International Journal of

Environmental Research
and Public Health

Article
Parental Style, Dating Violence and Gender
María Muñiz-Rivas 1 , María Vera 2 and Amapola Povedano-Díaz 2, *
1 Department of Social Anthropology, Seville University, 41013 Seville, Spain
2 Department of Education and Social Psychology, Pablo de Olavide University, 41013 Seville, Spain
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 30 May 2019; Accepted: 26 July 2019; Published: 30 July 2019


Abstract: The relationship between parenting styles and teen dating violence has become a relevant
research topic in recent years, especially related to violence inflicted online. To more fully understand
this relationship, the objective of the present study was to examine which parenting style (authoritarian,
indulgent, authoritative, or neglectful) best protects against dating violence in adolescent relationships.
A total of 1132 adolescents of both sexes participated in this study (46.4% boys and 53.6% girls),
with ages between 14 and 18 years old (M = 15.6, SD = 1.3). A multivariate factorial design was
applied (MANOVA, 4 × 2), using the parenting style, the parents’ gender, and the adolescents’ gender
as independent variables, and the dating violence dimensions (online and offline) as dependent
variables. As the results show, the lowest scores on all the dating violence dimensions examined
were obtained by adolescents from indulgent families. In addition, three interaction effects were
observed between the mother’s parenting style and the adolescent’s gender on online violence
(e-violence and control), and the father’s parenting style on offline violence (verbal-emotional). Thus,
adolescents with authoritarian mothers obtained the highest scores on violence and control inflicted
online, respectively, and adolescent girls with authoritarian fathers obtained the highest scores on
verbal-emotional violence. These findings suggest that the indulgent style is the parenting style
that protects against violence in teen dating relationships, and they also highlight the risks of the
authoritarian style as a family child-rearing model.

Keywords: parenting style; dating violence; online; offline; gender

1. Introduction
After decades of silence, recent investigations have included the study of the prevalence of the
use of violent behaviors to resolve conflicts in adolescent dating relationships [1,2]. For example, a
meta-analysis of more than 100 studies revealed dating violence prevalence rates ranging from 5% to
90% in some studies [3,4]. The magnitude of these differences could indicate that the cases of dating
violence vary in different contexts and countries. However, these discrepancies are probably due
to different operationalizations of the construct and/or other questions related to the measurement
instruments’ design. Despite these inconsistencies in the type of measurement used, there is a strong
consensus in the scientific community that dating violence has serious consequences for the victims’
physical and psychological health [1,5,6]. Dating violence refers to repeated and abusive behaviors
used by adolescent boyfriends toward their girlfriends or ex-girlfriends in order to have dominion and
control over them and the relationship, usually in situations where they are not living together [7].
In recent years, with the development of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs),
dating violence has also been carried out through the Internet and virtual social networks [8,9]. We
define online dating violence as behaviors expressed in the form of threats, insults, or ridicule through
comments or images online that can harm the victim and control her environment (for example, control
over the circle of friends or membership in an online group) [10]. Online dating violence develops

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2722; doi:10.3390/ijerph16152722 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2722 2 of 16

through the repetition of behaviors of dominance, submission, and isolation over time [11]. It has often
been associated with offline behaviors of physical and psychological violence, and so some authors
have suggested that offline violence might be a precursor of online violence and vice versa [12]. In
this regard, various studies indicate that there is often continuity between the relational spaces in
this type of violence, such that the adolescent’s problems in the offline context move to the Internet
and continue there [13,14]. Recent studies on online dating violence have included an analysis of its
incidence [15–17]). As in the case of offline violence, discrepancies are found regarding its prevalence,
with rates ranging from 15% [18] to 47.5% [17,19,20]. Moreover, these studies show a higher rate of this
type of violence by boys than by girls.
In order to understand and prevent violence in teen dating relationships, many studies have
focused on the analysis of factors related to its development in the first couple relationships [6,11]. The
family is the most important socializing agent in a person’s life because it is the first environment where
the identity develops and where the individual relates to others, and it is also the first nexus between the
individual and the society in which s/he lives. Studies have shown that parents, through modeling and
the reinforcement of certain behaviors (type of communication, violent behaviors, physical punishment,
parental control, etc.), transmit a behavioral style to their children that adolescents often reproduce in
their affective relationships [21–23], imitating violent behaviors and attitudes already present in the
family [24]. In addition, these parental practices have been associated with serious behavioral and
psychosocial adjustment problems in adolescents, variables that are closely linked to violence in couple
relationships [25]. By contrast, the behaviors and attitudes that represent healthy family functioning
(cohesion, support, and positive communication) are related to good psychological and emotional
development in the children [26,27].
Based on the two-dimensional parental socialization model [28–32], two independent dimensions
have been defined: acceptance/involvement and severity/imposition. Depending on the parents’
use of the educational practices that characterize these two dimensions, four parenting styles
can be differentiated: authoritarian, high severity/imposition and low acceptance/involvement;
indulgent, low use of strictness/imposition and high use of acceptance/involvement; authoritative,
high acceptance/involvement and high strictness/imposition; and neglectful, low strictness/imposition
and low acceptance/involvement [33,34].
The authoritative and indulgent parenting styles are characterized by the use of parenting practices
related to warmth and rational communication. Traditionally, the authoritative style, which includes
imposition and rigor practices as well as affective and rational practices, has been considered the
ideal parenting style. However, recent studies in Spain and some countries in Europe and Latin
America [35,36] point out that the indulgent parenting style is associated with similar or even better
adolescent adjustment than the authoritative style [29,37–39]. Despite the relevance of these results,
they should be interpreted with caution because they represent emerging research.
By contrast, authoritarian and neglectful parenting, both defined by less use of warmth and
reasoning, tend to be associated with poor adaptation in adolescence. Some of the psychosocial
adjustment indicators analyzed in these studies have been, for example, self-esteem, self-control,
emotional distress, school achievement, the use of learning strategies, the use of substances, or behavior
problems [27,30,32].
The family socialization process also includes aspects related to gender. Specifically, gender
socialization refers to the process through which people begin to feel, think, and act differently
depending on whether they are male or female, and it develops from early childhood [7]. During
adolescence, the family plays an even more important role in gender socialization than in other stages
of development, through the assimilation and reproduction of behaviors, attitudes, and roles associated
with gender. Few studies have included the gender perspective in the study of parenting styles,
and their results seem contradictory. Some studies have pointed out that the relationship between
the four parenting styles and the children’s psychosocial development does not vary depending
on the adolescent’s gender [33,40,41]. whereas other studies have shown gender differences in this
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2722 3 of 16

process [42,43]. For example, some studies have pointed out that boys often receive more disciplinary
actions and punishments than girls, which are related to a more authoritarian educational style [42,44],
and these practices are probably related to a greater use of violence, as some studies suggest [45,46].
However, girls receive much more supervision and control than boys, which influences the development
of their autonomy and confidence in decision-making [47].
Regarding the gender perspective in dating relationships, again the results are controversial. On
the one hand, there are clear indications that violence in teen dating relationships is reciprocal [48,49].
On the other hand, many studies have shown that boys are more violent than girls [5,50], and that boys
use and justify violence more [51,52]. Moreover, girls make greater use of reactive violence, whereas
boys use more proactive violence as a form of control [50,53]. One possible interpretation is related to
the degree to which both boys and girls incorporate society’s chauvinistic attitudes and beliefs and
reproduce traditional gender roles where boys are strong and violent and girls are caregivers and
submissive [54,55].
In fact, not only is gender learned through socialization, but violence is also learned this way. Thus,
studies have found that boys’ greater involvement in forms of physical aggression could be attributed
to learning “gender differentiated patterns of violence” [56]. Furthermore, some family-related risk
factors are also linked to dating abuse, including: parental punitive practices, the lack of affective
cohesion, frequent conflicts, inadequate family communication patterns, violent marital relations, and
physical or sexual abuse of children by their parents. Previous studies [57] found that adolescents
from families with indulgent socialization styles report the lowest levels of dating violence, whereas
adolescents from families with authoritarian styles are more likely to become involved in violent
relationships, followed by adolescents from families with a neglectful style. In other words, parenting
styles based on affect, comprehension, and support are the most favorable for building a healthy
adolescent relationship, particularly the mother’s style.
Despite the research interest in young people’s use of the Internet and virtual social networks,
studies on parenting styles and online dating violence are still scarce. In spite of this gap, studies
carried out on cyberbullying can provide some ideas about the relationships between the variables of
interest in this research. For example, a study on cyberbullying with a Spanish sample shows that
the indulgent parenting style, characterized by practices of acceptance and participation, is the most
protective style in all the results analyzed, and is associated with the lowest levels of cyberbullying. By
contrast, authoritarian parenting, characterized by rigor and imposition, is associated with the highest
levels of cyberbullying [35].
Consequently, considering the previous research, the analysis of the family socialization model
would provide us with broader knowledge about the way parenting styles influence online and offline
dating violence in adolescence. Thus, this study proposes to establish a link between previous studies
on the family’s influence in adolescence and the violence inflicted in dating relationships in this stage.
Moreover, the objective of the present study is to analyze the relationship between the parenting styles
and offline and online dating violence, focusing on the gender of the parents and the adolescents.

2. Method

2.1. Sample and Procedure

The sample was composed of 1132 teenagers enrolled in four schools in Andalucía (Spain). They
were adolescents between 14 and 18 years old (M = 15.6, SD = 1.3); 46.4% were boys, and 53.6% were
girls. All of them indicated currently having or having had a romantic partner in the past year. The
average of the missing data obtained was 0.8%, and never more than 0.9% for an individual item.
Therefore, estimations of the expected values in the general population are accurate [58].
Regarding the procedure, once the schools had been randomly selected, the director was contacted.
With the director’s help, we held an informative seminar where the project was explained to teachers
and parents. In this seminar, we answered any questions, and we asked for their collaboration. In all
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2722 4 of 16

cases, permission was given by the parents. The questionnaire was administered to the adolescents in
their usual classrooms during a regular class period. Adolescents were informed that participation
was voluntary and confidential. The study met the ethical values described in the Declaration of
Helsinki [59].

2.2. Instruments
Socialization style was measured with ESPA29 Parental Socialization Scale in Adolescence [28,31,39,60].
This instrument assesses, through 232 items, the parenting socialization styles of the two parents in
different natural scenarios representative of everyday family life in Western culture. A child separately
rates the behavior of his/her father and his/her mother in 29 significant situations; 16 refer to children’s
behavior that conforms to family norms (e.g., “He/She respects the rules established in my house”), and
13 refer to behavior that goes against these rules (e.g., “He/She is dirty and messy”). For all 29 situations,
the questionnaire obtains a global mean for each parent in the dimensions of acceptance/implication
and strictness/imposition (similar to those of demandingness and responsiveness). From the scores
on the two dimensions, the socialization style of each parent is classified as authoritative, indulgent,
authoritarian or neglectful. All the items have a Likert response scale ranging from 1 (“Never”) to
4 (“Always”). Finally, internal consistency of acceptance/implication was 0.95 for the mother and 0.95
for the father; for strictness/imposition, it was 0.93 for the mother and 0.93 for the father.
E-dating violence was measured by the Couple´s Violence in Social Networks Scale in Adolescents
(e-VPA) [10]. We evaluated the violent behavior exhibited towards the partner and former partners
through the Internet. The scale consists of 20 items rated on a Likert-type scale with four response
options ranging from 1 (“Never”) to 4 (“Always”). It is composed of two dimensions: (1) E-violence,
consisting of four items measuring threats, insults, and public humiliation through online comments
or images (example: “I have publicly threatened my boyfriend/girlfriend on his/her social network
or done so by private message”) (α = 0.80). (2) E-control, consisting of six items evaluating the
possessiveness related to the circle of friends or membership in a virtual group (example: “I get angry
if my boyfriend/girlfriend is in a photo with people I don’t like”) (α = 0.86).
Dating violence was measured by the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory
(CADRI) [61], validated in Spanish by Fernández-Fuertes, Fuertes, and Pulido [62]. This inventory
consists of 32 items rated on a Likert-type scale with four response options ranging from 1 (“Never”) to
4 (“Always”), and evaluates violent behavior toward the partner. It is composed of three dimensions:
(1) Relational violence, with two items that evaluate control and social isolation induction (example:
“I spread false rumors about him/her”) (α = 0.64); (2) verbal-emotional violence, with 10 items that
evaluate humiliation, intimidation, insults and threats, or any other means that affect emotional
stability (example: “I said something just to make him/her angry”) (α = 0.83); and (3) physical violence,
containing four items that evaluate any action that affects the adolescent´s integrity by causing physical
damage or suffering (example: “I pushed/shook him/her”) (α = 0.79).

2.3. Data Analysis

First, the prevalence of violence in the sample is presented. Second, percentages, descriptive
analyses, correlations, and Cronbach´s alpha were carried out among all the variables under study.
Third, two multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) (4 × 2) were performed to identify differences
in violence, online and violence offline, depending on the mother’s and father´s parenting styles and
gender and their interaction. All the analyses were carried out using SPSS 25. Univariate F follow-up
tests were conducted for the multivariate significant overall differences, and significant results on the
univariate tests were followed by Bonferroni’s comparisons of all possible pairs of means. We applied
the same traditional design and robust statistical analyses as in other seminal studies (i.e., [30]).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2722 5 of 16

3. Results
Table 1 shows the prevalence of violence in the sample. In order to find the highest scores, we
calculated the mean + 1SD for each variable, and we included only those with high scores. Thus, the
table presents the percentage and number of boys and girls whose scores on all the types of violence
measured are among the highest.

Table 1. Violence prevalence among the sample (N = 1132).

Total Boys Girls

% N % N % N
e-violence 2.5% 28 3.6% 41 1.5% 17
e-emitted control 8% 91 10.1% 114 9.4% 106
Relational violence 4.7% 53 17.5% 198 3.1% 35
Verbal-emotional violence 6.5% 74 1.7% 19 10.5% 119
Physical violence 7.1% 80 37.7% 427 3.1% 35

Table 2 shows the numbers of cases in the parenting style groups, mean scores, and standard
deviations on measures of parental dimensions (see Table 1)

Table 2. Means in the four categories and gender (N = 1132).

Total Neglectful Authoritarian Indulgent Authoritative

M F M F M F M F M F
Frequency 1132 1132 326 342 239 222 248 219 319 349
Percent 100 100 28.8 30.2 21.1 19.6 21.9 19.3 28.2 30.9
Acceptance/Involvement
Mean 3.16 3.06 2.80 2.63 2.81 2.68 3.48 3.43 3.55 3.49
SD 0.45 0.52 0.33 0.39 0.31 0.36 0.22 0.23 0.21 0.28
Strictness/Imposition
Mean 1.83 1.82 1.51 1.45 2.13 2.16 1.55 1.49 2.16 2.16
SD 0.40 0.44 0.21 0.22 0.31 0.32 0.21 0.21 0.28 0.32
Note. M = mother; F = father.

The percentages of mothers and fathers in the four parenting style groups (neglectful, authoritarian,
indulgent and authoritative) are quite similar: 28.8% versus 30.2%; 21.1% versus 19.6%; 21.9% versus
19.3%; and 28.2% versus 30.8%, respectively. The highest scores on acceptance/involvement for both
are found in the authoritative style. Therefore, the lowest scores are found in the neglectful style. The
same pattern occurs in the case of strictness/imposition; that is, the highest scores for both are found in
the authoritative style because the lowest scores can be observed in the neglectful style.
Table 3 shows descriptive analyses, means, standard deviations, Cronbach´s alphas, and
correlations between all the variables under study. Means, standard deviations, and all alphas
are in the expected direction. Moreover, the correlations show that the acceptance/involvement and
strictness/imposition dimensions have a powerful relationship between the mother and the father.
Moreover, the mother´s strictness/imposition seems to be especially linked to the violence variables.
Finally, all the dimensions of violence online and offline are positively and significantly related.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2722 6 of 16

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations (N = 1132).

M SD α 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Acceptance/Involvement M 3.16 0.45 0.82
2 Strictness/Imposition M 1.83 0.40 0.93 0.16 (0.000)
3 Acceptance/Involvement F 3.06 0.52 0.85 0.74 (0.000) 0.17 (0.000)
4 Strictness/Imposition F 1.82 0.44 0.94 0.21 (0.000) 0.75 (0.000) 0.24 (0.000)
5 e-violence 1.05 0.22 0.78 −0.07 (0.026) 0.07 (0.028) −0.05 (0.115) 0.04 (0.195)
6 e-emitted control 1.28 0.44 0.81 0.03 (0.302) 0.09 (0.004) −0.01 (0.821) 0.03 (0.271) 0.37 (0.000)
7 Relational violence 1.09 0.31 * −0.05 (0.127) 0.08 (0.005) −0.05 (0.132) 0.07 (0.030) 0.37 (0.000) 0.22 (0.000)
8 Verbal-emotional violence 1.51 0.64 0.81 −0.02 (0.595) 0.04 (0.196) −0.06 (0.037) 0.04 (0.143) 0.20 (0.000) 0.30 (0.000) 0.43 (0.000)
9 Physical violence 1.08 0.26 0.68 −0.03 (0.347) 0.07 (0.0229) −0.03 (0.273) 0.05 (0.109) 0.31 (0.000) 0.26 (0.000) 0.44 (0.000) 0.43 (0.000)
Note: M = mother; F = father. p values are in brackets. * Cronbach´s alpha cannot be calculated because it only contains two items.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2722 7 of 16

After conducting descriptive analyses, we performed two MANOVAs to find out if there were
differences in violence, online as well as offline, depending on the parental socialization style and
gender, and to test a possible interaction effect between these two variables. Table 4 shows the
significant main and interaction effects of the two variables for mothers and the significant main and
interaction effects of the gender variable. Table 5 shows the same effects for fathers. Nonetheless,
because the interaction effect of the parenting style and gender is significant, it makes sense to continue.

Table 4. MANOVA factorial (4a × 2b ) for adolescent dating violence (online and offline) for mothers
(N = 1132).

Source of Variation Λ F glbetween glerror p

(A) Parenting Style a 0.98 1.92 15 3078.43 0.017
(B) Gender b 0.93 16.93 5 1115.00 <0.001
A×B 0.97 2.65 15 3078.43 0.001
Note: a1 : neglectful, a2 : authoritarian, a3 : indulgent, a4 : authoritative; b1 : boy, b2 : girl; p values are in brackets.
Λ: wilks lambda; F: contrast statistic of MANOVA.

Table 5. MANOVA factorial (4a × 2b ) for adolescent dating violence (online and offline) for fathers
(N = 1132).

Source of Variation Λ F glbetween glerror p

(A) Parenting Style a 0.99 1.15 15 3078.43 0.302
(B) Gender b 0.93 16.00 5 1115.00 <0.001
AxB 0.98 1.65 15 3078.43 0.054
Note: a1 : neglectful, a2 : authoritarian, a3 : indulgent, a4 : authoritative; b1 : boy, b2 : girl; p values are in brackets.

Finally, univariate analysis of mothers’ (Table 6) and fathers’ (Table 7) styles as well as gender
(Table 8) indicated how these significant differences are distributed among adolescents.

Table 6. Means, standard deviations (in brackets), F values, p values, effect size, and post hoc Bonferroni
procedure for both parenting style groups across online and offline violence (N = 1132) in Mothers.

Neglectful Authoritarian Indulgent Authoritative F(2, 1131) p η2

e-violence 1.05 (0.01) 1.09 (0.01) * 1.04 (0.01) * 1.05 (0.01) 2.99 0.030 0.007
e-emitted control 1.26 (0.02) 1.31 (0.03) 1.26 (0.03) 1.29 (0.03) 0.84 0.472 0.003
Relational violence 1.08 (0.02) 1.11 (0.02) 1.06 (0.02) 1.11 (0.02) 1.91 0.127 0.005
Verbal-emotional
1.47 (0.02) 1.55 (0.03) * 1.41 (0.03) * 1.48 (0.03) 4.43 0.004 0.013
violence
Physical violence 1.06 (0.01) 1.12 (0.02) * 1.05 (0.02) * 1.07 (0.01) 3.31 0.020 0.010
Note. * significant differences between groups according to the post hoc Bonferroni test.

Table 7. Means, standard deviations (in brackets), F values, p values, effect size, and post hoc Bonferroni
procedure for both parenting style groups across online and offline violence (N = 1132) in Fathers.

Neglectful Authoritarian Indulgent Authoritative F(2, 1131) p η2

e-violence 1.07 (0.01) 1.07 (0.02) 1.03 (0.01) 1.05 (0.01) 2.07 0.102 0.005
e-emitted control 1.29 (0.02) 1.29 (0.03) 1.27 (0.03) 1.27 (0.02) 0.18 0.910 0.000
Relational violence 1.10 (0.02) 1.10 (0.02) 1.06 (0.02) 1.09 (0.02) 0.89 0.446 0.003
Verbal-emotional
1.49 (0.02) 1.54 (0.03) * 1.42 (0.03) * 1.46 (0.02) 3.29 0.020 0.009
violence
Physical violence 1.08 (0.01) 1.09 (0.02) 1.04 (0.02) 1.07 (0.01) 1.83 0.141 0.005
Note. * significant differences between groups according to the post hoc Bonferroni test.

As Tables 6 and 7 show, and regarding the main effect of parenting style, verbal-emotional violence
has significant main effects in the case of both parents. In all cases, the highest scores on violence
correspond to authoritarian parents and the lowest levels to indulgent parents. The mother´s style also
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2722 8 of 16

shows significant main effects for e-violence and physical violence, and again the highest scores on
violence correspond to authoritarian mothers and the lowest levels to indulgent mothers.

Table 8. Means, standard deviations (in brackets), F values, p values for gender across online and
offline violence (N = 1132).

Boys Girls F(1, 1131) p η2

e-violence 1.07 (0.01) 1.04 (0.01) 5.01 0.025 0.005
e-emitted control 1.25 (0.02) 1.31 (0.02) 5.71 0.017 0.005
Relational violence 1.12 (0.01) 1.06 (0.01) 8.10 0.005 0.007
Verbal-emotional violence 1.40 (0.02) 1.55 (0.02) 33.24 <0.001 0.033
Physical violence 1.07 (0.01) 1.08 (0.01) 0.19 0.660 0.001

Regarding the main effect of the gender of the adolescents (see Table 8), significant effects appear
on almost all the variables, specifically, on e-violence (higher in boys), e-emitted control (higher in
girls), relational violence (higher in boys), and verbal-emotional violence (higher in girls).
Finally, the interaction effect between parental socialization styles and adolescents´ gender on
violence (online and offline) was examined. In the case of the mother´s style, significant differences
appear in e-violence F(2, 1131) = 2.54, p < 0.050, and e-emitted control F(2, 1131) = 3.03, p = 0.029.
Figures 1 and 2 shows these results, respectively. The two interactions show a different pattern:
Whereas in e-violence boys show higher values (peak in the authoritarian style), girls show similar
values for the authoritarian, authoritative, and indulgent styles. In Figure 2, girls and boys show a
completely opposite pattern in the neglectful style: whereas girls have the lowest levels of e-emitted
control, boys have the highest. The opposite occurs in the authoritative style: girls have the highest
levels of e-emitted control, and boys have the lowest.
In the case of the father´s style, significant differences appear in verbal-emotional violence F(2,
1131) = 3.24, p = 0.024. Figure 3 shows these results. In the interaction, girls show higher values
than boys, and both have their peak values in the authoritarian style. However, when the father is
authoritative, it has a very different effect on boys and girls: whereas in girls the level of violence
increases, in boys it decreases.

Figure 1. Iteration effect on e-violence of the mother´s style.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2722 9 of 16

Figure 2. Iteration effect on e-emitted control of the mother´s style.

Figure 3. Iteration effect on verbal and emotional violence of the father´s style.

4. Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to analyze the relationship between parenting styles and
adolescent dating violence from a gender perspective. In our study, the percentages in the four
parenting style groups are similar to other studies in Spain [28,63,64]. In addition, our results are
coherent with previous studies about the prevalence of e-dating and dating violence in Spain. They
indicate that adolescent dating violence, in virtual and off-line contexts, is not an infrequent occurrence.
Nearly 18% of the participants reported having been involved in some type of offline violence, and 12%
of the sample reported having used violence and/or control online. In other words, boys and girls who
establish their first couple relationships often resolve conflicts by using insults, threats, or coercion.
These behaviors show poor management of the conflicts that arise naturally in human relationships
and, especially, in dating relationships [65,66].
These results suggest that sons and daughters perceive few differences between the parenting
styles of their mother and father. The highest scores on the difference in styles between the two parents
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2722 10 of 16

were found in the authoritative style, and the lowest in the neglectful style, with the mother reaching
higher levels of acceptance/involvement in both styles. These results agree with those obtained in
previous studies pointing out that mothers, compared to fathers, are perceived as having greater
influence, more unconditional acceptance, and more involvement with their sons and daughters [67,68].
One possible explanation for this result is that the mothers have greater exposure and involvement
in daily child-rearing, specifically in areas related to affective relationships [69,70]. It is interesting
to note that these differences between the two parents occur in both flexible parenting styles and
more disciplinary parenting styles [69,71,72]. Although the authoritative style (strictness and warmth)
seems to have benefits in some cultures to prevent and protect many internalizing and externalizing
behaviors (i.e., the Anglo-Saxon context) [73,74], our results are consistent with a growing line of
research that questions whether the authoritative parenting style is always associated with positive
results in all cultures [28]. However, in European and Mediterranean countries, the indulgent parenting
style (warmth but not strictness) provides many benefits to boys and girls. That is, children raised
in families with indulgent styles showed equal or greater adjustment than authoritative households
on variables such as the prevention of aggression and cyberaggression and traditional or cybernetic
harassment [23,75], which is consistent with the results obtained in our study of online and offline
dating violence.
In the case of offline and online dating violence, our data support the results obtained in other
studies about the relationship between the severity/imposition of the mother and the possibility that
the children will use violence in their couple relationships [76]. Various factors can explain these
results, among them the influence of society’s messages about the feminine role and non-acceptance of
the control and dominance women can exercise. These messages can lead male children to consider
their mothers to be weak people with little power, and they can lead female children to try to distance
themselves from this image of the vulnerable woman by using violence [77,78].
With regard to the relationship between the parenting style and dating violence, our results
show statistically significant relationships in both parents. In all cases, the highest scores on both
types of violence are related to authoritarian parents and the lowest to indulgent parents. However,
there are some differences between mothers and fathers. For example, the mother’s parenting style
has a strong relationship with the physical and verbal-emotional violence exercised by boys and
girls in their offline and online dating relationships. These results are coherent with those found in
previous studies showing a significantly higher probability of partner violence in adolescents educated
with severe and imposing parenting styles, compared to young people whose parents use a more
positive style [76,79]. In addition, some studies highlight the importance of the maternal parenting
style in the correct psychological and social adjustment of their children [79,80]. Therefore, coercive
practices such as firm control and strong discipline, as in the authoritarian style, may be more adverse
than neglectful parenting. These results are consistent with other studies [81–83] that found that
parental strictness, a characteristic of authoritarian and authoritative styles, is not an essential element
for healthy psychological and social adjustment or to prevent violent attitudes in adolescence in
different contexts.
Our results nuance the data found in some studies indicating that, in the virtual context, adolescents
might be more influenced by their peers than by their parents [84,85]. However, our results highlight the
parents’ importance and influence in online contexts, which is consistent with previous studies pointing
out that, although the adolescent’s social network broadens and acquires greater importance as s/he
develops, the family socialization environment continues to be extremely relevant and influential [86].
Moreover, our results showed interactions between the parenting style and the gender of the
adolescents in the dating violence (online and offline) carried out. Thus, adolescent boys with
authoritarian mothers have higher levels of online violence than girls, and lower levels than girls
with indulgent mothers. However, in the control carried out online, the opposite occurs; adolescent
girls raised in an authoritarian style tend to exercise more control over their partners than boys,
whose parameters do not very much. These results coincide with previous studies that highlight
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2722 11 of 16

the relationship between online violence and the lack of resources and strategies in adolescents from
authoritarian families, especially the girls [60,72]. Moreover, boys and girls could react to the parent’s
severity and imposition by becoming more involved in virtual spaces as a form of refuge, with the risk
that incorrect use of these spaces can lead to using violence in online environments. This proposal
must be confirmed in future studies.
The findings of the present study also indicate that girls whose parents are authoritarian tend
to use more verbal-emotional violence than boys in the same circumstances. This may be due to
the different gender socialization processes in childhood and adolescence, where female adolescents
could be especially affected by the authoritarian parenting style and the related negative aspects in the
family context [23,86]. Authoritarian parents usually punish girls who develop coping and conflict
resolution resources and strategies by using coactive and imposing methods that can foment a special
vulnerability to this socialization style in the family setting.
In summary, one of the most important contributions of the present study is the finding that
indulgent parenting is the most consistent style for the prevention of violence in adolescent couples.
This result is consistent with the third stage [87]. In the current digital era, the parental warmth
dimension is enough to (1) support children when they display correct behavior; and (2) prevent
children’s risk behaviors through reasoning and communicative practices. This result has also been
obtained in most of the European countries that reinforce the idea of the person fitting in the context
within a broader global framework. Undoubtedly, this study has some important limitations. In
addition to the link to the parenting style, a more complete analysis of dating violence, both online
and offline, would also require the consideration of the motivations that adolescent boys and girls
attribute to violence, their perceptions of it, and their beliefs about romantic relationships. Moreover,
this is a cross-sectional study that does not allow us to establish causal relationships, and so it would
be necessary to perform longitudinal studies to better understand the way the parenting style affects
violence in adolescent dating relationships. Finally, it is important to note that the effect sizes in the
MANOVAs and ANOVAs are small. However, we are not concerned about validity because our results
are congruent with recent studies that belong to the third stage [87] and with classical studies [38].
Thus, these results seem to maintain their importance in the field.

5. Conclusions
In conclusion, despite the limitations, the results of this study provide suggestive information
about the relationship between the parenting style and teen dating violence, and they show the
relationship between the two contexts (online/offline) in adolescents who perform this type of violence.
First, the results indicate that there is a significant relationship between authoritarian and neglectful
parenting styles and dating violence in adolescence [25,30]. Second, it is important to point out,
perhaps as the main contribution of the present study, the results obtained for the interactions among
the parenting style, dating violence (online and offline), and the adolescents’ gender. Thus, adolescents
with authoritarian mothers obtained the highest scores on online violence (the boys on violence and
the girls on control). Additionally, the father’s authoritarian style was also related to the highest scores
on verbal-emotional violence (especially in the girls). By contrast, the lowest scores observed in all
the dimensions of dating violence corresponded to the adolescents from families that used indulgent
parenting. We think the findings of this study are especially important, given that the indulgent
parenting style could be the most appropriate socialization style to prevent situations of violence in
adolescent dating relationships (online and offline). Therefore, interventions designed to prevent
and reduce dating violence should take the adolescents’ family context into account by analyzing,
along with fathers and mothers, which parenting styles favor the healthiest couple relationships and
the adequate psychosocial adjustment of boys and girls in offline and online contexts. Finally, the
findings of the present study indicate the importance of taking the gender of both the parents and
the adolescents into account. Although the present results should be viewed with caution, future
studies are needed to continue the research in this suggestive line about the third stage. These new
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2722 12 of 16

studies should also include gender as an important empirical variable that helps us to understand the
relationships between parenting styles and dating violence in adolescence in offline and online contexts.

Author Contributions: Theory and introduction, M.M.-R. and A.P.-D.; data collection, M.M.-R. and A.P.-D.; data
analysis, M.V., writing/original draft, M.M.-R., M.V. and A.P.-D.; writing/review and editing, M.M.-R., M.V. and
A.P.-D.
Funding: This study has been funded by the project “From school failure to adolescent flourishing: Promoting
positive development of schooled adolescents from a gender perspective”. Foundation for Aid against Drug
addiction (FAD) and Reina Sofia Center on Adolescence and Youth.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Muñoz-Fernández, N.; Ortega-Rivera, J.; Nocentini, A.; Menesini, E.; Sánchez-Jiménez, V. The Efficacy of the
“Date Adolescence” Prevention Program in the Reduction of Dating Violence and Bullying. Int. J. Environ.
Res. Public. Health 2019, 16, 408. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Paat, Y.-F.; Markham, C. The Roles of Family Factors and Relationship Dynamics on Dating Violence
Victimization and Perpetration Among College Men and Women in Emerging Adulthood. J. Interpers.
Violence 2019, 34, 81–114. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Gracia-Leiva, M.; Puente-Martínez, A.; Ubillos-Landa, S.; Páez-Rovira, D. Dating Violence (DV): A Systematic
Meta-Analysis Review. An. Psicol. 2019, 35, 300–313. [CrossRef]
4. Wincentak, K.; Connolly, J.; Card, N. Teen Dating Violence: A Meta-Analytic Review of Prevalence Rates.
Psychol. Violence 2017, 7, 224–241. [CrossRef]
5. Carrascosa, L.; Cava, M.-J.; Buelga, S. Psychosocial Profile of Spanish Teenagers, Aggressors and Victims of
Domestic Violence. Univ. Psychol. 2018, 17, 1–10. [CrossRef]
6. Povedano, A. Gender Violence in Adolescence; IC Editorial: Málaga, Spain, 2014.
7. Povedano, A. Dating Violence in Adolescence. In Problems in Adolescence. Answers and Suggestions for Parents
and Professionals; Estévez, E., Ed.; SINTESIS: Madrid, Spain, 2013; pp. 211–234.
8. Melander, L.A. College Students’ Perceptions of Intimate Partner Cyber Harassment. Cyberpsychology Behav.
Soc. Netw. 2010. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Burke, C.; Martsolf, D.S.; Stephenson, P.; Heckman, T.; Ferguson, C.P.; Perkins, S.; Benson, C. Types of
Aggressive Relationships in Adolescent Dating Violence. J. Aggress. Maltreatment Trauma 2012, 21, 516–539.
[CrossRef]
10. Muñiz, M. Online Teen Dating Violence, Family and School Climate from a Gender Perspective. Infanc.
Aprendiz. 2017, 40, 572–598. [CrossRef]
11. Reed, L.A.; Tolman, R.M.; Ward, L.M. Gender Matters: Experiences and Consequences of Digital Dating
Abuse Victimization in Adolescent Dating Relationships. J. Adolesc. 2017, 59, 79–89. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Borrajo, E.; Gámez-Guadix, M.; Pereda, N.; Calvete, E. The Development and Validation of the Cyber Dating
Abuse Questionnaire among Young Couples. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 48, 358–365. [CrossRef]
13. Estebáñez, I. Gender violence in social networks. In IV Jornadas Gender Violence of Doubts? Gobierno de
Navarra: Navarra, Spain, 2012.
14. Gomes-Franco-Silva, F.; Sendín-Gutiérrez, J.C. Internet as a Haven and Social Shield. Problematic Uses of
the Network by Young Spaniards. Comunicar 2014, 22, 45–53. [CrossRef]
15. Machimbarrena, J.M.; Calvete, E.; Fernández-González, L.; Álvarez-Bardón, A.; Álvarez-Fernández, L.;
González-Cabrera, J. Internet Risks: An Overview of Victimization in Cyberbullying, Cyber Dating Abuse,
Sexting, Online Grooming and Problematic Internet Use. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2018, 15, 2471.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Martín, A.; Pazos, M.; del Valle, C.M.C.; Oliva, C.R. Current Pattern of Gender-Based Violence in Youth
Couples: The Social Networks. Educ. XX1 2016, 19. [CrossRef]
17. Rodríguez-Domínguez, C.; Durán Segura, M.; Martínez-Pecino, R. Cyberaggressors In the Teen Dating
And Their Relationship To Psychological Violence, Sexism And Jealousy. Health Addict. Drog. 2018, 18, 17.
[CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2722 13 of 16

18. Peskin, M.F.; Markham, C.M.; Shegog, R.; Temple, J.R.; Baumler, E.R.; Addy, R.C.; Hernandez, B.; Cuccaro, P.;
Gabay, E.K.; Thiel, M.; et al. Prevalence and Correlates of the Perpetration of Cyber Dating Abuse among
Early Adolescents. J. Youth Adolesc. 2017, 46, 358–375. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Bennett, D.C.; Guran, E.L.; Ramos, M.C.; Margolin, G. College Students’ Electronic Victimization in
Friendships and Dating Relationships: Anticipated Distress and Associations with Risky Behaviors. Violence
Vict. 2011, 26, 410–429. [CrossRef]
20. Durán-Segura, M.; Martínez-Pecino, R. Cyberbullying trough Mobile Phone and the Internet in Dating
Relationships among Youth People. Comunicar 2015, 22, 159–167. [CrossRef]
21. Hickman, L.J.; Jaycox, L.H.; Aronoff, J. Dating Violence among Adolescents: Prevalence, Gender Distribution,
and Prevention Program Effectiveness. Trauma Violence Abus. 2004, 5, 123–142. [CrossRef]
22. Rankin Williams, L.; Degnan, K.A.; Perez-Edgar, K.E.; Henderson, H.A.; Rubin, K.H.; Pine, D.S.; Steinberg, L.;
Fox, N.A. Impact of Behavioral Inhibition and Parenting Style on Internalizing and Externalizing Problems
from Early Childhood through Adolescence. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 2009, 37, 1063–1075. [CrossRef]
23. Moreno–Ruiz, D.; Martínez–Ferrer, B.; García–Bacete, F. Parenting Styles, Cyberaggression, and
Cybervictimization among Adolescents. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 93, 252–259. [CrossRef]
24. Yedra, L.; González, M.P.; Oliva, L.; Rivera, E.A.; Magaly, M. Teen Dating Violence in Hight School Modeled
by Interparental Violence. Uaricha Rev. Psicol. 2017, 14, 61–70.
25. González -López, E.A.; Olmos, L.F.; Ramírez -Páez, J.C.; Vargas, Y.F.; Vergara, Y.L. Parenting Patterns and
Aggression in Teen Dating Relationships. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Católica de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia,
2017.
26. Willems, Y.; Li, J.-B.; Hendriks, A.; Bartels, M.; Finkenauer, C. The Relationship between Family Violence and
Self-Control in Adolescence: A Multi-Level Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2018, 15, 2468.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Romero-Abrio, A.; Musitu, G.; Sánchez-Sosa, J.C.; Villarreal-González, M.E.; Callejas, J.E. Predictors of
Relational Violence in Adolescence. Lib. Rev. Peru Psicol. 2018, 24, 29–43. [CrossRef]
28. García, O.; Sierra, E. Raising Children with Poor School Performance: Parenting Styles and Short- and
Long-Term Consequences for Adolescent and Adult Development. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2019,
16, 1089. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Maccoby, E.E.; Martin, J.A. Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In Handbook of
Child Psychology: Vol. 4: Socialization, Personality and Social Development; Mavis Hetherington, E., Mussen, P.H.,
Hetherington, E.M., Eds.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1983; pp. 1–101.
30. Martínez, I.; Garcia, F.; Fuentes, M.; Veiga, F.; Garcia, O.; Rodrigues, Y.; Cruise, E.; Serra, E. Researching
Parental Socialization Styles across Three Cultural Contexts: Scale ESPA29 Bi-Dimensional Validity in Spain,
Portugal, and Brazil. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2019, 16, 197. [CrossRef]
31. Musitu, G.; García, F. ESPA 29: Parental Socialization Scale in Adolescence; TEA Ediciones: Madrid, Spain, 2001.
32. Pinquart, M. Associations of Parenting Dimensions and Styles with Externalizing Problems of Children and
Adolescents: An Updated Meta-Analysis. Dev. Psychol. 2017, 53, 873–932. [CrossRef]
33. Fuentes, M.C.; García, F.; Gracia, E.; Alarcón, A. Parental Socialization Styles and Psychological Adjustment.
A Study in Spanish Adolescents. Rev. Psicodidact. J. Psychodidactics 2014, 20, 117–138. [CrossRef]
34. Steinberg, L.; Lamborn, S.D.; Darling, N.; Mounts, N.S.; Dornbusch, S.M. Over-Time Changes in Adjustment
and Competence among Adolescents from Authoritative, Authoritarian, Indulgent, and Neglectful Families.
Child. Dev. 1994, 65, 754. [CrossRef]
35. Martínez, I.; Murgui, S.; Garcia, O.F.; Garcia, F. Parenting in the Digital Era: Protective and Risk Parenting
Styles for Traditional Bullying and Cyberbullying Victimization. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 90, 84–92.
[CrossRef]
36. Lund, I.; Scheffels, J. 15-Year-Old Tobacco and Alcohol Abstainers in a Drier Generation: Characteristics and
Lifestyle Factors in a Norwegian Cross-Sectional Sample. Scand. J. Public Health 2019, 47, 439–445. [CrossRef]
37. Baumrid, D. Parenting Styles and Adolescent Development. In Encyclopedia of Adolescence; Lerner, R.M.,
Petersen, A.C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Eds.; Garland: New York, NY, USA, 1991; Volume 2, pp. 746–758.
38. Lamborn, S.D.; Mounts, N.S.; Steinberg, L.; Dornbusch, S.M. Patterns of Competence and Adjustment among
Adolescents from Authoritative, Authoritarian, Indulgent, and Neglectful Families. Child. Dev. 1991, 62,
1049. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2722 14 of 16

39. Suárez-Relinque, C.; del Moral Arroyo, G.; León-Moreno, C.; Callejas Jerónimo, J.E. Child-To-Parent Violence:
Which Parenting Style is more Protective? A Study with Spanish Adolescents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public.
Health 2019, 16, 1320. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Jiménez-Barbero, J.A.; Ruiz-Hernández, J.A.; Llor-Esteban, B.; Waschgler, K. Influence of Attitudes,
Impulsivity, and Parental Styles in Adolescents’ Externalizing Behavior. J. Health Psychol. 2016, 21,
122–131. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Martinez, I.; García, F.; Musitu, G.; Yubero, S. Family Socialization Practices: Factor Confirmation of the
Portuguese Version of a Scale for Their Measurement. Rev. Psicodidáct. 2012, 17, 159–178. [CrossRef]
42. Gámez-Guadix, M.; Almendros, C. Parental Discipline in Spain and in the United States: Differences by
Country, Parent-Child Gender and Education Level. Infanc. Aprendiz. 2015, 38, 569–599. [CrossRef]
43. Leaper, C.; Friedman, C.K. The Socialization of Gender. In Handbook of Socialization, Theory and Research.;
Grusec, J.E., Hastings, P.D., Eds.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 561–587.
44. Sorbring, E.; Rödholm-Funnemark, M.; Palmérus, K. Boys’ and Girls’ Perceptions of Parental Discipline in
Transgression Situations: Boys’ and Girls’ Perceptions of Parental Discipline. Infant Child. Dev. 2003, 12,
53–69. [CrossRef]
45. Calvete, E.; Cardeñoso, O. Gender Differences in Cognitive Vulnerability to Depression and Behavior
Problems in Adolescents. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 2005, 33, 179–192. [CrossRef]
46. Tavassolie, T.; Dudding, S.; Madigan, A.L.; Thorvardarson, E.; Winsler, A. Differences in Perceived Parenting
Style between Mothers and Fathers: Implications for Child Outcomes and Marital Conflict. J. Child. Fam.
Stud. 2016, 25, 2055–2068. [CrossRef]
47. Povedano, A.; Muñiz, M.; Cuesta, P.; Musitu, G. Education for Gender Equality, a Model for Evaluation; FAD:
Madrid, Spain, 2015.
48. Alegría, M.; Rodríguez, A. Dating Violence: Perpetration, Victimization and Mutual Violence. A Current
Review. En Psicol. 2015, 29, 57–72. [CrossRef]
49. Taylor, K.A.; Sullivan, T.N. Bidirectional Relations Between Dating Violence Victimization and Substance
Use in a Diverse Sample of Early Adolescents. J. Interpers. Violence 2017. [CrossRef]
50. Connell, N.M.; Schell-Busey, N.M.; Pearce, A.N.; Negro, P. Badgrlz? Exploring Sex Differences in
Cyberbullying Behaviors. Youth Violence Juv. Justice 2014, 12, 209–228. [CrossRef]
51. Garaigordobil, M.; Aliri, J.; Martínez-Valderrey, V. Justification of Violence During Adolescence: Differences
in Function of Sociodemographic Variables. Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 2015, 6, 83. [CrossRef]
52. Lansford, J.E.; Deater-Deckard, K.; Bornstein, M.H.; Putnick, D.L.; Bradley, R.H. Attitudes Justifying Domestic
Violence Predict Endorsement of Corporal Punishment and Physical and Psychological Aggression towards
Children: A Study in 25 Low- and Middle-Income Countries. J. Pediatr. 2014, 164, 1208–1213. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
53. Yubero, S.; Larrañaga, E.; Blanco, A. Living with Violence: An Analysis from the Psychology and Education of
Violence in Our Society; Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha: Ciudad Real/Castilla la Mancha,
Spain, 2007.
54. Arenas- García, L. Sexism in adolescents and its implication in gender violence. Bol. Criminológico 2013, 144,
1.
55. Smith, D.M.; Donnelly, J. Adolescent Dating Violence: A Multi-Systemic Approach of Enhancing Awareness
in Educators, Parents, and Society. J. Prev. Interv. Community 2000, 21, 53–64. [CrossRef]
56. White, H.R. Longitudinal Perspective on Alcohol Use and Aggression during Adolescence. In Recent
Developments in Alcoholism: Volume 13: Alcohol and Violence—Epidemiology Neurobiology Psychology Family
Issues; Galanter, M., Begleiter, H., Deitrich, R., Fuller, R., Gallant, D., Goodwin, D., Gottheil, E., Paredes, A.,
Rothschild, M., et al., Eds.; Springer US: Boston, MA, USA, 1997; pp. 81–103. [CrossRef]
57. Povedano, A.; Monreal, M.C.; Cuesta, P.; Muñiz, M.; Musitu, G. Spanish Parenting Styles and Teen Dating
Violence. In Parenting: Cultural Influences and Impact on Childhood Health and Well-Being; García, F., Ed.;
University of Connecticut: Storrs, CT, USA, 2015; pp. 151–162.
58. Graham, J.W. Missing Data Analysis: Making It Work in the Real World. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2009, 60,
549–576. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. WMA. The World Medical Association-Declaración de Helsinki; The World Medical Association: Ferney-Voltaire,
France, 2013.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2722 15 of 16

60. Moreno-Ruiz, D.; Estévez, E.; Jiménez, T.; Murgui, S. Parenting Style and Reactive and Proactive Adolescent
Violence: Evidence from Spain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2018, 15, 2634. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Wolfe, D.A.; Scott, K.; Reitzel-Jaffe, D.; Wekerle, C.; Grasley, C.; Straatman, A.L. Development and Validation
of the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory. Psychol. Assess. 2001, 13, 277–293. [CrossRef]
62. Fernández-Fuertes, A.A.; Fuertes, J.A.; Pulido, R. Evaluation of violence in adolescent relationships.
Validation of Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2006, 6,
339–358.
63. García, F.; Gracia, E. Is always authoritative the optimum parenting style? Evidence from Spanish families.
Adolescence 2009, 44, 101–131.
64. Martínez, I.; Musitu, G.; García, F.; Camino, L. An intercultural analysis of the effects of family socialization
on self-concept: Spain and Brazil. Psicologia Educação e Cultura 2003, 7, 239–259.
65. Cava, M.J.; Buelga, S.; Carrascosa, L. Physical and psychological violence in adolescent couples: Relationship
with self-concept and peer violence. Psicol. Conduct. Behav. Psychol. Rev. Int. Psicol. Clínica Salud 2015, 23,
429–446.
66. Viejo, C. Physical Dating Violence: Towards a Comprehensible View of the Phenomenon. Infanc. Aprendiz.
2014, 37, 785–815. [CrossRef]
67. Etxebarria, I.; Apodaca, P.; Fuentes, M.J.; López, F.; Ortiz, M.J. Parenting and education in today’s society:
Are we doing well? Rev. Psicol. Soc. 2009, 24, 81–96. [CrossRef]
68. Tur-Porcar, A.; Mestre, V.; Samper, P.; Malonda, E. Parenting and aggressiveness of minors: Is influencia
different from the father and mother? Psicothema 2012, 24, 284–288. [PubMed]
69. Capano, A.; González, M.d.L.; Massonnier, N. Relational Parental Styles: Study with Adolescents and Their
Parents. Rev. Psicol. 2016, 34, 413–444. [CrossRef]
70. Oliva, A.; Parra, Á.; Sánchez, M.I. Relationships with parents and peers as predictors of emotional and
behavioral adjustment during adolescence. Apunt. Psicol. 2002, 20, 225–242.
71. Osorio, A.; Rivas-Borrell, S.; Irala, J.; Calatrava, M.; Lopez-del-Burgo, C. Evaluation of parental educational
styles in a sample of Filipino students: Educational implications. Rev. Panam. Pedagog. 2009, 14, 13–37.
72. Grusec, J.E.; Danyliuk, T.; Kil, H.; O’Neill, D. Perspectives on Parent Discipline and Child Outcomes. Int. J.
Behav. Dev. 2017, 41, 465–471. [CrossRef]
73. Hoeve, M.; Dubas, J.S.; Eichelsheim, V.I.; van der Laan, P.H.; Smeenk, W.; Gerris, J.R. The relationship between
parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 2009, 37, 749–775. [CrossRef]
74. Lereya, S.T.; Samara, M.; Wolke, D. Parenting behavior and the risk of becoming a victim and a bully/victim:
A meta-analysis study. Child. Abus. Negl. 2013, 37, 1091–1108. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
75. Axpe, I.; Rodríguez-Fernández, A.; Goñi, E.; Antonio-Agirre, I. Parental Socialization Styles: The Contribution
of Paternal and Maternal Affect/Communication and Strictness to Family Socialization Style. Int J. Environ.
Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2204. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
76. Mumford, E.A.; Liu, W.; Taylor, B.G. Parenting Profiles and Adolescent Dating Relationship Abuse: Attitudes
and Experiences. J. Youth Adolesc. 2016, 45, 959–972. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
77. Castañeda, A.; Garrido-Fernández, M.; Lanzarote, M.-D. Minors with mistreatment behavior towards parents:
A study of personality and socialization styles. Rev. Psicol. Soc. 2012, 27, 157–167. [CrossRef]
78. Kennair, N.; Mellor, D. Parent Abuse: A Review. Child. Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 2007, 38, 203–219. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
79. Martínez, I.; Fuentes, M.C.; García, F.; Madrid, I. The Family Socialization Style as a Prevention or Risk
Factor for Substance Use and Other Behavioral Problems in Spanish Adolescents. Adicciones 2013, 25, 235.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
80. Montgomery, C.; Fisk, J.; Craig, L. The Effects of Perceived Parenting Style on the Propense for Illicit Drug
Use: The Importance of Parental Warmth and Control. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2008, 27, 640–649. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
81. Musitu, G.; García, J.F. Consequences of family socialization in Spanish culture. Psicothema 2004, 16, 288–293.
82. Cámara, P.S.; Díaz, M.; Medina-Cuevas, Y.; Barranco-Jiménez, L. Objective assessment of parenting style and
expectations of couples with young children. Rev. Lat. Psicol. 2008, 40, 305–319.
83. Alizadeh, S.; Talib, M.B.A.; Abdullah, R.; Mansor, M. Relationship between parenting style and children’s
behavior problems. Asian Soc. Sci. 2011, 7, 195–200. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2722 16 of 16

84. García, F. Internet in the lives of our children. How to transform risks into opportunities? Foro Generaciones
Interactivas: Madrid/Navarra, Spain, 2010.
85. Quintana Peña, A.; Montgomery Urday, W.; Malaver Soto, C. Parenting Styles and Empathy in Adolescents
Involved in Cyberbullying. Rev. Investig. En Psicol. 2014, 16, 61. [CrossRef]
86. Estévez, E.; Murgui, S.; Musitu, G.; Moreno, D. Family Climate, School Climate, and Adolescent Life
Satisfaction. Rev. Mex. Psicol. 2008, 25, 119–128.
87. Garcia, F.; Serra, E.; Garcia, O.F.; Martinez, I.; Cruise, E. A Third Emerging Stage for the Current Digital
Society? Optimal Parenting Styles in Spain, the United States, Germany, and Brazil. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2019, 16, 2333. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).