View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Reconsidering the Typology of Parenting Styles and Its Association with Preschoolers' Development in Chinese Families

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Reconsidering the Typology of Parenting Styles and Its Association with Preschoolers' Development in Chinese Families
Language: English
Authors: Lixin Ren (ORCID 0000-0002-9176-3825), Yeqing Li, Xuan Li (ORCID 0000-0001-9638-128X), Jiayi Li, Lin Li, Jieqiong Fan (ORCID 0000-0001-8214-411X)
Source: Child Development. 2025 96(4):1326-1342.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Classification, Parenting Styles, Preschool Children, Child Development, Foreign Countries, Authoritarianism, Parent Child Relationship
Geographic Terms: China
DOI: 10.1111/cdev.14236
ISSN: 0009-3920
1467-8624
Abstract: Using latent profile analysis, the study examined distinct joint parenting styles among Chinese families with preschoolers (N = 300; 51.7% girls; M[subscript age] = 55.97 months). This study incorporated maternal and paternal reports on multiple parenting dimensions that covered both Western- and Chinese-emphasized practices. Using data collected between 2017 and 2019 from Shanghai, four joint parenting styles emerged: authoritative (39.3%), moderately supportive (38.0%), strict-affectionate (14.3%), and authoritarian (8.4%). Authoritarian and moderately supportive parenting styles were linked to poorer child outcomes 1.5 years later compared to authoritative parenting. However, there were no significant differences in most child outcomes between authoritative and strict-affectionate parenting. These findings necessitate a reevaluation of the parenting typology and its effects on child development in the Chinese context.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1475512
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEQq6Qxp55eT53TGcGqlyvPAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIXrqecTTfJqClCcVgIBEICBm5a71i-rWy4KiW6bx8QUUHoHbqQLthwq-b0yYgjGqrPIo59XyCRFBs6ng5QyLIB7d7aAv3Ssv5Wlsu53h036IiwrOBh9B73jqsX_p0kVXskAqYhCOekR1S4WhZJEy9v2Xkghj4-PCW46QsDL7c6mknC0tP8oL44WZvC75e4QIv0Kk4PzxpPe4OWrOdJ8M32zo7-qO5rYRBMqo95f
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186282406;cdv01jul.25;2025Jul02.02:52;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186282406-1">Reconsidering the Typology of Parenting Styles and Its Association With Preschoolers' Development in Chinese Families </title> <p>Using latent profile analysis, the study examined distinct joint parenting styles among Chinese families with preschoolers (N = 300; 51.7% girls; Mage = 55.97 months). This study incorporated maternal and paternal reports on multiple parenting dimensions that covered both Western‐ and Chinese‐emphasized practices. Using data collected between 2017 and 2019 from Shanghai, four joint parenting styles emerged: authoritative (39.3%), moderately supportive (38.0%), strict‐affectionate (14.3%), and authoritarian (8.4%). Authoritarian and moderately supportive parenting styles were linked to poorer child outcomes 1.5 years later compared to authoritative parenting. However, there were no significant differences in most child outcomes between authoritative and strict‐affectionate parenting. These findings necessitate a reevaluation of the parenting typology and its effects on child development in the Chinese context.</p> <p>Keywords: Chinese culture; parenting style; person‐centered approach; preschooler; strict‐affectionate parenting</p> <p>The relation among culture, parenting practices, and child development has been a classic theme of scholarly discussion, with lasting debates around the universality and specificity of both the form and function of parenting (Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref1">10</reflink>]). In recent decades, growing comparative datasets and accumulating evidence from diverse sociocultural contexts have empowered scholars to identify variations in parenting styles and their culturally moderated impacts on child development, leading to new insights into parenting (Davidov [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref2">13</reflink>]). For example, research on parenting in Chinese and Chinese immigrant families has questioned the applicability of the influential fourfold typology of parenting styles, which distinguishes authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful parenting (Baumrind [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>]; Maccoby and Martin [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref4">39</reflink>]), to non‐Western contexts (Lim and Lim [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref5">34</reflink>]). Several studies revealed a "tiger parenting" style, characterized by a mix of strict and affectionate behaviors, that does not neatly fall into the fourfold typology (Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref6">26</reflink>]; Xie and Li [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref7">57</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref8">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite these progresses, Western‐originated parenting theories and models, such as the fourfold typology, continue to dominate in studies involving non‐Western families, whereas culturally salient parenting practices were often overlooked in the study design and measurement of parenting. Such an oversight underestimates the persistent influence of cultural traditions on childrearing even in the face of rapid globalization and modernization, which has been widely documented (Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref9">9</reflink>]; Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref10">25</reflink>]; Park et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref11">42</reflink>]). The failure to simultaneously include both Western‐ and non‐Western‐emphasized parenting dimensions also presents a missed opportunity to examine child development in sociocultural contexts where seemingly contrasting parenting ideologies and practices co‐exist in complex and nuanced ways. Furthermore, existing studies tend to either focus solely on one parent's childrearing practices or treat the two parents as independent entities exerting separate influences on children, instead of considering both maternal and paternal parenting styles as an integrated entity. Such designs fail to adequately capture children's real‐life experiences in the family system.</p> <p>The current study aims to address these gaps by investigating parenting styles and their associations with child outcomes in urban China, which represents a non‐Western context that has been witnessing an influx of Western parenting ideology throughout its modernization process. Specifically, the current study aimed to (a) identify distinct joint parenting styles in Chinese families by drawing on indigenous and Western parenting dimensions of both fathers and mothers; and (b) examine how the identified parenting styles relate to longitudinal outcomes in preschool‐aged children.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-2">Parenting Styles and Their Typologies</hd> <p>Among different ways to categorize parenting practices, the most influential is the fourfold typology by Baumrind ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref12">4</reflink>]) and Maccoby and Martin ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref13">39</reflink>]), which revolves around two dimensions: demandingness and responsiveness. Demandingness, also referred to as control, captures parents' demands for maturity and efforts to supervise and discipline children; responsiveness, also known as warmth, reflects parents' emphasis on fostering individuality and self‐reliance by being warm, attuned, and supportive towards their children (Baumrind [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref14">5</reflink>]). Authoritative parents score high on both dimensions, whereas neglectful parents score low on both. Authoritarian parents are demanding but not responsive, and permissive parents are the opposite. Although both authoritative and authoritarian parents are demanding, they differ drastically in the type of power they exert over their children to ensure compliance. Authoritative parents rely on confrontive power (reasoned, negotiable, and outcome‐oriented, with a focus on regulating children's behavior), while authoritarian parents use coercive power (arbitrary, peremptory, and focused primarily on maintaining and reinforcing hierarchical status distinctions between parents and children) to assert control over their children (Baumrind [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref15">6</reflink>]). Therefore, "coercive power assertion gives the child no choice but to comply, whereas confrontive power assertion allows the child to choose between complying, negotiating with parents a satisfactory compromise, or paying a known price for noncomplying" (Baumrind [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref16">6</reflink>], 36).</p> <p>The fourfold typology is valuable in providing a framework for understanding variations in parenting and facilitating comparisons across cultures. Yet, it was developed in Western contexts and thus primarily captures prototypical parenting behaviors characteristic of these contexts. It becomes problematic when the typology is applied to non‐Western contexts. For instance, in Chinese culture, parents' employment of coercive and punitive strategies can co‐exist with expressions of parental care and warmth, a juxtaposition deemed incompatible within the fourfold typology (Chao [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref17">7</reflink>]). Chen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref18">10</reflink>]) thus concluded that broad categories of parenting, such as authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles, which have been established in Western literature, may be inadequate or inappropriate for characterizing parents in non‐Western cultures. Person‐centered approaches (e.g., cluster analysis and latent profile analysis), which allow additional styles of parenting to naturally surface from the data, have been utilized to address this limitation. Person‐centered approaches view an individual as an integrated totality as opposed to a mere aggregation of variables and aim to identify distinct subgroups within a given population (Howard and Hoffman [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref19">24</reflink>]). Therefore, using such approaches would enable the natural emergence of parenting styles based on any dimensions of parenting that researchers choose to include. This could be particularly fruitful for studying parenting in non‐Western contexts, as culturally specific parenting styles can be identified.</p> <p>Indeed, while parenting styles identified through person‐centered approaches have largely aligned with the fourfold typology in various Western Contexts (e.g., Aunola et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref20">2</reflink>], in a Swedish sample; Hoeve et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref21">23</reflink>], in an American sample; Kuppens and Ceulemans [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref22">29</reflink>], in a Belgian sample), person‐centered approaches have revealed parenting profiles that are considerably divergent from the fourfold typology among Chinese families. In particular, studies on parents of adolescents from both mainland Chinese and Chinese immigrant families have consistently identified a subgroup of parents who are highly strict and simultaneously affectionate (Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref23">26</reflink>]; Lan [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref24">30</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref25">59</reflink>]). For instance, Zhang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref26">59</reflink>]) assessed six parenting dimensions (i.e., warmth, inductive reasoning, encouragement of independence, encouragement of achievement, supervision, and harshness) among mainland Chinese mothers of adolescents, based on which they found that nearly one‐fifth of the mothers described themselves as demonstrating high levels on all dimensions. In addition, based on parents' self‐reported authoritative, authoritarian, and training practices, Xie and Li ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref27">57</reflink>]) examined the typology of parenting styles among 86 Chinese families with preschoolers. Nearly 40% of the participants were classified as "tiger parents" who scored relatively high on all three aspects of parenting. These divergent parenting styles or distributions have been attributed to culturally salient socialization goals (e.g., compliance to social norms instead of initiative‐taking and self‐expression; Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref28">10</reflink>]) and changing social contexts (e.g., increasing emotional value of children; Yan [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref29">58</reflink>]). These findings suggest that the fourfold typology may represent a Western indigenous system of parenting that does not necessarily apply to other sociocultural contexts.</p> <p>While person‐centered approaches have proven valuable in revealing culturally unique patterns of parenting, most such studies included different parenting dimensions in the construction of parenting typologies without specifying the underlying theoretical framework. In this study, we investigated parenting styles and their relations with child development, focusing on parental warmth and control as an umbrella framework. In this way, we would be able to ensure comparability with other studies that drew on the classic fourfold typology. To incorporate the latest conceptual advances in the study of parental control, we further adopted the framework proposed by Grolnick and Pomerantz ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref30">19</reflink>]), in which the broad concept of parental control is delineated into two distinct categories: parental control and parental structure. In addition, we included indigenous parenting practices traditionally valued in Chinese culture to explore culturally meaningful parenting styles.</p> <p>Specifically, for parental warmth, we included measures of both the positive (i.e., acceptance) and the negative (i.e., hostility) facets of the construct, in line with the method proposed by Kim et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref31">26</reflink>]). This approach helps differentiate between a mere absence of warmth and the actual presence of hostility.</p> <p>For parental control, we drew on the control‐structure distinction. Grolnick and Pomerantz ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref32">19</reflink>]) argued that "only parenting characterized by pressure, intrusion, and domination should be considered control, whereas parenting frequently labeled control but characterized mainly by guidance should be considered structure" (p. 165). Compared to Baumrind's binary distinction of confrontive versus coercive power assertion, this reconceptualization of control and structure offers a more useful framework for understanding the different approaches to demandingness employed by authoritative and authoritarian parents (see Grolnick [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref33">18</reflink>] for details). It also helps clarify the mixed findings concerning the effects of parental control on child development (Grolnick [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref34">18</reflink>]; Grolnick and Pomerantz [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref35">19</reflink>]). As such, we measured control via parents' coercive discipline (physical punishment and punitive discipline), autonomy granting, and psychological control (shaming and love withdrawal). Coercive discipline and autonomy granting have been widely studied in the literature, with the former representing a primary form of negative control (e.g., Hoeve et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref36">23</reflink>]; Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref37">26</reflink>]; Kuppens and Ceulemans [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref38">29</reflink>]) and the latter capturing the opposite end of control (e.g., Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref39">26</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref40">59</reflink>]). Including both aspects strengthens our study by distinguishing between the absence of harsh control and the active promotion of autonomy. Within Baumrind's ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref41">6</reflink>]) framework, authoritative parents tend to exhibit low coercive discipline and high autonomy granting, while authoritarian parents show the reverse pattern. Psychological control, another commonly studied parenting practice, was included as a culturally significant form of parental control practiced in Chinese families (Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref42">26</reflink>]). In independence‐oriented cultures, psychological control is often viewed negatively as it can infringe upon a child's emotional autonomy and thus impede individuation. The interdependence‐oriented Chinese culture, however, regards psychological control as a socialization tool to cultivate children's sensitivity to others' feelings and to social norms by directing children's attention towards the relational impacts of their actions (Fung and Lau [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref43">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Similarly, we incorporated both Western and indigenous constructs in assessing parental provision of structure—or how parents convey rules, expectations, and consequences to children to help them become responsible and competent members of their community (Grolnick [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref44">18</reflink>]; Grolnick et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref45">20</reflink>]). It is important to note that, unlike parental warmth and control, parental structure remains understudied and lacks consistent measures so far. In the current study, we included parents' use of inductive reasoning, which is widely incorporated in existing person‐centered examinations of parenting typologies (e.g., Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref46">26</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref47">59</reflink>]). Capturing effective parental communication of rules, expectations, and consequences (Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref48">26</reflink>]; Robinson et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref49">50</reflink>]), inductive reasoning reflects parental attempts to facilitate children's understanding of and potential compliance with social rules and norms. By providing rationales for disciplinary actions, inductive reasoning is considered a key component of parental structure (Grolnick et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref50">20</reflink>]) as well as a defining feature of confrontive power used by authoritative parents (Baumrind [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref51">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>We also included encouragement of modesty and directiveness, two important parenting practices emphasized in Chinese culture (Wu et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref52">56</reflink>]). Modesty, a core principle in Confucian philosophy, is regarded as a key virtue that helps maintain social order and interpersonal harmony by prioritizing collective over individual achievements and interests (Ho [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref53">22</reflink>]). Chinese mothers were found to encourage modest behavior more often than their U.S. counterparts (Wu et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref54">56</reflink>]). Parental directiveness, defined as parents assuming primary responsibilities for regulating their children's behavior, reflects the cultural belief that young children are incapable of "understanding things" and making judicious decisions and thus in need of guidance from parents (Ho [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref55">22</reflink>]). This practice closely aligns with the Chinese notion of <emph>guan</emph>, or the governance of children that is rooted in deep care and concern (Chao [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref56">7</reflink>]; Ren and Edwards [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref57">48</reflink>]). Both the encouragement of modesty and directiveness can be viewed as the provision of structure as they prepare children to become humble, well‐regulated individuals who are considered mature and competent in the Chinese sociocultural context.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-3">Incorporating Both Maternal and Paternal Parenting Styles</hd> <p>Apart from the ambiguity in the theoretical framework used to guide the selection of parenting dimensions and the exclusion of indigenous parenting constructs for creating parenting typologies, existing research tends to either solely focus on mothers or examine maternal and paternal parenting styles separately. Family systems theory posits that individual members within the family system are interdependent, suggesting that mothers and fathers might adjust their parenting styles in response to, or in compensation for, each other's parenting techniques (Cox and Paley [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref58">12</reflink>]). Therefore, examining how maternal and paternal parenting styles cluster together can offer a more authentic depiction of a child's real experiences in two‐parent households. In addition, adopting a joint parenting style approach can help discern whether the effects of maternal and paternal parenting on child development are either additive or compensatory (Kuppens and Ceulemans [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref59">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Some studies indicate that within the same family, mothers and fathers often display similar parenting behaviors, as demonstrated by the four congruent parenting styles identified among Flemish families with elementary‐school children (Kuppens and Ceulemans [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref60">29</reflink>]). In another study that revealed six parenting clusters among Italian parents of adolescents, only two clusters, representing a mere 4.57% of the sample, reflected inconsistent parenting between mothers and fathers. However, other studies highlight interparental discrepancies. For instance, several studies on U.S. parents of young children reported only small to medium correlations between different aspects of maternal and paternal parenting practices (Barnett et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref61">3</reflink>]; Gamble et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref62">16</reflink>]; Winsler et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref63">55</reflink>]). Furthermore, Martin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref64">40</reflink>]) found that 31% of the sampled U.S. families exhibited inconsistent parenting styles (i.e., supportive mother‐unsupportive father or vice versa). A similar trend was observed in Luo et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref65">38</reflink>]) study on Chinese families with preschoolers, revealing that nearly one in three families displayed inconsistent parenting styles (i.e., authoritative father‐authoritarian mother or vice versa). However, Luo et al. only assessed levels of authoritative and authoritarian parenting in constructing the parenting typologies.</p> <p>Chinese parents often accept complementary roles and strategies across different socializing agents, whether adhering to the traditional "strict father, warm mother" model or other flexible arrangements (Li and Lamb [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref66">33</reflink>]). Guided by this cultural assumption of differentiated and complementary parental roles, we chose to incorporate both maternal and paternal practices in the current study. However, we extended beyond Luo et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref67">38</reflink>]) scope by including a broader range of parenting dimensions, aiming to gain a more precise depiction of a child's everyday experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-4">Parenting Styles and Child Development</hd> <p>Numerous studies using the classic fourfold typology have shown the varying impact of different parenting styles on children's psychosocial, cognitive, and academic outcomes (see meta‐analyses by Pinquart [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref68">43</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref69">44</reflink>]; Pinquart and Kauser [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref70">45</reflink>]). Research that adopted person‐centered approaches to categorize parenting styles has also demonstrated the influence of varied parenting styles on child development. Notably, parenting styles featuring high levels of positive parenting behaviors (e.g., warmth and reasoning) and low levels of negative parenting behaviors (e.g., hostility and punitive discipline) are typically related to optimal child outcomes, while opposite patterns of parenting tend to yield less desirable outcomes (Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref71">26</reflink>]; Kuppens and Ceulemans [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref72">29</reflink>]; Lan [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref73">30</reflink>]; Martin et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref74">40</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref75">59</reflink>]). Moderate adjustment outcomes have been observed in adolescents whose parents exhibit relatively low scores on both positive and negative parenting dimensions (Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref76">26</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref77">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>Interestingly, the literature presents mixed results on the developmental impact of parenting styles that blend affectionate and strict behaviors, often referred to as "tiger parenting" or "strict‐affectionate parenting." For instance, Kim et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref78">26</reflink>]) found that tiger parenting was related to poorer adjustment in Chinese American adolescents compared to supportive parenting. Conversely, Zhang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref79">59</reflink>]) reported that in mainland China, strict‐affectionate mothering yielded similar adolescent wellbeing outcomes to authoritative mothering. Furthermore, no significant differences were found in school readiness and literacy skills between Chinese preschoolers raised with tiger parenting and other parenting styles (Xie and Li [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref80">57</reflink>]). These contrasting findings suggest that the impact of strict yet affectionate parenting on child development may vary across contexts (immigrant vs. native Chinese settings) and developmental stages (adolescence vs. early childhood). Dominant cultural norms and child developmental levels may affect how children interpret their parents' behaviors, potentially moderating the effects of specific parenting styles on child outcomes (Davidov [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref81">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Overall, existing research on how child development varies across distinct parenting styles, as identified through person‐centered approaches, presents notable limitations. These include a predominant focus on middle childhood (Kuppens and Ceulemans [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref82">29</reflink>]) and adolescence (Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref83">26</reflink>]; Lan [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref84">30</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref85">59</reflink>]), a specific emphasis on social–emotional outcomes (Kuppens and Ceulemans [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref86">29</reflink>]; Lan [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref87">30</reflink>]), and a neglect of the longitudinal effects of parenting styles on child development (Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref88">26</reflink>]; Kuppens and Ceulemans [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref89">29</reflink>]; Lan [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref90">30</reflink>]; Xie and Li [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref91">57</reflink>]). Thus, there is a need for further research to explore the longitudinal link between parenting styles derived from person‐centered approaches and various child outcomes in early childhood.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-5">The Present Study</hd> <p>The present study has two aims. The primary aim was to identify indigenous joint parenting styles in Chinese families with preschool‐aged children. We included both mothers' and fathers' parenting practices to assess parenting styles at the family rather than the individual parent level. Within the framework of parental warmth‐control‐structure, we incorporated both extensively studied parenting dimensions and culturally grounded practices to effectively capture the complexities of parenting in the Chinese context. Previous relevant studies have typically identified three to five parenting profiles. We anticipated that our study would also reveal a similar range of parenting styles. Given that authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles frequently emerged in existing research, we expected to find these two styles as well. However, their manifestation in relation to parenting dimensions emphasized by Chinese culture remained uncertain. In addition, in line with previous studies on Chinese parents (Lan [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref92">30</reflink>]; Xie and Li [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref93">57</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref94">59</reflink>]), we expected to discover a parenting style that blends strict and affectionate behaviors. Although other styles may emerge, we refrained from making specific hypotheses due to the lack of consistent findings in existing literature. Therefore, this study was partially exploratory in nature.</p> <p>The second aim was to examine whether the identified joint parenting styles would predict children's later development (i.e., early reading skills, early math skills, social skills, and problem behaviors). Drawing on the findings of Xie and Li ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref95">57</reflink>]) and Zhang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref96">59</reflink>]), we hypothesized that both authoritative and strict‐affectionate parenting styles would yield similar developmental outcomes, while authoritarian parenting would predict less favorable outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186282406-7">Participants and Procedures</hd> <p>Data of this study came from a larger project that sampled 12 preschools in different districts of Shanghai. The preschools represented varying quality based on the local government's rating system of school quality (see details on p. 1032‐1033 in Ren et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref97">47</reflink>]). Chinese preschools are typically three‐year programs serving children aged 3–6 years. Families with children in the second year of preschool were invited to participate in the study (T1, Nov 2017). Upon consent, 355 parents were asked to complete a packet of questionnaires that included measures on parenting practices, which mothers and fathers were instructed to fill in independently. Primary caregivers reported family demographics. Children's development was measured at two time points. Their baseline cognitive, language, and social–emotional development was assessed at T1, using an individually administered assessment. Children's follow‐up development was measured 1.5 years later during their final semester of preschool (T2, May 2019) through a combination of individually assessed early reading and math skills and caregiver‐reported social skills and problem behaviors. All individual assessments were done by trained research assistants in quiet rooms prepared by the preschools.</p> <p>Fifty‐five families were excluded due to missing data on both maternal and paternal parenting practices. The final sample involved 300 families (51.7% with girls). We compared the final sample and the excluded participants on key demographic variables (e.g., child gender and parental education) and found no significant differences. Children were, on average, 55.97 months old (SD = 3.72) at T1. Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the sample. The sample mainly consisted of middle‐class families in Shanghai.</p> <p>1 TABLE Demographic Information of the Sample (N  = 300).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic> (SD)/%</th><th align="center" /></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Child characteristics</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Age (month) at T1</td><td align="center">55.97 (3.72)</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Girl</td><td align="center">51.7%</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Boy</td><td align="center">48.3%</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Singleton status at T1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Singleton</td><td align="center">71.7%</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Nonsingleton</td><td align="center">28.3%</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Family characteristics</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Family monthly income</td></tr><tr><td align="left">≤ 8000 RMB ($ 1183)</td><td align="center">5.4%</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">8001–15,000 RMB ($ 2219)</td><td align="center">18.1%</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">15,001–20,000 RMB ($2959)</td><td align="center">16.8%</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">20,001–50,000 RMB ($7396)</td><td align="center">43.3%</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">50,001–80,000 RMB ($11,834)</td><td align="center">8.7%</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">> 80,000 RMB</td><td align="center">7.7%</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Parental education</td><td align="center">Mother</td><td align="center">Father</td></tr><tr><td align="left">High school or below</td><td align="center">7.4%</td><td align="center">5.7%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Associate degree</td><td align="center">19.8%</td><td align="center">17.4%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Bachelor's degree</td><td align="center">58.1%</td><td align="center">54.4%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Master's degree or above</td><td align="center">14.7%</td><td align="center">22.5%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Parental occupation</td><td align="center">Mother</td><td align="center">Father</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unemployed, farmer, nontechnical and semitechnical worker, self‐employed small business owner</td><td align="center">16.3%</td><td align="center">7.2%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Technical worker, semiprofessional, public servant</td><td align="center">40.3%</td><td align="center">26.5%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Professional, mid‐level management staff, owners of mid‐size business</td><td align="center">41.3%</td><td align="center">56.3%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">High‐level professional and administrator</td><td align="center">2.1%</td><td align="center">10.0%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note:</emph> Annual disposable income per capita was ¥58,988 ($8276) in Shanghai in the year when we collected family demographics (Shanghai Municipal Statistics Bureau & Survey Office of the National Bureau of Statistics in Shanghai, 2018; see https://tjj.sh.gov.cn/tjnj/nje18.htm?d1=2018tjnje/E1012.htm).</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-8">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186282406-9">Parenting Practices</hd> <p>The short‐version Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ; Robinson et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref98">50</reflink>]) and items from Wu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref99">56</reflink>]) were used in the current study to assess parenting practices. Both mothers and fathers rated the frequency of using each parenting practice on a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = <emph>never</emph>, 5 = <emph>always</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-10">Parental Warmth</hd> <p>Two subscales from the PSDQ (Robinson et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref100">50</reflink>]) were used to assess parental warmth. The Warmth or Acceptance subscale (8 items) measures parents' emotional support and positive affection towards their child (e.g., "Gives comfort and understanding when child is upset"). This dimension was referred to as "acceptance" to avoid confusion with the higher‐level construct of parental warmth in later text. The Verbal Hostility subscale (3 items) captures the display of hostility in parents' language in interactions with their child (e.g., "Explodes in anger towards children"). In the current study, Cronbach's <emph>α</emph>s were 0.74 (mother) and 0.74 (father) for acceptance, and 0.64 (mother) and 0.65 (father) for verbal hostility.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-11">Parental Control</hd> <p>We measured three dimensions of parental control, namely coercive discipline, psychological control, and autonomy granting (i.e., the opposite end of control). The coercive discipline dimension was assessed by the Physical Coercion subscale (5 items; e.g., "Slaps when child misbehaves") and the Nonreasoning Punitive subscale (3 items; e.g., "Punishes by taking privileges away with little explanation") from the PSDQ (Robinson et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref101">50</reflink>]). The psychological control dimension captures parents' use of shaming and love withdrawal to ensure that children meet parents' expectations. The Shaming or Love Withdrawal subscale used in Wu et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref102">56</reflink>]) study was adopted to measure parents' use of psychological control (4 items; e.g., "Make child feel guilty when doesn't meet our expectations"). One item was removed from analysis due to causing low internal consistency. The Democratic Participation subscale (4 items; e.g., "Allows child to give input into family rules") from the PSDQ (Robinson et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref103">50</reflink>]) was used to assess the degree to which parents grant autonomy to their child. In this study, Cronbach's <emph>α</emph>s were 0.79 (mother) and 0.78 (father) for coercive discipline, 0.64 (mother) and 0.72 (father) for psychological control, 0.67 (mother) and 0.68 (father) for autonomy granting.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-12">Parental Structure</hd> <p>The Reasoning or Induction subscale (4 items) from the PSDQ (Robinson et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref104">50</reflink>]) measures parents' regulation of children's behavior (e.g., "Explains the consequences of the child's behavior"). This dimension was referred to as "reasoning" for simplicity in later text. The Encouragement of Modesty subscale (4 items) from Wu et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref105">56</reflink>]) study captures parents' efforts to cultivate modesty in children (e.g., "Discourage child from proudly acknowledging compliments"). The Directiveness subscale (3 items) from the PSDQ (Robinson et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref106">50</reflink>]) was used to assess parents' undertaking of a major responsibility in regulating children's behaviors (e.g., "Tells child what to do"). Although originally designed to capture aspects of authoritarian parenting in the U.S. (Robinson et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref107">50</reflink>]), these items resonate with the Chinese cultural emphasis on supervision and correction by parents to foster achievement and societal conformity in children (Wu et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref108">56</reflink>]). Studies by Wu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref109">56</reflink>]) and Ren and Edwards ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref110">48</reflink>]) revealed that among Chinese parents of preschoolers, parental directiveness was more closely related to aspects of authoritative than authoritarian parenting. This lends support to the idea that in the Chinese context, viewing directiveness as an element of parental structure is more appropriate than categorizing it as a form of control. In the current study, Cronbach's <emph>α</emph>s were 0.77 (mother) and 0.79 (father) for reasoning, 0.76 (mother) and 0.79 (father) for the encouragement of modesty, and 0.58 (mother) and 0.63 (father) for directiveness.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-13">Child Development at Baseline</hd> <p>Children's baseline cognitive, language, and social–emotional development was measured through three subscales from the short‐version East Asia‐Pacific Early Child Development Scales (EAP‐ECDS; Rao et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref111">46</reflink>]). The Cognitive Development subscale (27 items) measures children's basic cognitive skills, such as early math skills (e.g., counting and calculation), executive functions (e.g., short‐term memory and attention shift), and knowledge of shapes. The Language and Emergent Literacy subscale (22 items) assesses children's expressive language and early reading and writing skills (e.g., writing own name and storytelling). The Social and Emotional Development subscale (18 items) captures various social–emotional skills, such as social comprehension, emotion regulation, perspective‐taking, and etiquette. The scores of these three subscales were standardized and then averaged together to create a composite score indicating children's overall development at T1. In this study, Cronbach's <emph>α</emph>s ranged between 0.81 and 0.84 for the three subscales.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-14">Developmental Outcomes at T2</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186282406-15">Early Reading Skills</hd> <p>The Chinese Character Recognition Task (Li et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref112">31</reflink>]) was used to assess children's Chinese reading. This task includes 150 single Chinese characters presented in order of increasing difficulty. Children were asked to read them one by one, and the assessment would end if a child failed to read 15 consecutive characters. Any remaining items not tested would be scored zero. In this study, Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> was 0.98 for the task.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-16">Early Math Skills</hd> <p>Children's early math skills were assessed using the three math‐related subsets from the Woodcock‐Johnson Test of Achievement IV (Schrank et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref113">51</reflink>]). The Calculation subset (30 items) captures children's abilities in mathematical computations. The test would terminate if six consecutive items were incorrectly answered. The Applied Problems subset (56 items) requires children to analyze practical math problems and apply math skills to solve them. The test would stop if five consecutive items were incorrectly answered. The Math Fluency subset (160 items) measures children's fluency and speed of computation, in which children were given three minutes to solve as many computational problems as possible. For all subsets, any incorrectly answered or not attempted items would be scored zero. In this study, Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> was 0.88 for calculation, 0.85 for applied problems, and 0.97 for math fluency. The standardized scores of the three subtests were averaged together to create a composite score.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-17">Social and Behavioral Competence</hd> <p>The Social Skills Improvement System‐Rating Scales (SSIS‐RS; Gresham and Elliott [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref114">17</reflink>]) were used to measure children's social and behavioral competence. The Social Skills subscale (46 items) captures children's communication, cooperation, assertion, responsibility, empathy, engagement, and self‐control skills. The Problem Behaviors subscale (33 items) covers externalizing and internalizing problems, as well as behaviors related to the autism spectrum. Primary caregivers reported how frequently their child exhibited each behavior (0 = <emph>never</emph>, 3 = <emph>always</emph>). In this study, Cronbach's <emph>α</emph>s were 0.95 and 0.93 for social skills and problem behaviors, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-18">Analytic Strategies</hd> <p>Data were analyzed using <emph>SPSS</emph> and <emph>Mplus</emph>. We first conducted latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify distinct joint parenting styles. A total of 16 indicators were included in LPA: father‐ and mother‐reported acceptance, verbal hostility, coercive discipline, psychological control, autonomy granting, reasoning, encouragement of modesty, and directiveness. We tested separate LPA models with an increasing number of profiles. The common practice in LPA research is to conclude the analysis with a model that estimates five to six profiles (Ferguson et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref115">14</reflink>]). The optimal model was selected based on several model fit indices, including the Akaike information criterion (AIC), the Bayesian information criterion (BIC), the sample‐size adjusted BIC (aBIC), entropy, and the bootstrap likelihood ratio test (BLRT). Lower values of AIC, BIC, and aBIC indicate a better fit. Entropy, which ranges from 0 to 1, is a measure of classification accuracy. A higher entropy indicates a better fit, and 0.80 is typically used as the cutoff (Tein et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref116">53</reflink>]). The BLRT compares the relative fit of two adjacent models that differ by one profile. A significant <emph>p</emph>‐value of BLRT indicates that the model with <emph>k</emph> profiles has a better fit than that of <emph>k</emph>‐1 profile(s) and thus should be retained. A nonsignificant <emph>p</emph>‐value suggests that the model with fewer profiles should be selected for simplicity. Although there exist other likelihood ratio test procedures (e.g., the Lo–Mendell–Rubin test), we used the BLRT, as it is discussed as one of the most accurate fit indices and superior to other likelihood ratio tests (Nylund et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref117">41</reflink>]). The model with smaller AIC, BIC, and aBIC values, an acceptable entropy, and a significant BLRT is often selected as the best‐fitting model. Model selection should also be grounded in theory and prior work in order to evaluate a model's reasonableness and ensure that the final model retained yields interpretable and meaningful groupings of individuals (Ferguson et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref118">14</reflink>]). To detect the heterogeneity among the emerged profiles in the final model, we then conducted a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with all indicator variables.</p> <p>To examine how emerged joint parenting styles might predict children's development 1.5 years later, we used a manual version of the BCH approach in <emph>Mplus</emph> to simultaneously examine the differences in distal means of T2 child outcomes (i.e., Chinese reading, early math skills, social skills, and problem behaviors) across parenting profiles. The BCH approach is a weighted multiple‐group analysis that enables simultaneous estimations and comparisons on all distal means of outcome variables while accounting for measurement error in the classification of individuals into groups. Therefore, the BCH method is more accurate and thus preferred over other approaches, such as the approaches where profile membership is treated as a single observed variable (Asparouhov and Muthén [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref119">1</reflink>]). We controlled for child gender, singleton status, and development at T1. Twenty families with missing data on any control variable or child outcome variables at T2 were excluded from the BCH analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-19">Results</hd> <p>Descriptive and correlational results are detailed in Appendix A and B. Table 2 presents the model fit indices of the LPA models. AIC, BIC, and aBIC all showed an incremental decrease as the number of profiles increased from one to six, indicating improved model fits with more profiles. According to the BLRT, models with more profiles were also preferred. However, the 5‐ and 6‐profile models were excluded because one profile contained only two families. Models with additional profiles were no longer tested. The entropy values for the remaining four models were all greater than 0.80, suggesting sufficient separations between profiles in each model. Although the 2‐profile model had the largest entropy, it provided a relatively crude classification of families into two broad groups (see Appendix C), which did not adequately capture the diversity of parenting styles that are well‐documented in existing research. In comparing the 3‐ and 4‐profile models, it appeared that one profile in the 3‐profile model (i.e., profile 3 in Appendix C) represented a combination of characteristics of two distinct profiles that emerged in the 4‐profile model (i.e., profile 2 "strict‐affectionate" and profile 4 "authoritarian," as shown in Figure 1). These two profiles have been consistently found in previous person‐centered studies on Chinese and Chinese immigrant families of adolescents (Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref120">26</reflink>]; Lan [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref121">30</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref122">59</reflink>]). In addition, in the 4‐profile model, the average posterior probabilities for the most likely latent profile membership all exceeded 0.90, further indicating the model's high level of classification accuracy. Therefore, we retained the 4‐profile model as the final model, as it not only provides an adequate model fit but also more refined categorizations of families that align with theory and prior work. Figure 1 illustrates the four parenting profiles. MANOVA was conducted to compare the profiles across all indicator variables. Pairwise comparisons are presented in Table 3. Families with different parenting styles differed significantly in each indicator, and the effect sizes were large (<emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> ranges from 0.14 to 0.60). The results further indicated that the four identified profiles each could provide meaningful information about the unique patterns of parenting practices in Chinese families.</p> <p>2 TABLE Model fit indices for the latent profile analysis of parenting styles.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Model</th><th align="center">AIC</th><th align="center">BIC</th><th align="center">aBIC</th><th align="center">Entropy</th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic> value of BLRT</th><th align="center">Group size <italic>n</italic> (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1 profile</td><td align="center">9512.38</td><td align="center">9630.90</td><td align="center">9529.42</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">300 (100%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2 profiles</td><td align="center">8814.72</td><td align="center">8996.21</td><td align="center">8840.81</td><td align="center">0.96</td><td align="center">< 0.001</td><td align="center">253/47 (84.3%/15.7%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3 profiles</td><td align="center">8600.42</td><td align="center">8844.87</td><td align="center">8635.55</td><td align="center">0.83</td><td align="center">< 0.001</td><td align="center">125/134/41 (41.7%/44.6%/13.7%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4 profiles</td><td align="center">8417.11</td><td align="center">8724.52</td><td align="center">8461.30</td><td align="center">0.86</td><td align="center">< 0.001</td><td align="center">114/43/118/25 (38.0%/14.3%/39.3%/8.4%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5 profiles</td><td align="center">8285.48</td><td align="center">8655.85</td><td align="center">8338.71</td><td align="center">0.88</td><td align="center">< 0.001</td><td align="center">25/103/117/53/2 (8.3%/34.3%/39.0%/17.7%/0.7%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6 profiles</td><td align="center">8177.16</td><td align="center">8610.50</td><td align="center">8239.45</td><td align="center">0.86</td><td align="center">< 0.001</td><td align="center">97/23/67/85/26/2 (32.3%/7.7%/22.3%/28.3%/8.7%/0.7%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note:</emph> The results of the final model were bolded.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/CDV/01jul25/cdev14236-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="cdev14236-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 A depiction of the four emerged joint parenting styles. "F" = fathers, and "M" = mothers. The three broad domains (i.e., parental warmth, control, and structure) are denoted on top of the figure. Specific parenting dimensions are listed at the bottom of the figure. Autonomy, autonomy granting; Directive, directiveness; Discipline, coercive discipline; Hostility, verbal hostility; Modesty, encouragement of modesty; and Psych Ctrl, psychological control. Nonsignificant post hoc pairwise comparisons were circled." /> </p> <p></p> <p>3 TABLE Comparisons across the four emerged parenting profiles on indicator variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="center">Profile 1 moderately supportive</th><th align="center">Profile 2 strict‐affectionate</th><th align="center">Profile 3 authoritative</th><th align="center">Profile 4 authoritarian</th><th align="center"><italic>F</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>η</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="center">Post hoc</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><italic>M</italic> (SD)</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic> (SD)</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic> (SD)</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic> (SD)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">F‐Acceptance</td><td align="center">3.82 (0.46)</td><td align="center">4.38 (0.41)</td><td align="center">4.39 (0.41)</td><td align="center">3.48 (0.74)</td><td align="center">46.28</td><td align="center">0.33</td><td align="center">1 < 2, 34 < 1, 2, 3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F‐Verbal hostility</td><td align="center">1.84 (0.48)</td><td align="center">2.31 (0.70)</td><td align="center">1.90 (0.56)</td><td align="center">2.55 (0.62)</td><td align="center">15.38</td><td align="center">0.14</td><td align="center">1 < 2, 43 < 2, 4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F‐Coercive discipline</td><td align="center">1.69 (0.40)</td><td align="center">2.18 (0.61)</td><td align="center">1.58 (0.43)</td><td align="center">2.51 (0.55)</td><td align="center">38.32</td><td align="center">0.29</td><td align="center">1 < 2, 42 < 43 < 2, 4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F‐Psychological control</td><td align="center">1.62 (0.63)</td><td align="center">2.51 (0.88)</td><td align="center">1.60 (0.60)</td><td align="center">2.70 (0.87)</td><td align="center">33.28</td><td align="center">0.26</td><td align="center">1 < 2, 43 < 2, 4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F‐Autonomy granting</td><td align="center">3.42 (0.61)</td><td align="center">3.98 (0.58)</td><td align="center">4.15 (0.58)</td><td align="center">3.06 (0.78)</td><td align="center">38.17</td><td align="center">0.29</td><td align="center">1 < 2, 34 < 2, 3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F‐Reasoning</td><td align="center">3.90 (0.53)</td><td align="center">4.47 (0.48)</td><td align="center">4.45 (0.47)</td><td align="center">3.18 (0.72)</td><td align="center">52.70</td><td align="center">0.36</td><td align="center">1 < 2, 34 < 1, 2, 3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F‐Encouragement of modesty</td><td align="center">1.53 (0.68)</td><td align="center">1.66 (0.72)</td><td align="center">1.42 (0.59)</td><td align="center">2.55 (1.02)</td><td align="center">17.68</td><td align="center">0.16</td><td align="center">1 < 42 < 43 < 4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F‐Directiveness</td><td align="center">2.64 (0.61)</td><td align="center">3.41 (0.72)</td><td align="center">2.62 (0.73)</td><td align="center">3.17 (0.70)</td><td align="center">17.04</td><td align="center">0.15</td><td align="center">1 < 2, 43 < 2, 4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M‐Acceptance</td><td align="center">3.98 (0.39)</td><td align="center">4.22 (0.46)</td><td align="center">4.62 (0.29)</td><td align="center">3.41 (0.58)</td><td align="center">92.27</td><td align="center">0.49</td><td align="center">1 < 2, 32 < 34 < 1, 2, 3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M‐Verbal hostility</td><td align="center">1.98 (0.47)</td><td align="center">2.56 (0.57)</td><td align="center">1.82 (0.42)</td><td align="center">3.24 (0.70)</td><td align="center">70.84</td><td align="center">0.43</td><td align="center">1 < 2, 42 < 43 < 2, 4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M‐Coercive discipline</td><td align="center">1.65 (0.31)</td><td align="center">2.32 (0.59)</td><td align="center">1.43 (0.30)</td><td align="center">2.82 (0.62)</td><td align="center">140.79</td><td align="center">0.60</td><td align="center">1 < 2, 42 < 43 < 1, 2, 4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M‐Psychological control</td><td align="center">1.60 (0.53)</td><td align="center">2.36 (0.67)</td><td align="center">1.41 (0.46)</td><td align="center">2.69 (0.93)</td><td align="center">53.47</td><td align="center">0.36</td><td align="center">1 < 2, 43 < 1, 2, 4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M‐Autonomy granting</td><td align="center">3.46 (0.58)</td><td align="center">3.59 (0.53)</td><td align="center">4.30 (0.48)</td><td align="center">2.85 (0.66)</td><td align="center">76.25</td><td align="center">0.45</td><td align="center">1 < 32 < 34 < 1, 2, 3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M‐Reasoning</td><td align="center">3.89 (0.50)</td><td align="center">4.05 (0.51)</td><td align="center">4.62 (0.37)</td><td align="center">3.30 (0.71)</td><td align="center">83.44</td><td align="center">0.47</td><td align="center">1 < 32 < 34 < 1, 2, 3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M‐Encouragement of modesty</td><td align="center">1.36 (0.51)</td><td align="center">1.77 (0.78)</td><td align="center">1.45 (0.65)</td><td align="center">2.34 (0.87)</td><td align="center">17.80</td><td align="center">0.16</td><td align="center">1 < 2, 42 < 43 < 2, 4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M‐Directiveness</td><td align="center">2.71 (0.61)</td><td align="center">3.42 (0.60)</td><td align="center">2.66 (0.66)</td><td align="center">3.10 (0.85)</td><td align="center">17.07</td><td align="center">0.15</td><td align="center">1 < 2, 43 < 2, 4</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note:</emph> In the "variable" column, "F" represents fathers, and "M" represents mothers. All <emph>F</emph> values for MANOVA are significant at the <emph>p</emph> = 0.001 level. We used the Bonferroni method in post hoc comparisons and listed pairwise comparisons significant at the <emph>p</emph> = 0.05 level in the "Post hoc" column.</p> <p>Both in profile 1 and profile 3, fathers and mothers exhibited low levels of verbal hostility, coercive discipline, psychological control, encouragement of modesty, and directiveness. However, profile 3 displayed high levels of acceptance, autonomy granting, and reasoning, while profile 1 had moderate levels on these indicators. Overall, parents in profile 3 showed high warmth and low control and primarily used inductive reasoning to regulate children's behaviors, which resembles Baumrind's typology of authoritative parenting. Profile 3 was thus labeled "authoritative parenting" (39.3% of the sample). Profile 1 was named "moderately supportive parenting" to reflect parents' moderate performance on the aspects of parenting that are conventionally viewed as positive in the literature (38.0% of the sample).</p> <p>Profile 2 resembled the authoritative parenting profile in terms of father‐reported acceptance, autonomy granting, and reasoning. Mothers in profile 2 were also relatively high on these three dimensions of parenting, although slightly lower compared to mothers in the authoritative parenting profile. However, compared to parents in the moderately supportive and authoritative parenting profiles, both fathers and mothers in profile 2 reported more frequent use of verbal hostility, coercive discipline, psychological control, and directiveness. Mothers also reported higher levels of encouragement of modesty. We labeled profile 2 as "strict‐affectionate parenting" to reflect parents' simultaneous display of high warmth, high control, and high structure (14.3% of the sample). Finally, parents in profile 4 scored the lowest on parental warmth and the highest on parental control among all subgroups. They also featured the highest levels of encouragement of modesty and the lowest levels of reasoning across profiles. As parents in profile 4 showed great similarity to Baumrind's portrayal of authoritarian parents, we labeled this profile as "authoritarian parenting" (8.4% of the sample).</p> <p>Importantly, a visual inspection of the profile plot revealed no notable differences in parenting practices between mothers and fathers within each profile. Therefore, in the labels of the four profiles, we did not specify maternal or paternal parenting styles, as the labeling aimed to represent parenting approaches shared by both parents.</p> <p>Using the BCH approach, we estimated the distal means of child outcomes for each profile (Table 4, column 3) and simultaneously compared the distal means of child outcomes between every two profiles (Table 4, columns 4–6). Differences in distal means were calculated by subtracting the distal mean of the profile with a larger number from that of the profile with a smaller number. Only one significant difference emerged for early math skills, such that children with authoritative parents outperformed those with moderately supportive parents. Children with authoritative parents also exhibited better social skills than those whose parents were moderately supportive or strict‐affectionate. Children of authoritarian parents displayed significantly higher levels of problem behaviors than those in the other three profiles. Children with moderately supportive parents also exhibited more problem behaviors than those with authoritative parents. It is worth noting that children did not show any significant differences in Chinese reading across the four profiles.</p> <p>4 TABLE Distal mean differences in child outcomes across emerged parenting profiles.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Distal outcome</th><th align="center">Profile</th><th align="center">Distal mean</th><th align="center">Distal mean differences</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Profile 1 moderately supportive</th><th align="center">Profile 2 strict‐affectionate</th><th align="center">Profile 3 authoritative</th><th align="center" /></tr><tr><th align="center">Est. (SE)</th><th align="center">Est. (SE)</th><th align="center">Est. (SE)</th><th align="center">Profile 4 authoritarian</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Chinese reading</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">24.91</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">30.88</td><td align="center">−5.97 (4.52)</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">27.38</td><td align="center">−2.47 (3.49)</td><td align="center">3.50 (4.21)</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">30.39</td><td align="center">−5.48 (5.52)</td><td align="center">0.49 (6.12)</td><td align="center">−3.01 (5.40)</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Early math skills</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">−0.22</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">0.08</td><td align="center">−0.30 (0.18)</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">0.04</td><td align="center">−0.26 (0.12)*</td><td align="center">0.04 (0.17)</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">−0.13</td><td align="center">−0.09 (0.15)</td><td align="center">0.21 (0.19)</td><td align="center">0.17 (0.15)</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Social skills</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">88.53</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">86.85</td><td align="center">1.68 (3.54)</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">94.57</td><td align="center">−6.04 (2.70)*</td><td align="center">−7.72 (3.66)*</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">86.16</td><td align="center">2.37 (5.23)</td><td align="center">0.69 (5.81)</td><td align="center">8.41 (5.42)</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Problem behaviors</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">20.71</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">19.20</td><td align="center">1.51 (2.20)</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">16.98</td><td align="center">3.73 (1.91)*</td><td align="center">2.22 (2.21)</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">28.22</td><td align="center">−7.51 (3.61)*</td><td align="center">−9.02 (3.90)*</td><td align="center">−11.24 (3.77)**</td><td align="center">—</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note:</emph> Child gender (0 = <emph>girl</emph>, 1 = <emph>boy</emph>), singleton status (0 = <emph>nonsingle child</emph>, 1 = <emph>single child</emph>), and baseline child development were controlled. Distal means were estimated for girls (gender = 0) who were the only child in the family (singleton status = 1) and had an average level of development at T1. *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05; **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-21">Discussion</hd> <p>Drawing upon the overarching parental warmth‐control framework that underpins the classic fourfold typology of parenting styles and integrating indigenous parenting dimensions to construct a parenting typology, this study adopted a person‐centered approach to explore joint parenting styles among mainland Chinese families with preschool‐aged children. Based on various parenting dimensions reported by both mothers and fathers, we identified four distinct joint parenting styles. Furthermore, we examined their longitudinal associations with children's early academic and social‐behavioral outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-22">Joint Parenting Styles in Chinese Families</hd> <p>Among the four emerged joint parenting styles, the largest profile was authoritative parenting (39.3% of the sample), where both mothers and fathers scored high on parental warmth and low on parental control, and preferred reasoning over encouraging modest behavior and being directive to provide structure for children. The smallest profile identified was "authoritarian parenting" (8.4%), in which both parents were low on warmth and reasoning and high on control. Intriguingly, these parents also showed greater emphasis on modesty and directiveness, two culturally valued strategies of providing structure. Consistent with studies that examined parenting profiles in Western contexts (Kuppens and Ceulemans [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref123">29</reflink>]; Martin et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref124">40</reflink>]; Simons and Conger [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref125">52</reflink>]), authoritative (or supportive) parenting also emerged as the most common profile, while authoritarian (or harsh) parenting was the least common profile in other similar studies on Chinese families (Lan [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref126">30</reflink>]; Luo et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref127">38</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref128">59</reflink>]). The prevalence of authoritative parenting and the relative rarity of authoritarian parenting serve as a compelling rebuttal to the stereotypical image of Chinese parents as demanding, controlling, and emotionally unsupportive. Chinese parents' strong endorsement of authoritative parenting may be attributed to China's increasing participation in the global market, the state's promotion of <emph>suzhi jiaoyu</emph> (education for quality or education that emphasizes children's all‐rounded development, as opposed to exam‐oriented education), decreased family size, and an increased emphasis on the emotional value of children (Kuan [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref129">28</reflink>]; Yan [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref130">58</reflink>]). As Way et al. ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref131">54</reflink>]) revealed, contemporary Chinese mothers often view the traditional Chinese way of parenting as outdated and inadequate to meet the demands of the rapidly changing society and, therefore, have adopted parenting practices marked by greater warmth and less coercive control.</p> <p>Consistent with prior findings on Chinese immigrant parents (Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref132">26</reflink>]; Lan [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref133">30</reflink>]) and native Chinese parents (Lan [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref134">30</reflink>]; Xie and Li [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref135">57</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref136">59</reflink>]), we also found a subgroup of families that demonstrated a unique blend of high warmth and high control (i.e., strict‐affectionate parenting). According to Zhang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref137">59</reflink>]), this parenting style reflects the traditional Chinese notion of <emph>Yanci</emph> (strict yet kind) which values balancing firm discipline with warmth and kindness. Interestingly, whereas such a balance was traditionally pursued through a gender‐prescribed, cross‐parent configuration (e.g., the "strict father, kind mother" model; Li and Lamb [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref138">33</reflink>]) in Chinese families, our findings revealed a more flexible approach, where both mothers and fathers embodied a contemporary interpretation of "Yanci" by exhibiting a within‐parent blend of strict and affectionate behaviors that transcends gender norms.</p> <p>In addition, the strict‐affectionate parents exhibited a combined use of reasoning and directiveness to structure their children's behavior. Directiveness, a practice valued in traditional Chinese culture, is rooted in the foundational belief that young children, perceived as passive and dependent, are not yet capable of fully comprehending things. Consequently, it is believed that they should not be held accountable for their wrongdoings or failures to meet expectations (Ho [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref139">22</reflink>]). In contrast, reasoning, which involves providing explanations that encourage children to consider others' perspectives and the consequences of their actions on others (Helwig et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref140">21</reflink>]), reflects a belief in the children's capacity to understand the implications of their behavior and to make informed choices. This combination of seemingly contradictory parenting practices may indicate Chinese parents' attempt to integrate traditional Chinese cultural values with Western‐influenced ideologies that promote a democratic, child‐centered approach to parenting.</p> <p>Our analysis revealed a parenting style of particular significance—moderately supportive parenting. This style shares similarities with authoritative parenting in that both profiles displayed comparably low levels of negative parenting behaviors as well as of practices traditionally emphasized in Chinese culture, including verbal hostility, coercive discipline, psychological control, encouragement of modesty, and directiveness. However, they differed in the realm of positive parenting, with moderately supportive parents showing significantly lower levels of acceptance, autonomy granting, and reasoning. This finding underscores the importance of including both the positive (i.e., acceptance) and negative (i.e., verbal hostility) facets of parental warmth as well as the opposite ends of parental control (i.e., coercive discipline and psychological control vs. autonomy granting) in constructing parenting typology. Parents' shift away from punitive and traditional parenting practices is likely influenced by their shifting socialization goals amid China's rapid socio‐economic changes (Luo et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref141">37</reflink>]; Way et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref142">54</reflink>]). A growing awareness of the detrimental effects of punitive parenting on the psychological wellbeing of children has led some Chinese parents to reassess and abandon harsh disciplinary tactics (Lu and Chang [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref143">36</reflink>]; Ren and Edwards [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref144">49</reflink>]). Furthermore, the increasing emphasis on independence and self‐expression in China, driven by globalization, may have weakened the value of directive parenting and the promotion of modesty in children (Luo et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref145">37</reflink>]). Nonetheless, it seems easier for some parents to relinquish old practices than to adopt a new set of parenting strategies. The challenge may lie in parents' unfamiliarity with or difficulty in authentically incorporating Western parenting techniques, such as overt expression of affection and democratic decision‐making, into the traditional cultural framework that they grew up in. The emergence of this profile illustrates the complex and evolving dynamics of parenting in contemporary Chinese society, underscoring the challenges parents may face in reconciling traditional values with imported parenting ideologies.</p> <p>Consistent with the findings of Zhang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref146">59</reflink>]) and Lan ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref147">30</reflink>]) on Chinese parents of adolescents, our study found no evidence of permissive or neglectful parenting, two parenting styles outlined in the classic fourfold typology. This may be attributed to the strong cultural emphasis on the role of parents in guiding children toward academic success and social conformity within Chinese society (Chao [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref148">7</reflink>]; Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref149">10</reflink>]). Parents likely avoid permissive or neglectful behaviors, viewing them as a dereliction of their parental duties. Interestingly, two studies focusing on Western families did not identify indulgent parenting either, although both found evidence of neglectful parenting (Kuppens and Ceulemans [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref150">29</reflink>]; Martin et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref151">40</reflink>]). This decline in indulgent parenting worldwide may reflect the intensification of global competition, driving parents to more diligently prepare their children for future challenges. On the other hand, neglectful parents may continue to exist, especially among families facing significant adversities. Given that our sample was primarily middle‐class, neglectful parenting might be uncommon, yet it would likely surface in families faced with socioeconomic disadvantages.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-23">Similarities Across the Four Joint Parenting Styles</hd> <p>One notable pattern across all four parenting profiles is the intrafamily similarity between maternal and paternal parenting. This contradicts the gendered division of parental roles in traditional Chinese culture, where fathers were expected to play the stern disciplinarian and mothers to display strong warmth and affection (Li and Lamb [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref152">33</reflink>]). Instead, our findings indicate a less pronounced distinction between fathers and mothers, but a mixture of different parenting behaviors within individual parents. This may be partly due to the growing emphasis on building emotionally close parent–child bonds (Yan [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref153">58</reflink>]), a value now also gaining traction among Chinese fathers (Li [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref154">32</reflink>]). This could also be a result of partner selection (i.e., the tendency to seek partners with similar behavioral characteristics; Kuppens and Ceulemans [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref155">29</reflink>]) or socialization (i.e., the process where mothers and fathers learn from each other through observational learning and experience sharing; Luo et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref156">38</reflink>]). In addition, our respondents were predominantly middle‐class parents from metropolitan Shanghai who have an above‐average likelihood to endorse egalitarian principles, acknowledge women's family status, and share childrearing responsibilities, which potentially led to similar parenting practices between mothers and fathers. How mothers and fathers from the same family resemble each other's parenting practices in other social strata and regions of Chinese society will be an important question for future research.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-24">Effects of Joint Parenting Styles on Child Development</hd> <p>Controlling for child baseline development, the emerged joint parenting styles were found to predict children's early academic and social‐behavioral outcomes 1.5 years later. Interestingly, children in the authoritative and strict‐affectionate parenting profiles did not differ in any outcomes except social skills. Our findings echo Zhang et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref157">59</reflink>]) study, which reported mostly comparable adjustment outcomes between adolescents with strict‐affectionate mothers and those with authoritative mothers. These findings underscore the power of culturally unique functions of specific parenting practices, such as coercive discipline, psychological control, and directiveness, which are valued in the Chinese culture as signs of parental devotion and care (Chao [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref158">7</reflink>]; Ren and Edwards [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref159">48</reflink>]; Wu et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref160">56</reflink>]). It is also plausible that the very high levels of warmth and affection exhibited by strict‐affectionate parents could mitigate potential negative impacts or even enhance the effectiveness of strict control and directiveness in promoting adaptive behaviors in children. However, children of strict‐affectionate parents displayed poorer social skills than those of authoritative parents. Thus, while strict parental control might enhance early academic skills and reduce problem behaviors, it could impair children's social skills, possibly due to parents' failure to model appropriate social behaviors or foster secure attachments necessary for children to acquire competence in social interactions. This aligns with studies on adolescents (Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref161">26</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref162">59</reflink>]), indicating that strict‐affectionate parenting may result in suboptimal development in certain domains.</p> <p>In contrast, when strict control is combined with low parental warmth, as in the case of authoritarian parenting in this study, children demonstrated more problem behaviors than their counterparts in the other three profiles. Authoritarian parenting is typically associated with increased internalizing and externalizing symptoms in children and adolescents (see meta‐analyses by Pinquart [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref163">43</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref164">44</reflink>]), possibly through its interference with the formation of a secure parent–child attachment (Koehn and Kerns [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref165">27</reflink>]). Our findings align with those of Pinquart and Kauser's ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref166">45</reflink>]) meta‐analysis study, which indicated that the positive associations between authoritarian parenting and child behavioral problems were largely consistent across ethnic groups in Western countries. Although some previous studies showed positive effects of authoritarian parenting on Chinese children's adjustment (e.g., Chen [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref167">8</reflink>]), most recent studies established a negative link between the two (e.g., Luo et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref168">38</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref169">59</reflink>]). It should be noted that authoritarian parenting resulted in comparable performance in reading, math, and social skills to the other three profiles. The controlling behaviors displayed by authoritarian parents might be interpreted as <emph>guan</emph> (Chao [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref170">7</reflink>]) by their children, potentially fostering competence in academic and social domains.</p> <p>Children of moderately supportive parents consistently showed poorer outcomes across multiple domains compared to those with authoritative parents, highlighting the unique effects of positive parenting elements (i.e., acceptance, autonomy granting, and reasoning) on child development. Parental warmth is argued to have universal positive implications for children's development (Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref171">10</reflink>]). In addition, with the onset of autonomous behaviors in early childhood, it is essential for parents to grant autonomy as well as to use positive guidance strategies (e.g., reasoning) that can promote children's autonomy. Failing to do so may inhibit children's exploratory behaviors and undermine their self‐motivation and sense of competence, thereby hindering their learning and social development (Linkiewich et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref172">35</reflink>]). Another plausible explanation is that in light of the indigenous beliefs related to <emph>guan</emph> (Chao [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref173">7</reflink>]), the relatively low engagement of these parents in positive parenting, coupled with a low endorsement of harsh disciplinary practices, could be perceived by children as indicative of a lack of care and involvement. This perception could inhibit children's motivation for learning and displaying positive social behaviors (Cheung and Pomerantz [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref174">11</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-25">Limitations and Future Directions</hd> <p>This study has several limitations. Firstly, the findings were derived from a sample primarily consisting of middle‐class families from a megacity in China, and thus cannot be generalized to families from other socioeconomic backgrounds and regions. Secondly, our sample size was relatively small, with two profiles comprising only 43 and 25 families, respectively. This could result in underpowered analyses when testing the differences in child outcomes across profiles. Thirdly, we relied on self‐reports of parenting, which might deviate from parents' actual behaviors. Fourthly, future research should include additional aspects of parental structure, such as clarity and consistency of rules and expectations. Moreover, our study overlooks other aspects of parenting valued in Chinese culture within the warmth‐control‐structure framework, such as instrumental expressions of love. To further validate our findings, future research needs to use larger and more representative samples, incorporate both parent‐reported and observational data on parenting practices, and include a wider range of culturally specific parenting dimensions. In addition, we only assessed children's early academic and social–behavioral outcomes. A wider array of child outcomes, such as mental health wellbeing, should be included to better understand the broad impact of parenting styles. Finally, we used a longitudinal design over one‐and‐a‐half years, but some outcomes of particular parenting behaviors may manifest themselves in later developmental stages. Therefore, future studies covering a longer time span may provide more conclusive evidence on the persistence of parenting styles as well as their lasting impact on various domains of child development.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-26">Conclusions</hd> <p>Our study is one of the first to examine joint parenting styles in Chinese families with preschool‐aged children, integrating both traditionally valued and Western‐emphasized aspects of parenting. This helps capture the complexity of parenting within a rapidly changing context. Using a person‐centered approach, we identified four distinct joint parenting styles among Chinese families, thereby further challenging a monolithic and often pathologizing view of Chinese parenting. In particular, the strict‐affectionate and moderately supportive parenting styles reflect parents' efforts to negotiate between China's cultural traditions and the rapidly changing sociocultural context, offering a valuable point of reference for researchers in non‐Western societies undergoing rapid social changes. By anchoring the analysis in the warmth‐control‐structure framework, our findings enable comparisons with the existing scholarship using the well‐established fourfold typology of parenting styles. Meanwhile, our inclusion of both culturally ingrained and imported parenting practices facilitates a more nuanced and dynamic understanding of the diverse forms and functions of parenting across cultures, especially in times of increased globalization. Whereas the overall adaptiveness of the strict‐affectionate parenting style evidenced the cultural interpretation and narrative of parenting, the suboptimal outcomes of the moderately supportive parenting style underscore the unique impact that positive parenting aspects can have on child development.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-27">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>We thank all the families and schools that participated in the study. We also thank all the research assistants who supported with data collection and data management. The data necessary to reproduce the analyses presented here are not publicly accessible. The analytic code necessary to reproduce the analyses presented in this paper is not publicly accessible. The materials necessary to attempt to replicate the findings presented here are not publicly accessible. However, some of the data, analytic code, and materials can be made available based on reasonable requests made to the corresponding author. The analyses presented here were not preregistered. This study is funded by the Research Development Fund of Xi'an Jiaotong‐Liverpool University [RDF‐22‐02‐024].</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-28">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data used in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-29">A Appendix</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics and correlations among the parenting dimensions included in the latent profile analysis (<emph>N</emph> = 300).</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="center">1</th><th align="center">2</th><th align="center">3</th><th align="center">4</th><th align="center">5</th><th align="center">6</th><th align="center">7</th><th align="center">8</th><th align="center">9</th><th align="center">10</th><th align="center">11</th><th align="center">12</th><th align="center">13</th><th align="center">14</th><th align="center">15</th><th align="center">16</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>F‐Acceptance</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>F‐Verbal hostility</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">−0.14*</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>F‐Coercive discipline</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">−0.18**</td><td align="center">0.53***</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>F‐Psychological control</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">−0.04</td><td align="center">0.31***</td><td align="center">0.49***</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>F‐Autonomy granting</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">0.60***</td><td align="center">−0.15**</td><td align="center">−0.19***</td><td align="center">−0.05</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>F‐Reasoning</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">0.61***</td><td align="center">−0.20***</td><td align="center">−0.27***</td><td align="center">−0.11</td><td align="center">0.67***</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>F‐Encouragement of modesty</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">−0.24***</td><td align="center">0.16**</td><td align="center">0.34***</td><td align="center">0.40***</td><td align="center">−0.08</td><td align="center">−0.19***</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>F‐Directiveness</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">−0.001</td><td align="center">0.28***</td><td align="center">0.44***</td><td align="center">0.45***</td><td align="center">−0.13*</td><td align="center">−0.08</td><td align="center">0.20***</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>M‐Acceptance</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">0.44***</td><td align="center">−0.04</td><td align="center">−0.15**</td><td align="center">−0.14*</td><td align="center">0.33***</td><td align="center">0.35***</td><td align="center">−0.20***</td><td align="center">−0.04</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>M‐Verbal hostility</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">−0.08</td><td align="center">0.29***</td><td align="center">0.37***</td><td align="center">0.30***</td><td align="center">−0.08</td><td align="center">−0.16**</td><td align="center">0.15*</td><td align="center">0.26***</td><td align="center">−0.28***</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>M‐Coercive discipline</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">−0.12*</td><td align="center">0.21***</td><td align="center">0.51***</td><td align="center">0.38***</td><td align="center">−0.09</td><td align="center">−0.14*</td><td align="center">0.31***</td><td align="center">0.31***</td><td align="center">−0.36***</td><td align="center">0.69***</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>M‐Psychological control</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">−0.10</td><td align="center">0.18**</td><td align="center">0.38***</td><td align="center">0.47***</td><td align="center">−0.03</td><td align="center">−0.13*</td><td align="center">0.32***</td><td align="center">0.24***</td><td align="center">−0.23***</td><td align="center">0.48***</td><td align="center">0.56***</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>M‐Autonomy granting</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">0.33***</td><td align="center">−0.04</td><td align="center">−0.15**</td><td align="center">−0.16**</td><td align="center">0.38***</td><td align="center">0.34***</td><td align="center">−0.15*</td><td align="center">−0.07</td><td align="center">0.64***</td><td align="center">−0.28***</td><td align="center">−0.36***</td><td align="center">−0.23***</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>M‐Reasoning</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">0.38***</td><td align="center">−0.09</td><td align="center">−0.12*</td><td align="center">−0.12*</td><td align="center">0.34***</td><td align="center">0.46***</td><td align="center">−0.12*</td><td align="center">−0.003</td><td align="center">0.66***</td><td align="center">−0.31***</td><td align="center">−0.38***</td><td align="center">−0.24***</td><td align="center">0.68***</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>M‐Encouragement of modesty</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">< 0.001</td><td align="center">0.09</td><td align="center">0.19***</td><td align="center">0.22***</td><td align="center">0.10</td><td align="center">0.01</td><td align="center">0.43***</td><td align="center">0.12*</td><td align="center">−0.18**</td><td align="center">0.23***</td><td align="center">0.34***</td><td align="center">0.37***</td><td align="center">−0.08</td><td align="center">−0.13*</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>M‐Directiveness</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center">0.05</td><td align="center">0.02</td><td align="center">0.20***</td><td align="center">0.23***</td><td align="center">−0.05</td><td align="center">−0.001</td><td align="center">0.10</td><td align="center">0.36***</td><td align="center">0.02</td><td align="center">0.35***</td><td align="center">0.39***</td><td align="center">0.32***</td><td align="center">−0.12*</td><td align="center">−0.06</td><td align="center">0.10</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Mean</td><td align="center">4.10</td><td align="center">1.99</td><td align="center">1.79</td><td align="center">1.82</td><td align="center">3.76</td><td align="center">4.14</td><td align="center">1.59</td><td align="center">2.78</td><td align="center">4.22</td><td align="center">2.10</td><td align="center">1.76</td><td align="center">1.72</td><td align="center">3.76</td><td align="center">4.15</td><td align="center">1.53</td><td align="center">2.82</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SD</td><td align="center">0.57</td><td align="center">0.60</td><td align="center">0.54</td><td align="center">0.79</td><td align="center">0.72</td><td align="center">0.65</td><td align="center">0.75</td><td align="center">0.74</td><td align="center">0.54</td><td align="center">0.64</td><td align="center">0.58</td><td align="center">0.70</td><td align="center">0.72</td><td align="center">0.63</td><td align="center">0.70</td><td align="center">0.70</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>Note:</emph> "F" represents fathers, and "M" represents mothers. *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05; **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01; ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-30">B Appendix</hd> <p>Descriptions of child development and their correlations with different parenting dimensions.</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="center">T1 child development</th><th align="center">T2 Chinese reading</th><th align="center">T2 early math skills</th><th align="center">T2 social skills</th><th align="center">T2 problem behaviors</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">F‐Acceptance</td><td align="center">0.13*</td><td align="center">0.003</td><td align="center">0.14*</td><td align="center">0.19**</td><td align="center">−0.14*</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F‐Verbal hostility</td><td align="center">−0.12</td><td align="center">0.03</td><td align="center">−0.04</td><td align="center">−0.07</td><td align="center">0.10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F‐Coercive discipline</td><td align="center">−0.20***</td><td align="center">−0.01</td><td align="center">−0.10</td><td align="center">−0.15*</td><td align="center">0.21***</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F‐Psychological control</td><td align="center">−0.14*</td><td align="center">0.05</td><td align="center">0.01</td><td align="center">0.01</td><td align="center">0.11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F‐Autonomy granting</td><td align="center">0.15*</td><td align="center">0.11</td><td align="center">0.16**</td><td align="center">0.15*</td><td align="center">−0.09</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F‐Reasoning</td><td align="center">0.17**</td><td align="center">0.12*</td><td align="center">0.18**</td><td align="center">0.15*</td><td align="center">−0.16**</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F‐Encouragement of modesty</td><td align="center">−0.17**</td><td align="center">−0.04</td><td align="center">−0.18**</td><td align="center">−0.09</td><td align="center">0.21***</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F‐Directiveness</td><td align="center">−0.12*</td><td align="center">−0.01</td><td align="center">0.01</td><td align="center">−0.07</td><td align="center">0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M‐Acceptance</td><td align="center">0.12*</td><td align="center">0.01</td><td align="center">0.09</td><td align="center">0.19**</td><td align="center">−0.11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M‐Verbal hostility</td><td align="center">−0.10</td><td align="center">0.02</td><td align="center">−0.02</td><td align="center">−0.15*</td><td align="center">0.25***</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M‐Coercive discipline</td><td align="center">−0.17**</td><td align="center">−0.03</td><td align="center">−0.10</td><td align="center">−0.16**</td><td align="center">0.30***</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M‐Psychological control</td><td align="center">−0.11</td><td align="center">0.03</td><td align="center">−0.06</td><td align="center">−0.08</td><td align="center">0.15*</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M‐Autonomy granting</td><td align="center">0.23***</td><td align="center">0.09</td><td align="center">0.15*</td><td align="center">0.21***</td><td align="center">−0.11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M‐Reasoning</td><td align="center">0.22***</td><td align="center">0.10</td><td align="center">0.22***</td><td align="center">0.21***</td><td align="center">−0.15*</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M‐Encouragement of modesty</td><td align="center">−0.09</td><td align="center">−0.06</td><td align="center">−0.06</td><td align="center">−0.08</td><td align="center">0.12*</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M‐Directiveness</td><td align="center">−0.01</td><td align="center">−0.004</td><td align="center">0.08</td><td align="center">−0.06</td><td align="center">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>n</italic></td><td align="center">289</td><td align="center">286</td><td align="center">286</td><td align="center">280</td><td align="center">280</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Mean</td><td align="center">0</td><td align="center">31.85</td><td align="center">0</td><td align="center">89.68</td><td align="center">18.75</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SD</td><td align="center">0.75</td><td align="center">22.77</td><td align="center">0.84</td><td align="center">18.18</td><td align="center">11.77</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 <emph>Note:</emph> "F" represents fathers, and "M" represents mothers. *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05; **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01; ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</p> <hd id="AN0186282406-31">C Appendix</hd> <p>A depiction of the 2‐Profile (Top) and 3‐Profile (Bottom) models.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/CDV/01jul25/cdev14236-gra-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="cdev14236-gra-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>. "F" = fathers, and "M" = mothers. The three broad domains (i.e., parental warmth, control, and structure) are denoted on top of the figure. Specific parenting dimensions are listed at the bottom of the figure. Autonomy, autonomy granting; Discipline, coercive discipline; Hostility, verbal hostility; Modesty, encouragement of modesty; Psych control, psychological control; Reasoning, reasoning/induction; W/Acceptance, warm/acceptance.</p> <ref id="AN0186282406-33"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref119" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: This study is funded by the Research Development Fund of Xi'an Jiaotong‐Liverpool University (RDF‐22‐02‐024).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186282406-34"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Asparouhov, T., and B. Muthén. 2014. " Auxiliary Variables in Mixture Modeling: Using the BCH Method in Mplus to Estimate a Distal Outcome Model and an Arbitrary Second Model." Mplus Web Notes 21 : 1 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref20" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aunola, K., H. Stattin, and J.‐E. Nurmi. 2000. " Parenting Styles and Adolescents' Achievement Strategies." Journal of Adolescence 23 : 205 – 222. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2000.0308.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref61" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barnett, M. A., M. Deng, W. R. Mills‐Koonce, M. Willoughby, and M. Cox. 2008. " Interdependence of Parenting of Mothers and Fathers of Infants." Journal of Family Psychology 22 : 561 – 573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893‐3200.22.3.561.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref3" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baumrind, D. 1971. " Current Patterns of Parental Authority." Developmental Psychology 4 : 1 – 103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030372.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref14" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baumrind, D. 1991. " Parenting Styles and Adolescent Development." In The Encyclopedia of Adolescence, edited by J. Brooks‐Gunn, R. Lerner, and A. C. Petersen, 746 – 758. Garland.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref15" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baumrind, D. 2012. " Differentiating Between Confrontive and Coercive Kinds of Parental Power‐Assertive Disciplinary Practices." Human Development 55 : 35 – 51. https://doi.org/10.1159/000337962.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref17" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chao, R. K. 1994. " Beyond Parental Control and Authoritarian Parenting Style: Understanding Chinese Parenting Through the Cultural Notion of Training." Child Development 65 : 1111 – 1119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.1994.tb00806.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref167" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, W.‐W. 2015. " The Relations Between Perceived Parenting Styles and Academic Achievement in Hong Kong: The Mediating Role of Students' Goal Orientations." Learning and Individual Differences 37 : 48 – 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.021.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, X., Y. Bian, T. Xin, L. Wang, and R. K. Silbereisen. 2010. " Perceived Social Change and Childrearing Attitudes in China." European Psychologist 15 : 260 – 270. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016‐9040/a000060.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, X., R. Fu, and W. Y. V. Yiu. 2019. " Culture and Parenting." In Handbook of Parenting: Volume 2: Biology and Ecology of Parenting, edited by M. H. Bornstein, 3rd ed., 448 – 473. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429401459‐14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheung, C. S., and E. M. Pomerantz. 2012. " Why Does Parents' Involvement Enhance Children's Achievement? The Role of Parent‐Oriented Motivation." Journal of Educational Psychology 104, no. 3 : 820 – 832. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027183.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cox, M. J., and B. Paley. 2003. " Understanding Families as Systems." Current Directions in Psychological Science 12 : 193 – 196. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐8721.01259.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davidov, M. 2021. " Cultural Moderation of the Effects of Parenting: Answered and Unanswered Questions." Child Development Perspectives 15 : 189 – 195. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12422.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferguson, S. L., G. Moore, E. W, and D. M. Hull. 2020. " Finding Latent Groups in Observed Data: A Primer on Latent Profile Analysis in Mplus for Applied Researchers." International Journal of Behavioral Development 44 : 458 – 468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025419881721.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fung, J., and A. S. Lau. 2012. " Tough Love or Hostile Domination? Psychological Control and Relational Induction in Cultural Context." Journal of Family Psychology 26 : 966 – 975. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030457.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gamble, W. C., S. Ramakumar, and A. Diaz. 2007. " Maternal and Paternal Similarities and Differences in Parenting: An Examination of Mexican‐American Parents of Young Children." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 22 : 72 – 88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.11.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gresham, F. M., and S. N. Elliott. 2008. Social Skills Improvement System: Rating Scales. Pearson Assessments.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grolnick, W. S. 2012. " The Relations Among Parental Power Assertion, Control, and Structure: Commentary on Baumrind." Human Development 55 : 57 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1159/000338533.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grolnick, W. S., and E. M. Pomerantz. 2009. " Issues and Challenges in Studying Parental Control: Toward a New Conceptualization." Child Development Perspectives 3, no. 3 : 165 – 170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750‐8606.2009.00099.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grolnick, W. S., J. N. Raftery‐Helmer, K. N. Marbell, E. S. Flamm, E. V. Cardemil, and M. Sanchez. 2014. " Parental Provision of Structure: Implementation and Correlates in Three Domains." Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly 60 : 355 – 384. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.60.3.0355.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helwig, C. C., S. To, Q. Wang, C. Liu, and S. Yang. 2014. " Judgments and Reasoning About Parental Discipline Involving Induction and Psychological Control in China and Canada." Child Development 85, no. 3 : 1150 – 1167. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12183.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ho, D. Y. F. 1986. " Chinese Pattern of Socialization: A Critical Review." In The Psychology of the Chinese People, edited by M. H. Bond, 1 – 37. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoeve, M., A. Blokland, J. S. Dubas, R. Loeber, J. R. M. Gerris, and P. H. Van der laan. 2008. " Trajectories of Delinquency and Parenting Styles." Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 36 : 223 – 235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802‐007‐9172‐x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howard, M. C., and M. E. Hoffman. 2018. " Variable‐Centered, Person‐Centered, and Person‐Specific Approaches: Where Theory Meets the Method." Organizational Research Methods 21, no. 4 : 846 – 876. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117744021.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, S. W., K. E. Brown, and V. L. Fong. 2017. " Chinese Individualisms: Childrearing Aspirations for the Next Generation of Middle‐Class Chinese Citizens." Ethos 45 : 342 – 366. https://doi.org/10.1111/etho.12168.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, S. Y., Y. Wang, D. Orozco‐Lapray, Y. Shen, and M. Murtuza. 2013. " Does "Tiger Parenting" Exist? Parenting Profiles of Chinese Americans and Adolescent Developmental Outcomes." Asian American Journal of Psychology 4 : 7 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030612.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koehn, A. J., and K. A. Kerns. 2018. " Parent–Child Attachment: Meta‐Analysis of Associations With Parenting Behaviors in Middle Childhood and Adolescence." Attachment & Human Development 20 : 378 – 405. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2017.1408131.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuan, T. 2015. Love's Uncertainty: The Politics and Ethics of Child Rearing in Contemporary China. University of California Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuppens, S., and E. Ceulemans. 2019. " Parenting Styles: A Closer Look at a Well‐Known Concept." Journal of Child and Family Studies 28 : 168 – 181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826‐018‐1242‐x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lan, X. 2023. " Perceived Parenting Styles, Cognitive Flexibility, and Prosocial Behavior in Chinese Youth With an Immigrant Background: A Three‐Group Comparison." Current Psychology 42 : 20718 – 20736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144‐022‐03140‐9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, H., H. Shu, C. McBride‐Chang, H. Liu, and H. Peng. 2012. " Chinese Children's Character Recognition: Visuo‐Orthographic, Phonological Processing and Morphological Skills." Journal of Research in Reading 35 : 287 – 307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9817.2010.01460.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, X. 2020. " Fathers' Involvement in Chinese Societies: Increasing Presence, Uneven Progress." Child Development Perspectives 14, no. 3 : 150 – 156. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12375.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, X., and M. E. Lamb. 2015. " Fathering in Chinese Culture: Traditions and Transitions." In Fathers Across Cultures: The Importance, Roles, and Diverse Practices of Dads, edited by J. L. Roopnarine, 273 – 306. Praeger.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lim, S. L., and B. K. Lim. 2003. " Parenting Style and Child Outcomes in Chinese and Immigrant Chinese Families‐Current Findings and Cross‐Cultural Considerations in Conceptualization and Research." Marriage & Family Review 35 : 21 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v35n03_03.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Linkiewich, D., V. V. Martinovich, C. M. Rinaldi, N. Howe, and R. Gokiert. 2021. " Parental Autonomy Support in Relation to Preschool Aged Children's Behavior: Examining Positive Guidance, Negative Control, and Responsiveness." Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry 26 : 810 – 822. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104521999762.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lu, H. J., and L. Chang. 2013. " Parenting and Socialization of Only Children in Urban China: An Example of Authoritative Parenting." Journal of Genetic Psychology 174 : 335 – 343. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2012.681325.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luo, R., C. S. Tamis‐LeMonda, and L. Song. 2013. " Chinese Parents' Goals and Practices in Early Childhood." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28 : 843 – 857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.08.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luo, Y., F. Chen, X. Zhang, et al. 2021. " Profiles of Maternal and Paternal Parenting Styles in Chinese Families: Relations to Preschoolers' Psychological Adjustment." Children and Youth Services Review 121 : 105787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105787.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maccoby, E. E., and J. A. Martin. 1983. " Socialization in the Context of the Family: Parent‐Child Interaction." In Handbook of Child Psychology: Socialization, Personality, and Social Development, edited by P. H. Mussen and E. M. Hetherington, 4th ed., 1 – 101. Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, A., R. M. Ryan, and J. Brooks‐Gunn. 2007. " The Joint Influence of Mother and Father Parenting on Child Cognitive Outcomes at Age 5." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 22 : 423 – 439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.07.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nylund, K. L., T. Asparouhov, and B. O. Muthén. 2007. " Deciding on the Number of Classes in Latent Class Analysis and Growth Mixture Modeling: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study." Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 14, no. 4 : 535 – 569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, H., J. A. Coello, and A. S. Lau. 2014. " Child Socialization Goals in East Asian Versus Western Nations From 1989 to 2010: Evidence for Social Change in Parenting." Parenting 14 : 69 – 91. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2014.914345.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pinquart, M. 2017a. " Associations of Parenting Dimensions and Styles With Internalizing Symptoms in Children and Adolescents: A Meta‐Analysis." Marriage & Family Review 53, no. 7 : 613 – 640. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2016.1247761.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pinquart, M. 2017b. " Associations of Parenting Dimensions and Styles With Externalizing Problems of Children and Adolescents: An Updated Meta‐Analysis." Developmental Psychology 53 : 873 – 932. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000295.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pinquart, M., and R. Kauser. 2018. " Do the Associations of Parenting Styles With Behavior Problems and Academic Achievement Vary by Culture? Results From a Meta‐Analysis." Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 24 : 75 – 100. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000149.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rao, N., J. Sun, M. Ng, et al. 2014. Validation, Finalization and Adoption of the East Asia‐Pacific Early Child Development Scales (EAP‐ECDS). UNICEF.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ren, L., J. Chen, X. Li, et al. 2021. " Extracurricular activities and Chinese children's school readiness: Who benefits more?." Child Development 92, no. 3 : 1028 – 1047. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13456c.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ren, L., and C. P. Edwards. 2015. " Pathways of Influence: Chinese Parents' Expectations, Parenting Styles, and Child Social Competence." Early Child Development and Care 185, no. 4 : 614 – 630. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2014.944908.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ren, L., and C. P. Edwards. 2016. " Contemporary Chinese Parents' Socialization Priorities for Preschoolers: A Mixed Methods Study." Early Child Development and Care 186, no. 11 : 1779 – 1791. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1132418.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, C. C., B. Mandleco, S. F. Olsen, and C. H. Hart. 1995. " Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Permissive Parenting Practices: Development of a New Measure." Psychological Reports 77, no. 3 : 819 – 830. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.819.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schrank, F. A., K. S. McGrew, and N. Mather. 2014. Woodcock‐Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Riverside.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simons, L. G., and R. D. Conger. 2007. " Linking Mother–Father Differences in Parenting to a Typology of Family Parenting Styles and Adolescent Outcomes." Journal of Family Issues 28 : 212 – 241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X06294593.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tein, J. Y., S. Coxe, and H. Cham. 2013. " Statistical Power to Detect the Correct Number of Classes in Latent Profile Analysis." Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 20 : 640 – 657. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.824781.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Way, N., S. Okazaki, J. Zhao, et al. 2013. " Social and Emotional Parenting: Mothering in a Changing Chinese Society." Asian American Journal of Psychology 4 : 61 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031204.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winsler, A., A. L. Madigan, and S. A. Aquilino. 2005. " Correspondence Between Maternal and Paternal Parenting Styles in Early Childhood." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 20 : 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2005.01.007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, P., C. C. Robinson, C. Yang, et al. 2002. " Similarities and Differences in Mothers' Parenting of Preschoolers in China and the United States." International Journal of Behavioral Development 26 : 481 – 491. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250143000436.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xie, S., and H. Li. 2019. " 'Tiger Mom, Panda Dad': A Study of Contemporary Chinese Parenting Profiles." Early Child Development and Care 189, no. 2 : 284 – 300. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2017.1318870.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yan, Y., ed. 2021. Chinese Families Upside Down: Intergenerational Dynamics and Neo‐Familism in the Early 21st Century. Vol. 42. Brill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, W., X. Wei, L. Ji, L. Chen, and K. Deater‐Deckard. 2017. " Reconsidering Parenting in Chinese Culture: Subtypes, Stability, and Change of Maternal Parenting Style During Early Adolescence." Journal of Youth and Adolescence 46 : 1117 – 1136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964‐017‐0664‐x.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lixin Ren; Yeqing Li; Xuan Li; Jiayi Li; Lin Li and Jieqiong Fan</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref172"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref174"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1475512
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Reconsidering the Typology of Parenting Styles and Its Association with Preschoolers' Development in Chinese Families
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lixin+Ren%22">Lixin Ren</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9176-3825">0000-0002-9176-3825</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yeqing+Li%22">Yeqing Li</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xuan+Li%22">Xuan Li</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9638-128X">0000-0001-9638-128X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jiayi+Li%22">Jiayi Li</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lin+Li%22">Lin Li</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jieqiong+Fan%22">Jieqiong Fan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8214-411X">0000-0001-8214-411X</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Child+Development%22"><i>Child Development</i></searchLink>. 2025 96(4):1326-1342.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classification%22">Classification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parenting+Styles%22">Parenting Styles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Development%22">Child Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Authoritarianism%22">Authoritarianism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Child+Relationship%22">Parent Child Relationship</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22China%22">China</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/cdev.14236
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0009-3920<br />1467-8624
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Using latent profile analysis, the study examined distinct joint parenting styles among Chinese families with preschoolers (N = 300; 51.7% girls; M[subscript age] = 55.97 months). This study incorporated maternal and paternal reports on multiple parenting dimensions that covered both Western- and Chinese-emphasized practices. Using data collected between 2017 and 2019 from Shanghai, four joint parenting styles emerged: authoritative (39.3%), moderately supportive (38.0%), strict-affectionate (14.3%), and authoritarian (8.4%). Authoritarian and moderately supportive parenting styles were linked to poorer child outcomes 1.5 years later compared to authoritative parenting. However, there were no significant differences in most child outcomes between authoritative and strict-affectionate parenting. These findings necessitate a reevaluation of the parenting typology and its effects on child development in the Chinese context.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1475512
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1475512
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/cdev.14236
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 1326
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Classification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parenting Styles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Authoritarianism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Child Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: China
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Reconsidering the Typology of Parenting Styles and Its Association with Preschoolers' Development in Chinese Families
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lixin Ren
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yeqing Li
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xuan Li
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jiayi Li
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lin Li
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jieqiong Fan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0009-3920
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1467-8624
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 96
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Child Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1