Objective: This study explores the relationship between parental psychological control (PPC) and parental autonomy support (PAS) in Chinese college students and discusses the role of self-differentiation (SD) as a mediator between the two.

Methods: Through convenience sampling, data analysis, and structural equation modeling, a questionnaire survey is administered to a sample of 1377 Chinese college students (17–24 years of age, 48.4% female, 22% without siblings), including an SD scale, a PAS questionnaire, and a PPC questionnaire.

Results: PPC exhibited a strong negative relationship (r = 0.583, p < 0.01) with PAS and a substantial positive relationship (r = 0.463, p < 0.01) with SD. Meanwhile, SD had a significant negative relationship (r = 0.134, p < 0.01) with PAS. The SD of college students showed a masking effect on the relationship between PPC and PAS, with an indirect effect value of 0.08. PPC exhibited a negative predictive effect on PAS, and this relationship is masked or inhibited by the SD of college students. The emotional responses (ERs) and interpersonal integration in SD exhibited a masking effect, while self-positioning (SP) and emotional disconnection (ED) exhibited a mediating effect, with effect values of 0.06, 0.04, −0.13, and −0.03, respectively.

Conclusion: PPC negatively predicts PAS indirectly through college students’ SD. From the perspective of family system theory, this study confirms the importance of the SD of college students for parental strategy optimization and provides more scientific and effective strategies and guidance for future family education.

1. Introduction

Effective family upbringing offers a secure setting for child growth and promotes overall child development. The past few years have seen a growing expectation for parents to assume greater responsibility for educating their children. This is particularly true in China, where family education traditionally emphasizes discipline and admonition. Culture affects relationship expression and perception between individuals [1]. As a result, Chinese parents tend to be more authoritarian in their disciplinary approach, negatively impacting college students’ psychological well-being and social development. Parenting style directly influences children’s psychological and behavioral growth [2]. Parental autonomy support (PAS) and parental psychological control (PPC) are extensively studied in the current socialization research. Despite the substantial research on the functioning of adolescents and emerging adults, the relationship between those parenting constructs remained largely unexplored. Studies confirmed that PPC and autonomy support are two correlated concepts, and their relationship is affected by the independence and volitional function of college students [3]. The theory of family systems hypothesized that self-differentiation (SD) contributes to good parent–child relationships [4, 5]. SD refers to the ability to think and act independently while maintaining contact with others, and further studying the relationship between PPC and autonomy support from the perspective of SD could facilitate the development of better family education practices.

1.1. PPC

PPC refers to parents exerting influence on their college-aged children’s psychological aspects, including ideas, interests, and emotions. This control manifests through tactics such as guilt induction, affection withdrawal, self-expression suppression, and threatening, all aimed at compelling children to conform to family expectations [6]. Previous studies indicated that parents exerting excessive psychological control over their children endangered their development [7]. This control also proved to diminish teenagers’ self-esteem, self-regulatory motivation, and academic accomplishment [8, 9]. Additionally, it is associated with internalizing disorders, such as anxiety, sadness, and social withdrawal [10, 11]. The effects of PPC on the psychology and behavior of college students linger into the college years [12]. As college students start developing independently without the psychological and behavioral management of their parents, the need for control is enhanced. Meanwhile, the absence of previous excessive PPC could easily induce anxiety, depression, and boredom in college students.

1.2. PAS

PAS refers to parents’ empathetic and respectful behavior toward their children, which is demonstrated by supporting them in discovering self-worth and aspirations and building self-identity. Studies indicated that PAS benefits adolescents’ emotional well-being and mental health [13, 14]. Previous research found that children are more self-resolving after interacting with supportive mothers than controlling mothers [15]. Studies also suggested that perceived autonomy allows children to control their surroundings with a higher sense of competence. Meanwhile, students living in a family environment often must meet their psychological needs and learn to behave independently [16].

1.3. SD

SD is a fundamental principle in Bowen’s family system theory, encompassing the intrinsic and interpersonal aspects [17]. The intrinsic aspect pertains to an individual’s capacity to uphold a harmonious equilibrium between rationality and emotion. In contrast, the interpersonal aspect pertains to an individual’s capacity to balance intimacy and autonomy in their connections with others. Two opposing life forces, the need to maintain a sense of wholeness and the desire to achieve individuation, drive all human action. On the one hand, they drive individuality development, leading to autonomous and uninfluenced individual feelings and thoughts. On the other hand, they drive individuals to surrender independence for interpersonal integration. By effectively reconciling these two impulses, individuals can cultivate intimate interpersonal relationships while preserving a proper degree of autonomy. This way, they can avoid sacrificing their distinctiveness by being overly enmeshed in familial dynamics. Although the family system theory defines SD as a stable structure within individual psychology, it is considered the result of family emotional function and emotional patterns, that is, influenced by the interaction of the whole family system function [18].

1.4. Objectives and Hypotheses

A literature review shows a degree of disagreement on the correlation between PPC and autonomy support. Originally, researchers commonly perceived psychological control and autonomy support as opposite ends of the same spectrum, that is, insufficient PAS may coincide with psychological control. Subsequently, researchers questioned this perspective, contending that PPC and autonomy support are distinct ideas. Scholars argued that the absence of PAS does not inevitably lead to psychological control [19, 20]. Furthermore, recent research has questioned the existing approach of integrating PPC and autonomy support from a dichotomous perspective. Instead, researchers have increasingly examined these two parenting behaviors as distinct entities. Relevant studies revealed an interaction between PPC and autonomy support, which effectively addressed external and internal issues in adolescents [21]. College students reporting less PPC tend to receive more PAS [22]. Hence, this study persists in investigating the relationship between these two parenting practices with Hypothesis 1:

Hypothesis 1. PPC has an adverse correlation with PAS.

Family resistance is a key concept in the family stress theory, encompassing the shift from individual resistance to collective resistance. It is essentially the ability or process of an entire family to overcome difficulties and actively adapt to adverse results. Family resistance can empower family members and propel them out of adversity. Thus, the family-based research paradigm with a problem orientation can effectively promote perspective transformation. Its core is understanding the family process, including how to adapt to pressure, help family and members overcome crises, and survive long-term adversity. Balancing PPC and autonomy support is a mutual optimization process [23], where college students as children play a positive role. Therefore, it is essential to examine the mechanisms underlying the interactions between PPC and autonomy support.

Initially, PPC and teenage SD are believed to correlate positively. Three aspects of adolescents’ SD, namely, excessive emotional response (ER), emotional disconnection (ED), and excessive dependence on others, were found to significantly positively correlate with PPC [24]. Hence, PPC affects adolescents’ SD. Additionally, teenagers’ SD is related to the level of PAS. By introducing the notion of binary autonomy, scholars highlighted that in addition to individuality and independence, autonomy also encompasses reliance on important individuals. Meanwhile, successfully demonstrating SD involves maintaining a distinct sense of self within interpersonal relationships [25, 26]. Research also discovered a significant positive correlation between SD and family functional closeness and adjustment. Consequently, individuals in well-functioning families tend to exhibit greater SD, which aligns with previous research findings [27]. The level of PAS is crucial in determining the quality of family functioning, closeness, and adaptation. Taken the above, Hypothesis 2 is proposed:

Hypothesis 2. SD mediates the correlation between PPC and PAS.

College students are at a critical stage of developing individual independence and family dependence. Thus, this study focuses on college students and investigates the effects of SD on the correlation between PPC and PAS. Combining family factors and individual factors to study the role of college students’ SD in the correlation between PPC and autonomy support, that is, its mediation mechanism, could enrich and expand the understanding of the causes of college students’ socialization difficulties and action mechanisms. Mental health education in colleges and universities can provide a relatively specific and more operational empirical research basis. Unlike previous studies focusing on primary and middle school students, this study innovatively focuses on college students, who differ from primary and middle school students in psychological development stages and characteristics. The interaction mechanism of related variables is naturally different, necessitating specific research. The goal of this study is to generate novel insights for effective family education and establish a theoretical foundation for exploring practical strategies to enhance family education.

2. Participants and Methods

2.1. Participants

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Scientific Research at our institution (IRB Approval Number JKY20231118). Participants were recruited via convenience sampling for the online questionnaire on Questionnaire Star. Before data collection, informed consent was obtained from all participants, ensuring adherence to the ethical research standards. Each participant completed the survey independently, guaranteeing anonymity and truthful responses. Convenience sampling was conducted on higher education institutions in Hubei Province. The subjects were recruited from two local comprehensive universities, with a balanced gender distribution and all higher education levels. The subjects of this study were joiner college students and university undergraduate students. To ensure accuracy, all grades were covered when issuing the questionnaire. Recruited participants must complete all sections of the questionnaire, and 1377 questionnaires were successfully collected. The college students surveyed included 710 males and 667 females. In terms of grade segmentation, 14.5% were junior college freshmen, 4.3% were junior college sophomores, 0.1% were junior college seniors, 60% were college freshmen, 20% were college sophomores, 0.3% were college juniors, and 0.9% were college seniors. Meanwhile, 22% were without siblings.

2.2. Methods

2.2.1. Scale for Assessing PPC

The scale utilized in this study was the Parental Psychological Control Questionnaire (PPCQ) developed by Shek in 2006 [28, 29]. A thorough literature review of the research by Barber, Smetana, and Daddis served as the foundation for designing this questionnaire. PPCQ assesses various aspects of PPC over their children, including ineffective affect, overcontrol, affection withdrawal, verbalization suppression, and physical aggression. The questionnaire employed a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (very uncompliant) to 5 (very compliant). The cumulative score of all responses reflected the extent of PPC over their children, with higher scores suggesting greater control. Shek et al. [28, 29] conducted comparative research on Hong Kong and Shanghai teenagers. The results indicated that the father’s psychological control questionnaire had a reliability of 0.88, while the mother’s psychological control questionnaire had a reliability of 0.90. This study investigated college students’ overall opinions on their parents’ psychological control, thus capturing the impact of the family upbringing environment. In this study, the Cronbach’s α coefficient of PPCQ was 0.946.

2.2.2. Scale for Assessing PAS

This study utilized the English version of the Perceived PAS Scale [30] to assess adolescents’ perceptions of PAS and control strategies. The section measuring perceived PAS consisted of 12 questions on the aspects of providing choice, providing a rationale, and acknowledging feelings, each with four questions. Participants answered each question on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), thus indicating the extent to which they believed their parents exhibited the described behavior. Higher scores indicated a greater level of perceived PAS. The reliability test conducted by Mageau et al. [30] revealed a high internal consistency coefficient of 0.94 for the PAS section of the questionnaire. In this study, the Cronbach’s α coefficient of this scale was 0.966.

2.2.3. SD Scale for College Students

The SD scale used in this study was the Chinese version of the Self-Differentiation Questionnaire (DSD) revised by Wu [31], with 27 questions. The α coefficient of the total scale was 0.896, and that of the subscales ranged from 0.684 to 0.851. The split-half reliability of the total scale was 0.868, and the split-half reliabilities of the subscales were between 0.689 and 0.819. The above reliability analysis shows that the scale’s internal consistency and stability meet the measurement requirements. Using a 5-point Likert scale, the participants were asked to assess the degree to which each item accurately reflected their feelings, with the scores of self-positioning (SP), ER, ED, and interpersonal integration ranging from 1 (completely uncompliant) to 5 (fully compliant).

The ER reveals the characteristics of an individual’s emotional stability. Individuals with low scores are usually regarded as emotional and subject to long-term personal emotional fluctuations. In contrast, individuals with high scores can self-regulate their emotions and fight against the negative impacts of emotions. SP reflects an individual’s ability to hold on to opinions and positions. Individuals with low scores tend to be dependent on others and struggle to act on their will, whereas individuals with high scores maintain independent thinking instead of following the expectations of others. ED highlights the ambivalent psychological traits of desire for intimacy and fear of intimacy in intimate experiences and interpersonal interactions. Lower-scoring individuals are afraid of establishing intimate relationships and often alleviate their fears by distancing themselves from others, whereas higher-scoring individuals do not alleviate their anxiety by disconnecting themselves from others. Interpersonal integration reflects an individual’s dependence on others, manifested as excessive concern for others’ perceptions and evaluations. Individuals with low scores are prone to becoming deeply involved in relationships with others, whereas individuals with high scores are not prone to being constrained by relationships with others. In this study, the Cronbach’s α coefficient of this scale was 0.905.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

A novel mediation effect test process [32] was combined with the bootstrap method for statistical analysis. The data analyses were carried out in SPSS 24.0 and Mplus 8.3 in the following steps. First, descriptive statistics, that is, means and standard deviations, were calculated for all variables and psychometric scales. The Cronbach’s α reliability was estimated. Then, the common method variance was tested using the structural equation model. The methods employed included descriptive statistical analysis, Pearson correlation analysis, the common method bias test, and mediated effect analysis utilizing Model 4 with bootstrap sampling 5000 times in the process plug-in.

3. Research Results

3.1. Common Method Bias Test

Harman’s one-way test was employed to examine the unrotated principal component factor analysis of all variables. The findings revealed that six factors exhibited eigenvalues exceeding 1, contributing to a cumulative variance of 67.05%. Among them, the first common factor accounted for an explanatory rate of 34.63%, which fell below the critical threshold of 40%. Notably, no significant common method bias was observed. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to examine the hypothesis that a single factor could explain all the variance in the data [33]. The test was conducted in Mplus 8.3, and the results demonstrated a poor model fit (X²/df = 26.398, RMSEA = 0.135, CFI = 0.480, and TLI = 0.457), proving the absence of common method bias.

3.2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis

Table 1 displays the variables’ means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients. A two-by-two link exists between PPC, PAS, and college students’ SD and its dimensions.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlation of each variable with each dimension (r).

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Psychological control	1
2. Autonomy support	−0.583 ^∗∗	1
3. SD	0.463 ^∗∗	−0.134 ^∗∗	1
4. ER	0.405 ^∗∗	−0.157 ^∗∗	0.809 ^∗∗	1
5. SP	−0.306 ^∗∗	0.535 ^∗∗	−0.065 ^∗	−0.253 ^∗∗	1
6. ED	0.491 ^∗∗	−0.287 ^∗∗	0.781 ^∗∗	0.523 ^∗∗	−0.209 ^∗∗	1
7. Integration with people	0.443 ^∗∗	−0.219 ^∗∗	0.893 ^∗∗	0.666 ^∗∗	−0.294 ^∗∗	0.599 ^∗∗	1
	9.45	15.03	17.00	5.73	4.23	5.62	9.24
s	27.79	63.84	79.79	17.66	18.47	14.81	28.85

^∗ p <0.05.
^∗∗ p <0.01.
^∗∗∗ p <0.001, same below.

3.3. Masking Effect Analysis

To analyze the mediating effect, the bootstraps test was conducted 5000 times on a sample of 1377 college students with random repetitions. The purpose was to estimate the 95% confidence interval for the mediating effect. The results in Figure 1 and Table 2 indicate several significant findings. Based on the pathway coefficient βpresented by the results, psychological control significantly negatively impacted PAS (β = −0.66, p < 0.001). Psychological control significantly positively impacted SD (β = 0.48, p < 0.001). SD significantly impacted PAS (β = 0.17, p < 0.001). Additionally, the total effect (β = −0.58, p < 0.001) and the direct effect (β = −0.66, p < 0.001) of psychological control on PAS were found to be significant.

Details are in the caption following the image — **Figure 1**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

Path coefficient plot of self-differentiation between psychological control and parental autonomy support.

Table 2. Mediation model effect values for parental psychological control, parental autonomy support, and self-differentiation.

Item	Efficiency value	Standard error	Relative effect value	95% confidence interval
Aggregate effect	−0.58	0.02		[−0.63, −0.54]
Psychological control–PAS	−0.66	0.02	24%	[−0.71, −0.62]
Psychological control–SD–PAS	0.08	0.02	76%	[0.05, 0.12]

According to the method of Wen et al. [32] for evaluating the mediating effect and masking effect, college student’s ability to distinguish between themselves and PPC has an indirect effect value of 0.08. The 95% confidence interval is [0.05, 0.12]. At this point, coefficients a and b are statistically significant. The different signs between the mediating effect value and the direct effect value indicate that college student’s ability to differentiate themselves has a masking effect on the correlation between PPC and PAS. The proportion of the masking effect to the total effect is 76%.

The SPSS macro program PROCESS3.5 plug-in was used to test the mediating role of the dimensions of SD. The results in Figure 2 showed that psychological control significantly negatively predicts PAS (β = 0.51, p < 0.001) and significantly positively predicts ER (β = 0.04, p < 0.001), ED (β = 0.50, p < 0.001), and interpersonal integration (β = 0.47, p < 0.001) and significantly negatively predicts self-position (β = −0.33, p < 0.001). ER (β = 0.01, p < 0.001), self-position (β = 0.41, p < 0.001), and interpersonal integration (β = 0.07, p < 0.001) significantly positively predict PAS, and ED (β = −0.06, p < 0.001) significantly negatively predicts PAS. Confidence intervals for the mediating effect values were estimated using the bias-corrected nonparametric percentage bootstrap method, and the results are shown in Table 3. The 95% confidence intervals for the mediating effects of ER, SP, ED, and interpersonal integration in the relationship between PPC and autonomy support were [0.03, 0.08], [−0.16, −0.11], [−0.06, −0.01], and [0.01, 0.06], indicating significant mediating effects. Based on the predictions, psychological control had a direct effect of −0.51 on PAS, accounting for 11% of the total effect. ER had a mediating effect of 0.06, accounting for 24% of the total effect. Self-position had a mediating effect of −0.13, which was 20% of the total effect. ED had a mediating effect of −0.03, accounting for 22% of the total effect. The total (β = −0.58, p < 0.001) and direct (β = −0.51, p < 0.001) effects of PPC on autonomy support were significant.

Table 3. Mediation model effect values for parental psychological control, parental autonomy support, and self-differentiation.

Trails	Efficiency value	Standard error	Relative effect value	95% confidence interval
Aggregate effect	−0.58	0.02		[−0.63, −0.54]
Psychological control–PAS	−0.51	0.02	11%	[−0.56, −0.47]
Psychological control–ER–PAS	0.06	0.01	24%	[0.03, 0.08]
Psychological control–SP–PAS	−0.13	0.01	20%	[−0.16, −0.11]
Psychological control–ED–PAS	−0.03	0.01	22%	[−0.06, −0.01]
Psychological control–integration with people–PAS	0.04	0.02	23%	[0.01, 0.06]

According to the mediation effect test process, the test was conducted by combining the sequential test method and the bootstrap method. The broad mediation analysis indicated a significant correlation between PPC and parental independent support, and a masking effect cannot be ruled out. With the total effect masked, the indirect effect shows opposite signs, and its absolute value is below expectation. Therefore, further consideration is needed in the following mediation effect test. The indirect effects of ER and interpersonal integration on the relationship between PPC and PAS were found to be 0.06 and 0.04, respectively. Thus, these effects were statistically significant, with confidence intervals of [0.03, 0.08] and [0.01, 0.06] at a 95% confidence level. The mediating effects were different from the direct effects. ER and interpersonal integration were found to have a masking effect on the relationship between PPC and PAS, accounting for 24% and 23% of the total effect, respectively.

4. Discussion

4.1. Theoretical Contributions

4.1.1. Interwovenness: Relationship Between PPC and PAS

The results showed that PPC significantly negatively predicted PAS, consistent with previous research findings. First, the relationship between PPC and autonomy support depends highly on the definition of PAS. The separated individuation model emphasizes that the core of PAS is to encourage college students’ independence and facilitate their behavioral, emotional, and cognitive development [34]. Accordingly, what negatively correlates with PAS is not psychological control but rather the promotion of dependence. Second, a strong link exists between PPC and PAS. This study innovatively regarded PPC and autonomy support as two types of parenting behaviors and introduced college students’ SD as a mediating variable. The relationship between the two types of parenting behaviors and college students’ autonomy responses and behaviors was explored, revealing that PPC and autonomy support are not qualitatively opposite but closely related. Third, this study provides theoretical and practical insights into transforming PPC into PAS. The improvement of parenting behaviors is inextricably linked to children’s development and maturity. The results of this study provide further guidance for improving family education policies and theoretical systems. The results suggested that it is important to promote the adjustment and optimization of parental family education methods from the perspective of cultivating and developing college students’ SD abilities.

4.1.2. The Masking Effect: The Relationship Between PPC and PAS Was Suppressed by SD

Prior research indicates that analyzing masking effects should shift the focus from examining how X affects Y to examining how X does not affect Y. Consequently, this study investigates the reason behind the partial lack of impact of PPC on autonomy support considering college students’ SD. The possible reasons are as follows: First, the population in this study was mainly college students who had a high level of SD. With high psychological self-awareness and independence, college students can think independently, make autonomous decisions, and maintain a relatively stable emotional state. Second, according to Hobfoll’s resource conservation theory (RCT), individuals experience psychological stress when perceiving resource threats and overconsumption while pursuing and maintaining valuable resources. Within this theoretical framework, children with high levels of SD may consume more of their PPC resources in decision-making and problem-solving due to their strong independence and autonomy, resulting in resource imbalance. Facing this resource pressure, parents may adopt psychological control strategies to compensate for the depletion caused by college students’ independence, thus maintaining the balance of the family system. Meanwhile, parents may perceive a gradual decrease in their resources, thereby reducing the negative effects of PPC on autonomy support. Noteworthily, the practicalities of this theory may be diverse depending on individual differences and the complexity of family dynamics.

The construction and testing of the mediational model revealed that SD played a masking role in the impact of PPC on PAS, with a substantial effect of 76%. Moreover, PPC was found to significantly positively influence college students’ SD, which positively predicted PAS. Conversely, PPC negatively impacts PAS, thus forming a model of the masking effect.

Of the four significant dimensions, emotional reaction has the greatest mediating effect of 24%, followed by interpersonal integration (23%). Thus, individuals with higher levels of ER and interpersonal integration can adapt to and reduce the impact of PPC on PAS. Hence, these two variables exert a masking effect, as explained below.

First, individuals with high levels of emotional responsiveness and regulation can somewhat reduce the negative effects of PPC on PAS. Well-differentiated individuals typically possess a range of positive psychological traits, including strong flexibility, adaptability, and stress tolerance. Such individuals can make sound choices and responses at the emotional, affective, and rational levels, effectively integrating cognitive, objective experience, and affective factors. In contrast, poorly self-differentiated individuals are more likely to show ERs, exhibit more negative emotional reactions to stress and situations, and struggle to stay calm under emotional influences. The theory of family system functioning suggests that the family is an organic entity consisting of individual members. Each family member has a close relationship with the others, and changes in one part impact the whole system. Individuals with high levels of ER can maintain an objective and calm demeanor in strong PPC situations, thus reducing its negative impact on PAS. According to the importance of ER, family therapy on the parent–child relationship can be conducted under the guidance of family system theory.

Furthermore, individuals with a higher social integration capacity can partially mitigate the adverse effects of PPC on promoting autonomy. Individuals progressing through their college years undergo personal growth and acquire expertise, developing unique attitudes, values, and beliefs that may differ from those of their parents. This divergence arises from the enhanced independent thinking and perception capacities and the acquisition of new insights through learning and exploration. Consequently, individuals may seek freedom from parental influence and prefer peer interactions. This characteristic of the age group fosters a more diverse and inclusive state of social integration, which, in turn, diminishes the negative consequences of imbalanced parenting practices.

The third factor identified was ED, which had a relative effect of 22%. The fourth and final factor was SP, which had a relative effect of 20%. These results imply that higher levels of ED and SP have a mediating effect on the relationship between PPC and PAS, as further analyzed below.

The theory of family systems pointed out that emotional dependency, as the opposite side of emotional dependence, shifts the emotional atmosphere and reaction patterns in the family system into other social activities and relationships, thus blurring the boundaries between the individual and the family and decreasing the ability to independently handle emotional feelings, emotional changes, and express discomfort [35].

SP represents an individual’s ability to maintain independence in interpersonal interactions. This behavioral trait indicates an individual’s ability to balance autonomy in interpersonal interactions without excessive attachment or detachment. Through good SP, individuals can maintain their identity and values in interpersonal interactions while also adapting to and respecting the perspectives of others, thus building healthy and mutually beneficial interpersonal relationships. In contrast, excessive SP can lead to excessive detachment from parents, hindering the performance of PAS. The affective disconnection dimension in interpersonal relationships is characterized by the desire for and fear of intimacy in a relationship [36]. Excessive affective disconnection reinforces the emotional experience of fear and resistance, thus reinforcing the negative impact of PPC on PAS.

4.2. Practical Implications

First, colleges should seek to limit the negative effects of PPC on autonomy support and SD in college students. For example, colleges and universities should help parents establish scientific educational concepts, balance the relationship between psychological control and autonomy support, and introduce comprehensive factors into parenting standards. College students should be evaluated to prevent extreme psychological control situations.

Second, while developing college students’ SD and independent ability, they must not be left with self-education and self-efforts. Based on assistance from parents and school, college students should fully utilize school mental health education resources and positively learn emotional management and social adaptation knowledge and skills, thus mastering the positive emotional management and social adaptation strategy [37]. Extra efforts should be directed to the ER ability.

Third, the authorities on education should create a harmonious atmosphere for home–school cooperation and cooperatively improve the mental health and socialization level of college students through home–school cooperation. Parents should participate in interventions for college students’ psychological and social problems while actively reflecting on their education methods [38]. According to the psychological characteristics of college students in the new era, parents should learn scientific parenting methods and effectively apply psychological control and autonomy support rather than blindly following their own experience and understanding.

Finally, from the social ethics perspective, an equal dialogue mechanism between parents and children should be constructed. Kant’s ethics emphasizes that man should be seen as an end rather than a means. PPC may instrumentalize their children, depriving them of their ability to develop independent thinking and violating the principle of moral subjectivity. Social research and practice institutions should assist parents in perceiving the root causes of their control behavior and repair the cracks through family dialogue. Schools should also actively introduce social resources, such as the family ethics curriculum, to raise awareness of the balance between children’s rights and parental responsibilities.

5. Limitations and Further Research

Despite the various findings and contributions, this study has several limitations. First, the cross-sectional study design rendered it challenging to establish causal interpretations. Future research should employ longitudinal designs to investigate the causal links between the variables over long periods. Second, this study adopted the self-report method, which may impact the authenticity of the results due to social desirability effects, warranting multiple-source assessments to address this problem. Finally, the convenience sampling in this study may result in sampling bias and reduce the reliability of the findings. Future research may adopt random sampling to address this limitation.

6. Conclusions

This study explored the relationship between PPC and PAS in Chinese college students and introduced SD based on the regulating mediation model. The research results showed that college students’ SD mediated the relationship between PPC and autonomy support. The ERs and interpersonal integration exhibited a masking effect, while SP and ED exhibited an intermediary effect. These results supported and expanded the working mechanism of the family system theory. The complex relationship between PPC, PAS, and the SD of college students highlighted the importance of considering individual differences and environmental factors in applying psychological science to family education. The findings could provide a specific direction for family development under the guidance of family system theory.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Funding

The study was funded by the Hubei Teacher Education Research Center, a key research base for humanities and social sciences in universities in Hubei Province, 2024 General Project of Open Subjects, entitled “Research on the Construction and Realization Path of Cross-Border Cooperation Mechanism of Teacher Education Based on the Collaboration of Schools, Families and Societies” (Project Number JSJY202408).

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

1 Fabris M. A., Lin S., and Longobardi C., A cross-cultural comparison of teacher-student relationship quality in Chinese and Italian teachers and students, Journal of School Psychology. (2023) 99, no. 5, 101227, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2023.101227, 37507185.
10.1016/j.jsp.2023.101227
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2 Seginer R., The Effect of Parenting on Future Orientation, 2009, Springer, US, https://doi.org/10.1007/b106810.
10.1007/b106810
Google Scholar
3 Soenens B., Luyckx K., Vansteenkiste M., Duriez B., and Goossens L., Clarifying the link between parental psychological control and adolescents′ depressive symptoms: reciprocal versus unidirectional models, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. (2008) 54, no. 4, 411–444, https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.0.0005.
10.1353/mpq.0.0005
Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Bowen M., Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, 1978, Jason Aronson, New York.
Google Scholar
5 Kerr M. E. and Bowen M., Family Evaluation: An Approach Based on Bowen Theory, 1988, W. W. Norton, New York.
Google Scholar
6 Barber B. K., Parental psychological control: revisiting a neglected construct, Child Development. (1996) 67, no. 6, 3296–3319, https://doi.org/10.2307/1131780, 9071782.
10.2307/1131780
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Grolnick W. S., Deci E. L., and Ryan R. M., Parenting and Children’s Internalization of Values: A Handbook of Contemporary Theory, 1997, Wiley, London.
Google Scholar
8 Vansteenkiste M., Zhou M., Lens W., and Soenens B., Experiences of autonomy and control among Chinese learners: vitalizing or immobilizing?, Journal of Educational Psychology. (2005) 97, no. 3, 468–483, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.468, 2-s2.0-26444515003.
10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.468
Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Griffith S. F. and Grolnick W. S., Parenting in Caribbean families, Journal of Black Psychology. (2014) 40, no. 2, 166–190, https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798412475085, 2-s2.0-84897802111.
10.1177/0095798412475085
Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 Nanda M. M., Kotchick B. A., and Grover R. L., Parental psychological control and childhood anxiety: the mediating role of perceived lack of control, Journal of Child and Family Studies. (2012) 21, no. 4, 637–645, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9516-6, 2-s2.0-84864280870.
10.1007/s10826-011-9516-6
Web of Science® Google Scholar
11 Zhu Y., Wang Q., Liu J., and Huang J., Parental psychological control and depression, anxiety among adolescents: The mediating role of bedtime procrastination and moderating role of neuroticism, Archives of Psychiatric Nursing. (2024) 51, 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2024.05.002, 39034062.
10.1016/j.apnu.2024.05.002
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Zhang S., Chang T., and Li Z., Parental psychological control and college students’ negative risk-taking behaviors: the chain-mediating of autonomy and self-control, Psychology Research and Behavior Management. (2024) 17, 2687–2699.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 Ferguson Y. L., Kasser T., and Jahng S., Differences in life satisfaction and school satisfaction among adolescents from three nations: the role of perceived autonomy support, Journal of Research on Adolescence. (2011) 21, no. 3, 649–661, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00698.x, 2-s2.0-80051594030.
10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00698.x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 Joussemet M., Mageau G. A., and Koestner R., Promoting optimal parenting and children’s mental health: a preliminary evaluation of the how-to parenting program, Journal of Child and Family Studies. (2014) 23, no. 6, 949–964, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9751-0, 2-s2.0-84903885990.
10.1007/s10826-013-9751-0
Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 Grolnick W. S., The Psychology of Parental Control: How Kind Parenting Is Counterproductive, 2002, Psychology Press, New York, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606303.
Google Scholar
16 Wei S., Teo T., Malpique A., and Lausen A., Parental autonomy support, parental psychological control and Chinese university students’ behavior regulation: the mediating role of basic psychological needs, Frontiers in Psychology. (2022) 12, 735570, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.735570, 35250687.
10.3389/fpsyg.2021.735570
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 Rodríguez-González M., Lampis J., Murdock N. L., Schweer-Collins M. L., and Lyons E. R., Couple adjustment and differentiation of self in the United States, Italy, and Spain: a cross-cultural study, Family Process. (2020) 59, no. 4, 1552–1568, https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12522, 32073663.
10.1111/famp.12522
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Calatrava M., Martins M. V., Schweer-Collins M., Duch-Ceballos C., and Rodríguez-González M., Differentiation of self: a scoping review of Bowen Family Systems Theory’s core construct, Clinical Psychology Review. (2022) 91, 102101, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102101.
10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102101
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Barber B. K., Intrusive Parenting: How Psychological Control Affects Children and Adolescents, 2002, American Psychological Association, Washington, https://doi.org/10.1037/10422-000.
10.1037/10422-000
Web of Science® Google Scholar
20 Silk J. S., Morris A. S., Kanaya T., and Steinberg L., Psychological control and autonomy granting: opposite ends of a continuum or distinct constructs?, Adolescence. (2003) 13, no. 1, 113–128, https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.1301004, 2-s2.0-0037998876.
10.1111/1532-7795.1301004
Google Scholar
21 Gong X. and Wang C., Interactive effects of parental psychological control and autonomy support on emerging adults’ emotion regulation and self-esteem, Current Psychology. (2023) 42, 16111–16120, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01483-3.
10.1007/s12144-021-01483-3
Web of Science® Google Scholar
22 Won S. and Yu S. L., Relations of perceived parental autonomy support and control with adolescents’ academic time management and procrastination, Learning and Individual Differences. (2018) 61, 205–215, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.12.001, 2-s2.0-85038115878.
10.1016/j.lindif.2017.12.001
Web of Science® Google Scholar
23 Mageau G. A., Bureau J. S., Ranger F., Allen M. P., and Soenens B., The role of parental achievement goals in predicting autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting, Journal of Child and Family Studies. (2016) 25, no. 5, 1702–1711, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0341-1, 2-s2.0-84949669789.
10.1007/s10826-015-0341-1
Web of Science® Google Scholar
24 Safrancı B., Emotional aspects of psychological symptoms: The roles of parenting attitudes and emotion dysregulation, 2015, Middle East Technical University, Cankaya.
Google Scholar
25 Yeh K. H. and Yang Y. J., Construct validation of individuating and relating autonomy orientations in culturally Chinese adolescents, Asian Journal of Social Psychology. (2006) 9, no. 2, 148–160, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2006.00192.x, 2-s2.0-33845434258.
10.1111/j.1467-839X.2006.00192.x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
26 Yeh K. H., Bedford O., and Yang Y. J., A cross-cultural comparison of the coexistence and domain superiority of individuating and relating autonomy, International Journal of Psychology. (2009) 44, no. 3, 213–221, https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590701749146, 2-s2.0-70449561011, 22029497.
10.1080/00207590701749146
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27 Hecker L. L. and Wetchler J. L., An Introduction to Marriage and Family Therapy, 2015, Routledge, Oxfordshire.
Google Scholar
28 Shek D. T. L., Perceived parental control based on indigenous Chinese parental control concepts in adolescents in Hong Kong, American Journal of Family Therapy. (2007) 35, no. 2, 123–137, https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180600553480, 2-s2.0-33847403136.
10.1080/01926180600553480
Web of Science® Google Scholar
29 Shek D. T. L., Perceived parental control in Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong: a three-year longitudinal study, The Open Family Studies Journal. (2008) 1, no. 1, 7–16, https://doi.org/10.2174/1874922400801010007.
10.2174/1874922400801010007
Google Scholar
30 Mageau G. A., Ranger F., Joussemet M., Koestner R., Moreau E., and Forest J., Validation of the perceived parental autonomy support scale (p-pass), Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. (2015) 47, no. 3, 251–262, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039325, 2-s2.0-84930659989.
10.1037/a0039325
Web of Science® Google Scholar
31 Li J. J., Yuan H. L., and Xu B. B., The relationship between self-differentiation and online game addiction in college students: The chain mediating effect of shyness and self-control, Studies of Psychology and Behavior. (2023) 21, no. 3.
Google Scholar
32 Wen Z. and Ye B., Analyses of mediating effects: the development of methods and models, Advances in Psychological Science. (2014) 22, no. 5, 731–745, https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.00731.
10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.00731
Google Scholar
33 Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J. Y., and Podsakoff N. P., Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology. (2003) 88, no. 5, 879–903, https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879, 2-s2.0-0141907688, 14516251.
10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
34 Steinberg L. and Silverberg S. B., The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence, Child Development. (1986) 57, no. 4, 841–851, https://doi.org/10.2307/1130361, 3757604.
10.2307/1130361
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
35 Chung H. and Gale J., Family functioning and self-differentiation: a cross-cultural examination, Contemporary Family Therapy. (2009) 31, no. 1, 19–33, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-008-9080-4, 2-s2.0-57849096131.
10.1007/s10591-008-9080-4
Google Scholar
36 Obeid S., Sacre H., Haddad C., Akel M., Fares K., Zakhour M., Kheir N., Salameh P., and Hallit S., Factors associated with fear of intimacy among a representative sample of the Lebanese population: The role of depression, social phobia, self-esteem, intimate partner violence, attachment, and maladaptive schemas, Perspectives in Psychiatric Care. (2020) 56, no. 3, 486–494, https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.12438, 2-s2.0-85073954580, 31549436.
10.1111/ppc.12438
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
37 Guo J., Tang X., Marsh H. W., Parker P., Basarkod G., Sahdra B., Ranta M., and Salmela-Aro K., The roles of social–emotional skills in students’ academic and life success: A multi-informant and multicohort perspective, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (2023) 124, no. 5, 1079–1110, https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000426, 35666915.
10.1037/pspp0000426
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
38 Salimi N., Gere B., Talley W., and Irioogbe B., College students mental health challenges: Concerns and considerations in the COVID-19 pandemic, Journal of College Student Psychotherapy. (2023) 37, no. 1, 39–51, https://doi.org/10.1080/87568225.2021.1890298.
10.1080/87568225.2021.1890298
Web of Science® Google Scholar

All articles

The Relationship Between Parental Psychological Control and Parental Autonomy Support in Chinese College Students: The Mediating Effect of Self-Differentiation

Abstract