J Child Fam Stud
DOI 10.1007/s10826-014-0070-x
ORIGINAL PAPER
Perceptions of Parenting Styles and Their Associations
with Mental Health and Life Satisfaction Among Urban
Indonesian Adolescents
Amina Abubakar • Fons J. R. Van de Vijver •
Angela O. Suryani • Penny Handayani •
Weny Savitry Pandia
 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract The study aimed at investigating the associa-
tion between maternal and paternal parenting styles and
psychological well-being among Indonesian adolescents.
The Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ), General
Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12), and the Brief Multi-
dimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale, were
administered to 500 adolescents. We were unable to rep-
licate the three-factor solution of the PAQ using confir-
matory factor analysis. The permissive subscale
demonstrated poor psychometric properties; it was there-
fore not included in any further analysis. Mothers were
perceived to be more authoritative than fathers; on the
other hand, fathers were perceived to be more authoritarian
than mothers. Both maternal and paternal authoritative
parenting styles were positively associated with outcomes.
Authoritarian parenting was not associated with any out-
come. Scores computed to represent perceived differences
between maternal and paternal use of various parenting
styles were associated with reported GHQ-12 and life
satisfaction scores. Our results confirm Western findings on
the positive effects of authoritative parenting, but do not
replicate the negative associations of authoritarian parent-
ing. Future studies that examine different parenting styles
at the construct level are needed to elucidate the associa-
tion between parenting styles and adolescent psychological
functioning in the Indonesian and other similar contexts.
A. Abubakar (&)
F. J. R. Van de Vijver
Department of Culture Studies, Tilburg University,
P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands
e-mail: A.AbubakarAli@uvt.nl
A. O. Suryani
P. Handayani
W. S. Pandia
Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, Jl. Jenderal
Sudirman 51, Jakarta 12930, Indonesia
Keywords Adolescents
Indonesia
Parenting styles

Psychological well-being
Introduction
The study of parenting styles focuses on the emotional
climate that parents create while raising their children
(Darling and Steinberg 1993). Since the introduction of the
concept, parenting styles have been a popular area of study
in developmental psychology. The influence of parenting
has been studied across cultural contexts, including Asia.
However, most Asian studies have been carried out in
countries with a Confucianist cultural influence (i.e.,
China, Taiwan, and Korea). With respect to the literature
on parenting Indonesia, an Asian country with the largest
Muslim population in the world, presents an interesting
case study. Here, religion, an important cultural variable,
influences parenting practices, strategies, goals, and the
emotional climate at home (Acevedo et al. 2013; Danso
et al. 1997; Godina 2013; Wilcox 1998).
Baumrind’s (1971, 1978) typology of parenting styles
has had a powerful influence on the study of parenting.
According to this typology, the combination of warmth and
demandingness defines three kinds of parenting styles:
authoritative, authoritarian and permissive. Authoritative
parenting, characterized by a child-centered approach,
combines a high degree of parental warmth, structure and
autonomy support (Baumrind 1972). Authoritarian parent-
ing involves high demands for obedience and compliance
to a set of rules, accompanied by low levels of parental
warmth. Permissive parenting is seen as involving few
behavioral expectations for the child and high levels of
parental warmth. In a refinement of Baumrind’s theory, a
differentiation of neglectful and indulgent parents within
123

the permissive parenting style has been made (Maccoby
and Martin 1983).
Cross-cultural research confirms the existence of these
parenting styles, as well as their salient influence on child
and adolescent development (Abu-Rayya 2006; Ang 2006;
Cheah et al. 2009; Eisenberg et al. 2009; Garcia and Gracia
2009; Huver et al. 2009; Snoek et al. 2007). However, the
associations between parenting style and child outcomes
are moderated by cultural and contextual factors as socio-
cultural factors may determine both the preferred parenting
styles and their associations with outcome (Assadi et al.
2007; Jackson-Newsom et al. 2008). Cultural values,
norms, and goals influence parenting beliefs, practices,
goals, and styles (Harkness and Super 1996).
In terms of interpersonal relationships, cultures may
differ in the manner in which they emphasize the relative
contribution of autonomy and relatedness (Kagitçibasi
2006; Keller 2012). In cultures where autonomy, personal
achievement and self-directedness are emphasized, parents
will involve children in decision-making and provide
explanations both for the rules they set and the conse-
quences of one’s behavior. Authoritative parenting would
be the most ideal style in such cultures; on the other hand,
authoritarianism or strict parenting would be viewed neg-
atively by children and contribute to adverse outcomes.
Other cultural groups place more emphasis on group har-
mony, cohesion, and common goals. Respect for hierarchy
and authority are considered paramount to maintaining the
cohesiveness of the group. In such cultural groups, children
would perceive strict parenting that is accompanied by
warmth as acceptable. Recent studies among Asians (e.g.,
Koreans) illustrate that warm and strict parenting can co-
exist (Choi et al. 2013).
Kagitçibasi (2006) noted that parenting styles may be
influenced by societal developments. Many countries with
a strong tradition of relatedness and interdependency are
becoming more modern and urbanized as their populations
acquire more education. In such countries, a value pattern
in which both economic independence and emotional
interdependence are valued can emerge. This leads to
parenting behavior that encourages an autonomous-rela-
tional self. Parenting strategies aimed at encouraging an
autonomous-related self may be especially salient for the
population in Jakarta, where they are experiencing rapid
social and economic changes.
In largely industrialized Western countries with highly
educated populations, there is a strong socialization towards
autonomy. Authoritative parenting which is associated with
positive child and adolescent outcomes, such as social com-
petence, self-reliance, and achievement orientation (Baum-
rind 1978; Hein and Lewko 1994; Lopez et al. 2008) is the
preferred style of parenting. In these countries, authoritarian
parenting has been associated with maladjustment, low
123
J Child Fam Stud
self-esteem, and poor academic performance (Herz and
Gullone 1999; Lamborn 1991; Smetana 2006). Interest-
ingly, a slightly different picture emerges in some Eastern
cultures where people are more interdependent and place a
high value on relatedness, interpersonal harmony, and
obedience to authority. Whereas authoritative parenting is
seen to be most beneficial similarly to Western cultures,
findings on the influence of authoritarian parenting have
been controversial. Some studies have observed that chil-
dren of Asian origin benefit from authoritarian parenting,
while others report the lack of an effect. For instance, Chao
(1994) observed that authoritarian parenting was associated
with higher academic performance among children of
Chinese immigrants in the US. She notes that differences in
how the concept functions among Chinese parents may
result from an ethnocentric, Western-based conceptualiza-
tion. Chao proposed a different approach in conceptualizing
and interpreting parenting styles adopted by Chinese par-
ents. Specifically, she explains that Chinese parents tend to
view socialization as ‘‘training’’, hence the positive effects
of a controlling parenting approach in the Chinese context.
In line with this view, a study by Leung et al. (1998) found
that an authoritarian parenting style was positively associ-
ated with the academic achievement of Hong Kong Chinese
students, whereas an authoritative style was unrelated to
academic achievement. These findings have not been con-
sistently replicated, with researchers such as Pong et al.
(2009) reporting that authoritarianism had a negative impact
on children’s (both European Americans and Asian Amer-
icans) academic achievement in the US and in Taiwan.
These inconsistent results provide the impetus for further
research in this field.
Similarly, the relationships between permissiveness and
adolescent outcome are not consistent. Several studies have
reported that permissiveness, like authoritarianism, had a
negative impact on child outcome. It has been suggested
that undercontrolled environments, typical of permissive
homes, do not foster self-regulation in children, which may
result in children who are impulsive and underachieving
(Barber 1996; Onatsu-Arvilommi and Nurmi 1997).
However, other studies have associated permissiveness
with positive psychological adjustment. For instance,
Garcia and Garcia (2009) in an investigation involving
1,416 teenagers from Spain reported that their findings
suggested that indulgent (permissive) parenting was the
optimum style of parenting in the Spanish context. Ado-
lescents whose parents favored this parenting style scored
higher in self-esteem and lower in anxiety than their
counterparts with authoritative parents.
Understanding parenting in Indonesia requires knowl-
edge of both the cultural and religious background, as
religion constitutes an important component of Indonesian
culture. It is important to keep in mind that religious beliefs
J Child Fam Stud
help shape socialization goals and parenting strategies of
Indonesian parents, even though it is impossible to disen-
tangle cultural and religious factors. Islam emphasizes
group harmony, coupled with a strong leaning towards
respect and deference to the authority of elders and parents
in particular. The vast majority of Indonesian families
therefore emphasize closeness and harmony (rukun), loy-
alty, obligation, respect (hormat), and voluntary coopera-
tion (gotong-royong) (Adamson 2007; Magnis-Suseno
1991; Piercy et al. 2005). It is an obligation for children to
obey their parents and elders and to preserve family honor.
Social relationships are strictly regulated with a strong
tendency towards maintaining a respectable distance from
those in authority. The father, who is customarily the
head of the family, makes most of the important decisions
for the family. Magnis-Suseno (1991) observed that
Indonesian fathers largely keep their distance from their
children and are expected to punish any gross misbe-
havior by them. Mothers, on the other hand, spend more
time with children and are responsible for their care and
discipline. Despite the father’s formal ‘leadership posi-
tion’ within the Indonesian family context, the mother is
very influential. Older daughters are expected to take up
some maternal responsibilities, such as household chores
and sibling care. Parents’ socialization processes are
therefore geared towards ensuring that children are ready
to take up these responsibilities within the family and the
larger society.
Both parent and child gender may influence the par-
enting style adopted. As noted by Forehand and Nousiainen
(1993), most studies have not considered the potential
differences between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting. And
yet, research has reported differences in adolescents’ per-
ceptions of their mothers and fathers and in the influences
of mothers’ and fathers’ parenting practices on adolescent
outcomes. For example, adolescents from the US tend to
link more emotional attributes to mothers and more rigid
and formal attributes to fathers (Pipp et al. 1985). More-
over, it has been found that there is a difference in the
preferred parenting styles among couples, and that these
differences may have a significant impact on child out-
comes. In a recent study among Dutch adolescents, Hoeve
et al. (2011) observed that about half of the parent dyads in
their study demonstrated discrepant parenting styles with
fathers adopting different styles from mothers. Important
differences in the relationship between adolescent delin-
quent behavior and parenting styles emerged when they
investigated the effects of differing styles of fathers and
mothers. Furthermore, the study found that although any
inconsistency between parenting styles tends to be dam-
aging to the child, the benefits of having at least one
authoritative parent outweighed the negative effects of
inconsistent parenting styles (Hoeve et al. 2011). These
findings provide a sound justification for investigating
paternal and maternal parenting styles separately. In cul-
tures where there is still a strong emphasis on different
roles for mothers and fathers such as in Indonesia, these
differences are likely to be amplified. In the traditional
Indonesian setting, as the head of the family, the father is
expected to cater for family needs, make important deci-
sions on behalf of the family, and punish grave misconduct
on the part of the children (Setiadi 2006). On the other
hand, mothers provide emotional support to the family
alongside providing day to day care for the child (Setiadi
2006). Such apparent delineation of gender roles is likely
to contribute to differences in patterns of mother–child
interactions compared to father–child interactions.
As stated earlier, the child’s gender may influence
perceived parenting styles (Chen et al. 2000). A significant
number of studies indicate that boys report a higher score
on authoritarianism in comparison to girls. It is likely that
boys have a tendency towards seeking relatively more
autonomy from parents compared to girls. The differential
treatment of sons and daughters has been observed in
varying contexts. We therefore expect that the relation-
ships between gender and parenting in Indonesia will be
similar to what has been reported in other cultural
contexts.
Past studies indicate that several sociodemographic
characteristics, including parental education and socio-
economic status, influence preferred parenting practices. In
one of these studies, Bluestone and Tamis (1999) observed
that maternal education was positively associated with
preferences for child-centered practices (authoritative par-
enting) among working and middle class African American
families. Similar findings have been reported among an
Iranian (Assadi 2007) and Malaysian sample (Tam et al.
2013). However, contrary to these findings, Lipps et al.
(2012) observed that parental education does not influence
preferred parenting style in studies carried out in four
Caribbean Islands. The literature suggests that parenting
can be conceptualized as mediating the link between
background variables and socialization outcomes (e.g.,
Bank et al. 1993; Raver et al. 2007; Raviv et al. 2004). This
link is tested in the current study.
Little if any research has been carried out on parenting
in the Indonesian context. We could only identify two
unpublished reports (both bachelor’s theses) addressing the
effects of parenting styles on adolescent outcomes. In the
first study involving adolescents aged 16–18 years, Apri-
liaty (2005) reported that there was a similar number of
authoritative and authoritarian parents (Nauthoritative = 48;
Nauthoritarian = 47) in her sample. This number was higher
than that of permissive (N = 33) and uninvolved parents
(N = 30). The second study on parenting styles in Jakarta,
reported that most adolescents (aged 12–14 years)
123

perceived their parents as practicing authoritative (N = 66)
rather than authoritarian (N = 46) or permissive parenting
(N = 32) (Pahur 2008). The first study found no significant
relationship between parenting and self-concept (Apriliaty
2005), while the study by Pahur (2008) found that the
social-interaction abilities of adolescents with authoritative
parents were more developed than those of adolescents
with authoritarian or permissive parents. These widely
discrepant results on the relationship between parenting
and outcome may be attributed to various reasons including
sample characteristics, sample size, analytic approach, and
measurement instruments, among others. Further evalua-
tion of Indonesian parenting styles will address the existing
knowledge gap by providing a more in-depth understand-
ing of the association between parenting styles and ado-
lescent outcomes.
We aimed to evaluate possible differences in parenting
styles of Indonesian mothers and fathers, as reported by
their adolescent children, and investigate the relationship
between parenting styles and psychological well-being of
adolescents. Based on the reviewed literature and the
sociocultural context of the study, we set out to test the
following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 There are significant differences between
maternal and paternal parenting styles with mothers scor-
ing higher on authoritative and permissive parenting
compared to fathers, who score higher on authoritarianism;
Hypothesis 2a There is a significant difference between
boys’ and girls’ perceptions of parenting styles, with boys
expected to report more authoritarianism than girls, and
girls expected to report more authoritativeness than boys;
Hypothesis 2b Parental education is negatively associ-
ated with the use of an authoritarian parenting style and
positively associated with the use of authoritativeness;
Hypothesis 2c There is a significant association between
a child‘s age and parenting styles. Older children are
expected to report more authoritarian parenting;
Hypothesis 3a Both maternal and paternal authoritative
parenting styles show a positive association with psycho-
logical well-being of adolescents;
Hypothesis 3bi There is a significant positive association
between adolescent psychological well-being and both
maternal and paternal authoritarianism;
Hypothesis 3bii There is a significant negative associa-
tion between adolescent psychological well-being and both
maternal and paternal authoritarianism; and,
Hypothesis 4 Inconsistency in the style preferred by
mothers and fathers is negatively associated with the ado-
lescents’ psychological functioning.
123
J Child Fam Stud
Method
Participants
A total of 500 participants were recruited from five schools.
Data from 16 pupils were excluded from further analysis
because of incomplete questionnaires. The mean age of
respondents was 15.67 years (SD = .71, min. = 14,
max. = 18). Fifty-five percent of those who responded were
female. The majority of the participants were Muslims
89.6 % (n = 432), with Christians and Hindus constituting
9.5 % (n = 46) and 0.4 % (n = 2) of the sample, respec-
tively. There was one Buddhist and one self-identified atheist
in the sample. Data on parental educational level showed that
there were fewer fathers (n = 5, 1 %) than mothers (n = 18,
3.7 %) with no schooling at all; 9.1 % (n = 44) of mothers
compared to 5.6 % (n = 26) of fathers had achieved primary
school education; while the majority of both parents had
completed secondary school (mothers: 52.7 %, n = 255;
fathers: 47.1 %, n = 228) and post-secondary school training
(mothers: 34.5 %, n = 167; fathers: 46.5 %, n = 225).
Procedures
Students attending five randomly selected secondary
schools in Jakarta were sampled for inclusion in this study.
Permission for collecting data in the school was sought
from the heads of schools and departments in accordance
with procedures laid down by the schools. After obtaining
permission from the school, we sought and obtained assent
from the students. Research assistants then administered
the questionnaires to the students during scheduled group
sessions. Three research assistants were present at each
session to give instructions and ensure that each student
filled in the questionnaire independently.
Measures
Using a forward translation and back-translation approach, an
expert panel comprising the second, third, and fourth authors,
together with a research assistant adapted all the measures into
Bahasa, the national language of Indonesia. Any discrepan-
cies in the translations were resolved through a committee
approach. A pilot study involving 60 adolescents (not inclu-
ded in the main study) was carried out prior to the main study
to establish whether or not the students could understand and
respond to the questionnaires. We conducted a psychometric
evaluation of all the measures used in the study.
Parenting Styles
The Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ; Buri 1991) is
a 30-item questionnaire designed to measure parental
J Child Fam Stud
authority, or disciplinary practices, from the point of view
of the child (of any age). The PAQ has three subscales:
permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative/flexible par-
enting. The items are rated using Likert scale format, with
scores ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). Sample items include ‘As I was growing up my
mother gave me clear direction for my behavior and
activities, but also understood when I disagreed with her’
and ‘As I was growing up my mother directed the activities
and decisions of the children in the family through rea-
soning and discipline’. Given that this was a new measure
in the Indonesian setting, we carried out a full validation of
the scale (discussed in the ‘‘Results’’ section).
Poor Mental Health
The 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) was
administered to evaluate mental health (Goldberg 1992).
The GHQ-12 was developed as a screening tool for
detecting minor psychiatric disturbance or strain. The
measure assesses changes in affective and somatic symp-
toms. In the current study, a Likert-type response scale was
used, with scoring options of 0–1–2–3 (e.g. ‘Have you
recently felt that you couldn’t overcome your difficulties,
0 = not at all, 1 = no more than usual, 2 = rather more
than usual, 3 = much more than usual’).
Life Satisfaction
The Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction
Scales (BMSLSS) which is scored on a 7-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (terrible) to 7 (delighted) was also
administered (Huebner et al. 2006). This scale has five
items inquiring on satisfaction with different domains (e.g.,
school and family) as well as a global question. A sample
item includes ‘I would describe my satisfaction with my
school experiences as…’.
Social Demographics
We collected information on students’ age, gender, reli-
gious affiliations and parental education.
Data Analysis Plan
Three steps were followed in analyzing the data. First,
given that the PAQ is relatively new in Indonesia and that
no validation study has been conducted as yet, we used
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to investigate the fac-
torial structure of the PAQ. We assessed the goodness of fit
for each model using various parameters. The general
guideline is that a non-significant Chi square reflects an
acceptable fit to the data. However, given its sensitivity to
sample size, we did not consider the Chi square in the
current study. We instead used the Tucker Lewis Index
(TLI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) for which values
[.95 are considered to reflect an excellent fit, while values
between .95 and .90 are indicative of an acceptable fit. In a
multigroup analysis, the change in CFI is an important
indicator for evaluating the suitability of hierarchically
nested models; a CFI change of \.010 is taken to be sup-
portive of the more restrictive model. To supplement the fit
tests, the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) is also reported since it has been shown to be
sensitive to model misspecification; values of \.06 are
considered indicative of a good fit to the model while those
between .06 and .08 are considered acceptable. Second, to
investigate between group differences a series of t tests
were carried out. Finally, path analytic procedures were
used to investigate the relationship between background
variables, parenting styles and adolescent mental health
outcomes.
Results
The three-factor model proposed for the PAQ maternal and
paternal scales by the authors had poor fit indices on the
CFA (see Fig. 1 for the evaluated model and fit indices).
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) not reported here also
confirmed that the structure could not be replicated in this
sample. For both maternal and paternal models, the fit
problems were related to the permissiveness scale. Few
items loaded significantly on the permissiveness factor. To
understand which of the subscales still had acceptable
psychometric properties, we conducted CFAs for each
separately. The authoritative scales had an acceptable fit
for both maternal and paternal items, v2(33, N =
488) = 92.131, p \ .001, v2/df = 2.632, TLI = .906,
CFI = .927, RMSEA = .058, and v2(34, N = 488) =
93.99, p \ .001, v2/df = 2.888, TLI = .922, CFI = .940,
RMSEA = .062, respectively. For the maternal scales, the
modification indices indicated the need to correlate some
errors between items. To the extent that it allowed for
comparison of the scores from these groups, we carried out
a multigroup invariance analysis to check if the factor
structure for the subscales for mothers and fathers was
similar (see Table 1 for the results of the multiple group
analysis). Results from this analysis indicate that we
achieved partial scalar invariance. We removed constraints
for one of the items (Item 11: ‘As I was growing up I knew
what my mother expected of me in my family, but I also
felt free to discuss those expectations with my mother
when I felt they were unreasonable’) to achieve acceptable
fit indices. The authoritarian scales had an acceptable fit for
both maternal, v2(33, N = 488) = 92.131, p \ .001, v2/
123
 J Child Fam Stud

1 6 10 13 14 17 19 21 24 28

2
4

3
5

7 8

PERMISSIVE
9 11

AUTHORITARIAN
12
15

AUTHORITATIVE
16
20

18
22

25
23

26
27

2 2
29 Maternal χ (402, N = 488) = 1308.11, p < .001, χ /df =3.254, TLI = .573, CFI =
.605,RMSEA .068
30
Paternal: χ2(402, N = 488) = 1307.18, p < .001, χ2/df =3.252, TLI = .674, CFI =
.698, RMSEA .068 .

Fig. 1 Factorial structure of the PAQ and fit indices of this model in our samples

df = 2.632, TLI = .906, CFI = .927, RMSEA = .058,
and paternal items, v2(34, N = 488) = 93.99, p \ .001, v2/
df = 2.888, TLI = .922, CFI = .940, RMSEA = .062.
Moreover a multiple group analysis indicating that we
achieved scalar invariance justified the comparison of
scores from these two scales. The permissiveness subscale
had a poor fit for both maternal, v2(35, N = 488) =
207.21, p \ .001, v2/df = 5.920, TLI = .495, CFI = .607,
RMSEA = .101; and paternal items, v2(35, N = 488) =
335.69, p \ .001, v2/df = 9.59 TLI = .264, CFI = .428,
RMSEA = .133. Further analyses, using both EFA and
CFA indicated two problems with this scale. First, nega-
tively worded items formed a different subscale; in anal-
yses not documented here, modeling the impact of
negatively worded items significantly improved the fit of
the scales. Second, two of the items in this scale performed
very badly, either by having very low or negative loadings;
an example is item 1 (While I was growing up my mother
felt that in a well-run home the children should have their
way in the family as often as the parents do’). Given the
generally problematic fit and a poor alpha (.51) for the
permissiveness scale we did not use it any further. Further
analyses therefore only focus on the authoritarian and
authoritative subscales. Table 2 presents the alpha coeffi-
cients for each of the scales. The alphas for all our scales
were above the recommended value of .70, with the
exception of the maternal authoritarian scale whose value
was .66 (this scale was retained as it was because, apart
from good fit indices in the structural equation modeling
analyses, its alpha level was within the acceptable range).
There was a significant difference in the scores for
mother’s (M = 39.19, SD = 5.45) and father’s authorita-
tive/flexible style (M = 37.92, SD = 5.93), t(487) = 6.06,
p \ .001. These results suggest that Indonesian adolescents
perceived their mothers to show more authoritative/flexible
patterns than their fathers although the effect size was
small (Cohen’s d = .22). With the authoritarian subscale,
fathers (M = 30.23, SD = 6.12) scored significantly
higher than mothers (M = 29.70, SD = 5.43), t(487) =
2.41, p \ .016. The effect size was small (d = .09). These
results support the first hypothesis.
Table 2 presents a correlation matrix of background
factors, parenting styles and child outcomes. We postulated
a full mediation model in which background factors (age,
gender, and parental education) would have a direct effect
on parenting styles and parenting style would have a direct
effect on psychological well-being (life satisfaction and
mental health).
While the hypothesized model for the authoritative
subscale showed a good fit to the data, several path coef-
ficients were not significant. The model was modified
to exclude non-significant paths (Fig. 1 shows the

123
J Child Fam Stud

Table 1 Invariance of paternal and maternal measures

Model v2 df Dv2 (df) v2/df RMSEA TLI CFI DCFI

Authoritarian model
Unconstrained model 147.76 70 – 2.11 .034 .897 .920 –
Measurement weights 160.80 79 13.04(9) 2.03 .033 .904 .916 .004
Measurement intercepts (full scalar invariance) 177.80 89 17.00(10) 1.99 .032 .908 .909 -.005
Authoritative model
Unconstrained model 223.29 70 – 3.19 .047 .895 .918 –
Measurement weights 247.21 79 24.92(9) 3.12 .047 .898 .910 .002
Measurement intercepts (partial scalar invariance) 274.12 88 26.91(9) 3.11 .047 .898 .901 .009

Table 2 Means, SDs and correlations between the key study variables
Mean (SD) Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Maternal 39.19 (5.24) .75 1

authoritativeness
2 Maternal authoritarianism 29.70 (5.43) .66 .035 1
3 Paternal authoritativeness 37.93 (5.93) .75 .514** .108* 1
4 Paternal authoritarianism 30.23 (6.12) .73 .070 .596** .096* 1
5 Life satisfaction 27.13 (4.63) .78 .219** .055 .252** .061 1
6 Mental health 11.50 (6.28) .82 -.218** .007 -.331** -.046 -.417** 1
7 Parental education – – .019 -.071 .030 .065 -.035 -.051
*p \ .05; **p \ .01

non-significant paths using dashed lines). The modified
model was tested and it showed a non-significant Chi square
fit value (v2(1, N = 488) = 1.703, p = .977, v2/df =
1.703), pointing to an excellent fit. Other fit indices showed
similar results, TLI = .977, CFI = .998, and RMSEA =
.038, suggesting a good fit of the data to the hypothesized
model (Kline 2005). The model explained 11 % of the
variance in mental health outcomes and 7 % in life satis-
faction. The model indicated that authoritative parenting
was positively associated with psychological well-being.
Our results support Hypothesis 3a; however, Hypotheses
2a–2c were not supported as authoritative parenting was
unrelated to gender, education and child’s age.
The hypothesized model for the authoritarian subscale
showed a good fit to the data; however, since several path
coefficients were not significant, we modified the model.
Figure 2 displays the model with non-significant paths
presented as dashed lines. The modified path analytic
model excluding all non-significant paths was tested and
the results showed a non-significant Chi square fit value
(v2(4, N = 488) = 3.950, p = .413, v2/df = .988), which
points to an excellent fit. Other fit indices showed similar
results, TLI = 1.00, CFI = 1.00 and RMSEA = .000,
confirming the fit of the data to the hypothesized model
(Kline 2005). The model indicated that in this sample,
authoritarian parenting was not associated with psycho-
logical well-being. Neither Hypothesis 3bi nor 3bii were
supported, since authoritarianism did not have any rela-
tionship with psychological well-being. In addition, we
observed only a partial confirmation of Hypothesis 2a–2c,
as the background variables were only related to authori-
tarianism and some of the relationships were in an unex-
pected direction.
To investigate the degree of concordance in the use of
different styles, we computed the absolute difference in
scores between maternal and paternal parenting styles. The
difference scores were then included in a path model in
which they were predictors of life satisfaction and mental
health. The results indicated that several path coefficients
were not significant. The model was modified to exclude
path coefficients that were not significant; Fig. 3 shows the
non-significant paths using dashed lines. The modified path
analytic model showed a non-significant Chi square fit
value (v2(1, N = 488) = 1.819, p = .177, v2/df = 1.819),
which points to an excellent fit. Other fit indices showed
similar results, TLI = .956, CFI = .996, and RMSEA =
.041. The model explained only 4 % of the variance in
mental health and 1 % in life satisfaction. Our fourth

123
 J Child Fam Stud

Gender Maternal .10 Life satisfaction

Authoritativeness

Parental .51 -.36

Education
..20
Paternal
Poor Mental
Age Authoritativeness -..33 Health

Gender .11 Maternal Life satisfaction

.09+ Authoritarianism

Parental .60 -.36

.11
Education
-.14
Paternal
Poor Mental
Age -.09 Authoritarianism
Health

Fig. 2 The standardized coefficients on the antecedents and conse- represent non-significant coefficients, solid arrows represent signif-
quences of different parenting styles. Note: All path coefficients icant coefficients. Female coded as 1, male coded as 2
presented are significant at p \ .05. ? p = .051. Dotted arrows

Fig. 3 The standardized Differences

coefficients on the relationship Authoritativeness -.08+
Life
between differences in scores
.14 Satisfaction
between maternal and paternal
parenting styles and
psychological well-being
Note: ? p = .051, The dotted
arrows represents non-
significant coefficients, solid Differences
arrows represent significant Authoritarianism
coefficients. Parenting styles -.14
were allowed to correlate and all
these correlations were
significant
Poor Mental
Health

hypothesis was only partially supported. The relationships
between parental inconsistency and adolescent outcomes
are much more nuanced than hypothesized as its associa-
tion with psychological function seems to vary with par-
enting style.
Discussion
The current study aimed at investigating the influence of
maternal and paternal parenting styles on the psychological
adaptation of Indonesian adolescents. We carried out a
series of confirmatory analyses to examine the factorial
structure of the PAQ. Consistent with earlier findings, such
as a recent study in India by Raval et al. (2013), we were
not able to replicate the underlying three-factor structure of
the PAQ. In terms of psychometric properties, Raval et al.
(2013) also observed that the authoritarian scale showed
the best performance whereas the permissiveness scale was
the most problematic. Our conclusions differ slightly from
those of a recent study from Japan which was able to
replicate the three-factor solution of the PAQ (Uji et al.

123
J Child Fam Stud
2013). Closer scrutiny however reveals that the authors
excluded up to five items on the problematic permissive-
ness scale. We offer two potential explanations for the
problematic nature of the permissiveness scale. Firstly, the
permissiveness construct is probably not sufficiently clear
as currently assessed by PAQ. The lack of a distinction
between neglectful and indulgent parenting is potentially a
problem, especially in a cross-cultural study. Secondly,
item wording may also be potentially problematic. We
were not able to examine the first explanation further in our
sample; however, we found strong evidence to support the
second explanation. Several negatively worded items
within the permissive scale seem to create a spurious sec-
ond factor within the scale. Future attempts to simplify the
wording of this scale may produce a better measure of
permissiveness in a cross-cultural context.
Consistent with our first hypothesis and evidenced by
studies from elsewhere (Shek 1998), mothers were per-
ceived to be more authoritative and permissive, whereas
fathers were perceived to be more authoritarian. The
observed results concur with our knowledge of the Indo-
nesian cultural context. Social interactions are strictly
regulated and the father, the main disciplinarian in the
family, is shown respect and deference. Within such a
context, fathers are likely to appear to be more
authoritarian (i.e., less warm) than the mother. Our findings
are however in contrast with findings from studies in other
largely Muslim, collectivistic cultures like the Arab world,
where no differences were observed between maternal and
paternal style (Dwairy et al. 2006). Noteworthy is the
findings from studies within cultures that are geographi-
cally and culturally similar to Indonesia. A study in
Malaysia observed other differences in reported parenting
styles (Elias and Yee 2009). Mothers in that study were
more likely to display authoritarian styles compared to
fathers. These differing patterns could be attributed to
methodological issues. Elias and Yee (2009) classified
parents according to the dimension in which they scored
highest whereas we used the highest mean score to deter-
mine which parenting style was more common (we also did
not allocate parents to specific styles based on scale
means). The use of mean scores and midpoints is ques-
tionable because of its overreliance on sample-specific
parameters. This can lead to misclassification especially in
homogeneous samples where all scores may be relatively
high or low (see Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver 2007 for
the same classification issues in acculturation research).
The literature has not conclusively established what the
preferred parenting style in non-western contexts is (Juang
et al. 2013). A few studies have suggested that authoritari-
anism may be relatively common; however, other researchers
have questioned the cultural invariance of the concept itself.
For instance, Chao (1994) argues that one of the main issues
is that the construct as defined may not be relevant to the
Chinese culture; rather, it may be better perceived as ‘train-
ing’. Our study generally supports the view that, like parents
in the West, most Indonesian parents prefer to use the
authoritative style. Three aspects are worth highlighting.
First, is that some of the associations we noted in our study
may be due to the urban nature of our sample. Compared to
their rural counterparts, parents in Jakarta, being largely
middle class, with higher educational levels and a relatively
high exposure to the Western cultural context, were more
likely to experience change in the way they structure their
family life and their parenting behavior, in line with the
family change model (Kagitçibasi 2005). Second, a study
where vignettes (which ensure ecological validity and reduce
measurement bias due to social desirability) rather than a
standard scale (such as the PAQ) were used reported that
Indian students preferred authoritative parenting over other
styles (Barnhart et al. 2013). This convergence of results
indicates that the preference for authoritative parenting may
be more common in non-Western cultures than previously
acknowledged. Third, the positive influence of authoritarian
parenting that has been reported among the Chinese may be
due to the role of training. Confucian cultures tend to value
training and self-improvement highly; in such a context,
authoritarian parents are probably more focused on teaching
their children. Confucianism is not salient in Indonesia.
Therefore, authoritarianism effects may be comparable to
those in most parts of the world.
Our findings demonstrate that the authoritative parenting
style is most likely to be associated with positive sociali-
zation outcomes across cultural contexts. Both maternal
and paternal authoritative parenting styles were positively
associated with mental health and life satisfaction of the
adolescents. Contrary to earlier findings, we did not find
any relationship between authoritarianism and psycholog-
ical well-being (Chao 1994; Leung 1998). Whereas
authoritarianism has an adverse effect in the West, these
negative effects have not been reported through studies in
several Middle-Eastern and Chinese samples. Two major
lines of thinking may explain the observed patterns of
results. First, it has been suggested that there is a need to
interpret these results within the larger cultural context. In
Western cultures where strict parenting practices may be
construed as rejection and denial of love, children will have
adverse outcomes due to the distress created by these
practices. On the other hand, in cultures where parental
authority and respect for hierarchy is the norm, children
may expect and accept strict parenting. Based on this
hypothesis, Dwairy et al. (2006; see also Dwairy 2008,
2010) posit that the negative impact of parenting styles
adopted by parents may result from inconsistencies
between the parenting style and the cultural context.
Dwairy et al. (2006) concluded that the ‘inconsistency
123

between authoritarian parenting and the liberal culture in
the west, rather than authoritarianism per se, constitutes the
main reason behind the negative impact of authoritarian
parenting in western society’ (p. 23). Second, a new line of
research indicates that the Western conceptualization of
parenting styles may not adequately capture the construct
in other cultural groups. Choi et al. (2013) observe that
‘results present a nuanced and detailed picture of Korean
American parenting as a blend of Western concepts of
Authoritative and Authoritarian styles and show the coex-
istence of positive and-although limited-negative parent-
ing’ (p. 26).
Children experiencing inconsistency in parenting styles
were more likely to experience poor mental health and
lowered life satisfaction. These results are in line with
empirical evidence (Dwairy 2010; Fletcher et al. 1999) and
theory, particularly the family systems theory which pro-
poses that mother’s and father’s parenting styles can
interdependently contribute to adolescent outcomes. A
more refined analysis of the different patterns of incon-
sistency or a study of the family parenting typology will
provide a clearer understanding of the differential impact
of various combinations of parenting styles. It is note-
worthy that the amount of variance explained by our ana-
lysis was small. Given the differences in methods (both
data collection and analytic), it is difficult to carry out a
direct comparison of our findings with those of earlier
studies. However, an examination of one of the most
thorough investigations of this topic in the literature
(Dwairy 2010) indicates that in general, the association
between parental inconsistency and psychological func-
tioning of adolescents was weak.
Fathers are often ignored in the parenting literature; yet,
their influence on adolescent development may be stronger
than mothers in some instances (Hoeve et al. 2009). Our
dataset demonstrated a stronger relationship between
paternal authoritativeness and poor mental health than that
found for maternal authoritativeness. These results are
consistent with findings from other populations. A meta-
analysis of the influence of parenting on delinquency
observed that although only 20 % of the studies included
fathers in their samples, the lack of paternal support was
found to be potentially more detrimental to outcomes than
lack of maternal support (Hoeve et al. 2009). These results
provide the impetus for more research involving fathers
especially in understudied populations such as Indonesia.
Limitations
Several factors may limit the generalizability of the current
findings. The first relates to the measurement instrument.
The PAQ has been widely used in the investigation of
Baumrind’s typology of parenting across different cultural
123
J Child Fam Stud
contexts; however, despite using a comprehensive
approach to evaluating the scale, we were not able to fully
replicate its factor structure. Two characteristics of the
scale may account for this failure. The first, with regards to
item formulation, relates to the potential problems arising
from the length of the items, complexity of wording,
negatively worded and double-barreled items. The second,
at the construct level could be the bias introduced through
the use of items that are too similar to clearly differentiate
between permissive and authoritative parenting styles. Our
study findings therefore suggested that the PAQ does not
seem to function well in the Indonesian context, and that a
more emic approach is needed to develop satisfactory
items. Future research concerned with refinement of the
items and scale is required if the scale is to be used in a
non-Western context.
Another limitation of this study is the use of an exclu-
sively urban sample. This may have precluded the oppor-
tunity to obtain information on parenting styles and its
influences from a more traditional Indonesian sample.
Future efforts should focus on a broader sample. Moreover,
our study involved only a limited number of antecedents and
outcome variables. The inclusion of more antecedent factors
such as parental working hours, family size and structure
may have explained a greater proportion of the variance
observed, thus improving our study findings. A study of
other aspects like academic achievement could also poten-
tially yield more information on the impact of different
parenting styles on adolescent outcomes. Lastly, our use of
cross-sectional data in the form of single informant reports
(rather than observations) means we can only base our
conclusions on associations rather than causations.
As measured by the PAQ, authoritative and authoritar-
ian, but not permissive, parenting seems to be valid con-
structs the Indonesian context. A further refinement of the
scales to adequately capture the different parenting styles is
necessary. The differences between maternal and paternal
parenting styles were small; however, their relationships to
adolescent development point to meaningful and partially
universal patterns (notably the positive associations of
authoritative parenting with children’s well-being and
mental health) that may be specific to the context of our
study (the lack of influence of authoritarianism). These
results emphasize the need to study maternal and paternal
parenting styles separately in order to understand their
influence within a given socio-cultural context.
References
Abu-Rayya, H. M. (2006). Acculturation and well-being among Arab-
European mixed-ethnic adolescents in Israel. Journal of
J Child Fam Stud
Adolescent Health, 39, 745–751. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.
04.008.
Acevedo, G. A., Ellison, C. G., & Yilmaz, M. (2013). Religion and
child-rearing values in Turkey. Journal of Family Issues. doi:10.
1177/0192513X13504921.
Adamson, C. (2007). Gendered anxieties. Islam, women’s rights and
moral hierarchy in Java. Anthropological Quarterly, 80, 5–37.
Ang, R. P. (2006). Effects of parenting style on personal and social
variables for Asian adolescents. American Journal of Orthopsy-
chiatry, 76, 503–511. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.76.4.503.
Apriliaty, M. (2005). Perbedaan Konsep Diri Antara Remaja Putri
yang Memiliki Persepsi Pola Asuh Authoritarian, Authoritative,
Permissive, dan Uninvolved [Self-concept differences between
female adolescent who perceived receiving Authoritarian,
Authoritative, Permissive, and Uninvolved parenting styles].
Bachelor thesis. Jakarta, Indonesia: Faculty of Psychology, Atma
Jaya Catholic University.
Arends-Tóth, J. V., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2007). Acculturation
attitudes: A comparison of measurement methods. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1462–1488. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2007.00222.x.
Assadi, S. M., Zokaei, N., Kaviani, H., Mohammadi, M. H., Padideh,
G., Gohari, M. R., et al. (2007). Effect of socio-cultural context
and parenting style on scholastic achievement among Iranian
adolescents. Social Development, 16, 169–180. doi:10.1111/j.
1467-9507.2007.00377.x.
Badan Pusat Statistik Republik Indonesia. (2009). Statistik Indonesia
2009: Statistical yearbook of Indonesia. Jakarta: BPS-Indonesia.
Bank, L., Forgatch, M. S., Patterson, G. R., & Fetrow, R. A. (1993).
Parenting practices of single mothers: Mediators of negative
contextual factors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55,
371–384.
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a
neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296–3319.
Barnhart, C., Raval, V., Jansari, A., & Raval, P. (2013). Perceptions
of parenting style among college students in India and the United
States. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22, 684–693.
doi:10.1007/s10826-012-9621-1.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Devel-
opmental Psychology Monographs, 4, 1–103. doi:10.1037/h0030
372.
Baumrind, D. (1972). An exploratory study of socialization effects on
black children: Some black and white comparisons. Child
Development, 43, 261–267. doi:10.2307/1127891.
Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social
competence in children. Youth and Society, 9, 239–275.
Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 57, 110–119. doi:10.1207/s15327752
jpa5701_13.
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.
doi:10.2307/1131308.
Cheah, C. S. L., Leung, C. Y. Y., Tahseen, M., & Schultz, D. (2009).
Authoritative parenting among immigrant Chinese mothers of
preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 311–320.
doi:10.1037/a0015076.
Chen, X. Y., Liu, M. W., & Li, D. (2000). Parental warmth, control,
and indulgence and their relations to adjustment in Chinese
children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology,
14, 401–419. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.14.3.401.
Choi, Y., Kim, Y. S., Kim, S. Y., & Park, I. J. (2013). Is Asian
American parenting controlling and harsh? Empirical testing of
relationships between Korean American and Western parenting
measures. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 4(1), 19.
doi:10.1037/a0031220.
Dahesihsari, R., Purwanti, M., Halim, M. S. (1995). Pola Reaksi
Penanggulangan Masalah pada Remaja dengan Iklim Sosial
Keluarga Kondusif dan Non Kondusif di DKI Jakarta [Coping
behavior patterns of adolescents living with family in conducive
and nonconductive social climate in DKI Jakarta]. Unpublished
research report. Jakarta, Indonesia: Atma Jaya Catholic
University.
Danso, H., Hunsberger, B., & Pratt, M. (1997). The role of parental
religious fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism in
child-rearing goals and practices. Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion, 36, 496–511.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An
integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487–496.
Dornbush, S., Ritter, P., Liederman, P., Roberts, D., & Fraleigh, M.
(1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school
performance. Child Development, 58, 1244–1257.
Dwairy, M. A. (2008). Parental inconsistency versus parental
authoritarianism: Associations with symptoms of psychological
disorders. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 616–626.
doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9169-3.
Dwairy, M. (2010). Parental inconsistency: A third cross-cultural
research on parenting and psychological adjustment of children.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 23–29. doi:10.1007/
s10826-009-9339-x.
Dwairy, M., Achoui, M., Abouserie, R., & Farah, A. (2006a).
Parenting styles, individuation, and mental health of Arab
adolescents: A third cross-regional research study. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 262–272. doi:10.1177/00220
22106286924.
Dwairy, M., Achoui, M., Abouserie, R., Farah, A., Sakhleh, A. A.,
Fayad, M., et al. (2006b). Parenting styles in Arab societies—A
first cross-regional research study. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 37, 230–247. doi:10.1177/0022022106286922.
Eisenberg, N., Chang, L., Ma, Y., & Huang, X. K. (2009). Relations
of parenting style to Chinese children’s effortful control, ego
resilience, and maladjustment. Development and Psychopathol-
ogy, 21, 455–477. doi:10.1017/S095457940900025X.
Elias, H., & Yee, T. H. (2009). Relationship between perceived
paternal and maternal parenting styles and student academic
achievement in selected secondary schools. European Journal of
Social Sciences, 9, 181–192.
Fletcher, A. C., Steinberg, L., & Sellers, E. B. (1999). Adolescents’
well-being as a function of perceived interparental inconsistency.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 599–610.
Forehand, R., & Nousiainen, S. (1993). Maternal and paternal
parenting: Critical dimensions in adolescent functioning. Journal
of Family Psychology, 7, 213–221. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.7.2.
213.
Garcia, F., & Gracia, E. (2009). Is always authoritative the optimum
parenting style? Evidence from Spanish families. Adolescence,
44, 101–131.
Godina, L. (2013). Religion and parenting: Ignored relationship?
Child and Family Social Work.
Goldberg, D. (1992). General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12).
Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
Harkness, S., & Super, C. M. (1996). Parents’ cultural belief systems:
Their origins, expressions, and consequences. New York, NY:
The Guilford Press.
Hein, C., & Lewko, J. H. (1994). Gender differences in factors related
to parenting style—A study of high performing science students.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 9, 262–281. doi:10.1177/
074355489492008.
Herz, L., & Gullone, E. (1999). The relationship between self-esteem
and parenting style a cross-cultural comparison of australian and
vietnamese Australian adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 30, 742–761.
123

Hoeve, M., Dubas, J. S., Eichelsheim, V. I., van der Laan, P. H.,
Smeenk, W., & Gerris, J. R. M. (2009). The relationship between
parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnor-
mal Child Psychology, 37, 749–775. doi:10.1007/s10802-009-
9310-8.
Hoeve, M., Dubas, J. S., Gerris, J. R., van der Laan, P. H., & Smeenk,
W. (2011). Maternal and paternal parenting styles: Unique and
combined links to adolescent and early adult delinquency.
Journal of Adolescence, 34, 813–827. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.
2011.02.004.
Huebner, E. S., Suldo, S. M., Valois, R. F., & Drane, J. W. (2006).
The brief multidimensional students’ life satisfaction scale: Sex,
race, and grade effects for applications with middle school
students. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 1, 211–216.
doi:10.1007/s11482-006-9016-9.
Huver, R. M. E., Otten, R., de Vries, H., & Engels, R. (2009).
Personality and parenting style in parents of adolescents. Journal
of Adolescence, 33, 395–402. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.
07.012.
Jackson-Newsom, J., Buchanan, C. M., & McDonald, R. M. (2008).
Parenting and perceived maternal warmth in European American
and African American adolescents. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 70, 62–75. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00461.x.
Juang, L. P., Qin, D. B., & Park, I. J. (2013). Deconstructing the myth
of the ‘‘tiger mother’’: An introduction to the special issue on
tiger parenting, Asian-heritage families, and child/adolescent
well-being. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 4, 1. doi:10.
1037/a0032136.
Kagitçibasi, C. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context:
Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 36, 403–422. doi:10.1177/0022022105275959.
Kawabata, Y., Alink, L. R. A., Tseng, W., van IJzendoorn, M. H., &
Crick, N. R. (2011). Maternal and paternal parenting styles
associated with relational aggression in children and adolescents:
A conceptual analysis and meta-analytic review. Developmental
Review, 31, 240–278. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2011.08.001.
Keller, H. (2012). Autonomy and relatedness revisited. Cultural
manifestations of universal human needs. Child Development
Perspectives, 6, 12–18.
Keller, H. (2013). Culture and development: Developmental path-
ways to psychological autonomy and hierarchical relatedness
(2). Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 6(1). doi:10.
9707/2307-0919.1052.
Keshavarz, S., & Baharudin, R. (2012). The moderating role of
gender on the relationships between perceived paternal parenting
style, locus of control and self-efficacy. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 32, 63–68. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.
011.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation
modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M.
(1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adoles-
cents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful
families. Child Development, 62, 1049–1065.
Leung, K., Lau, S., & Lam, W. L. (1998). Parenting styles and
academic achievement: A cross-cultural study. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly-Journal of Developmental Psychology, 44, 157–172.
Lipps, G., Lowe, G. A., Gibson, R. C., Halliday, S., Morris, A.,
Clarke, N., et al. (2012). Parenting and depressive symptoms
among adolescents in four Caribbean societies. Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 6, 1–12.
Lopez, S. T., Calvo, J. V. P., & Menendez, M. D. R. (2008). Parenting
styles. Bibliographical revision and theoretical reformulation.
Teoria De La Educacion, 20, 151–178.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of
the family: Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.),
123
J Child Fam Stud
Mussen manual of child psychology Vol. 4 (4th ed., pp. 1–102).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Magnis-Suseno, F. (1991). Etika Jawa: Sebuah analisa falsafi tentang
kebijaksanaan hidup Jawa [Javanese ethics: A philosophical
analysis of Javanese wisdom]. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka
Utama.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self:
Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psycholog-
ical Review, 98, 224–253. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224.
Milevsky, A., Schlechter, M., Klem, L., & Kehl, R. (2008).
Constellations of maternal and paternal parenting styles in
adolescence: Congruity and well-being. Marriage and Family
Review, 44, 81–98. doi:10.1080/01494920802185447.
Neto, (1993). The satisfaction with life scale: Psychometric properties
in an adolescent sample. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 22,
125–134. doi:10.1007/BF01536648.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1994). The emergence of gender
differences in depression during adolescence. Psychological
Bulletin, 115(3), 424–443. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.424.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Larson, J., & Grayson, C. (1999). Explaining
the gender difference in depressive symptoms. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1061–1072. doi:10.
1037/0022-3514.77.5.1061.
Pahur, R. A. (2008). Perbedaan Kemampuan Sosialisasi antara
Remaja yang Memiliki Persepsi Pola Asuh Authoritative,
Authoritarian, dan Permissive [Social skill differences between
adolescent who percieved receiving Authoritative, Authoritarian,
and Permissive parenting styles]. Bachelor thesis. Jakarta:
Faculty of Psychology, Atma Jaya Catholic University.
Piercy, F., Soekandar, A., Limansubroto, C., & Davis, S. (2005).
Family therapy with Indonesians. In M. McGoldrick, J. Pearce,
& J. Giordano (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (3rd ed.,
pp. 84–99). New York, NY: Guilford.
Pipp, S., Shaver, P., Jennings, S., Lambom, S., & Fischer, I. C. W.
(1985). Adolescents’ theories about the development of their
relationships with parents. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 48, 991–1001. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.4.991.
Proctor, C. L., Linley, P. A., & Maltby, J. (2009). Youth life
satisfaction: A review of the literature. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 10, 583–630. doi:10.1007/s10902-008-9110-9.
Raval, V., Ward, R., Raval, P., & Trivedi, S. (2013). Confirmatory
and exploratory factor analyses of Parental Authority Question-
naire in Urban India. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22,
707–718. doi:10.1007/s10826-012-9624-y.
Raver, C. C., Gershoff, E. T., & Aber, J. L. (2007). Testing
equivalence of mediating models of income, parenting, and
school readiness for White, Black, and Hispanic children in a
national sample. Child Development, 78, 96–115. doi:10.1111/j.
1467-8624.2007.00987.x.
Raviv, T., Kessenich, M., & Morrison, F. J. (2004). A mediational
model of the association between socioeconomic status and
three-year-old language abilities: The role of parenting factors.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 528–547.
Setiadi, B. N. (2006). Indonesian traditional family in a changing
society. In J. Georgas, J. W. Berry, F. J. R. Van de Vijver, C.
Kagitcibasi, & Y. Poortinga (Eds.), Families across cultures: A
30-nation psychological study (pp. 370–378). Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Shek, D. T. L. (1998). Adolescents’ perceptions of paternal and
maternal parenting styles in a Chinese context. Journal of
Psychology, 132, 527–537. doi:10.1080/00223989809599285.
Snoek, H. M., Engels, R., Janssens, J., & van Strien, T. (2007).
Parental behaviour and adolescents’ emotional eating. Appetite,
49, 223–230. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2007.02.004.
Tam, C. L., Chong, A., Kadirvelu, A., & Khoo, Y. T. (2013).
Parenting styles and self-efficacy of adolescents: Malaysian
J Child Fam Stud
scenario. Global Journal of Human Social Science Research,
12(14-A).
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Way, N., Hughes, D., Yoshikawa, H.,
Kalman, R. K., & Niwa, E. Y. (2008). Parents’ goals for
children: The dynamic coexistence of individualism and collec-
tivism in cultures and individuals. Social Development, 17,
183–209.
Uji, M., Sakamoto, A., Adachi, K., & Kitamura, T. (2013). The
Impact of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting
styles on children’s later mental health in Japan: Focusing on
parent and child gender. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
1–10. doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9740-3.
Wilcox, W. B. (1998). Conservative Protestant childrearing: Authoritar-
ian or authoritative? American Sociological Review, 796–809.
123