Open access peer-reviewed chapter

A Review of Parenting in A Multicultural Country: The Malaysian Experience

Written By

Ruziana Masiran

Submitted: August 27th, 2021 Reviewed: October 11th, 2021 Published: January 13th, 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.101173

Chapter metrics overview

137 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


The multicultural nature of Malaysian parents expectedly gives rise to heterogenous parenting practices. Despite this heterogeneity, the country’s common collectivistic background that values familism may have shaped parenting behaviours. Since there is a great influence of culture on parenting, there appears to be a need to explore the Malaysian way of parenting. This review aimed to assess, synthesise, and organise the available research evidence on parenting behaviours and parent-child interactions in Malaysia. Recent publications from 2002 to 2021 were examined using a narrative approach. A literature search was conducted using the Scopus,, Google Scholar databases, and citation tracking using keywords such as parenting style, parenting, parent-child interaction, parent-child relation, and childrearing. Twenty-four papers on parenting styles, 13 on parenting practices, and 19 on parent-child interactions were included for review. The majority of the studies were quantitative and published in the last couple of years. While findings revealed diverse parenting styles in the country, culturally-conformed parenting behaviours are thought to be more effective than the standard authoritative parenting. Recommendations are made for future research.


  • Asian
  • childrearing
  • collectivist
  • Malaysia
  • multicultural
  • parenting
  • parenting styles

1. Introduction

Malaysia is notable for its plural society, where the Malays are living alongside two other major ethnic groups, Chinese and Indians [1]. Combined with minor ethnicities and mixed groups [2], they make up a diverse culture [3]. Like other countries with multicultural backgrounds, racial identification has a significant impact on individual daily engagements with other people of different races [4], children’s identity development and self-esteem [5], and ethnic consciousness [6]. Concurrently, multiculturalism also plays a role in parenting through unique childrearing strategies, and interactions between parents and children as well as among family members [7]. As the unique set of beliefs and behaviours belonging to an ethnic group, culture shape how parents care for their offspring. Accordingly, there are cultural variations in parenting practices, and cross-cultural differences in parenting have long been debated [8]. In general, the Western and Asian parenting practices have frequently been compared [9], with the latter being more commonly associated with authoritarian parenting [10, 11]. In a similar vein, some variations in the parenting attitudes among parents from different cultural backgrounds have been found. In a multinational study involving nine countries, it was found that Thai parents assume equal responsibilities of parents and children for negative parenting, but American parents took this rather personally [12]. Subsequently, over the decades, it is interesting to see the series of arguments built around the evidence supporting, or opposing, the largely authoritarian nature of Asian parenting [13, 14].

Culture- or ethnic-specific parenting values are governed by cultural norms and shape the physical (e.g., motor and speech development of children), psychosocial (e.g., emotional regulation ability and prosocial behaviours), and educational expectations (e.g., compliance to teachers and homework completion) in raising children [15]. Furthermore, culture directly influences parenting cognitions and practices [12], and indirectly affects the mental health of both parents and children. In many Asian countries, family values such as filial piety are still strongly held, although there are ethnic differences in the way these ideals are being practiced [16]. Despite the culture-specific parenting practices, the modernisation process of a country might lead to the gradual replacement of these distinct practices by modern, universal parenting that is commonly shared across ethnicities [17]. However, merely being an advanced country may not change the deep-seated culturally influenced parenting values. In a study comparing parents in Japan and the United States, findings show that they have different priorities in parenting even though both are equally developed nations [18].

1.1 Theoretical perspective of parenting in a multicultural country

The theoretical model in this review extends from Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory [19], which holds that the interrelationship between the interpersonal and wider environmental factors play a role in a child’s development. The complex interconnected systems start with the microsystem, within which a child directly interacts with parents and siblings, through which they obtain emotional support, play, and safety. External to the family, the child’s peers help the child gain their sense of self and social development, and teachers provide scaffolding for the child to develop social skills and appropriate behaviors. In the mesosystem, there is a linkage between family and school or between family and community that creates a positive attitude for the child’s learning. Next, the family socioeconomic status and parents’ work conditions form the exosystem which indirectly affects children. The final system, the macrosystem, is formed by the cultural and religious beliefs of the family, and mass media. The macrosystem influences the child in a much broader context. Overall, these systems hugely impact the social and cognitive development of a child through culturally influenced parenting. Different ethnic groups in Malaysia have different culturally defined family structures and values that produce a pattern of parenting styles, practices and parent-child interactions that extend from the macrosystem to the microsystem.

1.2 Purpose of the present study

Cross-cultural studies on parenting have demonstrated how culture plays a role in parenting behaviour [8], parent-child relationship [20], and children’s perception of parenting [21]. With the increasingly rapid modernisation of Asia, it is important to examine the concurrent changes in the elements of parenting which has previously been influenced by culture. It is particularly important to explore these in a multicultural country like Malaysia where the universal and culture-specific parenting norms may co-exist in the society. Furthermore, despite increasing research interests in cross-cultural parenting and the promotion of Malaysia as a country with rich multicultural backgrounds, the existing relevant literature is limited. Without prior knowledge of the existing parenting situation in the country, it could be hard to identify the research gaps and hence address the need. The purpose of this review is to develop an understanding of parenting as practised by parents of various ethnic groups in Malaysia. It specifically aims to assess, synthesize, and organise the available research evidence on parenting behaviours and parent-child interactions in Malaysia. To do this, the review is based on the following research questions: what kind of parenting behaviours (styles and practices) are shown by Malaysian parents, and how is their parent-child interaction?.


2. Methodology

2.1 Literature search strategy

A literature search was conducted between 5th and 7th August 2021 from Scopus,, and Google Scholar databases, and citation tracking using keywords, titles, and abstracts; applying a limit to the search results, and finally extracting the full-text articles. Articles were retrieved using the following search terms (Table 1). Articles with missing information were requested from their corresponding authors.

DatabasesKeywords used
ScopusTITLE-ABS-KEY ((“parenting style” OR parenting OR “parent-child interaction” OR “parent-child relation*” OR childrearing OR child-rearing OR “child rearing”) AND (malaysia) AND NOT (autism* OR asd OR asperger))
Dimensions.aiparenting AND malaysia AND NOT autism
Google Scholar“parenting style” or “child rearing” or child-rearing” or “parent-child relation” or “parent-child interaction” or “parenting” Malaysia -autism -ASD -asperger

Table 1.

The search string used in respective databases.

aAsterisk symbol (*) used during the advanced article search replaces multiple characters anywhere in a word.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram shows the article selection process. Separate literature searches returned a total of 819 articles (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram, depicting the article selection process.

2.2 Selecting relevant studies

The inclusion and exclusion criteria are shown in Table 2. All the qualitative and quantitative studies done in Malaysia and published as primary articles with empirical data or conference proceedings were included. Samples that included the parenting of, or parents and/or children with autism spectrum disorder were excluded, on the basis that they would need unique parenting [22]. The timeline spans two decades (2002–2021) due to the scarcity of literature. Subsequently, only publications in English or Malay articles were selected to ensure proper translation by the authors. This screening based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria excluded 148 articles.

SampleMalaysian parentsChildren with autism spectrum disorder
Timeline2002–2021Prior to 2002
Literature typeAll relevant quantitative and qualitative studies/literature
Peer-reviewed articles
Conference proceedings
Review article
LanguageEnglish, MalayNon-English, non-Malay

Table 2.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The remaining 205 articles were then examined based on their relevance to the research questions. At the end of this process, 56 articles were included in the review. Selected papers were imported into Mendeley Desktop 1.19.8 following assessment of their full texts. Summaries of each article were categorised into authors’ details, objectives, sample characteristics, study design, and key findings (see Appendix). The data from these articles are then extracted using a narrative and an analytic approach, which involves synthesising and interpreting data according to key issues and themes.


3. Results

Of the 56 selected studies, most (n = 10, 17.86%) were published in 2020 and in social sciences journals (n = 13, 24.53%) (see Appendix, last page). The rate of publication was extremely low in the first decade, with only two studies between 2002 and 2008. However, there was an increasing trend of publications on parenting in Malaysia in the recent decade. While the majority of the studies employed quantitative research (n = 51, 91.07%), there were only four (7.14%) qualitative and one (1.79%) mixed-method research. In the subsequent sections, the following themes on the parenting elements of Malaysian parents were considered: (a) parenting styles; (b) parenting practices (skills, monitoring, control); and (c) parent-child interaction. Based on these themes, reviewed studies that have examined parenting in any ethnic groups in Malaysia were critically analysed. Each theme is given a brief introduction before the summarised review of the local literature.

3.1 Parenting styles

Parenting styles are usually described according to Ainsworth’s classification of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive types [23], as well as neglectful parenting styles [24, 25]. Studies have consistently indicated the optimal child outcomes of authoritative parenting. Authoritative parenting has been associated with greater life satisfaction in youth [26], positive child behaviour [27], higher academic achievement [27, 28], and a lower level of adolescent depression [29, 30]. However, Keshavarz & Baharudin have suggested that Malaysian collectivistic nature is mostly associated with authoritarian parenting [31]. Since the values of familism and filial piety are still highly regarded in many Malaysian families, authoritarian parenting has been argued to suit them better. Furthermore, both values are clustered under collectivism [32] and have historically been strengthened by Confucianism [33]. As a fundamental family element [34], filial piety contributes towards greater life satisfaction among adolescents [35] and is associated with significantly lower levels of emotional and behavioural problems in children [34]. In contrast with Keshavarz and Baharudin’s conclusion [31], Kay et al. have suggested the co-existence of both collectivist and individualistic values within Malaysian society [36]. Despite the country’s modernisation and the likely shift from collectivism to individualism [37], an earlier study by Tien et al. showed that the local youth still feel responsible for their elderly parents [38].

For the past two decades, the parenting research field in Malaysia has largely focused on the types and roles of parenting styles in shaping their children. An early study by Hanafi that explored Malay adolescents’ perceptions of parenting styles indicated that they perceive their parents as having low demandingness and high responsiveness [39]. Salehuddin & Winskel compared developmental age expectations, parenting style, and self-construal in Malaysian caregivers from Malay, Chinese and Indian backgrounds [40]. They found that Malaysian parents tend to display an authoritative than authoritarian parenting style, contrasting with the assertion that collectivist cultures tend to be predominantly authoritarian. According to Yunos and Talib, while the family socioeconomic background is significantly positively related to authoritative parenting, it is significantly negatively related to authoritarian parenting [41]. Additionally, it was found that the paternal working status has modest effects on parenting styles, children’s behaviour, and school achievement [42]. On another note, Hong et al. who also studied fathers noted that their psychological distress and the number of children are significantly and positively related to authoritarian parenting style, whereas fathers’ education and marital quality are significantly and positively related to authoritative parenting style [43].

Parenting styles are shown to moderate the effect of academic self-concept on academic achievement, with the impact of academic self-concept on academic achievement greater for authoritative than authoritarian parenting style [44]. Hassan & Sen showed that authoritarian parenting style is negatively correlated with academic performance among undergraduate university students [45]. Within a similar population, Sulaiman and Hassan found that parenting style does not influence academic procrastination [46]. However, parenting styles influence special education students’ academic achievement [47] and the demand for tuition [48].

Concerning emotion, Yahya et al. found a significant correlation between attachment anxiety and authoritarian parenting style [49]. Furthermore, Yu et al. observed that authoritarian and permissive parenting styles were positively related to promoting emotional abuse, whereas authoritative parenting styles prevented emotional abuse among adolescents in Kuala Lumpur [50]. Having authoritative parents are also linked with higher children’s self-esteem and positive youth development [51, 52, 53]. This finding was supported by Hong et al., who showed the negative link between authoritarian parenting and university students’ self-esteem [52]. Also, Basirion et al. who examined highly intelligent students found that positive perfectionism was significantly predicted by parents’ authoritative parenting, but negative perfectionism was significantly predicted by parents’ authoritarian parenting [54].

Mofrad et al. found no significant relationship between parenting style and learned helplessness behaviour [55]. In a similar study, Keshavarz and Baharudin investigated the moderating role of father’s education on the associations between perceived paternal parenting styles and locus of control among Malaysian adolescents and found significant negative relationships between fathers’ authoritative and authoritarian parenting style with adolescents’ internal locus of control [56]. While examining the relationship between parenting style and attitude of Muslim teenagers, Ghani et al. found a significant relationship between authoritative parenting with the adolescent’s attitude towards God and oneself, as compared to the significant relationship between authoritarian parenting and the adolescent’s attitude only towards oneself [57].

Recently, Cong et al. demonstrated the lack of predictive ability of parenting styles on child mental health problems [58]. In addition, parenting style has been studied in other areas. For instance, Mohamad Nor and Sutan noted that laxness-parenting style is significantly associated with home injury occurrence in preschool children [59]. In the crime-related field, parenting styles have been discussed with pedophilia and delinquency issues. According to Abd Hamid et al., the parenting practices of 1) involvement, 2) monitoring, and 3) goals, values, and aspirations, are essential to address the issue of paedophilia [60]. There is also a significant relationship between authoritarian parenting style and juvenile delinquent behaviour but none was found with authoritative and permissive parenting [61]. Similarly, Nubailah et al. found a significant correlation between permissive parenting style and drug abuse risks, a weak and positive relationship between authoritarian parenting with drug abuse risks, and a weak and negative relationship between authoritative parenting style and drug abuse risks [62].

3.2 Parenting practices (skills, monitoring, control)

Parenting practices consist of quantitative and qualitative measurements of parental behaviors in raising a child. These practices may be categorised into parental involvement, control, and parenting styles [63]. From another perspective, parents’ self-efficacy and belief have also been linked strongly to their parenting practices [64, 65]. Parenting practices play a major role in a child’s socio-emotional development [66], but poor parenting practices have been implicated with children’s bullying behaviors and impaired physical health [67, 68]. In addition, the level of parental control and monitoring over their children has also been evaluated as a measure of parental discipline. The lack of parental monitoring is associated with more high-risk behaviours such as sexual behaviours and drug abuse [69, 70] and violence [71] among adolescents. Parental control, on the other hand, could come in the form of behavioural or psychological control [72]. Parents exert behavioural control by monitoring the behaviour of their children or through child-appropriate parental supervision such as asking for the children’s whereabouts and activities, setting rules, and limiting children’s freedom [73]. On the other hand, parental psychological control may consist of manipulative strategies such as emotional blackmail or withdrawal of affection [74], while parental behavioural control is associated with child self-control [75]. The perception of parental control is associated with mental health problems in one-fifth of Malaysian adolescents [76].

Based on the local literature, a child’s perception of their parents’ parenting is undeniably important. A study by Hanafi showed that children who perceive their mothers as high achievers and as someone who consistently monitors their children, are more academically aware [77], while Cheah et al. found that perceived parental investments, filial emotions, warmth, and support are positively associated with adolescents’ filial behaviours [78]. In addition, the filial obligation in preadolescents and adolescents has different moral reasoning [79]. Parental supervision is an equally important practice, the lack of which is a significant risk factor for Malaysian adolescent depression [80]. A positive parental attitude can promote discipline and control in children [81].

Although Mat Hussin et al. found that parental supervision showed no significant association with physical interpersonal violence [82], Low et al. in their study among Malaysian juvenile offenders indicate that parental monitoring is the strongest predictor of adolescents’ antisocial behaviour [83]. Furthermore, adolescents who use illicit drugs lack parental monitoring [84]. Nonetheless, Shin and Ismail demonstrated that children whose parents are controlling may be more inclined to take risks [85]. Regarding youth sexual behaviours, high maternal control increases the likelihood of boys having sexual intention, but for girls, having a high level of family connectedness is a protective factor against sexual intention [86]. Parental autonomy protects children from emotional, behavioural, and peer relationship problems [87]. While the parent-child relationship is important in suicide prevention among adolescents [88], there is a relationship between negative parenting behaviours and adolescent anxiety [89].

3.3 Parent-child interaction

Parent-child interaction is constantly evolving and becomes the foundation for children to socialise and gain social support [90], attain emotional regulation [91], and learn [92]. There is also a suggestion that parent-child interaction produces infant brain changes [93]. Through parenting intervention, improved and positive parent-child interaction during childhood yields an encouraging outcome in terms of externalizing behaviour during adolescence [94]. In research, the parent-child interrelationship is measured through self-reports and observational methods. Tryphonopoulos et al. who compared several parent-child interaction scales concluded the lack of a single best tool to measure the parent-child interaction [95]. It has therefore been recommended that an assessment strategy should be directed by its purpose.

In the local literature, the family process variables have been frequently studied. In terms of family functioning in Malaysian collectivist society, six themes were found: (i) family role, (ii) parenting styles, (iii) family rule, (iv) communication, (v) value orientation, and (vi) cohesiveness [96]. Baharudin et al. found that parenting behaviour and family competency could predict adolescent antisocial behaviour, unlike demographic factors such as family income [97]. Moreover, based on Krauss et al. who studied Muslim adolescents, positive parenting is the greatest protective factor against risk behaviour, whereas religiosity promotes prosocial behaviours [98]. In a similar vein, Krauss et al. indicated that parental religious socialisation, parental monitoring, mosque involvement, school engagement, and youth organisation involvement accounted for a significant amount of the variance in religious personality among Malaysian youth [99]. Additionally, Le et al. found that parental emotion socialisation is an important mediator among culture, gender, and alexithymia [100].

Parent-child communications play a big role in the parent-child relationship. It was found that parenting and giving advice (‘sharenting’) are both important to prevent delinquency among Malaysian adolescents [101]. Good parent-adolescent communication also prevents sexual health risk behaviour among adolescents [102]. Using the data from the World Health Organization Global School-based Student Health Survey 2012, Ahmad et al. found that parental bonding and parental connectedness also protect against sexual encounters among school children [103]. According to Wu and Yaacob, mother–child intimacy, rather than father-child intimacy, is strongly correlated with adolescents’ suicidal ideation [104]. The level of parental involvement may enhance children’s academic and social development, leading towards positive emotions in children [105]. Apart from that, parental care and family environment partially mediate the relationship between parental readiness and adolescent academic performance [106].

Parenting is greatly influenced by the socioeconomic status [107] and the structure of the family [108]. In their phenomenological study, Sumari, Sarada, et al. found that appreciating the parent-child relationship is one of the ways adolescents copes with parental divorce [108]. Direct parental socialisation predicts children’s religiosity more strongly for two-parent families than single or non-parent families [109]. Jo-Pei who evaluated whether ethnically-mixed children are less well psychologically adjusted when compared to children from mono-ethnic families demonstrated that children from mixed parentage reported fewer emotional and behavioural problems than those from mono-ethnic minority families [110]. Chiah & Baharudin evaluated the relationship between parenting behaviour of mothers and socio-emotional adjustments of adolescents in intact and non-intact Malay families and found that family functioning rather than parenting behaviour is a better predictor of adolescents’ social and emotional adjustment [111]. A few studies have compared Malaysian parenting with other societies. In an instance, Hassan et al. found that Malaysians score significantly higher on family interference with work than all Western samples [112]. According to Winskel et al., while Anglo-Australians appreciate child compliance, early verbal development, social skills with peers, and emotional control, Malaysians value educational attainment, interdependence, politeness, and respect for adults [113]. Manap and Hamzah focus on Muslim families in Malaysia and indicated some fundamental parenting principles that included having positive role models, knowledge culture, strong religiosity, high responsibility, and the belief that parenting is a collective effort and the pre-determined life’s destiny [114].


4. Discussion

4.1 Parenting in Malaysia: putting it all together

Living in a plural society means that different cultural backgrounds would influence how parents in the society raise their children. The literature shows that culture influences parenting outcomes. Therefore, the typical categories of parenting styles in terms of warmth and independence which is promoted in a culture may not be compatible with another culture. While there is a voluminous literature on cross-cultural parenting, this issue has received much less attention and coverage in the local Southeast Asian region, including in Malaysia. We conducted a literature review of research on parenting behaviours in Malaysia to develop an understanding of parenting as practiced by parents of various ethnic groups in Malaysia by synthesising the available research evidence. While it was not feasible to review and discuss all of the available studies, this review revealed a coherent pattern of findings with clear research and practice implications. Foremost, it is shown that parenting styles are most commonly researched in the country. Some evidence pointed towards parenting style outcomes which are inconsistent with the Western customs. This review also shows that parenting styles and practices that are widely considered to be sub-optimal in many cultures may not invariably translate into undesirable outcomes for children in Malaysia.

Common with parents from other Asian countries [115], family values are central to Malaysian but its rich ethnocultural elements also lend an influence on childrearing. As a multiracial country, some studies supported its collectivistic nature, although Malaysia seems to be showing a shift from collectivism to individualism due to the urbanisation process [37]. The society’s collectivistic culture appreciates the extended family as a basic unit in the society in which harmonious interpersonal relationships are encouraged through rituals such as greeting the elders or addressing older members with specific titles. Among Malaysians, collectivistic values are often associated with patriarchy [31]. Nevertheless, Malaysian families may have changed from being patriarchal [116] to equalitarian [96]. Further, comparing Malaysia with its neighbor Singapore, their different social policies may translate into different childrearing and social values [117].

The authoritarian parenting style is renowned for undesirable outcomes related to children’s behaviour, academic achievement, self-esteem, and psychosocial adjustments [118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125]. However, Asian authoritarian parenting should not be universally associated with a negative outcome. Ang and Goh argued that it is the levels of child adjustment in response to authoritarian parenting that determines its consequence [10]. A prominent parenting difference between Asian and Western parenting lies within the level of parental involvement [14], and psychological control [124]. The more parental involvement and control, the higher the children’s demand for autonomy and hence the higher the parent-child conflict [125]. A high level of involvement and control are characters of authoritarian parenting [126]. While making choices for children is common and acceptable among Asian parents [127], this parental responsibility might seem to be overbearing for Western families. Authoritarian parenting also consists of high discipline and physical coercion, and lower warmth or acceptance [128].

The prominent work on parenting style classification has described authoritarian parents as strict and focusing too much on a child’s compliance rather than providing warmth and being responsive [126]. On the contrary, Chao argued that the simple concept of authoritarian parental control within Baumrind’s parenting styles may not fit the Asian parents, who endorse parental control as a form of training with discipline rather than the lack of warmth [129]. Moreover, although Pinquart and Kauser through their meta-analysis on parenting styles across cultures advocate the adoption of authoritative parenting to promote good behavioural and academic outcomes in children, they acknowledge that authoritarian parenting may not be negative in some cultures [130]. Additionally, authoritarian parenting has a different cultural meaning in different cultures [3], and hence its impact may be different between collectivistic and individualistic societies [130]. While collectivism is concerned with group membership and maintaining harmony with others, individualism emphasizes individual uniqueness, personal goals, and independence [131, 132]. Children from collectivistic societies are encouraged to follow rules and conform to norms while those from individualistic societies are given autonomy and even encouraged to engage in the independent exploration of their environment. According to He et al., the Asian culture has stronger collectivism than individualism values [133]. Nevertheless, more recent studies argued that the dichotomy of these social dimensions may overlap [36, 133], the shift from one to another [37], or even wane over generations [134]. Hence, a particular society may eventually have both collectivistic and individualistic elements. The importance of these social elements lies in their influences on parenting styles. Parents from collectivistic societies favour authoritarian parenting more than those from individualistic societies [135]. However, they may have difficulty in raising their children using authoritarian values in an individualistic society [136]. Consequently, parenting behaviours that are congruent with the cultural norms and social dimension of society are likely to be more effective; culturally-conformed parenting provides more positive, consistent, and predictable parent-child exchanges, through which children experience an optimum family environment to thrive.

4.2 Limitations of the study

There are some limitations to this review. Firstly, it is only limited to the selected papers, which had been restrained by the selected studies and hence the risk of selection bias. As a result, there is a possibility of making a misleading conclusion. Despite the effort to delineate the selection criteria and review process, the method employed in this review might still be subjective and hence lacks its rigour. Finally, the final selected articles were not able to provide a well-researched comparison of different ethnic groups in Malaysia with regards to their parenting behaviours. Most of the studies did not include samples representative of, at least, the major ethnic groups in Malaysia. Therefore, this review is unable to present any sufficient evidence to support the Ecological Systems Theory.

4.3 Recommendations for future research

While the studies were heavily focused on parenting styles, parenting elements that include parental warmth and support, parent-child communication, parental monitoring, and parental behavioural control are perhaps more relevant in the context of a largely collectivistic country. Therefore, future research should examine these elements, among different races in Malaysia. Based on the role of social dimensions in parenting behaviours, more studies are needed to evaluate the relationship between collectivistic and individualistic values on the elements of parenting behaviours among Malaysian parents. Future research must also move forward and put an effort to compare parenting styles, parenting practices (e.g., positive parenting, disciplinary measures, nurturance) among different ethnic groups. Correspondingly, there is a need to attend to the ethnocultural norms of parenting and examine how culture moderates the relationship between parenting styles and child outcomes.


5. Conclusions

The diversity in the parenting behaviours among Malaysian parents gives rise to different outcomes in their children. The dynamics of the country’s social structure indicate that neither authoritative nor authoritarian parenting produces the best outcomes for the future generation. Essentially, culturally-conformed parenting which is responsive to the diverse cultural backgrounds and the collectivistic/individualistic values of parents might be more effective.


Author (Year)Study objectiveSample characteristicsStudy designKey findings
Parenting styles
1.Abd Hamid et al. [23]To examine the relationship between ‘parenting practices and styles’ and ‘child protection and privacy’, to specifically address the issue of paedophilia900 Malaysian parents in Kuala Lumpur, of children aged 7-13 yearsCross-sectional studyThree ‘parenting practices’ (involvement, monitoring, and goals, values and aspirations) and two ‘parenting styles’ (authoritative and permissive) have significantly positive relationships with ‘child protection and privacy’ to address the issue of paedophilia. Authoritarian parenting has no significant relationship with ‘child protection and privacy’.
2.Amran & Basri [24]To explore the relationship between parenting styles (authoritative, authoritarian, permissive) and delinquent behaviours (verbal, physical, sexual, anti-social)187 (survey) and 5 (interview sessions) students in juvenile schoolsCross-sectional study and interviewThere is a significant relation between authoritarian parenting style and juvenile delinquent behaviour. Authoritative and permissive parenting styles do not show any significant relationship.
3.Basirion et al. [25]To examine Big Five personality factors and perceived parenting styles in predicting positive and negative perfectionism among academically gifted students448 aged 16 years old involved particularly those who scored straight As in Penilaian Menengah Rendah examinationCross-sectional studyPositive perfectionism is significantly predicted by several factors including paternal authoritative style, openness to experiences, maternal authoritative style, and conscientiousness. Negative perfectionism is significantly predicted by maternal authoritarian style, neuroticism, and paternal authoritarian style. Permissive parenting style does not predict positive and negative perfectionism.
4.Chuan et al. [26]To explore the relationship between parenting styles and factors of demand for private tutoring in the Klang Valley, Malaysia169 Chinese parents from primary and secondary schools, and private independent high schools in the Klang ValleyCross-sectional studyEach of the parenting style displayed different relationship with each factor of demand for private tutoring. Authoritative parenting style correlates with lack of family support but authoritarian parenting style shows negative relationship in contrast.
5.Cong et al. [27]To investigate the relationship between Malaysian adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ parenting styles and their level of social anxiety, including differences by age and race327 adolescents from international and national secondary schools in SelangorCross-sectional studyParenting style received by Malaysian adolescents is not significantly related to their social anxiety. There are significant racial and age group differences in the categories of parenting style and levels of social anxiety.
6.Ghani et al. [28]To investigate the relationship between parenting style with akhlak(moral attitude) of Muslim teenagers92 Form Five students of one Islamic School in Johor BahruCross-sectional studyThere is a significant relationship between authoritative parenting with the akhlaktowards God and oneself, and between authoritarian parenting style and the adolescent akhlaktowards oneself.
7.Hanafi [29]To assess Malay adolescents’ perceptions of parenting styles146 Malay boys and 284 Malay girls from a secondary schoolCross-sectional studyBoth parents are perceived as being low in demandingness but high in responsiveness. Mothers are being rated lower in demandingness and higher in responsiveness compared to fathers. Both parents are perceived as being permissive.
8.Hassan & Sen [30]To determine the relationship between parenting styles, undergraduates’ academic performances and socio-demographic factors (ethnic group and socioeconomic status) among undergraduates at Universiti Putra Malaysia302 undergraduates from Universiti Putra MalaysiaCross-sectional studyThere is a significant negative relationship between authoritarian parenting style and undergraduates’ academic performance (r = -0.160*), but no significant relationship between academic performance and the other two parenting styles, which were authoritative and permissive parenting style. There is no significant difference in parenting styles among the undergraduates in term of ethnic groups or socioeconomic status.
9.Hong et al. [31]To examine: 1) fathers’ parenting styles, and 2) relationships between selected family variables (e.g., father’s age, education, work hours, income, and psychological distress, child’s age and sex, as well as family income, number of children in the family, and marital quality) and fathers’ parenting styles within the Chinese families in Malaysia100 fathers, with children between the ages of 7 to 10 years from two-parent Chinese families residing in three urban cities in the state of Selangor in Malaysia (Puchong, Subang Jaya, and Klang)Cross-sectional studyProportion of the respondents practicing authoritative (37.0%) parenting styles was the highest, followed by authoritarian (34.0%) and permissive (29.0%). Fathers’ level of psychological distress and the number of children in the family are significantly and positively related to the authoritarian parenting style. Fathers’ level of education and report of marital quality are significantly and positively related to authoritative parenting style. Number of children is significantly and negatively related to the authoritative parenting style.
10.Hong et al. [32]To examine about the relationship between parenting style and self-esteem among students in a faculty at a Public University in Malaysia18 males and 102 female university students 20-22 yearsCross-sectional studyPermissive parenting style is the dominant parenting style used. There is a significant relationship between parenting style and self-esteem among university students, and a positive relationship between authoritative and permissive parenting style with self-esteem.
11.Ishak et al. [33]To test the structural equation model of academic achievement among the students using parenting styles as a moderator493 students from eight schools in Selangor. Two stages of random samplingCross-sectional studyBoth authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles are the most common practice of the parents. Parenting styles moderate the effect of academic self-concept on academic achievement. The impact of academic self-concept on academic achievement is greater for the authoritative than the authoritarian parenting style.
12.Keshavarz & Baharudin [34]To (a) examine linear relationships between three dimensions of paternal parenting styles (authoritative, authoritarian, permissive) and locus of control in adolescents and (b) to determine if the linear relations would be moderated by fathers’ education382 Malaysian adolescents with an average age of 14.27 yearsCross-sectional studyThere are significant negative relationships between fathers’ authoritative and authoritarian parenting style with adolescents’ internal locus of control. Father’s high level of education moderated the relationship between perceived paternal authoritarian parenting styles and locus of control.
13.Khan et al. [35]To examine the predictors of academic achievement: role of parenting styles, educational encouragement, gender and ethnicity among special education students200 special education students (105 boys and 95 girls) from age 14 to 19 years of school in Kuala Lumpur with learning disabilitiesCross-sectional studyThere is positive relationship of academic achievement with educational encouragement (from mother, father, parents and teachers) and authoritarian parenting styles. Authoritarian parenting styles and educational encouragement playing key roles in academic achievement.
14.Kiadarbandsari et al. [36]To determine the role of parenting style and educational level of parents in Positive Youth Development (PYD)496 adolescent students of national secondary schools in SelangorCross-sectional studyAuthoritative parenting styles, uninvolved parenting styles, and fathers’ level of education are significantly correlated to PYD. Authoritative parenting style was found to be the most significant predictor of higher PYD.
15.Mofrad et al. [37]To examine the impact of parenting style, peer relationship on learned helplessness120 university students aged 18 to 23 years from Sunway University, Malaysia.Cross-sectional studyThere is no significant relationship between parenting style and learned helplessness behaviour. However, there is a negative and significant relationship between peer relationship and learned helplessness behaviour.
16.Mohamad Nor & Sutan [38]To examine mothers’ roles and its impact towards preventing home injury in preschool children500 mothers who sought treatment at various government maternal and child health clinics in Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaCross-sectional studyMajority of mothers practice laxness-parenting style with higher proportion (84.0 %) of mothers allowed their preschool children to be left alone in the bathroom. Both laxness–parenting styles (p = 0.007) and poor injury prevention practices (p = 0.003) are significantly associated with home injury occurrence in preschool children.
17.Nubailah et al. [39]To identify the relationship between parenting styles and the risk of drug abuse among youths123 students of IKTBN Chembong wereCross-sectional studyAuthoritative parenting style is the highest style used by parents (37.86%) followed by authoritarian parenting style (35.32%) and permissive parenting style (30.01%). There is a significant correlation between permissive parenting style and drug abuse risk. Authoritarian parenting lifestyle with drug abuse risks has a weak and positive relationship while for authoritative parenting style with drug abuse risks showed a weak and negative relationship (r = .005).
18.Salehuddin & Winskel [40]To compare developmental milestone expectations, parenting style (authoritative and authoritarian) and self-construal (independent and interdependent) in Malay, Chinese, and Indian caregivers520 Malay (203), Chinese (177), and Indian (140) caregivers between 15 and 40 years oldCross-sectional studyThere are striking commonalities between the three cultural groups, in line with the collectivist characteristics of the three ethnic groups and the common nationality. Scores on independent and interdependent self-construal were not significantly different between the ethnic groups, and between mothers and fathers. Malaysian caregivers do not predominantly endorse an authoritarian parenting style, but more likely to display an authoritative style.
19.Sulaiman & Hassan [41]To investigate the relationship between the motivational aspects of parenting style and academic procrastination among undergraduates148 university studentsCross-sectional studyThere is no significant relationship between gender and parenting styles to academic procrastination.
20.Talib & Yunos [42]To investigate relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and parenting styles, specifically on relationship between fathers’ work on children’ school achievement400 fathers ( 200 = Malay, 200 = Chinese) 400 primary school childrenCross-sectional studySES is positively related to parents’ authoritative style but negatively related to parental authoritarian and permissive style suggesting that the parenting style adopted at higher SES levels is characterized by greater authoritative interaction which partly mediate the children’s task-engagement behaviour and school achievement.
21.Woon & Chin [43]To determine the association between socio- demographic characteristics, parenting style, and self-esteem among early adolescents716 early adolescents aged 10–11 years attending primary schools in Selangor state, Malaysia wereCross-sectional studyPredominant parenting style practiced by respondents’ fathers is authoritarian (44.4%), while that by respondents’ mothers is authoritative (38.2%). Ethnicity, paternal parenting style, and maternal parenting style are significantly associated with self-esteem of the respondents.
22.Yahya et al. [44]To identify the relationship between adult attachment and parenting styles among staff from the Football Association in the West of Malaysia towards their offspring43 staff from the Football Association in the West of MalaysiaCross-sectional studyThere is a significant correlation between attachment avoidance and authoritative parenting styles. Attachment avoidant and permissive parenting style has a significant correlation and there is a significant correlation between attachment anxiety and authoritarian parenting style.
23.Yu et al. [45]To examine the relationships among authoritarian, permissive, authoritative mothers and fathers, and adolescents’ emotional abuse and the predicting effect of parenting styles on adolescents’ emotional abuse120 adolescents aged 15 to 18 years old from Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaCross-sectional studyThe higher the level of authoritarian or permissive parenting style, the greater the tendency of presence and intensity of emotional abuse experienced by adolescents. However, authoritative parenting style has a negative relationship with the presence and degree of emotional abuse among adolescents. Authoritative parenting style is a protective factor of emotional abuse among adolescents.
24.Yunos & Talib [46]To investigate the effects of Malay and Chinese mothers’ work conditions (socioeconomic status, SES) on parenting styles, children behaviour and school achievement400 mothers (200 = Malay, 200 = Chinese) who work full-time and 400 primary school childrenCross-sectional studyIn both ethnics there are significant positive relationships between SES and authoritativeness, but significant negative relationship between SES and authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is also related negatively both to task engagement and to achievement, while authoritativeness is positively related to this variable.
Parenting practices
25.Cheah et al. [47]To examine the mediating role of perceived parental warmth and support in predicting Chinese Malaysian adolescents’ filial behaviours from their age, perceived parental investments, and positive filial emotions toward their parents122 Chinese adolescentsCross-sectional studyAdolescents’ perceived parental investments, filial emotions, and warmth and support from each parent are positively, and age was negatively associated with their filial behaviours. Perceived maternal warmth and support significantly mediate the effect of age, perceived investments from, and filial emotions toward mothers on adolescents’ filial behaviours, but perceived paternal warmth and support does not have a mediating role.
26.Cheah et al. [48]To examine the social-cognitive reasoning in resolving filial dilemmas within the personal and moral domain52 Chinese Malaysian preadolescents aged 9–12 years old; and 68 adolescents aged 13–18 years oldCross-sectional studyPreadolescents defer to parental authority, whereas adolescents endorsed filial obligation reasoning to justify compliance in the personal domain. the majority of Chinese Malaysian preadolescents and adolescents decided to pursue their own interest in the personal domain but adhere to their parent’s request in the moral domain.
27.Gan et al. [49]To examine the relations between parental autonomy support and coercion with total difficulties of children in Malaysia502 children aged between 9 and 12 years wereCross-sectional studyThere is a negative association between parental autonomy support and total difficulties. The higher level of parental coercion was correlated with a higher level of total difficulties.
28.Hanafi [50]To identify maternal childrearing practices (achievement values, monitoring, and discussion) among employed and unemployed Malaysian mothers535 students aged 16-17 years, studying in three different secondary schools in Kedah (173 employed, 359 unemployed mothers)Cross-sectional studyGenerally, mothers instil high achievement values, conduct consistent monitoring and regular discussions with children, but differ in terms of monitoring. Children in this study perceive their mothers to have high achievement values, conduct consistent monitoring, and discussions with them. Mothers ( employed or unemployed) are aware of the importance of education. This study supports the belief that Asian parents are generally achievement oriented.
29.Kaur et al. [51]To determine the prevalence of and factors associated with depressive symptoms in a representative sample of school-going adolescents in Malaysia234 schools and 28 738 respondents were selected to participate in the surveyCross-sectional study – from Global School-Based Student Health Survey (GSHS) dataLack of parental supervision, alcohol use, and tobacco use were also significant risk factors. associated with depressive symptoms
30.Low et al. [52]To examine the relationships between poor parental monitoring, peer rejection, and antisocial behaviour of Malaysian juvenile offenders.360 juvenile offenders recruited from three randomly selected Tunas Bakti schools (TBS)Cross-sectional studyThere is a significant positive relationship between poor parental monitoring, peer rejection, and antisocial behaviour. Parental monitoring was the strongest predictor of antisocial behaviour among Malaysian juvenile offenders, followed by peer rejection.
31.Mansor et al. [53]To determine the parental barrier toward the reduction of excessive child screen time and its predictors among parents of children aged younger than 5 years in the Petaling District, Selangor, MalaysiaMalaysian 789 parent-child dyads attending children aged younger than 5 years attending the child health clinics in the Petaling DistrictCross-sectional studyThe strongest predictor of parental barriers to reduce excessive child screen time is the positive parental attitude on screen time which could contribute to their abilities to limit child screen time
32.Mat Hussin et al. [54]To investigate the prevalence of physical fighting among school-going adolescents in Malaysia and its risk factors (smoking, alcohol and drug use, bullying, parental supervision)Cross-sectional study - GSHS dataParental supervision showed no significant association with physical fighting.
33.Mousavi & Yun Low [55]To examine the influence of parental behaviour rearing and cognitive schemas on the development of anxiety in Malaysian adolescents612 non-clinical adolescents (226 girls and 386 boys) aged 13-18 years (mean age = 15.48 years)Cross-sectional studyThere are positive correlations among adverse parenting behaviour styles, EMSs and anxiety. Relationship between negative parental rearing behaviours and anxiety is explained by maladaptive cognitive schemas.
34.Muhammad et al. [56]To examine the differences in family interaction and parenting behaviours and their influence on sexual intention among male and female youths aged 18 to 22 years422 male and 566 female college studentsCross-sectional studyThe influence of family interaction and parenting behaviours on youth sexual decision varies across gender. In male youths, having high maternal control and family modelling behaviour increases their odds of having sexual intention while having high parent-youth communication on sex reduces their odds of having sexual intention. For female youths, having a high level of family connectedness is a protective factor against sexual intention.
35.Shin & Ismail [57]To investigate the role of parental and peer mediation in young adolescents’ engagement in risk-taking in social networking sites (SNSs)469 SNS users aged 13–14 years oldCross-sectional studyControl-based parental mediation can make young adolescents more inclined to taking risks in SNSs. While discussion-based parental mediation is negatively related to young adolescents’ befriending strangers in SNSs, it does not reduce privacy risks. Adolescents who received higher levels of parental restrictive mediation arere more inclined to engage in risk-taking behaviours in SNSs.
36.Tam et al. [58]To examine gender difference in public perceptions on various reasons for and methods used in suicidal attempts among teenagers90 college studentsCross-sectional studySecularism, poor parent-child relationship and atheism are associated with suicidal attempts. Female subjects viewed secularism as a less frequent reason used by male suicide attempters than male subjects do. Female subjects viewed poor parent-child relationship as a less important or less often reason as to why females commit suicide.
37.Yusoff et al. [59]To determine the prevalence of and factors associated with illicit drug use among school-going adolescents in Malaysia25 507 students aged 12 to 17 yearsCross-sectional study - GSHS dataAdolescents who ever used illicit drugs are associated with current smoking, current alcohol use, ever having sex , truancy , lack of peer support, and lack of parental monitoring.
Parent-child interactions
38.Ahmad et al. [60]To identify risk and protective factors associated with sexual activity among Malaysian adolescents23 645 students aged 12 to 17 yearsCross-sectional study - GSHS dataProtective factors against ever-had sex are having a close friend, parental bonding, supportive peers , and parental connectedness.
39.Aw et al. [61]To examine the communication techniques between parents and children in the context of parenting and giving advice (sharenting) for the prevention of delinquencystudents, teachers, parents, and community leaders from two countries (Indonesia and Malaysia)Qualitative method - focus group discussion via Zoom platformParenting and sharenting communication are strategic forums to guide adolescents to avoid various forms of deviant behaviour, especially delinquency.
40.Baharudin et al. [62]To examine the relationships between family process variables, i.e., parenting, family values and family competency, and antisocial behaviours among Malaysian early adolescents from urban single-mother families240 mother-early adolescent dyads from single-mother families (divorce or death) from Selangor, Johore, Terengganu and PenangCross-sectional studyOnly two family-process variables, i.e., parenting behaviour and family competency, are unique predictors of adolescent anti-social behaviour. No associations exist between the family characteristic variables such as family income and adolescent behaviour.
41.Chiah & Baharudin [63]To determine the relationship between parenting behaviour of mothers and social emotional adjustments of adolescents in intact and non-intact Malay families213 mothers (166 intact families; 47 non-intact families), with at least one adolescent child between 13-17 years, in Kuala LumpurCross-sectional studyBetter parenting behaviour is positively related to adolescents’ strengths in non-intact family, and negatively related to adolescent’s difficulties in both family types. Family functioning rather than parenting behaviour is a better predictor of adolescents’ social emotional adjustments. Parents and families in any structure are important contributors of adolescents’ social emotional adjustments.
42.Hassan et al. [64]To advance the understanding of both directions of work- family conflict (WFC), work interference with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW) in an Eastern culture506 employees in three public and three private sector organizations.Cross-sectional studyThe importance of family in an individual’s life in Eastern cultures is different than in Western cultures. Malaysians are significantly lower on WIF than Westerners but significantly higher on FIW than all Western samples. Within the Malaysian sample, FIW also has a stronger negative relationship with all facets of satisfaction and WIF has a positive relationship with family satisfaction.
43.Jo-Pei [65]To explore whether ethnically- mixed children are less well psychologically adjusted when compared to children from mono-ethnic families218 inter- ethnic Malay-Chinese and 214 mono-ethnic Malay and Chinese families in MalaysiaCross-sectional studyParental ethnicity mix, the quality of their marital relationships, and parenting behaviour predict whether or not the children were emotionally and behaviourally adjusted. Overall, children from mixed parentage reported fewer emotional and behavioural problems than those from mono-ethnic minority families.
44.Krauss et al. [66]To explore the effects of three dimensions of developmental assets (positive parenting, community support, and religiosity) on risk, prosocial, and thriving behaviours among Muslim adolescentsMuslim adolescents (N = 895) from MalaysiaCross-sectional studyPositive parenting is the greatest protective factor against risk behaviour, religiosity as the most significant promotive factor of prosocial behaviours, and community support as the greatest contributor to adolescent thriving.
45.Krauss et al. [67]To explore the contribution of parenting (direct socialization) and community engagement (indirect socialization) factors on religiosity among Malaysian Muslim adolescents895 Malaysian Muslim high school students from single-/non-parent and two-parent familiesCross-sectional studyParents and community play as contributors to religiosity among Muslim youth, above and beyond family structure. Youth from two-parent families are higher in religiosity than those from single-parent families. Parenting factors significantly predict adolescent religiosity.
46.Krauss et al. [68]To investigate the influence of community engagement and parenting factors on religiosity among adolescents596 Malaysian Muslim secondary school studentsCross-sectional studyParental monitoring, mosque involvement, and school engagement significantly predicted religious worldview, whereas parental religious socialization, parental monitoring, mosque involvement, school engagement, and youth organization involvement account for a significant amount of the variance in religious personality.
47.Le et al. [69]To examine the relationship between culture and alexithymia104 European American and 102 Asian American college students in the United States, and 94 Asian college students attending a public/private university in MalaysiaCross-sectional studyParental emotion socialization mediates the relations among culture, gender, and alexithymia
48.Manap & Hamzah [70]To explore the principles of parenting from the Muslim family perspectivesFour Ibu Mithali (model mother) and eight children of Ibu MithālīQualitative - grounded theory approachNine principles: positive role model, cultivate knowledge culture, strong religiosity, high responsibility, balance act between mutual love and discipline, building child resistance, optimize child potential, parenting as a collective effort and the destiny is with Allah. The parenting principles are fundamental for the parents as a clear guideline for child development and empowerment.
49.Sumari, Baharudin, et al. [71]To explore and understand family functioning in a collectivist society and focused on Malaysia as a case example11 family practitioners from different settingsQualitative - focus group discussions in a three-series discussionSix themes of family functioning in a collectivist society:
(1) Family role
(2) Parenting styles
(3) Family rule
(4) Communication
(5) Value orientation
(6) Cohesiveness
50.Sumari, Sarada, et al. [72]To explore how adolescents cope with parental divorce15 participants aged 16 to 17 years oldQualitative -phenomenological approachSix themes on the characteristics of adolescents in divorced families:
(1) Forgiving of parents
(2) Accepting parental divorce
(3) Maintaining contact with both parents
(4) Emotional support from others
(5) Letting it go and moving forward with life
(6) Appreciating the parent-child relationship
51.Sutan & Mahat [73]To determine predictors of parenting skills in preventing adolescents’ sexual health risk behaviour386 adolescents’ parents who attended government health clinics in a semi-urban districtCross sectional studyOlder parent, lower parental education, being comfortable in discussing sexual issues, having good parent-adolescent communication and having higher knowledge on HIV/AIDS are significant predictors for appropriate parenting skills in preventing adolescent sexual health risk behaviour.
52.Winskel et al. [74]To examine the developmental milestone expectations, parenting styles and self-construal of Malaysian and Anglo-Australian caregivers42 Anglo-Australian parents/caregivers and 42 Malaysian parents/caregiversCross-sectional studyMalaysian caregivers have significantly higher interdependent self-construal and authoritarian parenting style than Anglo-Australian caregivers. They also expect a later age of attainment for peer interaction and verbal skills.
53.Wu & Yaacob [75]To investigate the relationships between parental closeness, self-efficacy and suicidal ideation among adolescents in Malaysia684 school-going adolescents aged 14–17 years old were recruited via multistage cluster samplingCross-sectional studyMother closeness, father closeness and adolescents’ self-efficacy have significant negative correlation with suicidal ideation. Specifically, self-efficacy is a partial mediator in the relation between mother closeness and suicidal ideation. Self-efficacy also fully mediated the relationship between father closeness and suicidal ideation.
54.Yan-Li et al. [76]To investigate the relationships among family environment, parental care, parental readiness, and adolescent externalizing problems and school performance among commuter families434 respondents (dyadic-relation) from commuter families in Peninsular MalaysiaCross-sectional studyParental readiness, parental care, family environment, and adolescent externalizing problems are predictors of adolescent academic performance among commuter family in Malaysia.
55.Yap & Baharudin [77]To examine the mediation roles of academic self- efficacy, social self-efficacy, and emotional self-efficacy on the relationships between parental involvement (i.e., paternal involvement and maternal involvement) and subjective well-being (i.e., positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction) in Malaysian adolescents802 Malaysian high school students from 14 public schools, with an age range of 15–17 yearsCross-sectional studyAcademic self-efficacy and social self-efficacy are unique mediators in the relationships between parental involvement (both paternal involvement and maternal involvement) and adolescent positive affect. This suggests that paternal involvement is just as crucial to adolescent positive development as maternal involvement.
56.Yunus & Dahlan [78]To investigate the connection between parents’ socioeconomic status (SES) and beliefs about parenting practices in two major domains of development, i.e. stimulation of cognitive functions and socio-emotional development331 parents of children enrolled in 20 selected kindergartens and preschools in several towns in Peninsular MalaysiaCross-sectional studyThere are significant differences in child- rearing practices and parental beliefs among the three groups, i.e. high, middle and low SES parents. This may explain the different cognitive functioning and socialisation among children from different socio-economic backgrounds.

N (%)Denominator
Year of publication56
20021 (1.79)
20030 (0)
20041 (1.79)
20050 (0)
20060 (0)
20070 (0)
20080 (0)
20091 (1.79)
20102 (3.57)
20113 (5.36)
20125 (8.93)
20136 (10.71)
20149 (16.07)
20152 (3.57)
20163 (5.36)
20174 (7.14)
20184 (7.14)
20194 (7.14)
202010 (17.86)
20211 (1.79)
Type of publication56
Behaviour2 (3.77)
Business4 (7.55)
Child/adolescent/youth4 (7.55)
Community/Family4 (7.55)
Critical review1 (1.89)
Cultural1 (1.89)
Cyberpsychology1 (1.89)
Divorce1 (1.89)
Education/learning4 (7.55)
Genetic1 (1.89)
Information/medical internet2 (3.77)
Management1 (1.89)
Mental health3 (5.66)
Preventive medicine1 (1.89)
Public health6 (11.32)
Religion2 (3.77)
Science1 (1.89)
Social sciences13 (24.52)
Technology1 (1.89)
Social/behaviour2 (66.67)
Counselling1 (33.33)
Type of research56
Quantitative51 (91.07)
Qualitative4 (7.14)
Mixed1 (1.79)


  1. 1. Ibrahim R. Multiculturalism and Education in Malaysia. Culture and Religion. 2007;8(2):155-167. DOI: 10.1080/14755610701424024
  2. 2. Song M, Gutierrez CON. What are the parenting practices of multiracial people in Britain? Ethnic and Racial Studies. 2016;39(7):1128-1149. DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2015.1096411
  3. 3. Reddy G. Mixed in Malaysia: Categories, classification and campur in contemporary everyday life. In: Rocha Z, Aspinall P, editors. Measuring Mixedness: Counting and Classifying Mixed Race and Mixed Ethnic Identity Around the World. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2020. pp. 649-668
  4. 4. Reddy G. Fluidity amidst structure: Multi-racial identity constructions across the life course of Malaysians and Singaporeans. Soc Identities. 2019;25(3):327-344. DOI: 10.1080/13504630.2018.1499222
  5. 5. Seok CB, Mutang JA, SI NFAA, Madlan L, Ismail R. Parents’ ethnic socialization practices in shaping ethnic identity and self-esteem of multi-etnic children in Malaysia. European Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2013;1(1):1-9
  6. 6. Mun CY. Ethnic socialization: A case of Malaysian Malay and Chinese Public Universities students experiences. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. 2013;3(6):582-585
  7. 7. Xinyin Chen RF, Yiu WYV. Culture and parenting. In: Bornstein M, editor. Handbook of Parenting. New York, NY: Routledge; 2019. pp. 448-473
  8. 8. Bornstein MH. Cultural approaches to parenting. Parent in Science Project. 2013;12(2-3):212-221
  9. 9. Watabe A. The influence of parenting on children’s academic achievement: Comparison between the United States and Japan. Chico: A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University; 2011. Available from:
  10. 10. Ang RP, Goh DH. Authoritarian parenting style in Asian societies: A Cluster- Analytic Investigation. Contemporary Family Therapy. 2006;28(1):131-151
  11. 11. Mousavi A, Juhari R. Systematic review of parenting style and children’s emotional intelligence: Recent updates on western and non- Western families. Malaysian Journal Of Medicine And Health Sciences. 2019;15(April):147-152
  12. 12. Bornstein MH, Putnick DL, Lansford JE. Parenting attributions and attitudes in cross-cultural perspective. Parent in Science Project. 2011;11(2-3):214-237
  13. 13. Ruth K, Chao RK. Beyond authoritarianism: A cultural perspective on Asian American parenting practices. In: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association; 1995. Available from:
  14. 14. Iqbal H, Golombok S. The generation game: Parenting and child outcomes in second-generation South Asian immigrant families in Britain. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2018;49(1):25-43. DOI: 10.1177/0022022117736039
  15. 15. Bornstein MH. Parenting and child mental health: A cross-cultural perspective. Mental Health Review Journal. 2013;12(October):258-265
  16. 16. Teh JKL, Ng ST, Tey NP, Siti-Norlasiah I. Ethnicity and Support for Parents in Malaysia. Asian Women. 2013;29(4):51-72
  17. 17. Gomez R, Suhaimi AF. Malaysia parent ratings of the parent–parental acceptance–rejection questionnaire: Invariance across ratings of Malay, Chinese, and Indian children. Cross-Cultural Research. 2015;49(1):90-105
  18. 18. Bornstein MH, Tal J, TamisLeMonda C. Parenting in cross cultural perspective: The United States, France, and Japan. In: Bornstein MH, editor. Cultural Approaches to Parenting. 1991. p. 69-90.
  19. 19. Bronfenbrenner U. Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist. 1977;32(7):513-531. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
  20. 20. Kapetanovic S, Rothenberg WA, Lansford JE, Bornstein MH, Chang L, Laura KD, et al. Cross-cultural examination of links between parent–adolescent communication and adolescent psychological problems in 12 cultural groups. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2020;49:1225-1244. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-020-01212-2
  21. 21. Chen B, Soenens B, Vansteenkiste M, Van PS, Beyers W. Where do the cultural differences in dynamics of controlling parenting lie ? Adolescents as active agents in the perception of and coping with parental behavior. Psychologica Belgica. 2016;56(3):169-192
  22. 22. Booth N, Gallagher S, Keenan M. Autism, Interventions and Parent Training. Psichologija (Vilniaus Univ). 2018;2018(57):74-94
  23. 23. Baumrind D. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs. 1967;75(1):43-88
  24. 24. Maccoby EE, Martin JA. Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In: Mussen PH (Series Ed.) and Hetheringtono EM (Vol. Ed.), editor. Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol IV Socialization, Personality and Social Development. 4th ed. Wiley; 1983. p. 1-101
  25. 25. Baumrind D. Baumrind1991.Pdf. Sage Journals. 1991;11:56-95. Available from:
  26. 26. Lavri M, Naterer A. The power of authoritative parenting: A cross-national study of effects of exposure to different parenting styles on life satisfaction. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;116:105274
  27. 27. Talib J, Mohamad Z, Mamat M. Effects of parenting style on children development. World Journal of Social Science. 2011;1(2):14-35. Available from:
  28. 28. Spera C. A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review. 2005;17(2):125-146
  29. 29. Sanjeevan D, De ZP. The association of parenting style on depression, anxiety and stress among Tamil speaking adolescents in the Colombo city. Sri Lanka Journal of Child Health. 2018;47(4):342-347
  30. 30. Prativa S, Deeba F. Relationship between parenting styles and depression in adolescents depression in adolescents. Journal of Biological Sciences. 2019;28(1):49-59
  31. 31. Keshavarz S, Baharudin R. Parenting style in a collectivist culture of Malaysia. European Journal of Social Sciences. 2009;10(1):66-73
  32. 32. Schwartz SJ, Weisskirch RS, Hurley EA, Park IJK. Communalism, familism, and filial piety: Are they birds of a collectivist feather? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. 2010;16(4):548-560
  33. 33. Pan Y, Gauvain M, Schwartz SJ. Do parents’ collectivistic tendency and attitudes toward filial piety facilitate autonomous motivation among young Chinese adolescents ? Motivation and Emotion. 2013;37:701-711
  34. 34. Ismail N, Jo-Pei T, Ibrahim R. The relationship between parental belief on filial piety and child psychosocial adjustment among malay families. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities. 2009;17(2):215-224
  35. 35. Tan SA, Nainee S, Tan CS. Filial piety and life satisfaction among Malaysian adolescents in a multi-ethnic, collectivist society. In: Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research. 229(2nd International Conference on Intervention and Applied Psychology (ICIAP 2018) Filial). 2019. pp. 144-155. DOI: 10.2991/iciap-18.2019.12
  36. 36. Kay RCS, Edo J, Hussain RB. Global habitus: Collectivist and individualist values in cultural capital among chinese malaysian youth. Kaji Malaysia. 2016;34(1):35-57
  37. 37. Noordin F. Individualism-collectivism: A comparative study of Malaysian and Australian managers. Gading Business Management Journal. 2004;8(1):55-82
  38. 38. Tien WYM, David MK, Alagappar P. Filial responsibility among Malaysian youth towards elderly parents. The Indian Journal of Social Work. 2009;70(4):647-663
  39. 39. Hanafi Z. Malay adolescents’ perceptions of maternal and paternal parenting styles. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction. 2004;1(1):131-161
  40. 40. Salehuddin K, Winskel H. Developmental milestone expectations, parenting styles, and self-construal of caregivers from Malay, Chinese and Indian backgrounds in Malaysia. Journal of Comparative Family Studies. 2016;47(2):147-167
  41. 41. Yunos N, Talib J. Mothers at work: What happen to children. International Review of Business Research Papers. 2009;5(3):179-188. Available from:
  42. 42. Talib J, Yunos N. Fathers’ work conditions , parenting styles, and children’s school achievement. International Review of Business Research Papers. 2010;6(4):467-490
  43. 43. Hong CY, Baharudin R, Hossain Z. Fathers’ parenting styles in Chinese families in urban Malaysia. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities. 2012;20(4):1019-1034
  44. 44. Ishak Z, Low SF, Lau PL. Parenting style as a moderator for students’ academic achievement. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2012;21(4):487-493
  45. 45. Hassan NC, Sen HM. Relationship between parenting styles, academic performance and socio-demographic factors among undergraduates at Universiti Putra Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. 2018;7(14):403-417. DOI: 10.6007/ijarbss/v7-i14/3677
  46. 46. Sulaiman F, Hassan MM. A pilot study of the relationship between parenting style and academic procrastination among final year students of faculty of human ecology, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities. 2019;4(7):152-167
  47. 47. Khan A, Ahmad R, Hamdan AR, Mustaffa MS. Educational encouragement, parenting styles, gender and ethnicity as predictors of academic achievement among special education students. International Education Studies. 2014;7(2):18-24
  48. 48. Chuan CS, Wan CW, Wan CL, Koon WL. Effects of authoritative and authoritarian parents on factors of demand for private tutoring. Advanced Science Letters. 2011;4(2):400-407
  49. 49. Yahya F, Halim NABA, Yusoff NFM, Ghazali NM, Anuar A, Jayos S, et al. Adult attachment and parenting styles. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering. 2019;8(1):193-199
  50. 50. Yu EYT, Rabbani M, Cong CW. Adolescents’ emotional abuse in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: The role of parenting style. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review. 2019;19(4):133-139
  51. 51. Woon FC, Chin YS. Parental influences on self-esteem of early adolescents: A multiracial sample from Selangor, Malaysia. International Journal of Public Health and Clinical Sciences. 2018;5(6):345-357. DOI: 10.32827/ijphcs.5.6.345
  52. 52. Hong OS, Long CS, Abdull Rahman RH. An analysis on the relationship between parenting styles and self-esteem of students of a University in Malaysia: A case study. Mediterr. The Social Science Journal. 2015;6(4S3):300-310
  53. 53. Kiadarbandsari A, Madon Z, Hamsan HH, Mehdinezhad NK. Role of parenting style and parents’ education in positive youth development of adolescents. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities. 2016;24(4):1465-1480
  54. 54. Basirion Z, Majid RA, Jelas ZM. Big Five personality factors, perceived parenting styles, and perfectionism among academically gifted students. Asian Social Science. 2014;10(4):8-15
  55. 55. Mofrad S, Yam LJ, Uba I. Peer relationship safeguards for learned helplessness behaviour. GATR Global Journal of Business & Social Science Review. 2013;1(4):35-39
  56. 56. Keshavarz S, Baharudin R. Perceived parenting style of fathers and adolescents locus of control in a collectivist culture of malaysia: The moderating role of fathers education. The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 2013;174(3):253-270
  57. 57. Ghani FBA, Kamal SL bt A, Aziz A bt A. The Implication of Parenting Styles on the Akhlak of Muslim Teenagers in the South of Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 2014;114:761-765. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.781
  58. 58. Cong CW, Aik CP, Rabbani M, Ni AOZ. Perceived parenting style and adolescents’ social anxiety in Selangor, Malaysia. Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia. 2020;24(1):17
  59. 59. Mohamad Nor NAU, Sutan R. The impact of mother’s roles towards preventing home injury in preschool children in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. 2020;23(3):87-97
  60. 60. Abd Hamid SNF, Ahmad Y, Tahir NS. Parenting practices and parenting styles in upholding child protection and privacy to address paedophilia in Malaysia. Journal of Critical Reviews. 2020;7(8):1708-1712
  61. 61. Amran MS, Basri NA. Investigating the relationship between parenting styles and juvenile delinquent behaviour. Univers. The Journal of Educational Research. 2020;8(11 A):25-32
  62. 62. Nubailah S, Yusof M, Shamimi A, Bakar A, Rezki and , Sawai P. The Relationship Between Parenting Style and The Risk of Drug Abuse Among Youth. Journal of Islamic Social Sciences and Humanities 2019;21:25-35.
  63. 63. Georgiou SN, Symeou M. Parenting practices and the development of internalizing/externalizing problems in adolescence. In: Parenting-Empirical Advances and Intervention Resources. Rijeka: INTECH open science; 2018
  64. 64. Glatz T, Trifan TA. Examination of parental self-efficacy and their beliefs about the outcomes of their parenting practices. Journal of Family Issues. 2019;40(10):1321-1345
  65. 65. Glatz T, Buchanan CM. Over-time associations among parental self-efficacy, promotive parenting practices, and adolescents’ externalizing behaviors. Journal of Family Psychology. 2015;29(3):427-437
  66. 66. Morris AS, Criss MM, Silk JS, Houltberg BJ. The impact of parenting on emotion regulation during childhood and adolescence. Child Development Perspectives. 2017;11(4):233-238
  67. 67. Neill ACO, Kuhlmeier VA, Craig WM, Neill ACO, Kuhlmeier VA, Examining WMC. Examining the association between parenting and psychosomatic problems: self-esteem as a mediator across ages in early adolescence. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth. 2018;3843:1-12. DOI: 10.1080/02673843.2018.1482771
  68. 68. Schofield TJ, Conger RD, Gonzales JA, Merrick MT, Studies F, Avenue OS, et al. Harsh parenting, physical health, and the protective role of positive parent-adolescent relationships. Social Science & Medicine. 2016;157:18-26
  69. 69. DiClemente RJ, Wingood GM, Crosby R, Sionean C, Cobb BK, Harrington K, et al. Parental monitoring: Association with adolescents’ risk behaviors. Pediatrics. 2001;107(6):1363-1368
  70. 70. Dittus PJ, Michael SL, Becasen JS, Gloppen KM, McCarthy K, Guilamo-Ramos V. Parental Monitoring and Its Associations With Adolescent Sexual Risk Behavior: A Meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2015;136(6):e1587-e1599
  71. 71. Rios M, Friedlander S, Cardona Y, Flores G, Shetgiri R. Associations of parental monitoring and violent peers with latino youth violence. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health. 2020;22(2):240-248. DOI: 10.1007/s10903-019-00894-6
  72. 72. Shek DTL, Law MYM. Parental Behavioral Control, Parental Psychological Control and Parent-Child Relational Qualities: Relationships to Chinese Adolescent Risk Behavior. In: Shek DTL, Sun RCF, Ma CMS, editors. Chinese Adolescents in Hong Kong. Vol. 5. Singapore: Springer; 2014. pp. 51-69. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-287-143-5
  73. 73. Lukavska K, Vacek J, Gabhelik R. The effects of parental control and warmth on problematic internet use in adolescents: A prospective cohort study. Journal of Behavioral Addictions. 2020;9(3):664-675
  74. 74. Barber BK. Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development. 1996;67(6):3296-3319
  75. 75. Li D, Zhang W, Wang Y. Parental behavioral control, psychological control and chinese adolescents’ peer victimization: The mediating role of self-control. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2015;24(3):628-637
  76. 76. Noordin ID, Idris IB, Hod R, Muhammad NA, Mohd Yusoff H, Anuar NA, et al. Do parenting style and adolescents’ self-esteem contribute to mental health problems among young adolescents in Malaysia? An adolescents’ perspective. International Medical Journal Malaysia. 2020;19(2):89-97
  77. 77. Hanafi Z. Mothers’ involvement: Children’s perception of maternal childrearing practices. Malaysian Management Journal. 2020;8(1):1-9
  78. 78. Cheah CSL, Bayram Özdemir S, Leung CYY. Predicting the filial behaviors of Chinese-Malaysian adolescents from perceived parental investments, filial emotions, and parental warmth and support. Journal of Adolescence. 2012;35(3):628-637. DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.07.001
  79. 79. Cheah CSL, Leung CYY, Bayram ÖS. Chinese malaysian adolescents’ social-cognitive reasoning regarding filial piety dilemmas. Child Development. 2018;89(2):383-396
  80. 80. Kaur J, Cheong SM, Mahadir Naidu B, Kaur G, Manickam MA, Mat Noor M, et al. Prevalence and correlates of depression among adolescents in Malaysia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health. 2014;26(5 Suppl):53S-62S. DOI: 10.1177/1010539514544356
  81. 81. Mansor E, Ahmad N, Raj D, Zulkefli NAM, Shariff ZM. Predictors of parental barriers to reduce excessive child screen time among parents of under-five children in selangor, malaysia: Cross-sectional study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2021;23(4):1-13
  82. 82. Mat Hussin SF, Abd Aziz NS, Hasim H, Sahril N. Prevalence and factors associated with physical fighting among Malaysian adolescents. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health. 2014;26(5 Suppl):44S-52S. DOI: 10.1177/1010539514544700
  83. 83. Low SK, Tan SA, Nainee S, Viapude GN, Kailsan R. The Association of parental monitoring and peer rejection on antisocial behavior among Malaysian juvenile offenders. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth 2018;35(2):155-171. Available from: DOI: 10.1080/0886571X.2018.1455558
  84. 84. Yusoff F, Sahril N, Rasidi NM, Zaki NAM, Muhamad N, Ahmad N. Illicit drug use among school-going adolescents in Malaysia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health. 2014;26(5S):100S-107S. DOI: 10.1177/1010539514542425
  85. 85. Shin W, Ismail N. Exploring the role of parents and peers in young adolescents’ risk taking on social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking. 2014;17(9):578-583
  86. 86. Muhammad N, Tohid H, Omar K, Mohd. Amin R, Shamsuddin K. Gender difference in the influence of family interaction and parenting behaviours on youth sexual intention. Social Science. 2017;6(3):105
  87. 87. Gan SW, Yaacob SN, Tan J-P, Juhari R. Relations between parental autonomy support and coercion with children’s total difficulties. Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia. 2020;24(1):37
  88. 88. Tam CL, Lee TH, Har WM, Chan LC. Perception of suicidal attempts among college students in Malaysia. Asian Social Science. 2011;7(7):30-41
  89. 89. Mousavi SE, Yun LW. The relationships between perceived parental rearing style and anxiety symptoms in malaysian adolescents: The mediating role of early maladaptive schemas. Journal of Depression and Anxiety. 2015;01(S2):009. DOI: 10.4172/2167-1044.s2-009
  90. 90. Horstman HK, Hays A, Maliski R. Parent–Child Interaction. In Nussbaum J, editor. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. USA: Oxford University Press; 2016. pp. 1-29. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.278
  91. 91. Lincoln CR, Russell BS, Donohue EB, Racine LE. Mother-child interactions and preschoolers’ emotion regulation outcomes: Nurturing autonomous emotion regulation. Journal of Child and Family Studies 2017;26(2):559-573. Available from: DOI: 10.1007/s10826-016-0561-z
  92. 92. Callanan MA, Legare CH, Sobel DM, Jaeger GJ, Letourneau S, McHugh SR, et al. Exploration, explanation, and parent–child interaction in museums. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 2020;85(1):7-137. DOI: 10.1111/mono.12412
  93. 93. Sethna V, Pote I, Wang S, Gudbrandsen M, Blasi A, McCusker C, et al. Mother–infant interactions and regional brain volumes in infancy: An MRI study. Brain Structure & Function. 2017;222(5):2379-2388
  94. 94. Kim JH, Schulz W, Zimmermann T, Hahlweg K. Parent–child interactions and child outcomes: Evidence from randomized intervention. Labour Economics. 2018;54(September):152-171. DOI: 10.1016/j.labeco.2018.08.003
  95. 95. Tryphonopoulos PD, Letourneau N, DiTommaso E. Caregiver-infant interaction quality: A review of observational assessment tools. Comprehensive Child and Adolescent Nursing. 2016;39(2):107-138. DOI: 10.3109/01460862.2015.1134720
  96. 96. Sumari M, Baharudin DF, Khalid NM, Ibrahim NH, Ahmed Tharbe IH. Family functioning in a collectivist culture of Malaysia: A qualitative study. The Family Journal. 2020;28(4):396-402
  97. 97. Baharudin R, Krauss SE, Yacoob SN, Pei TJ. Family processes as predictors of antisocial behaviors among adolescents from urban, single-mother Malay families in Malaysia. Journal of Comparative Family Studies. 2011;42(4):509-522
  98. 98. Krauss SE, Hamzah A, Ismail IA, Suandi T, Hamzah SR ah, Dahalan D, et al. Parenting, community, and religious predictors of positive and negative developmental outcomes among muslim adolescents. Youth Society 2014;46(2):201-227.
  99. 99. Krauss SE, Ismail IA, Suandi T, Hamzah A, Hamzah SR, Dahalan D et al. Parenting and community engagement factors as predictors of religiosity among muslim adolescents From Malaysia. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. 2013;23(2):87-102
  100. 100. Le HN, Berenbaum H, Raghavan C. Culture and alexithymia: Mean levels, correlates, and the role of parental socialization of emotions. Emotion. 2002;2(4):341-360
  101. 101. Aw S, Widiarti PW, Setiawan B, Mustaffa N, Ali MNS, Hastasari C. Parenting and sharenting communication for preventing juvenile delinquency. Inform. 2020;50(2):177-186
  102. 102. Sutan R, Mahat AN. Parenting skills determinant in preventing adolescents’ sexual health risk behavior. Open Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2017;07(01):1-13
  103. 103. Ahmad NA, Awaluddin SM, Ismail H, Samad R, Rashid NA, NR. Sexual activity among Malaysian school-going adolescents: What are the risk and protective factors? Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health. 2014;26(5 Suppl):44S-52S. DOI: 10.1177/1010539514544700
  104. 104. Wu SL, Yaacob SN. Self-efficacy as a mediator of the relationship between parental closeness and suicidal ideation among Malaysian adolescents. Child and Adolescent Mental Health. 2017;22(2):84-90
  105. 105. Yap ST, Baharudin R. The relationship between adolescents’ perceived parental involvement, self-efficacy beliefs, and subjective well-being: A multiple mediator model. Social Indicators Research. 2016;126(1):257-278
  106. 106. Yan-Li S, Roslan S, Abdullah MC, Abdullah H. Do family environment, parental care and adolescent externalizing problem mediate the relationship between parental readiness and adolescent school performance among commuter families? Community, Work & Family. 2020;23(3):342-365. DOI: 10.1080/13668803.2018.1504002
  107. 107. Yunus KRM, Dahlan NA. Child-rearing practices and socio-economic status: Possible implications for children’s educational outcomes. Procedia-Soc Behavioral Science. 2013;90(InCULT 2012):251-259
  108. 108. Sumari M, Sarada SD, Md KN. Coping with parental divorce: A study of adolescents in a collectivist culture of Malaysia. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. 2020;61(3):186-205. DOI: 10.1080/10502556.2019.1679595
  109. 109. Krauss SE, Hamzah A, Ismail IA, Suandi T, Hamzah SR, Dahalan D, et al. Religious socialization among Malaysian Muslim adolescents: A family structure comparison. Review of Religious Research. 2012;54(4):499-518
  110. 110. Jo-Pei T. Inter-ethnic and mono-ethnic families: Examining the association of parenting and child emotional and behavioural adjustment. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities. 2012;20(1):165-178
  111. 111. Chiah WY, Baharudin R. Parenting behaviour of mothers, adolescents’ social emotional adjustments and their correlates in intact and non-intact Malay families in Kuala Lumpur. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities. 2013;21(4):1431-1446
  112. 112. Hassan Z, Dollard MF, Winefield AH. Work-family conflict in East vs western countries. Cross Cultural Management. 2010;17(1):30-49
  113. 113. Winskel H, Salehuddin K, Stanbury J. Developmental milestone expectations, parenting styles and self-construal in Malaysian and Australian caregivers. Kaji Malaysia. 2013;31(1):19-35
  114. 114. Manap J, Hamzah MR. Mithālī parenting principals as a basis of child development and empowerment. Konvensyen Kaunseling Kebangsaan. May 2017:1-4
  115. 115. Chao R, Tseng V. Parenting of Asians. In: Bornstein MH, editor. Handbook of Parenting: Social Conditions and Applied Parenting. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2002. p. 59-93.
  116. 116. Hirschman C. Gender, the status of women, and family structure in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies. 2016;53(1):33-50
  117. 117. Noor NM, Leong CH. Multiculturalism in Malaysia and Singapore: Contesting models. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 2013;37(6):714-726. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.09.009
  118. 118. Pong S, Johnston J, Chen V. Authoritarian parenting and Asian adolescent school performance: Insights from the US and Taiwan. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2010;34(1):62-72
  119. 119. Arafat SMY, Akter H, Islam A, Shah MA, Kabir R. Parenting: Types, effects and cultural variation. Asian Journal of Pediatric Research. 2020;3(3):32-36
  120. 120. Martinez I, Garcia F, Veiga F, Garcia OF. Parenting styles, internalization of values and self-esteem: A cross-cultural study in Spain, Portugal and Brazil. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17:2370
  121. 121. Sumargi AM, Prasetyo E, Ardelia BW. Parenting styles and their impacts on child problem behaviors. Journal of Psychology. 2020;19(3):269-284
  122. 122. Delvecchio E, Germani A, Raspa V, Lis A. Parenting styles and child’ s well-being: The mediating role of the perceived parental stress. Europe's Journal of Psychology. 2020;16(3):514-531
  123. 123. Jadon PS, Tripathi S, Smithson A. Effect of Authoritarian Parenting style on self esteem of the Child: A Systematic Review. IJARIIE-ISSN. 2017;3(3):909-913. Available
  124. 124. Masud H, Thurasamy R. Parenting styles and academic achievement of young adolescents : A systematic literature review. Quality & Quantity. 2015;49:2411-2433. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-014-0120-x
  125. 125. Bi X, Yang Y, Li H, Wang M, Zhang W. Parenting styles and parent–adolescent relationships: The mediating roles of behavioral autonomy and parental authority. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018;9(November):1-13
  126. 126. Baumrind D. Current Patterns of Parental Authority. Dev. Psychological Monographs. 1971;4(1):1-103
  127. 127. Cheong K, Hill C, Leong Y-C, Zhang C, Zhang Z. “Parents just don’t understand” - generational perceptions of education and work. Higher Education Evaluation and Development. 2018;12(2):85-98. Available
  128. 128. Wu P, Robinson CC, Yang C, Hart CH, Olsen SF, Porter CL, et al. Similarities and differences in mothers’ parenting of preschoolers in China and the United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2002;26(6):481-491
  129. 129. Chao RK. Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development. 1994;65:1111-1119
  130. 130. Pinquart M, Kauser R. Do the associations of parenting styles with behavior problems and academic achievement vary by culture ? Results from a meta-analysis. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. 2018;24(1):75-100. DOI: 10.1037/cdp0000149
  131. 131. Darwish A-FE, Huber GL. Individualism vs collectivism in different cultures: A cross-cultural study. Intercultural Education. 2003;14(1):48-55. DOI: 10.1080/1467598032000044647
  132. 132. Lefebvre R, Franke V. Culture matters: Individualism vs. Collectivism in Conflict Decision-Making. Society. 2013;2013(3):128-146
  133. 133. He H, Usami S, Rikimaru Y, Jiang L. Cultural roots of parenting: Mothers’ parental social cognitions and practices from Western US and Shanghai/China. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12(April):1-11
  134. 134. Bidjari AF, Zahmatkesh A. Parenting styles and individualistic and collectivistic values (Considering transition mechanism or inter-generation non-transition). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2011;30:2431-2437
  135. 135. Rudy D, Grusec JE. Authoritarian parenting in individualist and collectivist groups: Associations with maternal emotion and cognition and children’s self-esteem. Journal of Family Psychology. 2006;20(1):68-78
  136. 136. Park YS, Kim BSK, Chiang J, Ju CM. Acculturation, enculturation, parental adherence to asian cultural values , parenting styles, and family conflict among Asian American college students. Asian American Journal of Psychology. 2010;1(1):67-79

Written By

Ruziana Masiran

Submitted: August 27th, 2021 Reviewed: October 11th, 2021 Published: January 13th, 2022