Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Panel
Browse By Session Type
Browse By Topic Area
Browse Posters
Search Tips
Register for SRCD23
Personal Schedule
Welcome Letter
Program Guide
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
Introduction: Child self-regulation skills have important developmental implications for a variety of short-term and long-term outcomes including health, social relationships, school readiness, and overall quality of life (Baker et al., 2019; Moffitt et al., 2013). Parenting practices are instrumental in shaping child self-regulation skills, among other executive function skills (Davis et al., 2017; Morawska et al., 2019). Prior experimental studies and meta-analyses have primarily focused on the relationship between harsh or warm parenting practices, or directly contrasted these parenting practices (Li et al., 2019; Valcan et al., 2018). Yet parental monitoring and objective surveillance have also been correlated with youth behavioral and health outcomes, albeit with substantial variability in construct definitions and related findings (Cui et al., 2019; Fofsco et al., 2012). Given the variations in associations observed across different populations and inconsistencies in measurement methods, we aim to specifically evaluate different dimensions of parenting styles regarding how behaviors promote, suppress, or passively contribute to child independence and development of self-regulation skills. We utilize a meta-analytic approach to investigate whether different types of parenting engagement (i.e., supportive, suppressive, or passive) predict children’s self-regulation abilities and evaluate moderation effects attributed to measurement strategies, sample characteristics, study design, and publication source qualities.
Methods: An exhaustive search for both published and unpublished works was completed through five database queries, followed by chain searching with reference lists and ResearchGate. After eligibility screening, 62 studies were identified for study inclusion. Research team members subsequently extracted primary report effect sizes and coded studies for parenting style dimensions, parenting style measurement method (e.g., observation, parent-report, self-report), self-regulation measurement, sample details, research design elements, and publication source characteristics.
Results: Random effects models yielded significant main effects for supportive parenting (r = .146, p < .001) and suppressive parenting (r = - .147, p < .001), but not passive parenting (r = .036, p = .439). Parenting style reporting method was confirmed to be a significant moderator for supportive parenting (Q2 = 46.244, p < .001), suppressive parenting (Q2 = 118.052, p < .001), and passive parenting (Q2 = 20.352, p < .001).
Conclusions: Findings of the current study emphasize the benefits of supportive parenting and detriments of suppressive parenting in fostering self-regulation skills across childhood and adolescence. While the directionality of these associations was unsurprising, the alignment in magnitude and therefore near-perfectly antagonistic roles for establishing children’s independent regulation is a striking new contribution to developmental science. The inclusion of passive parenting did not yield significant main effects for the child self-regulation outcome, but the positive trend observed provides a baseline for future reviews to build upon. Our evaluation of differential effects attributable to measurement method indicated that measurement of parenting behavior may still warrant corroboration across multiple reporting methods for more precise conclusions to be drawn. In contrast, moderation effects for self-regulation measurement, sample characteristics, and source differences were more variable and prompt further evaluation. Implications of these meta-analyses include continued tailoring of intervention programs to include responsive parenting practices and strategies to reduce punitive discipline approaches.