Next Article in Journal
Telling Their Stories: A Narrative Intervention to Support Belonging, Identity, and Persistence in Engineering Students
Previous Article in Journal
Examining the Psychometric Structure of an Instrument to Measure Students’ Interests and Motivation in Science Learning: Factor Analysis and Measurement Invariance
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/educsci16050708
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Parent-Child Communication and Children’s Democratic Citizenship: The Roles of Growth Mindset and Peer Relationship

by
Gabjung Yoon
1 and
Jiyoung Lee
2,*
1
Department of Social Welfare, Daegu Haany University, Gyeongsan 38610, Republic of Korea
2
Department of English Language Studies, College of Arts and Social Sciences, Tarlac State University, Tarlac City 2300, Philippines
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2026, 16(5), 708; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16050708
Submission received: 16 March 2026 / Revised: 11 April 2026 / Accepted: 24 April 2026 / Published: 30 April 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Education and Psychology)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Despite growing emphasis on democratic citizenship education in South Korea, limited research has examined the social and psychological factors influencing children’s democratic citizenship—defined here as awareness of and willingness to engage in societal issues as responsible community members. This study examines the relationship between parent–child communication and democratic citizenship, focusing on the mediating roles of growth mindset and peer relationships among South Korean elementary school students. A total of 212 students in grades four to six completed a cross-sectional survey assessing parental communication, democratic citizenship (operationalized as civic awareness and community engagement), growth mindset, and peer relationships. Serial-multiple-mediation analysis was conducted to evaluate the mediating effects of growth mindset and peer relationships. The results indicated that positive parent–child communication was associated with higher levels of democratic citizenship and that growth mindset and peer relationships jointly mediated this relationship in a serial manner. These findings highlight the importance of fostering open parent–child communication, encouraging a growth mindset, and promoting positive peer relationships to enhance democratic citizenship development in children. Given the cross-sectional design, causal inferences should be interpreted with caution, and longitudinal studies are needed to confirm these relationships.

1. Introduction

Recent societal events in South Korea, including political instability and democratic challenges, have intensified discussions about the importance of democratic citizenship education (J. Bae, 2025; G. Lee, 2020). In response, the Ministry of Education implemented the Comprehensive Plan for the Promotion of Democratic Citizenship Education in 2018, with the 2022 revised national curriculum explicitly aiming to foster democratic citizens who understand diversity and demonstrate mutual respect and community engagement (Ministry of Education, 2022).
In our increasingly pluralistic global society, citizenship qualities and competencies have become more important to address the various challenges associated with encouraging communication and cooperation for the common good, such as understanding and valuing diverse cultures, resolving conflicts, and addressing global issues (Ok et al., 2018). Many countries include democratic citizenship education at school, and while the concepts and approaches vary, the core objectives are the same: to cultivate democratic citizenship awareness (Anderson, 2023; Arizka, 2020).
Democratic citizenship education involves building democratic citizenship awareness through educational activities that encourage students to participate actively in their communities, voice their opinions, and become responsible members of a democratic society (Jang, 2019). In essence, democratic citizenship education is focused on developing a civic consciousness that promotes community maintenance and development and an awareness of and willingness to engage in societal issues (Na, 2014).
For the purposes of this study, democratic citizenship is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct comprising both civic attitudes and behavioral competencies that enable children to function as responsible members of a democratic community. Drawing on H. M. Kim’s (2005) framework for Korean elementary students, we operationalize democratic citizenship through four interrelated dimensions: (a) respect for human rights—recognizing the inherent dignity and equal worth of all individuals; (b) responsibility—fulfilling one’s duties and commitments to the community; (c) cooperation—working collaboratively toward common goals; and (d) awareness of democratic procedures—understanding and practicing dialog, negotiation, and consensus-building to resolve disagreements. This conceptualization distinguishes democratic citizenship from broader moral development or general prosocial behavior in three key ways. First, while moral development focuses on individual ethical reasoning (Kohlberg, 1984), democratic citizenship specifically emphasizes civic engagement and collective action within a political community. Second, whereas general prosociality encompasses any helpful behavior toward others (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989), democratic citizenship requires deliberate participation in community decision-making processes and adherence to democratic norms and procedures. Third, democratic citizenship is not merely attitudinal or value-based but inherently behavioral—it requires active demonstration of civic competencies such as dialogue, compromise, and collaborative problem-solving in real social contexts (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Therefore, in this study, democratic citizenship represents children’s enacted capacity to participate constructively in their immediate social environments (family, classroom, peer groups) through practices that reflect democratic values and procedural skills, serving as a developmental foundation for future civic participation in broader political spheres.
Importantly, the present study conceptualizes democratic citizenship as extending beyond general prosocial behavior or moral compliance. While prosocial behavior typically reflects interpersonal kindness or helping behaviors, democratic citizenship involves active engagement with collective issues, participation in decision-making processes, and a sense of responsibility toward the broader community. In this sense, democratic citizenship is inherently socio-political, requiring not only positive interpersonal attitudes but also a willingness to participate in social issues, express opinions, and contribute to communal well-being.
The measurement used in this study reflects these characteristics by including items related to participation, responsibility, cooperation in group contexts, and the use of democratic procedures such as dialog and consensus-building. These elements capture children’s enacted civic competencies rather than merely their tendency to behave in socially desirable ways.
Citizenship education in the United Kingdom became a mandatory national curriculum subject in 2002, and in the United States, some state-level education standards include components to enhance civic consciousness, such as civic knowledge, responsibility, and participation (S. Y. Park, 2012). However, compared to the U.S. and the U.K., where democratic citizenship education emphasizes critical thinking, active engagement, and civic responsibility, the hierarchical social structure in South Korea means that its citizenship education approach, which places stronger emphasis on virtues and responsibilities, is more closely linked to moral education (Roh, 2004). Even though South Korean students have been found to have fairly high civic knowledge and cognitive skills, their active participation at school and in their local communities is relatively low (J. E. Kim, 2023; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2024). These findings also indicated that South Korean students’ democratic citizenship awareness has been shaped by the nation’s sociocultural characteristics.
Evaluations of democratic citizenship education in South Korean schools have been largely unfavorable. Concerns have been raised about the lack of consistency due to various issues, such as changes in superintendents, the influence of supervisory officials on policy implementation, discrepancies in teacher and student perspectives regarding democratic citizenship education, and the limited effectiveness of citizenship education delivered by external instructors. These factors have made it difficult to achieve any substantial improvements in students’ democratic citizenship awareness (Cha, 2018).
Against this backdrop, South Korea’s educational landscape faces significant challenges that threaten the foundations of democratic citizenship. Research demonstrates that socioeconomic disparities in educational achievement have widened substantially, with family socioeconomic status increasingly determining students’ access to quality education and future opportunities (Byun & Lee, 2021; Y. Kim & Um, 2018). Concurrently, a marked shift toward individualism among younger generations has manifested in declining civic engagement and political participation, with youth increasingly adopting a culture of “gakjadosaeng”—meaning “no one backs you up”—that prioritizes individual survival over collective solidarity (K. Lee et al., 2023). These converging trends render the urgent need for democratic citizenship education which fosters fairness, justice, coexistence, and mutual respect increasingly critical (H. Ha, 2024; S. Kim & Kim, 2024).
Childhood, when formal schooling begins, is a crucial developmental stage for democratic citizenship education. Levine et al. (1985) claimed that childhood is when children begin to develop a sense of common morality, move beyond egocentric thinking, and recognize the importance of adhering to societal expectations within their families, schools, and the nation. Childhood is also when conscience, norms, and values begin to develop (Na, 2014). Therefore, childhood is the best time to foster the qualities and values inherent in democratic citizenship.
Studies comparing democratic citizenship awareness in South Korean elementary, middle, and high school students found a decline as students advanced through the grades (M. H. Kim & Kim, 2017). Therefore, there is a need to explore strategies that can sustain the high democratic citizenship awareness observed in elementary school students. During childhood, children learn morality, social norms, and values through their experiences at home and school. In particular, positive parental attitudes can contribute to increased self-esteem, cooperation, and the development of peer relationships (D. Kim, 2020), whereas inconsistent and overly controlling parenting has been linked to higher levels of childhood depression (T. S. Choi & Kim, 2015). Positive parent−child interactions can enhance prosocial behavior (Heo, 2017) and support social development (Seo, 2025), and good parent−child communication can strengthen empathy (Chae, 2015).
However, existing research has primarily examined direct relationships between individual factors and democratic citizenship, with limited attention to the complex pathways through which multiple factors interact. While parent–child communication has been linked to children’s social and psychological development (T. S. Choi & Kim, 2015; Heo, 2017), and growth mindset and peer relationships have been associated with civic outcomes (H. J. Choi & Yoo, 2024), no studies have systematically examined how these factors work together in a serial mediation model to influence democratic citizenship. Specifically, prior research has not explored whether parent–child communication influences democratic citizenship indirectly through its effects on children’s growth mindset, which in turn shapes peer relationships. Understanding these sequential pathways is crucial for developing comprehensive citizenship education interventions that address both psychological dispositions and social contexts. Therefore, this study addresses this research gap by examining the serial–multiple mediation effects of growth mindset and peer relationships in the relationship between parent–child communication and democratic citizenship among South Korean elementary school children.
Parent−child communication influences a child’s growth mindset (Cho & Tak, 2021) and affects peer communication (H. J. Bae et al., 2018), and positive peer relationships contribute to civic consciousness (H. J. Choi & Yoo, 2024). Chu (2021) argues that because democratic citizenship awareness is closely related to the formation of positive relationships and citizen growth, citizenship education should be integrated with positive psychology.
Traditional citizenship education has been primarily school-centered, so individualized civic education and has, therefore, not adequately considered students’ diverse social contexts. It has also been criticized for failing to provide continuous opportunities for students to practice citizenship in their local communities (G. Lee, 2022). Therefore, Chu (2021) suggests that democratic citizenship education should focus less on enhancing individual competencies and more on fostering social capital by emphasizing the strengths and positive relationships in positive psychology.
This approach suggests that positive psychological factors may function as mediating mechanisms in understanding civic development. Furthermore, positive psychological capital is flexible and can be sufficiently developed through acquired learning (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Therefore, enhancing positive psychological capital could lead to higher democratic citizenship awareness in children.
To provide a theoretical foundation for the present study, this research is grounded in three complementary frameworks: socialization theory, positive psychology, and ecological systems theory. First, socialization theory posits that parent–child interactions play a critical role in shaping children’s social values and behaviors, including civic attitudes and responsibilities. Second, positive psychology emphasizes the importance of individual strengths, such as growth mindset, as key internal resources that influence adaptive functioning and social engagement. Third, ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) highlights the interaction between individual and environmental factors, suggesting that children’s development is shaped by both family (microsystem) and peer contexts.
Based on these theoretical perspectives, this study proposes a conceptual model in which parent–child communication influences children’s democratic citizenship both directly and indirectly through growth mindset and peer relationships. This integrated framework provides the theoretical basis for the serial mediation model tested in this study.
This study explores the influences of positive relationships, such as open parental communication and positive peer relationships, and strengths, such as a growth mindset, on democratic citizenship awareness and the pathways through which these factors interact. Ultimately, we sought to gain insights into enhancing elementary school children’s democratic citizenship awareness and the implications for democratic citizenship education.
The study was driven by the following research questions:
  • How does parent–child communication influence the development of children’s democratic citizenship?
  • Does a growth mindset mediate the relationship between parent–child communication and children’s democratic citizenship?
  • Does the quality of peer relationships mediate the relationship between parent–child communication and children’s democratic citizenship?
  • Do growth mindset and peer relationships exert a sequential (serial) mediating effect on the relationship between parent–child communication and children’s democratic citizenship?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Parent–Child Communication and Democratic Citizenship in Children

Parent–child communication refers to the process by which parents and children verbally and non-verbally exchange their thoughts, opinions, and emotions and foster mutual understanding (Min, 1992; Olson et al., 1979). Research demonstrates that positive parent–child communication significantly influences children’s social and psychological development, including interpersonal competence and citizenship behaviors (J. E. Kim & Choi, 2017; Riesch et al., 2010).
Democratic citizenship in Korean elementary students encompasses four essential virtues: respect for human rights, responsibility, cooperation, and awareness of democratic procedures—the ability to resolve issues through dialog and discussion (H. M. Kim, 2005). Critically, children learn these democratic procedures and communication styles through interactions with their parents at home (Moeini et al., 2025). When parents engage in open communication, children internalize trust and social norms, developing the responsibility, cooperation, and democratic procedures necessary for citizenship (Belay & Tefera, 2023; Twork et al., 2025). This theoretical framework suggests that parent–child communication serves as a primary socialization mechanism through which democratic values are transmitted, directly supporting our first hypothesis.
H1. 
Parent–child communication will have a positive effect on children’s democratic citizenship.

2.2. Parent−Child Communication, Growth Mindset, and Citizenship

Cognitive ability and educational attainment mindset theories suggest that beliefs about whether basic abilities are fixed or changeable can exert powerful causal influences on intelligence, educational attainment, and recovery from setbacks (Blackwell et al., 2007; Gunderson et al., 2013; Molden & Dweck, 2000; Paunesku et al., 2015). People with fixed mindsets—who tend to believe that human abilities are difficult to develop and prefer familiar over challenging tasks—are more likely to perceive challenges as a test of their ability (Mueller & Dweck, 1998). In contrast, people with growth mindsets view challenges as part of the learning process, actively seek new information, and experience enjoyment (McCutchen et al., 2016).
A child’s growth mindset is influenced by positive parenting attitudes (S. H. Lee & Choi, 2019) and parent–child communication (Cho & Tak, 2021), which can be either open or closed. Open communication involves freely and honestly expressing thoughts and emotions, while closed communication is characterized by parents taking an authoritarian, unilateral approach toward their children (Barnes & Olson, 1985). Positive, open parent–child communication can enhance an adolescent’s positive psychological capital—such as self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism—which also reduces their everyday stress (A. R. Choi, 2021). These findings suggest that open parent–child communication can foster a child’s growth mindset as a form of positive psychological capital.
Students with a growth mindset also tend to have higher self-esteem (J. H. Ha & Han, 2021). Importantly, growth mindset has been shown to positively influence citizenship behaviors (D. Kim, 2020; J. H. Kim, 2020), suggesting that children with a growth mindset are more likely to actively engage with social issues and challenges. Building on this evidence, we propose that growth mindset serves as a psychological mechanism linking parent–child communication to democratic citizenship development, supporting our second hypothesis.
H2. 
Growth mindset will mediate the relationship between parent–child communication and children’s democratic citizenship.

2.3. Parent–Child Communication, Peer Relationships, and Democratic Citizenship

Children first form relationships with their parents, through whom they learn to experience and respond to emotions. Therefore, parent–child communication styles may influence the interactions they have with their peers (H. J. Bae et al., 2018). Children who have frequent, open communication experiences with their parents become more accustomed to freely expressing their emotions and opinions. This may also enhance their ability to communicate emotions to their peers and increase the likelihood of forming positive peer relationships. Conversely, when parents ignore their children’s emotions and thoughts, excessively interfere, or hold unrealistic expectations, children may become socially withdrawn, struggle to express emotions appropriately, and have difficulty developing emotional understanding of others. These underdeveloped communication abilities may negatively impact the quality of their peer relationships (Do, 2004).
Studies have found that perceived parental open communication and permissive support can positively influence the quality of a child’s peer relationships. Conversely, closed communication styles and authoritarian parental control tendencies are associated with declines in the quality of peer relationships (Do, 2004; J. L. Park, 2016; Y. W. Yang & Jung, 2017).
As children enter their upper elementary school years, the influence of peers on their values and norm formation gradually surpasses that of their parents. Through peer relationships at school, children learn to express thoughts freely, form friendships, and acquire social and emotional skills such as persuasion, negotiation, compromise, emotional regulation, and respect (Cheon & Han, 2012; Parker & Asher, 1993). These interactions foster openness and acceptance toward peers with different characteristics, which can positively affect their attitudes toward multicultural diversity (Hong, 2019; J. H. Yang & Lee, 2010) and democratic citizenship (H. J. Choi & Yoo, 2024; Jung et al., 2017; W. J. Kim, 2012). These findings establish peer relationships as a crucial social context through which citizenship values are practiced and reinforced, supporting our third hypothesis.
Furthermore, growth mindset can influence the formation of positive peer relationships (Y. J. Lee & Kim, 2019), which in turn enhance learning motivation and academic achievement (Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005). This suggests a sequential pathway wherein parent–child communication fosters growth mindset, which then facilitates positive peer relationships, ultimately contributing to democratic citizenship development. Therefore, as components of children’s positive psychological capital, open parent–child communication at home and positive peer relationships at school may operate as interconnected factors in fostering democratic citizenship, supporting our fourth hypothesis of serial mediation.
The proposed serial mediation model is grounded in a theoretically driven developmental sequence. Parent–child communication is conceptualized as a primary socialization process that shapes children’s internal belief systems, including their growth mindset. Growth mindset, as a cognitive–motivational construct, influences how children interpret challenges, interact with others, and engage in social contexts. In turn, these internal dispositions are reflected in the quality of peer relationships, which represent a key social context where children enact and practice their social and civic competencies.
Thus, the sequential pathway (parent–child communication → growth mindset → peer relationships → democratic citizenship) reflects a theoretically informed progression from family-based socialization to internal cognitive frameworks, and finally to social interaction contexts. This model does not assume a deterministic developmental process but rather represents a conceptual framework for understanding how these factors may be interrelated.
H3. 
Peer relationships will mediate the relationship between parent–child communication and children’s democratic citizenship.
H4. 
Growth mindset and peer relationships will exert a sequential (serial) mediating effect on the relationship between parent–child communication and children’s democratic citizenship.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Participants

This study sought to investigate the structural relationships between parent–child communication, growth mindset, peer relationships, and democratic citizenship as perceived by upper-grade elementary school students. The sample size (N = 212) was considered adequate for regression-based mediation analysis, particularly when using bootstrapping procedures. The final participants were 212 fourth- to sixth-grade students from public elementary schools in City D, South Korea, which is an urban area characterized by typical public school settings in South Korea: 111 males (52.4%) and 101 females (47.6%). Seventy students were from fourth grade (33.0%), 73 from fifth grade (34.4%), and 69 from sixth grade (32.5%).

3.2. Research Instruments

3.2.1. Parent–Child Communication

A scale developed by Barnes and Olson (1982), adapted by Min (1992), and revised by M. O. Kim (2015) was used to measure parent–child communication. The scale has 20 items divided into two components: open communication and problematic communication. Open communication reflects a positive aspect in which parents and children freely express themselves, while problematic communication reflects a negative aspect in which communication between parents and children is inadequate. Participants respond on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1, not at all true, to 5, very true, with the items on problematic communication scored in reverse. Higher scores indicate more open and positive parent–child communication. The scale demonstrated high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.923 for the total scale, with α = 0.930 for open communication and α = 0.811 for problematic communication).

3.2.2. Democratic Citizenship

Democratic citizenship was measured using a scale developed by H. M. Kim (2005). This 20-item scale is divided into four areas, each measured on a five-point Likert scale: respect for human rights (“I believe all people are as valuable as I am”), responsibility (“I strive to fulfill the tasks assigned to me in class”), cooperation (“I have experienced completing difficult tasks more easily by working together”), and democratic procedures (“When I disagree with my friends, I resolve it through dialog”). In particular, items assessing democratic procedures and responsibility reflect children’s willingness to engage in collective decision-making, resolve conflicts through dialogue, and participate in group-oriented activities. These aspects distinguish democratic citizenship from general prosocial behavior by emphasizing active participation in social and communal contexts. The scale showed acceptable to good reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.820 for the total scale, with subscale alphas ranging from 0.871 to 0.892). Given that H. M. Kim’s (2005) framework conceptualizes democratic citizenship as an integrated construct in which the four dimensions are theoretically interrelated and collectively define civic competency, a composite total score was used in the analysis. This approach is also supported by the high internal consistency of the total scale, which indicates that the four subscales function coherently as a unified measure.

3.2.3. Growth Mindset

A mindset scale developed by Dweck (2006) and previously employed in Ryu (2018) was used to measure mindset. The eight-item scale includes four items measuring growth mindset and four measuring fixed mindset, each assessed on a five-point Likert scale from 1, strongly disagree, to 5, strongly agree. The four items measuring fixed mindset were reverse-coded for the analysis, following Dweck’s (2006) original conceptualization that treats fixed and growth mindset as opposite ends of a single continuum; this is consistent with prior studies employing the same scale (Ryu, 2018). The scale demonstrated excellent reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.977 for the total scale, with α = 0.918 for growth mindset items and α = 0.897 for fixed mindset items).

3.2.4. Peer Relationship

Peer relationships were measured using the peer relationships quality scale previously used in H. R. Kim (2021). The scale’s 13 items are divided into positive and negative peer relationships, each rated on a four-point Likert scale. An example of a positive peer relationships item is “I can share my secrets with my friends,” and an example of a negative peer relationships item is “I don’t easily reconcile after a fight with a friend.” In H. R. Kim (2021) study, a confirmatory factor analysis grouped the items into three variables to ensure that the factor loadings for each item were similarly distributed. As a result, item nine was excluded because it did not sufficiently load onto the intended factor. Based on these findings, this study also used a total of 12 items for the analysis. The scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.812 for the total scale, with α = 0.828 for positive peer relationships and α = 0.743 for negative peer relationships).

3.3. Research Procedure

Three public elementary schools in City D were randomly contacted, of which two agreed to participate in the study. Homeroom teachers distributed and explained the questionnaires to students in grades four to six. Data were collected between 1 November and 16 November 2022. Students completed the questionnaires independently during class hours without parental or teacher assistance. In total, 250 questionnaires were collected. After excluding incomplete or insincere responses, 212 valid cases remained for analysis (111 boys and 101 girls).

3.4. Ethical Consideration

This study was conducted under the direct supervision of classroom teachers to ensure a safe and ethical research environment for the students. Written informed consent was obtained from all legal guardians, and student assent was secured prior to participation. Participation was strictly voluntary; students who did not provide assent, or whose guardians did not consent, did not participate in the study and were provided with alternative activities during the survey period. All questionnaires were completed during regular school hours to minimize any disruption to the students’ routines.

3.5. Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the research data, and the relationships between the research variables were examined using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The data were analyzed using a regression-based mediation analysis approach as outlined by Hayes (2013). In this approach, the statistical significance of the indirect mediating effects is evaluated using the bootstrap method, based on whether the point estimate of the mediating variable is zero within a 95% bias-corrected and accelerated confidence interval. As such, a variable whose confidence interval does not contain zero is considered statistically significant. The bootstrap analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS (v22.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and the Serial-Multiple Mediation Model 6 in the PROCESS Macro (v3.5; Andrew F. Hayes, Calgary, AB, Canada). PROCESS Macro Model 6 estimates indirect effects based on observed variables using bootstrapping procedures. Hayes (2013) recommended 10,000 bootstrap samples for mediation analysis in the Serial-Multiple Mediation Model 6 test. Therefore, data from 10,000 bootstrap samples were used. The final data analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS 22.0 (Allen et al., 2014).

4. Results and Finding

4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Analysis

Prior to conducting the mediation analysis, the mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis were calculated to assess the normality of the variable distributions. The results are presented in Table 1. Table 1 presents the number of items and reliability coefficients for each measurement scale used in this study. The internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was confirmed to be robust across all variables. Specifically, the reliability coefficients for the total scales were 0.923 for parent–child communication, 0.820 for democratic citizenship, 0.977 for growth mindset, and 0.812 for peer relationship. All sub-factors also demonstrated acceptable internal consistency, with coefficients ranging from 0.743 to 0.930, exceeding the conventional threshold of 0.70.
Examination of normality indicated that skewness values ranged from −1.049 to −0.161, while kurtosis values ranged from 0.171 to 1.143, satisfying the criteria for normal distribution (i.e., skewness between −2 and +2 and kurtosis between −7 and +7; Hair et al., 2010). Descriptive statistics revealed the following means: parent–child communication (M = 3.477, SD = 0.734), growth mindset (M = 3.871, SD = 0.479), peer relationships (M = 4.073, SD = 0.823), and democratic citizenship (M = 3.00, SD = 0.401). All variables showed means above the scale midpoint, indicating that participants reported relatively positive levels of parent–child communication, growth mindset, peer relationships, and democratic citizenship.
The analysis of the correlations between all variables revealed that the parent–child communication measure was significantly correlated with the democratic citizenship dependent variable and with the proposed growth mindset and peer relationships mediators in the expected direction: that is, parent–child communication was positively associated with citizenship (r = 0.324, p < 0.01), and parent−child communication was positively associated with growth mindset (r = 0.486, p < 0.01) and peer relationships (r = 0.280, p < 0.01). Mindset was positively associated with peer relationships (r = 0.402, p < 0.01) and democratic citizenship (r = 0.472, p < 0.01), and peer relationships were positively associated with democratic citizenship (r = 0.447, p < 0.01) (Table 2). The skewness and kurtosis values for all study variables were within an acceptable range (absolute value < 2), indicating that the normality assumption had been met (Kline, 2016).

4.2. Serial-Multiple Mediation of Growth Mindset and Peer Relationships

The regression-based approach and the bootstrap method (Hayes, 2013) were employed to determine the serial-multiple mediation of growth mindset and peer relationships on the relationship between parent−child communication and citizenship. The obtained findings are shown in Figure 1 and Table 3.
Figure 1 shows that when parent–child communication was entered as a single predictor, it was positively associated with democratic citizenship (β = 0.324, p < 0.001). The indirect effects of growth mindset and peer relationships on the influence of parent–child communication on democratic citizenship are shown in Table 3.
First, parent–child communication was significantly and positively associated with growth mindset (β = 0.486, p < 0.001). Second, when parent−child communication and growth mindset were included with peer relationships, parent−child communication did not have a significant effect on peer relationships (β = 0.111, p > 0.05); however, growth mindset was significantly associated with peer relationships (β = 0.348, p < 0.001). Third, when all variables were included with democratic citizenship as the dependent variable, parent−child communication did not have a significant effect on democratic citizenship (β = 0.109, p > 0.05). However, growth mindset (β = 0.308, p < 0.001) and peer relationships (β = 0.298, p < 0.001) both were significantly and positively associated with democratic citizenship.
While the effect of parent–child communication on democratic citizenship was significant when entered alone (β = 0.324, p < 0.001), the direct effect became non-significant when growth mindset and peer relationships were included as mediators (β = 0.091, p > 0.05). These findings suggest that growth mindset and peer relationships collectively mediate the relationship between parent–child communication and democratic citizenship. The regression model explained 30.8% of the variance in democratic citizenship (R2 = 0.308), indicating a moderate level of explanatory power.

4.3. Comparison of Indirect Effect

The results of the bootstrapping analysis to verify the significance of the detailed indirect effects are shown in Table 4. First, the pathway from parent–child communication to democratic citizenship via the growth mindset did not include zero within the 95% confidence interval, indicating statistical significance (β = 0.150, 95% confidence interval = 0.065 to 0.241). However, the pathway from parent–child communication to democratic citizenship via peer relationships included zero within the 95% confidence interval, indicating that it was not statistically significant (β = 0.033, confidence interval = −0.008 to 0.087). This indicates that the direct path from parent–child communication to peer relationships (X → M2) did not reach statistical significance, suggesting that peer relationships do not independently mediate the relationship between parent–child communication and democratic citizenship. Finally, the total indirect effect of parent–child communication on democratic citizenship was statistically significant, as the 95% confidence interval did not include zero (β = 0.233, 95% confidence interval = 0.144 to 0.326). The specific serial mediation pathway through growth mindset and peer relationships (X → M1 → M2 → Y) was also statistically significant (β = 0.050, 95% confidence interval = 0.019 to 0.088). However, the specific indirect effects, including the serial mediation pathway through growth mindset and peer relationships, should be interpreted based on their respective confidence intervals as presented in Table 4.

5. Discussion

This study examined the serial-multiple mediation effects of growth mindset and peer relationships on the association between parent–child communication and democratic citizenship in South Korean elementary school students. The following key findings emerged.
First, parent–child communication was positively associated with children’s democratic citizenship. This finding is consistent with previous research (Hummel et al., 2023; Lim, 2013), which suggests that the quality of communication between parents and children serves as a significant predictor of children’s democratic citizenship. Meanwhile, open and democratic communication within the family enables children to learn to express their opinions freely and politely while respecting the opinions of others. Through such interactions, children develop the foundational skills for practicing democracy and cooperation at school and in broader social settings. Conversely, controlling or one-sided communication styles may inhibit children’s ability to articulate their thoughts, resulting in passive or aggressive interaction patterns. Thus, as citizenship education offered in schools alone may be insufficient, democratic interaction within the family constitutes an essential foundation for fostering children’s democratic citizenship.
Second, parent–child communication was significantly associated with children’s growth mindset, which, in turn, was positively associated with peer relationships and democratic citizenship. According to Dweck’s (2006) mindset theory, children with a growth-oriented mindset perceive challenges as opportunities for intellectual and personal growth rather than as failures. Such children are more likely to collaborate with peers, demonstrate perseverance, and maintain motivation, thereby reinforcing the present study’s findings. A growth mindset also promotes self-regulation, and adaptability, and key elements of citizenship such as cooperation, accountability, and democratization. Meanwhile, supportive parental communication nurtures children’s belief that “I can learn,” which is a conviction that extends to social participation and democratic engagement. Thus, parental communication plays a vital role in fostering the cognitive and emotional maturity underlying democratic values.
Third, a growth mindset was positively associated with peer relationships, which, in turn, was significantly associated with democratic citizenship. These results align with previous research demonstrating that a growth mindset enhances the quality of interpersonal relationships (Y. J. Lee & Kim, 2019; Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005). Peer relationships also provide a crucial context in which children learn social norms and practice compromise and cooperation in conflict situations. Moreover, positive peer interactions foster key civic virtues such as multicultural sensitivity, fairness, and consideration for others (H. J. Choi & Yoo, 2024). Notably, the direct path from parent–child communication to peer relationships (X → M2) was not statistically significant (β = 0.033, 95% CI = −0.008 to 0.087). This finding indicates that parent–child communication does not directly predict peer relationship quality on its own. Rather, its influence on peer relationships appears to be contingent on the mediating role of growth mindset, as evidenced by the significant serial mediation pathway (X → M1 → M2 → Y). This suggests that parental communication styles may shape children’s social relationships indirectly by first fostering a growth-oriented belief system, rather than by directly altering friendship dynamics. However, given the cross-sectional design, this interpretation should be treated as tentative, and the proposed sequential mechanism requires longitudinal verification.
Fourth, peer relationships were not found to have a significant independent mediating effect on the relationship between parent–child communication and democratic citizenship. These findings suggest that growth mindset and peer relationships are jointly associated with democratic citizenship within the proposed model. However, given the cross-sectional nature of the data, this finding should be interpreted as an association rather than evidence of a sequential causal process. This suggests that although children’s perception of positive parental communication is associated with their democratic citizenship, this relationship cannot be understood as being causally strengthened by the degree to which they perceive their peer relationships to be positive. Instead, the results indicate that growth mindset and peer relationships may be jointly related to democratic citizenship within a theoretically proposed framework, rather than functioning as a confirmed sequential mechanism. In other words, peer relationships may be relevant in the association between parent–child communication and children’s democratic citizenship, but this role should be interpreted cautiously and not as a definitive mediating pathway. Importantly, the non-significant independent mediating effect of peer relationships indicates that peer relationships should not be interpreted as a standalone mediator, and their role in the model appears to be conditional and limited within the broader framework of the variables examined.
In line with this interpretation, the present study does not assume that growth mindset and peer relationships operate as distinct forms of “psychological capital” and “social capital” in a deterministic manner. Rather, growth mindset is treated as a cognitive–motivational disposition, and peer relationships as a social interaction context in which children may express civic-related behaviors. By integrating positive psychology perspectives, this study tentatively highlights the potential importance of both internal dispositions and social contexts in understanding democratic citizenship. However, these relationships should be understood as theoretically informed associations rather than empirically verified developmental processes. Furthermore, the interpretation of the indirect effects should be aligned with the specific statistical estimates reported, and thus the relative contribution of each pathway should be considered cautiously rather than generalized.
To date, most mindset research has focused on academic outcomes. International studies have examined the relationship between growth mindset and academic achievement, motivation, and resilience, and domestic research has explored its mediating role concerning grit, resilience, and self-efficacy (J. S. Choi & Oh, 2018). This study contributes to the field by identifying growth mindset as a mediator in the relationship between parent–child communication and democratic citizenship. Nevertheless, this mediating role should be interpreted within the limits of the current design, as the temporal ordering among variables cannot be confirmed. As children’s growth mindset is influenced not only by positive parenting but also by teacher support (S. H. Lee & Moon, 2020), future research should further investigate the role of teacher support in fostering a growth mindset. Additionally, future studies should consider testing alternative or competing models (e.g., different ordering of mediators or bidirectional relationships) to better understand the robustness of the proposed framework. These findings suggest that to support children’s development of democratic citizenship, it may be beneficial to consider both psychological and relational factors, while avoiding overgeneralization beyond the scope of the data.
The upper elementary school grades are when children generally transition from late childhood to early adolescence, a phase often characterized by increasing parent–child communication challenges. This study highlights that positive parent–child communication during this period is associated with democratic citizenship in children. It is therefore recommended that schools and communities provide targeted parental education programs that promote open and supportive communication strategies with upper-grade elementary children. However, these implications should be interpreted cautiously, as the present findings do not establish causal relationships. These efforts could strengthen family engagement in civics education programs and help children develop into democratic citizens. Additionally, as children’s growth mindset is influenced not only by positive parenting but also by teacher support (S. H. Lee & Moon, 2020), future research should further investigate the role of teacher support in fostering a growth mindset.

6. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study has several limitations that should be considered along with suggestions for future research. First, the study employed cross-sectional data to examine the serial-multiple mediation effects. While the model revealed meaningful associations between the variables, causal inferences were limited due to the nature of the data. Future studies should adopt a longitudinal research design to verify the sequential mediation model over time and provide more robust evidence regarding the causal relationships.
Second, the study utilized nonprobability sampling and focused exclusively on upper-grade elementary school students from a single city (City D). As such, the findings should be interpreted as context-specific rather than broadly representative of South Korean children. The sample’s geographic and demographic characteristics may limit the applicability of results to students in rural areas, different socioeconomic contexts, or other cultural settings. Future research should expand the sample to include students from all grade levels and diverse geographic regions to enhance the external validity of the results and to better capture variations across developmental stages and sociocultural contexts.
Third, this study relied on self-report measures from a single informant. Consequently, the conclusions are limited to the association between parent–child communication and democratic citizenship as perceived by the children themselves. Without data from multiple informants, it is not possible to assess how upper-grade elementary school children’s characteristics may influence actual patterns of communication with their parents. Future studies should replicate these findings using parent reports, observational data, or behavioral measures to provide a more comprehensive understanding.
Fourth, all measures relied on children’s self-reports collected at a single time point, which raises concerns about common method variance (CMV). When both independent and dependent variables are measured using the same method from the same source, shared method variance may inflate observed associations (Podsakoff et al., 2003). While statistical controls (e.g., Harman’s single-factor test) can partially address this concern, they cannot eliminate it entirely. The relationships reported here may therefore overestimate the true associations between constructs. Future research should employ multi-method approaches (e.g., combining child self-reports with parent reports, teacher observations, or behavioral assessments) and multi-wave data collection to reduce common method bias and provide more robust evidence.
Fifth, this study did not include detailed socio-demographic variables related to parents, such as educational level or socioeconomic status, nor did it examine differences across student demographic characteristics such as gender and grade level. These variables may play an important role in shaping children’s social and civic development, including democratic citizenship. Previous research has suggested that demographic characteristics can be associated with variations in civic-related outcomes. Therefore, future studies should incorporate parental socio-demographic factors and examine differences across student demographic groups to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the contextual and individual influences on children’s democratic citizenship.
Sixth, while this study focused on the relationships among parent–child communication, growth mindset, peer relationships, and democratic citizenship, it did not directly incorporate contextual variables such as the Korean national curriculum, classroom climate, or students’ experiences of school-based democratic practices. Given that democratic citizenship is developed within specific socio-cultural and educational contexts, future research should integrate these contextual factors to better understand how democratic citizenship is shaped in authentic educational settings. In particular, incorporating elements of the Korean national curriculum related to civic and moral education, as well as examining classroom-level democratic experiences (e.g., student participation in decision-making, classroom discussion culture), would provide a more comprehensive understanding of democratic citizenship development. This would allow researchers to move beyond individual-level psychological and relational factors and examine how institutional and contextual influences interact with these variables. Furthermore, future studies should aim to develop more contextually grounded models that reflect both individual dispositions and educational environments, thereby providing more practical and applicable implications for democratic citizenship education.
Seventh, considering that the data for this study were collected in 2022, future research should account for potential changes in social and educational environments over time, particularly in the post-pandemic context. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly influenced classroom dynamics, peer interactions, and communication patterns between parents and children. Thus, longitudinal or repeated cross-sectional studies are needed to examine how these evolving conditions may affect the development of democratic citizenship.
Eighth, rather than limiting implications to general factors such as teacher support, this study suggests several specific educational elements that can be incorporated into democratic citizenship education based on the findings.
(1)
Programs should include structured parent–child communication activities, such as guided dialog prompts, reflective journaling, and home-based discussion tasks, to strengthen positive communication patterns that are associated with democratic citizenship.
(2)
Instructional strategies should explicitly foster growth mindset through classroom practices, including feedback focused on effort and improvement, opportunities for challenge-based learning, and activities that encourage persistence and reflection.
(3)
Peer interaction components should be intentionally designed within classroom settings, such as cooperative learning, group problem-solving, and student-led discussions, to provide contexts in which students can practice democratic values and social responsibility.
Taken together, these elements may form a practical framework for designing integrated democratic citizenship education programs that connect family, individual, and peer-level influences. This approach moves beyond abstract recommendations and provides a more structured basis for curriculum development.

7. Conclusions

Integrating perspectives from positive psychology, this study systematically examined the psychosocial pathways influencing democratic citizenship development among Korean elementary school students. The study makes several novel contributions. First, it extends mindset research—which has predominantly focused on academic outcomes—into the socioemotional domain by identifying growth mindset as a psychological mediating mechanism in citizenship development. Second, it demonstrates how intrinsic psychological capital and extrinsic social capital interact to foster citizenship by establishing a sequential pathway from parent–child communication through growth mindset and peer relationships to democratic citizenship.
In practical terms, the findings offer three key implications. First, they confirm that democratic communication at home is an essential complement to school-based civic education. Schools and communities should provide targeted parental education programs to help parents develop open and supportive communication practices with their children. Second, current civic education curricula should move beyond knowledge transmission to integrate the cultivation of psychosocial competencies such as growth mindset and positive peer relationships. Third, school–family partnerships must be strengthened to build an ecological support system for children’s citizenship development. This study demonstrates that democratic citizenship is not merely knowledge transmitted through school education, but a psychosocial competency developed through positive relationships at home and school. These findings underscore the need for an integrated approach to more effective civic education and provide direction for policies and practices that support children’s development as democratic citizens.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.Y.; Methodology, G.Y.; Validation, G.Y.; Formal analysis, G.Y.; Writing—original draft, G.Y.; Writing—review and editing, J.L.; Visualization, J.L.; Supervision, J.L.; Funding acquisition, G.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Research that does not include “subjects in vulnerable environments” as research subjects, and even if it utilizes data obtained through interactions such as communication or interpersonal contact—that is, surveys conducted face-to-face with subjects or behavioral observations—is exempt from review if the subjects are unspecified and does not collect or record “sensitive information” from the subjects.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The authors wish to acknowledge the use of Chat GPT 5.2 in the writing of this paper. This tool was used to help improve the language and grammar in the paper. The paper remains an accurate representation of the authors’ work and intellectual contributions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Allen, J., Balfour, R., Bell, R., & Marmot, M. (2014). Social determinants of mental health. International Review of Psychiatry, 26(4), 392–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Anderson, L. W. (2023). Civic education, citizenship, and democracy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 31, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Arizka, S. (2020). Concept of civic education and its realization in various countries. Jurnal Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan, 3, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bae, H. J., Baek, Y. W., & Song, C. H. (2018). The effect of communication competence on interpersonal competence of K-CESA. Journal of Core Competency Education Research, 3(1), 23–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bae, J. (2025). [Korea’s democratic regression diagnosis series] ② Factors of democratic regression in the Korean presidential system (Working paper). East Asia Institute. Available online: https://www.eai.or.kr/press/press_01_view.php?no=10802 (accessed on 11 November 2025).
  6. Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. (1982). Parent–adolescent communication scale. In D. H. Olson (Ed.), Family inventories: Inventories used in a national survey of families across the family life cycle (pp. 33–46). University of Minnesota. [Google Scholar]
  7. Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. (1985). Parent-adolescent communication and the circumplex model. Child Development, 56(2), 438–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Belay, A., & Tefera, B. (2023). Civic engagement and its relationship with parental civic socialization of adolescents in Addis Ababa. Open Psychology Journal, 16, e187435012302170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. Byun, S., & Lee, S. (2021). Parents’ socioeconomic status and children’s educational outcomes: Has educational inequality worsened in Korea? Park Young Story. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cha, M. J. (2018). The second anniversary evaluation and tasks of the Gyeonggi-do democratic citizenship education ordinance. NGO Studies, 13, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chae, K. S. (2015). The mediating effect of children’s empathy ability between parent–child communication and peer relationships of children [Ph.D. dissertation, Gachon University]. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cheon, Y. R., & Han, K. S. (2012). The relationship among peer relation disposition, relationship maintenance effort and school adjustment of gifted students and non-gifted students. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 22(4), 875–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  15. Cho, J., & Tak, J. (2021). A study on the antecedents affecting the growth mindset of adolescents: Focusing on openness, parental characteristics, and teacher characteristics. Korean Journal of Youth Studies, 28(3), 205–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Choi, A. R. (2021). The effect of parent–child communication on adolescents’ daily stress: The mediating effect of positive psychological capital. Journal of Open Parent Education, 13, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  17. Choi, H. J., & Yoo, G. W. (2024). A structural model analysis of elementary school students’ perceived parenting style, relationships with teachers and peers, self-esteem, and citizenship. Children’s Education, 33(3), 153–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Choi, J. S., & Oh, J. W. (2018). A review of previous studies on Carol S. Dweck’s mindset theory. Journal of Arts Humanities and Social Convergence Multimedia, 8, 139–147. [Google Scholar]
  19. Choi, T. S., & Kim, J. K. (2015). The effects of school life adjustment and parenting style on school-age children’s depression: The moderating effect of parenting style types. Youth Studies Korea, 22, 595–617. [Google Scholar]
  20. Chu, B. W. (2021). Positive psychology and citizenship education. In B. Chu, I. Cho, J. Ryu, B. Lee, K. Lee, & B. Park (Eds.), Omnibus citizenship education (pp. 16–59). Howu Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  21. Do, K. S. (2004). The effect of parent–child communication and interpersonal intelligence on the quality of peer relationship among school children [Master’s thesis, Kyungnam University]. [Google Scholar]
  22. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House. [Google Scholar]
  23. Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P. H. (1989). The roots of prosocial behavior in children. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gunderson, E. A., Gripshover, S. J., Romero, C., Dweck, C. S., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Levine, S. C. (2013). Parent praise to 1- to 3-year-olds predicts children’s motivational frameworks 5 years later. Child Development, 84(5), 1526–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ha, H. (2024). Estimation of the number of out-of-school youth in 2023. Youth Policy Evaluation Center, National Youth Policy Institute. Available online: https://www.ypec.re.kr/fileDownload?fileDownType=C&fileId=1&paramMenuId=MENU00312&titleId=1898 (accessed on 23 April 2026).
  26. Ha, J. H., & Han, C. W. (2021). The mediating effect of fixed mindset in the relationship between high school students’ perceived parenting style and self-esteem. Children’s Education, 30(3), 179–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  29. Heo, J. Y. (2017). The relationship of mother’s emotional expressivity, parent-child interaction, and family strengths with child’s caring behaviors [Master’s thesis, Catholic University of Korea]. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hong, S. P. (2019). The effect of peer relationships on multicultural acceptability among elementary school students. Multicultural Education Studies, 12, 31–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hummel, T. G., Cohen, F., & Anders, Y. (2023). Parents’ trust in their child’s preschool: Associations with child and family characteristics and aspects of parent–preschool communication. Early Education and Development, 34(5), 1057–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jang, E. (2019). Democratic citizenship education in Korea: The direction of social consensus and challenges of institutionalization. Citizen World, 34, 99–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jung, M. S., Choi, H., & Jeon, Y. E. (2017). The effect of cooperative learning on democratic citizenship: Focusing on the mediating effects of peer support, teacher support, parental support, and social self-concept. Journal of Civic Education, 49, 127–145. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kim, D. (2020). Serial multiple mediating effects of self-esteem and cooperation on the relationship between perceived parental attitudes and peer relationships in children. Journal of Digital Convergence, 18(5), 485–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kim, H. M. (2005). A study on the social democratic citizenship of elementary school students [Master’s thesis, Ewha Womans University]. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kim, H. R. (2021). The structural relationship among parenting attitude perceived by elementary school students, teacher relationship, peer relationship and academic engagement [Master’s thesis, Seoul National University of Education]. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kim, J. E. (2023). Global citizenship education in South Korea [Ph.D. dissertation, University College London]. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kim, J. E., & Choi, Y. M. (2017). The mediating effect of parental support on the relationship between children’s interpersonal competence and citizenship: A multi-group analysis of low-income and general families. Korean Journal of Care Management, 25, 5–26. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kim, J. H. (2020). A longitudinal analysis of the effects of growth mindset, reading activities, and citizenship among middle school students. Korean Journal of Youth Activity, 6, 123–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kim, M. H., & Kim, S. H. (2017). Study on the individual and school factors affecting citizenship in students of Gyeonggi-do. Educational Research, 80, 143–167. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kim, M. O. (2015). A study on the Han counseling parent role training for enhancing parent-child communication and the relatedness, individuality [Ph.D. dissertation, Myongji University]. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kim, S., & Kim, N. (2024). Unveiling the evolving educational inequality from upper secondary to higher education in South Korea: From effectively maintained inequality theory perspective. Higher Education, 89, 1637–1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kim, W. J. (2012). The influence of home environment and school experience on high school students’ citizenship: Focusing on social participation awareness and community spirit. Korean Journal of Youth Studies, 23, 201–222. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kim, Y., & Um, M. Y. (2018). The effect of parents’ socioeconomic status on academic achievement: Focusing on the mediating effect of parental emotional support and student’s ego resilience. Korean Journal of Social Welfare Studies, 49(4), 5–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages (Vol. 2). Harper & Row. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lee, G. (2020). Towards inclusive values in democratic civic education: Based on public perceptions. Korean Journal of Public Administration, 34(1), 171–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lee, G. (2022). Relationships among factors influencing democratic citizenship for the development of effective citizenship education moral education as a school subject. Journal of Ethics Education Studies, 66, 489–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lee, K., Kim, H. Y., & Yoo, S. S. (2023). Unsupportive school, isolated classroom, and self-blaming teacher: A narrative inquiry of 10 years experienced teacher, Sunyoung. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 33(4), 71–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lee, S. H., & Choi, J. E. (2019). A structural analysis of the relationships among grit, growth mindset, basic psychological needs, and parents’ positive parenting attitudes in school-age children. Journal of Family and Quality of Life, 37(3), 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lee, S. H., & Moon, S. B. (2020). An analysis of the causal relationships among parents’ positive parenting attitudes, teacher support, children’s basic psychological needs, growth mindset, and grit. Journal of Korean Home Management Association, 38(3), 35–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lee, Y. J., & Kim, D. J. (2019). Mindset and peer relationships of elementary school students: Verification of the mediating effects of grit and self-regulation. Journal of Korean Sport Science and Physical Education, 24(2), 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Levine, C., Kohlberg, L., & Hewer, A. (1985). The current formulation of Kohlberg’s theory and a response to critics. Human Development, 28(2), 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lim, S. (2013). Analysis of mother-adolescent children communicative action based on Habermas’ theory of communicative action. Journal of Civic and Youth Studies, 4, 24–50. [Google Scholar]
  55. Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33(3), 321–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. McCutchen, K. L., Jones, M. H., Carbonneau, K. J., & Mueller, C. E. (2016). Mindset and standardized testing over time. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 208–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Min, H. Y. (1992). The relationship between the level of juvenile delinquency and parent-child communication, family cohesion, and adaptability. Journal of Korean Home Economics Association, 13, 112–124. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ministry of Education. (2022). 2022 revised national curriculum: General guidelines. Division of Curriculum Policy, Ministry of Education. [Google Scholar]
  59. Moeini, F., Hosseinpour, R., & Jafari, A. (2025). The structural model of democratic parenting based on parental stress index and couples’ communication patterns with the mediating role of wisdom. Applied Family Therapy Journal, 6(1), 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2000). Meaning and motivation. In C. Sansone, & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (pp. 131–159). Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  61. Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Na, H. W. (2014). The effects of a participation in self-governing activity program on democratic citizenship of students in innovation school [Master’s thesis, Ewha Womans University]. [Google Scholar]
  63. Ok, I., Cho, D., Jang, E., & Lee, J. (2018). Tasks and practical directions for global and democratic citizenship education from the perspective of lifelong education in a multicultural era (Final report). Industry–Academic Cooperation Foundation of Seowon University. [Google Scholar]
  64. Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 18(1), 3–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). Re-thinking future education in Korea: Towards student agency and well-being. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-2040/6-bilateral-support/Re-thinking_Future_Education_in_Korea.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2025).
  66. Park, J. L. (2016). The relationship between parent–child communication perceived by upper elementary school students, smartphone overuse, and peer relationships [Master’s thesis, Inje University]. [Google Scholar]
  67. Park, S. Y. (2012). A comparative study on the background and purposes of youth citizenship education: Focusing on cases in the UK and the US. Youth Studies Korea, 19, 323–344. [Google Scholar]
  68. Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 611–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Paunesku, D., Walton, G. M., Romero, C., Smith, E. N., Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2015). Mind-set interventions are a scalable treatment for academic underachievement. Psychological Science, 26(6), 784–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pellegrini, A. D., & Bohn, C. M. (2005). The role of recess in children’s cognitive performance and school adjustment. Educational Researcher, 34(1), 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Riesch, S. K., Anderson, L. S., & Krueger, H. A. (2010). Parent-child communication processes: Preventing children’s health-risk behavior. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 11(1), 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Roh, Y.-R. (2004). Democratic citizenship education in the information age: A comparative study of South Korea and Australia. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ryu, J. J. (2018). The moderating effect of life goals in the relationship between grit, self-determination, and growth mindset [Master’s thesis, Seoul National University of Education]. [Google Scholar]
  75. Seo, M. J. (2025). The longitudinal effect of maternal parenting stress on children’s social competence: A sequential dual mediation of parenting efficacy and parent–child interaction [Master’s thesis, Chonnam National University]. [Google Scholar]
  76. Twork, K., Ludwig, J., Kiess, W., & Poulain, T. (2025). Parent-child interaction frequency: Associations with age, sibling presence, and child health. Pediatric Research, 98, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Yang, J. H., & Lee, J. H. (2010). Relationship between peer relationship, school life adjustment and pro-social behavior according to adolescents’ participation in sports activities. Korean Society of Sports Science, 39, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Yang, Y. W., & Jung, J. L. (2017). The effects of mother’s self-differentiation on the child’s friendship quality through child’s self-differentiation and mother-child relationships. Korean Journal of School Psychology, 15, 361–378. [Google Scholar]
Education 16 00708 g001
Figure 1. Serial-multiple mediation of growth mindset and peer relationship.
Figure 1. Serial-multiple mediation of growth mindset and peer relationship.
Education 16 00708 g001
Table 1. Categories and reliability coefficients for study instruments.
Table 1. Categories and reliability coefficients for study instruments.
VariableSub-FactorsNumber of QuestionsCronbach’s
Parent–child communicationOpen100.930
Prblematic100.811 1
Total200.923
Democratic citizenshipHuman rights50.880
Responsibility50.877
Cooperation50.892
Democratic procedures50.871
Total200.820
Growth mindsetGrowth40.918
Fixed40.897
Total80.977
Peer relationshipPositive80.828
Negative40.743
Total120.812
Note: 1 presents the number of items and reliability coefficients for each measurement scale used in this study. The internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was confirmed to be robust across all variables. Specifically, the reliability coefficients for the total scales were 0.923 for parent–child communication, 0.820 for democratic citizenship, 0.977 for growth mindset, and 0.812 for peer relationship. All sub-factors also demonstrated acceptable internal consistency, with coefficients ranging from 0.743 to 0.930, exceeding the conventional threshold of 0.70.
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for the study variables (N = 212).
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for the study variables (N = 212).
Variables1234
1. Parent–child communication1
2. Growth mindset0.486 **1
3. Peer relationship0.280 **0.402 **1
4. Democratic citizenship0.324 **0.472 **0.447 **1
Mean3.4773.8714.0733.000
SD0.7340.4790.8230.401
Skewness−0.566−0.161−1.049−0.405
Kurtosis0.6690.1711.1430.955
** p < 0.01.
Table 3. Serial-multiple mediation of growth mindset and peer relationships (N = 212).
Table 3. Serial-multiple mediation of growth mindset and peer relationships (N = 212).
VariableGrowth MindsetPeer RelationshipDemocratic Citizenship
βSEt (p)βSEt (p)βSEt (p)
Parent–Child Communication0.4860.0688.056 ***0.1110.0391.5430.0910.0431.376
Growth Mindset 0.3480.0354.826 ***0.3080.0404.431 ***
Peer Relationship 0.2980.0764.700 ***
Model FitF = 37.146 ***F = 21.535 ***F = 30.897 ***
R20.2360.1710.308
*** p < 0.001.
Table 4. Comparison of indirect effects (N = 212).
Table 4. Comparison of indirect effects (N = 212).
βBoot SELLCIULCI
Total effect    X → Y0.2120.0430.1280.296
Direct effect     X → Y0.0600.043−0.0260.145
Indirect effects
X → M1 → Yt0.1500.0450.0650.241
X → M2 → Y0.0330.024−0.0080.087
X → M1 → M2 → Y0.0500.0180.0190.088
Total indirect effect0.2330.0460.1440.326
Note. CI, confidence interval; SE, standard error; LL, lower level; UL, upper level, indirect effect. Number of bootstrapped samples for BC CI: 10,000. Level of confidence for all Cls: 95%. X, parent−child communication; M1, mindset; M2, peer relationship; Y, democratic citizenship.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yoon, G.; Lee, J. Parent-Child Communication and Children’s Democratic Citizenship: The Roles of Growth Mindset and Peer Relationship. Educ. Sci. 2026, 16, 708. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16050708

AMA Style

Yoon G, Lee J. Parent-Child Communication and Children’s Democratic Citizenship: The Roles of Growth Mindset and Peer Relationship. Education Sciences. 2026; 16(5):708. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16050708

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yoon, Gabjung, and Jiyoung Lee. 2026. "Parent-Child Communication and Children’s Democratic Citizenship: The Roles of Growth Mindset and Peer Relationship" Education Sciences 16, no. 5: 708. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16050708

APA Style

Yoon, G., & Lee, J. (2026). Parent-Child Communication and Children’s Democratic Citizenship: The Roles of Growth Mindset and Peer Relationship. Education Sciences, 16(5), 708. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16050708

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop