The relationship of parenting styles and identity foreclosure: The role of parental attachment among high school students in Debre Markos Town, Ethiopia

Abstract

Parents tend to make decisions regarding their adolescent children’s career choices, forming romantic relationships, and academic roles in schools. This decision-making dependency is influenced by parenting styles and parental attachment. Therefore, this paper aims to determine the relationship between parenting styles and identity foreclosure with a focus on the mediating role of parental attachment during adolescence. As a result, the article employed a correlational design to determine the relationship. The research participants were 375 high school students selected from Debre Markos town through a stratified random sampling technique based on the school name, gender, and grade levels. In addition, for the data collection, adapted data gathering tools were used for collecting data on parenting styles, parental attachment, and identity foreclosure. After collecting the data, the data analysis was made using structural equation modeling. As the result revealed, authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles have a positive and significant effect on identity foreclosure, but the permissive parenting style didn’t show a significant effect on adolescents’ identity foreclosure status. Therefore, the study found that parental attachment acts as a positive and partial mediator in the link between foreclosure identity status and authoritarian parenting style. The findings of this study, however, demonstrated a favorable and substantial direct influence on foreclosure identity status rather than an indirect effect through parental connection between authoritarian parenting style and adolescents’ foreclosure identity status. This implies that parents should strive to create an environment that is structured yet encouraging, emphasizing open communication and emotional warmth.

1. Introduction

Parents have their own way of rearing and socializing their adolescent children about the community’s culture, religion, moral values, and rules. The interactions between parents and their adolescent children are influenced by their culture, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity, as well as the experiences of their own childhood and parenting practices.^[1] Hence, adolescents’ identity is greatly influenced by the perception and parenting styles used by their parents at home.^[2]

According to Erikson psychosocial theory, adolescence is a crucial time for identity formation since it presents adolescents with the developmental task of identity versus role confusion.^[3] Based on ‘ ‘theory, Marcia identity status model emphasizes identity foreclosure as a stage in which adolescents, frequently under the influence of their parents, make commitments without considering their alternatives. This offers the theoretical framework for investigating the ways in which parenting influences identity foreclosure.^[4] Adolescents with a foreclosed identity have made a commitment to an identity without exploring other options. In this identity status, parental approval and psychological control were linked to foreclosure identity. Parents who are highly accepting but use guilt and hostility to children maintain an external locus of control, preventing these teenagers from taking ownership of their identities and aspirations.^[5] Identity foreclosure in adolescents is being committed or dependent on the choices of parents, friends, and significant others in their careers, relationships, beliefs, and roles. In other words, adolescents with identity foreclosure are often extremely close to their parents, readily accept the decision of the parents, and never question parental authority or feel any need to form a personal identity.^[6]

Besides, adolescents in identity foreclosure are committed to the roles of their parents without exploring the possible alternatives and opportunities in their careers, adult roles, romantic relationships, and political ideologies.^[7] Still, Feldman^[4] also reported that students with identity foreclosure are conservative in their moral reasoning, highly devoted to beliefs, careers, and attracted to the ideals of a parent or strong leader who can guide them in the right pathway. Similarly, foreclosures are the most adaptable identification status in particular situations when community values are emphasized as being essential for group survival.^[8] This shows that parents and the family significantly influence adolescents towards their own parental demands and expectations, while often disregarding adolescents’ sense of self. In the Ethiopian context, cultural, religious, ethnic, and familial systems have a significant impact on the idea of identity development. The collectivist community in Ethiopia places more emphasis on group goals over individual goals, has high respect for authority and tradition, learns and practices common values, and raises their children through shared identity and obligations.^[9] In this way, adolescents grew up practicing these cultural values handed down from significant others and the community. As a result, adolescents develop identity foreclosure without exploring different alternatives for roles, romantic relationships, religions, and even career choices.

In conclusion, this situation creates a fertile ground for the development of identity foreclosure for most adolescents in secondary schools.^[10] Parental attachment is an emotional relationship between infants and their parents. Despite parental attachment beginning with vigorous intensity during infancy,^[11] the bond with parents can still impact a person’s psychological well-being in their teenage years.^[12,13] Moreover, research findings indicated that although adolescents are growing more independent and autonomous, parents remain the key source of emotional support for their adolescent students. This deep emotional bond evokes a sense of satisfaction and safety in the presence of their parents. In this way, parental attachment remains crucial for adolescents to manage different social interactions.^[14,15] On the other hand, research findings indicate the crucial role of parenting in successful identity formation, as it supports, enables, and inspires adolescents to explore their unique individuality and autonomy.^[1] According to Baumrind model, there are 3 fundamental parenting styles.^[15] Parents with an authoritarian parenting style (APS) experience have low responsiveness with high-demanding behavior. These parents develop harsh and fixed rules to manage their adolescent children and orient them to behave accordingly. They emphasize obedience and respect, but provide very little love and emotional ties in parent–adolescent relationships. Such a type of child-rearing practice is highly related to passiveness, inflexibility, submissiveness, conduct problems, greater anger, and depression.^[16] Moreover, research findings indicated that adolescent students with authoritarian parents are less likely to participate in school misbehavior and substance misuse and are protected from involvement in delinquent activities.^[16] Similarly, adolescent students with the authoritarian parents are frequently less satisfied, unhappy when making comparisons with their peers, and hesitate to begin new activities due to poor communication.^[17]

In an authoritative parenting style, parents demonstrate care, awareness, assistance, logic, stability, and reliance towards their children. Similarly, parents have both high levels of responsiveness and demandingness towards their adolescent children. Moreover, establishing clear and fair discipline were also encouraging high standards for behavior or performance at the same time. Besides, parents with authoritative parenting are attentive to uncertainties and worry about their adolescent children while imposing their authority if needed.^[18] In other words, in an authoritative parenting style, parents use a democratic approach with readiness and willingness to elaborate and debate their thoughts on behavior and discipline their children. Moreover, the parents support dialogue, offer explanations for their actions, make choices and ask for the child’s thoughts. In this approach to parenting, parents frequently enforce rules and boundaries but they can also guide by establishing specific objectives for them and showing genuine concern for their development. The way they raise their children indicates their parenting style. Affection, care, and reciprocal interaction, control, motivation, and support are the main focus of this parenting style. Thus, this parenting style appreciates and practices consensus instead of punishment.^[19]

Permissive parenting style: Parents who are permissive tend to be more receptive but less demanding. Despite their indulgence, they love their adolescent children without setting realistic boundaries or applying suitable control. Instead of enforcing rules on adolescents, they ignore and put up with misbehavior from them.^[15] Furthermore, adolescent children of permissive parents have traits linked to inattentive parenting, including a lack of self-control, recklessness, a weak ego, and self-centered motivation. Accordingly, adolescents with permissive parents are more likely to be delinquent and have inadequate academic proficiency.^[15]

1.1. The direct and indirect effect of parenting styles on identity foreclosure

According to Carter,^[20] for mediation, there are 3 criteria to be satisfied. Firstly, the independent variable and dependent variable should have a significant correlation. The second criterion also states that the independent variable and mediator should correlate significantly. The last criterion is that the mediator and the dependent variable should exhibit significant correlation. Hence, based on these criteria, most empirical studies investigated the direct influence of parenting styles and parental attachment on identity foreclosure but very few studies conducted the mediating role of parental attachment in the relation between parenting styles and identity foreclosure. For instance, a study conducted in Albania with 129 adolescents found that APS has a significant effect on foreclosure identity.^[21] Another study carried out by Matos, Barbosa, Almeida and Costa^[22] on Portugal adolescents regarding the effect of parental attachment on identity statuses with 361 participants and found that adolescents reported close emotional bonds with their parents, particularly parental relationships significantly related with foreclosure identity status. In contrast to the findings of Matos, Barbosa, Almeida and Costa,^[22] this research demonstrated that parental attachment has no significant relationships with ego identity statuses. A research conducted by Ratner^[23] suggested that, the direct influence of parenting styles on normative identity style (identity foreclosure) is more important than the indirect influence through parental attachment.

In the Ethiopian context, there is research conducted by Yekoyealem^[24] on the association between parenting styles and identity statuses of high school and preparatory students with 345 participants. The research found that parenting styles are significantly related to identity foreclosure. Moreover, this research found that the authoritative parenting style is the most practiced parenting style in the study area. The study also found that authoritative and APSs have significant connections with identity foreclosure.

According to Adams and Berzonsky,^[25] the basic problems or challenges of adolescents in identity foreclosure are being dependent on parents for decision-making, unable to explore different alternatives, less confident to use complex cognitive capacities and moral reasoning, and not ready or open to new information. They focused on only the normative and standard values of parents and the community that contributed less to more a mature identity. Hence, a sense of autonomy and independence for those adolescents in identity foreclosure seems to be very difficult and challenging. The present study argues that the intensity and the magnitude of the problem are very high in developing countries like Africa, including Ethiopia, because parental attachment is tied with religious, cultural and social values.

Still, the previous theories, models and most cross-sectional studies were conducted from American and western adolescents’ perspective but few or rare from African and Ethiopian contexts. For example, according to Isaac^[26] as to examine the relationship, socialization, initiation rites, and religious celebrations create a sense of belongingness, interdependent and cooperation among Africans and Ethiopian adolescents but the Western culture promotes a sense of independence, competition and individualistic. These differences in socialization, cultural and social values lead to different, research findings that are helpful to develop new theory of identity from African context. Moreover, most previous research focused on the direct effects of parenting styles and parental attachment on identity foreclosure but the present research examined both the direct and indirect or mediated effects of parenting styles and parental attachment on identity foreclosure.^[21,22,24] Thus, the objective of the study was to examine the relationship between parenting styles and identity foreclosure, as mediated by parental attachment among high school students in Debre Markos Town, Ethiopia. Hence, the specific objectives of this research are to:

• Assess the statuses of parenting styles, parental attachment, and identity foreclosure among high school adolescent students.

• Test the existence of a significant relationship between parenting styles, parental attachment and identity foreclosure among high school adolescent students.

• Examine the extent to which parental attachment mediates the relationship between APS and identity foreclosure among high school adolescent students.

1.2. Theoretical framework

The complex connections between parental attachment, parenting styles, and the formation of adolescent identities are clarified by family systems theory (FST). FST emphasizes the family as a cohesive structure in which one member’s behavior and attitudes have an impact on other members. FST emphasizes how family dynamics and interactions lead to identity foreclosure in secondary and preparatory pupils by seeing the family as a linked system. Healthy identity exploration is built on a basis of secure parent attachment. On the other hand, adolescents with insecure parent attachment styles might accept their parents’ identities without questioning them, which could result in identity foreclosure. Erikson psychosocial development theory also offers the theoretical framework for investigating the ways in which parenting influences identity foreclosure.^[4] Identity foreclosure status refers to individuals who have committed to an identity without first exploring their possibilities. The individual has not engaged in any identity experimentation and has established an identity based on the choices or values of others.

Parent attachment and identity foreclosure in late teens were shown to be significantly positively correlated in a study by Putri and Kusumaningrum,^[13] indicating that the kind of attachments is important for identity formation. FST highlights a family’s tendency for preserving balance or stability. According to a study by Tizazu and Ambaye,^[27] the association between identity attainment and PPS was entirely and favorably mediated by parental attachment, underscoring the intricate interaction between identity formation and family dynamics. The degree of parental attachment is a mediating factor; secure attachments encourage uniqueness, whereas insecure attachments encourage conformity to family norms without independent inquiry. Interventions that support the formation of a healthier identity by encouraging safe attachments and adaptive parenting techniques can benefit from an understanding of these relationships.^[28]

2. Methods

2.1. Research design

Since the purpose of this research is to examine the relationships among different variables under various conditions, and given that correlation does not imply causation, a correlational research method was employed.^[29] In order to determine if a third variable may explain the link between an independent variable and a dependent variable, mediation analysis often takes place using a correlational research design. Establishing these links without changing variables is made easier by correlational research. Furthermore, it may not be feasible or ethical to manipulate mediators experimentally in many domains (such as psychology, social science, and health studies). Hence, the utilization of natural data for mediation analysis is made feasible by correlational studies.

2.2. Participants

High school students in Debre Markos town participated in this study. There were 6079 students distributed over 4 high schools. Of the 3214 students in this demographic were female, while the remaining 2865 were male. In terms of grade levels, 2045 students were in grade 9th, 1947 were in grade 10th, 1023 were in grade 11th, and 1065 were in grade 12th. Grade levels, gender divisions, and the number of students in each school were taken into account for the purpose of determining an adequate representative sample size.

Determining the sample size from the total population was the first task that made the sample size more representative. Based on the characteristics of the population, researchers apply a formula to calculate the sample size. For instance, for a finite population, using a formula is important to get a representative sample size for research. A formula developed by Yamane^[30] was used in this study to estimate the sample size, and 375 students were recruited. After calculating the sample size using the formula, respondents were selected proportionately based on schools, grade levels, and gender categories using a stratified random sampling procedure to increase the sample’s representativeness. A post hoc power analysis was conducted with the resulting population size (n = 375), an alpha level of 0.05, and a medium effect size (Cohen d = 0.5). The analysis revealed a statistical power >0.80, indicating that the study had sufficient ability for detecting significant implications. Lastly, each respondent from each stratum was chosen using a random selection procedure. Out of 375, in respect to gender, 194 (51.7%) were female, while 181 (48.3%) were male. This revealed a fairly equal gender distribution between male and female students. Regarding grade level, students were separated into Grades 9 to 12, with the largest representation in Grade 10 (126 students, 33.6%) and the lowest in Grade 12 (66 students, 17.6%). 27.7% (104) were in Grade 9, with 21.1% (79 students) in Grade 11. More than 60% of the students were in Grades 9 and 10, showing that the group being studied included a higher proportion of younger adolescents.

2.3. Measures

For the cultural adaptation of 3 scales, first, the adaptation and validation of all 3 scales for Ethiopian high school students involved a 5-phase process that included selecting a theoretically grounded instrument for each scale. Researchers selected validated scales widely used in adolescent research. Then, translating scales into the Amharic language using a forward-backward method, and ensuring content validity through expert evaluation. This was followed by an exploratory factor analysis with 300 students to determine the factor structure, and a Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the model’s fit, as well as the scale’s reliability and construct validity in the Ethiopian setting. Final instruments were validated in the full sample using CFA and internal consistency statistics. Before utilizing the measures for data collection, the original scales were translated into Amharic (the local language) by bilingual English and psychology faculty members. The questionnaires were submitted to forward and backward translation to ensure their correctness. The 3 scales were elaborated as follows:

2.4. Parenting authority questionnaire

In order to develop a parenting style scale, prior literature was reviewed first, and then exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was implemented to uncover variables with 300 participants. EFA is a typical tool for assessing the development and validation of scales and establishing construct validity.^[31] Therefore, the Parental Authority Questionnaire, developed by Buri,^[32] was used to collect data regarding parenting practices. The 24 items in this scaled questionnaire are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Initially, authoritarian parenting is assessed using ten of these thirty items, permissive parenting using 7, and authoritative parenting using 7.

Prior doing EFA, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett Sphericity tests were conducted to guarantee that the sample size was sufficient for factorization. The KMO value of 0.873 and Bartlett χ²(190) = 2825.440, P < .01) indicated a sufficiently large sample size for factor analysis. Then, in the first case of the original instrument, 24 items have been added. After the first rotation, it was observed that there were 3 factors with eigenvalues >1. The contribution of these components to the total variance was 54.50%. In factor analysis, items may be excluded from the analysis when they have an overlapping problem or when the factor load values are less than 0.30 and placed in the dimension of an instrument that is not theoretically supported.^[33] Because of the problem of overlap, 4 items were excluded from the analysis. The total variance of the 3 factors (20 items) was 59.50%. In the rotated factor matrix, 3 factors were unclosed by factor analysis. As shown in Table 1, each dimension consists of a different number of items. The construct of authoritative made up of 8 items by excluding 2 items. Authoritarian and PPSs included 6 items each by excluding one item each.

Table 1.

Factor loading values for parenting style scale.

Codes	Items	Component
		Authoritative	Authoritarian	Permissive
AVPS10	My parents directed the activities and decisions in the family through reasoning	0.766
AVPS22	My parents set clear expectations for children’s’ behavior with flexibility to fit our needs	0.766
AVPS19	My primary caregiver allowed me to form my own point of view on family matters	0.756
AVPS26	My parents often told me exactly what they wanted me to do and how they expected me to do it.	0.741
AVPS14	My parents considered the children’s opinions when making family decisions	0.716
AVPS9	In my family, my parents consistently gave us direction and guidance in rational and objective ways.	0.706
AVPS11	Once family policy had been established, my parents discussed the reasons behind the policy with the children in the family	0.703
AVPS21	My parents are more responsive and careful to my feelings and needs	0.650
APS16	My parents did not allow me to question any decision they had made		0.830
APS12	I feel my parents are strict for children to follow rules of the home		0.819
APS24	I feel that my parents are serious when the home rules are violated		0.799
APS17	My parents would get very upset if I tried to disagree with them.		0.790
APS8	My parents expected me to do tasks without asking any questions.		0.756
APS25	My parents has controlled my education and life as a whole		0.738
PPS23	My parents allowed me to decide most things for myself without a lot of direction from them			0.802
PPS15	My parents did not direct the behaviors, activities, and desires of the children in the family			0.782
PPS7	My parents did not view themselves as responsible for directing and guiding my behavior			0.778
PPS20	Most of the time, my parents did what I wanted when the family make decisions			0.773
PPS18	I believe that my parents do not play significant role to achieve my life goals			0.766
PPS13	I feel that my parents gave me all responsibility about my daily activities			0.727
Percentage of variance explained		27.11	18.72	13.66
Cronbach Alpha		0.879	0.881	0.871

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.873, Cronbach Alpha = 0.851. Bartlett Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square =2825.440, df = 190 at Sig = 0.000.

Each dimension has a different factor load value. The items included in the authoritative dimension have the factor load value between 0.766 and 0.65 and those in the dimension of authoritarian have the factor load value between 0.830 and 0.738, those in the permissive dimension have between 0.802 and 0.727.

The data on factor load values the items are given in Table 1.

As shown in Table 1, the EFA findings found that the internal consistency for authoritative parenting was 0.879, for authoritarian parenting was 0.881, and for permissive parenting was 0.871. In total, the Cronbach Alpha for parenting style scale was 0.851. Every one of these internal consistency findings was inside the permissible range.

Moreover, CFA was conducted to examine fitness of the model. According to Schermelleh-Engel et al,^[34] for parenting style, the CFA findings indicate that the fitting indexes are χ²/df = 2.136, non-normed fit index = 0.89, relative fit index (RFI) = 0.88, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.88, incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.93, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.91, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) = 0.90, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.93, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.062, root mean square residual (RMR) = 0.048, RMR = 0.041, all of which fall good and acceptable ranges. This value indicates the present data was fitting with the model as seen in Table 4. In addition, the CFA diagram of parenting style is presented in Figure 1.

Table 4.

CFA results of study variables.

Criteria	Acceptable boundary/criteria	Fitness of the model
		Parenting style	Parent attachment	Identity foreclosure
CMIN/DF OR χ2/SD	≤2 = Perfect	CMIN/DF = 2.136	CMIN/DF = 1.913	CMIN/DF = 2.875
	≤2,5 = Perfect (small)
	≤3 = Perfect fit (large population)
	≤5= Moderate fit
RFI/NFI/GFI/CFI/AGFI/NNFI/IFI	≥0.95 =Perfect	NNFI = 0.89, RFI = 0.88, NFI = 0.88, IFI = 0.93, GFI = 0.91, AGFI = 0.9, CFI = 0.93	IFI = 0.98, NNFI = 0.96, GFI = 0.87, AGFI = 0.912, NFI = 0.93, RFI = 0.95, CFI = 0.98	CFI = 0.98, IFI = 0.98 GFI = 0.97, AFI = 0.93, RFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.97
	≥0.90= Good fit≥ >0.85= Acceptable fit
RMSEA/RMR/SRMR	≤0.05 = Perfect ≤0.08 = Good ≤0.10 = Weak fit	RMSEA = 0.062, RMR = 0.048, RMR = 0.041	RMSEA = 0.055, RMR = 0.04, SRMR = 0.03	RMR = 0.068, RMSEA = 0.049, SRMR = 0.043

AFI = adjusted fit index, AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index, CFA = confirmatory factor analysis, CFI = comparative fit index, CMIN = minimum discrepancy (chi-square statistic), DF = degrees of freedom, GFI = goodness-of-fit index, IFI = incremental fit index, NFI = normed fit index, NNFI = non-normed fit index, RFI = relative fit index, RMR = root mean square residual, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

Figure 1.

The CFA diagram presents the measurement model for parenting styles, showing factor loadings of observed variables on latent constructs (authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting). All loadings are standardized. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis.

2.5. Parental attachment questionnaire

Armsden and Greenberg^[35] first created and organized 2 forms of the Inventory of Peer and Parental Attachment (IPPA), which is the most commonly utilized instrument for gathering data on parental attachment. There are ten items. The parental attachment version was then modified for this study, with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Likewise, parenting style, to test the adequacy of sample size for factorization, KMO and Bartlett Sphericity tests were checked before making EFA. KMO value was 0.927, which means the sample size was an exceptionally satisfactory level to make a factor analysis (χ²(₆₈) = 1146.763, P < .01). Then, in the first case of the original instrument, ten items were included. However, 2 items were excluded from the analysis in factor analysis as their factor load values are <30.^[33] The internal consistency of the parental attachment inventory was found to be 0.89, suggesting that it is a reliable tool within an acceptable range of the alpha coefficient. The data on factor load values are given in Table 2.

Table 2.

Factor loading values for parental attachment scale.

Codes	Items	Factor loading
PA8	When we discuss things, my parents care about my point of view	0.827
PA1	My parents respect my feelings	0.811
PA16	I consider my parents when I need to get support	0.805
PA9	My parents trusts my judgment	0.762
PA11	I tell my parents about my problems	0.758
PA2	My parents accept me as I am.	0.749
PA4	My parents can tell me when I am upset about something	0.708
PA3	My parents help me understand myself better	0.679

As shown in Table 2, in the second rotation, the total variance of the 1 factor (8 items) was 58.34%. In the rotated factor matrix, 1 factor was explained by factor analysis. The items included in the parental attachment have the factor load value between 0.827 and 0.679.

CFA was conducted to check the fitness of the model. According to Schermelleh-Engel et al,^[34] for parenting style, the CFA findings indicate that the fitting indexes are minimum discrepancy (chi-square statistic)/degrees of freedom (DF) = 1.913, IFI = 0.98, non-normed fit index = 0.96, GFI = 0.87, AGFI = 0.912, NFI = 0.93, RFI = 0.95, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.055, RMR = 0.04, standardized root mean square residual = 0.03, all of which fall good and acceptable ranges (see Table 4). In addition, the CFA diagram of parental attachment is presented in Figure 2. This threshold suggested a well-fitting model since it revealed that the anticipated correlations of the model are close to the observed correlations.

Figure 2.

The CFA diagram presents the measurement model for parental attachment. All loadings are standardized. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis.

2.6. Identity statuses questionnaire

A scaled questionnaire used to measure identity foreclosure of adolescents, adapted from the Objective Measure of Ego Identity Statuses (OMEIS) developed by Bennion and Adams,^[36] considering the degree of exploration and commitment. The data gathering tool was prepared with a 6-point Likert scale having 9 measuring items. Like previous scales, KMO and Bartlett Sphericity tests were checked before making EFA to test the adequacy of sample size for factorization. The KMO value was 0.902, which means, the sample size was an exceptionally satisfactory level to make a factor analysis (χ²(15) = 995.977, P < .01). Then, in the first case of the original instrument, ten items have been included. However, as shown in Table 3, in factor analysis, 3 items were excluded from the analysis as their factor load values are less than 0.30.^[33] In the second rotation, the total variance of the 1 factor (6 items) was 66.832%. In the rotated factor matrix, 1 factor was unclosed by factor analysis. The items included in the parental attachment have a factor load value between 0.863 and 0.771.

Table 3.

EFA results of identity foreclosure.

Codes	Items	Factor loading
IDF7	I suppose that in terms of politics, I am quite similar to my parents. I vote and do other things the same way they do.	0.863
IDF21	My parents had it decided a long time ago what I should go into and I am following their plans.	0.841
IDF4	My parents have chosen the occupation I really want to get into because they really know what is important to me	0.829
IDF17	I may have considered a lot of options, but since my parents expressed their desires, I have never truly made a choice.	0.804
IDF2	I have never really questioned my religion. If it is right for my parents, it must be right for me.	0.793
IDF23	I attend the same church as my family has always attended. I have never really questioned why.	0.771

EFA = exploratory factor analysis.

The CFA findings for the students identify foreclosure show that the model has an overall acceptable to good fit (see Table 4). The chi-squared test was significant. The proportional chi-square value with DF (minimum discrepancy [chi-square statistic]/DF = 2.875) is less than the required limit of 3, indicating a good model fit. In addition, the CFA diagram for identifying foreclosure is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

The CFA diagram presents the measurement model for identity foreclosure. All loadings are standardized. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis.

Absolute fit indices support this, with RMR (0.068), GFI (0.971), and AGFI (0.932) all falling into acceptable or good ranges. The incremental fit indices of NFI (0.974), RFI (0.957), IFI (0.983), and CFI (0.983) were all above the 90 threshold. In summary, all 3 study variables results indicate that the proposed CFA model is well-fitted with the data, as shown in Table 4.

2.7. Data analysis

Before data analysis, there were certain challenges that had to be addressed. In this regard, preliminary analysis (missing values, errors, outliers, and skewed distribution), and statistical assumptions for structural equation modeling (SEM; normality, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity) of the quantitative data have been reviewed. Prior to analysis, missing data were resolved using the maximum likelihood technique.^[37] Outliers in both univariate and multivariate analyses were examined. EFA and CFA were used to evaluate these measures’ convergent and discriminant validity. In this study, Cohen^[29] criterion for effect sizes was used. It stated that d = 0.80, 0.50, and 0.20 indicate large, medium, and small effects, respectively. After collecting the necessary data, descriptive and inferential statistics, and SEM (mediation) were used to analyze, interpret, and discuss in this study. Means and standard deviation were used for summarizing the statuses of parenting practices, parental attachment, and foreclosure identity in adolescent students. On the other hand, Pearson product-moment correlation was applied to examine the presence of significant relationships among variables.^[38] To decide the direct and indirect paths of parenting styles on identity foreclosure via parental attachment was analyzed using path analysis. SEM analysis was conducted to examine the significance of the indirect influence of parenting styles on identity foreclosure through parental attachment, as well as the existence of full and partial mediation. Regarding ethical issues, the Institute of Education and Behavioral Science Research Committee provided ethical approval of the present study. In terms of ethics, participants gave informed consent before to the study’s conduct. Participants were given information about the study’s purpose, expected length of time to fill, and methodology. The participant’s anonymity was kept private. In general, the study adhered to the research code of ethics.

3. Results

The results of this study began with presenting, describing the research results and discussing main findings. Means, standard deviations and correlations of the study variables are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Means, standard deviations and correlations of the study variables.

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
PA	3.64	0.720	1	0.157**	0.290**	0.170*	0.529**
IDF	3.46	0.978		1	0.190*	0.147**	0.207**
PPS	3.04	0.598			1	0.013*	0.347**
APS	3.42	0.623				1	0.073*
AVPS	3.51	0.729					1

APS = authoritarian parenting style, AVPS = authoritative parenting style, IDF = identity foreclosure, M = mean, PA = parental attachment, PS = permissive parenting style, SD = standard deviation.

^*Correlation is significant at 0.05.

^**Correlation is significant at 0.01.

Table 5 reveals that, the mean scores for parenting styles suggest that participants generally perceived their parents as more authoritative (M = 3.51, SD = 0.729) and authoritarian (M = 3.42, SD = 0.623) than permissive (M = 3.04, SD = 0.598). The average level of parental attachment was relatively high (M = 3.64, SD = 0.720), and the identity foreclosure score also fell within the moderate range (M = 3.46, SD = 0.978). With regard to the relationship, significant and positive correlations were found between AVPS and IDF (r = 0.207, P < .01) and PA (r = 0.529, P < .01). Similarly, APS was significantly correlated with identity foreclosure (r = 0.147, P < .01), parental attachment (r = 0.17, P < .05). These findings indicate that authoritarian parenting, although often linked to more rigid parenting practices. Permissive parenting style (PPS) showed a significant positive correlation with parental attachment (r = 0.290, P < .01), but very weak correlation with identity foreclosure (r = 0.190, P < .05). This suggests that permissive parenting may foster parental attachment significantly and significantly influence foreclosure identity weakly in this sample.

The indirect influences of parenting style on identity foreclosure via parental attachment were examined by using structural equation model. So, the function of parental attachment in mediating parenting style and identity foreclosure analyzed through running structural equation model using Lisrel Softaware (Scientific Software International, Inc., Lincolnwood). The SEM model fit result proved that the model has an adequate to good fit. NFI at 0.91, RFI at 0.90, IFI at 0.97, (TLI) at 0.96, and CFI at 0.97 all indicate that the model properly fits the data. Furthermore, the RMSEA score of 0.064, with a 90% confidence range that extends from 0.059 to 0.068, implies a high degree of approximate fit because it is less than the 0.08 threshold. Collectively, such results imply that the model produced by the SEM represents fit with data.

The result of this research examined the direct and indirect effects of authoritative, authoritarian, PPS on foreclosure identity through mediating effect of parental attachment using SEM. The results are summarized in Table 6 and Figure 4.

Table 6.

Analysis of direct and indirect impacts.

Effects			Direct estimate	Indirect impact	Total impact
Parenting_attachment	<---	Permissive	0.17	–	0.17
Parenting_attachment	<---	Authoritative	0.54	–	0.54
Parenting_attachment	<---	Authoritarian	0.90	–	0.90
Identity_foreclosure	<---	Parenting attachment	0.13	–	0.13
Identity_foreclosure	<---	Permissive	0.05	–	0.05
Identity_foreclosure	<---	Authoritative	0. 01	–	0. 01
Identity_foreclosure	<---	Authoritarian	0.75	–	0.75
Authoritarian	<-->	Permissive	0.03	–	0.03
Authoritative	<-->	Permissive	0.01	–	0.01
Authoritative	<-->	Authoritarian	0.05	–	0.05
Authoritarian parenting style → Parental attachment → Identity foreclosure			0.75	0.9*0.13 = 0.11	0.86
Authoritative parenting style → Parental attachment → Identity foreclosure			0.01	0.54*0.13 = 0.07	0.08
Permissive parenting style → Parental attachment → Identity foreclosure			0.05	0.17*0.13 = 0.02	0.07

^*P < .05,

^**P < .01,

^**P < .001.

Figure 4.

The relationship between relationship between parenting styles and “students” identity foreclosure, highlighting the mediating role of parental attachment. Standardized regression coefficients are demonstrated along the paths.

The standardized regression weight results in Table 6 disclosed that APS (ß = 0.75, P < .05), authoritative parenting style (ß = 0.10, P < .05) and PPS (ß = 0.05, P < .05) had a significant positive influence on “students” foreclosure identity development. Moreover, authoritative parenting style and PPS had a small effect, and APS had a relatively high effect on “students” identity foreclosure, according to Cohen^[29] effect size estimates. This indicated that not all parenting style dimensions appear to be equally effective in influencing foreclosure identity of students. This indicates that higher levels of authoritative parenting were associated with higher levels of foreclosure identity among high school students. The standardized coefficient suggests a small effect size,^[29] confirming the small predictive power of authoritative parenting style on foreclosure identity development.

The standardized regression weight results in Table 6 and Figure 4 disclosed that APS (ß = 0.9, P < .05), authoritative parenting style (ß = 0.54, P < .05) and PPS (ß = 0.17, P < .05) had a significant positive influence on “students” parental attachment. Moreover, authoritative parenting style and PPS had a small effect, and APS had a relatively high effect on students’ parental attachment, according to Cohen^[29] effect size estimates. This indicated that not all parenting style dimensions appear to be equally effective in influencing ‘students’ parental attachment. For details, the SEM of the present study is presented in Figure 4.

Regarding mediation effect, APS has a direct effect on identity foreclosure: 0.75 (strong) and its indirect influence by parental attachment was 0.11 (small effect). This indicated that the majority of the influence of authoritarian parenting on “students” identity foreclosure development is direct. This revealed authoritarian parenting both directly encourages identity foreclosure and indirectly mediates through indirectly parent attachment. This shows that higher levels of authoritarian parenting are associated with higher levels of foreclosure identity, consistent with previous findings that rigid parenting may impede identity exploration.^[39]

A comparison of direct effect and indirect effect shows a slight increase in the standardized coefficient of APS (from β = 0.75 to β = 0.86), suggesting that parental attachment partially mediates the relationship between authoritarian parenting and foreclosure identity.^[40] This indicates that the influence of authoritarian parenting on foreclosure identity may occur both directly and indirectly through its impact on the quality of the parent–child attachment relationship.

On the other hand, authoritative parenting style has almost minimal direct style (ß=0.01) and an indirect effect through parental attachment style (ß=0.07, P < .05) on “students” identity foreclosure. This power suggests that more secure attachment (often related to authoritative parenting) weakly correlated to the propensity toward foreclosure, and its overall effect is minimal. These findings suggest that authoritative parenting style influences foreclosure identity both directly and indirectly through the mediating role of parental attachment. This emphasizes the importance of emotional bonding and secure attachment in the identity formation process of high school adolescent students.

PPS has also both direct (ß=0.05, P < .05) and indirect effect (ß=0.05, P < .05) and total effect (ß=0.07, P < .05). This showed that PPS had little influence on identity foreclosure through parental attachment. Parental attachment has minimal mediating effect in the relationship between permissive parenting style and “students” identity foreclosure.

4. Discussion

FST highlights the interdependence of family members to explain how family dynamics impact the development of identity. Parenting methods are influenced by parental attachment, or the emotional connection between parents and children, which in turn affects how teenagers develop their sense of self, according to FST. The discussion focused on the direct and indirect effects of parenting styles on foreclosure identity. Regarding the descriptive results of parenting styles, the authoritative parenting style was the most commonly practiced parenting style (M = 3.51). On the other hand, APS was the second higher mean score of (M = 3.45) next to authoritative parenting style. In contrast to these findings, the least practiced parenting style was the PPS by the parents of adolescents with the mean scores (M = 3.04). Research conducted by Yekoyealem^[24] showed that the most common parenting style was authoritarian, which supports these findings, whereas the PPS was the least used by parents in guiding, shaping and managing their adolescent children’s behavior.

4.1. The role of parenting styles in predicting identity foreclosure

According to Borkowski et al,^[41] parenting styles are strong views, values, and efforts and attempts that shape, guide, lead, and govern adolescents’ identity formation. Identity foreclosure was found to be strongly and positively connected with permissive, authoritative and APSs. As with the correlation results, permissive, authoritative and APSs were positive and significant predictors of identity foreclosure, indicating that parental control, setting rules, strictness, and other demanded behavior of parents led adolescents to be committed to life issues an earlier age without any exploration. In contrast, authoritative parents wisely enforce their adolescent children’s expectations, values and demands through discussion, reasons and responsive guidance and support. Similarly, Ratner^[23] conducted research and found that APS significantly related to identity foreclosure of adolescents for fear of rejection in violating the standards, rules and values of their parents.

4.2. Parenting style predicts parental attachment

The predictor and mediator variables have a strong correlation, according to the second Baron and Kenny criteria. The current study’s findings then showed that parental attachment was considerably and favorably predicted by all parenting styles. The findings of a study by Karavasilis et al^[42] also showed a strong and positive correlation between parental connection and an authoritative parenting style. Furthermore, in line with this research finding, authoritative parents are responsive, establish clear and consistent boundaries, are somewhat strict yet loving and emotionally supportive, and use effective communication to discuss and provide reasons for basic issues, thereby fostering a stronger emotional bond with their teenage children.^[1]

In contrast to authoritative parenting, authoritarian parenting was again found to be a relatively poor predictor of parental attachment, although it was nonetheless positive and significant. This finding is supported by the very weak relationship between parental attachment and authoritarian parenting, which led to a negative and poor parental relationship with a sense of rejection. According to Schaffer and Kipp,^[43] the reason for this weak relationship is that parents’ high demands and low responsiveness include being harsh, hard, and rigid, establishing norms and standards, upholding morals, and expecting obedience. In contrast to individualistic societies in the West, this type of household setting is more prevalent in collectivistic societies like Ethiopia.

4.3. Parental attachment predicts identity foreclosure

The current study also demonstrated that parental attachment had a positive and significant correlation with foreclosure identity. The finding implies that as the parent–adolescent attachment increases, foreclosure identity becomes motivated, reinforced and well established. In supporting this finding, Campbell et al^[44] found that adolescent students with secure and strong attachment to their parents develop foreclosure identity status. Concisely, parents who raised their children with strong emotional ties and attachment, their adolescent children develop a sense of identity foreclosure. In Ethiopian culture, collectivist convictions were given emphasis. In societies with collectivism like Ethiopia, parental advice and demands usually play an important impact in guiding teenagers’ creation of identities, especially foreclosure identity. These circumstances can motivate young people to adopt parental beliefs and values with little exploration, contradicting the trends observed in societies with greater individuality such as Western societies, where autonomy and personal exploration are more heavily valued in identity formation. This variation in culture implies that the parental attachment and identity foreclosure development relationship may act differently across cultural settings, emphasizing the need to understand local cultural norms when interpreting the present findings.

4.4. The mediating role of parental attachment between parenting styles and identity foreclosure

The meditational analyses were examined with significant predictor variables (parenting styles), a single mediator, parental attachment, and identity foreclosure. The SEM path diagram examined the relationship between 3 parenting styles and identity foreclosure via parental attachment. Hence, the SEM result showed that the indirect path partially mediated the relationship between 3 parenting styles and identity foreclosure via parental attachment. The relationship between parenting styles and identity foreclosure is mediated by parental attachment, which is substantially supported by recent research. Identity foreclosure, or making early identity commitments without sufficient exploration, is a result of parenting styles, especially authoritarian and neglectful ones, which have a detrimental impact on the development of stable attachment bonds.^[45] Unstable bonds and a greater propensity for identity foreclosure have been linked to APSs.^[46] Additionally, a study by Schachter and Ventura^[47] demonstrated the preventive function of secure attachments by showing that adolescents with high parental attachment security were considerably less likely to have foreclosed identity patterns. These results are consistent with attachment theory and modern identity development theories that highlight the relational foundation of the formation of an individual’s identity.

Parental attachment is therefore a key mediating mechanism: methods of parenting affect attachment styles, which will in turn affect either young people, explore their identities in a meaningful way or abruptly lock their doors due to outside forces. Identity exploration, a crucial developmental process in adolescence and the transition to adulthood can be promoted by secure attachment, which is defined by trust and emotional intimacy.^[48–50] In contrast, the research of Quintana and Lapsley^[51] showed that the association between identity foreclosure and APS was not mediated by parental attachment.

As per Erikson psychosocial development theory, the findings of the present research emphasize the importance of parental attachment in the association between parenting styles and identity foreclosure in high school students. Erik Erikson argued that the major psychosocial job of adolescence was to form an identity. Erikson referred to life’s fifth psychosocial task as identity versus role uncertainty, in which adolescents must navigate the intricacies of discovering their own selves. This stage involves inquiries about their appearance, job choices, career goals, education, relationships, sexuality, political and social beliefs, personality, and hobbies. Erikson viewed this as a phase of bewilderment and exploration with one’s identity and life direction. Parent attachment, defined by emotional closeness and safe bonding, seems to help foster a structured setting in which adolescents can make identity foreclosure with confidence. This approach is consistent with Erikson psychosocial development theory, which emphasizes the importance of secure attachments in managing the issues of identity construction during adolescence. Based on Erikson theory, Marcia identity status model emphasizes identity foreclosure as a stage in which adolescents, frequently under the influence of their parents, make commitments without considering their alternatives.

5. Conclusion

Significant associations were found among parenting styles, parental attachment and identity foreclosure. Among the 3 parenting styles, only authoritative and APSs significantly and positively predicted identity foreclosure. This shows that authoritative parenting is highly associated with responsive, supportive, and demanding behavior that encourages, convinces and motivates adolescents to be committed for the values, goals and other parental expectations. However, authoritarian parenting is associated with strict and harsh discipline that forces adolescents to be committed for the beliefs, values, and goals of the parents and significant others. Additionally, this study revealed that the association between identity foreclosure and APS was strongly and partially mediated by parental attachment. This suggests that parents with APSs used parental attachment to persuade their adolescent children to support their parents’ beliefs, objectives, and expectations in identity foreclosure.

6. Practical implications

6.1. Parenting practices and guidance

The findings highlight the critical role of authoritative parenting in fostering a healthy balance between parental expectations and adolescent autonomy. This suggests that parents should aim to provide structured yet supportive environments where open communication and emotional warmth are emphasized. Educational programs or workshops for parents could be developed to raise awareness about the benefits of authoritative parenting and the potential risks associated with overly authoritarian or permissive approaches. These programs can help parents learn effective ways to set boundaries while encouraging exploration and independence in their children.

6.2. School and educational systems

Schools can play an essential role by educating parents and students about the impact of identity foreclosure. Guidance counselors and educators should be trained to identify students showing signs of overdependence on parental decisions and offer support to foster independent thinking and decision-making skills. Incorporating topics like self-exploration, career planning, and emotional resilience into school curricula can help adolescents develop their sense of identity while reducing reliance on parental choices. This can be particularly impactful in cultures where collective decision-making and strict adherence to parental expectations are prevalent.

6.3. Community and cultural context

In Ethiopian society, where cultural and religious values significantly shape parenting practices, community-based initiatives could be established to encourage more adaptive parenting styles. Engaging religious and community leaders in promoting the benefits of a balanced parenting approach could help align these practices with deeply ingrained societal norms. Advocacy campaigns could address the importance of fostering independence in adolescents while respecting cultural traditions. Such efforts can mitigate the tension between collectivist values and the need for individual identity development.

6.4. Adolescent counseling and support

Adolescents experiencing identity foreclosure could benefit from targeted counseling services that focus on building self-confidence and decision-making abilities. Therapists and counselors can work with adolescents to explore alternative identity pathways and strengthen their sense of agency. Group workshops or peer mentoring programs within schools can also provide platforms for adolescents to discuss their aspirations and challenges, helping them break away from the fear of parental disapproval while still valuing family connections.

6.5. Policy and structural support

Policymakers could introduce initiatives aimed at bridging the gap between traditional parenting practices and modern developmental needs. This might include funding for parental education programs, adolescent mental health services, and research into culturally specific identity development frameworks. Recognizing the mediating role of parental attachment, policies should encourage family-friendly environments that allow parents to be actively involved in their children’s lives while fostering independence.

6.6. Gender and grade-level considerations

Given the stratified sampling in the study, interventions can be tailored to address the specific needs of boys and girls as well as students at different educational levels. For instance, preparatory students nearing higher education may need additional support in exploring career and personal identity options outside of parental expectations.

6.7. Limitations and recommendations for future research

The study has the following limitations, although offering insightful information on the connection between identity foreclosure, parental attachment, and methods of parenting. First, the study only looks at pupils in Debre Markos Town, Ethiopia, who attend secondary and preparatory schools. This restricts how broadly the results may be generalized to other areas with possibly dissimilar social, economic, and educational backgrounds. Second, using self-reported surveys might lead to biases like social desirability bias, in which respondents give answers they think would be accepted by others rather than ones that really portray their lived experiences. Third, while the study emphasizes the Ethiopian context, the instruments used, such as the Parenting Authority Questionnaire and IPPA, were originally developed in Western settings. This raises questions about the cultural sensitivity of these measures, even if they were adapted for the study. Fourth, the study does not account for potential moderating variables, such as socioeconomic status, parental education levels, or differences in family structure, which could influence the relationships being studied. Fifth, the study collects data solely from adolescents, which provides valuable insights into their experiences but omits the perspectives of parents. Including parental viewpoints could offer a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics between parenting styles, attachment, and identity foreclosure. Lastly, the quantitative approach provides clear statistical relationships but lacks the depth and richness that qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus groups, could offer. Exploring personal narratives might have illuminated the contextual nuances of the findings.

To address these limitations, future studies could expand the geographic scope to include diverse regions and cultural contexts within Ethiopia, employ longitudinal designs to explore causality and developmental changes over time, include qualitative methods to complement quantitative findings and capture deeper contextual insights, incorporate parental perspectives and examine additional moderating variables to enrich the analysis. Since our study is correlational type, causal relationships among the research variables was not examined. Therefore, longitudinal studies in the future might help track changes over time and provide a stronger basis to comprehend the connection between cause and effect. By addressing these limitations, subsequent research can build on this study to provide a more nuanced understanding of identity development in Ethiopian adolescents and beyond.

Acknowledgments

We thank the respondents for participating in this research.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Shimelis Aniley Tizazu.

Data curation: Shimelis Aniley Tizazu, Kelemu Zelalem Berhanu.

Formal analysis: Kelemu Zelalem Berhanu.

Investigation: Shimelis Aniley Tizazu.

Methodology: Shimelis Aniley Tizazu, Parvathy Naidoo.

Software: Shimelis Aniley Tizazu.

Supervision: Parvathy Naidoo, Kelemu Zelalem Berhanu.

Validation: Shimelis Aniley Tizazu, Parvathy Naidoo.

Visualization: Shimelis Aniley Tizazu.

Writing – original draft: Shimelis Aniley Tizazu, Kelemu Zelalem Berhanu.

Writing – review & editing: Shimelis Aniley Tizazu, Parvathy Naidoo, Kelemu Zelalem Berhanu.