| Literature DB >> 34072195 |
Hwa-Mi Yang1, Hye-Ryoung Kim2.
Abstract
Based on spillover and crossover models in the family system, we hypothesized the mediating effect of parenting style in the association between maternal work-family conflict (WFC) and children's problematic internet (PIU). This is a cross-sectional study using data from the 10th wave Panel Study on Korean Children (PSKC) in 2017. The study subjects were 707 mothers and their children. The WFC was measured using the Marshall and Barnett scale, parenting style by the Parenting Styles and Dimension Questionnaire developed by Robinson, and the PIU of a child by the K-Scale for adolescent observers. As a result, maternal WFC had a positive association with the PIU of a child. Maternal WFC also had a link with parenting styles. Specifically, WFC had a negative association with an authoritative parenting style, and a positive association with authoritarian and permissive parenting styles. Regarding the relationship between maternal WFC and the PIU of a child, parenting styles showed a mediating effect for authoritative (z = 2.08, p = 0.037), authoritarian (z = 2.71, p = 0.007), and permissive (z = 3.14, p = 0.002). Based on the results, we assert that when planning an intervention to reduce children's PIU for working mothers, a multifaceted approach is essential, including both WFC and parenting behavior.Entities:
Keywords: addictive behavior; children; conflict; family; parenting
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34072195 PMCID: PMC8199257 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18115774
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Hypothetical model of mediating of parenting styles on the association between WFC and the PIU of a child.
Participant’s general characteristics (N = 707).
| Variables | N (%) | Mean ± SD | Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mothers | |||
| Age (year) | 40.0 ± 3.58 | 29.0–55.0 | |
| Education (≥some college) | 532 (75.2) | ||
| Marital status | |||
| Married | 682 (96.5) | ||
| Divorced/separated/widowed | 25 (3.5) | ||
| Type of employment | |||
| Permanent position | 451 (63.8) | ||
| Temporary position | 78 (11.0) | ||
| Self-employed | 147 (20.8) | ||
| Unpaid family worker | 31 (4.4) | ||
| Good self-rated health | 334 (47.2) | ||
| Children | |||
| Age | 9.4 ± 0.12 | 9.0–10.0 | |
| Sex | |||
| Men | 364 (51.5) | ||
| Women | 343 (48.5) | ||
| Good self-rated health | 628 (88.8) | ||
| Hours of internet use (hours/day) | |||
| ≥2 h/day | 210 (29.7) | ||
| <2 h/day | 497 (70.3) | ||
| Self-esteem | 3.5 ± 0.42 | 1.6–4.0 | |
| Household income (million, won) | 581.2 ± 441.58 | 100–7000 | |
| Low SES (≤400 million, won) | 222 (31.4) | ||
| Work–Family conflict | 2.4 ± 0.71 | 1.0–5.0 | |
| Parenting behaviors | |||
| Authoritative parenting style | 3.8 ± 0.39 | 2.3–5.0 | |
| Authoritarian parenting style | 2.4 ± 0.44 | 1.2–3.9 | |
| Permissive parenting style | 2.3 ± 0.31 | 1.4–3.4 | |
| Problematic internet use | 24.1 ± 6.25 | 15.0–55.0 | |
| High-risk group | 18 (2.5) | ||
| Potential-risk group | 74 (10.5) | ||
| General user group | 615 (87.5) |
SES = socioeconomic status.
Unadjusted associations of problematic internet use (N = 707).
| Variables | β (SE) | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mothers | |||
| Age (year) | −0.04 (0.032) | 0.96 (0.91–1.03) | 0.264 |
| Education (≥some college) | −0.62 (0.238) | 0.54 (0.34–0.86) | 0.009 |
| Marital status (married) | −1.01 (0.460) | 0.37 (0.15–0.90) | 0.029 |
| Type of employment (permanent) | 0.01 (0.117) | 1.01 (0.80–1.27) | 0.954 |
| Good self-rated health | −0.88 (0.243) | 0.42 (0.26–0.67) | <0.001 |
| Children | |||
| Age (year) | 0.25 (0.957) | 1.29 (0.20–8.40) | 0.791 |
| Gender (men) | 0.76 (0.237) | 2.14 (1.38–3.41) | 0.001 |
| Good self-rated health | −0.61 (0.306) | 0.54 (0.30–0.99) | 0.045 |
| Hours of internet use (≥2 h/day) | 1.06 (0.228) | 2.90 (1.85–4.53) | <0.001 |
| Self-esteem | −0.67 (0.244) | 0.51 (0.32–0.83) | 0.006 |
| Family economic status | |||
| Low SES (≤400 million, won) | −0.23 (0.250) | 0.79 (0.49–1.29) | 0.350 |
| Work–Family conflict | 0.52 (0.156) | 1.68 (1.24–2.28) | 0.001 |
| Parenting Styles | |||
| Authoritative parenting style | −1.25 (0.299) | 0.29 (0.16–0.52) | <0.001 |
| Authoritarian parenting style | 1.43 (0.273) | 4.16 (2.44–7.11) | <0.001 |
| Permissive parenting style | 2.33 (0.403) | 10.29 (4.67–22.68) | <0.001 |
β = unstandardized regression coefficient; CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio; SE = standard error; SES = socioeconomic status.
Hypothesis testing for a mediating effect of parenting style on the association between WFC and the PIU of a child.
| Variables | β (SE) | AOR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parenting behaviors: Authoritative parenting style | |||
| First equation | |||
| Outcome variable: The PIU of a child | |||
| Independent variable: WFC | 0.47 (0.170) | 1.59 (1.14–2.22) | 0.006 |
| Second equation | |||
| Outcome variable: Authoritative parenting style | |||
| Independent variable: WFC | −0.06 (0.020) | 0.002 | |
| Third equation | |||
| Outcome variable: The PIU of a child | |||
| Mediator: Authoritative parenting style | −0.76 (0.328) | 0.47 (0.25–0.89) | 0.021 |
| Independent variable: WFC | 0.44 (0.172) | 1.55 (1.11–2.17) | 0.011 |
| Sobel’s test, z = 2.08, | |||
| Parenting behaviors: Authoritarian parenting style | |||
| First equation | |||
| Outcome variable: The PIU of a child | |||
| Independent variable: WFC | 0.47 (0.170) | 1.59 (1.14–2.22) | 0.006 |
| Second equation | |||
| Outcome variable: Authoritarian parenting style | |||
| Independent variable: WFC | 0.08 (0.023) | - | 0.001 |
| Third equation | |||
| Outcome variable: The PIU of a child | |||
| Mediator: Authoritarian parenting style | 1.33 (0.305) | 3.78 (2.08–6.87) | <0.001 |
| Independent variable: WFC | 0.40 (0.176) | 1.49 (1.06–2.10) | 0.023 |
| Sobel’s test, z = 2.71, | |||
| Parenting behaviors: Permissive parenting style | |||
| First equation | |||
| Outcome variable: The PIU of a child | |||
| Independent variable: WFC | 0.47 (0.170) | 1.59 (1.14–2.22) | 0.006 |
| Second equation | |||
| Outcome variable: Permissive parenting style | |||
| Independent variable: WFC | 0.07 (0.016) | <0.001 | |
| Third equation | |||
| Outcome variable: The PIU of a child | |||
| Mediator: Permissive parenting style | 1.91 (0.422) | 6.78 (2.96–15.50) | <0.001 |
| Independent variable: WFC | 0.37 (0.178) | 1.45 (1.02–2.05) | 0.037 |
| Sobel’s test, z = 3.14, | |||
β = unstandardized regression coefficient; AOR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; SE = standard error; WFC = work–family conflict; PIU = problematic internet use. All multiple regression models were adjusted for maternal age, education level, marital status, self-rated health, and children’s sex, self-rated health, hours of internet use, and self-esteem.
Figure 2Testing for a mediating effect of parenting styles on the association between WFC and the PIU of a child using logistic regression analysis; (a) Direct pathway from WFC to the PIU of a child; (b) Indirect pathway from WFC to the PIU of a child via authoritative parenting style; (c) Indirect pathway from WFC to the PIU of a child via authoritarian parenting style (d) Indirect pathway via permissive parenting style.