Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Int J Psychol. 2024 Jan 22;59(4):559–567. doi: 10.1002/ijop.13111

Cultural Values, Parenting, and Child Adjustment in Thailand

Daranee Junla 1, Saengduean Yotanyamaneewong 2
PMCID: PMC11257820  NIHMSID: NIHMS1958048  PMID: 38253263

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to understand the associations of Thai parents’ cultural values (i.e., individualism, collectivism, and conformity) with parenting behavior (i.e., warmth, autonomy granting, rules/limit-setting, knowledge solicitation, and expectations regarding children’s family obligations) and children’s adjustment (i.e., internalizing and externalizing problems). These data were collected via child, mother, and father reports when the children were 10 years old, on average. Mothers’ individualism was correlated with more parental autonomy granting. Fathers’ individualism was correlated with higher maternal expectations regarding children’s family obligations. Parents’ higher collectivism was correlated with more with parental warmth. Mothers’ higher collectivism was also correlated with more parental knowledge solicitation, and fathers’ higher collectivism was also associated with mothers’ and fathers’ higher expectations regarding children’s family obligations. Fathers’ higher conformity values were correlated with more parental autonomy granting and with fewer child internalizing and externalizing behaviors. However, after controlling for child gender, parent education, and the other cultural values, mothers’ and fathers’ collectivism remained the only significant cultural value predicting parenting behaviors. Results advance understanding of relations between cultural values of Thai mothers and fathers and their parenting behaviors and children’s adjustment.

Keywords: cultural values, parenting, child adjustment, Thailand

Introduction

Cultural Values in Thailand

The customs and beliefs of Thailand have been shaped by a wide variety of cultural traditions dating back thousands of years. Contemporary Thai cultural beliefs fall into four main dimensions - high power distance, collectivism, high femininity, and a high level of uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1991). The high-power distance dimension forms Thai people’s acceptance of differences in power in families and organizations and leads to a hierarchical social structure in Thai society. This value is congruent with the concepts of ‘hierarchy and seniority,’ indicative of the Thai cultural awareness and recognition of distinct hierarchical positions. This phenomenon is also evident within parent-child relationships (Wongtada et al., 2006). For example, in families, decisions should be made by members in positions of authority such as the father or mother. Because children are younger and more junior, they must obey and follow the decision made by the parent. The high collectivism dimension stresses the importance of harmony within a group setting. Individuals are assimilated and united in the group and receive protection in return (Hofstede, 1991). Collectivism creates a group atmosphere as members of the group look after each other in exchange for loyalty (Gambrel & Cianci, 2003). High femininity and uncertainty avoidance dimensions shape Thais’ emphasis on harmonious relationships, respect for authority, and conflict avoidance. Thai individuals are anticipated to exhibit politeness and a proclivity for compromise, as these are considered effective approaches for managing conflicts. Consequently, overt disagreement is infrequently encountered within familial contexts (Wongtada et al., 2006). However, cultural values can change over historical time, as individuals develop, and with education. For example, studies with university students suggest that they may move from more collectivism to individualism (Kaewka et al., 2022). Thus, Thai society is influenced by numerous cultural values.

Parenting in Thailand

Culture is a collection of beliefs and behaviors that a community shares, which help to regulate their daily lives, including parenting practices, beliefs, and values. Most Thai parents prioritize needs of the family over needs of the individual and place importance on obedience, respect for elders, and a sense of harmony within the family. However, there are also variations in parenting within Thailand, depending on factors such as socioeconomic status and parents’ education level.

A systematic review found that studies of Thai parenting styles generally adopt several theories based on Western taxonomies such as those of Baumrind (1971) and Maccoby and Martin (1983) (Sukadaecha, 2020). For example, most Thai parents have been found to practice the authoritative parenting style characterized by high warmth and high control. Nevertheless, Thai parenting styles do not fall neatly into Western parenting taxonomies (Prasertsin, 2009; Rhucharoenpornpanich et al., 2010). In accordance with the cultural values mentioned above, the majority of Thai parents desire obedience and attentiveness from their children. Consequently, parenting styles tend to deviate from being entirely authoritative or permissive. While there is an emphasis on avoiding conflicts, leading to a preference for compromise, the parenting style does not align precisely with an authoritarian approach. One study found that the majority of Thai parents practiced a protective parenting style (50.6%), followed by an authoritative parenting style (20.7%; Pichayapinyo et al., 2008). The protective parenting style is more responsive, involved, and directive than a permissive parenting style but less demanding than an authoritarian parenting style. Other studies suggest Thai parents have sometimes been described as having an unclassified or integrated parenting style when they do not have a clear parenting style according to Baumrind’s typology (Prasertsin, 2009; Rhucharoenpornpanich et al., 2010).

Thai parenting styles may not be constantly maintained and can shift over time. A longitudinal study examined change from childhood through adolescence in Thai parents’ warmth, behavioral control, rules/limit-setting, and knowledge solicitation and found that all four domains of parenting decreased over time after age 10 (Yotanyamaneewong et al., 2021). However, there are also variations in Thai parenting, depending on factors such as socioeconomic status and parents’ education level.

Child Adjustment in Thailand

Parenting can exert pervasive and enduring effects on various aspects of an individual’s life. It can influence factors such as trust, health, and self-esteem positively, while, conversely, contributing to negative outcomes such as insecurity, susceptibility to injuries, and engagement in high-risk behaviors (Backhaus et al., 2023). The prevalence of mental disorders among Thai adolescent students is reported at 15.0 percent, with one of the most prevalent issues being behavioral disorders related to substance use (Ekasawin et al., 2016). To address and prevent these situations, gaining insights into the individual child’s circumstances is crucial. Internalizing and externalizing behaviors in children and adolescents have been widely discussed in Thailand. For example, one study of 260 youths in Thailand found that most youth had low levels of risk behaviors (Sangsawang & Sangsawang, 2022), whereas another study of 2,311 adolescents in Bangkok found high levels of risky behavior (Ruangkanchanasert et al., 2005). A longitudinal study of children from nine countries including Thailand found that Thai adolescent- reported externalizing problems increased from age 8 to 14, whereas internalizing problems kept relatively stable from age 8 to 14 (Rothenberg et al., 2020).

The Present Study

Our research question was whether mothers’ and fathers’ individualism, collectivism, and conformity values are significantly related to parenting behaviors and child adjustment during middle childhood. We tested two hypotheses. First, we hypothesized that mothers’ and fathers’ individualism, collectivism, and conformity values would be related to parenting behaviors. Second, we hypothesized that parents’ cultural values would be related to children’s internalizing and externalizing behaviors.

Methods

Participants

Participants from the Thai subsample of the Parenting Across Cultures Study were recruited from Chiang Mai, Thailand through letters sent home from schools. Children (n = 101) were 10.84 years old (SD = .57), on average, at the time of data collection. Their mothers (n = 100) and fathers (n = 82) also participated. Most parents were married (74%) or cohabitating (10%) and biological parents (93%); nonresidential/non-biological parents also provided data. Participants were recruited to ensure socioeconomic representation of Chiang Mai by considering their locations in both rural and urban areas, as well as their monthly incomes.

Procedure

Measures were administered in Thai following forward- and back-translation from English language for originals and methodological validation to ensure the conceptual equivalence of the instruments (Erkut, 2010). Two-hour interviews were conducted after parent consent and child assent in participant-chosen locations. Parents chose whether to complete measures orally or in writing; children completed interviews orally with an interviewer who read the question aloud, showed the child a visual depiction of the rating scales, and recorded the child’s responses.

Measures

Parent individualism and collectivism.

Mothers and fathers completed a measure of individualism and collectivism adapted from Singelis et al. (1995), Tam et al. (2003), and Triandis (1995). Parents rated the importance of different values related to their autonomy from and belonging to a social group. Parents were asked whether they 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree with each of 16 statements, 8 reflecting individualism and 8 reflecting collectivism. Examples of individualist items included “I’d rather depend on myself than others” and “My personal identity, independent of others, is very important to me.” Examples of collectivist items included “It is my duty to take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice what I want” and “To me, pleasure is spending time with others.” Items were averaged to create an individualism scale (αs = .64 and .61 for mothers and fathers, respectively) and a collectivism scale (αs = .74 and .75 for mothers and fathers, respectively).

Parent conformity values.

Mothers and fathers each rated an item developed by Schwartz et al. (2001): “I believe that people should do what they’re told. I think people should follow rules at all times, even when no one is watching.” Parents responded using a 6-point scale (1 = not like me at all to 6 = very much like me).

Parent warmth.

Mothers and fathers completed the Parental Acceptance-Rejection/Control Questionnaire-Short Form, a measure with excellent established reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and measurement invariance that has been used in over 60 cultures worldwide and has been used successfully with Thai families by our own and other research teams (Lansford et al., 2018; Rohner, 2005). Children also provided separate ratings about their mothers’ and fathers’ warmth. Eight items captured parental warmth (e.g., “parents say nice things to child”). Behavior frequency was rated on a modified 4-point scale (1 = almost never to 4 = every day). We averaged mothers’ and children’s ratings of mothers’ warmth and averaged fathers’ and children’s ratings of fathers’ warmth to create composite measures of mother warmth (α = .85) and father warmth (α = .81). Higher scores indicated more parental warmth control.

Parent autonomy granting.

Children reported on their parents’ autonomy granting (Barber, 1996; Barber et al., 1994). Children rated 4 items (e.g., “My parents keep pushing me to think independently”). Items were rated on a 4-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree) and averaged to create a composite autonomy granting scale (α =.60), with higher numbers indicating more autonomy granting.

Parent rules/limit-setting and knowledge solicitation.

Parent rules/limit-setting and knowledge solicitation were assessed by subscales of the 10-item parental monitoring scale derived from the work of Conger et al. (1994) and Steinberg et al. (1992). This measure has demonstrated adequate psychometric properties in past studies examining both the entire Parenting Across Cultures sample and Thailand families in particular (Lansford et al., 2018). To measure parent rules/limit-setting, children answered 5 questions that captured the frequency with which parents impose limits on their child’s activities on a 0 = never to 3 = always scale. To measure parent knowledge solicitation, children answered 5 questions that examined the extent to which parents tried to find out about their children’s activities and whom they spend time with on a 0 = I do not try, 1 = I try a little, 2 = I try a lot scale. Both parent rules/limit-setting and parent knowledge solicitation were assessed by asking about the same five child activities (e.g., with whom the child spends time, how the child spends his/her free time, how the child spends his/her money, where the child goes right after school, and the type of homework the child receives). Items were averaged to create composite scales for parent rules/limit setting (α = .73) and parent knowledge solicitation (α = .61). Higher scores indicated more parental rules/limit-setting and knowledge solicitation.

Parent family obligation expectations.

Mothers, fathers, and children completed the respect for family and current assistance scales of the family obligations measure developed by Fuligni et al. (1999). The measure includes 7 items assessing views about the importance of respecting the authority of elders in the family, including parents, grandparents, and older siblings (e.g., Please rate how important it is to you that your child treat you with great respect/ Please rate how important it is to your parents that you treat them with great respect; 1 = not important to 5 = very important) and 11 items assessing parents’ expectations and children’s perceptions of their parents’ expectations regarding how often children should help and spend time with the family on a daily basis (e.g., Please rate how often your child is expected to help out around the house/Please rate how often your parents expect you to help out around the house; 1 = almost never to 5 = almost always). These 18 items were averaged to create a composite scale for each reporter (αs = .72, .83, and .85 for child, mother, and father reports, respectively).

Child internalizing and externalizing behaviors.

Parents and children, respectively, completed the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and Youth Self-Report (YSR; Achenbach, 1991). Parents and children indicated whether each behavior was 0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, or 2 = very true or often true. The Achenbach measures have been translated into at least 100 languages and have been used with at least 100 cultural groups (Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment, 2016). The Internalizing Behavior scale was generated by summing responses from 31 items (for parents) or 29 items (for children) including behaviors and emotions such as loneliness, self-consciousness, nervousness, sadness, feeling worthless, anxiety, withdrawn behavior, and physical problems without medical causes. The Externalizing Behavior scale was created by summing the responses from 33 items (for parents) or 30 items (for children) including behaviors such as lying, truancy, vandalism, bullying, disobedience, tantrums, sudden mood change, and physical violence. We created cross-informant composites by averaging all available reporters’ scores for internalizing (α = .87) and externalizing (α = .92) behaviors.

Covariates.

Child gender and parent education (number of years of education obtained by the mother and father) were included as covariates.

Analytic Plan

Analyses proceeded in two steps. First, we examined bivariate correlations between the cultural value variables and the parenting and child adjustment variables. Second, we conducted multiple regression analyses predicting each parenting and child adjustment variable from the three cultural value variables (i.e., individualism, collectivism, and conformity) separately for mothers and fathers, controlling for child gender and parent education (mother education in the models with mothers’ cultural values and father education in the models with fathers’ cultural values).

Results

Descriptive statistics for all variables are shown in Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables in the Chiang Mai Thai Sample.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables in the Chiang Mai Thai Sample

Study Variable M SD
Mother Individualism 2.61 .35
Mother Collectivism 3.30 .32
Mother Conformity 3.66 1.15
Father Individualism 2.70 .35
Father Collectivism 3.31 .36
Father Conformity 3.72 1.16
Mother Warmth 3.44 .41
Father Warmth 3.36 .41
Parent Autonomy Granting 3.28 .54
Rules/Limit-setting 1.64 .69
Knowledge Solicitation 1.47 .40
Mother Family Obligations 4.01 .42
Father Family Obligations 3.98 .48
Child Family Obligations 3.89 .53
Child Internalizing 11.03 4.89
Child Externalizing 8.75 4.83
Open in a new tab

Mothers’ Cultural Values

Bivariate correlations are shown in Table 2 Bivariate Correlations of Parenting or Child Adjustment Variables in the Chiang Mai Thai Sample. As shown, mothers’ individualism was positively correlated with children’s perceptions of their parents as granting more autonomy. Mothers’ higher collectivism was correlated with more maternal warmth, more paternal warmth, and more parental knowledge solicitation. Mothers’ higher conformity values were not significantly correlated with any of the parenting or child adjustment variables.

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations of Parenting or Child Adjustment Variables in the Chiang Mai Thai Sample

Mother Father
Parenting or Child Adjustment Variable Individualism Collectivism Conformity Individualism Collectivism Conformity
Mother Warmth .02 .34*** −.05 .16 .23* .14
Father Warmth .11 .21* .00 .04 .27* .09
Parent Autonomy Granting .23* .17 .05 .15 .08 .28*
Rules/Limit-setting .05 .01 −.13 −.08 −.05 .09
Knowledge Solicitation .06 .20* −.04 .01 −.07 −.04
Mother Family Obligations .06 .19 .07 .25* .33** .03
Father Family Obligations −.12 .10 −.06 −.01 .24* −.06
Child Family Obligations .02 .12 −.03 .01 −.04 .09
Child Internalizing .10 −.08 −.07 .04 .03 −.22*
Child Externalizing −.08 −.19 −.08 −.11 −.08 −.25*
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

Results from the regression analyses are shown in Table 3 Regressions Predicting Parenting and Child Adjustment from Parents’ Cultural Values in the Chiang Mai Thai Sample. Mothers’ individualism and conformity values were not associated with any of the parenting or child adjustment variables after taking into account the other cultural values, child gender, and mothers’ education. Mothers’ higher collectivism was associated with more maternal warmth, even after taking into account the other cultural values, child gender, and mothers’ education. In significant regression models, more maternal education was related to more maternal warmth, and boys perceived their parents as setting more rules and limits than did girls.

Table 3.

Regressions Predicting Parenting and Child Adjustment from Parents’ Cultural Values in the Chiang Mai Thai Sample

Parenting or Child Adjustment Variable Mother Cultural Values Father Cultural Values
Individualism Collectivism Conformity F Individualism Collectivism Conformity F
Mother Warmth −.02 (.11) .37*** (.12) −.14 (.03) 4.96*** .14 (.12) .15 (.12) .09 (.04) 3.86**
Father Warmth .10 (.12) .21 (.14) −.05 (.04) 2.14 .00 (.13) .25* (.13) .02 (.04) 2.75*
Parent Autonomy Granting .23 (.16) .12 (.18) .01 (.05) 1.77 .14 (.17) .03 (.16) .26 (.05) 1.89
Rules/Limit-setting .10 (.20) .05 (.22) −.18 (.06) 2.59* −.05 (.23) −.03 (.22) .08 (.07) 1.30
Knowledge Solicitation .11 (.12) .20 (.13) −.08 (.04) 1.33 .00 (.13) −.05 (.12) .00 (.04) 1.02
Mother Family Obligations .01 (.13) .17 (.14) .04 (.04) .79 .18 (.13) .29* (.13) .05 (.04) 2.46*
Father Family Obligations −.12 (.16) .13 (.19) −.07 (.05) 1.36 −.06 (.16) .24* (.15) −.05 (.05) 1.37
Child Family Obligations −.02 (.16) .11 (.17) −.03 (.05) 1.13 .01 (.18) −.07 (.17) .08 (.05) .81
Child Internalizing .08 (1.48) −.10 (1.61) −.03 (.44) 1.32 .02 (1.47) .04 (1.44) −.20 (.44) 1.26
Child Externalizing .12 (1.47) −.20 (1.60) −.03 (.44) 1.06 −.09 (1.64) −.06 (1.61) −.25* (.49) 1.24
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Note. Values presented are standardized betas with standard errors in parentheses. Models control for child gender and parent education.

Fathers’ Cultural Values

As shown in the correlations depicted in Table 2 Bivariate Correlations of Parenting or Child Adjustment Variables in the Chiang Mai Thai Sample, fathers’ individualism was positively correlated with mothers’ expectations regarding children’s family obligations. Fathers’ higher collectivism was correlated with more maternal warmth, more paternal warmth, and mothers’ and fathers’ higher expectations regarding their children’s family obligations. Fathers’ higher conformity values were correlated with children’s perceptions of their parents as granting more autonomy and with lower child internalizing and externalizing behavior.

In the regression analyses (see Table 3 Regressions Predicting Parenting and Child Adjustment from Parents’ Cultural Values in the Chiang Mai Thai Sample), fathers’ individualism and conformity values were not associated with any of the parenting or child adjustment variables after taking into account the other cultural values, child gender, and fathers’ education. Fathers’ higher collectivism was associated with more paternal warmth and mothers’ and fathers’ higher expectations regarding their children’s family obligations. In significant regression models, fathers’ education was significantly associated with more maternal and paternal warmth.

Discussion

We sought to understand associations of mothers’ and fathers’ individualism, collectivism, and conformity values with parenting behaviors and child adjustment during middle childhood. We hypothesized that mothers’ and fathers’ individualism, collectivism, and conformity would be related to parenting behaviors and to children’s internalizing and externalizing behaviors.

Hypothesis 1. Mothers’ and fathers’ individualism, collectivism, and conformity values would be related to parenting behaviors.

Our findings partially support the first hypothesis. Mothers’ individualism was correlated with more parental autonomy granting. Fathers’ individualism was correlated with higher maternal expectations regarding children’s family obligations. Parents’ higher collectivism was correlated with more with parental warmth. Mothers’ higher collectivism was also correlated with more parental knowledge solicitation, and fathers’ higher collectivism was also associated with mothers’ and fathers’ higher expectations regarding children’s family obligations. Fathers’ higher conformity values were correlated with more parental autonomy granting. However, after controlling for child gender, parent education, and the other cultural values, mothers’ and fathers’ collectivism remained the only significant cultural value predicting parenting behaviors.

The correlation between maternal individualism and parental autonomy granting may be attributed to Thai cultural norms. Thai individuals commonly report investing more time and fostering closer relationships with their mothers compared to their fathers (Academic Network Center of Observation and Research in Community’s Happiness, 2011). As a result, the prevalence of individualistic tendencies, marked by a person-oriented focus endorsed by mothers, heightens the probability of granting their children greater autonomy in decision-making (Triandis et al., 1990). Nevertheless, the correlation between paternal conformity and parental autonomy granting persists, even though conformity aligns more closely with collectivism than individualism. Lertsuwan and Hale (2018) identified that the nature of Thai families is well described by a ‘consensual’ pattern. This pattern indicates that while parents may tend to adhere to social norms and rules, they are open to their children’s opinions and actively encourage them to express their ideas.

Higher individualism exhibited by fathers is associated with maternal expectations regarding family obligations, reflecting two significant aspects of Thai culture. First, this tendency aligns with Thais’ inclination to avoid conflict (Lertsuwan & Hale, 2018). When fathers prioritize and assign greater significance to goal attainment, mothers may express concern if their child disagrees with these objectives. Consequently, mothers often aspire for their children to conform and heed the father’s directives to prevent conflicts and maintain familial harmony, thereby projecting a harmonious family image to society. Second, within the context of the Asian family structure, one of the pivotal roles assumed by mothers is to provide unwavering support for paternal leadership. Consequently, heightened individualism on the part of the father leads the mother to align herself with his objectives. In this dynamic, it is anticipated that the child will obediently adhere to the father’s guidance to successfully accomplish shared familial goals (Siwapathomchai, 2021; Sumari et al., 2019).

High collectivism is a dominant cultural value in Thailand (Hofstede, 1991). Previous research has found parents in collectivistic cultures tend to be demanding and controlling (Rudy & Grusec, 2006), but more recent research shows an authoritative parenting style characterized by both warmth and control is most adopted by Thai parents (Charoenjit & Ngernlangtawee, 2021).

Parental warmth in Thailand can be expressed in direct and indirect ways. With young children, Thai parents express parental warmth directly (e.g., smile, cuddle, praise) like western parents (Kansin et al., 2015). With older children or adolescents, Thai parents’ warmth can be expressed as expectations mixed with concern. For instance, they may express their care by encourage the child to study hard, not allow a child to do a chore so a child will have time to pursue academic success, or instead of praising, they may warn of bad consequence of misbehaviors to prevent bad consequences in the future. As a collectivist country, rearing children to be good people who adjust well to society is a main duty of parents. For example, if Thai parents were asked about their parenting goals, one common answer would be “Pen Khon Dee” [be a good person, well behaved]. Although, these warmth expressions might differ from those in western countries, Thai children seem to understand and accept these behaviors. A study with pre-teen children found that they were generally satisfied with their family lives (Pongutta & Vithayarungruangsri (2023). Even Thai adolescents report parental warmth or a high level of parental closeness, despite a decrease in communication (Miller et al., 2011).

People everywhere transfer cultural beliefs and practices to their children through parenting (Bornstein, 2012). Collectivist parents are likely to transmit cultural values related to placing the group’s interest over the individual, group harmony, and interdependent (Triandis, 1995). Fathers and mothers with collectivist values may have the expectation that their child will assist with and respect family members (Fuligni et al., 1999). Engagement from both parents is ultimately a stronger predictor of adult adjustment than maternal involvement alone (Graziano et al., 2009; Lewis & Lamb, 2003).

Apart from cultural variables, parents’ education level is also associated with parental warmth. Higher education levels are often associated with chances for increasing knowledge, skills, and resources that can promote parenting behaviors. These advantages might lead more highly educated parents to better understand child development, effective communication, and positive discipline strategies. In addition, parents with higher education also have more chances to earn a high income, which may allow parents to manage their time and avoid stressors associated with poverty that can compromise parents’ warmth.

Hypothesis 2. Parents’ cultural values would be associated with children’s internalizing and externalizing behaviors.

Similar to the first hypothesis, the second hypothesis was partially supported. Fathers’ higher conformity values were correlated with fewer child internalizing and externalizing behaviors. However, parents’ individualism, collectivism, and conformity values were not associated with child adjustment variables after considering the other cultural values, child gender, and parents’ education. Consistent with previous research, these findings suggested the importance of fathers’ involvement (Graziano et al., 2009; Lewis & Lamb, 2003). Conformity values might lead fathers to provide consistent discipline, set clear boundaries, and promote socially appropriate behaviors. Children may then internalize these behaviors and develop a sense of understanding social norms and expectations. Regarding the high-power distance value, parents have authority to instruct and make decisions because they are obliged to take care of their child (Verma et al., 2018). A child must respect and follow parents’ decisions. In this case, children are likely to perform according to their parents’ norms and values. High femininity and uncertainty avoidance dimensions are Thai cultural domains that strengthen the practice of conformity. These dimensions lead a child to be concerned with others’ feeling, to seek family harmony, and to avoid conflict. When it comes to making decisions in a family, parents (who have the highest power in the family) will decide, and children will follow that decision.

Different cultural groups problematize internalizing and externalizing problems in different ways (Lansford et al., 2018). For example, aggression is perceived more negatively than anxiety and depression in Thailand. As an externalizing problem, aggression is a behavior that other people can see and that disrupts social harmony, in conflict with cultural values such as collectivism and femininity. Externalizing behaviors are easier for parents to observe than are internalizing behaviors, so parents can intervene with externalizing problems at the early stage. At the same time, children who are experiencing externalizing problems may know that their behaviors are against their parents’ expectations and might create conflict in the family, leading children to try to hide these behaviors from parents. Together, these factors could lead Thai children to express few externalizing behaviors.

Limitations, Future Directions, and Conclusions

This study revealed associations of main cultural values in Thailand with a wide range of parenting practices and children’s adjustment. Strengths of the study included data reported by children, mothers, and fathers. The study also had limitations. First, the participants were recruited from one province in the northern region of Thailand so they were locally representative. The sample is not nationally representative so findings should not be generalized to the entire nation. Another limitation is that we focused on children at age 10 years, so findings may not generalize to earlier or later periods in development.

Future studies should explore more cultural values that might be relevant to parenting and children’s adjustment. Longitudinal studies will also be needed to explore how cultural values, parenting, and children’s adjustment may change in tandem over time. Our findings advance understanding of associations of cultural values with parenting practices and children’s adjustment. Because mothers’ and fathers’ cultural values were independently associated with parenting and children’s adjustment, our findings also stress the importance of including fathers not just to understand their role as breadwinners but also to understand their other roles in parenting.

Funding:

This research was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant RO1-HD054805.

Footnotes

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Compliance Section

Compliance with Ethical Standards: All procedures performed involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee at Chiang Mai University and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual adult participants included in the study; assent was obtained from children.

Contributor Information

Daranee Junla, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.

Saengduean Yotanyamaneewong, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.

References

  1. Academic Network Center of Observation and Research in Community’s Happiness, Assumption University. (2011). Opinions toward father’s role in family focus on people aged 12–30 of Bangkok and nearest areas: Research report. https://dol.thaihealth.or.th/resourcecenter/sites/default/files/documents/raayngaankaarwicchay_khwaamkhidehntbthbaathkhn.pdf [Google Scholar]
  2. Achenbach TM (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL 14–18, YSR, and TRF Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. [Google Scholar]
  3. Backhaus S, Gardner F, Melendez-Torres GJ, Schafer M, Knerr W, & Lachman J (2023). WHO guidelines on parenting interventions to prevent maltreatment and enhance parent–child relationships with children aged 0–17 years: Report of the Systematic Reviews of Evidence. World Health Organization. [Google Scholar]
  4. Barber BK (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67(6), 3296–3319. 10.2307/1131780 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barber BK, Olsen JE, & Shagle SC (1994). Associations between parental psychological and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized behaviors. Child Development, 65(4), 1120–1136. 10.2307/1131309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Baumrind D (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4(1, Pt.2), 1–103. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bornstein MH (2012). Cultural approaches to parenting. Parenting, 12(2–3), 212–221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Charoenjit S, & Ngernlangtawee D (2021). The association between parenting styles and behavioral problems in children. Vajira Medical Journal: Journal of Urban Medicine, 65(Supplement November), S53–62. [Google Scholar]
  9. Conger RD, Ge X, Elder GH Jr., Lorenz FO, & Simons RL (1994). Economic stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development, 65, 541–561. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00768.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ekasawin S, Phothisut C, & Chomcheun R (2016). The prevalence of psychiatric disorders in Thai students aged 13–17 years. Journal of Mental Health of Thailand, 24(3), 141–153. [Google Scholar]
  11. Erkut S (2010). Developing multiple language versions of instruments for intercultural research. Child Development Perspectives, 4, 19–24. 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00111.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Fuligni AJ, Tseng V, & Lam M (1999). Attitudes toward family obligations among American adolescents with Asian, Latin American, and European backgrounds. Child Development, 70, 1030–1044. 10.1111/1467-8624.00075 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gambrel PA, & Cianci R (2003). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: Does it apply in a collectivist culture. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 143–161. [Google Scholar]
  14. Graziano F, Bonino S & Cattelino E (2009). Links between maternal and paternal support, depressive feelings and social and academic self-efficacy in adolescence. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6(2), 241–257. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hofstede G (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kaewka C, Klinsukhon S, & Kamkaew R (2022). Factors influencing the choices of jobs for the undergraduates of the faculty of management science at Loei Rajabhat University. Research and Development Journal, Loei Rajabhat University, 17(60), 62–72. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kansin S, Mongkolchati A, & Thinkhamrop B (2015). Child rearing practices for children at their first year of life: Findings from the prospective cohort study of Thai children. Proceedings of International Seminar and Workshop on Public Health Action “Building Healthy Community,” 131–136. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lansford JE, Godwin J, Zelli A, Al-Hassan SM, Bacchini D, Bombi AS, Bornstein MH, Chang L, Chen B-B, Deater-Deckard K, Di Giunta L, Dodge KA, Malone PS, Oburu P, Pastorelli C, Skinner AT, Sorbring E, Steinberg L, Tapanya S, Alampay LP, & Uribe Tirado LM (2018). Longitudinal associations between parenting and youth adjustment in twelve cultural groups: Cultural normativeness of parenting as a moderator. Developmental Psychology, 54(2), 236–377. 10.1037/dev0000416 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lansford JE, Rothenberg WA, Jensen TM, Lippold MA, Bacchini D, Bornstein MH, Chang L, Deater-Deckard K, Di Giunta L, Dodge KA, Malone PS, Oburu P, Pastorelli C, Skinner AT, Sorbring E, Steinberg L, Tapanya S, Uribe Tirado LM, Alampay LP, & Al-Hassan SM (2018). Bidirectional relations between parenting and behavior problems from age 8 to 13 in nine countries. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 28, 571–590. 10.1111/jora.12381 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Lewis C, & Lamb ME (2003). Fathers’ influences on children’s development: The evidence from two parent families. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18, 211–228. 10.1007/BF03173485 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lertsuwan B, & Hale CL (2018). Family communication patterns and conflict management styles young adults use with their parent in Chiang Mai Thailand. International Humanities, Social Sciences and Arts, 11(5), 582–599. [Google Scholar]
  22. Maccoby EE, & Martin JA (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In Mussen PH (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 1–101). Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  23. Miller BA, Byrnes HF, Cupp PK, Chamratrithirong A, Rhucharoenpornpanich O, Fongkaew W, Rosati MJ, Chookhare W, & Zimmerman RS (2011). Thai parenting practices, family rituals and risky adolescent behaviors: Alcohol use, cigarette use and delinquency. International Journal of Child and Adolescent Heath, 4(4), 367–378. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Phuhongtong M, Homchampa P, & Sirithanawattichai T (2018). Sexual risk behaviors among early adolescents currently studying at primary schools in Thailand. Suranaree Journal of Science and Technology, 25(1), 115–124. [Google Scholar]
  25. Pichayapinyo P, Pawwattana A, & Thongvichaen S (2008). Parenting styles, emotional intelligence, and intelligence quotients in Thai school-aged children in Tukdang community, Bangkok Metropolis. Journal of Public Health, 38(1), 59–70. [Google Scholar]
  26. Pongutta S, & Vithayarungruangsri J (2023). Subjective well-being of Thai pre-teen children: Individual, family, and school determinants. Heliyon, 9(5). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Prasertsin A (2009). Influences of parenting on internet usage of the children and youth in Thailand. Educational and Psychological Test Bureau, Srinakharinwirot University. [Google Scholar]
  28. Rhucharoenpornpanich O, Chamratrithirong A, Fongkaew W, Rosati MJ, Miller BM, & Cupp PK (2010). Parenting and adolescent problem behaviors: A comparative study of sons and daughters in Thailand. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 93(3), 293–300. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Rohner RP (2005). Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ): Test manual. In Rohner RP & Khaleque A (Eds.), Handbook for the study of parental acceptance and rejection (4th ed., pp. 43–106). Storrs, CT: Center for the Study of Parental Acceptance and Rejection, University of Connecticut. 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_56-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Rothenberg WA, Lansford JE, Al-Hassan SM, Bacchini D, Bornstein MH, Chang L, Deater-Deckard K, Di Giunta L, Dodge KA, Malone PS, Oburu P, Pastorelli C, Skinner AT, Sorbring E, Steinberg L, Tapanya S, Uribe Tirado LM, Yotanyamaneewong S, & Alampay LP (2020). Examining effects of parent warmth and control on internalizing behavior clusters from age 8 to 12 in 12 cultural groups in nine countries. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61, 436–446. 10.1111/jcpp.13138 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Ruangkanchanasetr S, Plitponkarnpim A, Hetrakul P, & Kongsakon R (2005). Youth risk behavior survey: Bangkok, Thailand. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36, 227–235. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.01.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Rudy D, & Grusec JE (2006). Authoritarian parenting in individualist and collectivist groups: Associations with maternal emotion and cognition and children’s self-esteem. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(1), 68–78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Sangsawang N, & Sangsawang B (2022). Risk behaviors and factors influencing risk behaviors among adolescents. Nursing Journal CMU, 49(2), 182–196. [Google Scholar]
  34. Schwartz SH, Melech G, Lehmann A, Burgess S, Harris M, & Owens V (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 519–542. 10.1177/0022022101032005001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Singelis TM, Triandis HC, Bhawuk DPS, & Gelfand M (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240–275. 10.1177/106939719502900302 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Siwapathomchai S (2021). Thai children’s new media use at home: Intra-family communication and reverse socialisation. Journal of Language and Culture, 40(2), 166–196. [Google Scholar]
  37. Steinberg L, Dornbusch SM, & Brown BB (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723–729. 10.1037//0003-066x.47.6.723 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Sumari M, Baharudin DF, Khalid NM, Ibrahim NH, & Ahmed Tharbe IH (2020). Family functioning in a collectivist culture of Malaysia: A qualitative study. The Family Journal, 28(4), 396–402. [Google Scholar]
  39. Sukadaecha R (2020). A child rearing of Thai families: A systematic integrated literature reviews. Journal of Nursing Science & Health, 43(1), 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  40. Tam W-CC, Shiah Y-J, & Chiang S-K (2003). Chinese version of the separation-individuation inventory. Psychological Reports, 93, 291–299. 10.2466/pr0.2003.93.1.291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Triandis HC (1995). A theoretical framework for the study of diversity. In Chemers MM, Oskamp S, & Costanzo MA (Eds.), Diversity in organizations: New perspectives for a changing workplace (pp. 11–36). Sage. 10.4135/9781452243405.n2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Triandis HC, McCusker C, & Hui CH (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 1006–1020. [Google Scholar]
  43. Wongtada N, Virakul B, & Singhapakdi A (2006). Thailand: Consumer behavior and marketing. In Pecotich A & Shultz CJ (Eds.), Handbook of markets and economies: East Asia, Southeast Asia, Australia, New Zealand: (pp. 611–655). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  44. Yotanyamaneewong S, Rothenberg WA, & Tapanya S (2021). Four domains of parenting in Thailand. In Lansford JE, Rothenberg WA, & Bornstein MH (Eds.), Parenting across cultures from childhood to adolescence (pp.172–192). Routledge. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES