Next Article in Journal
Postnatal Outcomes of Fetuses with Prenatal Diagnosis of 6–9.9 mm Pyelectasis
Previous Article in Journal
Mental Health in Children, Adolescents, and Youths Living with Perinatally Acquired HIV: At the Crossroads of Psychosocial Determinants of Health
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Children
Volume 10
Issue 2
10.3390/children10020406
children-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Warm and Harsh Parenting, Self-Kindness and Self-Judgment, and Well-Being: An Examination of Developmental Differences in a Large Sample of Adolescents

by
Yizhen Ren
1,†,
Xinli Chi
2,3,†,
He Bu
4,
Liuyue Huang
5,6,
Shaofan Wang
7,
Ying Zhang
2,3,
Di Zeng
2,3,
Hao Shan
2,3 and
Can Jiao
2,3,*
1
Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
2
School of Psychology, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518061, China
3
The Shenzhen Humanities & Social Sciences Key Research Bases of the Center for Mental Health, Shenzhen 518061, China
4
Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China
5
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Macau, Macao SAR, China
6
Center for Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Institute of Collaborative Innovation, University of Macau, Macao SAR, China
7
Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Children 2023, 10(2), 406; https://doi.org/10.3390/children10020406
Submission received: 20 December 2022 / Revised: 31 January 2023 / Accepted: 8 February 2023 / Published: 19 February 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Objectives: This study aimed to examine the associations between warm and harsh parenting and adolescent well-being, and the mediating effects of self-kindness and self-judgment, in relationships. Moreover, this study investigated developmental differences across three adolescence stages (early, middle, and late). Methods: In total, 14,776 Chinese adolescents (mean age = 13.53 ± 2.08, 52.3% males), including individuals in early (10–12 years old, N = 5055), middle (13–15 years old, N = 6714), and late adolescence (16–18 years old, N = 3007) participated in this study. All the adolescents rated their levels of warm and harsh parenting, self-kindness and self-judgment, and well-being. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was adopted to examine the mediation model. Multi-group analysis was conducted to investigate differences in the mediation model across the different developmental stages. Results: Both warm and harsh parenting were related to adolescent well-being through the mediating effects of self-kindness and self-judgment. However, warm parenting exerted a more substantial impact on adolescent well-being. Self-kindness had a more robust mediating effect than self-judgment in relationships. Moreover, harsh parenting had a weaker impact on adolescent well-being in late adolescence than in early and middle adolescence. Warm parenting had a more significant impact on adolescent well-being in early adolescence than in middle and late adolescence. Conclusions: Overall, warm parenting had a more substantial effect than harsh parenting on adolescent well-being. The findings also highlighted the crucial mediating effect of self-kindness in the relationships between parenting and well-being. Moreover, this study also indicated the importance of warm parenting in early adolescence. Intervention programs should focus on enhancing the level of warm parenting to promote self-kindness in adolescents, in order to improve their well-being.

1. Introduction

Well-being is recognized as critical in adolescent development. Based on the ecological perspective of adolescent development [1,2,3], family and parental factors play significant roles in adolescent well-being [4,5,6,7]. Parenting style, as demonstrated by parents’ emotional attitudes toward the child [8], affects adolescent well-being [9] by influencing the ways adolescents connect to themselves [10]. The current study investigated whether warm and harsh parenting, as two typical representations of parenting style dimensions [11,12], would relate to adolescent well-being through the mediating effects of self-kindness and self-judgment. Due to the nature of turbulence in adolescence [13], the associations may differ across early, middle, and late adolescence stages [10], which have yet to be fully addressed in the existing literature. Therefore, this study further investigated whether there were developmental differences in the relationships across the adolescence stages.

1.1. Parenting and Adolescent Well-Being

According to ecological systems theory [1,2,3], adolescent development is shaped by interactions between individuals and their contexts (e.g., family, school, community, and society). The family has been acknowledged as the primary proximal socialization environment that exerts an immediate on adolescents [5,6,10,14]. Accordingly, adolescent adjustments are embedded in children’s proximal interaction processes with parents within the family [1,3], which has also been emphasized by family system theory [15,16]. Parenting behavior, constituting the most proximal family interaction environment [3,17], has been shown to be important in promoting adolescent adjustments [17,18,19,20]. The present study explores the relationship between parenting behavior and adolescent well-being, with a particular emphasis on the significance of parenting style within the family setting.
According to the integrative model of parenting [8], parenting style, referring to the emotional attitude of parents toward the child, plays a crucial role in shaping a good parent–child relationship and children’s adjustments [7,18]. Parenting styles have been classically conceptualized as two broad parenting dimensions: responsiveness and demandingness [11]. Responsiveness refers to parents’ providing of support, responsive care, and sensitivity to children’s needs to aid their development, while demandingness refers to their supervising and enforcing discipline efforts [11,12]. The current study focused on warm and harsh parenting as the representative parenting styles for responsiveness and demandingness. Warm and harsh parenting are crucial in forming and maintaining a good parent–child relationship and have significant impacts on children’s multiple psychological adjustment outcomes [9,21,22,23,24]. However, few studies have simultaneously analyzed both warm and harsh parenting styles to determine their relative impact on adolescent well-being. Well-being refers to subjective feelings of happiness and enjoyment as well as healthy and prosperous individual functioning [10,14]. However, previous studies [4,5,6] assessing adolescent well-being have mainly used other indicators, such as life satisfaction and helplessness, rather than adolescent well-being itself. Moreover, with particular reference to adolescents, the well-being of this group is highly susceptible to external factors during the crucial developmental period [5,6,7,10,14]. Hence, it is meaningful to investigate the relative importance of warm and harsh parenting for adolescent well-being.

1.2. The Mediating Roles of Self-Kindness and Self-Judgment

To improve intervention programs, the mechanisms connecting parenting and adolescent well-being need clarification. Attachment theory suggests that parenting styles (warm and harsh) shape children’s internalized emotional attitudes, which influence the way children connect to themselves [9,10,25]. Therefore, the current study focused on self-kindness and self-judgment as potential mediators in the relationships. Self-kindness has been described as a beneficial way of relating to oneself, while self-judgment reflects harshness and strictness with oneself [26]. In Gilbert’s social mentality theory, self-kindness can be considered as a kind of self-soothing behavior in the safeness system, which can downregulate the activated threat system, leading to better psychological outcomes [26,27]. However, self-judgment may stimulate the threat–defense system, elevating stress responses [26,27], and thus finally leading to decreasing levels of well-being.
Attachment theory could help us understand the mediating effects of self-kindness and self-judgment [9,10,25]. According to attachment theory, individuals gradually develop internal representations of the self and others from interactions with important caregivers, especially parents [25]. The attachment representations indicate not only expectations about the availability of other important figures but also feelings of self-worth and self-evaluation [10,28,29]. Adolescents are likely to internalize the emotional attitudes of their parents and formulate their attachment representations [10,23]. For example, if parents adopt harsh parenting toward adolescents and demonstrate intolerance toward their mistakes, the adolescents may formulate the beliefs that they are “bad” or unworthy of love, and become less self-kind, demonstrating more self-judgment instead [10], which may influence their well-being.
Moreover, according to parental acceptance–rejection theory [30,31], children’s psychological adjustment can be predicted by their perceptions of the extent of their parents’ acceptance or rejection of them. Children with perceptions of acceptance from parents have better psychological outcomes, such as greater emotional functioning and healthier personality dispositions [30,31]. Parental warmth can make children feel that they are being accepted and loved unconditionally [22,23], as well promoting trust and reciprocity in the parent–child relationship [23], promoting their self-esteem levels [24] and facilitating the children’s well-being. However, harsh parenting may make children perceive emotional rejection from parents, formulate negative evaluations about themselves, and finally experience devastating consequences such as hostility, negative mood states, and emotional instability [30,31,32,33]. Children who receive signals of rejection from parents tend to make negative evaluations of themselves and develop low levels of self-esteem, self-worth, and self-efficacy [30,31,32,33], and are more likely to have self-judgment, which may devastate their well-being.

1.3. Developmental Differences

Warm and harsh parenting may affect adolescent well-being differently in different developmental stages (i.e., early, middle, and late adolescence) because adolescents undergo rapid and profound changes across adolescence. The differences may exist at both variable and relationship levels. In terms of the variable level, adolescence is a critical period for decreasing levels of well-being [7] and life satisfaction [6], and instead leads to more and more hopelessness [6,7]. Moreover, previous research has also suggested that gradual declines in negative parenting behaviors enhance parent–child relationship quality [7]. In terms of the relationship level, a previous study found that the impact of parental psychological control on adolescents’ meaning of life was more significant in early adolescence than in late adolescence [5]. Researchers have attributed this to adolescents’ growing autonomy and competence, making them less susceptible to parenting behaviors as they get older [5]. However, no previous studies have investigated the developmental differences in relationships among warm and harsh parenting, self-kindness, self-judgment, and adolescent well-being.

1.4. The Current Study

This study examined the relationships and mediating mechanisms between warm and harsh parenting and well-being among a large sample of Chinese adolescents. Moreover, this study investigated the developmental differences across early, middle, and late adolescence. We hypothesized that warm and harsh parenting would relate to well-being through increased self-kindness and decreased self-judgment among adolescents. Moreover, we hypothesized that the relationships may differ across the different adolescence stages, such that warm and harsh parenting may have a greater impact on well-being in the early adolescence stage (please Figure 1).

2. Methods

2.1. Procedure

In December 2021, we collected the data for this study in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, China. With the support of the Shenzhen Academy of Educational Sciences, a convenience sampling method was used to collect data in 28 primary and secondary schools. The Human Research Ethics Committee of the corresponding authors’ university approved the methods generating the data used in the study (Code number: PN-2021-0069). Teachers informed participants about the study before data collection. Participants completed online questionnaires in the school computer room upon giving consent. They were assured that all personal information would be kept strictly confidential.

2.2. Participants

The participants included 15,492 students, of whom 14,776 (95.38%) returned valid questionnaires. A total of 7728 boys and 7048 girls were enrolled in the current study. The participants’ mean age was 13.53 (SD = 2.08). Adolescents belong to three developmental stages [13,34], including early (10–12 years old, N = 5055), middle (13–15 years old, N = 6714), and late adolescence (16–18 years old, N = 3007). In the sample, 25.6% of the participants were the only children in their families. In the total model, age, gender, and only-child status were treated as control variables in the analysis (see Table 1).

2.3. Measurements

2.3.1. Warm and Harsh Parenting

Warm and harsh parenting were assessed by two subscales of the brief version of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ) [35]. The warm parenting subscale includes three items (i.e., “My parents praise me if I behave well”, “My parents let me know when I am doing a good job with something”, and “My parents compliment me when I do something well”). The harsh parenting subscale also includes three items (i.e., “My parents spank me with their hands when I have done something wrong”, “My parents slap me when I have done something wrong”, and “My parents hit me with a belt, switch, or other objects when I have done something wrong”). Each item is rated on a Likert scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always). The Chinese version of the APQ has been validated and widely used in Chinese populations [35,36]. In the current study, the Cronbach’s α of warm and harsh parenting reported by adolescents were 0.94 and 0.85, respectively.

2.3.2. Self-Kindness and Self-Judgment

Adolescent self-kindness and self-judgment were assessed using the self-compassion scale—youth version (SCS–Y), which has demonstrated good reliability and validity in Chinese adolescents [37,38]. It consists of 17 items divided into six subscales: self-kindness, self-judgment, common humanity, isolation, mindfulness, and over-identification. Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). The items for self-kindness and self-judgment were used in the current study. Higher scores indicate higher levels of self-kindness and self-judgment. The Cronbach’s α of self-kindness and self-judgment in the present study were 0.80 and 0.70, respectively.

2.3.3. Well-Being

Adolescent well-being was assessed by the WHO-Five Well-Being Index [39,40], which was developed by the World Health Organization. Each item is rated on a six-point scale ranging from 0 (all of the time) to 5 (at no time). Higher scores indicate higher levels of well-being. Good reliability and validity have been reported in Chinese populations [41]. The Cronbach’s α in this study was 0.95.

2.3.4. Control Variables

In the children’s questionnaires, we collected the child’s age, gender (male or female), and only-child status (i.e., whether their family had only one child or more than one child). All of these variables were controlled in the subsequent analysis.

2.4. Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlational analysis were conducted in SPSS 23.0. The present study performed structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the mediation model in Mplus 8.3. Bootstrap analysis with 2000 replicates and a 95% confidence interval was used to examine the significance of the mediation effects. Adolescent characteristics, including age, gender, and only-child status were treated as control variables in the analysis. The standardized summed composite scores of each scale were used in the SEM analysis. Then we conducted multi-group analysis to investigate differences in the mediation model across different developmental stages (early adolescence: 10–18 years old; middle adolescence: 13–15 years old; and late adolescence: 16–18 years old).

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary Analysis

Table 2 presents the study variables’ means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations. This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results and their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.

3.2. The Mediation Model

After controlling for a series of confounding variables, the tested model obtained acceptable fit indices (RMSEA = 0.070, CFI = 0.961, TLI = 0.952, SRMR = 0.042). The details of the mediation model are shown in Table 3 and the specific paths of relationships appear in Figure 2. As Table 3 illustrates, the 95% bootstrap confidence interval of the mediation effects of self-kindness and self-judgment did not include zero. Thus, these mediation effects were all statistically significant. In the overall model, warm and harsh parenting were also directly related to adolescent well-being (β = 0.199, β = −0.073, p < 0.001). The bootstrap tests showed that warm parenting had a greater impact than harsh parenting on adolescent well-being (95%CI [0.229, 0.280]).
We also conducted bootstrap analysis to examine the mediating effect differences (the mediating effect of self-kindness versus the mediating effect of self-judgment). The results showed that the mediating effect of self-kindness was more robust than that of self-judgment in the relationship between warm parenting and adolescent well-being (95%CI [0.126, 0.147]). In the relationship between harsh parenting and adolescent well-being, self-kindness also demonstrated a stronger mediating effect than self-judgment (95%CI [−0.022, −0.007]).

3.3. Multi-Group Analysis across Developmental Stages of Adolescence

In the multi-group analysis, the metric invariance and scalar invariance of the measurement model across adolescent developmental stages were verified. The model with free estimated structural paths fitted data well (χ2 = 2076.899, df = 117, RMSEA = 0.058, CFI = 0.976, TLI = 0.970, SRMR = 0.025). The model with constrained estimated structural paths also fitted the data well (χ2 = 2178.556, df =133, RMSEA = 0.056, CFI = 0.975, TLI = 0.972, SRMR = 0.030). The differences between the model with free estimated paths and the model with constrained paths reached significant levels (Δχ2 = 101.657, Δdf = 16, p < 0.001). This indicated developmental differences across the three adolescence stages.

4. Discussion

The current study constructed a mediation model in which warm and harsh parenting were related to adolescent well-being through self-kindness and self-judgment. This study revealed that both warm and harsh parenting could influence adolescent well-being through the mediating effects of self-kindness and self-judgment. However, warm parenting exerted a more substantial impact than harsh parenting on adolescent well-being. Moreover, self-kindness demonstrated a more robust mediating effect than self-judgment in the relationships. In addition, warm parenting exerted a greater impact on adolescent well-being in early adolescence than in middle and late adolescence. Harsh parenting in early and middle adolescence had a greater impact on adolescent well-being than was the case in late adolescence. Notably, even though the effect of warm parenting was a little weaker in middle and late adolescence than in early adolescence, it was still significant across all developmental stages, thereby highlighting the importance of warm parenting for adolescent well-being.

4.1. Warm and Harsh Parenting and Adolescent Well-Being

The current study found that warm and harsh parenting were related to adolescent well-being through the mediating effects of self-kindness and self-judgment. Moreover, warm parenting exerted a more substantial impact on adolescent well-being. Warm parenting could convey parents’ love and care to children, fulfill the basic psychological demands of children [23,42,43,44], and improve their well-being. Through warm parenting, parents can establish a warm emotional climate in the family [23], promote a good parent–child relationship [23], and improve emotional communications, all of which can improve adolescents’ well-being [44]. However, harsh parenting may lead to emotional fluctuations, hinder the parent–child relationship [45], and negatively influence adolescent well-being. Moreover, harsh parenting may be developmentally inappropriate for adolescents as they tend to obtain more and more independence and autonomy [12,46]. Under harsh parenting, adolescents may gradually lose confidence in their academic performance, have more negative perceptions of their competence in multiple domains [47], develop a pessimistic attitude toward the world and themselves, and finally experience a low level of well-being.

4.2. The Mediating Effects of Self-Kindness and Self-Judgment

The current study found significant mediating effects of self-kindness and self-judgment in the relationships. However, most notably it showed that it was mainly through increasing or decreasing self-kindness that parenting impacted adolescent well-being. This is similar to some previous results demonstrating a stronger connection between self-kindness and positive psychological indicators than between self-judgment and positive psychological indicators [48,49]. In a previous study [49], researchers identified the significant effects of self-kindness on children’s positive personal growth. However, they found that self-judgment could not significantly influence adolescents’ personal growth [49]. Another study also revealed stronger associations between self-kindness and positive psychological indicators, such as the meaning of life and life satisfaction, than was the case for self-judgment [48]. In contrast, self-judgment demonstrated stronger relationships with negative psychological adjustments [50,51]. Therefore, this study highlights the importance of enhancing self-kindness in adolescents to facilitate their well-being.
According to attachment theory [9,10,25] and parental acceptance–rejection theory [30,31], warm parenting can promote more positive interactions in the family [23], which may help children develop self-compassion skills [10]. Researchers have proposed that individuals can better develop self-soothing skills within security-boosting interactions with significant attachment figures [23,27,52]. Warm parenting can provide more caring, love, and sensitive responsiveness, and improve the attachment relationships between parents and the child [23], thereby creating the necessary foundations for a soothing system and the development of self-kindness [26], finally improving their well-being. In contrast, harsh parenting of adolescents does not provide the fundamental conditions for developing secure attachment and, consequently, self-compassion [10]. In such an emotional context, the soothing system is insufficiently developed, and the child is more likely to be self-judgmental rather than self-kind [26], leading to decreasing well-being levels.

4.3. Developmental Differences

In the current study, it was shown that warm parenting could significantly improve adolescent well-being across early, middle, and late adolescence, thereby highlighting the importance of warm parenting for adolescents. However, there were still differences. Specifically, the total effect of warm parenting was higher in early adolescence than in middle and late adolescence (See Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5). This may be because during early and middle adolescence the development from early to middle adolescence parallels the transition from elementary to middle school [12,13]. During this period, adolescents experience dramatic changes [12,47] and may be more emotionally susceptible to family influences. Moreover, previous studies also revealed the significance of parental behaviors, especially parental responses to adolescent emotions, during early adolescence [47,53].
The total effect of harsh parenting on adolescent well-being in early adolescence was similar to that seen in middle adolescence. However, the effect in late adolescence was much weaker. Moreover, harsh parenting was not significantly related to self-kindness and not directly related to adolescent well-being in late adolescence (See Figure 5). The decreasing susceptibility of adolescent well-being to harsh parenting can be attributed to the presence of greater developmental autonomy in late adolescence [5,13]. As adolescents grow older, they may become more independent [13] and are less likely to be affected by others.
In terms of the results, we found that perceived parenting style exerted stronger impacts on adolescent well-being during early adolescence than in late adolescence. The results were similar to previous findings [5,54], indicating different patterns of parenting influence across adolescence stages. For example, parental psychological control have different effects on the meaning of life in the early and late adolescence stages [5], which is possibly due to adolescents’ growing autonomy and independence and reduced susceptibility to parenting. From another point of view, this may also be partially explained by developmental changes in parenting [55], such as decreases in warmth and behavioral control as children age from 8 to 16, with sharper declines particularly after early adolescence.

4.4. Future Directions

This study did not examine possible gender differences. Previous studies have suggested that the child’s gender would influence perceptions of parenting style, adolescent self-attitudes [34,35,36], and psychological adjustments [31,32,33]. For example, one study [7] found a stronger association between parental psychological control and adolescent well-being in adolescent girls than in boys. Particularly for girls, harsh parenting would adversely influence adolescents’ sense of meaning in life and self-control, which enhances their problematic smartphone use, [56]. Additionally, harsh parenting was only directly and indirectly related to female depression, but not to male depression [57], highlighting the specific importance of harsh parenting for girls. Researchers [58,59,60] have also revealed potential gender differences in terms of self-attitudes. For example, self-identified men tended to have more self-compassion than women toward themselves [58]. Older females had the lowest self-compassion levels, compared with younger females or all-age males [59]. Future research may adopt multiple methods and measures to examine possible age and gender differences in these associations.
In our study, we found that harsh parenting perceived by adolescents had a weaker impact than warm parenting on their well-being. This may be partially explained by the Chinese cultural context. Chinese culture, for example, attaches great importance to collectivism and filial piety, which is reflected in traditional values such as respect for elders, obedience to norms, and fulfillment of family obligations [12,61]. Compared to Western parents, Chinese parents are less likely to express love outwardly through physical affection or verbal affirmations [62], are more likely to adopt harsh discipline methods [12], and attach less importance to autonomy [63]. Additionally, Chinese parents often adhere to the traditional belief that they should be both strict and affectionate toward their children [12]. For example, a previous study [46] identified four types of parenting styles in Chinese American parents, including “supportive”, “easygoing”, “harsh,” and “tiger” parenting. Notably, a significant proportion of Chinese families were found to adopt harsh or “tiger” parenting [46]. Under this circumstance, it is possible that adolescents in China may view strict or harsh parenting as a normal and expected part of family life. As a result, the negative effects of this type of parenting on adolescent well-being may be less pronounced. Furthermore, our study did not distinguish between fathers’ and mothers’ parenting roles. Considering the traditional image of parents, “strict father, kind mother” within families [64], parental gender may also play an important role in understanding the influence of harsh parenting on adolescent well-being. Future research may distinguish between fathers’ and mothers’ warm and harsh parenting to investigate the specific associations with adolescent well-being.
Finally, this study was conducted during the pandemic in China. Empirical studies have indicated the adverse influence of the pandemic on families [65,66,67]. During the pandemic, parents faced considerable stress in balancing multiple demands among work, life, and family [68]. Parents experienced elevated levels of parenting stress [67], which may have increased the possibility of adopting more harsh parenting [45]. Additionally, a recent study [65] reported a significant deterioration in parenting quality during the pandemic’s initial months compared with the pre-pandemic period. Hence, researchers [65] have stressed the importance of intervention programs to prevent prolonged individual and family problems by offering more support and guidance to families.
Our findings contribute to understanding parenting and well-being in adolescents from the ecological perspective of development. By investigating the mediating mechanism of self-attitudes (self-kindness and self-judgment), our findings suggest that it is important to improve self-kindness to promote adolescent well-being. Moreover, our study indicates the relative importance of warm parenting for adolescent well-being, particularly during early adolescence. Overall, our findings have indicated the significance of improving self-kindness in adolescents, particularly when adolescents experience reduced warm and increased harsh parenting within families.

4.5. Limitations

Some limitations need to be noted. First, the cross-sectional research design precluded us from exploring the causal links between parenting and adolescent well-being. Future research should adopt a longitudinal design to explore the casual associations and developmental trends between parenting and adolescent well-being Second, we collected data about parenting based only on adolescents’ reports. Future research might collect multiple sources of data (e.g., parents’ and adolescents’ mutual report) to test the relationships. Third, we only xplored the mediating effects of individual adolescent characteristics in the relationships between parenting and adolescent well-being. Future research might include both relational (i.e., parent–child attachment) and individual adolescent factors simultaneously to investigate the influence on adolescent well-being.

4.6. Implications

This study has several implications. First, programs aimed at enhancing warm parenting and reducing harsh parenting may constitute important intervention directions to improve well-being among adolescents. Therefore, it may be particularly beneficial to improve warm parenting for adolescents. Second, it is suggested that self-kindness should be recognized as promoting well-being among adolescents. Parents, teachers, and educators could facilitate the practice of self-kindness to help adolescent improve their well-being. Third, intervention programs should pay attention to improving self-kindness, particularly during early adolescence.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, both warm and harsh parenting were found to be related to adolescent well-being through the mediating effects of self-kindness and self-judgment. However, warm parenting exerted a more substantial impact than harsh parenting on adolescent well-being. Self-kindness was shown to have a more robust mediating effect than self-judgment in the relationships. Moreover, differences between developmental stages were identified in the relationships. Harsh parenting in late adolescence had a weaker impact on adolescent well-being than was the case in early and middle adolescence. Warm parenting exerted a greater impact on adolescent well-being in early adolescence than in middle and late adolescence.

Author Contributions

Literature search: S.W. and H.B.; Figures: D.Z.; Study design: C.J. and H.B.; Data collection: L.H. and Y.Z.; Data analysis: L.H., Y.R., Y.Z., D.Z. and H.S.; Writing: Y.R. and X.C.; Editing and Reviewing: C.J., H.B. and S.W.; All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was funded by Shenzhen Education Science Planning Project (grant number cgpy21001), Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (grant number 2021A1515011330), Shenzhen University-Lingnan University Joint Research Programme (grant number 202202001), and the Shenzhen Humanities & Social Sciences Key Research Bases of the Center for Mental Health, Shenzhen University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The project obtained ethical clearance from the Human Research Ethics Committee of Shenzhen University (Code number: PN-2021-0069; Approved Date: 22 December 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

This manuscript has been preregistered as: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2126840/v1; (accessed on 11 October 2022).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interest to disclose.

References

  1. Bronfenbrenner, U.; Ceci, S.J. Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychol. Rev. 1994, 101, 568–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Darling, N. Ecological Systems Theory: The Person in the Center of the Circles. Res. Hum. Dev. 2007, 4, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ogg, J.; Anthony, C.J. Process and context: Longitudinal effects of the interactions between parental involvement, parental warmth, and SES on academic achievement. J. Sch. Psychol. 2020, 78, 96–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Leung, J.T.Y.; Shek, D.T.L. Parental Control and Adolescent Wellbeing in Chinese Adolescents in Hong Kong. Child Indic. Res. 2019, 13, 703–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Shek, D.T.L.; Chai, C.W.Y.; Dou, D. Parenting factors and meaning of life among Chinese adolescents: A six-wave longitudinal study. J. Adolesc. 2021, 87, 117–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Shek, D.T.L.; Liang, L.Y. Psychosocial Factors Influencing Individual Well-Being in Chinese Adolescents in Hong Kong: A Six-Year Longitudinal Study. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2018, 13, 561–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Zhu, X.; Shek, D.T.L. Parental factors and adolescent well-being: Associations between developmental trajectories. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2021, 127, 106071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Darling, N.; Steinberg, L. Parenting styles context: An integrative model. Psychol. Bull. 1993, 113, 487–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Medeiros, C.; Gouveia, M.J.; Canavarro, M.C.; Moreira, H. The Indirect Effect of the Mindful Parenting of Mothers and Fathers on the Child’s Perceived Well-Being through the Child’s Attachment to Parents. Mindfulness 2016, 7, 916–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Moreira, H.; Gouveia, M.J.; Canavarro, M.C. Is Mindful Parenting Associated with Adolescents’ Well-being in Early and Middle/Late Adolescence? The Mediating Role of Adolescents’ Attachment Representations, Self-Compassion and Mindfulness. J. Youth Adolesc. 2018, 47, 1771–1788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Baumrind, D. The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. J. Early Adolesc. 1991, 11, 56–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhang, W.; Wei, X.; Ji, L.; Chen, L.; Deater-Deckard, K. Reconsidering Parenting in Chinese Culture: Subtypes, Stability, and Change of Maternal Parenting Style during Early Adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc. 2017, 46, 1117–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liu, S.; Wang, X.; Zou, S.; Wu, X. Adolescent problematic Internet use and parental involvement: The chain mediating effects of parenting stress and parental expectations across early, middle, and late adolescence. Fam. Process. 2022, 61, 1696–1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. King, V.; Boyd, L.M.; Pragg, B. Parent–Adolescent Closeness, Family Belonging, and Adolescent Well-Being across Family Structures. J. Fam. Issues 2018, 39, 2007–2036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cox, M.J.; Paley, B. Familes as systems. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1997, 48, 243–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Minuchin, P. Families and Individual Development: Provocations from the Field of Family Therapy. Child Dev. 1985, 56, 289–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hentges, R.F.; Wang, M.T. Gender Differences in the Developmental Cascade from Harsh Parenting to Educational Attainment: An Evolutionary Perspective. Child Dev. 2018, 89, 397–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Abidin, F.A.; Yudiana, W.; Fadilah, S.H. Parenting Style and Emotional Well-Being among Adolescents: The Role of Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction and Frustration. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 901646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Ren, W.; Zhu, X. Parental Mediation and Adolescents’ Internet Use: The Moderating Role of Parenting Style. J. Youth Adolesc. 2022, 51, 1483–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhu, Q.; Cheong, Y.; Wang, C.; Tong, J. The impact of maternal and paternal parenting styles and parental involvement on Chinese adolescents’ academic engagement and burnout. Curr. Psychol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Etkin, R.G.; Koss, K.J.; Cummings, E.M.; Davies, P.T. The Differential Impact of Parental Warmth on Externalizing Problems among Triangulated Adolescents. J. Genet. Psychol. 2014, 175, 118–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Li, S.; Lei, H.; Tian, L. A meta-analysis of the relationship between parenting style and Internet addiction among mainland Chinese teenagers. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2018, 46, 1475–1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Liu, Q.; Wang, Z. Associations between parental emotional warmth, parental attachment, peer attachment, and adolescents’ character strengths. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2021, 120, 105765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chong, C.-H.; Yeo, K.-J.; Mislan, N. A Preliminary Study on Relationship between Warmth Parenting and Self-esteem among Young Adults based on Parental Acceptance-rejection Theory. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2014, 19, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bowlby, J. Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 1982, 52, 664–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Guo, T.; Huang, L.; Hall, D.L.; Jiao, C.; Chen, S.T.; Yu, Q.; Yeung, A.; Chi, X.; Zou, L. The relationship between childhood adversities and complex posttraumatic stress symptoms: A multiple mediation model. Eur. J. Psychotraumatol. 2021, 12, 1936921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Gilbert, P.; Procter, S. Compassionate mind training for people with high shame and self-criticism: Overview and pilot study of a group therapy approach. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 2006, 13, 353–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Krieger, T.; Berger, T.; Holtforth, M.G. The relationship of self-compassion and depression: Cross-lagged panel analyses in depressed patients after outpatient therapy. J. Affect. Disord. 2016, 202, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ko, A.; Hewitt, P.L.; Cox, D.; Flett, G.L.; Chen, C. Adverse parenting and perfectionism: A test of the mediating effects of attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, and perceived defectiveness. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2019, 150, 109474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dwairy, M. Parental Acceptance–Rejection: A Fourth Cross-Cultural Research on Parenting and Psychological Adjustment of Children. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2010, 19, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Miranda, M.C.; Affuso, G.; Esposito, C.; Bacchini, D. Parental Acceptance-Rejection and Adolescent Maladjustment Mothers’ and Fathers’ Combined Roles. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2016, 25, 1352–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Di Giunta, L.; Rothenberg, W.A.; Lunetti, C.; Lansford, J.E.; Pastorelli, C.; Eisenberg, N.; Thartori, E.; Basili, E.; Favini, A.; Yotanyamaneewong, S.; et al. Longitudinal associations between mothers’ and fathers’ anger/irritability expressiveness, harsh parenting, and adolescents’ socioemotional functioning in nine countries. Dev. Psychol. 2020, 56, 458–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Li, M.; Gong, H. Spare the rod, spoil the child?—Predictive effects of parental adult attachment on adolescent anxiety: The mediating role of harsh parenting. J. Affect. Disord. 2022, 312, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Zou, S.; Wu, X.; Li, X. Coparenting Behavior, Parent-Adolescent Attachment, and Peer Attachment: An Examination of Gender Differences. J. Youth Adolesc. 2020, 49, 178–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Lu, S.; Wu, M.; Liu, S.; Dong, S.; Wang, Z.; Hao, Y. The predictive effects of maternal life event stress in early childhood on 5-year-old child behavioral problems: A chained mediation model. Acta Psychol. Sin. 2019, 51, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Liang, J.; Shou, Y.; Wang, M.C.; Deng, J.; Luo, J. Alabama Parenting Questionnaire-9: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. Psychol. Assess. 2021, 33, 940–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Neff, K.D.; Bluth, K.; Toth-Kiraly, I.; Davidson, O.; Knox, M.C.; Williamson, Z.; Costigan, A. Development and Validation of the Self-Compassion Scale for Youth. J. Pers. Assess. 2021, 103, 92–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Huang, L.; Chen, Z.; Jiang, W.; Qu, D.; Wang, Y.; Fang, X.; Han, H.; Huang, C.; Li, Z.; Chi, X. Validation of the Chinese Version of Self-Compassion Scale for Youth (SCS-Y). Mindfulness 2022, 13, 3166–3178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Moon, Y.S.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, D.H. The relationship of the Korean version of the WHO Five Well-Being Index with depressive symptoms and quality of life in the community-dwelling elderly. Asian. J. Psychiatr. 2014, 9, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Lucas-Carrasco, R. Reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index in elderly. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 2012, 66, 508–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Liu, H. Diagnostic value of WHO-5 Well-Being Index and the Back Depression Inventory on depression of patients with PD. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2019, 18, 1107–1109. [Google Scholar]
  42. Dotterer, A.M.; Day, E. Parental Knowledge Discrepancies: Examining the Roles of Warmth and Self-Disclosure. J. Youth Adolesc. 2019, 48, 459–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rickert, N.P.; Skinner, E.A. Parent and teacher warm involvement and student’s academic engagement: The mediating role of self-system processes. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2022, 92, e12470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Janssen, L.H.C.; Verkuil, B.; van Houtum, L.; Wever, M.C.M.; Elzinga, B.M. Perceptions of Parenting in Daily Life: Adolescent-Parent Differences and Associations with Adolescent Affect. J. Youth Adolesc. 2021, 50, 2427–2443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chung, G.; Lanier, P.; Wong, P.Y.J. Mediating Effects of Parental Stress on Harsh Parenting and Parent-Child Relationship during Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic in Singapore. J. Fam. Violence 2020, 37, 801–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kim, S.Y.; Wang, Y.; Orozco-Lapray, D.; Shen, Y.; Murtuza, M. Does “Tiger Parenting” Exist? Parenting Profiles of Chinese Americans and Adolescent Developmental Outcomes. Asian Am. J. Psychol. 2013, 4, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Loeb, E.L.; Kansky, J.; Tan, J.S.; Costello, M.A.; Allen, J.P. Perceived Psychological Control in Early Adolescence Predicts Lower Levels of Adaptation into Mid-Adulthood. Child Dev. 2021, 92, e158–e172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Phillips, W.J. Self-compassion mindsets: The components of the self-compassion scale operate as a balanced system within individuals. Curr. Psychol. 2019, 40, 5040–5053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sun, X.; Chan, D.W.; Chan, L.-K. Self-compassion and psychological well-being among adolescents in Hong Kong: Exploring gender differences. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 101, 288–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bluth, K.; Blanton, P.W. The influence of self-compassion on emotional well-being among early and older adolescent males and females. J. Posit. Psychol. 2015, 10, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Muris, P.; Petrocchi, N. Protection or Vulnerability? A Meta-Analysis of the Relations between the Positive and Negative Components of Self-Compassion and Psychopathology. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 2017, 24, 373–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Neff, K.D.; McGehee, P. Self-compassion and Psychological Resilience among Adolescents and Young Adults. Self Identity 2010, 9, 225–240. [Google Scholar]
  53. Schwartz, O.S.; Byrne, M.L.; Simmons, J.G.; Whittle, S.; Dudgeon, P.; Yap, M.B.H.; Sheeber, L.B.; Allen, N.B. Parenting during Early Adolescence and Adolescent-Onset Major Depression: A 6-Year Prospective Longitudinal Study. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 2, 272–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhang, W.; Cao, Y.; Wang, M.; Ji, L.; Chen, L.; Deater-Deckard, K. The Dopamine D2 Receptor Polymorphism (DRD2 TaqIA) Interacts with Maternal Parenting in Predicting Early Adolescent Depressive Symptoms: Evidence of Differential Susceptibility and Age Differences. J. Youth Adolesc. 2015, 44, 1428–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lansford, J.E.; Rothenberg, W.A.; Riley, J.; Uribe Tirado, L.M.; Yotanyamaneewong, S.; Alampay, L.P.; Al-Hassan, S.M.; Bacchini, D.; Bornstein, M.H.; Chang, L.; et al. Longitudinal Trajectories of Four Domains of Parenting in Relation to Adolescent Age and Puberty in Nine Countries. Child Dev. 2021, 92, e493–e512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wang, J.; Li, M.; Geng, J.; Wang, H.; Nie, J.; Lei, L. Meaning in Life and Self-Control Mediate the Potential Contribution of Harsh Parenting to Adolescents’ Problematic Smartphone Use: Longitudinal Multi-Group Analyses. J. Interpers. Violence 2023, 38, 2159–2181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. McKinney, C.; Szkody, E. Parent and Child Depression: Moderated Mediation by Gender and Harsh Parenting in Emerging Adults. J. Fam. Issues 2018, 40, 594–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Yarnell, L.M.; Neff, K.D.; Davidson, O.A.; Mullarkey, M. Gender Differences in Self-Compassion: Examining the Role of Gender Role Orientation. Mindfulness 2018, 10, 1136–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bluth, K.; Campo, R.A.; Futch, W.S.; Gaylord, S.A. Age and Gender Differences in the Associations of Self-Compassion and Emotional Well-being in a Large Adolescent Sample. J. Youth Adolesc. 2017, 46, 840–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Liu, Q.-Q.; Yang, X.-J.; Hu, Y.-T.; Zhang, C.-Y. Peer victimization, self-compassion, gender and adolescent mobile phone addiction: Unique and interactive effects. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2020, 118, 105397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chao, R.K. The Parenting of Immigrant Chinese and European American Mothers: Relations between Parenting Styles, Socialization Goals, and Parental Practices. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 2000, 21, 233–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Deater-Deckard, K.; Lansford, J.E.; Malone, P.S.; Alampay, L.P.; Sorbring, E.; Bacchini, D.; Bombi, A.S.; Bornstein, M.H.; Chang, L.; Giunta, L.D.; et al. The Association between Parental Warmth and Control in Thirteen Cultural Groups. J. Fam. Psychol. 2011, 25, 790–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Supple, A.J.; Ghazarian, S.R.; Peterson, G.W.; Bush, K.R. Assessing the Cross-Cultural Validity of a Parental Autonomy Granting Measure: Comparing Adolescents in the United States, China, Mexico, and India. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2009, 40, 816–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Wang, M. Harsh parenting and peer acceptance in Chinese early adolescents: Three child aggression subtypes as mediators and child gender as moderator. Child Abus. Negl. 2017, 63, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Feinberg, M.E.; Mogle, J.A.; Lee, J.K.; Tornello, S.L.; Hostetler, M.L.; Cifelli, J.A.; Bai, S.; Hotez, E. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Parent, Child, and Family Functioning. Fam. Process. 2022, 61, 361–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Overall, N.C.; Low, R.S.T.; Chang, V.T.; Henderson, A.M.E.; McRae, C.S.; Pietromonaco, P.R. Enduring COVID-19 lockdowns: Risk versus resilience in parents’ health and family functioning across the pandemic. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2022, 39, 3296–3319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Spinelli, M.; Lionetti, F.; Setti, A.; Fasolo, M. Parenting Stress during the COVID-19 Outbreak: Socioeconomic and Environmental Risk Factors and Implications for Children Emotion Regulation. Fam. Process. 2021, 60, 639–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Zou, S.; Wu, X.; Ren, Y.; Wang, X. Actor-partner association of work-family conflict and parental depressive symptoms during COVID-19 in China: Does coparenting matter? Appl. Psychol. Health Well Being 2022, 14, 434–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Children 10 00406 g001 550
Figure 1. The hypothesized mediation model.
Figure 1. The hypothesized mediation model.
Children 10 00406 g001
Children 10 00406 g002 550
Figure 2. The mediation model in the total sample. *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2. The mediation model in the total sample. *** p < 0.001.
Children 10 00406 g002
Children 10 00406 g003 550
Figure 3. The mediation model in early adolescence. *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3. The mediation model in early adolescence. *** p < 0.001.
Children 10 00406 g003
Children 10 00406 g004 550
Figure 4. The mediation model in middle adolescence. *** p < 0.001.
Figure 4. The mediation model in middle adolescence. *** p < 0.001.
Children 10 00406 g004
Children 10 00406 g005 550
Figure 5. The mediation model in late adolescence. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 5. The mediation model in late adolescence. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.
Children 10 00406 g005
Table
Table 1. Demographic information of participants.
Table 1. Demographic information of participants.
VariablesAdolescents
N/M%/SD
Age13.532.08
Gender
Boys772852.3%
Girls704847.7%
Only-child status
Only child377725.6%
Not an only child10,99974.4%
Educational status
Primary school309821.0%
Lower general secondary school722849.0%
Higher general secondary school445030.0%
Table
Table 2. Intercorrelations, means, and standard deviations for study variables.
Table 2. Intercorrelations, means, and standard deviations for study variables.
Variable12345678
1 gender1
2 age0.044 **1
3 siblings0.0070.0791
4 WAP−0.129 **−0.044 **−0.060 **1
5 HAP−0.140 **−0.064 **0.043 **−0.249 **1
6 self-kindness−0.027 **−0.054 **−0.053 **0.396 **−0.157 **1
7 self-judgment0.197 **0.076 **0.033 **−0.106 **0.089 **−0.049 **1
8 adolescent well-being−0.176 **−0.096 **−0.0140.432 **−0.192 **0.529 **−0.238 **1
M 8.78110.2799.5337.91112.906
SD 2.7432.8992.6232.5504.575
Note. ** p < 0.01; WAP = Warm parenting, HAP = Harsh parenting.
Table
Table 3. The bootstrap confidence interval and effect size of the mediation model in total samples.
Table 3. The bootstrap confidence interval and effect size of the mediation model in total samples.
Mediation PathsEstimatep95% CI
Total sampleWAP→Self-kindness→WEL0.150<0.001[0.141, 0.159]
WAP→Self-judgement→WEL0.014<0.001[0.011, 0.017]
HAP→Self-kindness→WEL−0.025<0.001[−0.032, −0.018]
HAP→Self-judgement→WEL−0.010<0.001[−0.013, −0.007]
Total effect of WAP (direct plus indirect)0.363<0.001[0.347, 0.379]
Total effect of HAP (direct plus indirect)−0.109<0.001[−0.124, −0.093]
Early adolescenceWAP→Self-kindness→WEL0.164<0.001[0.148, 0.181]
WAP→Self-judgement→WEL0.011<0.001[0.005, 0.016]
HAP→Self-kindness→WEL−0.024<0.001[−0.035, −0.013]
HAP→Self-judgement→WEL−0.018<0.001[−0.023, −0.012]
Total effect of WAP (direct plus indirect)0.400<0.001[0.370, 0.431]
Total effect of HAP (direct plus indirect)−0.129<0.001[−0.154, −0.104]
Middle adolescence WAP→Self-kindness→WEL0.165<0.001[0.151, 0.179]
WAP→Self-judgement→WEL0.011<0.001[0.006, 0.016]
HAP→Self-kindness→WEL−0.025<0.001[−0.037, −0.014]
HAP→Self-judgement→WEL−0.013<0.001[−0.018, −0.008]
Total effect of WAP (direct plus indirect)0.370<0.001[0.345, 0.395]
Total effect of HAP (direct plus indirect)−0.117<0.001[−0.142, −0.092]
Late adolescence WAP→Self-kindness→WEL0.141<0.001[0.121, 0.160]
WAP→Self-judgement→WEL0.0060.046[<0.001, 0.013]
HAP→Self-kindness→WEL−0.0160.091[−0.035, 0.003]
HAP→Self-judgement→WEL−0.019<0.001[−0.028, −0.011]
Total effect of WAP (direct plus indirect)0.376<0.001[0.344, 0.409]
Total effect of HAP (direct plus indirect)−0.0630.002[−0.102, −0.023]
Note. WAP = Warm parenting, HAP = Harsh parenting, WEL = Adolescent well-being.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ren, Y.; Chi, X.; Bu, H.; Huang, L.; Wang, S.; Zhang, Y.; Zeng, D.; Shan, H.; Jiao, C. Warm and Harsh Parenting, Self-Kindness and Self-Judgment, and Well-Being: An Examination of Developmental Differences in a Large Sample of Adolescents. Children 2023, 10, 406. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10020406

AMA Style

Ren Y, Chi X, Bu H, Huang L, Wang S, Zhang Y, Zeng D, Shan H, Jiao C. Warm and Harsh Parenting, Self-Kindness and Self-Judgment, and Well-Being: An Examination of Developmental Differences in a Large Sample of Adolescents. Children. 2023; 10(2):406. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10020406

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ren, Yizhen, Xinli Chi, He Bu, Liuyue Huang, Shaofan Wang, Ying Zhang, Di Zeng, Hao Shan, and Can Jiao. 2023. "Warm and Harsh Parenting, Self-Kindness and Self-Judgment, and Well-Being: An Examination of Developmental Differences in a Large Sample of Adolescents" Children 10, no. 2: 406. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10020406

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop