Educ Psychol Rev

DOI 10.1007/s10648-015-9338-y

R E V I E W A RT I C L E

Associations of Parenting Styles and Dimensions

with Academic Achievement in Children and Adolescents:
A Meta-analysis

Martin Pinquart 1

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract Parents and researchers alike are interested in how to promote children’s academic
competence. The present meta-analysis integrates the results of 308 empirical studies on
associations of general parenting dimensions and styles with academic achievement of chil-
dren and adolescents assessed via grade point average or academic achievement tests. Parental
responsiveness (warmth), behavioral control, autonomy granting, and an authoritative parent-
ing style were associated with better academic performance both concurrently and in longitu-
dinal studies, although these associations were small in a statistical sense. Parental harsh
control, and psychological control, as well as neglectful, authoritarian, and permissive parent-
ing styles were related to lower achievement with small to very small effect sizes. With three
exceptions, parenting dimensions and styles also predicted change in academic achievement
over time. Moderating effects of child age, ethnicity, reporter on parenting and academic
achievement, quality of the parenting and achievement measure, and publication status were
identified. It is concluded that associations of academic achievement with general parenting
dimensions/styles tend to be smaller than associations of school-specific parental involvement
which have been addressed in previous meta-analyses.

Keywords Academic achievement . Grade point average . Meta-analysis . Parenting

Psychological and educational researchers have long been interested in the effects of parenting
on students’ academic achievement (e.g., Fan and Chen 2001). Many studies have focused on
parental school-related involvement in a narrow sense, such as helping children with home-
work, attending parent–teacher conferences, and attending children’s extracurricular activities.
Related meta-analyses have shown positive small to moderate associations between parental

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9338-y)

contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

* Martin Pinquart
[email protected]

1
Department of Psychology, Philipps University, Gutenbergstrasse 18, 35032 Marburg, Germany
 Educ Psychol Rev

involvement and academic achievement (r=0.12, Castro et al. 2015; r=0.18, Hill and Tyson
2009; r=0.25, Fan and Chen 2001; r=0.25, Jeynes 2007; r=0.34, Jeynes 2005). In contrast,
comprehensive meta-analyses are lacking that relate general parental behaviors and styles to
academic achievement. Therefore, the present study integrates available research on associa-
tions of general dimensions and parenting styles with academic achievement of children and
adolescents.
Dimensional approaches to parenting originally identified two central aspects of (general)
parental behaviors, namely responsiveness (being accepting, nurturing, sensitive, supportive,
and warm) and demandingness/control (Baumrind 1966; Maccoby and Martin 1983). Later,
researchers further distinguished four kinds of demandingness/control (e.g., Janssens et al.
2015). First, proactive behavioral control consists of active parental strategies involving the
communication of clear and consistent expectations of appropriate behavior and efforts to
monitor the child’s behavior related to these expectations. Second, reactive behavioral control
refers to punishment if the child’s behavior does not meet parental expectations. It often takes
the form of harsh parenting encompassing coercive parenting tactics from frequent use of
corporal punishment to escalated physical abuse (e.g., Stutz and Schwarz 2014). A third form
of control, psychological control, refers to parents controlling the child’s behavior by manip-
ulating his or her psychological experiences, such as the use of guilt induction, shaming, and
conditional loving to pressure their children (Barber 1996). Whether the amount of parental
control is adequate or hinders the development of autonomy is addressed in a fourth form of
parental control, parental overcontrol versus autonomy granting. Overcontrol refers to an
excessive amount of involvement in the daily routines and activities of a child, encouraging
dependence on the parents (Barber 1996). In contrast, autonomy granting is defined as parental
encouragement of the child’s individual expression and decision making, such as allowing
children to make choices about activities and behavior, and encouraging the development of
independence (Silk et al. 2003). While parental responsiveness/warmth and the four forms of
control represent dimensions that vary from low to high, the parenting styles approach
categorizes parents based on combinations of low versus high scores on parenting
dimensions. Maccoby and Martin (1983) defined four parenting styles according to the levels
of responsiveness/warmth and (proactive) behavioral control: an authoritative style (high
warmth and high control), an authoritarian style (low warmth and high control), a permissive
style (high warmth and low control), and a neglectful style (low warmth and low control). As
the five parenting dimensions and the four parenting styles have received considerably
empirical attention in the research on academic outcomes, the present meta-analysis integrated
the available results.

Associations of Parenting Dimensions and Styles with Academic

Performance

It has been hypothesized that the relation between general parenting dimensions/styles and
academic achievement is mediated by students’ achievement motivation (e.g., Marchant et al.
2001; Turner et al. 2009), self-efficacy beliefs (e.g., Turner et al. 2009), and self-regulation
(e.g., Lee et al. 2012). Higher responsiveness is associated with higher interest in school and
learning goal orientation which help students succeed in school (Spera 2006). When
focusing on proactive behavioral control, parents with high maturity demands expect
their children to perform up to their intellectual capacity. In addition, proactive behavioral
Educ Psychol Rev

control promotes goal-directed behavior (Lee et al. 2012) and reduces externalizing problem
behavior, such as truancy, which interferes with academic performance (Li et al. 2000). In
contrast, harsh parental control may promote the rejection of parental standards of academic
performance and reduce academic achievement (Shumov et al. 1998). Similarly, Aunola and
Nurmi (2004) suggested that psychological control may be associated with low performance as
guilt-inducing parents are emotional and impulsive and may not be capable of providing the
cognitively oriented school-related advice and support necessary for high academic perfor-
mance. In addition, in line with self-determination theory, autonomy support as opposed to
parental overcontrol promotes self-regulation in academic work which is, again, related to
better performance at school (e.g., Wong 2008).
Given the suggested associations of parenting dimensions with academic achievement, the
authoritative parenting style (high responsiveness plus high demandingness) has been linked
with adaptive achievement strategies characterized by low levels of failure expectations, task-
irrelevant behavior and passivity (Aunola et al. 2000) coupled with high levels of independent
problem solving and critical thinking (Gray and Steinberg 1999; Grolnick and Ryan 1989),
which could promote academic achievement. In contrast, adolescents of neglectful parents
have been found to apply most strongly maladaptive achievement strategies characterized by
high levels of task-irrelevant behavior and passivity which, again, inhibits academic achieve-
ment (Aunola et al. 2000). Although authoritarian and permissive parents each show one kind
of parental behavior suggested to promote academic achievement (demandingness and re-
sponsiveness, respectively), the other component of the parenting model by Maccoby and
Martin (1983) is lacking (responsiveness and demandingness, respectively). Children of these
parents could, therefore, be expected to perform less well academically than children of
authoritative parents although they may show better academic performance than children of
neglectful parents.
Research on associations between parenting dimensions/styles with academic achievement
has been summarized in narrative reviews. Recently, Masud et al. (2015) reviewed 39 studies
on associations of parenting styles with academic outcomes including achievement,
motivation, and school behaviors. They concluded that parenting styles were one of the
most important factors affecting academic achievement. However, theoretical flaws such as
suggesting that authoritative parents use psychological control and the lack of inclusion of a
large number of relevant, available studies limit the conclusions that can be drawn from that
review. A narrative review by Brown and Iyengar (2008) reported that parental behavioral and
psychological control had a direct influence on student achievement. However, they cited only
two studies as support for their conclusion. Reviewing studies on general and school-specific
parenting, Spera (2005) concluded that parental monitoring (as aspect of proactive behavioral
control) was associated with better academic performance.
A meta-analysis by Rosenzweig (2001) found significant correlations of student achieve-
ment with authoritative (r=0.20, based on 22 findings), permissive (r=−0.08, based on 16
findings), and uninvolved/neglectful parenting (r=−0.23, based on 10 findings). In addition,
parental warmth (r=0.275, based on 6 findings) and autonomy support (r=0.23, based on 12
findings) were related to better academic achievement. Unfortunately, this meta-analysis did
not provide separate results for the fourth parenting style (authoritarian parenting). Relevant
information remained unreported, such as tests for statistical significance of the weighted mean
effect size and for homogeneity of the effect sizes. Another unpublished meta-analysis on
correlates of parental autonomy support found a very small association with academic
achievement (r=0.08, based on 11 studies; Crowther 2014).
 Educ Psychol Rev

As available narrative reviews and unpublished meta-analyses included only small

numbers of studies and provided sparse support for some of their claims, the first goal
of the present meta-analysis was to integrate the results from a much larger number of
studies in order to get more robust results. Concurrent correlations do not allow for
testing whether parenting may have an effect on academic achievement or vice versa,
and ignoring child effects will inflate estimates of the parents’ contribution to chil-
dren’s socialization. Thus, the second goal of the meta-analysis was to compare
associations of parenting with academic outcomes across different research designs:
cross-sectional data, longitudinal data relating parenting at first assessment to academ-
ic achievement at second assessment, and cross-lagged designs analyzing statistical
effects of parenting on change in academic outcomes and of academic performance on
change in parenting. As the results of available studies are, in part, inconsistent, the
third goal of the meta-analysis was the identification of study characteristics that
moderate the size of associations between parenting dimensions/styles and academic
performance.

Moderating Effects of Study Characteristics

Age We tested whether associations of parenting dimensions/styles with academic achieve-

ment decline in older samples when adolescents strive for autonomy from their parents and
peers become more important. Meta-analyses on school-related parenting found stronger
associations with academic outcomes in elementary school students (Jeynes 2005) than in
students from secondary schools (Jeynes 2007).

Child Gender Results of individual studies are contradictory on whether associations of

parenting with academic achievement do (Dumka et al. 2009; Must 2007) or do not vary by
child gender (Paulson 1994). The present meta-analysis tested whether there were systematic
gender differences across the available studies.

Ethnicity The meaning and effects of parenting may vary according to whether individual
parenting behaviors or styles are culturally accepted. For example, there is some evidence that
white adolescents are more likely to benefit academically from authoritative parenting than
African-American and Asian-American adolescents (Steinberg et al. 1992). Thus, the present
meta-analysis tested whether associations of parenting with academic performance varied by
the percentage of students from ethnic minorities.

Parental Gender The meta-analysis also tested for moderating effects of parental gender. As
mothers are often the primary caregiver, they might be more influential than fathers. However,
results of individual studies are inconsistent regarding whether maternal (Dumka et al. 2009)
or paternal parenting dimensions/styles (Tam 2009) show stronger associations with academic
achievement. We were also interested in whether the size of associations differed between
same-sex dyads (e.g., mother–daughter) and cross-sex dyads.

Dependent Variable While some studies assessed students’ grade point average (GPA),
others used standardized academic achievement tests. Thus, we tested whether the results
varied between these two outcomes. No directional hypothesis could be stated.
Educ Psychol Rev

Reporter of Parenting and Academic Achievement Mothers’ and fathers’ reports on

parenting may be affected by a tendency to give socially desirable answers and to avoid
reporting problematic behaviors to a third party (Morsbach and Prinz 2006). Similarly,
students may give socially desirable answers when asked about their academic performance
(Teye and Peaslee 2015). Thus, the present meta-analysis tested whether associations between
parenting and child outcomes were weaker if the information about parenting comes from the
fathers and/or mothers and when information about academic performance comes from the
students rather than other reporters. In addition, the meta-analysis tested whether stronger
associations were found if information on parenting and academic performance comes from
the same source due to shared methods variance.

Quality of the Measures Studies of high quality provide support for the validity and
reliability of their measures. However, it is less clear whether the quality of the measures
would have a systematic effect on the size of associations between parenting and academic
achievement. The meta-analyses by Jeynes (2005, 2007) on school-related parental involve-
ment found no moderator effect of study quality. Thus, no directional expectation could be
stated.

Publication Status Because non-significant results may be less likely to be published

(Lipsey and Wilson 2001), the meta-analysis tested whether the effect sizes were smaller in
unpublished than in published studies.

Methods

Sample

Studies were identified through electronic databases [PSYCINFO, ERIC, Google Scholar, and
PSYNDEX (an electronic database of psychological literature from German-speaking coun-
tries)—search terms: (parenting OR child rearing) and (academic achievement OR academic
success OR student performance OR grade point average OR GPA OR achievement test)] and
cross-referencing. Criteria for inclusion of studies in the present meta-analysis were as follows:

(a) The studies assessed parental warmth/responsiveness, (prospective) behavioral control,

harsh control, psychological control, autonomy granting (versus overprotection), and/or
parenting styles defined by Maccoby and Martin (1983),
(b) they assessed academic achievement of the children either via academic achievement
tests or grade point average (GPA),
(c) statistical associations between parenting and achievement were reported or could be
computed,
(d) mean age of the sample <20 years,
(e) the studies were completed before June, 2015.

In order to include studies from different regions of the world, we did not limit the included
studies to those written in English. Unpublished studies identified by the literature search (e.g.,
dissertations) were also included. We identified 1173 studies. After screening and assessing for
eligibility, we were able to include 308 studies in the meta-analysis. A flow chart of the search
 Educ Psychol Rev

for studies is provided in Appendix 1, and the studies included are listed in Appendices 2 and 3
(see supplementary online material).
We entered the number of students, mean age, percentage of girls and percentage of
members of ethnic minorities, publication status (1=published, 2=unpublished), rater of
parenting (1=child, 2=parent, 3=observer, 4=multi-informant), rater of academic perfor-
mance (1=child, 2=parent, 3=teacher, 4=researcher, 5=multi-informant), assessment of
academic performance (1=GPA, 2=achievement test), quality of the measures of parenting
and academic performance (2=support for validity and reliability provided, 1=no such support
provided), and the size of association between parenting and academic performance. If
associations were provided for several subgroups within the same publication (e.g., for female
and male participants), we entered them separately in our analysis instead of entering the
global association. If data from more than one rater or outcome were reported, we entered the
effect sizes separately. The weights of these effect sizes were adjusted in order to avoid a
disproportional impact of this study on the overall effect size (Lipsey and Wilson 2001).
Approximately 20 % of the studies were coded by the author and a graduate student. A mean
inter-rater reliability of 94 % (range 89–100 %) was established. Differences were resolved by
discussion.

Measures

Parental responsiveness (warmth) was most often assessed with the Children’s Report of
Parent Behavior Inventory (CRPBI; Schaefer 1965; 24 studies), the Parenting Style
Questionnaire (Lamborn et al. 1991; 12 studies), and related measures (103 studies).
Proactive behavioral control was most often assessed with the Parenting Style
Questionnaire (Lamborn et al. 1991; 15 studies), the CRPBI (10 studies), and related
instruments (106 studies). Of the 32 studies assessing harsh parental control, most researchers
used measures developed specifically for their study (13 studies). Psychological control was
assessed with the CRPBI (9 studies), the Psychological Control Scale-Youth Self-Report
(Barber 1996; 9 studies), and related instruments (11 studies). Autonomy granting was
assessed with the Parenting Style Questionnaire (Lamborn et al. 1991, 5 studies), the
Parental Bonding Instrument (Parker et al. 1979; 4 studies), and other measures (33 studies).
Parenting styles were most often assessed with the Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri
1991; 29 studies), the Parenting Style Questionnaire (Lamborn et al. 1991; 22 studies), and
related instruments (58 studies). Finally, academic performance was assessed via GPA (241
studies) and academic achievement tests such as the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of
Achievement (Woodcock et al. 2001; 73 studies).

Statistical Integration of the Findings

Calculations for the meta-analysis were performed in four steps, using random-effects models
and the method of moments (Lipsey and Wilson 2001).

1. The correlations were transformed using Fisher’s r-to-z transformation. Outliers that were
more than two SD from the mean of the effect sizes were recoded to the value at two SD,
based on Lipsey and Wilson (2001).
2. Weighted mean z-scores and 95 % confidence intervals were computed. The significance
of the mean was tested by dividing the weighted mean effect size by the standard error of
Educ Psychol Rev

the mean. To compare the mean effect sizes with the effect sizes reported in the single
studies, the mean effect sizes were later converted to the original metric of product–
moment correlations.
3. Homogeneity of effect sizes was tested by use of the Q statistic.
4. In order to test the influence of moderator variables, we used an analogue of an analysis of
variance and weighted ordinary least squares regression analyses. A significant Q score
indicates heterogeneity of the effect sizes between the compared conditions. Which
conditions differ is tested by comparing the 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Differences
between two conditions are significant if CI of two effect sizes do not overlap (Lipsey and
Wilson 2001). As information on moderator variables (e.g., age, gender) was lacking in
part of the studies, moderator effects were analyzed individually rather than including all
moderators simultaneously in a common multivariate analysis.

Results

The 308 included studies have been published between 1974 and 2015. They provided data on
362,155 young people with a mean age of 13.19 years (SD=3.51). About 50.6 % of the
participants were female (SD=17.9) and 42.6 % (SD=30.9) belonged to an ethnic minority.
As shown in Table 1, studies on concurrent relationships found that better aca-
demic achievement was associated with higher levels of parental responsiveness
(warmth; r=0.14), behavioral control (r=0.11), autonomy granting (r=0.11), and an
authoritative parenting style (r=0.17). According to Cohen’s criteria for interpreting
effect sizes, all associations must be interpreted as small (Cohen 1992). Parental harsh
control (r=−0.16) and psychological control (r=−0.11) as well as authoritarian (r=
−0.09), permissive (r=−0.05), and neglectful parenting styles (r=−0.15) were associ-
ated with lower academic performance. The size of these relationships was small to
very small. The non-overlap of the 95 % CI indicates that the association of
neglectful parenting with academic achievement was more negative than the associa-
tions of authoritarian and permissive parenting. Longitudinal studies relating parenting
at first assessment with achievement at follow-up (mean interval 3.6 years) replicated
the concurrent associations of warmth (r=0.17), behavioral control (r=0.11), harsh
control (r=−0.13), psychological control (r=−0.23), autonomy granting (r=0.15), and
authoritative parenting (r=0.15; Table 1). However, associations of initial authoritar-
ian, permissive, and neglectful parenting with academic achievement at follow-up
were not significant in longitudinal studies, possibly due to low statistical test power
(only three to seven effect sizes were available for these analyses).
Analyses of cross-lagged effects showed that parental warmth (r=0.10), behavioral control
(r=0.04), autonomy granting (r=0.06), and authoritative parenting (r=0.10) predicted in-
creases in academic achievement over time while harsh control (r=−0.11), psychological
control (r=−0.14), and a neglectful parenting style (r=−0.09) predicted decreases in achieve-
ment. Associations of initial achievement with changes in parenting could only be analyzed for
three out of nine aspects of parenting dimensions/styles. Better initial achievement was
associated with increases in parental warmth (r=0.11) and behavioral control (r=0.08), thus
indicating bidirectional associations (Table 1).
Weighted linear regression analyses were used in order to analyze statistical effects of
continuous moderator variables (mean age, percentage of female participants and of
Table 1 Associations of parenting with academic performance

Parental warmth Parental behavioral control Parental harsh control

k r 95 % CI t Q k r 95 % CI t Q k r 95 % CI t Q
Parent1–Achiev1 217 0.14 0.12 0.15 16.61*** 179.39 213 0.11 0.09 0.12 12.18*** 195.55 43 −0.16 −0.20 −0.12 −8.10*** 40.02
Parent1–Achiev2 61 0.17 0.13 0.20 9.71*** 55.84 53 0.11 0.07 0.15 5.69*** 39.68 12 −0.13 −0.19 −0.06 −3.86*** 13.64
Parent1–Achiev12 28 0.10 0.07 0.13 6.68*** 21.75 35 0.04 0.00 0.07 2.13* 50.01* 6 −0.11 −0.18 −0.05 −3.34*** 4.98
Achiev1–Parent12 10 0.11 0.20 0.05 2.36* 3.03 18 0.08 0.03 0.12 3.50*** 15.90 0
Parental psychological control Parental autonomy granting Authoritative parenting style
k r 95 % CI t Q k r 95 % CI t Q k r 95 % CI t Q
Parent1–Achiev1 76 −0.11 −0.13 −0.10 −16.87*** 71.28 62 0.11 0.08 0.14 7.36*** 50.00 162 0.17 0.15 0.20 13.35*** 162.27
Parent1–Achiev2 14 −0.23 −0.27 −0.19 −9.18*** 3.49 17 0.15 0.09 0.22 4.77*** 24.28 9 0.15 0.04 0.25 2.61** 1.35
Parent1–Achiev12 10 −0.14 −0.23 −0.05 −2.93** 9.20 9 0.06 0.02 0.11 3.05** 7.05 8 0.10 0.08 0.12 10.57*** 5.93
Achiev1–Parent12 0 5 0.02 −0.10 0.13 0.27 8.12 0
Authoritarian parenting style Permissive parenting style Neglectful parenting style
k r 95 % CI t Q k r 95 % CI t Q k r 95 % CI t Q
Parent1–Achiev1 145 −0.09 −0.12 −0.07 −6.68*** 148.06 128 −0.05 −0.07 −0.02 −3.72*** 125.72 62 −0.15 −0.19 −0.12 −9.92*** 64.58
Parent1–Achiev2 7 −0.10 −0.23 0.03 −1.48 1.83 6 0.03 −0.10 0.16 0.45 4.33 3 −0.12 −0.26 0.02 −1.63 1.51
Parent1–Achiev12 4 −0.03 −0.07 0.01 −1.30 2.05 4 0.01 −0.03 0.05 0.37 6.00 1 −0.09 −0.13 −0.05 −4.36***
Achiev1–Parent12 0 0 0

Parent1 parenting at time 1; Achiev1/Achiev2 academic achievement at time 1/time 2; Achiev12/Parent12 change in achievement/parenting between time 1 and time 2; k number of effect
sizes included; r effect size (weighted mean correlation coefficient), Z test for significance of r; 95 % CI lower and upper limits of 95 % confidence interval; Q test for homogeneity of
effect sizes
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
Educ Psychol Rev
Educ Psychol Rev

participants from ethnic minorities). Associations of autonomy granting and authoritarian

parenting with academic achievement were weaker in older samples (Table 2).
Adolescent gender did not moderate the association of parenting styles/dimensions with
academic achievement. Based on the work by Steinberg et al. (1992), tests for moderating
effects of ethnicity were restricted to studies from Western countries where most ethnic
minorities endorse collectivistic values to a larger extent than members of the majority. Two
moderating effects of ethnicity were found, with associations of autonomy granting and
authoritative parenting with academic achievement being weaker (less positive) in samples
with more participants from ethnic minorities (Table 2).
Regarding categorical moderator variables, we found stronger associations of psychological
control with academic achievement if achievement test scores (r=−0.17) rather than GPA (r=
−0.11) was used as academic outcome variable (Table 3). Only one out of nine analyses
identified a moderating effect of parental gender: Associations of maternal warmth with
academic achievement were stronger (r=0.16) than associations of paternal warmth (r=
0.10). In order to test interaction effects between parental gender and child gender, the analysis
of parental warmth was repeated in subsamples of girls and boys. There was a significant
moderating effect of parental gender on associations of warmth with achievement of girls (Q=
5.82, p<0.02), with maternal warmth showing a stronger association (r=0.17, t=4.66,
p<0.001) than paternal warmth (r=0.05, t=1.47, n.s.). In contrast, associations of boys’

Table 2 Influences of child age, gender, and ethnicity on associations between parenting and academic
achievement

Independent Warmth Behavioral control Harsh control

variable k B β t k B Β t k B β t
Age 221 −0.004 −0.11 −1.49 211 0.003 0.06 0.80 43 −0.003 −0.09 −0.60
% Female 250 0.000 0.04 0.50 237 −0.000 −0.06 −0.91 44 0.000 0.01 0.08
children
% Ethnic 119 −0.001 −0.18 −1.95 139 −0.000 −0.08 −0.94 37 0.001 0.17 1.02
minoritya
Independent Psychological control Autonomy granting Authoritative parenting style
variable k B β t k B β t k B β t
Age 70 0.006 0.18 1.34 59 −0.011 −0.28 −2.17* 106 −0.000 −0.00 −0.02
% Female 84 0.000 0.03 0.24 62 −0.001 −0.14 −1.04 138 −0.001 −0.05 −0.62
children
% Ethnic 33 0.000 0.16 0.83 41 −0.002 −0.52 −3.57*** 92 −0.001 −0.26 −2.57**
minoritya
Independent Authoritarian parenting style Permissive parenting style Neglectful parenting style
variable k B β t k B β t k B β t
Age 97 0.017 0.30 3.09** 82 0.003 0.07 0.54 28 −0.001 −0.10 −0.49
% Female 119 0.001 0.05 0.56 102 0.001 0.08 0.74 40 −0.001 −0.05 −0.30
children
% Ethnic 80 0.001 0.19 1.76 70 0.000 0.13 1.05 37 0.001 0.26 1.61
minoritya

k number of studies, B/β non-/standardized regression coefficient, t test for significance

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
a
Only studies from western countries were included in that analysis
Table 3 Influences of categorical moderators on the association between parenting and academic achievement

Warmth Behavioral control Harsh control

k r 95 % CI t Q k r 95 % CI t Q k r 95 % CI t Q
Dependent variable 0.94 3.69 0.00
Achievement test 53 0.16 0.12 0.19 8.92*** 56.20 45 0.07 0.02 0.11 3.09** 40.36 12 −0.15 −0.22 −0.08 −4.28*** 12.28
GPA 222 0.14 0.12 0.15 16.86*** 173.51 217 0.11 0.10 0.13 13.40*** 191.11 43 −0.15 −0.19 −0.11 −7.88*** 42.24
Target parent 10.39** 0.30 0.04
Mothers 122 0.16 0.14 0.18 13.91*** 112.91 89 0.11 0.08 0.14 7.13*** 83.99 20 −0.15 −0.20 −0.10 −5.71*** 20.79
Fathers 70 0.10 0.07 0.13 6.70*** 32.68 44 0.10 0.05 0.14 4.34*** 16.43 8 −0.14 −0.23 −0.05 −3.09** 3.59
Mix 86 0.15 0.12 0.17 12.41*** 87.48 133 0.11 0.09 0.13 10.54*** 134.40 27 −0.15 −0.20 −0.10 −6.21*** 30.24
Reporter: parenting 20.04*** 29.64*** 7.16
Child 204 0.14 0.12 0.16 17.07*** 179.81 190 0.12 0.10 0.14 14.09*** 171.26 21 −0.09 −0.14 −0.04 −3.56*** 15.88
Parent 54 0.11 0.07 0.14 5.98*** 31.90 61 0.03 0.00 0.07 1.98* 40.95 27 −0.18 −0.22 −0.14 −8.44*** 38.47
Observer 16 0.24 0.19 0.30 9.05*** 20.34 8 0.26 0.12 0.39 3.76*** 2.39 5 −0.17 −0.25 −0.08 −3.54*** 1.45
Multi-informant 4 0.22 0.08 0.36 3.12** 0.89 7 0.23 0.12 0.35 4.08*** 0.84 2 −0.16 −0.30 −0.01 −2.12* 0.00
Reporter: academic achievement 4.34 13.30** 3.40
Child 141 0.13 0.11 0.15 13.23*** 108.49 136 0.13 0.11 0.15 12.55*** 118.31 8 −0.14 −0.22 −0.06 −3.32*** 11.82
Parent 10 0.16 0.09 0.22 4.64*** 5.47 14 0.02 −0.04 0.09 0.68 12.30 3 −0.24 −0.33 −0.13 −4.41*** 2.41
Teacher 65 0.14 0.11 0.17 8.25*** 53.55 65 0.09 0.06 0.12 5.63*** 55.16 30 −0.13 −0.17 −0.09 −5.98*** 27.86
Researcher 51 0.16 0.12 0.19 8.78*** 55.43 37 0.08 0.03 0.12 3.41*** 36.39 11 −0.15 −0.23 −0.08 −4.25*** 12.08
Multi-informant 6 0.21 0.12 0.29 4.51*** 6.25 12 0.09 0.00 0.17 2.00* 13.75 2 −0.16 −0.31 −0.01 −2.04* 0.00
Mono-informant bias 1.54 5.14 0.10
No 126 0.14 0.11 0.16 11.34*** 114.45 113 0.08 0.06 0.11 6.32*** 90.01 43 −0.15 −0.18 −0.11 −7.60*** 41.87
In part 4 0.21 0.10 0.31 3.65*** 0.19 5 0.13 0.01 0.25 2.20* 6.38 2 −0.16 −0.31 0.00 −1.96* 0.00
Yes 145 0.14 0.12 0.16 14.81*** 117.77 146 0.12 0.10 0.14 11.92*** 136.35 9 −0.16 −0.23 −0.08 −4.09*** 12.03
Quality of parenting measure 10.84*** 1.16 0.22
Support for validity/ 189 0.12 0.11 0.14 13.66*** 141.85 130 0.12 0.09 0.14 10.54*** 117.92 32 −0.14 −0.19 −0.10 −6.36*** 31.87
reliability
No support 87 0.17 0.15 0.20 14.49*** 89.82 134 0.10 0.00 0.12 8.37*** 116.36 23 −0.16 −0.21 −0.11 −6.39*** 22.73
Quality of achievement measure 0.00 3.60 0.12
Support for validity/ 138 0.14 0.12 0.16 12.82*** 143.80 124 0.09 0.06 0.11 7.21*** 100.45 44 −0.15 −0.19 −0.11 −8.07*** 43.91
reliability
Educ Psychol Rev
Table 3 (continued)
No support 137 0.14 0.12 0.16 13.90*** 89.05 140 0.12 0.10 0.14 11.54*** 132.30 10 −0.14 −0.21 −0.06 −3.63*** 9.96
*
Publication status 0.94 6.55 1.36
Unpublished 52 0.13 0.09 0.16 7.91*** 34.47 48 0.06 0.03 0.10 3.10** 33.43 10 −0.11 −0.18 −0.04 −3.09** 8.43
Educ Psychol Rev

Published 226 0.15 0.13 0.16 17.95*** 201.49 218 0.12 0.10 0.13 13.51*** 200.92 45 −0.16 −0.19 −0.12 −8.68*** 46.61
Psychological control Autonomy granting Authoritative parenting style
k r 95 % CI t Q k r 95 % CI t Q k r 95 % CI t Q
Dependent variable 6.14* 0.01 1.25
Achievement test 21 −0.17 −0.22 −0.13 −7.42*** 7.70 17 0.12 0.05 0.19 3.53*** 20.87 29 0.14 0.08 0.20 4.76*** 28.99
*** ***
GPA 69 −0.11 −0.13 −0.09 −12.57 58.71 61 0.12 0.10 0.15 8.22 52.07 142 0.18 0.15 0.20 12.77*** 133.85
Target parent 0.31 1.46 0.80
Mothers 40 −0.10 −0.13 −0.08 −7.26*** 33.22 25 0.15 0.10 0.20 5.75*** 27.78 23 0.15 0.08 0.22 4.34*** 9.99
Fathers 28 −0.12 −0.15 −0.09 −7.95*** 13.83 15 0.11 0.04 0.18 3.17** 6.23 23 0.15 0.07 0.22 3.87*** 16.88
Mix 22 −0.14 −0.16 −0.11 −9.61*** 22.90 38 0.11 0.07 0.15 5.93*** 40.47 123 0.18 0.15 0.21 12.01*** 133.25
***
Reporter: parenting 0.71 19.75 1.04
Child 72 −0.12 −0.14 −0.10 −13.01*** 63.07 62 0.11 0.09 0.14 8.01*** 55.53 131 0.17 0.14 0.19 11.78*** 126.09
Parent 18 −0.14 −0.19 −0.09 −5.30*** 6.36 12 0.10 0.03 0.17 2.82** 15.17 29 0.19 0.13 0.25 6.10*** 31.55
Observer 0 4 0.39 0.27 0.51 6.33c 0.47 0
Multi-informant 0 0 9 0.12 −0.02 0.24 1.72 2.01
Reporter: academic achievement 9.94** 6.56 3.79
Child 57 −0.11 −0.12 −0.09 −12.08*** 47.49 37 0.13 0.09 0.16 6.95*** 31.72 111 0.17 0.14 0.20 11.02*** 107.01
* *
Parent 4 −0.14 −0.24 −0.03 −2.43 0.06 3 0.14 0.02 0.26 2.28 2.76 7 0.24 0.10 0.39 3.27** 7.62
*** * **
Teacher 8 −0.15 −0.20 −0.11 −6.73 14.81 20 0.09 0.04 0.14 3.26 18.99 27 0.22 0.14 0.28 5.61*** 20.15
Researcher 21 −0.17 −0.22 −0.13 −7.82*** 8.122 14 0.16 0.09 0.24 4.11*** 18.08 23 0.13 0.07 0.20 3.97*** 23.30
Multi-informant 0 1 −0.11 −0.33 0.12 −0.94 3 0.18 0.01 0.33 1.91 0.46
Mono-informant bias 9.45** 0.90 0.64
***
No 34 −0.16 −0.19 −0.13 −10.79 26.77 39 0.10 0.06 0.15 4.65*** 41.99 52 0.18 0.14 0.23 7.78*** 57.89
In part 0 0 1 0.10 −0.21 0.39 0.63
Table 3 (continued)
Yes 56 −0.11 −0.12 −0.09 −12.44*** 47.95 36 0.13 0.09 0.17 6.84*** 28.21 113 0.17 0.14 0.20 10. 67*** 100.16
*
Quality of parenting 4.05 0.73 2.29
measure
Support for validity/ 79 −0.11 −0.13 −0.10 −13.12*** 59.82 44 0.11 0.08 0.15 5.58*** 34.91 103 0.16 0.12 0.19 9.60*** 101.92
reliability
No support 11 −0.16 −0.19 −0.13 −7.51*** 12.75 35 0.13 0.10 0.17 6.68*** 39.21 67 0.19 0.15 0.23 9.59*** 59.07
Quality of achievement measure 9. 39** 0.46 1.55
Support for validity/ 32 −0.16 −0.19 −0.13 −10.47*** 20.93 46 0.11 0.07 0.15 5.45*** 46.78 56 0.15 0.10 0.19 6.56*** 56.12
reliability
No support 58 −0.11 −0.12 −0.09 −12.23*** 51.69 31 0.13 0.09 0.17 6.36*** 25.87 113 0.18 0.15 0.21 11.90*** 105.78
Publication status 0.00 3.04 2.04
Unpublished 17 −0.12 −0.16 −0.08 −5.61*** 20.97 16 0.08 0.03 0.13 3.07** 19.84 36 0.13 0.08 0.19 4.75*** 50.43
Published 73 −0.12 −0.14 −0.10 −12.81*** 48.76 63 0.14 0.10 0.17 8.38*** 53.35 135 0.18 0.15 0.21 12.79*** 111.28
Authoritarian Permissive Neglectful
k r 95 % CI t Q k r 95 % CI t Q k r 95 % CI t Q
Dependent variable 0.26 0.45 0.00
Achievement test 23 −0.11 −0.18 −0.04 −3.18** 23.24 21 −0.03 −0.09 0.03 −0.92 21.39 12 −0.16 −0.22 −0.09 −4.71*** 15.60
GPA 129 −0.09 −0.12 −0.06 −6.09*** 126.52 113 −0.05 −0.08 −0.02 −3.72*** 109.18 53 −0.15 −0.19 −0.12 −8.88*** 50.75
Target parent 5.15 0.12 1.86
Mothers 18 −0.07 −0.14 0.01 −1.63 22.13 17 −0.03 −0.10 0.04 −0.96 10.32 3 −0.07 −0.20 0.06 −1.03 6.30*
Fathers 19 −0.18 −0.25 −0.10 −4.31*** 19.66 17 −0.04 −0.12 0.03 −1.13 8.34 1 −0.20 −0.42 0.05 −1.57
Mix 113 −0.09 −0.12 −0.06 −5.55*** 105.47 98 −0.05 −0.07 −0.02 −3.36*** 109.51 60 −0.16 −0.19 −0.13 −10.05*** 58.87
Reporter: parenting 3.80 4.37 6.38*
*** ** ***
Child 118 −0.08 −0.11 −0.06 −5.64 110.00 105 −0.03 −0.06 −0.01 −2.63 106.94 61 −0.15 −0.18 −0.12 −9.68 60.94
Parent 22 −0.16 −0.24 −0.09 −4.22*** 30.33 17 −0.12 −0.19 −0.04 −3.04** 14.62 2 −0.33 −0.45 −0.17 −4.11*** 3.49
Observer 0 0 0
Multi-informant 10 −0.06 −0.18 0.07 −0.86 7.25 10 −0.08 −0.19 0.03 −1.38 5.67 1 −0.31 −0.52 −0.05 −2.30*
Reporter: academic achievement 4.46 4.64 7.43
Educ Psychol Rev
Table 3 (continued)
Child 99 −0.08 −0.11 −0.05 −4.99*** 90.39 88 −0.04 −0.07 −0.01 −2.73** 82.65 46 −0.16 −0.19 −0.12 −8.81*** 40.93
**
Parent 7 −0.22 −0.35 −0.07 −2.82 6.34 7 −0.09 −0.22 0.04 −1.41 1.07 2 −0.33 −0.45 −0.17 −4.16*** 3.58*
** ** *
Teacher 20 −0.11 −0.19 −0.04 −2.85 29.61 18 −0.11 −0.18 −0.03 −2.87 23.41 5 −0.11 −0.21 −0.01 −2.20 6.67
Educ Psychol Rev

Researcher 19 −0.12 −0.20 −0.05 −3.28** 14.48 17 −0.01 −0.08 0.05 −0.32 19.56 10 −0.13 −0.20 −0.07 −3.89*** 13.94
Multi-informant 3 −0.15 −0.33 0.04 −1.57 5.30 1 0.01 −0.27 0.28 0.04 1 −0.31 −0.52 −0.05 −2.32*
Mono-informant bias 1.10 2.00 1.37
No 44 −0.11 −0.16 −0.06 −4.35*** 57.08 38 −0.07 −0.12 −0.02 −2.83** 55.40 15 −0.13 −0.18 −0.07 −4.27*** 19.13
In part 2 −0.16 −0.35 0.05 −1.50 0.85 2 −0.11 −0.27 0.07 −1.21 0.73 0
Yes 102 −0.09 −0.12 −0.05 −5.33*** 87.97 91 −0.03 −0.06 −0.01 −2.31* 69.33 49 −0.17 −0.20 −0.13 −9.31*** 47.05
Quality of parenting measure 0.07 3.59 0.22
Support for validity/ 67 −0.09 −0.13 −0.05 −4.37*** 55.54 57 −0.02 −0.05 0.02 −1.04 55.21 40 −0.15 −0.19 −0.11 −7.63*** 41.09
reliability
No support 84 −0.10 −0.13 −0.06 −5.25*** 93.44 76 −0.06 −0.10 −0.03 −4.04*** 74.70 24 −0.16 −0.21 −0.11 −6.50*** 24.41
Quality of achievement measure 2.87 0.17 1.39
Support for validity/ 102 −0.08 −0.11 −0.05 −4.82*** 98.34 89 −0.04 −0.07 −0.01 −2.88** 80.43 48 −0.16 −0.20 −0.13 −9.37*** 47.43
reliability
No support 49 −0.13 −0.18 −0.08 −5.14*** 50.10 44 −0.05 −0.10 −0.01 −2.32* 48.01 17 −0.12 −0.18 −0.07 −4.29*** 19.62
Publication status 4.63* 3.88* 5.94*
Unpublished 32 −0.03 −0.09 0.03 −1.08 35.77 31 −0.09 −0.14 −0.04 −3.49*** 26.56 12 −0.08 −0.14 −0.01 −2.16* 20.67*
Published 120 −0.11 −0.14 −0.08 −7.16*** 112.75 103 −0.03 −0.06 −0.01 −2.52* 104.94 53 −0.17 −0.20 −0.14 −10.66*** 46.01

k number of effect sizes included; r effect size (weighted mean correlation coefficient), Z test for significance of r; 95 % CI lower and upper limits of 95 % confidence interval; Q test for
homogeneity of effect sizes
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
 Educ Psychol Rev

academic achievement with maternal warmth (r=0.09, t=2.69, p<0.01) and paternal warmth
(r=0.06, t=1.53, n.s.) did not differ significantly (Q=0.42, n.s.).
Academic achievement showed stronger associations with behavioral control (r=0.12 vs.
r=0.03) if child reports rather than parental reports on parenting were used. In addition,
associations of warmth and autonomy support with achievement were stronger if observer
ratings (r=0.24 and r=0.39) rather than child or parent ratings on parenting (r=0.11/0.14 and
r=0.10/0.11) were used. As indicated by the Q statistics, there was also a significant moderator
effect of the reporter on the association between neglectful parenting and achievement.
However, the 95 % CIs of the subgroups overlapped, which precluded a clear interpretation
of between-group differences. Two significant moderator effects were observed for sources of
information about academic achievement: Associations with behavioral control were stronger
if children (r=0.13) rather than parents (r=0.02) provided information on GPA. In addition,
associations with psychological control were stronger if information from researchers (on
results of achievement tests, r=−0.17) were used rather than child reports on their grades (r=
−0.11). There was no empirical support for the suggestion that shared methods variance leads
to stronger effect sizes if information on parenting and achievement come from the same rater.
Associations of psychological control and academic achievement were even weaker if the
information was collected from the same respondent (r=−0.11 vs. r=−0.16).
Two associations varied by the quality of the assessment of parenting dimensions/styles.
Studies that provided support for the validity and reliability of the parenting measures found
weaker associations of parental warmth (r=0.12 vs. r=0.17) with academic achievement. In
contrast, associations of psychological control with academic achievement were stronger if the
study provided support for the validity of the measure of academic achievement, such as using
validated achievement tests (r=−0.16 vs. r=−0.11).
Finally, there were moderating effects of publication status. Associations of behavioral
control (r=0.12 vs. r=0.06) and neglectful parenting (r=−0.17 vs. r=−0.08) were stronger in
published than in unpublished studies.

Discussion

The present meta-analysis found significant concurrent, longitudinal, and cross-lagged asso-
ciations of parental warmth, behavioral control, harsh control, psychological control, autono-
my support, and authoritative parenting with academic achievement, although the associations
were weak or very weak in a statistical sense. Statistically significant associations of author-
itarian, permissive, and neglectful parenting with academic achievement were only identified
in cross-sectional studies. In addition, some moderating effects of child age, ethnicity, kind of
academic outcome, reporter on parenting and academic achievement, quality of the parenting
and achievement measure, and publication status were detected.
While meta-analyses on associations of school-specific parental involvement and academic
achievement found associations of about r=0.2 (Castro et al. 2015; Hill and Tyson 2009; Fan
and Chen 2001; Jeynes 2005, 2007) with correlations up to r=0.40 for selected aspects
(parental aspiration/expectations of children’s education achievement, Fan and Chen 2001),
the present meta-analysis indicates that associations of general parenting dimensions and styles
with academic achievement tend to be smaller. Thus, specific parental behaviors aimed at
directly promoting academic achievement (such as communication with the child about school
issues) can be expected to produce larger effects than general parental behaviors or parenting
Educ Psychol Rev

styles that will have rather indirect effects on academic achievement mediated by achievement
motivation (Marchant et al. 2001), self-regulation (Lee et al. 2012), or other variables.
Although few correlates of academic achievement exceed r=0.20 (e.g., academic self-
efficacy, r=0.31; effort regulation, r=0.32; test anxiety, r=−0.24; Richardson et al. 2012), the
present results do not support the claim by Masud et al. (2015) that parenting styles are one of
the most important factors affecting academic achievement. In addition, analyses of cross-
lagged effects indicated that correlations between parenting dimensions and achievement are
not only based on the effects of parental behaviors on achievement but also reflect, in part,
effects of achievement on parenting dimensions. For example, success in school may promote
positive emotions of the parents toward their child. Unfortunately, studies are lacking that
relate initial academic achievement with changes in parenting styles. Some cross-lagged
effects were very small in a statistical sense (Cohen 1992). Because academic achievement
at pretest already explains a large amount of variance in achievement at posttest (e.g., Aunola
and Nurmi 2004), less variance remains to be explained by parenting than when predicting
absolute levels of initial achievement. In addition, the combination of parenting behaviors and
styles of mothers and fathers could be expected to explain more variance than the present focus
on single aspects of behavior of the individual parent.
When comparing correlates of academic achievement across different parenting dimen-
sions/styles, we found the strongest association with psychological control (in longitudinal
studies) and the weakest association with the permissive parenting style. Because psycholog-
ically controlling parents increase a child’s focus on internal distress and adult approval rather
than on the learning process itself, psychological control may undermine learning and
academic success (Aunola and Nurmi 2004). As permissive parents have a warm relationship
with their children despite low levels of parental control (Maccoby and Martin 1983), their
warmth may partially compensate for negative effects of lack of control.
Moderator analyses found some evidence of weaker associations of parenting dimensions/
styles with academic achievement in older samples. This result indicates that parental influ-
ences decline when older adolescents spend less time with their parents, for example when
leaving their parental home in order to study at university. Nonetheless, associations of most
assessed parenting styles/dimensions with academic achievement did not vary by the age of
the offspring.
We observed weaker associations of autonomy granting and authoritative parenting with
academic achievement in samples with more participants from ethnic minorities. In Western
countries, there is some evidence that adolescents from ethnic minorities expect to achieve
autonomy later than their peers from the ethnic majority (e.g., Fuligni 1998), which could,
again, reduce the importance of parental autonomy granting for adolescent development.
Steinberg et al. (1992) found that African American and Hispanic students were less likely
than White students to believe that not doing well in school would have negative consequences
for their future. The authors speculated that this belief might have reduced the effect of
authoritative parenting on their academic achievement. Unfortunately, we did not have enough
data for separate analyses in different ethnic minorities.
The observed stronger associations of psychological control with achievement test scores
rather than GPA may indicate that achievement test scores are more valid than students’ reports
on their grades, which could lead to more meaningful associations with parenting.
There was only weak support for the suggestion that maternal parenting dimensions/styles
show stronger associations with student achievement than paternal dimensions/styles. Separate
data on fathers were only available in a smaller subsample of studies, which reduced the
 Educ Psychol Rev

chance of finding significant moderating effects of parental gender. Regarding interaction

effects of child and parental gender, we found that maternal warmth showed stronger associ-
ations with girls’ achievement than paternal warmth while no such effect was observed for
boys. Mothers tend to be the primary caregivers in most families, but parents spend relatively
more time with a same-sex child and are more involved in a same-sex child’s life (Maccoby
2003). These factors may lead to stronger associations of maternal warmth than paternal
behavior with daughters’ outcomes in particular. As too few studies were available to analyze
interaction effects of parental and child gender on other parenting dimensions/styles, it could
not be tested whether similar results would be found for parental control and other parenting
variables.
The present meta-analysis identified some rater effects. Stronger effect sizes of child reports
on behavioral control rather than parental reports may indicate that parental behaviors have to
be perceived by the child in order to affect child outcomes. In addition, some mothers and
fathers give socially desirable answers on their parenting (Morsbach and Prinz 2006), which
masks the real effects of parental behaviors on child outcomes. The observed stronger
associations of psychological control with researcher reports on academic achievement rather
than child reports probably indicate that child reports on their grades tended to be less valid
than achievement tests applied by researchers. Nonetheless, such a difference appeared in only
one analysis, thus indicating a rather low effect of biased self-reports on GPA.
There was no evidence of bias due to shared methods variance that may emerge when
information on parenting dimensions/styles and academic grades come from the same source.
Such a bias may be more likely to appear when analyzing associations between different
subjective evaluations rather than when relating evaluations of parenting to GPA.
Results on moderating effects of the methodological quality of the measures were incon-
sistent, thus indicating that studies with parenting measures of lower quality may underesti-
mate as well as overestimate associations with academic achievement. For example, results
may differ when researchers combine items from related well-established measures rather than
constructing new items that do not fit well to the assessed construct.
Finally, there was some evidence of a publication bias as two associations were stronger in
published than in unpublished studies. Nonetheless, the associations of parenting behaviors/
styles were still statistically significant in the unpublished studies.

Limitations and Conclusions

Some limitations of the present meta-analysis have to be mentioned. First, despite the large
number of included studies, only limited numbers of studies were available on cross-lagged
associations, and on cross-lagged effects of parenting styles in particular. Second, although
longitudinal and cross-lagged analyses offer some insight into the direction of effects, they do
not allow for analysis of causal relations. Third, the selection of the assessed parenting
dimensions and styles was mainly based on the work of Baumrind (1966) and successors
(Maccoby and Martin 1983). Some parenting scales assess additional dimensions such as
verbosity (Arnold et al. 1993) that were not included in the present meta-analysis. In addition,
some included parenting dimensions could be further divided into subdimensions (e.g.,
behavioral control in different forms of monitoring, consistency of rules, etc.). Fourth,
although we addressed general rather than school-specific parenting styles/dimensions, these
measures sometimes include an item that refers to school. As many studies did not provide the
Educ Psychol Rev

complete list of items used, we were not able to test whether pure non-academic and other
general measures of parenting dimensions/styles produce different results. Fifth, we could only
use a dummy measure of the methodological quality of the measures because many studies
provided insufficient information for a more detailed coding of the validity and reliability of
their measures. Sixth, as many moderator variables consisted of several categories and
information on individual moderators was lacking in some studies, we did not compute
multivariate analyses of moderator variables. Finally, we did not analyze the interplay of
maternal and paternal parenting.
Despite these limitations, several conclusions can be drawn. First, our meta-analysis
indicates that researchers and practitioners should not place unduly high expectations
on the effects of general parenting dimensions or styles on change in academic
achievement. Effects of single parenting styles and dimensions are small or even very
small in a statistical sense. Second, analyses of cross-lagged associations indicate that
correlations of parenting with academic achievement cannot be interpreted as pure
effects of parenting on the child outcome. There are at least some bidirectional
associations and there is still not enough research available to evaluate whether child
achievement may predict changes in parenting styles over time. Third, the analysis of
cross-lagged effects indicates that, in order to promote academic achievement of their
children, parents may in particular increase warmth and authoritative parenting and
avoid harsh control as well as psychological control. Given the fact that the observed
associations of general parenting dimensions/styles with change in academic achieve-
ment are, on average, small, effective ways of promoting academic performance
should also include other measures, such as promoting school-specific parental in-
volvement (Fan and Chen 2001; Hill and Tyson 2009). With regard to future research
needs, more cross-lagged studies are needed on the interplay of academic achievement
with parenting, and with parenting styles in particular. In addition, experimental
studies are recommended in order to test causal effects of parenting on change in
children’s academic achievement. In addition, more research is recommended on
variables that mediate the association between general parenting dimensions/styles
and academic achievement.

References

Arnold, D. S., O’Leary, S. G., Wolff, L. S., & Acker, M. M. (1993). The Parenting Scale: a measure of
dysfunctional parenting in discipline situations. Psychological Assessment, 5, 137–144.
Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. (2004). Maternal affection moderates the impact of psychological control on a child’s
mathematical performance. Developmental Psychology, 40, 965–978.
Aunola, K., Stattin, H., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2000). Parenting styles and adolescents’ achievement strategies. Journal
of Adolescence, 23, 205–222.
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67,
3296–3319.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37, 887–907.
Brown, L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). Parenting styles: the impact on student achievement. Marriage & Family
Review, 43, 14–38.
Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 110–119.
Castro, M., Expósito-Casas, E., López-Martín, E., Lizasoain, L., Navarro, E., & Gaviria, J. L. (2015). Parental
involvement on student academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 14, 33–46.
 Educ Psychol Rev

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

Crowther, A.C. (2014). Parent autonomy support, academic achievement and psychosocial functioning: a meta-
analysis of research. Master’s thesis, University of Texas.
Dumka, L. E., Gonzales, N. A., Bonds, D. D., & Millsap, R. E. (2009). Academic success of Mexican origin
adolescent boys and girls: the role of mothers’ and fathers’ parenting and cultural orientation. Sex Roles, 60,
588–599.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: a meta-analysis.
Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1–22.
Fuligni, A. J. (1998). Authority, autonomy, and parent-adolescent conflict and cohesion: a study of adolescents
from Mexican, Chinese, Filipino, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 34, 782–792.
Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: reassessing a multidimensional
construct. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 574–587.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation and competence in
school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143–154.
Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: a meta-analytic assessment of the
strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45, 740–763.
Janssens, A., Goossens, L., Van Den Noortgate, W., Colpin, H., Verschueren, K., & Van Leeuwen, K. (2015).
Parents’ and adolescents’ perspectives on parenting: evaluating conceptual structure, measurement invari-
ance, and criterion validity. Assessment, 22, 473–489.
Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student
academic achievement. Urban Education, 40, 237–269.
Jeynes, H. W. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student
academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42, 82–110.
Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence and
adjustment from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent and neglectful families. Child Development, 62,
1049–1065.
Lee, J., Yu, H., & Choi, S. (2012). The influences of parental acceptance and parental control on school
adjustment and academic achievement for South Korean children: the mediation role of self-regulation.
Asia Pacific Educational Review, 13, 227–237.
Li, X., Feigelman, S., & Stanton, B. (2000). Perceived parental monitoring and health risk behaviors among
urban low-income African-American children and adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 43–48.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Maccoby, E. E. (2003). The gender of child and parent as factors in family dynamics. In A. C. Crouther & A.
Booth (Eds.), Children’s influence on family dynamics (pp. 191–206). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: parent–child interaction. In P.
H. Mussen & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 1–101). New
York: Wiley.
Marchant, G. J., Pauslon, S. E., & Rothlisberg, B. A. (2001). Relations of middle school students’ perceptions of
family and school contexts with academic achievement. Psychology in Schools, 38, 505–519.
Masud, H., Thurasamy, R., Ahmad, M.S. (2015). Parenting styles and academic achievement of young
adolescents: a systematic literature review. Quality and Quantity.
Morsbach, S. K., & Prinz, R. J. (2006). Understanding and improving the validity of self-report of parenting.
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 9, 1–21.
Must, S. (2007). The dual effects of parenting and perfectionism on maladjustment and academic performance of
affluent suburban adolescents. Unpublished dissertation, Columbia University.
Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of Medical
Psychology, 52, 1–10.
Paulson, S. E. (1994). Relations of parenting style and parental involvement with ninth-grade students’
achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 250–267.
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic
performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 353–387.
Rosenzweig, C. (2001, April). Meta-analysis of parenting and school success: the role of parents in promoting
students’ academic performance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association.
Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children’s reports of parental behavior: an inventory. Child Development, 36, 413–424.
Shumov, L., Vandell, D. L., & Posner, J. K. (1998). Harsh, firm, and permissive parenting in low-income
families: relations to children’s academic achievement and behavioral adjustment. Journal of Family Issues,
19, 483–507.
Silk, J. S., Morris, A. S., Kayana, T., & Steinberg, L. (2003). Psychological control and autonomy granting:
opposite ends of a continuum or distinct constructs? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 113–128.
Educ Psychol Rev

Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school
achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 125–146.
Spera, C. (2006). Adolescents’ perceptions of parental goals, practices, and styles in relation to their motivation
and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 26, 456–490.
Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement: an
ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 46, 723–729.
Stutz, M., & Schwarz, B. (2014). Effects of different facets of paternal and maternal control behaviour on early
adolescents’ perceived academic competence. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11, 227–
241.
Tam, V. C. (2009). A comparison of fathers’ and mothers’ contributions in the prediction of academic
performance of school-age children in Hong Kong. International Journal of Psychology, 44, 147–15.
Teye, A.C., & Peaslee, L. (2015). Measuring educational outcomes for at-risk children and youth: issues with the
validity of self-reported data. Child and Youth Care Forum.
Turner, E. A., Chandler, M., & Heffer, R. W. (2009). The influence of parenting styles, achievement motivation,
and self-efficacy on academic performance of college students. Journal of College Student Development, 50,
337–346.
Wong, M. E. (2008). Perceptions of parental involvement and autonomy support: their relations with self-
regulation, academic performance, substance use and resilience among adolescents. North American Journal
of Psychology, 10, 497–518.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of achievement. Itasca:
Riverside Publishing.