Parenting Styles and Resilience in Secondary Education Students

1. Introduction

1.1. Parenting Styles

There are various external factors associated with the emergence of specific disorders during childhood and adolescence, but one of the most influential on children’s behaviour is the parenting style. In this regard, parenting styles that rely on affection and involvement strategies promote adequate social adjustment in children and adolescents [1].

Traditionally, the concept of parenting styles has been linked to multiple terms and expressions such as child-rearing styles, educational patterns, parental styles, socialisation models, and upbringing models. All these aim to describe the regulatory dimensions that frame the educational and socialisation strategies exercised by parents over their children, which are in turn determined by numerous factors, such as the number and gender of children, their birth order, physical health and appearance, and the family’s cultural and religious background [1].

It is also unquestionable that parents play a crucial role in the development of their children [2], and that parenting styles shape the psychological environment in which children will develop throughout the different stages of their growth. At the same time, they transmit a set of values and norms that facilitate their integration into the social group [3], and may even influence behavioural patterns adopted later in life, including during emerging adulthood [4] and adulthood itself, where responses are shaped by varying levels of self-confidence and psychological strength [5].

Moreover, research on parenting practices has shown that those based on dialogue and the promotion of autonomy have more positive effects, as they are associated with competences such as empathy, self-control, self-esteem, sociability, and reduced impulsivity [3]. In this line, [6] proposed that parenting style is a multidimensional concept and that, beyond the traditional types identified by [7] based on the dimensions of Control and Affection, other relevant variables should also be considered. These include the dimensions of Affection and Communication, Promotion of Autonomy, Behavioural Control, Psychological Control, Revelation, and Humour. Thus, a good parenting style could be defined as one that integrates these dimensions (with the exception of Psychological Control), rather than belonging to one specific category within the known typologies [8].

In fact, one of the main challenges in researching parenting styles lies in the observation that parents do not usually adopt a single, clearly defined style. Parenting styles are not mutually exclusive; parents often display a predominant style while also incorporating specific practices from others. Moreover, the child’s developmental stage, behaviour, and attitudes can also influence parental practices [9]. To this must be added the fact that children react to and perceive their parents’ educational strategies in different ways, especially during adolescence, when changes in self-perception, perception of parents, and their relationship become more pronounced [10].

Among all the abilities that develop in a child depending on the parenting style to which they are exposed, resilience has drawn particular attention. Various studies confirm that family-related factors play a key role in child development: effective parenting supports the development of resilience and also has a direct mediating role in how children respond to situations such as puberty, illness, the loss of a loved one, or community violence [8].

1.2. Resilience

Resilience is commonly understood as a dynamic and evolving process that arises when individuals face stressful, challenging, or adverse situations, allowing them to adapt in a constructive manner [11,12,13]. The literature offers multiple perspectives on this concept: some scholars characterise it as a personal ability to manage hardship and maintain a productive life [14], whereas others emphasise its link to emotional intelligence, highlighting its role in safeguarding well-being in threatening contexts [15]. Despite its prominence in diverse academic fields, there is no universally accepted definition; nonetheless, the most widespread interpretation frames resilience as a multidimensional and dynamic process aimed at optimising personal resources and fostering positive adaptation in the face of adversity [16]. In any case, it is a multi-dimensional construct that encompasses a range of internal factors, protective elements, and empathy [17]. It varies according to context, time, age, sex, and cultural background, and is influenced by biological factors that interact and come into play at different moments to respond to situations perceived as risky [18].

Furthermore, in light of the difficulties that adolescents may face before consolidating themselves as functional human beings, resilience has been found to predict higher quality of life during this developmental stage. It may act as a determinant of academic performance [19], and as a moderating factor in the experience of cyberbullying victimisation and fatalism [20], thus contributing to student well-being in the face of both academic and social stress. In this context, it helps meet needs related to quality of life and provides support for adaptability to change across different settings, as a fundamental component of the effective management of emotional intelligence, both personally and socially [5].

Finally, several studies have identified resilience as the result of an interaction between risk and protective factors, contributing to positive adaptation, acting as a buffer against environmental difficulties, and preventing psychological maladjustment. In this way, it becomes a key factor in empowering adolescents from disadvantaged backgrounds [18].

1.3. Parenting Styles and Resilience

Although to date few studies have examined the relationship between parenting styles and resilience in adolescent populations [8,18], some research, such as that of [21], found that depending on the predominant parenting style, children tended to develop certain emotional skills over others. For example, it was observed that children with authoritarian mothers exhibited greater interpersonal abilities. Other studies mention parenting styles as potential predictors of psychological and personality disorders [22], as well as their association with attachment and with individual responses to situations such as bullying, academic performance, or hyperactivity [23,24]. In the university context, parenting styles have also been linked to entrance exam anxiety and to psychological adjustment problems, such as depression and anxiety [5].

The findings reported by [8] indicate that parenting style is directly related to the resilience developed by adolescents, with Affection and Communication showing the strongest correlation, and Behavioural Control and Psychological Control displaying the weakest correlation with resilience. Similarly, the results of [18] confirm that parenting styles are indeed related to resilience, establishing a positive relationship between the two variables and highlighting a stronger correlation between resilience and the dimension of Responsibility and Warmth.

Other studies, such as that of [25], suggest that a style based on autonomy and parental support (understood as making an effort to adopt the child’s perspective and encouraging them to set their own goals and solve problems independently) is positively associated with higher levels of resilience in children. These parents, who respect the internal psychological world of their children, promote the development of their identity. Parenting styles, therefore, may play a key role in how adolescents effectively self-regulate in the face of specific situations [18].

Finally, the results obtained by [9] highlight the relationship be-tween parental involvement (an aspect related to the democratic parenting style) and higher levels of emotional intelligence in children. In contrast, rigid or inflexible disciplinary practices (characterised by excessive restrictions and punishments without room for negotiation or self-correction) can negatively affect the child’s emotional development.

Building on the above literature and adopting a socio-educational perspective, the purpose of this work is to examine how the various dimensions of parenting styles influence the resilience levels of secondary school students. This age range is considered a critical period, given that it is during this stage that adolescents consolidate their identity and their ability to cope with personal, academic, and social adversities.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

A multi-stage cluster sampling method was employed for participant selection. Initially, each of the 130 secondary education schools in the Extremadura region was assigned a numerical code. Three schools were then chosen at random using a computer-generated sequence. Within each selected school, there were four classes per academic year, from which two classes per grade were randomly drawn using the same procedure.

The final sample, determined with a 95% confidence level and a ±5 margin of error, consisted of 609 students aged between 11 and 17 years (M = 13.43, SD = 1.31). The gender distribution was almost even, with 305 girls (50.1%) and 304 boys (49.9%). By year group, 160 students (26.3%) were in the first year, 140 (23.0%) in the second, 158 (25.9%) in the third, and 151 (24.8%) in the fourth.

2.2. Materials

The School Resilience Scale (SRS; [26]) has good internal consistency and is designed to assess resilience in children and adolescents aged 9 to 14 years. It consists of 27 self-administered items rated on a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly agree”).

The instrument comprises five dimensions:

• Identity–Self-Esteem Dimension (ISD): internal strengths and structural aspects of personality, such as identity, self-image, and self-assessment (α = 0.78; Ω = 0.78).
• Networks–Models Dimension (NMD): perceived support networks, social relationships, guidance, and goal perception (α = 0.83; Ω = 0.84).
• Learning–Generativity Dimension (LGD): expression, help-seeking, ability to face difficulties, and learning capacity (α = 0.81; Ω = 0.82).
• Internal Resources Dimension (IRD): personal resources mobilised in response to challenges (α = 0.84; Ω = 0.84).
• External Resources Dimension (ERD): interactional aspects with the environment that influence resilient behaviour (α = 0.89; Ω = 0.89).

For this study, the SRS showed high internal consistency, which is reflected in each of the dimensions. The total score yielded α = 0.91 and Ω = 0.91.

A confirmatory factor analysis was carried out to verify whether the factor structure proposed by the original authors was reproduced in our data. As shown in Table 1, the fit indices approached recommended values, supporting the validity of the scale for this sample.

Parenting Style Assessment Scale (PSAS; [27]) also has a good internal consistency, and is designed to evaluate dimensions of parenting styles as perceived by adolescents from age 12 onwards. It comprises 41 self-administered items rated on a 6-point Likert scale, from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 6 (“Strongly agree”), with total scores ranging between 41 and 246.

The scale includes six dimensions:

• Affection and Communication (PAC): Expression of parental support and affection, availability, and ease of communication (Cronbach’s α = 0.88; McDonald’s Ω = 0.89).
• Behavioural Control (PBC): Setting limits and parental monitoring of children’s behaviour outside the home (α = 0.78; Ω = 0.78).
• Psychological Control (PPC): Use of manipulative strategies such as emotional blackmail or guilt induction; considered a negative dimension (α = 0.86; Ω = 0.86).
• Promotion of Autonomy (PPA): Encouragement of independent thought and decision-making (α = 0.86; Ω = 0.86).
• Humour (PHM): Perception of parents as optimistic and possessing a good sense of humour (α = 0.90; Ω = 0.90).
• Revelation (PRV): Frequency with which adolescents voluntarily share personal matters with their parents (α = 0.82; Ω = 0.82).

For this study, the PSAS showed high internal consistency, which is reflected in each of the dimensions. The total score showed good internal consistency (α = 0.87; Ω = 0.85).

Finally, in order to verify whether the structure proposed by the authors of the Parenting Style Assessment Scale is supported by our data, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using fit indices (see Table 2). As can be seen, the indices are close to the desired values, indicating validity for the generalisation of our results.

2.3. Procedure

Data collection took place on dates previously agreed with the school principals and tutors, within the classrooms corresponding to each course and participant group, utilising the tutoring hours scheduled in the school calendar. Each session lasted approximately one hour, during which the test and its completion instructions were presented, emphasising the importance of answering all items honestly and thoroughly.

Prior to the main data collection, a pilot test was conducted with secondary education students aged 11 to 16 to estimate the average time required to complete the test and to ensure the clarity of item wording appropriate to their comprehension levels. The pilot results indicated that all participants required less than 25 minutes to complete the test, and any doubts regarding the statements were minimal and readily clarified by the researcher and her team.

Participation was voluntary and unpaid, with prior informed consent obtained from parents or legal guardians, as well as approval from the school principals.

Despite clear instructions at the start of each session and upon submission of completed booklets, some booklets contained unanswered items. Following standardised procedures, booklets with 10% or more unanswered items were excluded from the analysis. For booklets with fewer unanswered items, mean imputation based on the sample was applied.

2.4. Data Analysis

Initially, reliability analyses (Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega) and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted for both the Parenting Style Assessment Scale (PSAS) and the School Resilience Scale (SRS), to verify whether the conceptual structures originally described were adequately supported by our data.

This study represents the second part of a broader investigation previously published [19], which examined the relationship between resilience and academic performance in the same sample. The present study focuses specifically on how parenting style dimensions relate to resilience. This connection is highlighted to aid readers in understanding the relationship between both studies.

Subsequently, three statistical analyses were carried out:

(1)

Pearson’s correlation coefficients were computed to explore associations between the study variables.

(2)

Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to identify which PSAS dimensions significantly predicted students’ resilience levels. The dependent variables were the Internal Resources (IRD) and External Resources (ERD) dimensions of the SRS. Predictor variables included the six PSAS dimensions: Affection and Communication (PAC), Behavioural Control (PBC), Psychological Control (PPC), Promotion of Autonomy (PPA), Humour (PHM), and Revelation (PRV). Assumptions of normality, independence, and collinearity were checked prior to analyses.

(3)

To complement the multiple regression results and to better understand the predictors’ influence on the likelihood of belonging to low, medium, or high resilience groups, multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted. The dependent variables, IRD and ERD, were categorised into three levels based on percentiles: low (< 33%), medium (33–66%), and high (> 66%). The six PSAS dimensions were included again as predictor variables, allowing for estimation of odds ratios and classification probabilities.

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 21.0 for Windows and Free JASP. The present study shares with our previous work [19] the use of the School Resilience Scale (SRS), the same participant sample and sampling procedure, and some elements of the statistical analysis, while addressing a distinct research question and incorporating additional variables not examined in the earlier study.

3. Results

Initially, the potential relationship between the different dimensions of parenting styles and the scores obtained on the School Resilience Scale (SRS) was examined. To this end, Pearson’s bivariate correlations were calculated between the six dimensions of the Parenting Style Assessment Scale (PSAS) and the two resilience dimensions: Internal Resources and External Resources. The results showed positive and significant correlations in all cases (p < .001), with particularly strong associations observed between PAC and IRD (r = 0.519), as well as between PAC and ERD (r = 0.641). Moderate correlations were also found between PPA and IRD (r = 0.442), and between PRV and ERD (r = 0.502), suggesting that certain parenting style dimensions are meaningfully associated with the development of resilience in adolescents (see Table 3).

Once the existence of significant associations among the variables had been established, multiple linear regression analyses were performed to determine the extent to which the PSAS dimensions predicted resilience. Two regression models were computed: one for the Internal Resources (IRD) dimension and another for the External Resources (ERD) dimension. Both models were significant, explaining 31.7% and 44.3% of the variance, respectively. Table 4 presents the standardised beta coefficients (β), significance values, and collinearity statistics. In the case of IRD, the most relevant predictors were PAC (β = 0.265, p < .001), PRV (β = 0.250, p < .001), and PPA (β = 0.104, p = .043). For the ERD dimension, the strongest predictors were PAC (β = 0.395, p < .001), PHM (β = 0.147, p = .004), and PRV (β = 0.141, p = .001).

Overall, the results show that certain parenting style dimensions are significantly associated with resilience among the participating adolescents. In particular, Affection and Communication (PAC) emerged as the most consistent predictor of both resilience dimensions—internal and external. Revelation (PRV) was also significantly related to both dimensions, while Promotion of Autonomy (PPA) and Humour (PHM) showed more specific effects on only one of them. In contrast, Psychological Control (PPC) and Behavioural Control (PBC) did not show significant associations in the regression models, suggesting that their influence on resilience may be limited or mediated by other contextual variables.

Finally, the multinomial regression analysis for the predictor variable Internal Resources (IRD) showed a satisfactory fit (χ² = 159.914(12), p < .001; Nagelkerke R² = 0.398), correctly classifying 76.1% of cases. As shown in Table 5, with the low-IRD level as the reference category, the parameter estimates revealed that three factors were significantly and positively associated with the high-IRD group: Affection and Communication (B = 0.107, p < .001); Revelation (B = 0.116, p < .001); and Humour (B = 0.067, p < .05). Furthermore, the odds ratio estimates indicated that the probability of belonging to the high-IRD group was 1.113 times greater among adolescents who reported a parenting style based on Affection and Communication; 1.123 times greater for those who described a style characterised by Revelation; and 1.069 times greater for those reporting a style based on Humour.

For the predictor variable External Resources (ERD), the multinomial regression analysis showed a satisfactory fit (χ² = 250.739(12), p < .001; Nagelkerke R² = 0.561), correctly classifying 83.4% of cases. The model, using the low-ERD group as the reference category, showed that the same factors previously identified as related to high Internal Resources were also significantly and positively associated with high External Resources: Affection and Communication (B = 0.193, p < .001), Revelation (B = 0.066, p < .05), and Humour (B = 0.110, p < .05). Similarly, the odds ratio estimates indicated that the probability of being in the high-ERD group was 1.213 times greater among students with a parenting style based on Affection and Communication, 1.069 times greater among those with a Revelation-based style, and 1.116 times greater among those who reported a parenting style characterised by Humour (see Table 5).

4. Discussion

The present study aimed to analyse the relationship between adolescents’ perceived parenting styles and their levels of resilience, adopting a multidimensional approach that considers both internal and external adaptive factors. Based on the idea that parental practices play a decisive role in emotional and social development during adolescence, the study sought to identify which specific dimensions of parenting style act as significant predictors of resilience. The results contribute to a better understanding of the family-related factors that promote positive coping in the face of adversity, providing relevant information for the design of socio-educational interventions aimed at strengthening the family environment as a protective context.

The findings of this study provide empirical evidence of the relationship between adolescents’ perceived parenting styles and their levels of resilience. Although all parenting styles were significantly correlated with both internal and external resources of resilience, the style based on affection and communication (PAC) emerged as the strongest and most consistent predictor of both dimensions. According to [28], this type of warm and stable family interaction is a key source of psychological protection for young people, as it reinforces both emotional security and coping capacity. This relationship becomes particularly relevant when considering that an affectionate and communicative parenting style is not only associated with higher levels of resilience, but also significantly increases the likelihood that adolescents will develop both internal and external resources. This suggests that when parents provide a context of emotional closeness, active listening, and affective validation, adolescents feel more secure, confident, and capable of coping with the challenges of this developmental stage, while also establishing supportive bonds with their environment [8].

Other dimensions, such as Promotion of Autonomy (PPA), Revelation (PRV), and Humour (PHM), also showed significant associations, particularly in relation to the external resources dimension of resilience. In line with the findings of [29], the opportunity to share emotions and thoughts with parents (PRV), as well as the presence of a relaxed and humorous family environment (PHM), appear to facilitate access to support networks and enhance adolescents’ perception of social competence, which contributes to greater external resilience. However, in our study, although Promotion of Autonomy did not emerge as a predictor of the external resources dimension, it did predict internal resources. In contrast, Revelation and Humour were not only significantly associated with resilience scores, but also acted as relevant predictors in the regression models and were linked to a greater likelihood of adolescents being classified in the high-resilience group. These findings reinforce the idea that the emotional context in which adolescents develop not only buffers them against adverse situations, but also actively enhances their personal and social capabilities.

In contrast, Behavioural Control (PBC) and Psychological Control (PPC) did not show significant effects as predictors of resilience levels. While some degree of control has been noted to play a structuring role during childhood, our results suggest that, during adolescence, parenting styles centred on monitoring or imposition (especially when perceived as intrusive or restrictive) do not directly contribute to the strengthening of resilience, at least from the adolescents’ own perspective [23]. Moreover, recent studies have indicated that parental psychological control may have detrimental effects on adolescents’ emotional and social adjustment, and that resilience may function as a moderating or mediating variable in this relationship [30,31].

The findings of this study have relevant implications for both the educational and family contexts. The evidence supports the importance of fostering parenting styles based on affection, communication, and autonomy, as these appear to significantly contribute to the development of adolescent resilience [6,28]. In this regard, we agree with [29] that parent training programmes could incorporate components aimed at improving emotional expression, the use of humour in family life, and mutual trust between parents and children, as means to enhance young people’s psychosocial adjustment. Furthermore, in the school context, understanding these factors may be useful for designing preventive and well-being promotion interventions that take family dynamics into account.

Limitations

As with any research, certain limitations should be acknowledged. The most important relates to the use of self-reports as the sole method of data collection. The assessment of parenting styles and resilience relied exclusively on students’ subjective perceptions, which may be affected by contextual or momentary factors. Another limitation concerns the cross-sectional design, which precludes establishing causal or developmental relationships between the variables analysed. Following the recommendations of [32], it would be valuable—albeit an ambitious undertaking—to incorporate longitudinal designs in future research, enabling the observation of these relationships over time and the establishment of more robust causal links.

In addition, although cluster sampling was used (by classroom), multilevel modelling techniques were not applied, as no classroom-level or contextual variables were collected. All measures were individual, and a runs test indicated that the assumption of independence between observations was not violated (p = .10). Nevertheless, the possibility of unobserved group-level effects cannot be ruled out, and future research is encouraged to consider multilevel approaches when appropriate hierarchical variables are available, to avoid potential overestimation of effects.

Finally, the cultural context in which this study was carried out—Spanish secondary education—should be borne in mind when interpreting the findings. Educational practices, the conceptualisation of resilience, and family expectations may vary considerably between countries and school systems. Consequently, the generalisation of these results to other populations should be made with caution, and replication in diverse cultural and educational settings is recommended to validate the external applicability of the conclusions.

5. Conclusions

This study examined the relationship between the dimensions of parenting styles as perceived by adolescents and their levels of resilience within the context of secondary education. Regression analyses revealed that certain parenting style dimensions (such as Affection and Communication, Revelation, and Humour) were significantly associated with both internal and external resilience factors, with Affection and Communication emerging as the strongest predictor. These findings offer a clear picture of the parenting styles that support the development of resilience-related competencies, which may inform the design of interventions aimed at strengthening adolescents’ psychological well-being.

Taken together, these results (consistent with recent studies) underscore the importance of promoting parenting styles based on warmth, respect, and autonomy as a means of enhancing young people’s coping capacity in the face of personal, social, and academic challenges. The growing focus on resilience as an educational goal reinforces the need to integrate this perspective into both family training and school intervention policies.

Finally, future research could further explore the mediating or moderating role of variables such as self-esteem, school support, or peer relationships, as well as investigate differences based on gender, age, or sociocultural context.