The power of supportive parenting on children’s mathematical performance: evidence from a longitudinal study

Abstract

Mathematical performance, a competitive edge for children, has received ample attention from stakeholders, especially from parents. However, the association between parenting style and children’s mathematics performance remains open to debate, and longitudinal studies are lacking. Therefore, this study used longitudinal data from four waves of surveys (2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018), with an initial sample of 1042 children (51.5% girls) aged 11, 13, and 15 years. Positive associations between supportive parenting style and higher mathematics scores were observed across all waves, both in unadjusted and adjusted generalized linear regression models, with all p < 0.05. Even after running five sets of sensitivity analyses (e.g., controlling counting skills in toddlerhood, imputing key covariates), the positive association remained robust. Ultimately, we found that supportive parenting style was positively associated with improved mathematical performance in adolescents measured up to six years later. This finding underscores the importance of supportive parenting in enhancing adolescents’ mathematical performance and suggests that integrating supportive parenting strategies into family-based approaches may effectively improve children’s mathematical achievements.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-024-73930-7.

Introduction

Parenting style refers to a constellation of parents’ attitudes and behaviors in raising and educating their children, represents the emotional climate parents create in their interactions with their children¹. Parenting varies among parents from different cultures, contexts, and backgrounds, which renders the concept of parenting style a still-expanding scope and elusiveness. For example, a study by Lee et al². found that among 2,124 parents, 27.0% reported parenting practices that did not align with Baumrind’s traditional parenting styles^3,4. This complexity is also reflected in other existing studies, a plethora of phrases, such as parenting practices, parental involvement/control/expectation/belief/support/mediation, child discipline style, and home teaching, fell into the scope of parenting styles. In most families, parents are at the heart of children’s well-being and healthy development⁵. Parenting style has profound and lasting effects on children’s development across different cultural contexts, which shapes children’s character, personality traits, behaviors, values, well-being, and ways of thinking^6,7. Recent research has also indicated that the effects of parenting styles in toddlerhood may persist throughout childhood and adolescence^8,9. Given the complex and dynamic nature of parenting and its profound and lasting impact on child development, a deeper exploration of its effects, particularly during critical developmental stages such as adolescence, is essential.

Parenting styles adopted during adolescence are vital to the well-being of children, as their brain undergoes impressive changes in structure and function during this period. Some of the most significant changes include an increase in myelination and synaptic pruning in the prefrontal cortex¹⁰, heightened neuroplasticity, etc¹¹. These changes enhance the efficiency of information processing and executive functions such as reasoning, advanced thought, and impulse control, making adolescence a critical and sensitive period for the development of mathematical ability. Given the profound impact of brain development during this time, parenting styles adopted during adolescence play a crucial role in shaping not only children’s overall well-being but also their academic outcomes, particularly in mathematics.

The importance of mathematics, which has catalyzed technology breakthroughs in almost all sectors of modern society, has been increasingly recognized by parents, educators, and policymakers across the globe, as major economies are vying for technology dominance. Studies have shown that mathematical knowledge is a solid foundation for children’s future academic performance^12,13. Brilliant mathematics performance not only adds glory to student curriculum vitae when it comes to college enrollment or job hunting but also a competitive edge over others. However, a large sample study in Sweden found that childhood problems with mathematics at age 9 or 12 years had an increased risk of developing auditory hallucinations at age 15 or 18 years¹⁴. The authors argued that childhood mathematical problems may act as a precursor of psychotic-like experiences and juvenile mania symptoms. Thus, children’s mathematics performance has received ample attention from stakeholders, especially from parents¹⁵.

At a broad scope, few parents can abstain from solicitude for their children’s academic performance, as substantiated by a literature review which found that parents, irrespective of geographical regions, generally expressed high aspirations for their children’s academic performance¹⁶. Even more so for parents from China¹⁷, and Japan¹⁸, than for parents in the United States and the United Kingdom¹⁹. The phenomenon explains why parents in these regions involve themselves heavily in children’s learning.

Parenting style has been robustly proven to take substantial weight on children’s and adolescents’ academic achievement²⁰. When it comes to children’s mathematics performance, there have also been a wealth of studies exploring the association between parental involvement (either on the home front, on the school front, or in the form of cognitive, behavioral, or personal involvement, etc.), or parenting practices, and children’s math performance in early, middle or high school years^21–28. For example, a meta-analysis of 64 quantitative studies found that positive home math environments, such as parent-child math interactions, were associated with better math achievement²⁹. This is in keeping with the viewpoint of Berkowitz et al³⁰. that math at home adds up to achievement in school. While numerous studies have found small but statistically significant associations between parenting practices and children’s mathematical performance, these findings are largely based on cross-sectional designs, which limit the ability to draw causal inferences^31,32.

Given the limitations of cross-sectional studies, the need for multi-wave longitudinal research becomes evident. Multi-wave longitudinal studies only come in a few numbers. Extant longitudinal studies looked into various parenting constructs and yielded divergent results with regard to the magnitude of the association, the direction of prediction, and the differential relations. Back in 2004, Gadeyne et al. conducted a 3-wave longitudinal study with 352 children and their parents from kindergarten to 2nd grade, and brough to light that low supportive and high controlling parenting practices were modestly related to poor subsequent math achievement³³. This is in accordance with a 3-wave longitudinal study, which found that authoritative styles (featuring high support, moderate demandingness, and controlling) were beneficial to the mathematical development of both migrant and urban fourth graders in China over the course of 3-time points (each was spaced 6 months apart)³⁴. However, the outcomes of longitudinal studies on other parenting constructs are more nuanced. Wu et al³⁵. probed into a 3-wave (kindergarten, first grade, and third grade) data set involving parenting variables (categorized into 4 aspects: parental expectations, parental beliefs, parental involvement (at home and in school), and child discipline style, totaling 10 factors) in 2247 African American families, and discovered that only 2 factors (parental expectations of children’s highest educational attainment and parental beliefs in children’s academic competency) had the most consistent and significant effects on children’s math outcomes across all waves. Conversely, Khanolainen et al. followed a sample of 2525 children from kindergarten through Grade 9, and found that home teaching had no direct or indirect effect on children’s academic outcomes (reading, math, science) over time; likewise for shared reading on reading and math scores over time³⁶. This finding echoes a similar longitudinal study exploring the main effect of home-based involvement or the interaction effect between parental warmth and socioeconomic status (SES) for mathematics outcomes in a cohort sample of 2352 children followed up from kindergarten through fourth grade³⁷. Adding to this complexity, such a finding is not alone for home-based parenting practices or parental involvement. Englund et al³⁸. found that school-based parental involvement reported by the parents of 210 Chinese American children (beginning age = 5.8–9.1 years) or by the teachers at wave 1 failed to predict children’s math achievement at wave 2 (that was 1.5 years later). Collectively, these complex results underscore the intricacy of the relationship between parenting and children’s mathematical performance, highlighting the need for more nuanced and context-specific research.

From the results of extant longitudinal studies, we are able to infer that the association between parenting and children’s mathematical is beyond conclusive, as the term points to a diversified, and ever-expanding territory. Outside of the discordances in study results, waves of survey were spaced at a short interval, and mostly occurred in elementary school years. There is only one study that gathered data regarding parental styles, adolescents’ conscientiousness and academic outcomes across the high school through 3 waves of surveys, with mathematical scores dropped from the structural equation model due to a very small or insignificant correlation between math scores and parenting styles³⁹. As such longitudinal studies that trace children’s mathematical performance from elementary school years through adolescence is in a scarcity.

To address this knowledge gap, our study employs a multi-wave longitudinal design with a nationally representative sample to systematically track and analyze the relationship between parenting practices and mathematical performance within the specific context of China. We aim to provide important insights for educational policy and practice, offering support for more effective parental involvement in children’s academic development.

Materials and methods

Data source

The data used in this study were sourced from the China Family Panel Studies (CFPS), a nationally representative longitudinal follow-up social survey jointly conducted by the Institute of Social Sciences Survey of Peking University and the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan in the United States. CFPS was commenced in 2010 and subsequently collected several waves of data in 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020.

The 2010 survey was only a pre-survey which was small-scale and limited to only a few sampling areas. The formal survey started in 2012. The included data covered 25 provinces or municipalities or autonomous regions, representing 80.65% of the total regions in Mainland China. CFPS used proportional probability sampling with implicit stratification, multi-stage, and population proportionality to better represent Chinese society. Sampling was conducted in three stages: the first stage was administrative regions or counties, the second was communities or administrative villages, and the third was households⁴⁰. Each round of data is carefully checked and cleaned by professionals of CFPS. CFPS interviewed all family members of each sampled family and collected information on a series of topics at the individual, family, and community levels. Its purpose is to reflect China’s dynamic change in the fields of society, economy, population, education, and health.

This study used publicly accessible data from the CFPS website (https://www.isss.pku.edu.cn/cfps/), with the dataset excluding all identifiers about individual participants. All participants consented and signed consent forms. Permission to use the data had been granted by CFPS. As all data were extracted from publicly shared databases, our research did not require additional ethical approval.

Study population

Data from 2020 were excluded from this study, as the mathematics section could not be collected properly through telephone interviews during the COVID-19 pandemic. And since the formal survey started in 2012, the 2012 survey was taken as the baseline in this study.

The dataset included the parenting style measured in 2012 and children’s mathematical ability test scores in 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018. The number of children with valid mathematical ability measures varied with the wave of surveys. Among the 1042 children included in 2012, 777 (74.6%), 541 (51.9%), and 409 (39.3%) were successfully followed up in 2014, 2016, and 2018, respectively (Table 1). Detailed information is provided in Fig. 1.

Table 1.

Attrition bias and summary for characteristics of children, parents, and households by year.

Variables	2012	2014	2016	2018
No.	1042	777	541	409
Children’s characteristics
Age in 2012, median (IQR)	13.00 (11.00,15.00)	13.00 (11.00,15.00)	13.00 (11.00,15.00)	13.00 (11.00,15.00)
Sex (Female), No. (%)	537 (51.5)	386 (49.7)	262 (48.4)	197 (48.2)
Parents’ characteristics
Maternal age in 2012, median (IQR)	39.00 (36.00,42.00)	39.00 (36.00,42.00)	39.00 (36.00,42.00)	39.00 (36.00,41.75)
Paternal age in 2012, median (IQR)	40.50 (38.00,44.00)	40.00 (38.00,44.00)	40.00 (38.00,43.50)	40.00 (38.00,44.00)
Lived together with the father ≥ 8 months, 2012, No. (%)	552 (55.3)	429 (57.4)	307 (59.2)	245 (62.3)
Lived together with the mother ≥ 8 months, 2012, No. (%)	672 (67.3)	517 (69.1)	369 (71.1)	294 (74.8)
Father had symptoms of depression in 2012, No. (%)	201 (25.4)	146 (24.0)	104 (24.2)	71 (21.6)
Mother had symptoms of depression in 2012, No. (%)	317 (36.4)	228 (34.5)	163 (34.7)	115 (32.8)
Father had a job in 2012, No. (%)	694 (77.5)	531 (77.3)	351 (74.2)	280 (77.1)
Mother had a job in 2012, No. (%)	609 (65.7)	469 (66.7)	315 (63.8)	242 (65.4)
Household characteristics
Lived in urban areas in 2012, No. (%)	438 (42.3)	330 (42.7)	227 (42.1)	190 (46.7)
Household size in 2012, median (IQR)	4.00 (4.00,6.00)	4.00 (4.00,6.00)	4.00 (4.00,6.00)	4.00 (4.00,5.00)
Mathematics test scores, median (IQR)	9.00 (7.00,13.00)	15.00 (10.00,17.00)	12.00 (8.00,13.00)	17.00 (14.00,23.00)

IQR, interquartile range.

Fig. 1.

The flow chart of the inclusion and exclusion of participants.

Study variables

In this study, parenting style was an independent variable, while mathematical performance was a dependent variable. In line with previous studies^41,42, we included covariates at the levels of children, parents, and households measured in 2012 (see Table 1). The characteristics of children included age and sex. Parents’ characteristics included age, employment status, whether lived with children ≥ 8 months in the past 12 months, and whether had symptoms of depression. All parents’ characteristics except parents’ age were dichotomous variables. Household characteristics included the urban or rural location and household size.

Parenting style

In the 2012 survey, parenting style was measured using a 14-item questionnaire revised from the questionnaire on childrearing without violence⁴³. CFPS used the questionnaire to measure parenting styles as perceived by children of the included families. The children were asked to select the most indicative choice for each item describing a specific parental behavior, such as “parents will take the initiative to care about me, join activities and discuss things with me”. The questionnaire used a five-point Likert scale to specify respondents’ level of agreement for positive scoring questions (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = always), with negative items reversely scored. A higher score indicates a more positive, supportive, and proactive parenting style. In this study, Cronbach’s α of the questionnaire was 0.801.

Mathematics performance

CFPS has developed two sets of tests to measure the mathematics performance of individuals ten years of age or older. The 2014 and 2018 surveys used mathematics tests, while the 2012 and 2016 surveys used number series tests. The tests, designed according to standard Chinese primary and junior high school curricula, were administered independently by adolescents. Both types of tests effectively assessed mathematical ability, with scores ranging from 0 to 24 points for mathematics tests and 0 to 15 points for number series tests. Higher scores indicate better mathematical performance⁴⁴. These two sets of mathematical tests have been used in previous studies and have shown good measurement performance^45,46.

Covariates

Parents’ depressive status

In the 2012 survey, parents’ depressive status was measured using the full 20-item version of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)⁴⁷. This scale includes 16 items on negative emotions and four on positive emotions over the past week. The options of “rarely (less than one day),” “sometimes or occasionally (one or two days a week),” “frequently (three or four days a week),” and “most of the time (five days or more a week),” were scored 0 to 3 points respectively for negative emotions, versus the reverse scoring for positive emotions. The final scores ranged from 0 to 60 points. Parents with a CES-D score of ≤ 15 points, 16 to 19 points, and ≥ 20 points were respectively deemed as without, likely to have, and having depressive symptoms⁴⁸. The Cronbach’s α for CES-D was 0.826 for fathers and 0.858 for mothers.

Additional considerations

In consideration of the viewpoint that early numeracy plays an essential role in later mathematical ability development⁴⁹, we added children’s counting performance in early toddlerhood (namely the age at which the child began counting from 1 to 10), which was asked of the children’s primary guardians.

Statistical analysis

We used the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to examine the distributions of the continuous variables and found none of them was consistent with a normal distribution. Hence, we presented continuous variables with median (interquartile range (IQR)), and categorical variables with the number (percentage).

Then, a slew of generalized linear models was used to explore the association between parenting style and children’s mathematical performance. In the unadjusted model controlled only for time-varying children’s characteristics (age). In the fully adjusted model controlled for time-invariant confounders, such as children’s characteristics (sex), parents’ characteristics (whether the children lived together with the mother ≥ 8 months in the past 12 months, whether the children lived together with the father ≥ 8 months in the past 12 months, father’s employment status, mother’s employment status, whether the mother had symptoms of depression, whether the father had symptoms of depression), household characteristics (urban or rural location, household size), and time-varying factors, such as mother’s age and father’s age.

We further stratified covariates and observed the trend in regression coefficients between different subgroups using the linear regression model.

Additionally, we explored the relationships between parenting style and children’s mathematical performance by smoothing the plot, with an adjustment for potential confounding factors.

To examine the robustness of our results, we ran five sets of sensitivity analyses. (1) Included only children’s characteristics (age, sex) in the unadjusted model. (2) Included all children’s and parents’ characteristics (excluding household characteristics) in the fully adjusted model. (3) Added children’s counting performance in early toddlerhood into the fully adjusted model as a proxy for their earlier mathematical performance. (4) Used multiple imputations to address missing data. (5) Examined the possibility of unmeasured confounding factors between parenting style and children’s mathematical performance by calculating the E-value⁵⁰.

Main statistical analyses were conducted in Stata version 16.0 (StataCorp), while R, version 3.6.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing) was used for creating corresponding figures. All statistical tests were two-sided, and P < 0.05 was deemed to be of statistical significance.

Results

Sample characteristics

A total of 1042 children (51.5% female and 48.5% male, median age of 13 years) were included in the 2012 survey. The median mathematics performance test scores in 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 were 9.00, 15.00, 12.00, and 17.00, respectively. Table 1 shows the summary of characteristics of children, parents, and households across all waves of the survey.

Association between parenting style during adolescence and mathematical performance

In the unadjusted model, parenting style was significantly associated with children’s mathematical performance. After covariate adjustment, the coefficients of the outcomes attenuated slightly but were still statistically significant. For example, the magnitude of association between parenting style and mathematics scores in 2014 was 0.14 (95% CI [0.09, 0.19], p < 0.001) in unadjusted analysis, versus 0.09 (95% CI [0.04, 0.15], p = 0.001) in the fully adjusted model. Likewise in 2012, 2016, and 2018 (Table 2).

Table 2.

The association of parenting style in 2012 with children’s mathematics test scores in 2014, 2018 and children’s number series test scores in 2012, 2016.

Items	2012		2014		2016		2018
	β [95% CI]	p value	β [95% CI]	p value	β [95% CI]	p value	β [95% CI]	p value
Unadjusted model
Parenting style in 2012	0.06 [0.03, 0.08]	< 0.001	0.14 [0.09, 0.19]	< 0.001	0.08 [0.04, 0.12]	< 0.001	0.11 [0.04, 0.18]	0.002
Fully adjusted model
Parenting style in 2012	0.05 [0.01, 0.08]	0.010	0.09 [0.04, 0.15]	0.001	0.08 [0.03, 0.13]	0.001	0.10 [0.01, 0.18]	0.031

In the fully adjusted model, this table controlled for children characteristics (age, sex), parents’ characteristics (mother’s age, father’s age, whether the children lived together with the mother ≥ 8 months in the past 12 months, whether the children lived together with the father ≥ 8 months in the past 12 months, father’s employment status, mother’s employment status, whether the mother had symptoms of depression, whether the father had symptoms of depression), and household characteristics (urban or rural location, household size).

After adjusting for possible confounders, there was a positive linear relationship between parenting style and children’s mathematical performance in 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 (Fig. 2A, B, C and D). A nonlinear relationship between parenting style and children’s mathematical scores was observed in 2014 alone by two-piece piecewise regression model, and the estimated breakpoint was 46 (Fig. 2B; Table 3). Once parenting style scored lower than 46 points, a significantly positive association between parenting style and children’s mathematical performance was found in 2014 (β = 0.20, 95% CI [0.10, 0.29], p < 0.001). If parenting style scored higher than 46 points, the association was not significant (β = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.06], p = 0.269).

Fig. 2.

Linear relationship between parenting style in 2012 and children’s mathematics scores in each wave. (A) parenting style in 2012 with children’s number series test scores in 2012; (B) parenting style in 2012 with children’s mathematics test scores in 2014; (C) parenting style in 2012 with children’s number series test scores in 2016; (D) parenting style in 2012 with children’s mathematics test scores in 2018. (A, B, C, D) Brown lines represent the spline plots of parenting style and shaded areas represent the 95% confidence intervals of the spline plots. The model was adjusted for children’s characteristics (age, sex), parents’ characteristics (mother’s age, father’s age, whether the children lived together with the mother ≥ 8 months in the past 12 months, whether the children lived together with the father ≥ 8 months in the past 12 months, father’s employment status, mother’s employment status, whether the mother had symptoms of depression, whether the father had symptoms of depression), and household characteristics (urban or rural location, household size).

Table 3.

Linear and non-linear relationship of parenting style in 2012 with children’s mathematics test scores in 2014, 2018 and children’s number series test scores in 2012, 2016.

Items	2012		2014		2016		2018
	β [95% CI]	p value	β [95% CI]	p value	β [95% CI]	p value	β [95% CI]	p value
Linear regression model	0.05 [0.01, 0.08]	0.012	0.09 [0.04, 0.15]	0.002	0.08 [0.03, 0.13]	0.002	0.10 [0.01, 0.18]	0.032
Non-linear model, regression coefficients (β)
Break point of parenting style (K)	42		46		55		46
< K	0.10 [0.02, 0.17]	0.015	0.20 [0.10, 0.29]	< 0.001	0.07 [0.01, 0.12]	0.013	0.17 [0.03, 0.31]	0.015
≥K	0.01 [-0.05, 0.07]	0.770	-0.07 [-0.20, 0.06]	0.269	0.29 [-0.09, 0.66]	0.134	-0.03 [-0.22, 0.16]	0.771
Difference of β-value between strata	-0.09 [-0.21, 0.03]	0.152	-0.27 [-0.46, -0.08]	0.006	0.22 [-0.17, 0.61]	0.271	-0.20 [-0.48, 0.08]	0.164
Predicted value of children’s mathematical performance at break point	9.66 [9.21, 10.12]		15.14 [14.42, 15.86]		11.51 [10.82, 12.20]		17.67 [16.62, 18.71]
P value for likelihood ratio test	0.147		0.005		0.261		0.153

Adjusted for children’s characteristics (age, sex), parents’ characteristics (mother’s age, father’s age, whether the children’s lived together with the mother ≥ 8 months in the past 12 months, whether the children’s lived together with the father ≥ 8 months in the past 12 months, father’s employment status, mother’s employment status, whether the mother had symptoms of depression, whether the father had symptoms of depression), and household characteristics (urban or rural location, household size).

Stratified analyses were performed to further assess the association between parenting style and the mathematical scores in various subgroups (Supplementary Table 1, online only). Most of the variables, including children’s sex, whether the mother had symptoms of depression, whether the father had symptoms of depression, whether the children lived together with the mother ≥ 8 months in the past 12 months, father’s employment status, mother’s employment status, and urban or rural location did not significantly modify the association between parenting style and children’s mathematical scores (all p > 0.05).

Sensitivity analyses

In the first and second sensitivity analyses, we used two models to analyze the association between parenting style and mathematical scores (children’s mathematics test scores in 2014, and 2018, and children’s number series test scores in 2012 and 2016). The first model showed that there was a positive relationship (2012: β = 0.06, 95% CI [0.03, 0.09], p < 0.001; 2014: β = 0.14, 95% CI [0.09, 0.19], p < 0.001; 2016: β = 0.08, 95% CI [0.04, 0.12], p < 0.001; 2018: β = 0.11, 95% CI [0.04, 0.18], p = 0.003) between parenting style and outcomes, adjusted for the characteristics of children. In another model, we adjusted for the characteristics of children and parents, the positive relationship remained robust (β = 0.05, 95% CI [0.02, 0.09], p = 0.003; β = 0.10, 95% CI [0.05, 0.16], p < 0.001; β = 0.09, 95% CI [0.04, 0.14], p < 0.001; β = 0.10, 95% CI [0.02, 0.19], p = 0.017) in 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018, respectively.

In the third sensitivity analysis, we added the variables that measured the counting performance in early toddlerhood into the fully adjusted models (adjusted for characteristics of children, parents, and household), and all of the results were consistent with the above. For example, in this model, the association between parenting style and mathematics scores in 2014 was 0.10 (95% CI [0.04, 0.15], p = 0.001), similar to that estimated in the fully adjusted model (β = 0.09, 95% CI [0.04, 0.15], p = 0.001) (Supplementary Table 2).

In the fourth sensitivity analysis, we imputed the key covariates in which individuals were missing or had no available data during multiple years of follow-up. The results remained consistent. For example, the association between parenting style and mathematics scores in 2014 in the unadjusted model was 0.14 (95% CI [0.09, 0.19], p < 0.001), versus 0.11 (95% CI [0.07, 0.16]; p < 0.001) in the fully adjusted model (Supplementary Table 3).

In the final sensitivity analysis, we generated the E values to assess the sensitivity to unmeasured confounding factors. The E values of this study were 4.34, 4.32, 4.31, and 4.33 in 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018, respectively. According to the E values, unmeasured confounding is unlikely to fully explain our findings.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to use developmental data to probe into how and to what extent parenting style during adolescence acted on children’s mathematical performance over time. This longitudinal approach allowed us to examine not only the immediate but also the lasting impacts of parenting style on mathematical performance, providing a comprehensive understanding of this relationship. Using a population-based longitudinal cohort in China, we found that parenting style when children were 11, 13, and 15 years old was positively associated with mathematical performance up to six years later. Even after adjusting for a multitude of confounders, these associations remained robust across all waves of the survey. Our findings provide strong evidence that a positive, supportive parenting style during childhood has a sustained impact on mathematical achievement, highlighting the importance of nurturing these attributes during critical developmental periods.

We also noted that there was no consensus on whether the sex of the child changes the relationship between parenting style and children’s mathematical performance. Mathematics has been in general stereotypically perceived as a male domain^51,52. In the early days of sex research, Maccoby et al. conducted a meta-study that reviewed nearly 1600 studies of sex differences and concluded that boys outperformed girls in mathematics⁵³. However, later reviews using more sophisticated meta-analytic techniques found that this difference in mathematics was disappearing^54,55. In a study of 8 to 11-year-olds in China, sex similarities in mathematics performance were also found⁵⁶. This also supports our findings that parenting style during adolescence alone influences children’s mathematics performance, independent of children’s sex. This suggests that while societal stereotypes may persist, the actual impact of parenting on mathematical performance does not differ significantly between boys and girls. Due to stereotypes in sex disparities, many parents believe that boys have more advantages than girls in science and engineering fields that focus on thinking, such as mathematics, and are more likely to succeed⁵⁷. The results of this study may provide insight for parents of girls: with the same level of positive parenting, girls are equally capable of excelling in mathematics, which could help shift these entrenched perceptions.

Associations between parenting style during adolescence and mathematical outcomes persisted across multiple measurement points spanning six years. Meanwhile, we added children’s counting measures in early childhood into the fully adjusted model, and these associations remained robust, indicating there might be a separate pathway beyond early numeracy. This underscores the importance of continuous parental involvement in fostering academic development beyond the early years. Based on Bandura’s observational learning theory, children will be influenced by their parent’s attitudes and behaviors in a subtle way⁵⁸. A positive parenting style in education can subtly shape children’s interests and good learning qualities⁵⁹. Parents’ involvement in formal and informal home learning activities, significantly contributes to their children’s early academic progress, such as mathematics development⁶⁰. Meanwhile, a recent study has highlighted the extent to of parents’ involvement in their children’s school academic performance relates to children’s mathematical development⁶¹. For this study, the parenting style questionnaire examined some activities specifically related to academic aspects of the children, such as checking or tutoring homework. This could explain, at least in part, the children’s mathematical outcomes observed.

Previous research has reported that parenting reflects the dynamic interplay of parental personality systems and specific cognitive-emotional processes activated in the present moment in response to the child and the immediate context⁶². Although endogenous and external factors conspire to work together throughout the development process, parenting style is incessantly infiltrative⁶³. This may explain our results that the influence of parenting style on children is not instantaneous but continuous. This continuous impact could be attributed to the persistent reinforcement of attitudes and behaviors through consistent parenting practices over time. Although we did not have data on parenting styles in 2014, 2016, and 2018, this study captured a long-lasting effect of parenting style over a window of six years. Notably, the result of this study coincides with a large number of developmental research supporting suitable parenting styles to facilitate academic performance in subsequent years. Our understanding of the enduring association between the parenting style during adolescence and children’s mathematical performance may contribute to the crafting of family-based mathematics-boosting strategies. This underscores the potential of family-based interventions to boost children’s academic performance, particularly in mathematics, by promoting positive parenting practices during adolescence.

Policy implications

Given that this study analyzed how parenting styles during adolescence impact children’s mathematical performance, our findings provide several important implications for educational policy and practice.

First, the strong association between parenting styles at ages 11, 13, and 15 and subsequent math achievement highlights the significant impact of parental influence during adolescence. Education policies should emphasize parent education programs that focus on effective parenting strategies, particularly during the transition years of youth⁶⁴. Governments and educational institutions could develop and implement workshops and resources that educate parents about the long-term impact of their parenting style on academic outcomes. with a particular focus on mathematics.

Second, the results suggest that interventions to improve mathematics achievement should take into account the broader family environment, including parents’ attitudes and behaviors⁶⁵. Educational policies could integrate family-based approaches that involve both students and their parents and a supportive home environment promotes that mathematics promotes learning. Initiatives could include, for example, shared parent-child educational activities, resources that guide parents in providing cognitive and emotional support, and school-based programs that train parents on how to effectively assist with math homework.

Third, because the study shows that these associations continue to be important even after controlling for various confounding factors, education policymakers should recognize the importance of maintaining consistent support and resources for families from different socioeconomic backgrounds⁶⁶. This could include targeted interventions for families in disadvantaged areas to ensure that all children, regardless of background, have the opportunity to benefit from positive parenting practices.

Strengths and limitations

A strength of this report is that it is the first study to use a longitudinal design to study the association between parenting style during adolescence and children’s mathematical performance over the course of six years. Our analysis was adjusted for a raft of confounders from children, parents, and households, enhancing the robustness of our results. Several limitations of this study should also be acknowledged. First, the assessment of parenting style relied on self-reports from the children, which may introduce potential biases due to subjective factors. To enhance the objectivity of future research, we propose incorporating third-party observations and utilizing validated measurement tools, such as the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ). Third-party observations conducted by trained evaluators in naturalistic settings will provide independent assessments of parenting behaviors, thereby mitigating the potential biases associated with self-reported data. Second, the sample in our study was limited to children aged 11, 13, and 15 years at the baseline, which may restrict the generalizability of our findings. To address this limitation, future research should include a broader age range, extending from early childhood through adolescence, and incorporate samples from diverse cultural backgrounds. This approach will help validate the applicability of the findings across different developmental stages and cultural contexts, enhancing the generalizability of the results. Third, there is a certain bias in the accuracy of parents’ retrospective reporting of early childhood counting performance. Finally, while this study conducted a follow-up over six years, a longer-term follow-up could provide deeper insights into the effects of parenting style on children’s mathematical performance. Due to resource constraints, we were unable to extend the follow-up period. Future studies should consider implementing longer-term follow-ups to further explore the long-term impact of parenting styles on academic achievement.

Conclusions

Our findings robustly indicate that parenting style during adolescence is associated with adolescents’ mathematical performance in later life. This study highlights that in addition to school education, parents ought to mull over what is expected of themselves and their children, and then take measures to forge a positive, and supportive parenting style, which can be beneficial to promoting the development of adolescent mathematical performance.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Author contributions

X.W., D.K., and MZ.Z. Share the first authorship on this work. Conceptualization: X.W. Methodology: X.W. Formal analysis: X.W. Writing—original draft preparation: X.W., D.K., and MZ.Z. Writing—review and editing: X.W., MZ.Z., D.K., M.Y., and S.Z. Supervision: X.W., MZ.Z., D.K., M.Y., and S.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data availability

The data of this study came from the CFPS website (https://www.isss.pku.edu.cn/cfps/), with the dataset excluding all identifiers about individual participants.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

The CFPS was approved by Peking University’s Biomedical Ethics Review Committee, and ethical approval number was IRB00001052-14010.