Permissiveness

Abstract

Permissiveness, which MeSH classifies under social behavior, is the attitude that grants another person freedom of expression and action without necessarily extending approval. The construct lives a double life: in developmental psychology it names the warm, undemanding parenting style in Diana Baumrind's typology, located within the two-dimensional space of demandingness and responsiveness that Eleanor Maccoby and John Martin drew from her work. In the study of sexuality it names an attitude toward sexual freedom, operationalised by Ira Reiss's Premarital Sexual Permissiveness scale and, at the individual level, by the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory. This article develops both threads around the shared idea that permissiveness is a stance of granting latitude, connecting them through measurement, outcomes, and cultural variation. A worked example and three interactive demonstrations make the mechanisms manipulable.

Keywords: permissiveness, permissive parenting, sexual permissiveness, sociosexuality

To be permissive is to grant someone latitude—to permit expression or action one might not oneself choose, endorse, or even approve. The Medical Subject Headings vocabulary captures exactly this reserve in its scope note: permissiveness is “the attitude that grants freedom of expression and activity to another individual, but not necessarily with sanction or approval.” The word therefore marks not indifference and not endorsement but a deliberate loosening of constraint, and the behavioural sciences have made it precise in two largely separate research traditions that rarely cite one another.

The first tradition is developmental. When Baumrind set out to classify how parents exercise authority, one of the patterns she named was permissive: the parent who is warm and accepting but makes few demands, imposes few rules, and avoids confrontation (Baumrind, 1966; Baumrind, 1971). The second tradition is the study of sexual attitudes, where permissiveness names how much sexual freedom a person judges acceptable—Reiss's scaling of attitudes toward premarital intercourse, and the later individual-difference construct of sociosexuality, the willingness to engage in uncommitted sex (Reiss, 1964; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). The sections below take the construct in turn—first placing it within social behavior, then developing the parenting and the sexual literatures, the instruments that measure each, and what is known about their outcomes and their variation across cultures and cohorts.

What Permissiveness Is

Permissiveness is, at its most general, a stance toward the behaviour of others: the granting of latitude. The MeSH scope note is careful to separate it from approval—one can permit what one does not endorse—and this reserve is what distinguishes a permissive attitude from a simply liberal or approving one. The descriptor is filed under Social Behavior, reflecting that permissiveness is realised in relationships: between a parent and a child, between a society and its members, between partners negotiating what is acceptable. What makes the single word useful across such different settings is that each use picks out the same underlying variable—how much freedom is granted—while filling in a different object of that freedom.

The two research literatures that have made permissiveness precise did so independently, and the article keeps them distinct because the measures, the predictors, and the outcomes differ. In developmental psychology, permissiveness is a property of a parent—a characteristic way of exercising, or declining to exercise, authority over a child. In the study of sexuality, permissiveness is a property of an attitude or a disposition—how acceptable a person finds sexual activity outside the traditional constraints of marriage or commitment. The common thread is the one the scope note names: in both cases permissiveness is the loosening of a constraint that could instead be imposed, and in both cases the interesting science lies in what that loosening predicts.

A third sense, less often studied under this exact label, runs through social psychology more broadly: the permissiveness of a norm, a group, or an institution—how much deviation it tolerates before it sanctions. That sense connects permissiveness to the study of social perception and to how people read the limits of acceptable behaviour. This article concentrates on the two traditions in which the construct has been operationalised and validated, but the shared logic—granting latitude short of approval—is what makes “permissiveness” one concept rather than three.

Dimensions of Permissiveness Research

No single field owns permissiveness. It is studied as a parenting style, as a sexual attitude, as an individual difference in mating disposition, and as a cultural and historical variable that shifts across cohorts. Each supplies a different measure and a different question, and the most useful treatments keep them apart rather than collapsing them into one vague “liberalness.” Table 1 summarises the dimensions, and the sections that follow develop each in turn. Figure 1 shows the two-dimensional space from which the parenting styles—permissive among them—are derived.

Table 1

Dimensions of Permissiveness Research

Permissive Parenting

The developmental sense of permissiveness begins with Baumrind's observational studies of preschoolers and their parents. Rejecting the single dimension of “control” that dominated earlier work, she described qualitatively distinct patterns of parental authority. The authoritative parent is both warm and firm, setting high standards while remaining responsive and explaining the reasons for rules. The authoritarian parent is firm but cold, demanding obedience for its own sake. The permissive parent—her third pattern—is warm and accepting but makes few demands, imposes few rules, tolerates the child's impulses, and avoids exercising authority (Baumrind, 1966; Baumrind, 1971). Permissiveness here is not neglect; the permissive parent is often highly involved and affectionate. What defines the style is the deliberate withholding of demands and control—the granting of latitude that the construct's general definition names.

Maccoby and Martin gave this typology its modern algebra. They argued that Baumrind's patterns could be recovered by crossing two underlying dimensions—demandingness (the maturity demands and control a parent exerts) and responsiveness (the warmth and acceptance a parent shows)—which yields a 2×2 scheme with four cells rather than three (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Authoritative parents are high on both; authoritarian parents high on demandingness, low on responsiveness; and the original permissive cell splits in two. The indulgent (permissive) parent is high in responsiveness but low in demandingness—Baumrind's warm, undemanding parent. The neglectful or uninvolved parent is low on both, detached as well as undemanding. This division matters because the two low-demand styles have very different correlates: indulgence and neglect look alike only if one ignores warmth. Figure 1 shows the scheme, and Demo 1 lets the reader move a family through the two-dimensional space and watch which style the coordinates define.

Demo 1 · The parenting-style space

Baumrind’s styles are two crossed dimensions, not a list. Set demandingness (control and maturity demands) and responsiveness (warmth and acceptance); each family is placed among the four corner prototypes by membership weight w = e^−3d. The low-demand, high-warmth corner is the permissive (indulgent) style.

At D = 0.25, R = 0.80 the family is 0.32 from the permissive corner and about 64% permissive — a region of a continuous space, not a box.

Sexual and Social Permissiveness

The other major tradition treats permissiveness as an attitude toward sexual freedom. Ira Reiss, founding the sociology of sexual permissiveness, built a Guttman-scalable measure of premarital sexual permissiveness: a set of statements endorsing progressively greater sexual intimacy as acceptable, graded by the affectional context (none, affection, love, engagement). His central empirical claim was that permissiveness is organised—people who accept a more intimate act in a less committed context almost always accept the less intimate acts too—and that the apparent chaos of sexual attitudes resolves into a single ordered dimension once the affectional context is built in. The scale also made the double standard—granting men more sexual latitude than women—measurable rather than merely asserted (Reiss, 1964).

Where Reiss measured a social attitude, Jeffry Simpson and Steven Gangestad measured an individual difference in behaviour and disposition. Their Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI) indexes sociosexuality: the willingness to engage in sexual activity without closeness or commitment. A person low in sociosexuality (restricted) requires emotional closeness before sex; a person high in sociosexuality (unrestricted) does not. The original SOI combined past behaviour, fantasy, and attitudes into a single score with good convergent and discriminant validity (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). Lars Penke and Jens Asendorpf later showed that sociosexuality is better treated as three related but separable facets—past behaviour, attitude, and desire—and their revised inventory (the SOI-R) predicts courtship and relationship outcomes that a single global score blurs together (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). Demo 2 lets the reader set the three facets and read off a sociosexual-orientation score, and see how two overlapping group distributions can differ in their means while sharing most of their range.

Demo 2 · Sociosexuality: facets and overlap

Sociosexuality — willingness to have sex without closeness — is better read as three facets than one score. Set the facets for a composite orientation, then shift the standardised mean difference d between two groups (say, men and women) and watch how much the distributions still overlap: OVL = 2Φ(−|d|/2).

Measuring Permissiveness

Both traditions have invested heavily in measurement, because “permissiveness” is easy to assert and hard to pin down. On the parenting side, the two-dimensional model needs instruments that score demandingness and responsiveness separately so that the four styles can be assigned by where a parent falls on each. The Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire operationalised exactly this, providing subscales for authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting that researchers could administer at scale rather than inferring style from home observation (Robinson et al., 1995). A complementary move came from Nancy Darling and Laurence Steinberg, who argued that style should not be confused with specific practices. A practice is a concrete act—a bedtime rule, a help with homework—whereas a style is the emotional context in which practices are delivered and interpreted. On their parenting-style-as-context model, permissiveness is a climate that changes the meaning and the effectiveness of whatever specific practices a parent uses, which is why the identical rule can socialise a child in one home and provoke rebellion in another (Darling & Steinberg, 1993).

On the sexual side, measurement forked in the same way: Reiss's scale captures an attitude about what is acceptable, while the SOI and SOI-R capture a disposition expressed in behaviour and desire. Keeping these apart matters because they dissociate—a person can hold permissive attitudes while behaving conservatively, or the reverse—and treating either as a proxy for the other is a standard error in the literature. The measurement work in both traditions shares a lesson: permissiveness is not one thing a single item can tap, but a structured variable whose facets have to be scored separately before they can be recombined.

Outcomes and Cultural Variation

What does permissiveness predict? On the parenting side, the large four-style studies of adolescents by Susie Lamborn, Steinberg, and colleagues found a consistent ordering: adolescents from authoritative homes showed the best adjustment and those from neglectful homes the worst, with authoritarian and indulgent (permissive) families intermediate but differing in instructive ways—indulged adolescents reported good social competence and self-confidence but also more school misconduct and substance use, the signature of warmth without demands (Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994). Baumrind's own longitudinal work linked authoritative parenting to competence and reduced substance use through adolescence, with permissiveness faring less well on the demand-related outcomes (Baumrind, 1991). Martin Pinquart's meta-analyses have since consolidated these patterns across hundreds of studies: permissive parenting is associated with somewhat higher externalising problems and weaker academic achievement than authoritative parenting, though the effect sizes are modest and the picture is dimensional rather than categorical (Pinquart, 2017; Pinquart & Gerke, 2019).

The correlates are not culturally uniform, and this is where permissiveness research has had to confront its own assumptions. Ruth Chao showed that the “authoritarian” label, built on a Western contrast with permissiveness, misreads Chinese parenting, whose concept of training does not map onto the demandingness-versus-warmth axis the typology presumes (Chao, 1994). Pinquart and Kauser's meta-analysis found that while authoritative parenting predicts better outcomes across most cultural groups, the strength of the associations varies by culture, so the costs of permissiveness are not fixed quantities (Pinquart & Kauser, 2018). A parallel variation appears in the sexual literature: David Schmitt's 48-nation study found sociosexuality varying substantially across cultures in ways tied to sex ratios and ecological conditions rather than to a single moral climate (Schmitt, 2005). And permissiveness is not static in time—Jean Twenge and colleagues documented a marked liberalisation of American sexual attitudes and behaviour across successive cohorts, so that what counted as permissive for one generation is unremarkable for the next (Twenge et al., 2015). Demo 3 lets the reader move a cohort slider and watch an attitude-approval curve rise across decades.

Demo 3 · Attitudes liberalise across cohorts

Permissiveness is a moving baseline, not a fixed trait. Model the share of adults who regard premarital sex as acceptable as a linear function of cohort, p = 0.30 + 0.07k, with k counting decades from the 1970s. Move the cohort and read the approval rate.

Worked Example

The mechanisms become concrete in three small exercises, each matching one of the demonstrations. The numbers are illustrative—they capture the qualitative shape of the published findings rather than reproducing any single reported statistic.

Locating the permissive style in the two-dimensional space. Score demandingness D and responsiveness R each on a 0-to-1 scale, with a median split at 0.5 defining “high” versus “low.” A parent at D = 0.25, R = 0.80 is low in demands and high in warmth—the permissive (indulgent) cell. To express how clearly a family belongs to each style, take its distance to each of the four corner prototypes—authoritative (1,1), authoritarian (1,0), permissive (0,1), neglectful (0,0)—and convert distance to a membership weight with w = e^−3d, normalised to sum to one. This family lands 0.32 from the permissive corner, 0.78 from authoritative, 0.84 from neglectful, and 1.10 from authoritarian, giving memberships of about 64% permissive, 16% authoritative, 14% neglectful, and 6% authoritarian. The point is that the permissive label is a region of a continuous space, not a box: a family near the low-demand/high-warmth corner is mostly permissive but shades toward its neighbours (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Demo 1 lets the reader move D and R and read off the style.

A mean sex difference with large overlap. Men score somewhat more permissive than women on average, but “somewhat” is the operative word. Represent the difference as a standardised effect size (Cohen's d) between two normal distributions and compute how much they overlap, OVL = 2Φ(−|d|/2). For a moderate difference of d = 0.50—roughly the size reported for attitudes like endorsing casual sex—the overlap is 2Φ(−0.25) = 2×0.401 = 80%: four-fifths of the two distributions share the same range, and a person's sex tells little about their permissiveness. Even a larger d = 0.74 still leaves about 71% overlap. This is the quantitative form of the meta-analytic finding that sex differences in sexuality, though real on average, are mostly small-to-moderate and swamped by within-sex variation (Petersen & Hyde, 2010). Demo 2 lets the reader shift the group means and watch the overlap.

Attitude liberalisation across cohorts. Model the proportion of adults who regard premarital sex as acceptable as a simple linear function of cohort, p = 0.30 + 0.07×k, where k counts decades from the 1970s. The model gives roughly 30% approval for the 1970s cohort, rising through 37%, 44%, and 51% to about 58% for the 2010s cohort—an approximate doubling across four decades. The exact figures depend on wording and sample, but the shape is robust: successive cohorts have become steadily more permissive, so permissiveness is a moving baseline rather than a fixed trait of “human nature” (Twenge et al., 2015). Demo 3 lets the reader move the cohort and read off the approval rate.

Discussion

The two literatures on permissiveness never fully merged, but read together they make the same methodological point. In both, the naive version of the construct—permissiveness as simply “letting people do what they want,” a single good-or-bad quantity—dissolves once the variable is measured properly. On the parenting side, the decisive move was Maccoby and Martin's: permissiveness is not the opposite of control on one axis but a joint position on two, so that the warm-undemanding parent and the cold-undemanding parent, superficially alike in their low demands, turn out to have sharply different children (Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Lamborn et al., 1991). On the sexual side, the parallel move was to separate attitude from disposition, and global disposition into facets: Reiss's single ordered dimension of attitudes and Penke and Asendorpf's three facets of sociosexuality are both refusals to let “permissiveness” stay a vague label (Reiss, 1964; Penke & Asendorpf, 2008).

The evidence on outcomes is correspondingly nuanced rather than moralising. Permissive parenting is not simply “bad”: it is reliably associated with social confidence and self-esteem while also predicting weaker self-regulation, more misconduct, and lower achievement than the authoritative style—a profile that follows directly from warmth without demands (Steinberg et al., 1994; Pinquart, 2017). Darling and Steinberg's insight that style is a context explains why these associations are modest and conditional rather than deterministic: permissiveness sets the climate in which particular practices land, and that climate interacts with the child, the culture, and the historical moment (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Chao, 1994). The same conditionality governs sexual permissiveness, where mean sex differences coexist with vast overlap and where the baseline itself drifts across cohorts and cultures (Petersen & Hyde, 2010; Schmitt, 2005; Twenge et al., 2015). The through-line is that permissiveness, in either tradition, is a structured and context-dependent variable—never a simple scalar of how much freedom is “too much.”

Current Directions

The most active recent work on permissiveness is meta-analytic and cross-cultural. Pinquart's syntheses have moved the parenting literature from individual-study contrasts toward pooled, dimensional estimates of how demandingness and responsiveness relate to externalising problems, academic achievement, and self-esteem—quantifying the modest, conditional costs of permissiveness rather than restating the typology (Pinquart, 2017; Pinquart & Gerke, 2019). The explicit test of cultural moderation is a second thread: Pinquart and Kauser's finding that the authoritative advantage holds broadly but varies in strength across cultural groups has reframed the question from “which style is best?” to “under what conditions, and for whom?” (Pinquart & Kauser, 2018). A third strand revisits whether mothers and fathers occupy the same style space at all, with reviews finding systematic parent-of-origin differences in reported styles and practices (Yaffe, 2023).

In the sexual literature, the open questions concern dynamics and generalisability: how sociosexuality tracks ecological and demographic conditions across nations (Schmitt, 2005), and how fast—and how uniformly—attitudes are liberalising across cohorts and subgroups (Twenge et al., 2015). Across both traditions the shared frontier is the same: replacing static, categorical descriptions of “how permissive” with dimensional, moderated models that specify the conditions under which permissiveness carries which consequences.

Common Misconceptions

Permissive parenting is the same as neglect.

No. The two-dimensional model separates them: the permissive (indulgent) parent is high in warmth and low in demands, whereas the neglectful parent is low on both. The permissive parent is often deeply involved and affectionate; what they withhold is demands and control, not care (Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

Permissive parenting is simply bad for children.

The picture is mixed, not uniformly negative. Children of permissive parents tend to show good social confidence and self-esteem alongside weaker self-regulation and more misconduct than children of authoritative parents. The associations are modest and conditional on culture and context, not a verdict (Lamborn et al., 1991; Pinquart, 2017).

The parenting typology applies identically across cultures.

It does not translate cleanly. Chao showed that the Western “authoritarian-versus-permissive” contrast misrepresents Chinese parenting, and meta-analysis finds the strength of style-outcome links varying by culture—so permissiveness carries different meanings and consequences in different settings (Chao, 1994; Pinquart & Kauser, 2018).

Men and women are categorically different in sexual permissiveness.

Mean differences are real but small-to-moderate and overlap heavily. A sex difference of d = 0.5 still leaves about 80% of the two distributions overlapping, so sex predicts an individual's permissiveness poorly, and attitudes have been liberalising across cohorts for everyone (Petersen & Hyde, 2010; Twenge et al., 2015).

Glossary

Authoritarian parenting.

A style high in demandingness and low in responsiveness: firm, controlling, and obedience-oriented, with little warmth or explanation. The cold-and-demanding cell of the two-dimensional scheme.

Authoritative parenting.

A style high in both demandingness and responsiveness: warm and accepting while setting high standards and explaining rules. Associated with the best adolescent adjustment in the four-style studies.

Demandingness.

One of the two dimensions underlying parenting style: the maturity demands, supervision, and control a parent exerts over a child. Permissive parents are low on this dimension.

Double standard.

The norm that grants men more sexual latitude than women for the same behaviour; made measurable by Reiss's permissiveness scaling, which built the affectional context and the sex of the actor into its items.

Neglectful parenting.

Also uninvolved parenting; a style low in both demandingness and responsiveness—detached as well as undemanding. Distinguished from permissive parenting precisely by its lack of warmth.

Parenting practice.

A specific, goal-directed act of parenting (a rule, a reward, help with a task), as distinct from the style that frames it; the unit Darling and Steinberg separated from style.

Parenting style.

A characteristic configuration of attitudes and emotional climate through which a parent exercises authority; on the context model, the climate in which specific practices are delivered and interpreted.

Parenting-style-as-context model.

Darling and Steinberg's framework treating style not as a set of techniques but as the emotional context that moderates the meaning and effectiveness of specific parenting practices.

Permissive parenting.

Also indulgent parenting; a style high in responsiveness and low in demandingness—warm and accepting while making few maturity demands and enforcing few rules. The developmental sense of permissiveness.

Permissiveness.

The attitude that grants another person freedom of expression and activity, but not necessarily with sanction or approval; a stance of granting latitude short of endorsement.

Premarital sexual permissiveness.

The degree to which a person judges sexual intimacy before or outside marriage acceptable; the attitude Reiss scaled as a single ordered dimension graded by affectional context.

Responsiveness.

One of the two dimensions underlying parenting style: the warmth, acceptance, and sensitivity a parent shows to a child's needs. Permissive parents are high on this dimension.

Sociosexual Orientation Inventory.

The SOI (Simpson & Gangestad) and its revision the SOI-R (Penke & Asendorpf); self-report instruments scoring sociosexuality, the latter across the three facets of past behaviour, attitude, and desire.

Sociosexuality.

The individual-difference disposition toward uncommitted sexual activity; a restricted orientation requires closeness before sex, an unrestricted orientation does not.

Training (jiao xun).

The Chinese child-rearing concept Chao used to show that the Western authoritarian-versus-permissive contrast misreads parenting whose control expresses involvement and care rather than coldness.

Key Researchers

Diana Baumrind

(1927-2018; Institute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley). Originated the parenting-styles typology—authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive—that defines permissive parenting, and conducted the longitudinal work linking the styles to adolescent competence and substance use. Wikipedia

Martin Pinquart

(Professor of Developmental Psychology, Philipps-Universität Marburg). Author of the modern meta-analyses relating parenting dimensions and styles—permissiveness among them—to children's externalising problems, achievement, and self-esteem across cultures. ORCID

Ira L. Reiss

(1925-2024; Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of Minnesota). Developed the Premarital Sexual Permissiveness scale and founded the sociology of sexual permissiveness, making the double standard and the affectional context measurable. Google Scholar · Wikipedia

David P. Schmitt

(Head and Professor of Psychological Sciences, Kansas State University). Led the International Sexuality Description Project and the 48-nation study of sociosexuality, mapping how permissiveness in mating varies across cultures. Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Jeffry A. Simpson

(Professor and Chair of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities). Co-developer of the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory, the standard measure of individual differences in the willingness to engage in uncommitted sex. ORCID · Google Scholar

Laurence Steinberg

(Distinguished University Professor of Psychology, Temple University). Co-author of the four-fold extension of Baumrind's typology and of the parenting-style-as-context model; led the large adolescent studies relating indulgent and other styles to adjustment. ORCID · Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Frequently Asked Questions

What is permissiveness?

Permissiveness is the attitude of granting another person freedom of expression and action without necessarily approving of it. The behavioural sciences study it in two main senses: as a parenting style—the warm but undemanding parent—and as an attitude or disposition toward sexual freedom (Baumrind, 1966; Reiss, 1964).

What is permissive parenting?

Permissive (or indulgent) parenting is one of the styles in Baumrind's typology: a parent who is warm, accepting, and highly responsive but makes few maturity demands, imposes few rules, and avoids exercising authority. It is defined by high responsiveness combined with low demandingness (Baumrind, 1971; Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

How is permissive parenting different from neglectful parenting?

Both make few demands, but they differ in warmth. The permissive parent is high in responsiveness—involved and affectionate—while the neglectful (uninvolved) parent is low in responsiveness as well, detached from the child. The two-dimensional model separates them precisely on this axis (Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

Is permissive parenting bad for children?

The evidence is mixed rather than uniformly negative. Children of permissive parents tend to be socially confident and high in self-esteem but also show weaker self-regulation, more misconduct, and lower achievement than children of authoritative parents. The effects are modest and depend on culture and context (Lamborn et al., 1991; Pinquart, 2017).

What is sexual permissiveness?

Sexual permissiveness is the degree to which a person regards sexual activity outside marriage or commitment as acceptable. Ira Reiss scaled it as a single ordered dimension of attitudes toward premarital intimacy, graded by the affectional context in which it occurs (Reiss, 1964).

What is sociosexuality?

Sociosexuality is an individual difference in the willingness to have sex without closeness or commitment. People low in it (restricted) require emotional closeness before sex; people high in it (unrestricted) do not. It is measured by the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory and its revision, which separate past behaviour, attitude, and desire (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991; Penke & Asendorpf, 2008).

Are men more sexually permissive than women?

On average men score somewhat higher, but the difference is small-to-moderate and the distributions overlap heavily—so sex predicts an individual's permissiveness poorly. Meta-analysis finds most sex differences in sexuality modest, and attitudes have liberalised across recent cohorts for everyone (Petersen & Hyde, 2010; Twenge et al., 2015).

Does permissiveness mean the same thing in every culture?

No. The parenting typology does not translate cleanly—Chao showed that the Western authoritarian-versus-permissive contrast misreads Chinese parenting—and both the strength of parenting-style effects and the level of sexual permissiveness vary substantially across cultures (Chao, 1994; Schmitt, 2005; Pinquart & Kauser, 2018).

References

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37(4), 887–907. https://doi.org/10.2307/1126611

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4(1, Pt.2), 1–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030372

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431691111004

Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65(4), 1111–1119. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131308

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487

Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62(5), 1049–1065. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131151

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 1–101). Wiley.

Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113

Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017504

Pinquart, M. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 873–932. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000295

Pinquart, M., & Kauser, R. (2018). 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, 24(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000149

Pinquart, M., & Gerke, D.-C. (2019). Associations of parenting styles with self-esteem in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(8), 2017–2035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01417-5

Reiss, I. L. (1964). The scaling of premarital sexual permissiveness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 26(2), 188–198. https://doi.org/10.2307/349726

Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (1995). Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting practices: Development of a new measure. Psychological Reports, 77(3), 819–830. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.819

Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(2), 247–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000051

Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 870–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65(3), 754–770. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00781.x

Twenge, J. M., Sherman, R. A., & Wells, B. E. (2015). Changes in American adults' sexual behavior and attitudes, 1972–2012. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(8), 2273–2285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0540-2

Yaffe, Y. (2023). Systematic review of the differences between mothers and fathers in parenting styles and practices. Current Psychology, 42(19), 16011–16024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01014-6