Parental Communication and Discipline Styles as Predictors of Adolescent Aggression and Moral Attitudes: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

This research examines the impact of parental communication and education on the aggressive behavior of adolescents and their attitudes toward morality, from an interdisciplinary perspective. The study aims to investigate the relationship between parental attitudes towards aggressive behaviors, the disciplinary styles used, and the school adaptation of adolescents. The central hypothesis is that a parenting style based on open communication reduces aggressive behavior and improves moral attitudes. Methods. The method involved a cross-sectional study on a sample of 403 adolescents, using structured questionnaires to assess parental communication, attitudes towards aggression, school experience, and aggressive behaviors. The findings revealed a significant positive association between parental tolerance of aggression and adolescents’ aggressive behaviors (r = 0.280, p < 0.001). In contrast, open parental communication was positively related to school adaptation (r = 0.348, p < 0.001). Moreover, negative school attitudes were strong predictors of aggressive manifestations (r = −0.374, p < 0.001). The conclusions emphasize the importance of parental intervention programs that promote effective communication and reduce tolerance of aggressive behaviors, thereby fostering the development of prosocial behaviors and healthy moral attitudes in adolescents.

1. Introduction

The accelerated pace of societal change has heightened adolescents’ susceptibility to maladaptive behaviors, underscoring the central role of the family in shaping socialization processes. Research has consistently shown that effective parent–child communication, combined with adequate parental monitoring, contributes to a reduction in behavioral problems and supports the development of moral values [1]. At the same time, transformations in social norms and the widespread use of digital technologies have amplified the risks of maladaptive behaviors and mental health difficulties among young people. Recent findings indicate that open and constructive family communication is linked to lower levels of anxiety and depression, with family violence acting as a mediator of this relationship [2].

Parental monitoring has also been shown to be a significant protective factor against smartphone addiction in young people, in the context of a harmonious parent–child relationship [3]. However, few longitudinal studies in diverse cultural contexts simultaneously examine communication, parental monitoring, and the development of moral attitudes or adaptive school attitudes, showing an important research gap.

In contemporary society, adolescents are part of an environment shaped by multiple pressures—technological, cultural, educational, and social. Recent studies demonstrate that the quality of parent–adolescent communication is a strong predictor of mental health, social adjustment, and the prevention of aggressive or maladaptive behaviors. For instance, a systematic meta-analysis highlights a positive association between high-quality communication and adolescents’ psychological well-being [4]. Longitudinal evidence indicates that aggressive behaviors in online contexts (cyber-aggression) are linked to declines in parental norms and deteriorations in parental communication, particularly during middle school years, suggesting that parental support and the stability of family norms exert a protective effect in this domain [5]. Another recent study examining parental educational anxiety found that high-quality parent–child communication is associated with lower levels of parental anxiety, with trust in the parent–child relationship mediating this link. Furthermore, research has addressed parent–adolescent digital communication, showing that the frequency, duration, and thematic content of daily online exchanges between parents and adolescents are correlated with perceived social support and adolescents’ emotional well-being [6]. With respect to the development of moral values and ethical norms, longitudinal evidence has identified two-tailed relationships between parental behaviors (warmth, strictness) and adolescents’ moral values, indicating that changes in parental practices significantly affect adolescents’ internalization of moral norms [7].

This paper aims to investigate the influence of parental communication and education on aggressive behavior and attitudes towards morality in adolescents, approaching the subject from an interdisciplinary perspective that integrates concepts from developmental psychology, pedagogy, and behavioral sciences. The literature suggests that the communication styles and educational practices employed by parents serve as significant predictive factors in the socioemotional development of adolescents [8,9]. Open and supportive communication, reflected in constructive dialog and emotional support, enhances self-esteem and fosters a positive perception of the educational environment. Conversely, authoritarian parenting—marked by tolerance of aggressive behavior and the use of strict punishment—can create a conflictual family climate, increasing adolescents’ propensity for aggression and maladaptive attitudes [10,11]. A high tolerance for aggression may lead to harsh punishment, which, although intended to correct behavior, can escalate conflict and damage relationships [12,13]. Parents who accept aggression to a certain extent may end up reacting contradictorily: they initially tolerate the behavior, but when they perceive it as “too much”, they apply severe sanctions. This dynamic is described by the “disciplinary continuity model” [1], which shows that discipline strategies can move from acceptable to abusive forms, depending on how the parent perceives and manages aggression.

Attachment and interpersonal communication theories also emphasize that warm, open family interactions support the development of secure attachment and the internalization of moral norms and prosocial behaviors [8,14].

Several studies underscore the significant role that insecure attachment plays in the emergence of aggressive and antisocial behaviors. Some authors state that having attachment insecurities is intricately linked with difficulties in emotion regulation, particularly in the management of anger [15]. Insecurely attached teenagers, especially those with disorganized or avoidant attachment working models, are more likely to have hostile attribution biases and struggle to read social cues. This means they are more likely to engage in violent behaviors towards other people [16].

Other authors stress that these problems come from early internal working models that are shaped by insensitive or inconsistent caregiving [17]. These models make the adolescents think they cannot trust other people; when relational stressors arise—such as perceived exclusion or criticism—these youngsters may respond with disproportionate hostility or withdrawal. Another study also shows that having an insecure attachment as a child can last into the teenage years, demonstrating its predictive power for later externalizing behaviors, especially in environments lacking compensatory protective factors [18].

In addition to internal dynamics, external manifestations of insecure attachment are clear in behavioral patterns observable across developmental stages. Insecure attachment is a significant risk factor in cumulative models of antisocial behavior. It explains the development of antisocial behavior, and insecurity in the child’s attachment relationships contributes, together with other risk factors, to the likelihood of developing antisocial behaviors [19]. It often links early childhood adversities to criminal behavior that manifests later in life. Teenagers with anxious or avoidant attachment patterns structured during their early childhood frequently struggle with empathy, social perspective-taking, and prosocial decision-making—skills necessary for peer group integration and emotional regulation [20]. Not having these skills amplifies conflictual interactions with peers and adults and entrenches patterns of coercive and retaliatory behavior.

Significant research indicates that adolescents’ unresolved attachment issues intensify their search for autonomy in maladaptive ways, such as oppositional defiance or reactive aggression, as a means of asserting control in unstable relational [21]. These studies also highlight that attachment patterns established in early childhood extend their influence into school years, affecting peer relations, adaptation, and aggressive behaviors.

Studies show that a secure attachment is fundamental to a child’s development and suggest that adolescent aggression reduction programs should include relationship-focused therapies that strengthen the bond between the child and the parents. For example, [22] demonstrated that secure mother-child attachment and high self-esteem correlate with reduced aggression in adolescents; the research of [23] reported that attachment-focused parenting interventions reduce aggressive and antisocial behaviors. In addition, recent studies on co-parenting [24] show that the cooperative relationship between parents can mediate the effect on relational aggression by improving self-control and peer relationships.

Moreover, the school environment serves as a key mediator in the socialization process [25]. Positive school experiences, characterized by healthy relationships and active engagement, reinforce moral norms and reduce harmful behaviors, such as bullying [26].

Based on the existing literature, the study aims to explore the influence of parental and school-related factors on adolescents’ behaviors, with a focus on disciplinary practices, communication patterns, and school adaptation.

Prior research highlights associations between parental tolerance of aggression and disciplinary styles [10,11,12,13,27], as well as between positive parent–child communication and favorable school attitudes [8,9,19,27]. Moreover, studies emphasize the impact of negative school attitudes on bullying involvement [28,29,30], the link between perceived parental tolerance of aggression and the frequency of aggressive behaviors [13,27,31], and the protective role of parenting styles centered on open communication [8,9,10,11,14,27,28,29,31,32,33].

Grounded in the discipline continuum model [10], which posits that disciplinary strategies range from acceptable to potentially abusive depending on parental tolerance for aggression, the following hypotheses were advanced:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

Parental tolerance for aggressive behaviors is associated with a parenting style based on strict punishments.

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

Positive communication and interaction between parents and children are positively correlated with adolescents’ favorable attitude towards school.

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

Adolescents’ negative attitude towards school is a predictor of their involvement in bullying behaviors, either as aggressors or as victims.

Hypothesis 4 (H4).

Adolescents who perceive tolerant parents towards aggressive behaviors more frequently exhibit bullying behaviors.

Hypothesis 5 (H5).

Adolescents who benefit from a parenting style based on open communication are less likely to engage in bullying behavior.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The gender distribution within the analyzed sample shows a slight predominance of females, who represent 58.1% (n = 234) of the total of 403 participants, while males constitute 41.9% (n = 169). The valid percentages, calculated by excluding any missing cases, reflect the same structure, highlighting a relative balance between the two gender categories, with a marginally higher share of women. The valid distribution sums to 100%, indicating that all participants were included in one of the defined categories, with no omitted or unclassified data.

Participants were recruited through their class teachers, who distributed the invitation to take part in the study following standard school procedures. At the beginning of each school year, parents or legal guardians sign a general consent form allowing their children’s participation in educational and extracurricular activities, including anonymous research questionnaires. On this basis, students were formally invited to take part in the present study.

Before completing the questionnaire, all students received clear and age-appropriate instructions from their teachers. These instructions explained the voluntary nature of participation, the approximate time needed, the fact that there were no right or wrong answers, and that responses would remain anonymous and confidential. Students were explicitly informed that they could decline participation or withdraw at any time without consequences.

The implementation of the study was authorized and supervised by the Constanța County School Inspectorate, which reviewed and approved the methodology to ensure compliance with national regulations on child protection and data confidentiality. Thus, the participation of adolescents in this study took place in conditions of full legality and with strict adherence to the ethical standards specific to research involving minors.

2.2. Instruments

The instrument applied in this study was designed to evaluate bullying behaviors and their impact on adolescents’ mental health in the school context, considering the specific characteristics of the participant group. Its structure was inspired by existing validated tools in the literature, such as scales measuring parental monitoring, parental authority, and school attitudes (see [34]). However, to adapt the instrument to the Romanian educational context and the particularities of students in lower and upper secondary schools, several modifications and contextual reformulations were introduced.

The definitive version of the questionnaire consisted of forty items distributed across three main scales, each of which demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency. The first scale, Evaluation of Parental Attitudes and Values towards Aggressive Behavior and Morality, included 10 items (α = 0.83) and was subdivided into two subscales based on exploratory factor analysis: Parents’ tolerance towards aggression and revenge (6 items, α = 0.81) and Parents’ reaction to bad behavior (4 items, α = 0.61). The structure of this scale was partly inspired by items from international questionnaires assessing parental discipline and moral values, but in the present version the items were reformulated to reflect contexts familiar to Romanian students. For instance, instead of generic references to “rule-breaking”, the items specifically addressed everyday school-related misbehaviors (e.g., classroom conflicts or refusal to follow teachers’ instructions).

The second scale, Evaluation of Parental Dynamics and Practices (20 items, α = 0.72), focused on communication and interaction between parents and children, as well as discipline styles. It was segmented into three subscales: Communication and positive interaction (8 items, α = 0.80), Child independence and supervision (4 items, α = 0.73), and Discipline and punishment (8 items, α = 0.74). While existing parental communication and monitoring scales inspired its general structure, several new items were developed to capture dimensions relevant to the digital environment in which adolescents currently grow up (e.g., “My parents talk with me about how I use the internet and my phone”).

The third scale, Evaluation of School Experience (10 items, α = 0.88), measured students’ perceptions of school, relationships with teachers and peers, and the value attributed to education. It comprised two subscales: Attitude towards school (7 items, α = 0.87) and Social relations in school (3 items, α = 0.79). The structure drew inspiration from previous school attitude and peer relationship measures, but the items were adapted linguistically and contextually to ensure accessibility for the age group of the participants.

The selection of items was conducted in several stages. First, a literature review identified validated scales relevant to parental attitudes, communication, and school experience. Second, items were discussed with teachers and school psychologists to ensure cultural and contextual relevance. Third, a pilot application was conducted with a small group of students (n ≈ 30) to evaluate clarity and comprehension; feedback from this step led to minor reformulations, especially simplifying wording and avoiding technical terms.

Although the final instrument drew on established tools, the inclusion of novel items tailored to the Romanian school context means that it cannot be considered fully validated. To address this limitation, we employed exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation to confirm the internal structure of the scales and Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients to verify internal consistency (see

Table 1. Exploratory Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation and Internal Consistency Coefficients for the Study Scales.

Subscale	No. of Items	Sample Item	Factor Loadings (Range)	Cronbach’s Alpha
Parents’ tolerance towards aggression and revenge	6	Agg1: Parents allow retaliation if child is provoked	0.69–0.78	0.81
Parents’ reaction to bad behavior	4	React1: Parents punish immediately when rules are broken	0.65–0.71	0.61
Communication and positive interaction	8	Comm1: Parents listen carefully to my problems	0.68–0.74	0.8
Child independence and supervision	4	Ind1: Parents let me make decisions alone	0.48–0.55	0.73
Discipline and punishment	8	Disc1: Parents use punishment to correct behavior	0.68–0.75	0.74
Attitude towards school	7	SchAtt1: I feel motivated to attend school	0.70–0.76	0.87
Social relations in school	3	SocRel1: I get along well with classmates	0.71–0.74	0.79

Note. Agg = Parents’ tolerance towards aggression and revenge; React = Parents’ reaction to bad behavior; Comm = Communication and positive interaction; Ind = Child independence and supervision; Disc = Discipline and punishment; SchAtt = Attitude towards school; SocRel = Social relations in school. Cronbach’s Alpha = internal consistency coefficient.

).

These analyses demonstrated adequate psychometric properties for the exploratory purpose of the study.

2.3. Procedure

For this research, approval was obtained in advance from the management of the participating schools. Students were invited to complete the questionnaire either in print or online, using the Google Forms platform, which was accessible through a link provided by the teachers. The recruitment of fifth and sixth-grade students was performed using non-probabilistic methods, specifically the convenience and quota methods, to ensure a balanced distribution by gender. Participants were selected from multiple schools to reflect the diversity of the educational environment. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics, Version 27.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA)

3. Results

The results of the normality tests, Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk, indicate that the distributions for all analyzed scales significantly deviate from normality, with significance values (Sig.) below the 0.05 threshold. This suggests that the data follow a non-parametric distribution for the following scales: Parents’ tolerance of aggression, Discipline and punishment (Table 2), Communication and positive interaction, School experience (Table 3), Aggressive manifestations (Table 4), Aggressive behaviors, and Parental attitudes (Table 5).

Thus, for the entire research, the analysis will use non-parametric statistical methods, and we consider it justified to place this table at the beginning of the Results Section, avoiding the need to argue the distribution of data for each hypothesis.

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

Parental tolerance for aggressive behaviors is associated with a parenting style based on strict punishments.

Table 2 presents the Spearman correlation analysis between the variables Parental Tolerance of Aggression and Discipline and Punishment, providing both statistical and psychological insight into the relationship between these parenting dimensions.

Table 2. The Spearman correlation analysis between the variables Parental Tolerance of Aggression and Discipline and Punishment.

Dimensions	Normality Tests		Spearman	Sig. (Two-Tailed)
	Kolmogorov–Smirnov a
	Statistic	Sig.
Parental tolerance of aggression	0.234	0.000	0.235 **	0.000
Discipline punishment	0.123	0.000

^a. Lilliefors Significance Correction. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 2. The Spearman correlation analysis between the variables Parental Tolerance of Aggression and Discipline and Punishment.

Dimensions	Normality Tests		Spearman	Sig. (Two-Tailed)
	Kolmogorov–Smirnov a
	Statistic	Sig.
Parental tolerance of aggression	0.234	0.000	0.235 **	0.000
Discipline punishment	0.123	0.000

^a. Lilliefors Significance Correction. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The Spearman correlation coefficient (r = 0.235, p < 0.001) indicates a weak yet statistically significant positive relationship between the two variables. This suggests that as parental tolerance of aggression increases, there is a slight tendency for these parents to use punishment-based discipline methods more frequently.

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

Positive communication and interaction between parents and children are positively correlated with adolescents’ favorable attitude towards school.

Table 3 indicates the relationship between the variables Positive Communication and Interaction and School Experience, assessed using the Spearman correlation coefficient.

Table 3. The Spearman correlation between the variables Positive Communication and Interaction and School Experience.

Dimensions	Normality Tests		Spearman	Sig. (Two-Tailed)
	Kolmogorov–Smirnov a
	Statistic	Sig.
Positive communication and interaction	0.120	0.000	0.348 **	0.000
School experience	0.091	0.000

^a. Lilliefors Significance Correction. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 3. The Spearman correlation between the variables Positive Communication and Interaction and School Experience.

Dimensions	Normality Tests		Spearman	Sig. (Two-Tailed)
	Kolmogorov–Smirnov a
	Statistic	Sig.
Positive communication and interaction	0.120	0.000	0.348 **	0.000
School experience	0.091	0.000

^a. Lilliefors Significance Correction. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The correlation coefficient (r = 0.348) reveals a moderate and statistically significant positive relationship between these variables (p < 0.000). This indicates that adolescents who perceive positive communication and interaction with their parents also tend to report a more positive school experience.

To assess Hypothesis 2, we employed a nonparametric mediation analysis using PROCESS model four with 5000 bootstrap resamples [35], which estimates direct and indirect effects without assuming normality. The model examined the influence of Positive Communication and Interaction on Attitude towards School through Social Relations in School as a mediator, and results indicated that both the direct and indirect paths were significant.

A mediation analysis has been conducted (Table 4) to assess whether Social Relations in School (M) explained the link between Positive Communication and Interaction (X) and Attitude towards School (Y), using a nonparametric bootstrapping approach with 5000 resamples [35]).

Table 4. Mediation of Social Relations in School in the link between Positive Communication and Attitude towards School (N = 401, 5000 bootstrap samples).

Effect Type	b	SE	t	p	95% CI [LL, UL]
Total effect (X → Y)	0.35	0.04	7.80	<0.001	[0.26, 0.44]
Direct effect	0.19	0.04	4.46	<0.001	[0.10, 0.27]
Indirect effect	0.16	0.03	—	—	[0.10, 0.23]

Note. X = Positive Communication and Interaction; M = Social Relations in School; Y = Attitude towards School.

Table 4. Mediation of Social Relations in School in the link between Positive Communication and Attitude towards School (N = 401, 5000 bootstrap samples).

Effect Type	b	SE	t	p	95% CI [LL, UL]
Total effect (X → Y)	0.35	0.04	7.80	<0.001	[0.26, 0.44]
Direct effect	0.19	0.04	4.46	<0.001	[0.10, 0.27]
Indirect effect	0.16	0.03	—	—	[0.10, 0.23]

Note. X = Positive Communication and Interaction; M = Social Relations in School; Y = Attitude towards School.

The analysis indicated that positive communication and interaction significantly predicted social relations in school, b = 0.15, SE = 0.02, t(399) = 7.36, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.11, 0.19]. In turn, social relations significantly predicted attitude towards school, b = 1.09, SE = 0.10, t(398) = 11.46, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.90, 1.28].

The total effect of positive communication and interaction on attitude towards school was significant, b = 0.35, SE = 0.04, t(399) = 7.80, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.26, 0.44]. When the mediator was included in the model, the direct effect of positive communication and interaction on attitude towards school decreased but remained significant, b = 0.19, SE = 0.04, t(398) = 4.46, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.10, 0.27].

The indirect effect of positive communication and interaction on attitude towards school through social relations in school was also significant, b = 0.16, BootSE = 0.03, 95% CI [0.10, 0.23]. Because the direct effect remained significant while the indirect effect was also significant, the results suggest partial mediation: positive communication and interaction influenced students’ attitudes towards school both directly and indirectly through the quality of social relations in school. The results indicate a partial mediation, as both the direct and indirect effects were significant.

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

Adolescents’ negative attitude towards school is a predictor of their involvement in bullying behaviors, either as aggressors or as victims.

The correlation between Attitude towards school and Aggressive manifestations (Table 5) is negative and significant (r = −0.374, p = 0.000), suggesting that a more negative attitude towards school is associated with more frequent aggressive manifestations. Adolescents with a less favorable perception of school tend to exhibit aggressive behaviors more frequently, which may reflect a reaction to school-related stress or frustration.

Table 5. Spearman Correlations Between Attitude Towards School and Aggressive Behaviors and Manifestations.

			Aggressive Manifestations	Aggressive Behaviors
Spearman’s rho	Attitude towards school	Correlation Coefficient	−0.374 **	−0.288 **
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.000
		N	403	403

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 5. Spearman Correlations Between Attitude Towards School and Aggressive Behaviors and Manifestations.

			Aggressive Manifestations	Aggressive Behaviors
Spearman’s rho	Attitude towards school	Correlation Coefficient	−0.374 **	−0.288 **
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.000
		N	403	403

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Additionally, Attitude towards school is negatively and significantly correlated with Aggressive behaviors (r = −0.288, p = 0.000), indicating that a negative attitude towards school is associated with a higher frequency of aggressive behaviors. These results suggest that negative attitudes towards education can contribute to the development of destructive and aggressive behaviors among adolescents.

Hypothesis 4 (H4).

Adolescents who perceive tolerant parents towards aggressive behaviors more frequently exhibit bullying behaviors.

Normality tests indicate significant deviations for all variables (p = 0.000). Substance use presents the highest deviation, and Minor crimes reflect an uneven distribution, with a subgroup prone to pronounced behaviors. The results highlight the need for personalized interventions to develop socio-emotional skills and reduce risks.

Table 6. Spearman Correlation Between Parental Attitudes and Aggressive Behaviors.

Dimensions	Normality Tests		Spearman	Sig. (Two-Tailed)
	Kolmogorov–Smirnova
	Statistic	Sig.
Parental attitudes	0.196	0.000	Spearman = 0.280 **	0.000
Aggressive behaviors	0.273	0.000

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

presents the relationship between Parental Attitudes and Aggressive Behaviors, measured by Spearman’s rho coefficient. The results revealed a significant positive correlation between the two variables (r = 0.280, p = 0.000), which suggests that as Parental attitudes become more favorable or less restrictive, there is a tendency for adolescents to exhibit more aggressive behaviors.

Although the correlation is significant, the value of the coefficient is small, which indicates a moderate relationship between the two variables.

Hypothesis 5 (H5).

Adolescents who benefit from a parenting style based on open communication are less likely to engage in bullying behavior.

Table 7. Spearman Correlations Between Parental Reaction to Misbehavior and Aggressive Manifestations and Behaviors.

			Aggressive Manifestations	Aggressive Behaviors
Spearman’s rho	Parents’ reaction to misbehavior	Correlation Coefficient	−0.124 *	−0.216 **
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.013	0.000
		N	403	403

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

highlights a significant positive correlation between Parental Reaction to Misbehavior and Aggressive Behaviors (r = 0.216, p = 0.000), suggesting that more severe parental behavior following children’s misbehavior is associated with a tendency for increased aggressive behavior among adolescents.

This correlation indicates that authoritarian discipline styles may favor aggressive behavior in adolescents in response to harsh parental authority.

There is also a significant, but weaker, positive correlation between Parental Reaction to Misbehavior and Aggressive Manifestations (r = 0.124, p = 0.013), indicating that authoritarian parental reactions to children’s misbehavior may influence, to a lesser extent, their aggressive behavior.

4. Discussion

The findings of this study confirm the proposed hypotheses and provide both theoretical and practical contributions to the understanding of adolescent aggressive behavior from a multidimensional perspective. The results highlight the significant impact of both family and school contexts on adolescents’ moral and social development, confirming integrative models that emphasize the interplay between parenting styles, emotional communication, and moral formation in adolescence [8,9,14].

At the same time, by integrating recent evidence, the study addresses gaps in the literature on how family and school factors interact to influence adolescent aggression.

Hypothesis 1 (H1) concerned the association between parental tolerance for aggressive behaviors and the use of strict punishments. A weak yet positive correlation appeared between perceived parental tolerance of aggression and the use of strict disciplinary methods [10,11]. This reflects an inconsistency in parenting style, where permissiveness towards some aggressive behaviors coexists with harsh punishment in other contexts. Such inconsistency undermines emotional self-regulation and may increase interpersonal conflicts. Recent work shows that inconsistent and harsh discipline is associated with externalizing problems and maladaptive coping [36]. Although the effect is weak, it underscores the need for further research on how tolerance for aggression interacts with punitive practices in shaping adolescent behavior.

Hypothesis 2 (H2) addressed the role of positive communication and interaction between parents and children in fostering favorable attitudes towards school. A moderate and significant relationship was observed between positive parent–child communication and favorable school attitudes [8,9,15]. Mediation analysis showed that school social relationships amplified this effect, supporting the idea that family and school climates function synergistically [15]. Recent evidence confirms that positive parenting enhances educational engagement, while negative parenting increases the risk of bullying [37,38]. Importantly, our findings show that school relationships exert a stronger influence than family communication alone, suggesting that interventions should address both contexts simultaneously. This finding is unexpected, as prior studies often reported stronger family influences compared to school contexts. One explanation is the cultural and institutional specificity of our sample, where peer networks and school climate may play a more prominent role in shaping adolescents’ attitudes. Future research should explore whether this stronger school effect generalizes across different cultural settings.

Hypothesis 3 (H3) evaluated the link between adolescents’ negative attitudes toward school and their involvement in bullying behaviors. Unfavorable attitudes toward school were significantly associated with increased aggression and involvement in bullying [28,29]. Adolescents perceiving school as unsupportive may adopt maladaptive coping strategies such as hostility or withdrawal, reinforcing aggressive behaviors. This is consistent with studies demonstrating that a hostile school climate predicts bullying and aggression [39]. These results highlight the importance of promoting positive school environments as protective factors against aggression.

Hypothesis 4 (H4) focused on the association between adolescents’ perception of parental tolerance towards aggression and their own bullying behavior. Adolescents who perceived their parents as more tolerant of aggression reported more frequent involvement in bullying [13,31]. This finding supports the social learning perspective, where permissive parental norms are internalized by adolescents and shape their behavior. Although the relationship is not strong, it reflects the complexity of the parenting–bullying link. Recent research suggests that co-parenting and parental psychological control predict adolescents’ relational aggression via peer dynamics and self-control [24]. Therefore, tolerance for aggression may function as a permissive norm that interacts with other contextual factors. However, some studies found stronger associations between parental tolerance and adolescent aggression, particularly when maternal versus paternal roles were differentiated [37]. The weaker effect observed in our study may be explained by contextual cultural factors or by adolescents’ subjective perception of parental behavior rather than actual practices.

Hypothesis 5 (H5) examined whether adolescents who benefit from open parental communication are less likely to engage in bullying. Adolescents who benefit from open, supportive communication with parents are less likely to engage in bullying [32,33]. Such parenting fosters emotional regulation and reduces interpersonal conflict. Our findings converge with recent studies showing that positive parenting is negatively related to bullying, whereas harsh or controlling parenting increases its likelihood [37,38]. These results strengthen the argument that preventive interventions should prioritize the development of constructive family dialog.

Taken together, the findings highlight the complementary roles of family communication, parenting practices, and school relationships in shaping adolescent behavior. Positive family communication and supportive school environments appear as protective factors, while tolerance of aggression and inconsistent discipline act as risk factors. By integrating family and school dimensions, this study contributes to bridging gaps in the literature:

• It proposes a multidimensional framework that captures the interplay of family and school, while prior studies often focused on isolated domains.
• It shows mediation effects through school relationships; a mechanism rarely tested in earlier research.
• It provides context-specific data from an underrepresented cultural setting, enriching international debates.
• It identifies unexpected dynamics, such as the stronger role of school social relationships compared to family communication, challenging prior assumptions and opening new avenues for comparative research.

It suggests practical implications for integrated interventions addressing both parenting and school climates, aligning with recent calls for combined prevention programs [40]. Nevertheless, some relationships were weaker than expected (H1, H4), due to moderators not included in the model (e.g., socioeconomic stress, self-esteem, coping strategies). Recent studies indicate that self-esteem and negative emotions mediate the impact of parenting on aggression [41,42].

The cross-sectional design, reliance on self-reported measures, and the limited generalizability of the sample represent methodological constraints that limit the strength of causal inferences. Moreover, the absence of multiple informants (e.g., teachers, peers, parents) restricts the robustness of the mechanisms identified. Addressing these limitations and extending analyses to longitudinal data would better capture the mediating and bidirectional processes highlighted.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the study highlights the importance of targeted parental intervention programs that focus on fostering effective communication, emotional responsiveness, and establishing clear behavioral boundaries while reducing parental tolerance of aggression. The mediation analysis confirmed the central role of school social relations as a mechanism linking parental communication to school attitudes. At the same time, educational interventions should focus on promoting positive peer relationships and inclusive school climates, which may reinforce the positive influence of parental support. Although the use of a cross-sectional design and self-report measures limits causal interpretation, the results provide firm empirical grounding for preventive efforts.

This study makes an original contribution by combining psychological, educational, and legal perspectives to examine the predictive role of parental communication and disciplinary styles in shaping adolescents’ aggressive behaviors and moral attitudes. Unlike previous research that analyzed these factors separately, the present work proposes a multidimensional model evaluated through correlation and mediation analyses, using a validated instrument adapted to the Romanian educational context. By emphasizing the mediating role of school social relations and the link between parents’ tolerance of aggression and adolescents’ involvement in bullying, the study provides new evidence that can inform effective parenting strategies and educational policies designed to foster prosocial behavior and moral development.

Future research should consider longitudinal designs and incorporate additional contextual variables, such as peer group dynamics and socioeconomic status, to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms that shape aggressive behavior and moral development during adolescence.

6. Study Limitations

The study has several significant limitations. First, the use of a cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causal relationships between the variables analyzed. Second, the data were collected through self-reporting, which may introduce response errors and subjectivity on the part of the participants. Additionally, the sample, although diverse, is limited to specific geographical regions, which affects the generalizability of the results at the national or international level. Additionally, variables such as the influence of peers or other social factors on adolescent behavior were not considered, which may reduce the accuracy of the conclusions. Another limitation is the absence of a longitudinal assessment, which would have enabled the analysis of the evolution of the relationship between parental communication, aggressive behavior, and adolescents’ moral attitudes over an extended period. Finally, although the instruments used are validated, they may not capture all the nuances of the complex relationships between the variables studied, suggesting the need for future studies that incorporate mixed methods and more diverse samples.