Cultural Hybridity and Parenting Styles: Analyzing Authoritative and Authoritarian Dynamics in Hong Kong

Abstract

In Hong Kong, the interaction between traditional values and modern influences creates a unique cultural landscape that influences family dynamics, intergenerational communication, and adolescent mental health. This study aimed to fill critical research gaps by exploring the relationship between authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles within this hybrid cultural context. Parenting style scores were based on the PSDQ-26 questionnaires completed by both parents of 2325 students. These students also provided demographic data used in the analysis (1013 girls, M_age = 13.35, SD = 1.22). The data analysis examined the correlations between parenting styles and variations across gender and age groups. Contrary to patterns observed in Western contexts, the results indicated no significant correlation between authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles (r = 0.02, p > 0.05), suggesting a complex coexistence influenced by Hong Kong’s hybrid sociocultural context. Notably, the study revealed gender-based differences: boys’ parents reported higher levels of democratic participation and reasoning, reflecting authoritative parenting, while also showing greater use of physical coercion and punitive discipline, indicative of authoritarian parenting. Authoritative parenting, but not authoritarian parenting, showed a decline as children matured. By investigating these dynamics, the study not only addresses a significant gap in the literature but also enhances the understanding of how cultural and developmental factors shape parenting practices. These insights are crucial for developing culturally adapted parenting education materials and informing interventions that support child development in diverse cultural settings.

1. Introduction

Baumrind’s analysis of how parental affect and control shape child development (Baumrind 1967, 1971) is one of the most influential conceptual frameworks in parenting research. Parenting style has often been described as the emotional climate and behavioral tendencies that characterize how parents interact with and guide their children, including their parental attitudes, expectations, and disciplinary approaches (Baumrind 1967). Baumrind’s (1971) framework identified three main parenting styles: authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive. In this study, however, we concentrate on authoritarian and authoritative parenting. This focus reflects our central research objective and is theoretically grounded in longstanding cross-cultural debates, particularly in East Asian societies where parental control and warmth are often intertwined in distinctive ways (Chao 1994; Rudy and Grusec 2006). While this narrowed scope allows us to address our primary objectives more directly, we recognize that other parenting styles, such as permissive or neglectful, also warrant examination in future research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of parenting practices in Chinese contexts.

Maccoby and Martin (1983) identified authoritative parenting as marked by a high degree of warmth, acceptance, and consistent behavioral control. This parenting style is typically reflected in parents’ use of inductive guidance, open communication, and rational discipline (Baumrind 1971), and has been associated with the development of prosocial and adaptive behavior in Western samples (e.g., Padilla-Walker et al. 2012; Steinberg et al. 1992). In Western samples, authoritative parenting has been shown to predict stronger academic achievement (Hayek et al. 2022), improve emotional self-regulation (Patock-Peckham et al. 2001), and enhance mental health outcomes (Milevsky et al. 2007). In contrast, authoritarian parenting is characterized by high levels of control and low levels of emotional responsiveness. Authoritarian parents tend to use power-assertive, prohibitive, and punitive strategies, with a strong emphasis on absolute obedience from the child (Mousavi et al. 2016). Such an approach has been associated with an increased risk of deviant behavior and adjustment problems (e.g., Karreman et al. 2006; Masud et al. 2019). Previous research has demonstrated that an authoritarian parenting style is negatively associated with children’s school achievement (Pong et al. 2010), poor mental health (King et al. 2016), and behavioral problems (Braza et al. 2015) in Western populations.

2. Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Authoritative and Authoritarian Parenting Styles

Although the importance of parental behavior is widely acknowledged across cultural settings (Harkness and Super 1995), it remains unclear whether the Western-based conceptualization of parenting behavior, particularly authoritarian and authoritative parenting, can be generalized to non-Western societies. This raises a fundamental research question: Do these constructs hold the same meaning and relational patterns in non-Western settings? Several researchers have noted that the interpretation and function of authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles may vary across cultures, with distinct patterns emerging in Chinese compared with Western societies (Durbin et al. 1993; Pomerantz and Wang 2009; Zhang et al. 2019).

In Western contexts, parents’ use of authoritarian and controlling strategies has been associated with negative developmental outcomes and increased behavioral problems for children, such as lower self-esteem (Rudy and Grusec 2006) and higher levels of depersonalization and anxiety (Wolfradt et al. 2003). However, in a hierarchical collectivistic Chinese society, such behaviors may be perceived differently. Children are often expected to prioritize familial and group-oriented goals over personal autonomy (Greenfield et al. 2003; Hofstede 2011), and the parent–child relationship is often structured around authority and obedience (Bond 1991; Chao 1994). Under these cultural norms, children may view authoritarian and controlling strategies as legitimate and even benevolent, particularly when they are delivered with warmth and parental involvement (Ho 1986; Lau and Cheung 1987; Mousavi et al. 2016). This culturally embedded interpretation aligns with indigenous concepts such as “training” (Chao 1994) and “guan” (Tobin et al. 1989), both of which emphasize moral education, parental responsibility, and intimate parental involvement in children’s daily lives. As a result, high levels of parental control may not necessarily be experienced as punitive but rather as caring and supportive (Chao 1994; Lau and Cheung 1987). Indeed, empirical findings in East Asia reflect this complexity. Some studies have found that East Asian children raised in authoritarian households often exhibit strong academic performance (Blair and Qian 1998; Leung et al. 1998) and self-discipline (Chen et al. 2022), contrasting sharply with findings from Western samples where authoritarian parenting is more consistently linked to academic underachievement (Pinquart and Kauser 2018; Pong et al. 2010) and psychological maladjustment (Karreman et al. 2006). These mixed findings suggest that authoritarian parenting may not be uniformly harmful or beneficial, but rather context-dependent and shaped by cultural expectations. Importantly, few studies have empirically examined how these two dimensions might coexist within the same families, particularly in East Asian contexts. This gap highlights the need for further investigation.

3. Cultural Hybridity and Parenting Complexity in Hong Kong

In Hong Kong, the Confucian traditions of filial piety and familial obligation are embedded within a broader cultural framework characterized by hierarchical relationships and collectivistic values (Ming 1986; Shek and Li 2016). These traditions emphasize obedience, respect for authority (Shek and Chan 1999), and the maintenance of interpersonal harmony (Huang 2016), significantly shaping how parental control and discipline are enacted and perceived. At the same time, Western ideals such as autonomy, independence, and academic self-direction have gained prominence, especially in the context of education and parenting (Shek and Sun 2014). Hong Kong’s highly competitive, exam-oriented school system places substantial academic pressure on both parents and children (Kwan 2011). Consequently, many Hong Kong parents navigate the dual demands of tradition and modernity by adopting a blend of strict behavioral expectations and emotional responsiveness. For instance, parents may set firm academic rules while maintaining a warm and supportive atmosphere (Li et al. 2023). This approach is often described in Chinese culture as “ci-xiang” (kindhearted) and “yan-ge” (strict). Rather than representing a contradiction, this pattern exemplifies the defining feature of authoritative parenting: the combination of high expectations with warmth and responsiveness (Chen et al. 1997). In the Chinese context, however, the expression of control may appear stricter than in Western societies, making the coexistence of strictness and warmth particularly salient in parental practices. The pressure to uphold traditional parenting roles while integrating contemporary child-rearing expectations can cause significant stress for parents, complicating the classification of parenting styles. In this culturally hybrid environment, certain parenting behaviors may appear to carry elements of both strict control and emotional warmth. While authoritative and authoritarian parenting remain conceptually distinct, particularly in terms of parental warmth and affect, the ways these dimensions are expressed in Chinese families can sometimes overlap in practice, making it difficult to draw a clear distinction between authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles. For example, McBride-Chang (1998) found that, compared to parents from the least academically competitive middle schools in Hong Kong (Band 5), those from the most academically competitive schools (Band 1) were more likely to identify as authoritative and less likely to identify as authoritarian, suggesting that contextual and institutional variables may shape how parenting styles are expressed and perceived. However, compared with European and American children, children in Hong Kong are more likely to perceive their parents as predominantly authoritarian rather than authoritative (Leung et al. 1998), and report that they exert high levels of psychological control (Fung and Lau 2012). These differences between parental self-perceptions and child-reported experiences indicate that parenting in Hong Kong often involves a complex blending of styles. While authoritative and authoritarian parenting are conceptually distinct, especially with respect to parental warmth and affect. The ways they are enacted and perceived in hybrid cultural contexts may not always align neatly with Western typologies. In particular, Hong Kong’s hierarchical and collectivistic cultural background may shape parental practices in ways that combine elements of both strictness and warmth, leading children and parents to interpret parenting behaviors differently. This contextual complexity underscores not a theoretical collapse of categories but rather the need for further empirical validation of how these constructs operate in Chinese cultural settings.

4. The Present Study

Given the cultural hybridity and intense academic pressure in Hong Kong, this study aimed to examine the relationships between authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles using data reported by the parents of children in Hong Kong. Few studies have directly tested the empirical association between these two styles using parent-reported data within East Asian hybrid societies, leaving a gap in our understanding of how parents perceive and integrate these approaches. It was anticipated that the association between the two styles might differ from patterns observed in Western contexts, where they are typically negatively correlated (e.g., Baumrind 1991). Specifically, this study hypothesized that in Hong Kong, the relationship would be weak or potentially non-significant due to the influence of sociocultural blending. This expectation is grounded in the notion that traditional values emphasizing obedience may coexist with expressions of warmth and involvement, allowing parents to endorse the characteristics of both styles simultaneously.

5. Method

5.1. Participants

The participants were recruited from 10 local middle schools in Hong Kong using a school-based convenience sampling method. Both students and their parents participated in the study.

Parenting style data were collected from both the father and the mother using the PSDQ-26, and their scores were averaged to create a composite family-level indicator of parenting style. This approach, which has been employed in previous studies (e.g., reflects the shared family environment and avoids overemphasizing one parent’s perspective). However, demographic information was only collected from the students, and thus, all participant characteristics reported here refer to the students. Students provided demographic information, while both fathers and mothers independently completed the PSDQ-26 to assess parenting styles; their scores were averaged to represent each family. No specific inclusion criteria were applied to parents apart from being the legal guardians of the participating students. All references to participant characteristics below refer to the students.

Data were collected through parent-reported questionnaires, which were distributed and returned via the participating schools. Although the questionnaires were completed by parents, the unit of analysis in this study was the student. A total of 4126 students were initially invited to participate. Responses were excluded if they were completed in under 10 min, showed patterned or inattentive responses, or identical responses were given to all items. In addition, because parenting style scores were derived from the averaged reports of both fathers and mothers, cases without complete data from both parents were excluded. Valid parenting data were obtained for 2325 students (1312 males and 1013 females, M_age = 13.35, SD = 1.22), whose parents both completed the questionnaire. The final response rate was approximately 56.34%. The inclusion criteria were: (i) being a Hong Kong permanent resident, (ii) currently studying in Secondary 1 to Secondary 3 (equivalent to Grades 7 to 9), aged between 11 and 19 years, and (iii) enrolled in a local middle school or tertiary institution. All students had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and hearing.

Among the mothers, 17.1% had less than a primary-level education, 42.9% had a lower secondary education, 5.7% had an upper secondary education, 1.1% had post-secondary non-tertiary education (e.g., a diploma or associate degree), and 2.2% held a university degree or higher. Overall, 65.7% had a high school education or lower. Among the fathers, 15.6% had less than a primary-level education, 40.8% had a lower secondary education, 5.3% had an upper secondary education, 0.9% had post-secondary non-tertiary education, and 2.8% held a university degree or higher. Overall, 61.7% had a high school education or lower.

Regarding combined parental monthly income, 38.6% of families reported earning HKD 20,000 or less, 8.5% reported between HKD 20,001 and 35,000, and 3.2% reported more than HKD 35,000. Notably, over half of the respondents (52.9%) either did not know or chose not to disclose their household income.

5.2. Procedure

Informed consent was obtained from both the students and their parents before participation. After receiving consent, parenting style questionnaires (PSDQ-26) were distributed to the parents via the participating middle schools. The students also provided demographic information (e.g., age, gender) through separate student questionnaires. The teachers assisted in disseminating the materials, and the students were instructed to deliver the questionnaires to their parents or primary caregivers at home. The parents were asked to complete the questionnaires independently based on their perceptions and knowledge of their child’s behaviors and family environment. Completed questionnaires were returned to the schools in sealed envelopes to ensure confidentiality. All procedures were conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines and were approved by the Research Ethics Committee of City University of Hong Kong.

5.3. Measures

Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire

Authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles were assessed using the Chinese version of the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire-Short Form (PSDQ-Short Form). The original PSDQ was developed by Robinson et al. (2001) to assess three parenting styles—authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive—based on Baumrind’s (1971) theoretical framework. The short form consists of 32 of the original items, 26 of which specifically measure authoritative and authoritarian parenting dimensions. The Chinese version of the PSDQ-Short Form was adapted and validated by Wu et al. (2002). In the present study, only the 26 items assessing authoritative and authoritarian parenting were used for the analysis. The measure is a parent self-report questionnaire, with items rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always), where higher average scores indicate more frequent use of the respective parenting style. In this study, parenting style scores were averaged across both parents when data from both were available.

The authoritative parenting (Cronbach’s α = 0.94) scale comprises three subscales: warmth/acceptance (7 items, α = 0.89; e.g., “Gives praise when child is good”), reasoning/induction (4 items, α = 0.87; e.g., “Talks it over and reasons with child when misbehaving”), and democratic participation (4 items, α = 0.82; e.g., “Apologizes to child when making a mistake in parenting”), while authoritarian parenting (Cronbach’s α = 0.87) consists of three subscales: physical coercion (5 items, α = 0.86; “Spanks when child is disobedient”), verbal hostility (3 items, α = 0.70; “Yells and shouts when child misbehaves”), and non-reasoning/punitive (3 items, α = 0.63; e.g., “Punishes by taking privileges away with little explanation”).

6. Results

6.1. Preliminary Analysis

Harman’s one-factor test was used to assess common method bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003). The first common factor explained 36.23% of the total variance, below the commonly accepted cutoff of 40%. Common method bias is thus unlikely to be a significant concern in this study’s data (Malhotra et al. 2006).

6.2. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Matrix of All Variables (N = 2325).

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1 Gender	1
2 Age	0.02	1
3 Warmth	−0.05 **	−0.13 **	1
4 Democratic participation	−0.06 **	−0.05 *	0.01	1
5 Reasoning	−0.06 **	−0.09 **	0.83 **	0.77 **	1
6 Physical coercion	−0.07 **	−0.02	−0.02	−0.01	0.07 **	1
7 Punitive	−0.04 *	−0.05 *	0.06 **	0.09 *	0.01	0.61 **	1
8 Verbal Hostility	−0.04	−0.05 *	0.04	0.02	0.04	0.58 **	0.51 **	1
9 Authoritative	−0.06 **	−0.10 **	0.96 **	0.90 **	0.93 **	−0.03	0.06 **	0.04	1
10 Authoritarian	−0.06 **	−0.05 *	0.02	0.03	−0.02	0.91 **	0.81 **	0.81 **	0.02	1
M	13.35	1.43	22.25	12.17	14.04	8.14	5.96	6.42	48.41	20.50
SD	1.22	0.50	5.45	3.20	3.60	3.23	1.97	2.13	11.47	6.24

Note. Authoritative = Authoritative parenting, Authoritarian = Authoritarian parenting, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

presents the means, standard deviations, and correlation matrix for all of the variables. The child’s age was negatively correlated with authoritative parenting (r = −0.10, p < 0.01) and authoritarian parenting (r = −0.05, p < 0.05). Strong positive intercorrelations were observed within the constructs of the two parenting styles. Authoritative parenting was strongly correlated with warmth (r = 0.96, p < 0.01), democratic participation (r = 0.90, p < 0.01), and reasoning (r = 0.93, p < 0.01). Similarly, authoritarian parenting showed strong positive correlations with physical coercion (r = 0.91, p < 0.01), punitive discipline (r = 0.81, p < 0.01), and verbal hostility (r = 0.81, p < 0.01). Modest cross-construct associations were also found; for example, reasoning was weakly but significantly associated with physical coercion (r = 0.07, p < 0.01), and punitive discipline was modestly correlated with warmth (r = 0.06, p < 0.01) and democratic participation (r = 0.09, p < 0.05). Notably, the correlation between authoritative and authoritarian parenting was not significant in this sample (r = 0.02, p > 0.05).

Table 2. Independent Samples t-Tests for Gender Differences in Parenting Style Dimensions (N = 2325).

Gender	Warmth	Democratic Participation	Reasoning	Total Authoritative Parenting	Physical Coercion	Punitive Discipline	Verbal Hostility	Total Authoritarian Parenting
Boy (n = 1309)	22.26 ± 5.58	12.26 ± 3.29	14.14 ± 3.85	48.63 ± 11.87	8.14 ± 3.40	6.09 ± 2.10	6.41 ± 2.30	20.61 ± 6.65
Girl (n = 1013)	21.71 ± 5.74	11.79 ± 3.44	13.57 ± 3.82	47.07 ± 12.10	7.71 ± 3.19	5.79 ± 2.02	6.27 ± 2.25	19.77 ± 6.18
t	1.84	2.66 **	2.83 **	2.48 *	2.52 *	2.74 *	1.18	2.48 *

Note. ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

reports the results of the independent samples t-tests comparing boys and girls on specific parenting variables. The boys’ parents reported significantly higher scores for democratic participation (M = 12.26, SD = 3.29) and reasoning (M = 14.14, SD = 3.85) than the girls’ parents (M = 11.79, SD = 3.44; 13.57, SD = 3.82), t(2321) = 2.66, p < 0.01, and t(2321) = 2.83, p < 0.01, respectively.

In addition, the boys’ parents reported significantly higher levels of physical coercion (M = 8.14, SD = 3.40) and punitive discipline (M = 6.09, SD = 2.10) than the girls’ parents (M = 7.71, SD = 3.19; M = 5.79, SD = 2.02), t(2321) = 2.52, p < 0.05, and t(2321) = 2.74, p < 0.05, respectively. No significant gender difference was found for verbal hostility, t(2321) = 1.18, p = 0.240.

The boys’ parents reported significantly higher total scores for authoritarian parenting (M = 20.61, SD = 6.65) than the girls’ parents (M = 19.77, SD = 6.18), t(2321) = 2.48, p < 0.05. Conversely, the girls’ parents scored significantly higher on total authoritative parenting (M = 47.07, SD = 12.10) than the boys’ parents (M = 48.63, SD = 11.87), t(2321) = 2.48, p < 0.05.

For the factorial ANOVA, participants’ ages were categorized into three groups based on the sample distribution (M = 13.35, SD = 1.22): low age group (≤12 years), middle age group (13–14 years), and high age group (≥15 years). This grouping ensured a balanced distribution of cases across categories and is consistent with developmental research practices that use mean ± 1 SD as a cut-off criterion. To account for potential confounding effects of age, we conducted a series of 2 (Gender: male, female) × 3 (Age group: ≤12, 13–14, ≥15) factorial ANOVAs with the PSDQ subscales and composite scores as dependent variables.

For authoritative parenting, the main effect of age was significant, F(2, 2419) = 11.64, p < 0.001, η² = 0.010, indicating that younger adolescents perceived higher levels of authoritative parenting compared to older groups. Post hoc Tukey tests showed that the ≤12 group (M = 50.07) scored significantly higher than both the 13–14 group (M = 48.24, p = 0.003) and the ≥15 group (M = 46.54, p < 0.001), and the 13–14 group scored higher than the ≥15 group (p = 0.021). The main effect of gender was no longer statistically significant, F(1, 2419) = 3.63, p = 0.057, η² = 0.001. However, the mean trend indicated that girls’ parents continued to report higher authoritative parenting scores than boys’ parents, a pattern consistent with the independent-samples t-test findings. No Gender × Age interaction was found, F(2, 2419) = 0.98, p = 0.375.

For authoritarian parenting, the factorial ANOVA confirmed a significant main effect of gender, F(1, 2416) = 5.57, p = 0.018, η² = 0.002, with boys reporting higher authoritarian parenting scores than girls. Neither the main effect of age, F(2, 2416) = 0.85, p = 0.429, nor the Gender × Age interaction, F(2, 2416) = 0.57, p = 0.566, was significant.

7. Discussion

This study examined the relationship between authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles among adolescents in Hong Kong using data from the parents of 2325 middle school students. Both parenting styles were negatively associated with child gender and age; specifically, boys’ parents reported higher levels of democratic participation and reasoning, which are typically associated with authoritative parenting. Additionally, authoritative parenting style was significantly and negatively correlated with child age, suggesting a decline in both styles of parenting as the children matured. No significant correlation was observed between authoritative and authoritarian parenting as perceived by the parents of Hong Kong adolescents.

7.1. Gender and Age Differences in Authoritative and Authoritarian Parenting Styles

The study revealed differences in parenting style based on children’s gender and age. Specifically, boys’ parents reported higher levels of democratic participation and reasoning, which are typically associated with authoritative parenting. In addition, boys’ parents reported a higher prevalence of physical coercion and punitive discipline, reflecting greater exposure to authoritarian practices. These findings align with previous research suggesting that gendered parenting practices are shaped by sociocultural expectations (Leaper 2005; Shek 2008). For instance, girls are often encouraged to be emotionally expressive, compliant, and relationally attuned, prompting parents to adopt more supportive and communicative approaches (Chang et al. 2003). In contrast, boys may be perceived as more physically active or oppositional, resulting in parents applying more directive and disciplinary strategies (Lamb and Tamis-Lemonda 2004).

In terms of age effects, authoritative parenting showed a clear decline across age groups, with younger children reporting higher levels compared to older adolescents. This pattern is consistent with developmental theories suggesting that as children mature, their perceptions of parental authority become increasingly nuanced and critical (Green et al. 2007; Masche 2010). Younger children often idealize their parents as figures of absolute wisdom and control; however, this idealization tends to wane during adolescence (Steinberg and Silverberg 1986). As adolescents become cognitively and socially mature, they are more inclined to question parental decisions and assert their autonomy, which may lead to greater resistance and more frequent parent–child conflict (Gao and Cummings 2019). Consequently, authoritative—but not authoritarian—parenting was perceived as lower among older children, even if parents’ actual behaviors remained relatively stable.

7.2. Lack of Correlation Between Authoritative and Authoritarian Parenting Styles

The study did not find a significant correlation between authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles in this Hong Kong sample. This pattern diverges from previous research, which has typically considered authoritative and authoritarian parenting as opposite poles of parental behavior (Greening et al. 2010), based on the findings of empirical studies that have consistently reported a significant negative association between the two parenting styles. For instance, Vasiou et al. (2023) found that among Greek parents, higher levels of authoritarian parenting were significantly associated with lower levels of authoritative parenting. Similarly, Quaranta et al. (2023) reported a negative correlation between these parenting dimensions in a Japanese sample.

The lack of a significant correlation between the two parenting styles in this study suggests a potential cultural divergence in how parents in Hong Kong perceive the boundaries of parenting constructs. A possible explanation lies in the cultural hybridity of Hong Kong society, where traditional Confucian values intersect with Western influences on parenting. Authoritative parenting is typically associated with warmth, reasoning, and open communication, whereas authoritarian parenting is marked by strict rule enforcement, low emotional expression, and coercive discipline (Baumrind 1978). In the Western context, these contrasting patterns lead to the perception of the two styles as opposing approaches. Furthermore, Western societies typically prioritize individualistic values, highlighting autonomy, competitive success, and the expression of one’s personal identity (Shek and Li 2016).

In contrast, Chinese culture, shaped by Confucian traditions, emphasizes collectivism and filial piety and values social interdependence, adherence to societal norms, and deference to authority (Chao and Tseng 2002; Lin and Fu 1990; Zhang et al. 2017). These cultural ideals are frequently reflected in parenting attitudes, objectives, and practices (Costigan and Su 2008). For example, Chinese parents are less likely than Western parents to engage in overt displays of affection or verbal expressions of praise (Deater-Deckard et al. 2011), are more likely to endorse physical punishment (Wu et al. 2002), and often place a stronger emphasis on obedience and academic success than on personal autonomy (Lin and Fu 1990).

Notably, many Hong Kong Chinese parents are guided by traditional ideology rooted in The Classic of Filial Piety, which emphasizes the integration of strict discipline and parental affection, a principle known as yan-ci (Bedford and Yeh 2019). To capture this culturally embedded model of parenting, scholars have introduced the concept of training or guan (Chao 1994; Tobin et al. 1989). Guan reflects a form of parenting characterized by high levels of parental devotion, behavioral monitoring, and moral guidance, often motivated by the long-term welfare of both the child and the family (Chao 1994). Although it involves high levels of behavioral control, guan is not inherently linked with emotional detachment. On the contrary, it is frequently regarded as an implicit expression of parental love, responsibility, and self-sacrifice (Zhang et al. 2021). Previous studies have shown that controlling or authoritarian strategies, such as strict supervision, high academic expectations, and behavioral discipline, may hold a positive value in Chinese society and are associated with adaptive outcomes, particularly in academic domains (e.g., Chen et al. 1997; Kim et al. 2018; Li et al. 2023). This culturally specific conceptualization suggests that Hong Kong Chinese parents can be simultaneously strict and emotionally invested, potentially blurring the boundaries between authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles. Within this framework, parental control is often interpreted not as an indicator of emotional distance or punitive intent, but as a demonstration of care and investment in the child’s future.

As members of a society shaped by both Confucian traditions and Western liberal values, Hong Kong parents may internalize seemingly contrasting parenting ideologies. They may uphold traditional beliefs emphasizing strict discipline and behavioral regulation while also endorsing emotional responsiveness, democratic communication, and reasoning principles characteristic of Western authoritative parenting. Rather than perceiving these elements as contradictory, parents in this cultural setting may view them as complementary. Consequently, when responding to parenting style questionnaires, Hong Kong parents might endorse behaviors that are commonly associated with both authoritative and authoritarian approaches. This integration of warmth and control may help explain why authoritative and authoritarian styles were not distinct in the Hong Kong sample.

7.3. Limitations and Future Directions

The present study has several limitations. First, although the averaged scores from both mothers and fathers were analyzed, the substantial amount of missing data may have compromised the stability of the factor structure and reduced the precision of the correlation estimates. The final response rate was 56.34%, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings. In addition, because cases without complete data from both parents were excluded, single-parent families were not represented in the analytic sample, which may have further reduced representativeness. Second, all parenting variables were derived from parent self-reports, which may have been influenced by social desirability or self-perception biases, particularly in a context where parenting is closely linked with cultural expectations. While this is a common approach in parenting research, we acknowledge that reliance on parental reports, rather than child reports or multi-informant designs, limits the validity of the findings.

Third, the study used a cross-sectional design, precluding the ability to draw conclusions about how parenting styles might change as children mature or how these styles influence developmental outcomes over time.

Fourth, our focus on authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles, while theoretically justified, necessarily excluded permissive parenting. This narrowed scope constrains the comprehensiveness of the findings, and future research should incorporate the full range of parenting styles to provide a more complete picture.

Finally, although socioeconomic variables such as parental education and household income were collected, these were not incorporated into the present analyses. Including socioeconomic factors could yield important insights into variations in parenting practices, and their exclusion represents a further limitation of the current study.

Future research would benefit from longitudinal and mixed methods designs to better capture the evolution of parenting styles over time. Incorporating children’s own perceptions of parenting would also provide a more balanced view of how parenting is experienced within a family (Steinberg and Silverberg 1986). In addition, understanding how parenting behaviors are interpreted across various Chinese communities (e.g., immigrant communities and transnational households) would also have practical value. For example, public education materials or parenting programs that assume a one-size-fits-all approach may not resonate with parents whose beliefs about control, warmth, or discipline differ from mainstream norms. By identifying these variations, future research could inform the development of culturally responsive policies and educational resources that are more closely aligned with the lived experiences of diverse families.

8. Conclusions

The study identified a non-significant correlation between authoritative and authoritarian parenting in a Hong Kong sample. This finding suggests that the distinction between the two styles may be less clear in Hong Kong families. Cultural values rooted in Confucian traditions, such as guan and yan-ci, may encourage parents to combine warmth and behavioral control in ways that do not fit neatly into conventional Western frameworks of parenting.

In addition, the study found meaningful differences in parenting styles based on children’s gender and age. Specifically, boys’ parents reported higher levels of democratic participation and reasoning, indicative of authoritative parenting, and boys’ parents reported more physical coercion and punitive discipline, characteristic of authoritarian parenting. Authoritative parenting, but not authoritarian parenting, showed a decline as children matured. These findings highlight the roles of both developmental stage and sociocultural context in shaping how parenting is expressed and perceived. Together, these findings point to the need for parenting research and support programs that are both culturally sensitive and developmentally informed.

This study underscores the importance of developing culturally adapted parent education materials that accurately reflect the realities of parenting in Hong Kong. Moreover, it provides practical implications for parent education and school–family collaboration, suggesting that efforts to support children’s development should consider culturally specific understandings of parental control and warmth. By clarifying the relationship between these two parenting dimensions in a hybrid cultural context, the findings can inform the development of more culturally sensitive intervention models and refine the theoretical applicability of parenting frameworks across societies.