| Literature DB >> 31635096 |
Belén Martínez-Ferrer1, Celeste León-Moreno2, Daniel Musitu-Ferrer3, Ana Romero-Abrio4, Juan Evaristo Callejas-Jerónimo5, Gonzalo Musitu-Ochoa6.
Abstract
The objective of the present study is to analyse the relationships between parental socialization styles-indulgent, authoritarian, authoritative and negligent, school adjustment (social integration, academic competence and family involvement) and cyber-aggression (direct and indirect) in adolescents. Participating in this study were 1304 Spanish students of both sexes (53.1% girls), aged between 12 and 18 years (M = 13.87, SD = 1.33). Multivariate analyses of variance were performed. The results showed significant relationships between parental socialization styles, school adjustment and cyber-aggression. It was observed that adolescents from indulgent and authoritative families showed greater academic competence and greater family involvement. Additionally, the children from authoritarian families displayed greater involvement in direct and indirect cyber-aggression behaviours. The results obtained and their implications are discussed in the final section.Entities:
Keywords: adolescence; cyber-aggression; parental socialization; school adjustment
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31635096 PMCID: PMC6843967 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16204005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Numbers of cases in parenting style groups, as well as mean scores and standard deviations on measures of parental dimensions.
| Total Sample | Indulgent | Authoritative | Authoritarian | Neglectful | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | 1304 | 367 | 323 | 275 | 339 |
| Percent | 100 | 28 | 25 | 21 | 26 |
| Acceptance/Involvement | |||||
| Mean | 3.13 | 3.39 | 3.49 | 2.80 | 2.78 |
| SD | 0.43 | 0.26 | 0.25 | 0.30 | 0.32 |
| Severity/Imposition | |||||
| Mean | 1.98 | 1.77 | 2.31 | 2.27 | 1.64 |
| SD | 0.38 | 0.23 | 0.26 | 0.27 | 0.23 |
| Sociodemographic variables | |||||
| Occupation Yes | 923 | 231 | 241 | 195 | 256 |
| Occupation No | 381 | 136 | 82 | 80 | 83 |
| Primary education | 236 | 63 | 57 | 62 | 54 |
| Secondary education | 691 | 179 | 177 | 144 | 191 |
| University | 377 | 125 | 89 | 69 | 94 |
MANOVA results for all the studied variables (4 a × 2 b).
| Λ |
|
|
| η2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (A) Parenting Style a | 0.94 | 4.63 *** | 15 | 3081.19 | 0.02 |
| (B) Gender b | 0.95 | 12.05 *** | 5 | 1116.00 | 0.05 |
| A × B | 0.97 | 2.54 * | 15 | 3081.19 | 0.01 |
Note: a indulgent, authoritative, authoritarian and neglectful; b boy and girl; * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
Means (Standard deviations), F values, and Bonferroni post hoc test for the parenting style groups across adolescent.
| Parenting Style | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indulgent | Authoritative | Authoritarian | Neglectful |
| η2 | |
| SI | 4.61 | 4.65 | 4.39 | 4.47 | 1.439 | 0.00 |
| AC | 5.69 | 5.47 | 4.95 | 5.32 | 6.512 *** | 0.02 |
| FI | 6.06 | 6.00 | 5.54 | 5.48 | 7.904 *** | 0.02 |
| DC | 1.05 | 1.06 | 1.16 | 1.05 | 14.312 *** | 0.03 |
| IC | 1.13 | 1.19 | 1.30 | 1.14 | 12.709 *** | 0.03 |
Note: SI = Social Integration; AC = Academic Competence; FI = Family Involvement; DC = Direct Cyber-aggression; IC = Indirect Cyber-aggression; *** p < 0.001; a > b.
Means (Standard deviations), F values, and Bonferroni post hoc test for the parenting style groups across adolescent.
| Gender | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boys | Girls |
| η2 | |
| SI | 4.33 | 4.71 | 14.380 *** | 0.01 |
| AC | 4.98 | 5.71 | 37.925 *** | 0.03 |
| FI | 5.69 | 5.87 | 2.505 | 0.00 |
| DC | 1.10 | 1.06 | 11.469 ** | 0.01 |
| IC | 1.19 | 1.18 | 0.386 | 0.00 |
Note: SI = Social Integration; AC = Academic Competence; FI = Family Involvement; DC = Direct Cyber-aggression; IC = Indirect Cyber-aggression; ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Means (Standard deviations), F values, and Bonferroni post hoc test for the parenting style groups across adolescent.
| Parenting Style | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Indulgent | Authoritative | Authoritarian | Neglectful | η2 | ||
| SI | Boys | 4.25 | 4.60 | 4.31 | 4.19 | 3.19 * | 0.01 |
| Girls | 4.93 | 4.69 | 4.47 | 4.70 | |||
| DC | Boys | 1.04 | 1.06 | 1.27 | 1.05 | 8.57 *** | 0.02 |
| Girls | 1.05 | 1.05 | 1.06 | 1.04 | |||
| DI | Boys | 1.11 | 1.17 | 1.39 | 1.12 | 5.71 ** | 0.02 |
| Girls | 1.15 | 1.21 | 1.20 | 1.16 | |||
Note: SI = Social Integration; DC = Direct Cyber-aggression; IC = Indirect Cyber-aggression; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; a > b.
Figure 1Interaction effect parenting style x gender and social integration.
Figure 2Interaction effect parenting style x gender and direct cyberaggression.
Figure 3Interaction effect parenting style x gender and indirect cyberaggression.