect of Root Parenting Attitudes on Family Functioning of Married Women,” Cronbach α internal consistency coefficient was determined for each sub-dimension in the reliability study of the Family Assessment Scale with 654 data. In Table 1, it is seen that Cronbach alpha values vary between .29 and .76. In Bulut’s (1990) adaptation study, internal consistency values also vary between .38 and .80.

Table 1.

Reliability Values of the Family Assessment Scale (α)

Scale	Sub-dimension	X	Ss	α
Family Assessment Scale	Problem solving	10.48	3.65	.76
	Communication	20.86	3.71	.45
	Roles	26.66	4.36	.46
	Emotional responsiveness	13.06	4.00	.67
	Showing due attention	18.48	4.29	.71
	Behavior control	19.99	3.39	.29
	General functions	26.61	4.46	.54

Young Parenting Scale Soygüt and Colleagues (2008), who adapted it to Turkish, reached a common structure with 10 factors for the mother and aba forms. These factors are prescriptive/formalizing, belittling/faultfinding, emotionally depriving, permissive/unlimited, anxious, punitive, and closed to change/emotionally suppressing parenting.

Young Parenting Scale, Principal Component Analysis, and Exploratory Factor Analysis were conducted. As a result of the analyses, it was observed that the 10-factor structure with an eigenvalue above one in both the mother and father forms was suitable for the data. In the test–retest results, the Pearson correlation coefficients for the YEBÖ-A form ranged between .38 and .83 (p < .01) (Soygüt et al., 2008).

In this study, the Cronbach α internal consistency coefficient was determined for each sub-dimension using data obtained from mothers in the reliability study of the Young Parenting Scale.

Table 2 shows the X, SD, and Cronbach’s α values of the Young Parenting Scale. Cronbach’s alpha (α) values of maternal parenting attitudes vary between .38 and .84. However, since the α values of protective and punitive parenting attitudes were below .50 for maternal parenting attitudes, they were not included in the analyses within the scope of the study.

Table 2.

Reliability Coefficients (α) of the Young Parenting Scale

Scale	Sub-dimension	X	Ss	α
Young mother parenting attitudes	Regular	31.87	8.90	.72
	Condescending	17.34	7.72	.80
	Emotionally depriving	20.63	7.81	.77
	Exploiter	11.15	5.94	.84
	Protector	24.24	5.43	.46
	Conditional	14.28	5.38	.66
	Overly permissive/unlimited	12.57	5.51	.66
	Anxious	7.14	3.38	.57
	Punishing	9.05	3.36	.38
	Closed to changes/suppressing emotions	8.45	3.64	.56

The form containing sociodemographic information and related scales were presented to the participants, they were informed, and their consent was obtained. The data of the research were collected through face-to-face and online interviews on a voluntary basis. It took approximately 30 minutes for a participant to answer the relevant data tools.

Data collected from individuals participating in the study using a sociodemographic information form and relevant scales were analyzed using IBM SPSS 22. While analyzing the obtained data, arithmetic mean (̅x), frequency (f), percentage (%), and standard deviation (SD) were calculated, and the data were evaluated using multiple linear regression analyses.

The prerequisites of the multiple linear regression analysis of the data collected from the participants, namely, multivariate normality, linearity, and multicollinearity, were checked. Mahalanobis distances were also calculated in the analysis of multiple extreme values for multivariate normality. As a result of these operations, the data of a total of 28 participants were removed from the data set and the analysis continued with the data of 626 participants.

The multicollinearity problem, correlation relations between variables, condition index (CI), tolerance, and variance increase factor (VIF) values were examined. Then, reliability values (α) of the scales used in the study were calculated. In the next step, mean, standard deviation, maximum, and minimum values were examined (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3.

Correlation Coefficients of Variables Related to Mother’s Parenting Attitude

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Problem solving	1
2. Ruleful	.05	1
3. Deprecating	.10^*	.55*	1
4. Emotionally depriving	.16*	.14*	.29*	1
5. Exploitative	.03	.31*	.39*	.16*	1
6. Conditional	.01	.29*	.17*	−.04	.15*	1
7. Unlimited	.08**	.39*	.46*	.10*	.31*	.11*	1
8. Worried	−.01	.41*	.30*	.08**	.29*	.10*	.25*	1
9. Closed to changes/suppressing emotions	−.04	.39*	.24*	.09**	.22*	.23*	.16*	.30**	1

*p < .05, **p < .01, n = 626.

Table 4.

Distribution of Condition Index (CI), Tolerance, and Variance Increment Factor (VIF) Values for Maternal Parenting Attitudes

Variables	CI	Tolerance	VIF
Regular	1.000	.55	1.82
Condescending	7.564	.56	1.80
Emotionally depriving	7.733	.90	1.11
Exploiter	8.395	.79	1.27
Conditional	8.856	.89	1.13
Unlimited	9.243	.74	1.35
Anxious	10.960	.78	1.28
Closed to changes/suppressing emotions	14.442	.80	1.25

Pairwise correlation coefficients between maternal parenting attitudes are less than .80. In other words, there is no multi-collinearity problem for maternal parenting attitudes.

Tolerance values for maternal parenting attitudes are greater than .20, the variance magnification factor (VIF) values are less than 10, and the condition indexes (CIs) are less than 30. In other words, it is observed that there is no multi-collinearity problem for maternal parenting attitudes.

Normality tests were conducted for the sub-dimensions of family functionality, namely, problem solving, roles, communication, showing the necessary interest, emotional responsiveness, behavioral control, and general functions, and as indicated in Table 5, it was observed that the skewness-kurtosis values were in line with the normality condition by taking various values between −1 and +1.

Table 5.

Skewness Scores Obtained from the Family Assessment Scale Kurtosis Values

	Skewness	Kurtosis
Problem solving	.897	.799
Communication	−.328	.703
Roles	−.343	.224
Ability to respond emotionally	−.067	−.836
Not showing due attention	−.248	−.572
Behavior control	−.495	−.048
General functions	−.513	.313

Ethics Committee Approval

The Ethics Committee Approval of the study was given by the Sakarya University Ethics Committee Unit with the date 11.10.2021 and protocol number 70148.

Findings

The distribution of the individuals participating in the study according to age, education, occupation, economic level, parental education status, and family of origin structure is given in Table 6. It is seen that 26.2% (n = 164) of the participants are in the 20–35 age range, 46% (n = 288) are in the 36–50 age range, and 27.8% (n = 174) are in the 51–65 age range. Of the 626 participants, 12.5% (n = 78) are literate, 34.2% (n = 214) are primary school graduates, 27.3% (n = 171) are secondary school graduates, 7.5% (n = 47) have an associate degree, and 18.5% (n = 116) have a bachelor’s degree or higher. Of the women who participated in the study, 6.5% (n = 41) stated that their economic level was high, 66.8% (n = 418) stated that their economic level was medium, and 26.7% (n = 167) stated that their economic level was low.

Table 6.

Distribution of Participants According to Sociodemographic Indicators (n = 626)

	Dear	Percentage (%)
Age
20–35	164	26.2
36–50	288	46.0
51–65	174	27.8
Total	626	100.0
Education
Literate	78	12.5
Primary education (primary school, secondary school)	214	34.2
Secondary education (high school)	171	27.3
Associate degree	47	7.5
Bachelor’s degree and above	116	18.5
Total	626	100.0
Economic level
High	41	6.5
Middle	418	66.8
Low	167	26.7
Total	626	100.0

According to the data in Table 7, there is a significant relationship between the problem-solving sub-dimension of family functionality and Young Mother Parenting attitudes [F (8,617) = 2.877, p < .01]. These eight independent variables explain 4% of the total variance in the problem-solving dimension (R = 0.19, R² = 0.036).

Table 7.

Results Regarding the Prediction of Young Mother Parenting Attitudes on the Problem-Solving Sub-Dimension

Variable	B	SH	β	T	p	Double R	Partial R
Still	1.451	.123		11.829	.000^**	—	—
Regular	.014	.048	.016	.304	.761	.047	.012
Condescending	.045	.045	.054	1.015	.311	.101	.041
Emotionally depriving	.091	.027	.143	3.435	.001^**	.155	.137
Exploiter	−.018	.041	−.019	−.437	.662	.025	−.018
Conditional	.009	.025	.015	.348	.728	.007	.014
Unlimited	.044	.034	.059	1.291	.197	.081	.052
Anxious	−.017	.026	−.029	−.644	.520	−.006	−.026
Closed to change/suppressing emotions	−.038	.023	−.073	−1.663	.097	−.042	−.067

R = .190, R² = .036, F (8,617) = 2.877, **p = .004

When the t-test results are examined to evaluate the significance of the regression coefficients, it is seen that the emotionally depriving mother parenting attitude, which is one of the Young’s parenting attitudes, predicts the problem-solving sub-dimension of family functionality (t = 3.435, p < .01) in a statistically positive and significant way. This situation can be expressed as “the problem-solving sub-dimension of the functionality of the family established by married women is negatively affected by the emotionally depriving parenting attitude applied by their mothers in their families of origin.”

According to the data in Table 8, there is a significant relationship between the communication sub-dimension of family functionality and Young mother parenting attitudes [F (8,617) = 10.107, p < .01]. These eight independent variables explain 12% (R = 0.340, R² = 0.116) of the total variance in the communication dimension.

Table 8.

Results Regarding the Prediction of Young Mother Parenting Attitudes by the Communication Sub-Dimension

Variable	B	SH	β	T	P	Double R	Partial R
Still	2.323	.080		29.194	.000^**	—	—
Regular	.012	.031	.020	.402	.688	.027	.016
Condescending	.166	.029	.291	5.723	.000^**	.169	.225
Emotionally depriving	.038	.017	.089	2.233	.026^*	.121	.090
Exploiter	−.126	.027	−.200	−4.680	.000^**	−.134	−.185
Conditional	.006	.016	.016	.391	.696	−.010	.016
Unlimited	−.027	.022	−.054	−1.232	.218	−.006	−.050
Anxious	−.026	.017	−.066	−1.545	.123	−.082	−.062
Closed to changes/suppressing emotions	−.056	.015	−.160	−3.795	.000^**	−.143	−.151

R = .340, R² = .116, F (8,617) = 10.107, **p = .000

When the t-test results were examined to evaluate the significance of the regression coefficients, there was a statistically positive relationship between the condescending (t = 5.723, p < .01) and emotionally depriving (t = 2.233, p < .05) maternal parenting attitudes, which are Young’s parenting attitudes, and the communication sub-dimension of family functioning. In other words, the condescending and emotionally depriving parenting attitudes of mothers negatively affect the communication sub-dimension of the family established by women.

Although there is a statistically negative relationship between exploitative (t = −4.680, p < .01) and closed to changes/suppressing emotions (t = −3.795, p < .01) maternal parenting attitudes and the communication sub-dimension scores of family functionality, these attitudes positively affect the communication dimension, as increasing scores in the FAD increase the state of unhealthiness.

There is a significant relationship between the roles sub-dimension of family functionality and Young mother parenting attitudes [F (8,617) = 7.531, p < .01] (Table 9). These eight independent variables explain 9% of the total variance in the roles dimension (R = 0.298, R² = 0.089).

Table 9.

Results Regarding the Prediction of Roles Sub-Dimension of Young Mother Parenting Attitudes

Variable	B	SH	B	T	p	Double R	Partial R
Still	2.268	.078		29.158	.000^**	—	—
Regular	.026	.030	.045	.872	.383	.124	.035
Condescending	.137	.028	.250	4.837	.000^**	.234	.191
Emotionally depriving	.006	.017	.014	.348	.728	.077	.014
Exploiter	−.041	.026	−.067	−1.543	.123	.030	−.062
Conditional	−.011	.016	−.028	−.681	.496	−.013	−.027
Unlimited	.008	.022	.016	.369	.712	.117	.015
Anxious	.027	.016	.073	1.678	.094	.095	.067
Closed to changes/suppressing emotions	−.060	.015	−.177	−4.137	.000^**	−.094	−.164

R = .298, R² = .089, F (8,617) = 7.531, **p = .000

When the t-test results were examined to evaluate the significance of the regression coefficients, it was seen that the condescending maternal parenting attitude (t = 4.837, p < .01), which is one of the Young parenting attitudes, predicted the roles sub-dimension of family functionality in a statistically positive and significant way, and the closed-to-changes/emotionally suppressing maternal parenting attitude (t = −4.137, p < .01) predicted the roles sub-dimension of family functionality in a statistically negative and significant way. These results show that the roles sub-dimension of the functionality of the family established by women who have been married for at least 5 years is negatively affected by the condescending maternal parenting attitude in their origin families and positively affected by the closed-to-changes/emotionally suppressing maternal parenting attitude.

According to the data in Table 10, there is a significant relationship between the emotional responsiveness sub-dimension of family functionality and Young mother parenting attitudes [F (8,617) = 9.125, p < .01]. These eight independent variables explain 11% (R = 0.325, R² = 0.106) of the total variance in the emotional responsiveness dimension.

Table 10.

Results Regarding the Prediction of Young Mother Parenting Attitudes on the Emotional Responsiveness Sub-Dimension

Variable	B	SH	β	T	P	Double R	Partial R
Still	1.654	.130		12.687	.000^**	—	—
Regular	.115	.050	.117	2.272	.023^*	.156	.091
Condescending	.176	.047	.190	3.722	.000^**	.235	.148
Emotionally depriving	.102	.028	.145	3.609	.000^**	.195	.144
Exploiter	−.036	.044	−.035	−.827	.409	.054	−.033
Conditional	−.002	.027	−.004	−.090	.928	.010	−.004
Unlimited	−.002	.036	−.003	−.060	.952	.103	−.002
Anxious	−.001	.027	−.002	−.054	.957	.047	−.002
Closed to changes/suppressing emotions	−.106	.024	−.186	−4.374	.000^**	−.091	−.173

R = .325, R² = .106, F (8,617) = 9.125, **p = .000

When the t-test results were examined to evaluate the significance of the regression coefficients, it was seen that the Young parenting attitudes of the normative (t = 2.272, p < .05), condescending (t = 3.722, p < .01), and emotionally depriving (t = 3.609, p < .01) maternal parenting attitudes predicted the emotional responsiveness sub-dimension of family functionality in a statistically positive and significant way, and the closed-to-change/emotionally suppressing (t = −4.374, p < .01) maternal parenting attitude predicted the emotional responsiveness sub-dimension of family functionality in a statistically negative and significant way. According to these results, it was seen that the normative, condescending, and emotionally depriving parenting attitudes applied by the mothers of married women in their families of origin negatively affected the emotional responsiveness sub-dimension of the functionality of the family they established, and the closed-to-change/emotionally suppressing maternal parenting attitude predicted the emotional responsiveness sub-dimension of family functionality in a statistically positive way.

According to the data in Table 11, there is a significant relationship between the caring sub-dimension of family functionality and Young mother parenting attitudes [F (8,617) = 12.126, p < .01]. These eight independent variables explain 14% (R = 0.369, R² = 0.136) of the total variance in the caring dimension.

Table 11.

Results Regarding the Prediction of Young Mother Parenting Attitudes Sub-Dimension of Providing Necessary Attention

Variable	B	SH	β	T	p	Double R	Partial R
Still	2.722	.119		22.937	.000^**	—	—
Regular	.001	.046	.002	.030	.976	.040	.001
Condescending	.260	.043	.303	6.038	.000^**	.177	.236
Emotionally depriving	.005	.026	.007	.188	.851	.044	.008
Exploiter	−.272	.040	−.286	−6.779	.000^**	−.185	−.263
Conditional	−.005	.024	−.008	−.198	.843	−.030	−.008
Unlimited	.032	.033	.042	.962	.336	.073	.039
Anxious	.014	.025	.025	.580	.562	−.009	.023
Closed to changes/suppressing emotions	−.092	.022	−.173	−4.145	.000^**	−.149	−.165

R = .369, R² = .136, F (8,617) = 12.126, **p = .000.

When the t-test results were examined to evaluate the significance of the regression coefficients, it was seen that the condescending (t = 6.038, p < .01) maternal parenting attitude, which is one of the Young parenting attitudes, predicted the emotional responsiveness sub-dimension of family functionality in a statistically positive and significant way, and the closed-to-changes/suppressing-emotions (t = −4.145, p < .01) maternal parenting attitude predicted the emotional responsiveness sub-dimension of family functionality in a statistically negative and significant way. According to the answers given by women who have been married for at least 5 years, the necessary attention sub-dimension of family functionality was negatively affected by the condescending maternal parenting attitude in the family of origin and positively affected by the closed-to-changes/suppressing-emotions and exploitative maternal parenting attitude.

According to the data in Table 12, there is a significant relationship between the behavioral control sub-dimension of family functionality and Young mother parenting attitudes [F (8,617) = 3.987, p < .01]. These eight independent variables explain 5% (R = 0.222, R 2 = 0.049) of the total variance in the behavioral control dimension.

Table 12.

Results Regarding the Prediction of Young Mother Parenting Attitudes on the Behavior Control Sub-Dimension

Variable	B	SH	β	T	p	Double R	Partial R
Still	2.242	.076		29.678	.000^**	—	—
Regular	.030	.029	.054	1.023	.307	.020	.041
Condescending	.058	.027	.111	2.105	.036^*	.078	.084
Emotionally depriving	.020	.016	.051	1.239	.216	.068	.050
Exploiter	−.009	.026	−.015	−.341	.733	−.006	−.014
Conditional	−.006	.016	−.017	−.412	.680	−.037	−.017
Unlimited	−.025	.021	−.054	−1.188	.235	−.011	−.048
Anxious	.008	.016	.024	.530	.596	.000	.021
Closed to changes/suppressing emotions	−.067	.014	−.209	−4.774	.000^**	−.165	−.189

R = .222, R² = .049, F (8,617) = 3.987, **p = .000.

When the t-test results were examined to evaluate the significance of the regression coefficients, it was seen that the condescending (t = 2.105, p < .05) maternal parenting attitude, which is one of the Young parenting attitudes, predicted the behavioral control sub-dimension of family functionality in a statistically significant positive way and the closed-to-changes/emotionally suppressing (t = −4.774, p < .01) maternal parenting attitude predicted the behavioral control sub-dimension of family functionality in a statistically significant negative way. These data should be interpreted as the behavioral control sub-dimension of the participants’ own family functionality was negatively affected by the condescending maternal parenting attitude applied to them in their family of origin and positively affected by the closed-to-changes/emotionally suppressing maternal parenting attitude.

According to the data in Table 13, there is a significant relationship between the general functions sub-dimension of family functionality and Young mother parenting attitudes [F (8,617) = 6.489, p < .01]. These eight independent variables explain 8% (R = 0.279, R 2 = 0.078) of the total variance in the general functions dimension.

Table 13.

Results Regarding the Prediction of Young Mother Parenting Attitudes on the General Functioning Sub-Dimension

Variable	B	SH	β	T	p	Double R	Partial R
Still	2.082	.072		29.069	.000^**	—	—
Regular	.066	.028	.123	2.366	.018^*	.109	.095
Condescending	.062	.026	.124	2.396	.017^*	.151	.096
Emotionally depriving	.028	.015	.075	1.841	.066	.106	.074
Exploiter	−.015	.024	−.026	−.607	.544	.024	−.024
Conditional	−.004	.015	−.010	−.252	.801	−.011	−.010
Unlimited	−.003	.020	−.007	−.147	.883	.067	−.006
Anxious	.011	.015	.033	.761	.447	.045	.031
Closed to changes/suppressing emotions	−.074	.013	−.240	−5.554	.000^**	−.154	−.218

R = .279, R² = .078, F (8,617) = 6.489, **p = .000.

When the t-test results were examined to evaluate the significance of the regression coefficients, it was seen that the Young parenting attitudes of the normative (t = 2.366, p < .05) and condescending (t = 2.396, p < .05) maternal parenting attitudes predicted the general functions sub-dimension of family functionality in a statistically significant positive way, and the closed-to-change/emotionally suppressing (t = −5.554, p < .01) maternal parenting attitude predicted the general functions sub-dimension of family functionality in a statistically significant negative way. In other words, these results show that the general functions sub-dimension of the functionality of the family established by women was negatively related to the normative and condescending parenting attitudes of their mothers in their own families of origin and positively related to the closed-to-change/emotionally suppressing parenting attitude.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study investigates the effects of maternal parenting attitudes on women’s family functioning; it is determined that the parenting attitudes of the Young Parenting Scale, which are normative, condescending, emotionally depriving, exploitative, conditional, limitless, anxious, and closed to change/suppressing emotions, predict the sub-dimensions of family functioning such as problem solving, emotional responsiveness, communication, roles, behavioral control, showing necessary attention, and general functions. It was discussed by comparing with the literature. However, no study was found in the domestic and foreign literature in which parenting attitudes predicted the family functioning of married adult women. In addition, the sample of studies on parenting attitudes generally consists of children and adolescents, and studies conducted with adults are quite insufficient.

Young’s mother and father parenting styles show a statistically significant relationship with each sub-dimension of family functioning, explaining the total variance at various rates.

The positive effects of exploitative and unchangeable/emotionally suppressing parenting attitudes on some family functioning sub-dimensions, which were not anticipated at the beginning of the study, were evaluated collectively at the end of this section.

There is a significant relationship between the problem-solving sub-dimension of family functioning and Young mother parenting attitudes. Young mother parenting attitudes explain 4% of the total variance in the problem-solving dimension. For mothers, emotionally depriving parenting attitudes negatively affect the problem-solving sub-dimension of family functioning.

Zhao and Yang (2021) showed that the parent’s emotional warmth dimension was positively associated with students’ creative thinking, while parental rejection and overprotection were negatively associated with creative thinking, and even that maternal rejection had a greater negative effect on creative thinking than that of the father and that the father’s emotional warmth had a greater positive effect on creative thinking than that of the mother. Parents who showed high acceptance and low control (indulgent parenting) to their children helped them acquire creative, self-sufficient, and autonomous characteristics (Boz & Ergeneli, 2014). It was observed that students whose parents were authoritative and permissive used effective coping methods, namely, seeking support and/or problem-solving methods, more (Chng et al., 2014; Nijhof & Engels, 2007). The information that emotionally depriving maternal and paternal parenting attitudes negatively affected the functionality of the problem-solving dimension in the families of married women is consistent with the results of these studies.

In the communication sub-dimension of family functioning and Young mother parenting attitudes, mother parenting attitudes explain 12% of the total variance in the communication dimension. It is seen that the condescending mother parenting attitude predicts the communication sub-dimension of family functioning negatively, while the exploitative and closed to change/emotionally suppressing mother parenting attitudes predict the communication sub-dimension of family functioning positively. These results also indirectly affect the emotional responsiveness dimension.

Women who were raised with a condescending mother’s parenting attitude had a lower level of communication than women who were raised with a condescending mother’s parenting attitude. They are less healthy in the sub-dimension. Effective parenting attitudes are positively (Chng et al., 2014) correlated with family communication. Being focused on one’s flaws by one’s mother and being raised in a demeaning manner without experiencing sufficient emotional warmth may result in individuals choosing to communicate less when coping with this situation. Since the open and direct communication expected in the communication sub-dimension of the McMaster Model cannot be established by individuals who avoid communication, it is normal for unhealthiness to occur in this dimension.

There is a significant relationship between the roles sub-dimension of family functioning and maternal parenting attitudes. Maternal parenting attitudes explain 9% of the total variance in the roles dimension. The condescending maternal parenting attitude, which is one of the sub-dimensions of the Young parenting scale, negatively predicts the roles sub-dimension of family functioning and the closed-to-change/suppressing-emotions maternal parenting attitude positively predicts the behavior control dimension. These results also indirectly affect the behavior control dimension.

Roles of family functioning of girls raised with condescending parenting attitudes by their mothers higher scores were determined in the sub-dimension. In other words, there is a more unhealthy situation. In the Olson circle model, the flexibility dimension of family functionality is also the amount of change in the rule of role relations. Balanced flexibility is associated with democratic/authoritative parenting attitudes. On the other hand, the authoritarian parenting style is negatively associated with all functional patterns of family functioning (Matejevic et al., 2014). In order to ensure family functionality, instrumental and emotional roles must be adopted and fulfilled by family members. Another important issue is that the distribution of roles is fair. While the positive parenting style has a positive effect on fulfilling the roles under the necessary conditions, negative parenting attitudes have a negative effect. The fact that women who were raised with condescending parenting experience problems in the role dimension of family functionality can also be evaluated within this scope.

In the emotional responsiveness sub-dimension of family functioning and Young mother parenting attitudes, Mother parenting attitudes explain 11% of the total variance in the emotional responsiveness dimension. It is seen that the normative, condescending, and emotionally depriving mother parenting attitudes, which are sub-dimensions of the Young parenting scale, negatively predict the emotional responsiveness sub-dimension of family functioning, and the closed-to-change/emotionally suppressive mother parenting attitude positively predicts the communication dimension. These results also indirectly affect the communication dimension.

Democratic parenting attitudes exhibited by parents positively affect the emotional management skills of young adults (Kılıç et al., 2014). In addition, democratic parenting attitudes of mothers are related to high levels of self-esteem, high levels of understanding the reasons for emotions, and average levels of recognizing emotions (Troshikhina & Manukyan, 2016). The quality of the relationship between the child and his/her mother, positive, warm, and sensitive parenting from an early age, facilitates emotional regulation and positive social behavior (Romo et al., 2022). Individuals raised in an environment of inadequate love with lax education experience dullness and difficulty in emotional communication (Mavili Aktaş, 2015). Perceived parenting affects (Fischer et al., 2016) psychological resilience. Condescending mother attitude and emotionally depriving father attitude are effective in emotional regulation difficulties (Özcan & Çelik, 2018). In this study, it was concluded that the daughters of normative, condescending, and emotionally depriving mothers had more problems in terms of their families’ ability to respond emotionally when they got married, which is consistent with the literature.

In the caring sub-dimension of family functioning and Young mother parenting, mother parenting attitudes explain 14% of the total variance in the caring dimension. The condescending mother parenting attitude, which is one of the sub-dimensions of the Young parenting scale, negatively significantly predicts the caring sub-dimension of family functioning, and the closed-to-changes/emotionally suppressing and exploitative mother parenting attitude positively significantly predicts the caring sub-dimension of family functioning.

Women who were raised with a condescending mother parenting attitude are less healthy in the sub-dimension of showing the necessary interest in the functionality of their own families. The findings of a workshop conducted to examine the role of problem-solving skills in improving family relationships show that the activities implemented increase the emotional involvement of family members (showing the necessary interest), which results in the resolution of communication problems (Yekta et al., 2011). The fact that family members show the necessary interest in each other also positively affects the healthiness of other dimensions of family functionality.

In the behavior control sub-dimension of family functioning and Young mother parenting attitudes, mother parenting attitudes explain 5% of the total variance in the behavior control dimension. It is seen that the condescending mother parenting attitude negatively significantly and the closed-to-change/emotionally suppressing mother parenting attitude positively significantly predict the behavior control sub-dimension of family functioning. These results also indirectly affect the role dimension.

Women raised with condescending mother parenting attitudes are less healthy in the behavioral control sub-dimension in the functionality of their own families. Children raised in an environment of excessive comfort, strict education, and insufficient love exhibit aggression and (Mavili Aktaş, 2015) antisocial behaviors. The quality of the relationship with the child’s mother and positive, warm, and sensitive parenting from an early age facilitate self-control. High behavioral control can be expected from individuals with high self-control (Romo et al., 2022). Impulsive behaviors such as eating disorders, substance abuse, self-harm, suicide, and anger management are associated with negative parenting experiences (Hinrichsen et al., 2007; Calafat et al., 2014). Perceived strong parental support is negatively associated with drinking levels in alcohol dependence (Chakroun-Baggioni et al., 2021). It has been stated that boys raised with authoritarian parents are more aggressive (Plotnik & Kouyoumdjian, 2007). Condescending mother attitudes predict risky behaviors of university students (Özcan & Çelik, 2018). Given the negative nature of their parents’ condescending attitudes, the individual may choose to use impulsive behaviors to reduce the emotional arousal created by this situation. The negative effect of negative parental attitudes on an individual’s behavioral control may also be effective if these individuals are unable to control their behavior within the family.

The general functions sub-dimension of family functionality and Young’s mother parenting attitudes, and mother parenting attitudes explain 8% of the total variance in the general functions dimension. It is seen that the normative and condescending mother parenting attitudes negatively significantly predict the general functions sub-dimension of family functionality, and the closed-to-change/emotionally suppressing mother parenting attitude positively significantly predicts the general functions sub-dimension of family functionality.

The normative and condescending parenting attitudes of mothers have shown a positive relationship with the unhealthiness of the general functions sub-dimension of the functionality in the families of married women. The normative and condescending parenting attitudes also include the emotional neglect and abuse of women. Trauma experiences resulting from various abuses experienced in childhood can lead to many problems in the family and cause children to have unsuccessful problem solving, negative emotional involvement, difficulty in acquiring female gender roles, problems in fulfilling family functions, problems in providing information exchange, directly expressing requests, implementing the behavior pattern that will meet family needs and in many situations, and showing the most appropriate reaction (Tanju & Demirbaş, 2012). Gürsoy and Coşkun (2006) stated that the unhealthiness of the problem solving and general functions dimensions stems from the mothers adopting authoritarian and protective traditional child rearing attitudes due to their low level of education. Negative parenting attitudes cause unhealthiness in the general functions dimension.

Table 14 shows a summary of the effects of maternal parenting attitudes on the functionality dimensions of the family established by women.

Table 14.

Effect of Mother Parenting Attitudes on Sub-Dimensions of Family Functioning

Function	%	Negative	Positive
Problem solving	4	Emotionally depriving
Communication	12	CondescendingEmotionally depriving	ExploiterClosed to changes/suppressing emotions
Roles	9	Condescending	Closed to changes/suppressing emotions
Emotional responsiveness	11	CondescendingEmotionally deprivingRegular	Closed to changes/suppressing emotions
Not showing due attention	14	Condescending	ExploiterClosed to changes/suppressing emotions
Behavior control	5	Condescending	Closed to changes/suppressing emotions
General functions	8	CondescendingRegular	Closed to changes/suppressing emotions

According to Table 14, parenting attitudes that negatively affect family functionality dimensions are ranked as condescending, emotionally depriving, and prescriptive according to their effects. It is observed that these parenting attitudes come to the fore in similar studies where the Young Parenting Scale was used (Aypay, 2017; Dost et al., 2019). In childhood, instead of approving and supportive attitudes by parents in personality formation, condescending and flaw-focused attitudes are the attitudes that harm the functionality of the family the child establishes the most. Parents’ failure to show the necessary warmth and emotional deprivation is the second type of parenting that creates negative effects on the family their children will establish in various dimensions. The adoption of this attitude by mothers or fathers negatively affects many dimensions of family functionality (Chng et al., 2014; Zhao & Yang, 2021). Having parents who exhibit normative attitudes undermines the emotional satisfaction functions of the family, such as communication, showing the necessary attention, and emotional responsiveness, and makes it unhealthy (Nijhof & Engels, 2007; Shute et al., 2019).

It is a significant result that the closed-to-change/emotionally suppressing maternal attitude has a positive effect on all dimensions except the problem-solving dimension. The level of the closed-to-change/emotionally suppressing parenting attitude was determined with the statements “He would be uncomfortable expressing his feelings,” “He was always organized and tidy; he preferred the known instead of change,” and “He was a closed person; he rarely opened up about his feelings.” It can be predicted that this parenting style will have less negative effects on children and other family members because it includes a more neutral attitude. It can be concluded that it affects children’s family functionality positively rather than negatively because it does not include oppressive, directive, or exploitative attitudes.

In social learning theory, Bandura emphasized the importance of the social environment in learning and argued that children learn the most by observing the behaviors of others (Tatlıoğlu, 2021). In indirect reinforcement, the individual imitates the behavior of the person they model by being rewarded. Similarly, in indirect punishment, the individual tends to give up this behavior as the behavior of the person they model is criticized and punished. Social learning theorists have suggested that people observe the behaviors of those around them, draw some conclusions from these observations, and display behaviors in situations that are beneficial to them. The positive effect of exploitative mother parenting attitude on the communication and showing necessary attention sub-dimensions was an unforeseen result at the beginning of the study. This situation can be explained by indirect punishment in Social Learning Theory.

A child who sees his/her mother being condemned by his/her social environment for using exploitative attitudes or being punished by his/her children by not being loved will not take these attitudes of his/her mother as a model. Social learning also has a cognitive aspect. When people observe the behaviors of the people around them, they draw some conclusions from these observations and model the behavior as it is or by changing it according to these conclusions (Bayrakcı, 2013). A woman who is raised with exploitative attitudes by her mother in her family of origin may develop a cognition such as “I shouldn’t be like this” and “My husband and children shouldn’t experience the same things.” This cognition may result in the woman being more careful and functional in her communication with her husband and children when she gets married and starts her own family.

Having a certain order in daily life such as nutrition, sleep, work, and the use of free time in the family positively affects the physical health of its members. A family that can meet the need for love and belonging of its members contributes to their psychological health and also ensures their healthy socialization. Families that can fulfill their economic functions educate their children on balanced spending and budget management. With the function of using free time, the family helps children acquire useful hobbies and protects them against social problems such as crime, involvement in crime, being a victim of crime, bullying, substance abuse, homelessness, dropping out of school, peer bullying, and abuse.

Based on the undeniable impact of the family on society, the main focus of the social work profession is mostly the family (Karadağ & Tuncay, 2022). Providing guidance and counseling services to increase the problem-solving skills of families and individuals, carrying out educational guidance and counseling activities aimed at ensuring the welfare, happiness, and integrity of the family, and providing protective, preventive, educational, and developmental services for individuals and families are among the duties of social service centers (Yüksektepe, 2025). Studies on the family in social work not only provide positive outcomes related to the family but also ensure that positive gains are achieved in each family member separately.

Practices carried out with families are effective in preventing or reducing the effects of many social problems such as loneliness, anxiety, lying, depression, suicide, or more individual-based problems such as substance use, child neglect-abuse, exposure to crime or being a perpetrator of crime, poverty, unfair income distribution, bribery, violence, and gambling.

For newlyweds be encouraged and expanded, and family counseling be expanded for married couples with functionality problems. In addition, studying the spouses’ root parenting attitudes and the effects of these attitudes on their own marriages in family counseling can contribute to the solution of resistant problems in the family.

In scientific research to be conducted on family functionality and parenting attitudes, it would be beneficial to repeat parenting attitudes with less variety rather than based on 10 attitudes and to study the same subject with qualitative methods.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Hülya Yildiz

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.

References

Apgar

(2018). Social work ASWB clinical exam guide. Springer Publishing Company.

Aydilek Çiftçi

(2017). Erken çocukluk döneminde aile İşlevselliğinin, bilişsel gelişim ve duygusal gelişimin bir İşlevi olarak sosyal problem Çözme becerileri: Yapısal denklem modellemesi. Yayınlanmış Doktora Tezi. Çukurova Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.

Aypay

(2017). Akademik bağlamda ceza hassasiyetinin ebeveynlik tarzı ve cinsiyet ile İlişkileri. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(41), 20–37. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/maeuefd/issue/29057/310802

Baumrind

(1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37(4), 887–907. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1966.tb05416.x

Bayrakcı

(2013). Sosyal Öğrenme kuramı ve eğiştimde uygulanması. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (14), 198–210.

Bester

S. M.

(2015). Emotional development, effects of parenting and family structure on. In Wright

J. D.

(Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 438–444). Elsevier.

Boz

Ergeneli

(2014). Women Entrepreneurs’ Personality Characteristics and Parents’ parenting style profile in Turkey. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.425

Bulut

(1990). Aile değerlendirme ölçeği El kitabı. Özgüzeliş Matbaası.

Büyüköztürk

Ş.

Çakmak

E. K.

Akgün

Ö. E.

(2018). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. (24 Baskı). Pegem Akdemi.

10.

Calafat

Garcia

Juan

Becona

Fernandez-Hermida

J. R.

(2014). Which parenting style is more protective against adolescent substance use? Evidence within the European context. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 138, 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.02.705

11.

Chakroun-Baggioni

Izauteae

Fall

(2021). Gender, attachment, and parenting style: Protective or risk factors of alcohol misuse in young adults? Personality and Individual Differences, 180, 110976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110976

12.

Chng

G. S.

Wild

Hollmann

Otterpohl

(2014). Children’s evaluative skills in informal reasoning: The role of parenting practices and communication patterns. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(2), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.02.003

13.

Creswell

J. W.

(2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (3rd ed.). Sage Publication.

14.

Dam

(2008). Öğrencinin okul başarısında aile faktörü. Hitit Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(14), 75–99.

15.

Dost

M. T.

Aytaç

Uysal

N. K.

(2019). Ebeveynlik biçiminin kişilik Özellikleri, benlik saygısı ve yaşam doyumunu yordama gücü. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(71), 1146–1165. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.472964

16.

Duyan

(2003). Aileye yönelik planlı müdahale sürecinin aşamaları. Toplum Ve Sosyal Hizmet, 14(1), 41–61. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/tsh/issue/48446/613687

17.

Fan

Zhang

Wang

(2017). Family functions in relation to behavioral and psychological disorders in Chinese culture. The Family Journal, 25(2), 130–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480717697681

18.

Fischer

T. D.

Smout

M. F.

Delfabbro

P. H.

(2016). The relationship between psychological flexibility, early maladaptive schemas, perceived parenting and psychopathology. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 5(3), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.06.002

19.

Gürbüz

Şahin

(2018). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıcılık.

20.

Gürsoy

Coşkun

(2006). Büyük ebeveynleriyle yaşayan çocukların aile ortamlarını değerlendirmeleri. Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15(1), 151–164.

21.

Hinrichsen

Sheffield

Waller

(2007). The role of parenting experiences in the development of social anxiety and agoraphobia in the eating disorders. Eating Behaviors, 8(3), 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2006.11.003

22.

Karaağaç

Erbay

(2015). Aile İşlevselliğinin matematik başarısıyla i̇lişkisi. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 12(31), 21-33.

23.

Karadağ

Ö. Ş.

Tuncay

(2022). Aile Eğitim Programı (AEP) ve ebeveynlik becerileri arasındaki i̇lişkilerin yararlanıcıların gözünden İncelenmesi: Kontrol gruplu bir Çalışma. Sosyal Politika Çalışmaları Dergisi, 22(54), 11–42.

24.

Keitner

G. I.

Miller

I. W.

(1990). Family functioning and major depression: An overview. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 147(9), 1128–1137. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.147.9.1128

25.

Kılıç

Ş.

Var

E. Ç.

Kumandas

(2014). Effect of parental attitudes on skills of emotional management in young adults. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191(s), 930–934.

26.

Matejevic

Todorovic

Jovanovic

A. D.

(2014). Patterns of family functioning and dimensions of parenting style. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 431–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.075

27.

Mavili Aktaş

(2015). Ailem ve ben. Atlas Akademi.

28.

Nijhof

K. S.

Engels

(2007). Parenting styles, coping strategies, and the expression of homesickness. Journal of Adolescence, 30(5), 709–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.11.009

29.

Ogburn

W. F.

(1963). The changing functions of the family. In Winch

R. F.

McGinnis

(Eds.), Selected studies in marriage and the family (pp. 74–75). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

30.

Özcan

N. A.

Çelik

(2018). Üniversite öğrencilerinde riskli davranışlar ve duygu düzenleme güçlüğünün yordayıcısı olarak algılanan ebeveynlik tarzları. KADEM Kadın Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 21–49. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kademkad/issue/48234/610636

31.

Parsons

Bales

R. F.

(1956). Family, socialization and interaction process. The Free Press.

32.

Plotnik

Kouyoumdjian

(2007). Psikoloji’ye giriş, (Çev: Tamer geniş). Kaknüs Yayınları.

33.

Repetti

Sears

M. S.

Bai

(2015). Social and emotional development in the context of the family. In Wright

J. D.

(Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 156–161). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.23046-8

34.

Romo

L. R.

Chagolla

A. D.

Bravo

(2022). Mother-child relationships, reference module in biomedical sciences. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818872-9.00090-X

35.

Sheffield

Waller

Emanuelli

Murray

Meyer

(2005). Links between parenting and core beliefs: Preliminary psychometric validation of the young parenting inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29(6), 787–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-005-4291-6

36.

Shute

Maud

Mclachlan

(2019). The relationship of recalled adverse parenting styles with maladaptive schemas, trait anger, and symptoms of depression and anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders, 259, 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.08.048

37.

Soygüt

Çakır

Karaosmanoğlu

(2008). Ebeveynlik biçimlerinin değerlendirilmesi: Young ebeveynlik Ölçeği’nin psikometrik özelliklerine i̇lişkin bir İnceleme. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 11(22), 19–26.

38.

Spera

(2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 12–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3950-1

39.

Tanju

E. H.

Demirbaş

(2012). Investigation of childhood trauma experiences and family functions among university students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1950–1956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.929

40.

Tatlıoğlu

S. S.

(2021). Öğrenmeye Sosyal- Bilişsel Bir Bakış: Albert bandura. Sosyoloji Notları, 5(1), 15–30.

41.

Troshikhina

E. G.

Manukyan

V. R.

(2016). Self-esteem and emotional development of young children in connection with mothers’ parental attitudes. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 233, 357–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.156

42.

Yekta

M. S.

Parand

Ahmadi

(2011). Effects of teaching problem solving strategies to parents of pre-teens: A study of family relationship. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 957–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.220

43.

Yüksektepe

İ.

(2025). Türkiye'de aile danışma merkezlerine genel bir bakış. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 49(1), 97–105.

44.

Zeybekoğlu Dündar

Ö.

(2020). Değişen ve değiş(e)meyen yönleriyle aile: Yapısı, Türleri, İşlevleri. In Adak

(Ed.), Değişen toplumda değişen aile sosyolojik tartışma. Siyasal Kitabevi.

45.

Zhao

Yang

(2021). Fostering creative thinking in the family: The importance of parenting styles. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, 100920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100920

The Effect of Maternal Parenting Attitudes on Family Functioning