The relationship between parenting styles

and adolescent problematic Internet use:

A three-level meta-analysis

Journal of Behavioral XIANG NIU1 , JIE-YANG LI1 , DANIEL L. KING2 ,

Addictions DETLEF H. ROST1,3 p , HAI-ZHEN WANG4 and
12 (2023) 3, 652–669
JIN-LIANG WANG1
DOI:
1
10.1556/2006.2023.00043 Center for Mental Health Education, School of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing,
© 2023 The Author(s) 400715, China
2
College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
3
Faculty of Psychology, Philipps-University of Marburg, Germany
4
Preschool Education College, Chongqing Youth and Vocational Technical College, Chongqing,
China
REVIEW ARTICLE
Received: March 2, 2023 • Revised manuscript received: June 1, 2023; July 17, 2023 • Accepted: July 22, 2023
Published online: September 19, 2023

ABSTRACT
Background and aims: Problematic Internet use (PIU) has become a global public health problem. It has
been suggested that parenting style is associated with adolescent PIU. However, the evidence in favor of
this view is mixed. Based on the PRISMA method, the present study employed three-level meta-analysis
approach to investigate the relationship between these two variables and further explore potential
moderators. Methods: After a systematic search for published articles, 35 studies were included,
reporting 171 effect sizes (N 5 40,587). Results: The results showed that positive parenting styles were
significantly negatively related to PIU. This association was moderated by gender, age, publication year,
and measurements of PIU, but was not by culture and measurements of parenting styles. Negative
parenting styles were significantly positively related to PIU, which was moderated by publication year,
culture, and sub-types of negative parenting, but not by gender, age, and measurements of both
parenting styles and PIU. In addition, the correlation of PIU with negative parenting styles was stronger
than that with positive parenting styles. Discussion and Conclusions: The present results demonstrated
that parenting styles, especially punitive parenting styles, should be attached to more important when
treating adolescent PIU.

KEYWORDS
parenting styles, problematic internet use, meta-analysis, adolescent, moderator variables

INTRODUCTION
The rapid development of internet technology makes it easy for adolescents to use it anytime
and anywhere. The possible impact of PIU on adolescents’ social development has elicited
public concern. Previous studies have indicated that PIU may lead to many adverse conse-
quences in adolescents, such as anxiety and depression (Hu, Mei, & Gao, 2020; Ko et al.,
2014; Seki, Hamazaki, Natori, & Inadera, 2019), sleep problems (Alimoradi et al., 2019; Chen
& Gau, 2016), and academic burnout (Wan, Yu, Yan, & Huang, 2020). There seems to be a
p
Corresponding author.
E-mail: wjl200789@163.com strong link between parenting styles and adolescent PIU among many related factors, which
is supported by a range of studies (e.g., Cetinkaya, 2019; Dogan, Bozgeyikli, & Bozdas, 2015;
Lukavská, Vacek, & Gabhelík, 2020; Sun & Wilkinson, 2020). However, the evidence in favor
of this view is mixed due to the differences in sample characteristics, publication charac-
teristics, and measurements in previous studies.
Journal of Behavioral Addictions 12 (2023) 3, 652–669 653

Therefore, several meta-analyses have examined the as- generally measured from these two perspectives. Some re-
sociation between parenting styles and PIU (Li, Lei, & Tian, searchers focused on the broad and stable behavioral child
2018; Li, Ran, Zhang, & Hu, 2019; Lukavská, Hrabec, bearing habits of parents. Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, and
Lukavsk!y, Demetrovics, & Király, 2022; Wei et al., 2017), Hart (1995) developed the Parenting Style and Dimension
which is related to the fact that meta-analysis can more Questionnaire (PSDQ), including authoritative, authori-
effectively evaluate the consistency of independent study tarian, and permissive parenting styles. Other researchers
results (Siddaway, Wood, & Hedges, 2019). However, these addressed specific parenting behaviors of parents in raising
meta-analyses applied the traditional meta-analysis their children (Lee, Daniels, & Kissinger, 2006). A widely
approach, which may fail to address the inter-dependency of used scale was the EMBU scale developed by Perris et al.
effect sizes (Assink & Wibbelink, 2016). For instance, as the (1980), which included the following dimensions: abusive,
measurements of parenting style include several dimensions, depriving, punitive, shaming, rejecting, overprotective,
several effect sizes regarding the correlations between overinvolved, tolerant, affectionate, performance-oriented,
parenting style dimensions and PIU could be computed in guilt-engendering, stimulating, favoring siblings, and favor-
one study (Li et al., 2018). In this case, the effect sizes ing subjects.
stemming from the same study are not independent There is still no consensus on the terminology of PIU or
(Cheung, 2014), and the association between parenting style its definition. Various terms have been performed to
dimensions and PIU may be exaggerated (Assink & Wib- describe PIU, including Internet addiction, Internet depen-
belink, 2016). Additionally, several other limitations need to dence, compulsive Internet use, and pathological Internet
be addressed. First, these meta-analyses have been con- use, as reflected in a series of empirical studies and sys-
ducted in a single or similar cultural context, resulting in a tematic reviews (Ciarrochi et al., 2016; Davis, 2001; Lavoie,
lack of cross-cultural comparisons (Li, 2019; Li et al., 2018; Dufour, Berbiche, Therriault, & Lane, 2023; Lukavská et al.,
Wei et al., 2017). Second, most meta-analyses included 2022; Shapira, Goldsmith, Keck, Khosla, & McElroy, 2000;
clinical samples with diagnosed internet addiction. Their Spada, 2014). In general, these terms are considered to be
findings may not be generalizable to general adolescents (Li, synonymous. PIU, as a non-substance-related or behavioral
2019; Li et al., 2018; Lukavská et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2017). addiction, is mainly defined as a maladaptive pattern of
Third, previous meta-analyses only comprised studies that Internet use (Laconi, Rodgers, & Chabrol, 2014). It is
used a specific measurement of parenting styles. For characterized by excessive and uncontrollable internet use,
example, Wei et al. (2017) and Li et al. (2018) only included which may lead to adverse life consequences, specifically
studies using the Egna Minnen Beträffande Uppfostran psychological, physical, emotional, and social dysfunctions
(EMBU; Perris, Jacobsson, Linndström, Knorring, & Perris, (Boniel-Nissim & Sasson, 2018; Young, 1998). According to
1980), inevitably causing the loss of research data using the ACE model (Accessibility, Control, and Escape) devel-
other parenting style scales. Fourth, previous research oped by Young, Pistner, O Mara, and Buchanan (1999), the
explored a limited set of moderator variables (e.g., gender, Internet can help individuals escape negative emotions or
age, and measurements) and did not consider publication circumstances, ultimately increasing the possibility of
year and culture (Pan, Chiu, & Lin, 2020; Tamis-Lemond addictive behaviors. Although PIU is not yet a recognized
et al., 2010; Wong, Konishi, & Kong, 2020). In sum, a three- disorder, it is an often-used term to refer to problematic use
level meta-analysis is more apt to elaborate on the and symptoms consistent with problem gambling and
relationship between parenting styles and adolescent PIU. gaming (Shapira et al., 2000). It should be noted that the
potential of the PIU to bring about considerable psycho-
Conceptualization and measurement of parenting logical harm has been highlighted. Numerous studies have
shown that PIU is associated with intensive negative out-
styles and PIU comes, such as the impairment of functional connections
Parenting style refers to the ways that parents display to related to emotional cognitive control and social brain net-
achieve their parenting goals, which reflects parents’ atti- works (Arató et al., 2023), self-injurious behavior, loneliness,
tudes toward child rearing (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). hyperactivity, depressive symptoms, anxiety problems, social
Traditionally, positive and negative parenting styles are phobia sleep disturbances, reduced scholastic achievement,
distinguished (Lei, Ran, Zhang, Mi, & Chen, 2020; Van low self-esteem, poor family function, and less life satisfac-
Leeuwen & Vermulst, 2004). Positive parenting styles are tion (Arrivillaga, Rey, & Extremera, 2020; Blinka, Stašek,
defined as warm and close parent-child relationships, such "Sablatúrová, "Sev"cíková, & Husarova, 2023; Ciarrochi et al.,
as authoritative parenting, favoring siblings, favoring sub- 2016; Derbyshire et al., 2013; El Asam, Samara, & Terry,
jects, and positive involvement (Galambos, Barker, & 2019; Ko et al., 2008; Lavoie et al., 2023; Stead & Bibby,
Almeida, 2003). On the contrary, negative parenting styles 2017). Davis (2001) has defined two distinct types of PIU
are characterized by sternness or spoiling children, such as based on a theoretical cognitive and behavioral model,
authoritarian parenting, punitive, over-protection, and including generalized PIU and specific PIU. More specif-
rejection (Baumrind, 1971; Perris et al., 1980). Pan, Gauvain, ically, generalized PIU highlights a wide range of Internet-
and Schwartz (2013) have suggested that both positive and based activities, while specific PIU encompasses every
negative parenting styles are valid predictors of adolescent specific online behavior (e.g., gaming disorder, problematic
social adjustment. In the literature, parenting styles are smartphone use, and problematic social networking sites)
654 Journal of Behavioral Addictions 12 (2023) 3, 652–669

(Laconi, Tricard, & Chabrol, 2015; Lukavská et al., 2022). (Sun & Wilkinson, 2020; Yaffe & Seroussi, 2019; Ye et al.,
Some scholars have suggested that generalized PIU and 2013; Zhang et al., 2015). However, inconsistent results
specific PIU be considered separately due to the subtle po- suggest that this association is not robust. For example, Li, Li
tential differences between these online activities (Fineberg et al. (2007) found that PIU was positively correlated with
et al., 2018; Laconi et al., 2015). In sum, generalized PIU is the parental emotional warmth, while other researchers reported
focus of this study. Three scales have been widely used to opposite results (Li et al., 2012; Zhang, Bai, Jiang, Yang, &
measure PIU: the 8-item Internet Addiction Diagnostic Zhou, 2019). Similarly, inconsistent findings have been
Questionnaire (s-IAT) developed by Young (1998), the reported regarding the associations between behavioral/
20-item Internet Addiction Test (IAT) adapted from the s-IAT psychological control, dimensions of parenting style, and
according to the criterion of gambling addiction (Young, PIU. For instance, some researchers have shown that
1998), and the 26-item Chinese Internet Addiction Scale parental behavioral control is negatively correlated with
(CIAS) developed by Chen, Weng, Su, Wu, and Yang (2003). adolescent PIU, while parental psychological control is
positively correlated (Lai, Wang, Wang, Zhang, & Yang,
The association between parenting styles and 2014; Shek, Zhu, & Ma, 2018; Song et al., 2014). However,
the positive relationship between behavioral control and PIU
adolescent PIU among adolescents was not obtained in the study of Li, Li,
Three theoretical models from different perspectives and Newman (2013). Given that the inconsistent results and
consistently described the close relationship between the limitations of previous meta-analyses, a three-level meta-
parenting styles and adolescent PIU. The cognitive-behav- analysis was conducted to examine the correlation between
ioral model suggests that an adverse family environment is parenting styles (positive and negative) and PIU among
crucial for the development of PIU (Davis, 2001). More general adolescents.
precisely, children who have experienced negative environ-
ments (e.g., parental rejection) were more likely to have Impact of moderator variables
maladaptive cognitions and troubled interpersonal re-
lationships (Li, Ran, & Zhang, 2019). Due to self-cognitive Gender. Gender may affect an individual’s susceptibility to
biases, these children may not be able to engage in quality media effects (Valkenburg & Peter, 2013). Specifically, boys
relationships and therefore tend to seek compensation via are more vulnerable to PIU than girls because they exhibit
PIU (Gao et al., 2019). Moreover, according to the self- lower levels of inhibitory control (Beyens, Valkenburg, &
determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), the satisfaction Piotrowski, 2018; Su, Han, Jin, Yan, & Potenza, 2019).
of innate psychological needs promotes children’s healthy Parents may adopt different parenting styles for boys and
growth processes. Children opt for other approaches to girls. For instance, boys receive less family supervision
fulfill them when their basic needs are not satisfied. In (Lukavská et al., 2020; Yu & Shek, 2013). Li and Zhou (2009)
particular, the basic psychological needs of children can be have found that parents exert more control over boys, which
satisfied quite well with positive parenting styles, so they do may increase the risk of PIU. Regarding girls’ PIU, parental
not need to engage in compensatory behaviors such as neglect, and material rewards have aggravating effects.
excessive use of the internet (Li, Zhou, Zhao, Wang, & Sun, Therefore, gender may be a potential moderator on the link
2016; Ye, Wen, Yang, & Ren, 2013). Instead, children with between parenting styles and PIU among adolescents.
negative parenting styles do not have their needs for
competence, autonomy, and connectedness adequately met, Age. Ample evidence indicates that age may be another
which may lead them to search for substitute products via potential moderator. Personality theory proposes that older
the Internet, perhaps ultimately resulting in PIU (Li et al., adolescents are better able to manage their behavior and
2016; Yi, Yang, & Ye, 2016). Equally important, the develop more self-discipline and conscientiousness than
attachment theory notes that parenting style is a significant younger (Vecchione, Alessandri, Barbaranelli, & Caprara,
source for adolescents’ attachment (Bowlby, 1988). Adoles- 2012), which can reduce PIU (Tóth-Király, Morin, Hietajrvi,
cents are more likely to form an insecure parent-child & Salmela-Aro, 2021). Moreover, older adolescents are likely
attachment with negative parenting styles (Deng, Fang, Wu, to experience more democratic parenting styles. Group so-
Zhang, & Liu, 2013), which leads to poorer self-regulation cialization theory suggests that young people are less likely
(Padykula & Conklin, 2010), and finally become more to develop PIU because they usually live with their parents
vulnerable to PIU (Deng et al., 2013). in early childhood and are more supervised (Harris, 1995).
However, empirical studies on the relationship between Hence, age may moderate the association between parenting
parenting style and adolescent PIU are inconsistent (Li, Li, & style and PIU.
Newman, 2013; Liu & Li, 2017; Yaffe & Seroussi, 2019).
Adolescents reporting positive parenting styles (e.g., Culture. Due to the apparent discrepancy between Eastern
warmth, caring, and non-rejection of parents, authoritative and Western cultures (Chen & Farruggia, 2002; Hsu, 1981),
child-rearing practices) are less likely to develop problematic it is essential to identify the strength of the association be-
psychosocial behaviors (Yaffe & Seroussi, 2019; Zhang, Li, & tween the two variables in different cultural contexts (Chen
Li, 2015), while negative parenting styles (e.g., strict parental & Farruggia, 2002). Western culture is typically character-
attitude, punitive, laissez-faire) are antecedent factors of PIU ized by individualism and advocates individual autonomy
Journal of Behavioral Addictions 12 (2023) 3, 652–669 655

and independence, while Eastern culture is represented by The current study

collectivism and attaches more importance to social
connection and group harmony (Cheng, Rizkallah, & Nar- The present three meta-analyses were first intended to
izhnaya, 2020; Yang, 2009). This may lead to a different clarify the mixed findings mentioned in the literature above
understanding of similar parenting styles (Chao, 2001; by examining the relationship between parenting style and
Leung, Lau, & Lam, 1998). Further, the impact of parenting PIU. Specifically, separate meta-analyses were conducted for
styles on adolescent PIU may differ in different cultural each of the two patterns of parenting styles (positive and
contexts (Chen, Fu, & Yau, 2019; Sun, 2012; Tamis-Lemond negative) to obtain a more practical result. Whether or not
et al., 2010; Wong et al., 2020). Therefore, culture may have there is a significant association between parenting styles
a moderating effect on the link between parenting style and and adolescent PIU may depend on moderating factors.
adolescent PIU. Thus, the second goal was to investigate the contribution of
moderating variables such as gender, age, culture, publica-
Publication year. Assink and Wibbelink (2016) emphasized tion year, measures of parenting style and PIU, and sub-
that the correlation between two variables may fluctuate types of positive and negative parenting to the relationship
along with social development. According to the China between these two variables.
Internet Network Information Center (CINNIC) (2021),
internet accessibility among adolescents has increased with
social development, from 54.5% in 2009 to 94.9% in 2020. METHOD
Furthermore, meta-analyses by Pan et al. (2020) and Shao
et al. (2018) have revealed that the prevalence rate of PIU The present three-level meta-analysis was conducted by the
increased with time, which implies a stronger correlation guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
between parenting style and PIU in recent years. Therefore, Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) (Moher, Liberati,
publication year may moderate the association between Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009; Yap & Jorm, 2015). Regrettably,
parenting style and PIU. the protocol of this meta-analysis has not been preregistered
at the International Prospective Register for Systematic Re-
Measurements. Although most measurements of PIU were views (PROSPERO).
compiled according to addictive behavior criteria, there were
still differences in their dimensions, content, number of
Data sources and study selection
items, and scoring methods. Except for widely used scales,
most scales’ psychometric attributes have not been evaluated Based on the PRISMA statement (Moher et al., 2009; Yap &
more than three times (Laconi et al., 2014). Similarly, the Jorm, 2015), quantitative research literature published from
different effects of measurements of parenting style should January 2000 to September 2020 through multiple online
also be taken into account. From a different research databases was searched. The database involves CNKI (China
perspective, the measurements of parenting style may vary. National Knowledge Infrastructure), China Wanfang Data
For example, the PSDQ focuses on fixed behavioral patterns Knowledge Service Platform, VIP Database for Chinese
(Robinson et al., 1995), while EMBU focuses on the specific Technical Periodicals, ScienceDirect, Springer Link, Web of
behaviors of parents in the process of raising children (Perris Science, PsycArticles, and PsycINFO. The keywords
et al., 1980). Therefore, measurements may moderate the included: “parenting styles”, “parenting rearing styles”,
association between parenting style and adolescent PIU. “parenting”, “internet addiction”, “problematic internet use”,
“excessive internet use”, “compulsive internet use”, “impulsive
Sub-types of positive and negative parenting. Different internet use”, and “pathological internet use”. (Web of Sci-
parenting styles have different influences on the youth’s risks ence example: (TS5 (“parenting styles” OR “rearing styles”
and problems (e.g., PIU) (Cheung, Yue, & Wong, 2015; OR “parenting”)) AND (TS5 (“internet addiction” OR
Huang et al., 2010), especially negative parenting. This is “problematic internet use” OR “excessive internet use”
because the concept of different negative parenting styles is OR “compulsive internet use” OR “impulsive internet
highly heterogeneous. For example, permissive parenting use” OR “pathological internet use”)). We also checked the
reflects insufficient control, while authoritarian parenting references listed in the included studies and added missing
indicates excessive control. Many empirical studies have papers using Google Scholar.
revealed the differences in parenting patterns on PIU (e.g., Studies were eligible for inclusion if they: (a) examined
Cheung et al., 2015; Dong et al., 2010; Yu et al., 2015; Zhang parenting style; (b) investigated problematic Internet use
et al., 2019). More specifically, Cheung et al. (2015) have (only including studies on the Internet in general); (c) re-
found that permissive parenting exists stronger predictive ported the correlation coefficient r as effect size indicator, or
power for PIU than authoritarian parenting. Dong et al., t, F, χ 2, β (These indices can be converted to r. Card, 2012;
(2010) have suggested that punitive parenting has a greater Peterson & Brown, 2005). (d) published in Chinese and
impact on adolescent PIU than over-protection and rejec- English; (e) involved a nonclinical sample with a mean age
tion. Consequently, sub-types of positive and negative between 12 and 19 years old; (f) published in peer-reviewed
parenting may be a potential moderator on the association journals; and (g) were cross-sectional or longitudinal studies.
between parenting style and adolescent PIU. Moreover, studies were excluded if they: (a) were review or
656 Journal of Behavioral Addictions 12 (2023) 3, 652–669

meta-analysis articles; (b) examined specific PIU (e.g., regression to test whether there was publication bias (Bor-
problematic smartphone use, gaming disorder); (c) weren’t enstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). Finally, the
peer-reviewed, such as dissertations and conference pro- trim-and-fill algorithm by Duval and Tweedie (2000) was
ceedings. As shown in Fig. 1, a total of 35 relevant studies used to check the bias problem when the publication bias
remained for analysis. was present.
Additionally, R (Version 3.3.2) with the metafor package
Coding of studies was used to perform the three-level meta-analysis (Viecht-
bauer, 2010), applying the random effects model (Borenstein
The coding scheme was listed as follows: (a) First author
et al., 2009). Codes for the meta-analysis in this study were
name and publication year; (b) Sample size; (c) Gender (the
based on suggestions of Assink and Wibbelink (2016).
percentage of males); (d) Age (junior high school students,
Two independent three-level meta-analysis models were
senior high school students, or mixed group); (e) Culture
formed for positive and negative parenting styles respec-
(Eastern culture for East and Southeast Asian countries;
tively (Lei et al., 2020). Then we carried out one-tailed
Western culture for others); (f) Publication year; (g) Mea-
log-likelihood ratio tests to examine whether the variance
surements of parenting styles (EMBU, PBI, Others); (h)
between effect sizes (level 2) and the variance between
Measurements of PIU (IAT, S-IAT, CIAS, others); (i)
studies (level 3) was significant. Finally, moderating effect
Number of effect sizes (positive and negative parenting
tests were conducted to identify the source of heterogeneity
styles). (j) The main findings of each study. The coding was
(Gao, Assink, Cipriani, & Lin, 2017).
done independently by the first and second authors. The
interrater reliability was K 5 0.94, which can be consid-
Ethics
ered good.
This manuscript does not contain any studies with human
Data analysis participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
This study was performed in line with the Helsinki
The current meta-analysis used correlation coefficient r as Declaration.
the indicator of effect size. Regarding studies that did not
report the correlation coefficient r between parenting styles
and PIU, but reported the t, F, χ 2, β values, we used formulas RESULTS
to convert these values into r values (Card, 2012; Peterson &
Brown, 2005). All the correlation coefficients were trans-
formed into Fisher’s z-values to conduct analysis, and then
Study characteristics
converted back into r-values. The meta-analysis of parenting styles and PIU included 35
Since papers with significant results were more likely to studies (16 Chinese studies, 19 English studies; N 5 40,587),
be accepted and published, the effect size in meta-analysis reporting together 171 effect sizes. The number of effect
might be overestimated and thus lead to publication bias sizes of association between positive parenting styles and
(Franco, Malhotra, & Simonovits, 2014). Therefore, the PIU was 51 (29.82%; 34,232 participants) and that of
Comprehensive Meta-analysis 3.3 (CMA 3.3) was used to negative parenting styles and PIU was 120 (70.18%; 35,764
conduct a Funnel plot, Rosenthal’s fail-safe N, and Egger’s participants). The number of effect sizes in one study ranged

Fig. 1. Flow chart of the search procedure

Journal of Behavioral Addictions 12 (2023) 3, 652–669 657

from 1 to 16. The sample sizes ranged from 94 to 4,705. In positive parenting styles. In addition, the within-study
the positive parenting styles model, the details of moderator variance (Level 2) and between-study variance (Level 3) were
variables were listed as follows. Gender: 49 effect sizes; significant, meaning that a moderating analysis was neces-
Adolescents’ age: junior high school students (13 effect sizes), sary to determine whether the strength of the association
senior high school students (8 effect sizes), mixed group between parenting style and adolescent PIU was influenced
(30 effect sizes); Culture: Eastern culture (44 effect sizes), by potential moderators.
Western culture (7 effect sizes); Publication year: 51effect
sizes; Measurements of parenting styles: EMBU (15 effect Moderating effects for the relation between parenting
sizes), PBI (5 effect sizes), Others (31 effect sizes); Mea- styles and adolescent PIU
surements of PIU: s-IAT (13 effect sizes), IAT (14 effect
sizes), CIAS (13 effect sizes), Others (11 effect sizes); Sub- The moderating results of the five moderators between positive
types of positive parenting: warmth (16 effect sizes), parenting styles and adolescents PIU are shown in Table 3. The
authoritative (4 effect sizes), others (31 effect sizes). In the present study obtained a significant moderating effect of age
negative parenting styles model, the details of moderator (F 5 4.905, p < 0.05), publication year (F 5 4.249, p < 0.05),
variables were listed as follows. Gender: 111 effect sizes; measurement of PIU (F 5 7.823, p < 0.001), and gender
Adolescents’ age: junior high school students (40 effect sizes), (F 5 4.615, p < 0.05), but failed to detect the moderating effect
senior high school students (20 effect sizes), mixed group of culture (F 5 1.104, p 5 0.299), measurement of parenting
(60 effect sizes); Culture: Eastern culture (110 effect sizes), styles (F 5 2.412, p 5 0.100), and sub-types of positive
Western culture (10 effect sizes); Publication year: 120 effect parenting (F 5 2.258, p 5 0.116). More specifically, for age, the
sizes; Measurements of parenting styles: EMBU (73 effect correlation in the junior group (r 5 "0.195) was significantly
sizes), PBI (5 effect sizes), Others (42 effect sizes); Mea- higher than that in the senior group (r 5 "0.058) and mixed
surements of PIU: s-IAT (27 effect sizes), IAT (29 effect group (r 5 "0.138). For publication year, a stronger correla-
sizes), CIAS (20 effect sizes), Others (44 effect sizes); Sub- tion between positive parenting and adolescent PIU was found
types of negative parenting: punitive (18 effect sizes), in studies published in recent years (r 5 "0.136). For mea-
authoritarian (7 effect sizes), rejection (20 effect sizes), over- surements of PIU, studies using s-IAT (r 5 "0.221) showed
protection (21 effect sizes), permissive (18 effect sizes), others the highest correlation results, followed by other scales
(36 effect sizes). More details are shown in Table 1. (r 5 "0.111), CIAS (r 5 "0.098), and IAT (r 5 "0.094). For
gender, samples including more males resulted in a higher
Publication bias correlation between positive parenting styles and PIU
(r 5 "0.138).
Funnel plot, Rosenthal’s fail-safe N, and Egger’s tests were The moderating results of the five moderators between
used to test the publication bias of the current study. As negative parenting styles and adolescents PIU are demon-
shown in Figs 2 and 3, the two funnel plots were highly strated in Table 4. The present study showed a significant
symmetrical. The effect sizes of the correlation coefficients moderating effect of culture (F 5 17.662, p < 0.001), pub-
between parenting styles (positive and negative) and PIU lication year (F 5 5.293, p < 0.05), and sub-types of negative
were equally distributed around the mean, suggesting no parenting (F 5 14.910, p < 0.001), but failed to detect the
evidence of publication bias. Quantitatively, Rosenthal’s fail- moderating effect of age (F 5 1.038, p 5 0.357), measure-
safe N of the positive parenting styles and PIU is 2,126 and ment of parenting styles (F 5 0.352, p 5 0.704), measure-
that of the negative parenting styles and PIU is 9,404, both ment of PIU (F 5 1.117, p 5 0.345), and gender (F 5 0.025,
of which were much greater than the critical value of 5k þ10 p 5 0.874). The correlation between negative parenting
(k 5 number of effect size), indicating that the results of our styles and PIU in Western culture (r 5 0.335) was stronger
study were stable and less likely to be overturned (Rosenthal, than that in Eastern (r 5 0.177). For publication year,
1979). Egger’s tests indicated that the publication bias in studies published in recent years resulted in a higher cor-
positive parenting styles and PIU should be ignored since relation between negative parenting styles and adolescent
the p-value of this test exceeded 0.05 (CI 5 ("1.900, 1.814), PIU (r 5 0.189). For sub-types of negative parenting,
t 5 0.046, p 5 0.963). The publication bias in negative adolescent PIU was more strongly associated with parents’
parenting styles and PIU can also be ignored (CI 5 ("0.695, use of the punitive style (r 5 0.252) than with their use of
1.926), t 5 0.046, p 5 0.354). the permissive style (r 5 0.139).
Overall relation between parenting styles and
adolescent PIU DISCUSSION
The overall relation between parenting styles and adolescent
PIU was analyzed using a random-effects model. As Empirical studies have repeatedly shown that there is an
demonstrated in Table 2, the mean r between positive important association between parenting styles and
parenting styles and adolescent PIU was "0.142 (p < 0.001), adolescent PIU (Li, Li, & Newman, 2013; Yaffe & Seroussi,
and that between negative parenting styles and adolescent 2019). However, the evidence in favor of this view is
PIU was 0.202 (p < 0.001). The association between negative mixed. The three-level meta-analysis involving 171 effect
parenting styles and PIU was stronger than that with sizes from 35 studies to reveal the link between parenting
658 Journal of Behavioral Addictions 12 (2023) 3, 652–669

Table 1. Characteristics of included studies in the meta-analysis

Measurements k
Parenting Findings (the correlation coefficient r of
Study ID N Gender Age Culture styles PIU positive negative parenting styles and PIU)

Cetinkaya 356 0.42 S W Others IAT 2 2 Father’s psychological control (0.31)/

(2019) behavioral control ("0.09)
Mother’s psychological control (0.412)/
behavioral control ("0.075)
Cheung et al. 929 0.47 Both E Others IAT 1 2 Permissive (0.054)/authoritarian
(2015) (0.156)/flexible ("0.056)
Cheung et al. 842 0.49 Both E Others IAT 1 2 Permissive (0.079)/authoritarian
(2015) (0.256)/flexible ("0.154)
Ding et al. 747 0.51 J E Others s-IAT 1 0 Perceived parental monitoring ("0.23)
(2017)
Dogan et al. 419 0.43 Both W Others IAT 1 2 Democratic ("0.08)/protective-
(2015) demanding (0.45)/authoritarian (0.436)
Dong et al. 733 0.52 S E EMBU IAT 0 7 Mother’s over-protection (0.14)/
(2010) rejection (0.087)/punitive (0.097)
Father’s over-protection (0.094)/
rejection (0.099)/punitive (0.104)/over-
involved (0.131)
Hsieh et al. 231 0.86 Both E PBI CIAS 1 1 Parental care ("0.2)/parental
(2020) indifference (0.16)
Huang et al. 1,263 0.57 S E EMBU IAT 1 0 Mother’s warmth (0.109)
(2006)
Lai et al. (2014) 688 0.50 Both E Others IAT 1 1 Parent’s psychological control (0.18)/
behavioral control ("0.09)
Lang, Jia, Li, Su, 94 0.72 J E EMBU s-IAT 2 9 Father’s warmth ("0.402)/punitive
and Zhao (0.316)/over-involved (0.175)/
(2008) permissive (0.057)/rejection (0.298)/
over-protection (0.06)
Mother’s warmth ("0.25)/over-
protection (0.263)/rejection (0.32)/
punitive (0.291)/permissive (0.302)
Leung and Lee 718 0.44 Both E Others IAT 2 0 Strictness ("0.15)/involved (-0.07)
(2012)
Li, Wang, Li, 612 0.50 Both E EMBU CIAS 2 9 Father’s warmth ("0.081)/punitive
and Wang (0.172)/over-involved (0.112)/
(2007) permissive (0.058)/rejection (0.204)/
over-protection (0.149)
Mother’s warmth ("0.052)/over-
protection (0.208)/rejection (0.218)/
punitive (0.216)/permissive (0.109)
Li and Zhou 966 0.54 Both E Others CIAS 8 8 Father’s involved ("0.062)/monitoring
(2009) ("0.111)/rules ("0.05)/material
rewarding ("0.004)/discipline (0.086)/
harsh punitive (0.159)/ignoring (0.086)/
inconsistent discipline (0.003)
Mother’s involved ("0.059)/monitoring
("0.148)/rules ("0.06)/material
rewarding (0.026)/discipline (0.074)/
harsh punitive (0.139)/ignoring (0.105)/
inconsistent discipline (0.0003)
Li et al. (2012) 2,383 0.53 J E EMBU Others 2 9 Father’s warmth ("0.145)/punitive
(0.21)/over-involved (0.166)/permissive
(0.019)/rejection (0.223)/over-
protection (0.154)
Mother’s warmth ("0.096)/over-
protection (0.178)/rejection (0.146)/
punitive (0.222)/permissive (0.03)
(continued)
Journal of Behavioral Addictions 12 (2023) 3, 652–669 659

Table 1. Continued
Measurements k
Parenting Findings (the correlation coefficient r of
Study ID N Gender Age Culture styles PIU positive negative parenting styles and PIU)

Li et al. (2013) 694 – J E Others s-IAT 0 5 Solicitation (0.03)/restriction ("0.06)/

Guilt induction (0.12)/love withdrawal
(0.2)/authority assertion (0.09)
Li et al. (2013) 660 0.45 Both E Others IAT 0 1 Mother’s psychological control (0.25)
Li et al. (2019) 3,084 0.48 Both E EMBU Others 0 6 Father’s rejection (0.345)/punitive
(0.342)/over-involved (0.253)
Mother’s rejection (0.35)/punitive
(0.335)/over-involved (0.21)
Lin et al. (2009) 1,289 0.52 Both E Others s-IAT 1 0 Parent’s monitoring ("0.18)
Lin and Gau 2,731 0.52 S E PBI Others 2 2 Mother’s care ("0.179)/over-protection
(2013) (0.145)
Father’s care ("0.133)/over-protection
(0.102)
Liu and Li 2,758 0.46 J E Others s-IAT 1 2 Authoritative ("0.21)/authoritarian
(2017) (0.29)/permissive (0.27)
Sebre et al. 305 0.40 Both W Others Others 1 2 Positive parenting ("0.06)/harsh
(2020) parenting (0.12)/inconsistent parenting
(0.25)
Shek et al. 3,328 0.52 J E Others s-IAT 2 2 Father’s psychological control (0.1)/
(2018) behavioral control ("0.24)
Mother’s psychological control (0.15)/
behavioral control ("0.16)
Shen et al. 1,233 0.49 Both E Others CIAS 2 2 Father’s psychological control (0.176)/
(2012) behavioral control ("0.146)
Mother’s psychological control (0.191)/
behavioral control ("0.119)
Siomos et al. 1,128 0.50 Both W PBI s-IAT 2 2 Mother’s care ("0.356)/over-protection
(2012) (0.318)
Father’s care ("0.269)/over-protection
(0.29)
Song et al. 703 0.50 Both E Others s-IAT 1 1 Parent’s psychological control (0.28)/
(2014) behavioral control ("0.09)
Wang and Qi 828 0.58 Both E Others Others 0 1 Harsh parenting (0.17)
(2017)
Oh (2003) 450 0.53 Both E Others IAT 1 0 Parent’s support ("0.212)
Xi and Zhang 455 0.46 J E EMBU IAT 2 7 Father’s warmth ("0.068)/punitive
(2005) (0.208)/over-involved (0.094)/rejection
(0.232)/over-protection (0.149)
Mother’s warmth ("0.058)/over-
protection (0.166)/rejection (0.178)/
punitive (0.168)
Yaffe and 180 1.00 Both W Others IAT 1 2 Authoritative ("0.37)/authoritarian
Seroussi (0.58)/permissive (0.11)
(2019)
Ye et al. (2013) 1,312 0.50 J E Others s-IAT 1 2 Authoritative ("0.2)/authoritarian
(0.29)/permissive (0.24)
Yu et al. (2012) 186 – Both E EMBU Others 2 9 Father’s warmth ("0.092)/punitive
(0.229)/over-involved (0.203)/
permissive (0.323)/rejection (0.243)/
over-protection (0.239)
Mother’s warmth ("0.077)/over-
protection (0.25)/rejection (0.32)/
punitive (0.299)/permissive (0.222)
Yu et al. (2013) 525 0.70 S E Others IAT 1 3 Warmth ("0.078)/hostility (0.078)/
indifference (0.171)/rejection (0.103)
(continued)
660 Journal of Behavioral Addictions 12 (2023) 3, 652–669

Table 1. Continued
Measurements k
Parenting Findings (the correlation coefficient r of
Study ID N Gender Age Culture styles PIU positive negative parenting styles and PIU)

Yu (2015) 253 0.53 Both E EMBU Others 2 9 Father’s warmth ("0.142)/punitive

(0.081)/over-involved (0.186)/
permissive (0.082)/rejection (0.131)/
over-protection (0.115)
Mother’s warmth ("0.173)/over-
protection (0.184)/rejection (0.262)/
punitive (0.15)/permissive (0.051)
Zhang et al. 4,705 0.52 S E EMBU Others 2 6 Father’s rejection (0.155)/warmth
(2009) ("0.071)/over-protection (0.095)/
permissive (0.031)
Mother’s rejection (0.159)/warmth
("0.051)/over-protection (0.123)/
permissive (0.059)
Zhang et al. 660 0.45 J E Others s-IAT 1 2 Authoritative ("0.19)/authoritarian
(2015) (0.25)/permissive (0.29)
Zhang et al. 1783 0.53 J E EMBU s-IAT 1 2 Parent’s rejection (0.26)/warmth
(2019) ("0.27)/over-protection (0.17)
Note. N 5 number of participants; k 5 number of effect sizes; Gender 5 Ratio of males; PIU 5 problematic Internet use; For age: J 5 junior
high school students, S 5 senior high school students, Both 5 junior and senior high school students; For Culture: E 5 Eastern culture,
W 5 Western culture; For measurements of parenting styles: EMBU 5 Egna Minnen Beträffande Uppfostran (my memories of upbringing),
PBI 5 Parenting Bonding Scale, Others included GPBS 5 Ghent Parental Behavior Scale, PSDQ 5 The Parenting Styles and Dimensions
Questionnaire, WPC 5 Parenting Control Scale, HDS 5 Harsh Discipline Scale, APQ 5 Alabama Parenting Questionnaire, PAS 5 Parental
Attitude Scale, PPM 5 Perceived Parental Monitoring, PAQ 5 Parental Authority Questionnaire, PCSQS 5 The Parent-Child Subsystem
Quality Scale, PM 5 Patterson self-made scale, and PARQ 5 Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire; For measurements of PIU:
s-IAT 5 Internet Addiction Test-Short Version, IAT 5 Internet Addiction Test, CIAS 5 Chinese Internet addiction scale, Others included
APIUS 5 Adolescent Pathological Internet Use Scale, PIUS 5 Problematic Internet Use Scale, CIUS 5 Compulsive Internet Use Scale, and
YBOCS-IU 5 Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale for Internet use.

Fig. 2. Funnel plot of effect sizes of correlations between positive parenting style and PIU

styles and adolescent PIU. The current study found that was moderated by publication year, culture, and sub-types
positive parenting styles were significantly negatively of negative parenting. In addition, the correlation coeffi-
correlated with PIU, which was moderated by gender, age, cient between negative parenting styles and PIU was
publication year, and measurements of PIU. The negative greater than that between positive parenting styles
parenting style was positively correlated with PIU, which and PIU.
Journal of Behavioral Addictions 12 (2023) 3, 652–669 661

Fig. 3. Funnel plot of effect sizes of correlations between negative parenting style and PIU

Table 2. Random effect model analysis of parenting style and adolescent PIU
Level 2 variance Level 3 variance
Parenting style k Fisher’s Z (SE) 95% CI t r Level 1 (%) Level 2 (%) Level 3 (%)
ppp ppp ppp
Positive 51 "0.143 (0.017) "0.177; "0.109 "8.451 "0.142 10.012 0.001 0.007
14.797 75.191
ppp ppp ppp
Negative 120 0.205 (0.017) 0.171; 0.239 11.930 0.202 7.708 0.003 0.007
27.480 64.812
Note. k 5 number of effect sizes; Fisher’s z 5 Mean effect size; SE 5 standard error; 95% CI 5 95% confidence interval; Level 1 5 sampling
variance of observed effect sizes; Levels 2 variance 5 variance between effect sizes extracted from the same study; Levels 3 variance 5
variance between studies.
ppp
p < 0.001.

Overall association between parenting styles and the parenting style affects adolescents’ perception of Internet
adolescent PIU use to some extent. In other words, parents should inform
adolescents about the risks of sharing personal information,
Consistent with previous studies (Li, 2019; Li et al., 2018; connecting with virtual friends, participating in dangerous
Lukavská et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2017), this meta-analysis competitions, or facing age-inappropriate content before
confirmed a significant relationship between parenting style they get exposed to the web (Spina et al., 2021). This may be
and PIU. More specifically, we found a moderate negative even more evident in positive parenting. One possible reason
relationship between positive parenting styles and PIU as is that parents who are good at using positive parenting
well as a moderate positive relationship between negative styles are more likely to gain the trust of their children,
parenting styles and PIU. This implies that, as an environ- which in part helps regularly monitor their children’s
mental factor, parenting styles can be associated with PIU Internet use to prevent excessive use. Additionally, an active
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). This finding echoes the self- mediation strategy promotes adolescents’ critical thinking,
determination theory, which proposes that positive
including discussing their online activities and explaining
parenting styles help adolescents establish positive, warm,
the advantages and disadvantages of online activities,
and close relationships. Such may satisfy children’s basic
thereby improving adolescents’ risk awareness of Internet
psychological needs and further reduce their risk of PIU
use (Dedkova & M!ylek, 2022). In contrast, parents with
(Deci & Ryan, 2000; Zhang et al., 2019). However, children
controlling and authoritarian parenting behaviors ignore
raised in an adverse family atmosphere (e.g., excessive
adolescents’ ability to actively perceive risk. At the same
control, punitive, and emotional indifference) may be more
time, such parents are less likely to use encouraging ways
vulnerable to PIU (Gao et al., 2019; Yaffe & Seroussi, 2019;
and active mediation strategies to raise their children’s
Zhang, Wang, Luo, Zeng, & Cui, 2020).
awareness of Internet risks. Over time, adolescents are more
One of the most important aspects to emphasize is that
likely to seek compensation via excessive use of the Internet.
adolescents’ risk perception of Internet use may be a key to
Moreover, the correlation coefficient between negative
preventing them from developing PIU (Smith, Gradisar,
parenting styles and PIU was stronger than that between
King, & Short, 2017; Spina et al., 2021). More importantly,
662 Journal of Behavioral Addictions 12 (2023) 3, 652–669

Table 3. Results of categorical and continuous moderators for the association between positive parenting styles and PIU
level 2 level 3
Moderators k Fisher’s Z (95% CI) β (95% CI) Mean r F p variance variance
ppp p ppp ppp
a Ratio of males 49 "0.139 ("0.173; "0.105) "0.334 ("0.647; "0.021) "0.138 4.615 <0.05 0.001 0.006
b Age
ppp ppp
S 8 "0.058 ("0.129; 0.013) 0.081 ("0.001; 0.163) "0.058 4.905 <0.05 0.001 0.005
ppp pp
J 13 "0.197 ("0.251; "0.142) "0.139 ("0.228; "0.049) "0.195
ppp
Mixed 30 "0.139 ("0.180; "0.098) "0.081 ("0.163; 0.001) "0.138
c Culture
ppp ppp ppp
E 44 "0.135 ("0.171; "0.100) 0.049 ("0.045; 0.144) "0.134 1.104 0.299 0.001 0.006
ppp
W 7 - 0.185 ("0.272; "0.097) "0.049 ("0.144; 0.045) "0.183
ppp p ppp ppp
d Publication year 51 "0.137 ("0.169; "0.106) "0.008 ("0.015; "0.000) "0.136 4.249 <0.05 0.001 0.005
e Measurements of parenting styles
ppp ppp ppp
EMBU 15 "0.108 ("0.165; "0.051) 0.036 ("0.033; 0.106) "0.108 2.412 0.100 0.001 0.005
ppp p
PBI 5 "0.231 ("0.329; "0.133) "0.123 ("0.237; "0.010) "0.227
ppp
Others 31 "0.144 ("0.184; "0.104) "0.036 ("0.106; 0.033) "0.143
f Measurements of PIU
ppp pp ppp ppp
s-IAT 13 "0.225 ("0.268; "0.182) "0.114 ("0.182; "0.046) "0.221 7.823 <0.001 0.002 0.002
ppp ppp
IAT 14 "0.094 ("0.137; "0.051) 0.131 (0.070; 0.192) "0.094
pp
CIAS 13 "0.098 ("0.160; 0.036) 0.127 (0.052; 0.202) "0.098
ppp pp
Others 11 "0.111 ("0.163; "0.058) 0.114 (0.046; 0.182) "0.111
g Sub-types of positive parenting
ppp ppp ppp
Warmth 16 "0.130 ("0.189; "0.071) "0.129 2.258 0.116 0.001 0.006
ppp
Authoritative 4 "0.235 ("0.328; "0.142) "0.105 ("0.216; 0.005) "0.231
ppp
Others 31 "0.130 ("0.172; "0.088) "0.000 ("0.073; 0.072) "0.129
Note. 95% CI 5 95% confidence interval; β 5 estimated regression coefficient; r 5 mean effect size expressed as a Pearson’s correlation;
Levels 2 variance 5 variance between effect sizes extracted from the same study; Levels 3 variance 5 variance between studies; PIU 5
problematic Internet use; For age: S 5 senior high school students, J 5 junior high school students, Mixed 5 junior and senior high school
students; For Culture: E 5 Eastern culture, W 5 Western culture; For measurements of parenting styles: EMBU 5 Egna Minnen
Beträffande Uppfostran (my memories of upbringing), PBI 5 Parenting Bonding Scale; For measurements of PIU: s-IAT 5 Internet
Addiction Test-Short Version, IAT 5 Internet Addiction Test, CIAS 5 Chinese Internet addiction scale.
p
p < 0.05, pp p < 0.01, ppp p < 0.001.

positive parenting styles and PIU, which is in line with the specifically, the associations among junior high school stu-
findings of Yu, Chen, and Chen (2012) and Dogan et al. dents were stronger than those between senior students and
(2015). This finding suggests that negative parenting style the mixed group. In other words, younger adolescents
was a more salient risk factor compared to the protective benefit more from positive parenting than older adolescents.
effect of positive parenting styles, exerting greater detri- One possible reason is that younger are more vulnerable to
mental impacts on PIU. Negative parenting styles may lead PIU because their control systems are not fully developed
adolescents to seek self-fulfillment and social interaction (Zhai, Feng, Zhang, Liu, & Wang, 2018). Thus, to protect
through the Internet, increasing the possibility of PIU (Li them from PIU, parents are more willing to use warm and
et al., 2016; Yi et al., 2016). There are two reasons. On the democratic ways to communicate with their children.
one hand, researchers have suggested that PIU development Furthermore, studies have revealed that positive parenting
follows a “positive acceleration model”, showing that the style exerts a particularly significant influence on PIU
possibility of PIU is greater than each risk factor (e.g., in- among 15–16 years old teenagers (Wang, He, Liu, Shou, &
ternet’s risk characteristics, negative parenting styles) pre- Zeng, 2006). On the other hand, both group socialization
sent alone when risk factors are concurrent (Li et al., 2016). theory and the big five personality model suggest that
On the other hand, although positive parenting can reduce younger adolescents spend more time with their parents,
PIU to some extent, it is not enough to eliminate the and parents provide more supervision and support to their
negative effects of negative parenting, making negative children (Harris, 1995; Vecchione et al., 2012). This avoids
parenting a greater risk factor for PIU (Li et al., 2016). inducing PIU to some extent. However, age had no signifi-
cant moderating effect on the relationship between negative
Explaining heterogeneity with moderators parenting and adolescent PIU.

Culture. Another notable finding is that culture was a sig-

Age. Age significantly moderates the relationship between nificant moderator of the association between negative
positive parenting style and adolescent PIU. More parenting styles and adolescent PIU. Specifically, the
Journal of Behavioral Addictions 12 (2023) 3, 652–669 663

Table 4. Results of categorical and continuous moderators for the association between negative parenting styles and PIU
level 2 level 3
Moderator k Fisher’s Z (95% CI) β (95% CI) Mean r F p variance variance
ppp ppp ppp
a Ratio of males 111 0.201 (0.165; 0.238) 0.024 ("0.280; 0.329) 0.198 0.025 0.874 0.003 0.007
b Age
ppp ppp ppp
S 20 0.158 (0.079; 0.236) "0.065 ("0.156; 0.026) 0.157 1.038 0.357 0.003 0.007
ppp
J 40 0.199 (0.140; 0.257) 0.041 ("0.057; 0.139) 0.196
ppp
Mixed 60 0.223 (0.178; 0.268) 0.065 ("0.026; 0.156) 0.219
c Culture
ppp ppp ppp ppp
E 110 0.179 (0.149; 0.208) "0.169 ("0.249;-0.090) 0.177 17.662 <0.001 0.003 0.004
ppp ppp
W 10 0.348 (0.274; 0.422) 0.169 (0.090; 0.249) 0.335
ppp p ppp ppp
d Publication year 120 0.191 (0.158; 0.224) 0.009 (0.001; 0.017) 0.189 5.293 <0.05 0.003 0.006
e Measurements of parenting styles
ppp ppp ppp
EMBU 73 0.186 (0.131; 0.242) "0.030 ("0.102; 0.041) 0.184 0.352 0.704 0.003 0.007
ppp
PBI 5 0.204 (0.089; 0.320) 0.018 ("0.110; 0.146) 0.201
ppp
Others 42 0.217 (0.171; 0.262) 0.030 ("0.041; 0.102) 0.214
f Measurements of PIU
ppp ppp ppp
s-IAT 27 0.229 (0.168; 0.289) 0.069 ("0.013; 0.151) 0.225 1.117 0.345 0.003 0.006
ppp
IAT 29 0.225 (0.166; 0.284) "0.004 ("0.088; 0.081) 0.221
ppp
CIAS 20 0.144 (0.054; 0.234) "0.085 ("0.194; 0.023) 0.143
ppp
Others 44 0.184 (0.122; 0.245) "0.045 ("0.131; 0.041) 0.182
g Sub-types of negative parenting
ppp ppp ppp
Punitive 18 0.258 (0.215; 0.301) 0.252 14.910 <0.001 0.001 0.008
ppp
Authoritarian 7 0.245 (0.187; 0.302) "0.013 ("0.072; 0.045) 0.240
ppp
Rejection 20 0.259 (0.218; 0.301) 0.001 ("0.032; 0.034) 0.253
ppp p
Over-protection 21 0.221 (0.179; 0.263) "0.037 ("0.072; "0.002) 0.217
ppp ppp
Permissive 18 0.140 (0.098; 0.183) "0.118 ("0.156; "0.079) 0.139
ppp ppp
Others 36 0.188 (0.149; 0.227) "0.070 ("0.103; "0.036) 0.186
Note. 95% CI 5 95% confidence interval; β 5 estimated regression coefficient; r 5 mean effect size expressed as a Pearson’s correlation;
Levels 2 variance 5 variance between effect sizes extracted from the same study; Levels 3 variance 5 variance between studies; PIU 5
problematic Internet use; For age: S 5 senior high school students, J 5 junior high school students, Mixed 5 junior and senior high school
students; For Culture: E 5 Eastern culture, W 5 Western culture; For measurements of parenting styles: EMBU 5 Egna Minnen
Beträffande Uppfostran (my memories of upbringing), PBI 5 Parenting Bonding Scale; For measurements of PIU: s-IAT 5 Internet
Addiction Test-Short Version, IAT 5 Internet Addiction Test, CIAS 5 Chinese Internet addiction scale.
p
p < 0.05, ppp p < 0.001.

correlation was stronger in Western cultures. Chao (2001) years. Meanwhile, as the rate of adolescents’ PIU increases,
suggested that parents from Eastern cultures prefer author- so does the association between parenting style and
itarian parenting (a typical negative parenting style), but adolescent PIU (Pan et al., 2020; Shao et al., 2018). These
their children tend to regard “discipline” as a positive results may also indicate that researchers have begun to pay
behavior. However, authoritarian parenting is considered more attention to the impact of parenting styles on adoles-
detrimental to adolescent development in Western culture cent PIU in recent years, which has promoted research in
(Tamis-Lemond et al., 2010). This cultural difference in the this field.
understanding of authoritarian parenting may be attributed
to the stronger correlation between negative parenting styles Measurement. As for the measurements, the meta-analysis
and PIU in Western cultures. However, it should be noted revealed that the association between positive parenting
that culture did not moderate the association between pos- styles and adolescent PIU was moderated by the measure-
itive parenting styles and adolescent PIU. This may indicate ment of PIU but not by the measurement of parenting style.
that positive parenting styles can be beneficial to the More specifically, studies using s-IAT showed the strongest
development of autonomy in both Eastern and Western correlation, followed by those using CIAS and IAT. This is
cultures (Yaffe & Seroussi, 2019). consistent with a previous meta-analysis showing that the
correlation between two variables varies according to the
Publication year. The present study confirmed that the link number of measurement dimensions (Cheng, Wang, Siger-
between parenting style and adolescent PIU was moderated son, & Chau, 2019), as s-IAT is a single-dimension tool
by publication year. In other words, PIU was more strongly while the other tools are multi-dimensional. Regarding the
associated with parenting styles in studies published in measurement of parenting style, the meta-analysis divided
recent years. Owing to the rapid development of science and the subgroups by scale use frequency. The subgroups of the
technology, the Internet has become more available in recent study, EMBU, and PBI were all focused on parents’ specific
664 Journal of Behavioral Addictions 12 (2023) 3, 652–669

parenting behaviors while the relationship between the two cultural background, publication year, and measurement.
variables may be more affected by different research per- Other background characteristics that have strong relations
spectives of the scales. Nevertheless, contrary to our hy- with parenting styles and PIU (e.g., parents’ education level
pothesis, the association between negative parenting styles and socioeconomic status) were not included in our study as
and PIU did not differ in strength through measurements of they were rarely reported in the literature (Zhang, 2016). To
both parenting styles and PIU. This observation may be better understand the relationship between parenting styles
because adolescents’ negative developmental outcomes are and PIU, future research could provide more specific
more closely related to negative parenting styles, and this background information. Another limitation of this study is
relationship is less susceptible to other factors (Li, Ran, that the current study investigated the association between
et al., 2019). parenting styles and general PIU behaviors. However,
considering the heterogeneity of internet use, PIU has
Gender. Additionally, the present study found that gender different specific PIU behaviors (e.g., online game addiction,
moderated the association between positive parenting styles social networking addiction, etc.). Future research could
and PIU. More specifically, the association between these two potentially specific relations and mechanisms. Finally, an
variables was larger in males than in females. This result additional limitation was that the study failed to reveal
implied that positive parenting styles might be more benefi- causal links between relevant variables since the included
cial for males. This is consistent with previous empirical studies were all cross-sectional designs. Future empirical
research results (Cheung et al., 2015). Given that some studies studies should consider the longitudinal design and examine
have suggested that male adolescents are consistently found to the trend of the relationship between parenting styles and
be more prone to PIU than female adolescents (Siomos et al., PIU over time.
2012; Yaffe & Seroussi, 2019), because males tend to engage in
more addictive and problematic internet activities (e.g.,
playing online games, internet gambling) (Musetti, Terrone, CONCLUSION
& Schimmenti, 2018). Cheung et al. (2015) have suggested a
combination of flexible and authoritarian parenting styles to Despite the limitations, the study used the three-level meta-
reduce the risk of addiction in males. Nevertheless, gender analysis to add to the evidence for the relationship between
was found to be a non-significant moderator of the associa- parenting style and PIU. Specifically, positive parenting style
tion between negative parenting styles and PIU. This may be was significantly negatively correlated with adolescent PIU,
because negative parenting, a destructive parenting pattern, while negative parenting style was significantly positively
affects PIU equally in males and females. correlated with adolescent PIU. Further, the correlation
coefficient between negative parenting styles and PIU was
Sub-types of positive and negative parenting. The results higher than that between positive parenting styles. The
suggested that the association between negative parenting styles moderator analysis revealed that age, gender, culture, pub-
and adolescent PIU was moderated by sub-types of negative lication year, and measurements of PIU could play a
parenting. Specifically, adolescent PIU was more strongly moderator role, but measurements of parenting style did
associated with parents’ use of the punitive style than with their not. Overall, understanding the relationship between
use of the permissive style. Punitive parents may use high parenting style and PIU could have implications for the
regulation, perhaps even corporal punishment, while permis- prevention of PIU. That is, positive parenting style is the
sive parents tend to provide low regulation with a “laissez-faire” protective factor of adolescent PIU, while negative parenting
attitude (Zhang et al., 2015). It’s obvious that children suffer style is the risk factor of adolescent PIU, especially punitive
severe harm both physically and psychologically faced with parenting. Parents should use more positive parenting and
punitive parenting, which makes adolescents more prone to less negative parenting to prevent adolescent PIU.
negative emotions (Huang et al., 2010). Further, the compen-
satory internet use model has pointed out that negative life
situations (i.e., punitive parenting) are more likely to give rise Funding sources: This study was supported by Late-Stage
to a motivation to go online to alleviate negative feelings and Funding of Philosophy and Social Science Research Project
pressure, trigging PIU in the long run (Kardefelt-Winther, by the Ministry of Education (grant number 20JHQ090).
2014). On the other hand, some studies have indicated that
greater punitiveness was associated with enhanced risk for PIU, Authors’ contribution: Study concept and design: XN, JL and
because it leads to adolescent alienation from parents and JW. Analysis and interpretation of data: NX and JL. Critical
family (Huang et al., 2010; Li, Garland, & Howard, 2014). We revision of the manuscript: DK, DR, HW and JW. All au-
found no moderating effect of positive parenting sub-types. thors had full access to all the data in the study and take
responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy
of the data analysis.
LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Conflict of interest: There are no conflicts of interest to
Several limitations and implications need to be considered. declare. Daniel King is an associate editor of the Journal of
We only examined the moderating effects of gender, age, Behavioral Addictions.
Journal of Behavioral Addictions 12 (2023) 3, 652–669 665

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank all of the par- Card, N. A. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research.
ticipants who dedicated their time to completing this study. Guilford Press.
p
Cetinkaya, L. (2019). The relationship between perceived parental
control and internet addiction: A cross-sectional study among
SUPPLEMENTARY DATA adolescents. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10(1),
55–74. https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.512531.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of
https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2023.00043. parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Ameri-
cans. Child Development, 72(6), 1832–1843. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1467-8624.00381.
REFERENCES Chen, C. S., & Farruggia, S. (2002). Culture and adolescent devel-
opment. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 6(1).
https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1113.
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
Chen, X., Fu, R., & Yau, W. (2019). Culture and parenting. In M.
meta-analysis.
Bornstein (Ed.). Handbook of parenting (pp. 448–473). Routledge.
Alimoradi, Z., Lin, C., Brostrom, A., Bülow, P. H., Bajalan, Z., Chen, Y., & Gau, S. S. (2016). Sleep problems and internet addic-
Griffiths, M. D., … Pakpour, A. H. (2019). Internet addiction tion among children and adolescents: A longitudinal study.
and sleep problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sleep Research, 25(4), 458–465. https://doi.org/10.
Sleep Medicine Reviews, 47, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 1111/jsr.12388.
smrv.2019.06.004. Chen, S., Weng, L., Su, Y., Wu, H., & Yang, P. (2003). Development
Arató, Á., Nagy, S. A., Perlaki, G., Orsi, G., Szente, A. T., of a Chinese Internet addiction scale and its psychometric
Kis-Jakab, G., … Darnai, G. (2023). Emotional face expression study. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 279–294.
recognition in problematic internet use and excessive smart- Cheng, A. W., Rizkallah, S., & Narizhnaya, M. (2020). Individu-
phone use: Task-based fMRI study. Scientific Reports, 13(1), alism vs. Collectivism. Wiley & Sons.
354. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-27172-0. Cheng, C., Wang, H. Y., Sigerson, L., & Chau, C. L. (2019). Do the
Arrivillaga, C., Rey, L., & Extremera, N. (2020). Adolescents’ socially rich get richer? A nuanced perspective on social
problematic internet and smartphone use is related to suicide network site use and online social capital accrual. Psychological
ideation: Does emotional intelligence make a difference? Bulletin, 145(7), 734–764. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000198.
Computers in Human Behavior, 110, 106375. https://doi.org/10. Cheung, M. W. L. (2014). Modeling dependent effect sizes with
1016/j.chb.2020.106375. three-level meta-analyses: A structural equation modeling
Assink, M., & Wibbelink, C. J. (2016). Fitting three-level meta- approach. Psychological Methods, 19(2), 211. https://doi.org/10.
analytic models in R: A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative 1037/a0032968.
p
Methods for Psychology, 12(3), 154–174. https://doi.org/10. Cheung, C., Yue, X. D., & Wong, D. S. (2015). Addictive Internet
20982/tqmp.12.3.p154. use and parenting patterns among secondary school students in
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Guangzhou and Hong Kong. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4, 1–103. https://doi. 24(8), 2301–2309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-0033-2.
org/10.1037/h0030372. China Internet Network Information Center. (2021, July 20). 2020
Beyens, I., Valkenburg, P. M., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2018). Screen national research report on internet usage of minors.
media use and ADHD-related behaviors: Four decades of Ciarrochi, J., Parker, P., Sahdra, B., Marshall, S., Jackson, C.,
research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Gloster, A. T., & Heaven, P. (2016). The development of
115(40), 9875–9881. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611611114. compulsive internet use and mental health: A four-year study of
Blinka, L., Stašek, A., "Sablatúrová, N., "Sev"cíková, A., & adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 52(2), 272. https://doi.
Husarova, D. (2023). Adolescents’ problematic internet and org/10.1037/dev0000070.
smartphone use in (cyber) bullying experiences: A network Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An
analysis. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 28(1), 60–66. integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487–496.
https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487.
Boniel-Nissim, M., & Sasson, H. (2018). Bullying victimization and Davis, R. A. (2001). A cognitive-behavioral model of pathological
poor relationships with parents as risk factors of problematic Internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(2), 187–195.
internet use in adolescence. Computers in Human Behavior, 88, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(00)00041-8.
176–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.041. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "What" and "Why" of goal
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins J., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior.
Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley & Sons. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and S15327965PLI1104_01.
healthy human development. Basic Books. Dedkova, L., & M!ylek, V. (2022). Parental mediation of online
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture recon- interactions and its relation to adolescents’ contacts with new
ceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological people online: The role of risk perception. Information
model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586. https://doi.org/ Communication & Society, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568. 1369118X.2022.2146985.
666 Journal of Behavioral Addictions 12 (2023) 3, 652–669

Deng, Y. L., Fang, X. Y., Wu, M. M., Zhang, J. T., & Liu Q. X. managing adolescent Internet use among parents of adolescents
(2013). Family environment, parent-child attachment and with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. International
adolescent Internet addiction. Psychology Development and Journal of Environment Research and Public Health, 17(16),
Education, 29(3), 305–311. https://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki. 5768. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165768.
issn1001-4918.2013.03.008. Hsu, F. L. K. (1981). Americans and Chinese: Passage to differences
Derbyshire, K. L., Lust, K. A., Schreiber, L. R., Odlaug, B. L., (3rd ed.). University of Hawaii Press.
Christenson, G. A., Golden, D. J., & Grant, J. E. (2013). Prob- Hu, Y., Mei, S. & Gao, T. (2020). Effects of Internet addiction on
lematic Internet use and associated risks in a college sample. depression symptoms among adolescents in Jilin Province.
Comprehensive Psychiatry, 54(5), 415–422. https://doi.org/10. Chinese Journal of School Health, 41(11), 1617–1620. https://
1016/j.comppsych.2012.11.003. doi.org/10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2020.11.005.
p p
Ding, Q., Li, D., Zhou, Y., Dong, H., & Luo, J. (2017). Perceived Huang, E., Lv, W., Chen, J., Yu, Q., Xu, X., Wang, M., … Deng, L.
parental monitoring and adolescent internet addiction: A (2006). Incidence of internet addiction disorders and its related
moderated mediation model. Addictive Behaviors, 74, 48–54. factors in senior middle school students. Chinese Journal of
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.05.033. Behavioral Medical Science, 15(8), 734–736.
p
Dogan, H., Bozgeyikli, H., & Bozdas, C. (2015). Perceived Huang, X., Zhang, H., Li, M., Wang, J., Zhang, Y., & Tao, R. (2010).
parenting styles as predictor of Internet addiction in adoles- Mental health, personality, and parental rearing styles of ado-
cence. International Journal of Research in Education and Sci- lescents with internet addiction disorder. Cyberpsychology,
ence, 1(2), 167–174. https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.87952. Behavior and Social Networking, 13, 401–406. https://doi.org/
p
Dong, X., Zheng, Y., Wang, F., Wang, X., Lu, Y., Tang, Z., & 10.1089/cyber.2009.0222.
Jiang, Q. (2010). Internet addiction disorder and its related Kardefelt-Winther, D. (2014). A conceptual and methodological
factors among high school students. Chinese Journal of Public critique of internet addiction research: Towards a model of
Health, 26(12), 1577–1579. compensatory internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31,
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel‐ 351–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.059.
plotbased method of testing and adjusting for publication bias Ko, C., Liu, T., Wang, P., Chen, C., Yen, C., & Ye, J. (2014). The
in meta‐analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. https://doi.org/10. exacerbation of depression, hostility, and social anxiety in the
1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x. course of internet addiction among adolescents: A prospective
El Asam, A., Samara, M., & Terry, P. (2019). Problematic internet study. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 55(6), 1377–1384. https://doi.
use and mental health among British children and adolescents. org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.05.003.
Addictive Behaviors, 90, 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Ko, C. H., Yen, J. Y., Yen, C. F., Chen, C. S., Weng, C. C., &
addbeh.2018.09.007. Chen, C. C. (2008). The association between internet addiction
Fineberg, N. A., Demetrovics, Z., Stein, D. J., Ioannidis, K., and problematic alcohol use in adolescents: The problem
Potenza, M. N., Grünblatt, E., … Chamberlain, S. R. (2018). behavior model. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(5), 571–576.
Manifesto for a European research network into problematic https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0199.
usage of the internet. European Neuropsychopharmacology, Laconi, S., Rodgers, R. F., & Chabrol, H. (2014). The measurement
28(11), 1232–1246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2018. of internet addiction: A critical review of existing scales and
08.004. their psychometric properties. Computers in Human Behavior,
Franco, A., Malhotra, N., & Simonovits, G. (2014). Publication bias 41, 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.026.
in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science, Laconi, S., Tricard, N., & Chabrol, H. (2015). Differences between
345(6203), 1502– 1505. 10. https://doi.org/1126/science. specific and generalized problematic Internet uses according to
1255484. gender, age, time spent online and psychopathological symp-
Galambos, N. L., Barker, E. T., & Almeida, D. M. (2003). Parents do toms. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 236–244. https://doi.
matter: Trajectories of change in externalizing and internalizing org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.006.
p
problems in early adolescence. Child Development, 74(2), Lai, X. Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, W., & Yang, Q. (2014).
578–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.7402017. Parental control and adolescents problematic Internet use: The
Gao, S., Assink, M., Cipriani, A., & Lin, K. (2017). Associations mediating role of emotion regulation. Chinese Journal of Clin-
between rejection sensitivity and mental health outcomes: ical Psychology, 22(3), 437–441. https://doi.org/10.16128/j.cnki.
A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 57, 59–74. 1005-3611.2014.03.059.
p
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.08.007. Lang, Y., Jia, F., Li, H., Su, L., & Zhao, S. (2008). Investigation
Gao, T., Hu, Y., Qin, Z., Cao, R., Liu, S., Mei, S., & Meng, X. (2019). and analysis of related factors of junior middle school students
The role of school connectedness and maladaptive cognitions in with Internet Addiction Disorder. Chinese Journal of Clinical
the association between stress and internet addiction: A serial Psychology, 16(4), 417–419.
mediation model. Psychiatric Care, 55(4), 1–6. https://doi.org/ Lavoie, C., Dufour, M., Berbiche, D., Therriault, D., & Lane, J.
10.1111/ppc.12417. (2023). The relationship between problematic internet use and
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group anxiety disorder symptoms in youth: Specificity of the type of
socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, application and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 140,
102(3), 458–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.458. 107604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107604.
p
Hsieh, Y. P., Wu, C. F., Chou, W. J., & Yen, C. F. (2020). Lee, S. M., Daniels, M. H., & Kissinger, D. B. (2006). Parental in-
Multidimensional correlates of parental self-efficacy in fluences on adolescent adjustment: Parenting styles versus
Journal of Behavioral Addictions 12 (2023) 3, 652–669 667

parenting practices. The Family Journal, 14(3), 253–259. https:// Science, 36(2), 411–416. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-
doi.org/10.1177/1066480706287654. 6981.2013.02.005.
p
Lei, L., Ran, G., Zhang, Q., Mi, Q., & Chen, X. (2020). The asso- Li, C., & Zhou, J. (2009). Parenting styles and adolescents internet
ciations between parenting styles and anxiety in preschool-age addiction. Contemporary Youth Research, (4), 49–54.
children: A three-level meta-analysis. Psychology Development Li, D., Zhou, Y., Zhao, L., Wang, Y., & Sun, W. (2016). Cumulative
and Education, 36(3), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki. ecological risk and adolescents internet addiction: The mediating
issn1001-4918.2020.03.10. role of basic psychological need satisfaction and positive outcome
Leung, K., Lau, S., & Lam, W. (1998). Parenting styles and aca- expectancy. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48(12), 1519–1537.
p
demic achievement: A cross-cultural study. Merrill-Palmer Lin, Y., & Gau, S. S. (2013). Association between morningness-
Quarterly, 44, 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(97) eveningness and the severity of compulsive Internet use: The
00016-9. moderating role of gender and parenting style. Sleep Medicine,
p
Leung, L., & Lee, P. S. N. (2012). The influences of information 14(12), 1398–1404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2013.06.015.
p
literacy, Internet addiction and parenting styles on Internet Lin, C., Lin, S., & W, C. (2009). The effects of parental monitoring
risks. New Media and Society, 14(1), 117–136. https://doi.org/ and leisure boredom on adolescents’ Internet addiction.
10.1177/1461444811410406. Adolescence, 44(176), 993–1004.
p
Li, Y. (2019). The meta-analysis and intervention study of the Liu, D., & Li, D. (2017). Parenting styles and adolescent Internet
relation between parenting styles and internet addiction in addiction: An examination of the mediating and moderating
China (Master Thesis). BOHAI University. roles of ego-resiliency. Journal of Psychological Science, 40(6),
Li, W., Garland, E. L., & Howard, M. O. (2014). Family factors in 1385–1391. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20170617.
internet addiction among Chinese youth: A review of English- Lukavská, K., Hrabec, H., Lukavsky, J., Demetrovics, Z., & Király, O.
and Chinese-language studies. Computers in Human Behavior, (2022). The associations of adolescent problematic internet use
31, 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.004. with parenting: A meta-analysis. Addicive Behavior, 107423.
Li, S., Lei, H., & Tian, L. (2018). A meta-analysis of the relationship https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2022.107423.
between parenting style and Internet addiction among main- Lukavská, K., Vacek, J., & Gabhelík, R. (2020). The effects of parental
land Chinese teenagers. Social Behavior and Personality: An control and warmth on problematic internet use in adolescents:
International Journal, 46(9), 1475–1487. https://doi.org/10. A prospective cohort study. Journal of Behavioral Addictions,
2224/sbp.7631. 9(3), 664–675. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00068.
Li, H., Li, Z., Li, S., & Wang, C. (2007). Relationship between Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009).
parental rearing patterns and Internet Addiction Disorder Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-an-
among senior high school students. Chinese Journal of School alyses: The PRISMA statement. Plos Medicine, 6, 1–6. https://
Health, 28(4), 340–341. doi.org/10.14306/renhyd.18.3.114.
p
Li, X., Li, D., & Newman, J. (2013). Parental behavioral and Musetti, A., Terrone, G., & Schimmenti, A. (2018). An exploratory
psychological control and problematic Internet use among study on problematic Internet use predictors: Which role for
Chinese adolescents: The mediating role of self-control. attachment and dissociation? Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 15(1),
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(6), 35–41.
p
442–447. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0293. Oh, W. O. (2003). Factors influencing Internet addiction ten-
p
Li, Y., Liu, B., Li, R., Wang, H., Hu, D., & Wang, W. (2012). dency among middle school students in Gyeong-buk area.
Investigation and analysis of related factors of one junior Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 33(8), 1135–1144.
middle school students with internet addiction disorder in Padykula, N. L., Conklin, P. (2010). The self regulation model of
Jinan. Chinese Journal of School Health, 33(2), 199–201. https:// attachment trauma and addiction. Clinical Social Work Journal,
doi.org/10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2012.02.029. 38, 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-009-0204-6.
Li, S., Ran, G., Zhang, Q., & Hu, T. (2019). A meta-analysis of the Pan, Y., Chiu, Y., & Lin, Y. (2020). Systematic review and meta-
relationship between self-efficacy and mental health with Chi- analysis of epidemiology of internet addiction. Neuroscience
nese samples. Psychological Development and Education, 35(6), and Biobehavioral Reviews, 118, 612–622. https://doi.org/10.
759–768. https://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2019. 1016/j.neubiorev.2020.08.013.
06.13. Pan, Y., Gauvain, M., & Schwartz, S. J. (2013). Do parents’
p
Li, H., Wang, B., Li, Y., & Wang, C. (2007). Relationship between collectivistic tendency and attitudes toward filial piety facilitate
middle school students’ Internet addiction and parental rearing autonomous motivation among young Chinese adolescents?
patterns. Journal of Clinical Rahabilitative Tissue Engineering Motivation and Emotion, 37(4), 701–711. https://doi.org/10.
Research, 11(52), 10611–10613. 1007/s11031-012-9337-y.
p
Li, Y., Wang, Y., Ren, Z., Gao, M., Liu, Q., Qiu, C., & Zhang, W. Perris, C., Jacobsson, L., Linndström, H., Knorring, L., & Perris, H.
(2019). The influence of environmental pressure on Internet (1980). Development of a new inventory for assessing mem-
Use Disorder in adolescents: The potential mediating role of ories of parental rearing behaviour. Acta Psychiatrica Scandi-
cognitive function. Addictive Behaviors, 101, 105976. https:// navica, 61(4), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.
doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.04.034. 1980.tb00581.x.
p
Li, D., Zhang, W., Wang, Y., & Li, D. (2013). Maternal psycho- Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the use of beta co-
logical control and adolescents’ problematic Internet use: The efficients in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1),
mediating role of maladaptive cognition. Journal of Psychological 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.175.
668 Journal of Behavioral Addictions 12 (2023) 3, 652–669

Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (1995). Spada, M. M. (2014). An overview of problematic Internet use.
Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting prac- Addictive Behaviors, 39(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tices: Development of a new measure. Psychological Reports, addbeh.2013.09.007.
77(3), 819–830. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.819. Spina, G., Bozzola, E., Ferrara, P., Zamperini, N., Marino, F.,
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for Caruso, C., … Villani, A. (2021). Children and Adolescent’s
null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641. https://doi. perception of media device Use consequences. International
org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638. Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(6),
p
Sebre, S. B., Miltuze, A., & Limonovs, M. (2020). Integrating 3048. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063048.
adolescent problematic Internet use risk factors: Hyperactivity, Stead, H., & Bibby, P. A. (2017). Personality, fear of missing out
inconsistent parenting, and maladaptive cognitions. Journal of and problematic internet use and their relationship to subjec-
Child and Family Studies, 29(7), 2000–2009. https://doi.org/10. tive well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 534–540.
1007/s10826-020-01726-0. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.016.
Seki, T., Hamazaki, K., Natori, T., & Inadera, H. (2019). Rela- Su, W., Han, X., Jin, C., Yan, Y., & Potenza, M. N. (2019). Are
tionship between Internet addiction and depression among males more likely to be addicted to the internet than females?
Japanese university students. Journal of Affective Disorders, 256, A meta-analysis involving 34 global jurisdictions. Computers
668–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.06.055. in Human Behavior, 99, 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
Shao, Y. J., Zheng, T., Wang, Y. Q., Liu, L., Chen, Y., & Yao, Y. S. 2019.04.021.
(2018). Internet addiction detection rate among college stu- Sun, K. (2012). Exploring the meaning of "tiger mother" from the
dents in the People’s Republic of China: A meta-analysis. Child perspectives of children in the different cultures. Global Edu-
and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 12, 1–10. https:// cation, 41(10), 50–56.
doi.org/10.1186/s13034-018-0231-6. Sun, Y., & Wilkinson, J. S. (2020). Parenting style, personality traits,
Shapira, N. A., Goldsmith, T. D., Keck Jr, P. E., Khosla, U. M., & and interpersonal relationships: A model of prediction of
McElroy, S. L. (2000). Psychiatric features of individuals internet addiction. International Journal of Communication, 14,
with problematic internet use. Journal of Affective Disorders, 2163–2185. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/11226/
57(1–3), 267–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0327(99) 3052.
00107-X. Tamis-Lemond, C., Way, N., Hughes, D., Yoshikawa, H.,
p
Shek, D. T. L., Zhu, X., & Ma, C. M. S. (2018). The influence of Kalman, R., & Niwa, E. (2010). Parents’ goals for children: The
parental control and parent-child relational qualities on dynamic coexistence of individualism and collectivism in cul-
adolescent internet addiction: A 3-year longitudinal study in tures and individuals. Social Development, 17(1), 183–209.
Hong Kong. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00419.x.
fpsyg.2018.00642. Tóth-Király, I., Morin, A., Hietajrvi, L., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2021).
p
Shen, Z., Fang, C., Zhang, J., & Fang, X. (2012). Relationships Longitudinal trajectories, social and individual antecedents,
among paternal and maternal control and Internet addiction and outcomes of problematic Internet use among late ado-
of adolescents. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20(5), lescents. Child Development, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/
652–655. https://doi.org/10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2012. cdev.13525.
05.013. Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). The differential susceptibility
Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a to media effects model. Journal of Communication, 63(2),
systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12024.
reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Van Leeuwen, K. G., & Vermulst, A. A. (2004). Some psychometric
Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 747–770. https://doi.org/ properties of the Ghent parental behavior scale. European
10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803. Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20(4), 283–298. https://doi.
p
Siomos, K., Floros, G., Fisoun, V., Evaggelia, D., Farkonas, N., org/10.1027/1015-5759.20.4.283.
Sergentani, E., … Geroukalis, D. (2012). Evolution of Internet Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G.
addiction in Greek adolescent students over a two-year period: (2012). Gender differences in the big five personality develop-
The impact of parental bonding. European Child & Adolescent ment: A longitudinal investigation from late adolescence to
Psychiatry, 21(4), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-012- emerging adulthood. Personality and Individual Differences,
0254-0. 53(6), 740–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.033.
Smith, L. J., Gradisar, M., King, D. L., & Short, M. (2017). Intrinsic Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the
and extrinsic predictors of video-gaming behaviour and metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48.
adolescent bedtimes: The relationship between flow states, self- https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03.
perceived risk-taking, device accessibility, parental regulation of Wan, H., Yu, J., Yan, N., & Huang, J. (2020). Relationships
media and bedtime. Sleep Medicine, 30, 64–70. https://doi.org/ between learning burnout and Internet addiction among
10.1016/j.sleep.2016.01.009. undergraduates during the novel coronavirus pneumonia:
p
Song, J., Li, D., Gu, C., Zhao, L., Bao, Z., & Wang, Y. (2014). Mediating effect of career adaptability. China Journal of
Parental control and adolescents’ problematic Internet use: The Health Psychology, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.
mediating effect of deviant peer affiliation. Psychological 2021.05.012.
Development and Education, 30(3), 303–311. https://doi.org/10. Wang, L., He, J., Liu, W., Shou, X., & Zeng, L. (2006).
16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2014.03.009. A comparative study on parenting styles of Internet addiction
Journal of Behavioral Addictions 12 (2023) 3, 652–669 669

prone adolescents and non-Internet addiction adolescents. The Young, K., Pistner, M., O Mara, J., & Buchanan, J. (1999). Cyber
inaugural meeting of the Psychosomatic Medicine Branch of disorders: The mental health concern for the new millennium.
the Zhejiang Medical Association and the 2006 Zhejiang Pro- Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 2(5), 475–479. https://doi.org/
vincial Psychosomatic Medicine Academic Annual Conference 10.1089/cpb.1999.2.475.
p
Proceedings (pp.247–255). Yu, A. (2015). Family environments, parental rearing patterns
p
Wang, M., & Qi, W. (2017). Harsh parenting and problematic and internet addiction in middle school students. Chinese
Internet use in Chinese adolescents: Child emotional dysregu- Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23(6), 1058–1060. https://doi.
lation as mediator and child forgiveness as moderator. Com- org/10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2015.06.024.
p
puters in Human Behavior, 77, 211–219. https://doi.org/10. Yu, X., Chen, Y., & Chen., S. (2012). Investigation and research on
1016/j.chb.2017.09.005. family factors of Internet addiction in middle school students.
Wei, M., Sun, J., Shan, H., Liu, H., Cui, L., Wang, C., & Li, Y. Education Research Monthly, (5), 43–44. https://doi.org/10.
(2017). Relationship between parenting style and internet 16477/j.cnki.issn1674-2311.2012.05.014.
p
addiction in Chinese adolescents : A meta-analysis. Modern Yu, J. J., Kim, H., & Hay, I. (2013). Understanding adolescent-
Preventive Medicine, 44(19), 3559–3563. s’problematic Internet use from a social/cognitive and addiction
Wong, T. K. Y., Konishi, C., & Kong, X. (2020). Parenting and research framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6),
prosocial behaviors: A meta-analysis. Social Development, 30(2), 2682–2689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.045.
343–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12481. Yu, L., & Shek, D. T. L. (2013). Internet addiction in Hong Kong
p
Xi, Z., & Zhang, X. (2005). The relationship between Internet adolescents: A three-year longitudinal study. Journal of Pedi-
addiction tendency and family parenting style among junior atric and Adolescent Gynecology, 26(3), S10–S17. https://doi.
high school students. Chinese Journal of School Health, 26(2), org/10.1016/j.jpag.2013.03.010.
153–155. Zhai, Q., Feng, L., Zhang, G., Liu, M., & Wang, J. (2018). Research
p
Yaffe, Y., & Seroussi, D. (2019). Problematic Internet use in status of internet addiction in adolescents. Chinese General
Israeli-Arab adolescent males: Do parenting styles matter? Practice, 23(13), 1687–1694.
Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyber- Zhang, X. (2016). Parenting practice and its relationships with
space, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2019-4-5. children’s psychological adjustment in different socioeconomic
Yang, F. (2009). The Western and Chinese culture values differ- status (Master thesis). Shanghai Normal University.
p
ences between individualism and collectivism. Journal of Hubei Zhang, R., Bai, B., Jiang, S., Yang, S., & Zhou, Q. (2019).
TV University, 29(9), 62–63. Parenting styles and Internet addiction in Chinese adolescents:
Yap, M. B. H., & Jorm, A. F. (2015). Parental factors associated Conscientiousness as a mediator and teacher support as a
with childhood anxiety, depression, and internalizing problems: moderator. Computers in Human Behavior, 101, 144–150.
A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Dis- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.019.
p
orders, 175, 424–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.01.050. Zhang, X., Huang, Y., Luo, X., & Liu, Z. (2009). A cross-sectional
p
Ye, B., Wen, Z., Yang, Q., & Ren, H. (2013). The effects of study of Internet addiction disorder in high school students in
temperament and parenting styles on problematic Internet use Beijing. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 23(10), 748–751.
p
in adolescence: Examining the unique and interaction effects Zhang, H., Li, D., & Li, X. (2015). Temperament and problematic
Journal of Psychology Science, 36(5), 1066–1072. https://doi.org/ internet use in adolescents: A moderated mediation model of
10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2013.05.005. maladaptive cognitionand parenting styles. Journal of Child and
Yi, J., Yang, Q., & Ye, B. (2016). The effect of stress on problematic Family Studies, 24(7), 1886–1897. https://doi.org/10.1007/
internet use in adolescents: Chain mediating roles of basic s10826-014-9990-8.
psychological needs and maladaptive cognition. Chinese Journal Zhang, Q., Wang, Y., Luo, Y., Zeng, W., & Cui, Q. (2020). Rela-
of Clinical Psychology, 24(4), 644–647. https://doi.org/10.16128/ tionship between maladaptive cognition and internet addiction
j.cnki.1005-3611.2016.04.015. in Chinese adolescents: Moderated mediation analysis of online
Young, K. S. (1998). Internet Addiction: The emergence of a new motivation and effortful control. Journal of Mental Health and
clinical disorder. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 1, 237–244. Addiction, 18(1), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-
https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.1998.1.237. 9965-x.

Open Access statement. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium for non-commercial purposes, provided
the original author and source are credited, a link to the CC License is provided, and changes – if any – are indicated.