Parental discipline and self-regulation in children aged 2 to 5: A meta-analysis of research conducted from 2000 to 2022

Parental discipline and self-regulation in children aged 2 to 5: A meta-analysis of research conducted from 2000 to 2022 | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Parental discipline and self-regulation in children aged 2 to 5: A meta-analysis of research conducted from 2000 to 2022 Viktorija Čepukienė, Julija Janulevičė This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3969539/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This meta-analysis examined the correlation between parental discipline and self-regulation in children aged 2 to 5 years. The relevant literature was searched using ScienceDirect, PsycINFO, the Web of Science, Medline, and Scopus. Only correlational, cross-sectional, or longitudinal studies conducted between 2000 and 2022 that utilized survey techniques and focused on parents and children aged 2–5 years without clinical complaints were considered for inclusion. The data were synthesized and extracted in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. This meta-analysis included 28 studies involving a total of 27,285 children and caregivers. The study samples varied in size, ranging from 55 to 12,474. The results demonstrated a weak but consistent correlation between parental discipline and children's self-regulation. Both positive and negative parental discipline exhibited comparable effect sizes on self-regulation, though with distinct outcomes. There was a negative correlation between the use of negative discipline and self-regulation, indicating that children who have more negative discipline have lower levels of self-regulation. Conversely, positive discipline was positively correlated with self-regulation, suggesting that children who experience more positive discipline also exhibit better levels of self-regulation. The findings of meta-regression research indicate that the impact of negative parental discipline on self-regulation in children is influenced by age. As children age, the impact of negative parental discipline on self-regulation diminishes. Psychology preschoolers 2-5-year-old children parental discipline self-regulation meta-analysis Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Highlights The correlation between parental discipline and young children's self-regulation is defined by small effect sizes. Both negative and positive parental discipline have contrasting effects on children's self-regulation. There were no notable variations in effect sizes depending on the type of children's self-regulation. Self-regulation is more affected by negative parental discipline in younger children. Introduction Early childhood is a crucial stage for the formation of self-regulation systems, which can develop rapidly, exhibit increased adaptability, and be susceptible to manipulation (McClelland et al., 2018 ; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998; Eisenberg et al., 2015a; Malti et al., 2013; Williams et al., 1999; Yavuz et al., 2022 ; Shin & Kemps, 2020 ). The developmental phase of self-regulation in early childhood corresponds with the maturation of the brain, specifically the prefrontal cortex (Diamond, 2002; cited by McClelland et al., 2018 ). In addition, early childhood represents a phase characterized by preschool attendance, exposing children to diverse challenges and alterations, thereby underscoring the importance of self-regulatory skills. Inadequate parental discipline during this developmental stage may hinder the development of self-regulation, consequently leading to behavioral issues, disturbed social interactions, worsened emotional well-being and mental health, decreased academic achievements, and even worse future lifestyle outcomes (Robson et al., 2020 ; Gross & Cassidy, 2019 ; Choe, et al., 2013 ). A comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between parental discipline and the development of self-regulation in early childhood is crucial for early prevention. Due to its significance, the association between two phenomena has been extensively studied over the past four decades. Research findings constantly indicate that parental discipline significantly affects the developmental trajectory of children’s self-regulation. However, there is a lack of comprehensive syntheses of outcomes derived from studies conducted in the last two decades. This period has been marked by rapid societal transformations related to factors such as globalization and the widespread use of social media. Consequently, the present meta-analysis assessed the correlations identified in studies conducted within the previous two decades, specifically examining the relationship between two distinct forms of parental discipline and the self-regulatory capacities observed in children aged 2 to 5 years. Self-regulation in young children Self-regulation is a term used by researchers to encompass different abilities in children, including emotion regulation (Liu et al., 2021 ), impulse control (Malanchini et al., 2019 ), attention control (Mathis & Bierman, 2015 ), inhibitory control (Yavuz et al., 2022 ), effortful control (Feldman & Olson, 2021 ), and executive control or executive function (Korucu et al., 2020 ). In this study, self-regulation is defined as a complex concept covering the ability to control one's emotions, behavior, impulses, attention, and effort, as well as inhibitory and executive control. The initiation of self-regulation development is evident in early childhood (Shin & Kemps, 2020 ). The self-regulation skills cultivated during early childhood have a significant impact on the self-regulation skills that manifest during later childhood (Lee et al., 2016 ; Choe et al., 2013 ) and even in adulthood (McClelland et al., 2013 ; Moffitt et al., 2011; cited by Morawska et al., 2019 ). Montroy et al. ( 2016 ), Shin and Kemps ( 2020 ), and Pahigiannis and Glos ( 2020 ) argue that early childhood is critical in the development of self-regulation skills, which encompass emotional management, behavioral control, and other associated regulatory mechanisms. These skills, in turn, foster positive social behaviors, enhance interpersonal relationships, and promote readiness for school. During this phase, children depend on parental assistance to acquire self-regulation abilities. Therefore, parental disciplinary practices play a crucial role in self-regulation, as the strategies employed by parents to discipline their children serve as the foundation for the development of children's self-regulation capabilities (King et al., 2012 ; Baron & Malmberg, 2017 ). Parental discipline and children's self-regulation Parental discipline refers to the creation and implementation of rules for children, together with parents' responses to their children's misconduct (Cheung et al., 2018 ). Along with behavior management techniques, it covers how to handle tantrums, food refusal, and the use of forbidden items by children (Liu et al., 2021 ). Nevertheless, the literature outlines several disciplinary approaches, such as inconsistent, harsh, physical, punitive, inductive, corrective, and positive methods. The primary focus of this study covers two distinct categories: negative and positive discipline. Negative discipline refers to the tactics employed by parents to regulate their children's behavior and may involve inconsistent, harsh, physical, and punitive actions. These approaches often lack clear norms, expectations, and safety measures for children. Parents may disregard limits and impose punishments without regard for their children's needs (Hamovitch et al., 2019 ), alter rules frequently (Manongdo et al., 2011), or fail to establish explicit expectations for their children (Otto et al., 2016 ). Parents who employ punitive disciplinary measures may exhibit extreme strictness and resort to physical or psychological aggression, including physical assault, kicking, punching, verbal abuse, hostility, neglect, or expressing anger toward their children (Dede Yildirim & Roopnarine, 2019 ; Liu et al., 2021 ). However, Molinuevo et al. ( 2014 ) argue that destructive elements of discipline are futile, as they fail to instill a sense of respect for limits and self-regulation in children (Halgunseth et al., 2013 ). Furthermore, the absence of consistency poses difficulties for children in comprehending expectations and behaving suitably across different circumstances (Fuentes-Balderrama et al., 2020 ). In addition, the use of negative discipline can impede children's ability to overcome fear and acquire the necessary skills needed for handling internal stress (Bayer et al., 2023 ) and disrupt the development of conflict management skills, leading to externalizing problems (Zulauf et al., 2018 ). On the other hand, positive discipline encompasses disciplinary, inductive, and corrective components such as correcting undesirable behavior; referring to established rules; limiting specific privileges or interests of children; offering substitute activities; and providing an explanation as to why the behavior is considered inappropriate (Dede Yildirim & Roopnarine, 2019 ; Choe et al., 2013 ; Chen et al., 2018 ). Parents who employ positive discipline demonstrate attentiveness to their children's needs while upholding established rules and clear limits (Dede Yildirim & Roopnarine, 2019 ). The presence of warmth, empathy, engagement with children, and the provision of a secure environment typically establish the framework for positive discipline and contribute to the development of child emotion regulation strategies (Gordon-Hacker & Gueron-Sela, 2020 ). In addition, certain studies suggest that parental warmth (e.g., hugs and praise (praises are considered indicators of warm parenting (Fujikawa et al., 2018 )) (Lawrence, 2021) or empathy might be considered elements of positive disciplinary methods. Grusec et al. ( 2017 ) argue that one of the essential components of effective discipline is perspective-taking, which is often used in studies together with empathy or as part of it (e.g., Chopik et al., 2017 ). Accordingly, we incorporate the described aspects of parental conduct into our definition of positive discipline. According to Xiao et al. ( 2018 ), employing positive discipline strategies, such as establishing and adhering to limits, offering explanations, and stressing the outcomes of inappropriate behavior, aids young people in comprehending acceptable behavior and developing the skills needed to regulate it. Parents can utilize a variety of methods to efficiently discipline their children. These methods include utilizing mild forms of discipline, redirecting one’s attention, physically separating one from situations involving conflict, eliminating materials that may incite conflict, and talking with one another (Liu et al., 2021 ). Therefore, parents may nurture their children's capacity for self-regulation by implementing positive disciplinary methods while demonstrating empathy and providing support. Karreman et al. ( 2006 ) conducted a thorough meta-analysis in which they combined results from multiple studies published between 1985 and 2004. These studies examined the relationships between responsiveness and parenting styles (specifically, positive control, negative control, and responsiveness) and between responsiveness and the self-regulation of preschool-aged children. Their study revealed that implementing positive control, which entails setting limits through the utilization of gentle-to-moderate authority assertion and providing explicit guidance, was positively associated with children's capacity to regulate their behavior. In contrast, a negative correlation was observed between children's self-regulation and negative control, encompassing hostile remarks, coercive actions, hostile limit setting, and power-assertive behavior. Following the publication of Karreman et al.'s meta-analysis, additional research has been carried out to investigate the effects of parental discipline on children's self-regulation. Nevertheless, a summary of the discoveries made over the last twenty years has not been provided in any recent study. The past two decades, characterized by accelerated globalization processes and the expansion of social media, have potentially led to alterations in disciplinary practices on a global scale (Ryan et al., 2016 ; Hines et al., 2022 ). These changes might result in differing opinions among researchers about the effects of negative discipline approaches on children's self-regulation. Many studies suggest that negative disciplinary techniques, such as physical punishment, harsh discipline, or inconsistency, are associated with lower levels of self-regulation in children (e.g., Colman et al., 2006 ; Roskam et al., 2014 ; Liu et al., 2021 ; Kim & Holloway, 2018 ). However, opposing views suggest that harsh discipline is not significantly related to children's self-regulation (Ringoot et al., 2021), while inconsistency is positively related to emotional self-regulation (Kim & Holloway, 2018 ). Therefore, it can be concluded that a synopsis of research conducted on the subject in the past twenty years is necessary. Present study The primary objective of this study is to provide a thorough overview of studies conducted from 2000 to 2022 that have examined the correlation between parental discipline and self-regulation in preschool-aged children. We hypothesize that, similar to the findings of Karreman et al.'s ( 2006 ) research, there will be a negative correlation between negative parental discipline and preschoolers' self-regulation, whereas positive parental discipline will be positively correlated with children's self-regulation. Beyond the period of the studies, it is important to note that our research differs from that of Karreman et al. ( 2006 ) in several other ways. Karreman et al. ( 2006 ) excluded non-Western countries from their meta-analysis, citing cross-cultural differences between Western and non-Western cultures in parenting practices. However, given the rapid globalization of the past twenty years, the current meta-analysis aims to integrate findings from both Western and non-Western countries to examine whether the country where the study was conducted might significantly affect the relationship between parental discipline and children's self-regulation. Another notable difference lies in the assessment methods used for parental discipline and self-regulation. While Karreman et al. ( 2006 ) included laboratory and home observational studies, this meta-analysis exclusively focused on studies in which parents reported on their disciplinary methods as well as children's self-regulation. The decision to include only survey-based studies in our meta-analysis was driven by the desire for methodological consistency and to avoid contradictory outcomes. Furthermore, our objective was to explore variables that could influence the correlation between parental discipline and children's self-regulation. These variables are the age of the children, the country where the study was conducted, and the type of self-regulation measured. Materials and methods In January 2022, a comprehensive search for relevant articles was performed using databases, including ScienceDirect, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Medline, and Scopus. Additionally, search engines for publishers such as SAGE Journals Online, SpringerLink, and the Wiley Online Library were utilized, as were the online research platforms EBSCOhost and Google Scholar. The following search terms were used in relation to the topics of self-regulation, parental disciple, and young children aged 2–5 years: 'self-regulation', 'self-control', 'emotion regulation', 'affect regulation', 'behavior(al) regulation, 'inhibitory control', 'inhibition', 'effortful control', 'emotion control', 'inhibition control', 'discipline', 'parenting', 'punishment', 'disciplinary practices', 'parent(al) discipline', 'preschool(er)', 'child(ren) early childhood', 'young child', and 'childhood'. The studies included in this analysis had to meet the following criteria: were published between 2000 and 2022, were written in English, were based on empirical research, were focused on children aged 2 to 5 years without any clinical symptoms or signs of disorders, utilized correlational, cross-sectional, or longitudinal study designs, and employed survey methods. The exclusion criteria included research articles written in languages other than English and published before 2000; case studies; systematic literature reviews; meta-analyses; laboratory or observational studies; and those involving teachers or grandparents as participants. To maintain methodological consistency between studies and prioritize the perspectives of individuals actively involved in the discipline process, we exclusively considered questionnaires completed by parents. The procedures for extracting and synthesizing the data adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards. For data extraction, an Excel spreadsheet was generated, and articles were selected and reviewed by both authors. A Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.91 indicates a high level of agreement between the two authors. In the initial phase, we examined the titles and abstracts of the papers (Fig. 1 ). During the second phase, we evaluated the papers' appropriateness by considering the inclusion criteria and eliminating any articles that did not meet these criteria. The chosen articles were subsequently compiled into an Excel sheet, after which duplicates were eliminated. Articles included by one author but not by the other were reviewed together again, and an agreement was established. Meta-Analytic approach A rigorous and systematic approach, consistent with best practices for conducting meta-analyses (Sánchez-Meca & Marín-Martínez, 2010 ), was employed in the data analysis. The meta-analysis was conducted using two software packages. The Meta-Essentials 1.5 workbook for correlational data (Suurmond et al., 2017 ) was used to calculate the main statistics and generate forest plots, and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 4.0 (Borenstein et al., 2022 ) was used for meta-regression and between-group analysis. The primary effect measure used to evaluate the relationship between parental discipline and children’s self-regulation was the correlation coefficient (r). We used Fisher's z-transformation method for combining zero-order correlation coefficients across studies. This transformation converts r values to z scores, making it possible to combine correlation coefficients from different studies, regardless of their sample sizes. The z scores were then converted back to correlation coefficients for reporting purposes. We used random-effects models to generate pooled estimates of the effect size and its associated 95% confidence intervals, as well as 95% prediction intervals, within which the true effect size of future studies is expected to fall. We selected this model because significant heterogeneity was expected due to the use of different measures of parental discipline and children's self-regulation across studies, as well as the cultural backgrounds of participants. To assess the level of heterogeneity among studies, the Q statistic and the inconsistency index (I 2 statistic) were calculated. A significant Q test and I 2 value higher than 50% were considered indicators of the presence of moderators (Higgins & Thompson, 2002 ). This study examined two distinct categories of moderators. Meta-regression was used to examine the effect of the mean age of the children as a continuous moderator, based on evidence indicating that the age of preschoolers can influence their self-regulation (e.g., Montroy et al., 2016 ). Through subgroup analyses, categorical moderators, research country, and type of self-regulation were evaluated. We selected these moderators based on exploratory considerations since there is empirical evidence suggesting their relevance to the research variables (e.g., Ho et al., 2008 ). We used funnel plots, Egger's test, Begg's test, and Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill approach for evaluating publication bias. In addition, forest plots were generated to visually represent the effect sizes, corresponding confidence intervals, and prediction intervals for each study. The correlational data obtained from the negative and positive parental discipline subgroups exhibited contrasting correlations—a negative correlation between parental negative discipline and children's self-regulation and a positive correlation between parental positive discipline and children's self-regulation. Consequently, a meta-analysis was conducted individually within each grouping. However, due to the small size of the positive discipline subgroup ( k = 12), it was not possible to carry out within-group and moderation analyses. Therefore, the analysis was limited to the main statistics. Only the negative discipline subgroup was subjected to within-group and moderation examinations. Furthermore, we carried out a between-group comparison. The subgroup of parental negative discipline included studies examining a range of phenomena, covering punishment (both verbal and physical), harsh discipline, negative parenting practices, overreactivity, hostility, negative control, poor discipline, and authoritarian behavior. The subset of parental positive discipline included research investigating the use of inductive reasoning, positive parenting techniques, limit setting, positive control, firm parental control, and authoritative behavior. Risk of bias assessment The inclusion of a risk of bias assessment in meta-analysis research is necessary because it enables the evaluation of the quality and credibility of the separate studies that are pooled in the meta-analysis (Boutron et al., 2019 ). Both authors conducted the risk of bias evaluation. We discussed and settled every disagreement by reaching a consensus. We utilized a tool suggested by Kmet et al. ( 2004 ) for the evaluation, which is suitable for assessing studies with various designs. Nevertheless, due to the correlational nature of the studies included in this meta-analysis, three out of the 14 criteria that specifically addressed randomization and blinding were not taken into account. The remaining 11 criteria for each study were assessed and given a score based on the degree of adherence: 2 points for complete compliance, 1 point for partial compliance, and 0 points for noncompliance. The aggregate score for each study was computed by adding together the individual scores and thereafter dividing by the highest attainable score of 22. According to Kmet et al. ( 2004 ), studies that have a cumulative score higher than 0.5 are considered to be of satisfactory quality. All the studies that were assessed had a quality score that exceeded the specified threshold; as a result, they were included in the meta-analysis (see Table A.1 in Appendix A). Results During the initial examination of the databases, we identified a total of 39,689 records. After eliminating duplicate entries and articles that were unrelated to the search criteria, a total of 11,765 records were examined. Subsequently, 171 articles were selected for a full-text review to determine their eligibility. After removing articles for various reasons (refer to Fig. 1 ), a total of 29 studies were included in the meta-analysis. However, one study (Xing et al., 2019) was excluded from the analysis due to its nearly identical data presentation to that of another study (Xing et al., 2021) by the same authors. Therefore, the current meta-analysis comprises 28 studies that investigate the correlation between parental discipline, covering both negative and positive discipline, and children's self-regulation. The present meta-analysis included a total of 27,285 children and their caregivers, with sample sizes varying from 55 to 12,474 ( M = 940.86, SD = 2426.38). Table 1 presents the data regarding the attributes of the studies that were included. There were more longitudinal studies than cross-sectional studies (16 vs 13), and the majority of the studies were conducted in the U.S. (15). The other countries included China (6 studies); the Netherlands (4 studies); and Turkey, Japan, Spain, and England (4 studies total). Twelve studies exclusively surveyed mothers, 12 studies surveyed both parents, 3 studies surveyed mothers and fathers, and one study failed to identify the respondents. Twenty-five studies investigated negative parental discipline, while 12 studies investigated positive discipline. One study exclusively included boys, whereas the remaining studies involved both girls and boys. Several types of self-regulation were examined, including 5 studies focusing on emotion regulation, 5 on self-regulation, 9 on effortful control, and 10 studies examining inhibition control. The majority of the research examining negative discipline has focused mainly on punishment (32%) and harsh discipline (36%). Two studies (8% of the total) investigated poor discipline, whereas individual studies examined authoritarian behavior, negative control, overreactivity, and hostility. Even more variation existed in regard to research on positive discipline. Four of the 12 studies examined inductive reasoning (33%), 3-positive parenting (25%), and two discipline/limit settings (17%). Positive control, authoritative behavior, and firm parental control were each examined in a single study. A greater proportion (57%) of longitudinal studies were included than cross-sectional studies. Only correlations from the first time point were examined in the longitudinal research, and the impact of parental discipline on children's self-regulation over time was not investigated. We made this decision because the initial time point in longitudinal studies typically fell within the age range of 2–5 years for children, but successive time points were outside the age of interest. Table 1 The main characteristics of the studies in the meta-analytic sample Study Country Study design Parent gender Child gender (boys n ) % N Child age (average or range) Parental discipline Self-regulation Acar et al. (2021) Turkey Cross-sectional Mothers Both (81) 58 140 5.21 N, P ER Baron & Malmberg (2019) JK Longitudinal cohort study Mothers Both (6100) 49 12474 3 N SR Bater & Jordan (2017) US Cross-sectional Mothers Both (66) 45 146 3.61 N, P SR Carrasco et al. (2020) Spain Cross-sectional Mothers Both (179) 42 422 4.2 N EC Cecil et al. (2012) England and Wales Longitudinal Mixed (gender proportion n/r) Both (2436) 47 5184 3 N SR Chang et al. (2011) US Longitudinal Mothers Both (120) 53 228 3.4 N, P EC Chang et al. (2003) China Cross-sectional Both Both (179) 55 325 4.6 N ER Choe et al. ( 2013 ) US Cross-sectional Mothers Both (123) 51 241 3.1 P IC Colman et al. ( 2006 ) US Longitudinal Mothers Both (296) 54 549 4–5 N SR Ganiban et al. (2021) US Longitudinal Not specified Both (206) 57 361 4.5 N EC Hogye et al. (2022) Netherlands Longitudinal cohort study Both (M = 2131, F = 1982) Both (1078) 51 2131 4.04 N IC Yoo & Smetana (2022) US Cross-sectional Mixed (M = 90, F = 22) Both (60) 54 112 3.82 N EC Yu et al. (2018) US Longitudinal Mothers Both (85) 52 163 4.56 N IC Karreman et al. (2008) Netherlands Cross-sectional Both Both (45) 51 89 3.0 N, P EC Lee et al. ( 2016 ) US Longitudinal Mothers Both (274) 49 559 5.19 N ER Li et al. (2022) China Longitudinal Both Both (103) 50 205 3.73 N EC Meldrum et al. (2016) Netherlands Longitudinal Both Boys 110 2.9 N IC Nathanson et al. (2009) US Cross-sectional Both Both (91) 50 182 5.3 N, P IC Olson et al. (2011) China Cross-sectional Mothers Both (30) 55 55 4.3 N IC Olson et al. (2017) US Longitudinal Both Both (124) 52 238 3.14 N IC Olson, Lopez-Duran, Lunkenheimer, Chang & Samerof (2011) US Longitudinal Mothers Both (n/r) 199 3.45 N, P EC Pears et al. (2007) US Longitudinal Both Both (n/r) 178 3.25 N IC Piotrowski et al. (2013) US Cross-sectional Both Both (598) 52 1141 4.92 N, P SR Qiu & Shum (2022) China Cross-sectional Mixed (M = 394, F = 280) Both (351) 52 674 4.97 N, P ER Speidel et al. ( 2020 ) US Longitudinal Mothers Both (120) 50 238 4.95 P ER Tiberio et al. (2016) US Longitudinal Both Both (n/r) 285 3.0 N, P EC van Prooijen et al. (2018) Netherlands Cross-sectional Both Both (53) 50 107 2.08 P EC Xing et al. (2021) China Longitudinal Both Both (140) 51 276 4.12 N IC Note : N – Negative Discipline; P – Positive Discipline; ER – Emotion Regulation; SR – Self-Regulation; EC – Effortful Control; I – Inhibitory Control; M – Mothers; F – Fathers; n/r – not reported Various questionnaires were used to measure children's self-regulation and parental discipline (Table A.2 in Appendix A). The Children's Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ) was the most frequently used questionnaire for self-regulation or its components in 13 studies (e.g., Choe et al., 2013 ; Ganiban et al., 2021; Nathanson et al., 2009; Olson et al., 2011). Other studies have used shortened versions of the CBQ, such as the CBQ-SF (Bater & Jordan, 2017), the CBQ-VSF (Li et al., 2022; Yoo & Smetana, 2021), or the Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire (ECBQ) (van Prooijen et al., 2018), to assess self-regulation. The CBQ measures effortful control and consists of 47 questions, while the CBQ-SF has 26 questions, and the CBQ-VSF has 12 questions on the Effortful Control Scale. The ECBQ differs in its effortful control scale, comprising attention control, inhibitory control, low-intensity pleasure, attention shifting, and cuddliness subscales. In two other studies, the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Preschool version (BRIEF-P), which consists of five scales, was used to measure inhibitory control in children: working memory, planning/organizing, inhibition, emotional control, and shifting (Hogye et al., 2022; Xing et al., 2021). The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) inhibitory control scale, which includes 11 items, was used to assess inhibitory control (Pears et al., 2007). Three studies measured children's emotion regulation using the Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC), whose emotion regulation subscale captures adaptive regulation: emotional awareness, appropriate emotional expression, and empathy (Chang et al., 2003; Qiu & Shum, 2022; Speidel et al., 2020 ). Additionally, one study used the Leiter-R questionnaire, which consists of four subscales—energy and mood, mood regulation, anxiety, and sensory reactivity—to assess emotion regulation (Lee et al., 2016 ). Other questionnaires used for self-regulation include the CSBQ (Baron & Malmberg, 2019) and the BPI, which measure affective, attentional, and behavioral regulation (Colman et al., 2006 ). Several studies have used composite measures from different questionnaires to assess children's self-regulation and effortful control (Carrasco et al., 2020; Cecil et al., 2012; Tiberio et al., 2016). A considerable diversity of questionnaires was noted with respect to parental discipline. The most frequently used tool was the Parenting Dimensions Inventory (PDI), which measures inductive discipline (a scale for reasoning, reacting, arguing, and reminding) in four studies (Choe et al., 2013 ; Chang et al., 2011; Karreman et al., 2008; Olson et al., 2011b). Three studies used the Parent‒Child Conflict Tactics Scale (PCCTS) to measure harsh parenting and physical punishment (Hogye et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Xing et al., 2021). Further details can be found in Table A.2 in Appendix A. Table A.3 in the Appendix displays the effect sizes (correlations) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals for all studies. The results from the overall mean effect size analyses using a random-effects model indicated that parental negative discipline ( k = 25, N = 26,356) was significantly negatively correlated with children's self-regulation ( r = − .25, Z = -9.44, p < .001, 95% CI [-.30, − .20], 95% PI [-.41, − .08]), and parental positive discipline ( k = 12, N = 3,544) was significantly positively correlated with children's self-regulation ( r = .27, Z = 12.31, p < .001, 95% CI [.23, .32], 95% PI [.11, .43]). The forest plots in Figs. 2 and 3 show that the majority of effect sizes (and their confidence intervals) for negative parental discipline are on the left side of the vertical line of no effect ( r = .00), while the majority of effect sizes for positive discipline are on the right side. This indicates a negative relationship between negative discipline and self-regulation and a positive relationship between positive discipline and children's self-regulation. Notably, within the subgroup of negative discipline, 20% of the studies (5 out of 25) did not find statistically significant associations between negative parenting and children's self-regulation. In contrast, in the group with positive parenting styles, all correlations were statistically significant. To assess the variability of effect sizes across studies, the heterogeneity of effect sizes (Q) was calculated. The Q value for studies on negative parental discipline was 156.85 ( p < .001), and for studies on positive discipline, it was 27.43 ( p = .004), with I 2 values of 84.70% and 59.90%, respectively, indicating significant differences in study effects (Higgins et al., 2003 ). These calculations suggest that there were significant variations in the effect size estimations across studies, accounting for only a moderate proportion of the true variance. Thus, subgroup analysis and meta-regression were conducted to identify potential moderators contributing to the variability. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression We conducted subgroup analyses to investigate whether the effect sizes in our meta-analysis were affected by the type of children's self-regulation or the country of the research. The results of the studies on parental negative discipline are shown in Table 2 . We divided the studies into two groups: type of self-regulation (self-regulation, effortful control, emotion regulation, or inhibition control) and country of the research (US, China, the Netherlands, or other). However, the Netherlands subgroup had only 3 studies. The subgroup analyses revealed that neither of the two grouping variables had a significant impact on the effect sizes (random effects model: Q = 1.957, df = 3, p = .582 for type of self-regulation; Q = 0.29, df = 3, p = .962 for country of the research). Table 2 shows that the effect sizes were similar across all subgroups, with values ranging from − .22 to − .29 for the type of self-regulation and from − .24 to − .27 for the country of the research. The heterogeneity coefficients were high in all subgroups, except for the Netherlands subgroup, which had only 3 studies; thus, the interpretation of heterogeneity in this subgroup was not possible. The subgroup of inhibition control had an insignificant Q value but a relatively high I 2 , indicating possible heterogeneity in this subgroup as well. Table 2 Effect sizes for the association between parental negative discipline and children's self-regulation by type of self-regulation and country of residence k n r 95% CI Q I 2 95% PI LL UL LL UL Type of self-regulation Self-regulation 5 19494 − .22** − .27 − .18 26.68** 85.01% − .35 − .09 Effortful control 8 1901 − .29** − .45 − .11 83.63** 91.63% − .70 .26 Emotion regulation 4 3333 − .25** − .41 − .04 14.93* 79.91% − .55 .14 Inhibition control 8 3606 − .24** − .32 − .18 11.76 40.47% − .38 − .11 Country of the research US 13 4341 − .24** − .33 − .15 75.78** 84.16% − .50 .06 China 5 1535 − .27** − .41 − .11 8.60* 65.13% − .51 .01 Netherlands 3 2330 − .26** − .29 − .23 0.97 0.00% − .29 − .23 Other 4 18220 − .26** − .49 − .01 61.48** 95.12% − .57 .10 Note . PI – Prediction interval, k – the number of studies, n – the number of children * p < .05, ** p < .01 Finally, the results of the meta-regression for the children's age moderator showed statistically significant results ( B = 0.06, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [.00; .11], Z = 2.10, p = .036; Q = 4.40, df = 1, p = .036). Additionally, we conducted a meta-regression analysis of all three moderators. Although the regression model was not significant (random effects model: Q = 6.35, df = 7, p = .500), we found that the age effect remained significant when considering other covariates ( B = 0.08, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [.00; .16], Z = 2.03, p = .043). Although the total effect sizes for both the negative and positive parental discipline groups were similar, we conducted a between-group analysis and found no statistically significant difference (mixed effects analysis: Q = 0.424, df = 1, p = .515). These results suggest that negative and positive parental discipline have similar impacts on preschool children's self-regulation, with opposite effects. Evaluating possible bias Despite undertaking an extensive literature review, there is still potential for the omission of relevant studies from the pool of studies utilized in this analysis. The publication frequency of studies that yield significant results tends to be higher than that of studies that do not, potentially resulting in an overestimation of the actual mean effect (Rosenthal, 1979 ). To mitigate this potential bias, we analyzed funnel plots utilizing Fisher's z transformation for two distinct groups of studies: those involving negative and positive parental discipline. The results of this analysis can be seen in Figs. 4 and 5. Additionally, we employed statistical tests, including the classic Fail-Safe N test, Egger's regression test, and Begg & Mazumdar test, using the trim-and-fill method. The classic Fail-Safe N test predicted that 5528 studies with null findings would be necessary to nullify the mean effect in the group of studies on negative discipline. Similarly, a group of studies on positive discipline would require 692 null studies. The trim-and-fill method was employed to impute two studies for the parental negative discipline group, whereas no imputation was performed for the positive discipline group. The outcomes of these assessments revealed no significant asymmetry or bias in either the positive or negative parental discipline groups. The results of Egger's regression test indicated that there was no statistically significant asymmetry in either group when analyzing the funnel plot (negative parental discipline: slope = -0.21, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.26, -0.17], t = -1.22, p = .23; positive discipline: slope = 0.17, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [0.03, 0.317], t = 1.542, p = .16). Similarly, the results of the Begg and Mazumdar test showed nonsignificant results (negative parental discipline: τ = 0.11, Z = 0.75, p = .455; positive discipline: τ = -0.03, Z = -0.14, p = .891). Overall, it can be concluded that no significant publication bias was detected in this meta-analysis. Discussion This meta-analysis examined studies on the relationship between parental discipline and self-regulation in children aged 2 to 5 years conducted between 2000 and 2022. The findings of this study align with those of previous meta-analyses (Karreman et al., 2006 ) and suggest that there is a small yet consistent association between parental discipline and the self-regulation of young children. Moreover, although both positive and negative forms of parental discipline had similar impact sizes on children's self-regulation, they differed in terms of outcomes. Children who experience more negative parental discipline exhibit diminished self-regulation skills. On the other hand, greater utilization of positive discipline can result in an enhanced level of self-regulation in children. This finding is consistent with previous research (Chen et al., 2018 ; Karreman et al., 2006 ; Liu et al., 2021 ) showing that both forms of parental discipline significantly affect children's self-regulation, although in contrasting ways. These results align with socialization theories that emphasize the crucial role of parental discipline in the development of children's self-regulation (Baker, 2018 ; Feldman & Klein, 2003 ). Negative parental discipline typically leads to reduced children's prosocial behavior and more reactive behavior. This, in turn, elicits more negative responses from the surrounding environment, reinforcing the negative association between harsh discipline and self-regulation (Liu et al., 2021 ). Various empirical studies support the claim that inconsistent and harsh discipline has a role in the emergence of various problems related to low self-regulation, such as child hostility and a propensity for delinquent behavior (Bayer et al., 2023 ). Furthermore, destructive disciplinary methods are linked to antisocial behavior and the display of psychotic traits (Molinuevo et al., 2014 ). Parents who utilize negative discipline may opt for such methods to quickly achieve the desired modifications in their children's behavior. For instance, when a youngster refuses to help their parents clean up their toys, employing physical punishment or verbal aggressiveness might be a successful temporary remedy (Jansen et al., 2012 ). Studies have shown that parents with diminished self-control may have challenges in effectively regulating their emotions and behaviors, resulting in difficulty in disciplining their children and fostering their children's self-regulation (Zeytinoglu et al., 2017 ; Xiao et al., 2018 ). The association between positive discipline, on the other hand, and self-regulation implies that children who obtain constructive discipline from their parents demonstrate higher levels of self-regulation. These findings support previous results that consistent discipline instills an understanding of appropriate behavior in children, which gradually evolves into prosocial behavior as they acquire the ability to anticipate the consequences of their actions (Halgunseth et al., 2013 ). This evidence is supported by the associations between inductive discipline and inhibitory control (Yavuz et al., 2022 ), between corrective discipline and emotion regulation (Liu et al., 2021 ), and between improved self-regulation and the application of kindness and sensitivity (Ringoot et al., 2022 ). Moreover, the implementation of inductive discipline is highlighted as a proactive approach to preventing the development of externalizing problems in children (Choe et al., 2013 ). Additionally, we aimed to explore whether children's age, the country where the study was conducted, and the type of children's self-regulation may act as possible moderators of the association between parental discipline and children's self-regulation. The meta-regression analysis demonstrated that children's age is a significant moderator in the relationship between their self-regulation and negative parental discipline. Specifically, the effect of parental negative discipline on self-regulation decreases as children grow older. This finding is partially corroborated by prior research, which has demonstrated that self-regulation is a gradual process that develops over time, becomes internalized, and consequently becomes less reliant on external influences, such as parental negative discipline (Feng et al., 2017 ; Liu et al., 2021 ; Roskam et al., 2014 ). Nevertheless, Karreman et al. ( 2006 ) reported different outcomes in their meta-analysis. They revealed that children's age does not influence the correlation between parental discipline and self-regulation, despite their initial predictions. However, further studies are needed to fully understand the role of children's age in this association. Moreover, children's age is a multidimensional concept that includes different milestones and developmental changes that can influence their self-regulation abilities. This finding highlights the importance of considering the child's age, even in early childhood, when evaluating the impact of negative parental discipline on self-regulation, supporting the idea that self-regulation develops over time and is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. However, it is worth noting that we could not test the effect of age on the association between parental positive discipline and children's self-regulation. As children grow older, positive discipline may become more closely linked to their ability to regulate themselves. This is because their cognitive abilities develop, enabling them to learn how to manage their emotions, attention, and behavior with the guidance of positive parenting (Morawska et al., 2019 ; Speidel et al., 2020 ). The results revealed that country of residence was not a significant moderator of effect size in the group with negative parental discipline. This finding is important because it suggests that the relationship between parental discipline and self-regulation, along with the increase in globalization, might be more consistent across different cultures and contexts. In the meta-analysis, we included studies not only from Western countries such as the U.S. but also from China. For example, in their meta-analysis on the relationship between parental discipline and preschoolers' self-regulation, Karreman et al. ( 2006 ) excluded non-Western countries and relied on older research showing cross-cultural differences between Western and Non-Western cultures in terms of both parenting and children's self-regulation. Therefore, the present meta-analysis expands upon our knowledge by revealing no significant differences between the researched countries. On the other hand, it is also important to consider that the results of this meta-analysis are based on a sample of studies and that the country or type of self-regulation measured may not be representative of the entire population. Therefore, it is important to replicate these findings in a larger sample and in different cultures to gain more insight into the generalizability of the results. Cultural norms and values may influence how parents discipline their children and how children perceive and respond to parental discipline. For example, some cultures may value obedience and respect for authority, while others may value autonomy and self-expression (Kim & Holloway, 2018 ; Grusec et al., 2017 ). As a result, cultural norms and values may influence how parental discipline is perceived and practiced and how it influences children's self-regulation. Finally, the subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in the effect sizes based on the type of children's self-regulation (emotion regulation, inhibition control, effortful control) measured for negative parental discipline. This finding suggests that negative parental discipline may have a similar negative impact on children's ability to regulate their emotions, inhibit their impulses, and exert effortful control over their behavior (Yu et al., 2022; Warren & Barnett, 2020 ; Roskam et al., 2014 ). However, importantly, the related research is still limited, and additional research is needed to gain a more detailed understanding of the relationships between parental discipline and different types of children's self-regulation. Moreover, self-regulation is considered to be a multidimensional construct, and different types of self-regulation may be influenced by different factors. For example, emotion regulation may be more influenced by children's emotional experiences and social interactions, while inhibitory control may be more influenced by children's cognitive development. As a result, the relationship between parental discipline and different types of self-regulation could vary depending on other factors. Thus, the effect of other factors on the relationship between parental discipline and children's self-regulation should be researched in greater depth. In summary, the current meta-analysis sheds light on the association between parental discipline and self-regulation in young children, specifically those aged 2 to 5 years, over the last two decades. However, when interpreting the results, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study. First, this meta-analysis did not differentiate between parental disciplinary methods applied by fathers and mothers or between boys' and girls' self-regulation. Gender differences could be significant due to conflicting findings in the literature. Some studies suggest that fathers, due to their perceived traditional role in the family as authoritative figures, may have a stronger influence on children (Ringoot et al., 2022 ; Chang et al., 2003), while others have found associations between specific disciplinary practices and internalizing problems or anxiety disorders in children based on maternal or paternal discipline (Cheung et al., 2018 ; Otto et al., 2016 ). Additionally, the application of positive parental discipline has been observed to differ based on children's gender (Khan & Sajjad, 2017 ). To better understand the relationship between parental discipline and children's self-regulation, future research should explore potential gender differences in disciplinary practices and their effects on self-regulation. Second, in this study, different parental discipline practices were grouped into two broad categories (negative and positive discipline), while different types of children's self-regulation (effortful control, emotion regulation, inhibition control) were combined into one umbrella group. This grouping approach could have influenced the meta-analysis results. To gain a more precise understanding of the impact of specific parental discipline practices on different types of children's self-regulation, future research should perform a meta-analysis with a focus on specific disciplinary practices and specific self-regulation modalities. Conclusion In summary, this study examined how parents' disciplinary practices affect the self-regulation of children aged 2 to 5 years. The findings indicate small yet consistent effect sizes between parental discipline and children's self-regulation, aligning with the results demonstrated before 2000. Both positive and negative forms of parental discipline have similar effect sizes on self-regulation, but their effectiveness differs. Increased use of negative discipline is linked to lower levels of self-regulation, while increased use of positive discipline is linked to higher levels of self-regulation in children. These findings support previous research emphasizing the importance of parental discipline in shaping children's self-regulation skills. However, the small effect sizes found in this meta-analysis suggest that parental discipline, while influential, is just one of many factors shaping children's self-regulation abilities, including genetics, temperament, and environmental factors. This highlights the complexity of children's development and the need to consider multiple influences on self-regulation. Nonetheless, it is essential to interpret these findings cautiously and avoid making broad generalizations. Further research is necessary to thoroughly explore the interactions among the various factors influencing children's self-regulation. References Baker, S. (2018). The Effects of Parenting on Emotion and Self-Regulation . In: Sanders, M., Morawska, A. (eds) Handbook of Parenting and Child Development Across the Lifespan. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94598-9_10 Bayer, J. K., Prendergast, L. A., Brown, A., Bretherton, L., Hiscock, H., Nelson-Lowe, M., ... & Rapee, R. M. (2023). Prediction of clinical anxious and depressive problems in mid childhood among temperamentally inhibited preschool children: a population study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry , 32(2), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01857-9 Baron, A., & Malmberg, L.-E. (2017). A vicious or auspicious cycle: The reciprocal relation between harsh parental discipline and children’s self-regulation. European Journal of Developmental Psychology . https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2017.1399875. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2022 ). Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 4 . In Biostat, Inc. www.Meta-Analysis.com Boutron, I., Page, M. J., Higgins, J. P., Altman, D. G., Lundh, A., & Hróbjartsson, A. (2019). Considering bias and conflicts of interest among the included studies . Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 177–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch7 Chen, X., Wu, X., & Wang, Y. (2018). Mothers’ emotional expression and discipline and preschoolers’ emotional regulation strategies: Gender differences. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27 , 3709-3716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1199-9 Cheung, R. Y., Boise, C., Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2018). Mothers’ and fathers’ roles in child adjustment: Parenting practices and mothers’ emotion socialization as predictors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27 (12), 4033-4043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1214-1 Choe, D. E., Olson, S. L., & Sameroff, A. J. (2013). The interplay of externalizing problems and physical and inductive discipline during childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49 (11), 2029–2039. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032054 Chopik, W. J., O’Brien, E., & Konrath, S. H. (2017). Differences in Empathic Concern and Perspective Taking Across 63 Countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 48 (1), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022116673910 Colman, R. A., Hardy, S. A., Albert, M., Raffaelli, M., & Crockett, L. (2006). Early predictors of self‐regulation in middle childhood. Infant and Child Development , 15 (4), 421-437. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.469 Dede Yildirim, E., & Roopnarine, J. L. (2019). Positive discipline, harsh physical discipline, physical discipline and psychological aggression in five Caribbean countries: Associations with preschoolers' early literacy skills. International Journal of Psychology, 54 (3), 342-350. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12465 Feldman, J. S., & Olson, S. L. (2021). Supportive Maternal and Paternal Caregiving and the Children’s Emerging Effortful Control Abilities. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30 (4), 894-904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-01902-w Feldman, R., & Klein, P. S. (2003). Toddlers’ self-regulated compliance to mothers, caregivers, and fathers: Implications for theories of socialization. Developmental Psychology, 39 (4), 680–692. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.4.680 Feng, X., Hooper, E. G., & Jia, R. (2017). From compliance to self-regulation: Development during early childhood. Social Development, 26 (4), 981–995. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12245 Fuentes-Balderrama, J., Castillo, C. C. D., García, A. O., Loving, R. D., Plaza, B. T., & Cardona, J. R. P. (2020). The effects of parenting styles on internalizing and externalizing behaviors: A Mexican preadolescents study. International Journal of Psychological Research, 13 (1), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.4478 Fujikawa, S., Ando, S., Nishida, A., Usami, S., Koike, S., Yamasaki, S., Morimoto, Y., Toriyama, R., Kanata, S., Sugimoto, N., Sasaki, T., Furukawa, T. A., Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, M., & Kasai, K. (2018). Disciplinary slapping is associated with bullying involvement regardless of warm parenting in early adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 68, 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.07.018 Gordon-Hacker, A., & Gueron-Sela, N. (2020). Maternal use of media to regulate child distress: A double-edged sword? Longitudinal links to toddlers' negative emotionality. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23 (6), 400-405. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2019.0487 Gross, J. T., & Cassidy, J. (2019). Expressive suppression of negative emotions in children and adolescents: Theory, data, and a guide for future research. Developmental Psychology, 55 (9), 1938-1950. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000722 Grusec, J. E., Danyliuk, T., Kil, H., & O’Neill, D. (2017). Perspectives on parent discipline and child outcomes. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41 (4), 465–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025416681538 Halgunseth, L. C., Perkins, D. F., Lippold, M. A., & Nix, R. L. (2013). Delinquent-oriented attitudes mediate the relation between parental inconsistent discipline and early adolescent behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 27 (2), 293-302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031962 Hamovitch, E. K., Acri, M. C., & Bornheimer, L. A. (2019). An analysis of the relationship between parenting self-efficacy, the quality of parenting, and parental and child emotional health. Journal of Family Social Work, 22 (4-5), 337-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2019.1635939 Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21 (11), 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186 Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ, 327 (7414), 557-560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 Hines, C. T., Kalil, A., & Ryan, R. M. (2022). Differences in Parents’ Attitudes Toward Spanking Across Socioeconomic Status and Region, 1986–2016. Social Indicators Research , 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02803-7 Ho, C., Bluestein, D. N., & Jenkins, J. M. (2008). Cultural differences in the relationship between parenting and children’s behavior. Developmental Psychology, 44 (2), 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.507 Jansen, P. W., Raat, H., Mackenbach, J. P., Hofman, A., Jaddoe, V. W., Bakermans‐Kranenburg, M. J., ... & Tiemeier, H. (2012). Early determinants of maternal and paternal harsh discipline: The generation R study. Family Relations, 61 (2), 253-270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00691.x Karreman, A., van Tuijl, C., van Aken, M. A. G., & Deković, M. (2006). Parenting and self-regulation in preschoolers: A meta-analysis. Infant and Child Development, 15 (6), 561–579. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.478 Khan, S. Y., & Sajjad, S. (2017). Parental behavior to discipline their children on the basis of gender roles. New Horizons (1992-4399), 11(1). Kim, S., & Holloway, S. D. (2018). Parenting and young children’s emotional self-regulation in urban Korean families. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 16 (3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718x18775759 King, K. M., Lengua, L. J., & Monahan, K. C. (2012). Individual differences in the development of self-regulation during preadolescence: Connections to context and adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41 (1), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9665-0 Kmet, L. M., Lee, R. C., & Cook, L. C. (2004). Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields . https://doi.org/10.7939/R37M04F16 Korucu, I., Litkowski, E., Purpura, D. J., & Schmitt, S. A. (2020). Parental executive function as a predictor of parenting practices and children's executive function. Infant and Child Development, 29 (1), e2152. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2152 Lawrence, J., Haszard, J. J., Taylor, B., Galland, B., Gray, A., Sayers, R., ... & Taylor, R. (2021). A longitudinal study of parental discipline up to 5 years. Journal of Family Studies , 27 (4), 589-606. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2019.1665570 Lee, Y. E., Brophy‐Herb, H. E., Vallotton, C. D., Griffore, R. J., Carlson, J. S., & Robinson, J. L. (2016). Do young children's representations of discipline and empathy moderate the effects of punishment on emotion regulation? Social Development, 25 (1), 120-138. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12141 Liu, C., Younkin, F., Hardman, M., Buchanan, B., Nugent, N., Pettus, M., & Lawrence, B. (2021). The longitudinal relations between disciplinary practices and emotion regulation in early years. Personal Relationships , 28 (4), 860-882. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12401 Malanchini, M., Engelhardt, L. E., Grotzinger, A. D., Harden, K. P., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2019). “Same but different”: Associations between multiple aspects of self-regulation, cognition, and academic abilities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117 (6), 1164–1188. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000224 Manongdo, J. A., & Ramírez García, J. I. (2011). Maternal parenting and mental health of Mexican American youth: a bidirectional and prospective approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 25 (2), 261-270. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023004 Mathis, E. T., & Bierman, K. L. (2015). Dimensions of parenting associated with child prekindergarten emotion regulation and attention control in low‐income families. Social Development, 24 (3), 601-620. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12112 McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., Piccinin, A., Rhea, S. A., & Stallings, M. C. (2013). Relations between Preschool Attention Span-Persistence and Age 25 Educational Outcomes. Early childhood research quarterly , 28 (2), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.07.008 McClelland, M., Geldhof, J., Morrison, F., Gestsdóttir, S., Cameron, C., Bowers, E., ... & Grammer, J. (2018). Self-regulation. Handbook of life course health development , 275-298. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-47143-3_12 Molinuevo, B., Pardo, Y., González, L., & Torrubia, R. (2014). Memories of parenting practices are associated with psychopathy in juvenile male offenders. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 25 (4), 495-500. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2014.920901 Montroy, J. J., Bowles, R. P., Skibbe, L. E., McClelland, M. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2016). The development of self-regulation across early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 52 (11), 1744–1762. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000159 Morawska, A., Dittman, C. K., & Rusby, J. C. (2019). Promoting Self-Regulation in Young Children: The Role of Parenting Interventions. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 22 , 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-019-00281-5 Otto, Y., Kolmorgen, K., Sierau, S., Weis, S., von Klitzing, K., & Klein, A. M. (2016). Parenting behaviors of mothers and fathers of preschool age children with internalizing disorders. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25 (2), 381-395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0242-3 Pahigiannis, K., & Glos, M. (2020). Peer influences in self-regulation development and interventions in early childhood. Early Child Development and Care , 190 (7), 1053-1064. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1513923 Ringoot, A., Jansen, P., Kok, R., van IJzendoorn, M., Verlinden, M., Verhulst, F., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Tiemeier, H. (2022). Parenting, young children's behavioral self-regulation and the quality of their peer relationships. Social Development, 31 (3), 715-732. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12573 Robson, D. A., Allen, M. S., & Howard, S. J. (2020). Self-regulation in childhood as a predictor of future outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 146 (4), 324–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000227 Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86 (3), 638–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 Roskam, I., Stievenart, M., Meunier, J.-C., & Noël, M.-P. (2014). The development of children’s inhibition: Does parenting matter? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 122 , 166–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.01.003 Ryan, R. M., Kalil, A., Ziol-Guest, K. M., & Padilla, C. (2016). Socioeconomic Gaps in Parents' Discipline Strategies From 1988 to 2011. Pediatrics, 138 (6), e20160720. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-0720 Sánchez-Meca, J., & Marín-Martínez, F. (2010). Meta-analysis in psychological research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3 (1), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.860 Shin, M., & Kemps, E. (2020). Media multitasking as an avoidance coping strategy against emotionally negative stimuli. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 33 (4), 440-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2020.1745194 Speidel, R., Wang, L., Cummings, E. M., & Valentino, K. (2020). Longitudinal pathways of family influence on child self-regulation: The roles of parenting, family expressiveness, and maternal sensitive guidance in the context of child maltreatment. Developmental Psychology, 56 (3), 608–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000782 Suurmond, R., van Rhee, H., & Hak, T. (2017). Introduction, comparison, and validation of Meta-Essentials: A free and simple tool for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 8 (4), 537–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1260 Warren, S. M., & Barnett, M. A. (2020). Effortful control development in the face of harshness and unpredictability. Human Nature , 31 , 68–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-019-09360-6 Xiao, S. X., Spinrad, T. L., & Carter, D. B. (2018). Parental emotion regulation and preschoolers’ prosocial behavior: The mediating roles of parental warmth and inductive discipline. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 179 (5), 246-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2018.1495611 Yavuz, H. M., Dys, S., & Malti, T. (2022). Parental discipline, child inhibitory control and prosocial behaviors: The indirect relations via child sympathy. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 31 , 1276–1289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-02224-7 Yu, R. A., Goulter, N., & McMahon, R. J. (2021). Longitudinal associations between parental warmth, harsh discipline, child emotion regulation, and ODD dimensions. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 53 , 1266–1280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-021-01205-7 Zeytinoglu, S., Calkins, S. D., Swingler, M. M., & Leerkes, E. M. (2017). Pathways from maternal effortful control to child self-regulation: The role of maternal emotional support. Journal of Family Psychology, 31 (2), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000271 Zulauf, C. A., Sokolovsky, A. W., Grabell, A. S., & Olson, S. L. (2018). Early risk pathways to physical versus relational peer aggression: The interplay of externalizing behavior and corporal punishment varies by child sex. Aggressive Behavior, 44 (2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21744 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files Appendixes.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3969539","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":273632803,"identity":"71323af6-f3bc-4ae3-a0c1-42656feaad1f","order_by":0,"name":"Viktorija Čepukienė","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7968-5935","institution":"Vytautas Magnus University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Viktorija","middleName":"","lastName":"Čepukienė","suffix":""},{"id":273632804,"identity":"6ca98478-fd51-4022-9063-a2b6183f6894","order_by":1,"name":"Julija Janulevičė","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Vytautas Magnus University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Julija","middleName":"","lastName":"Janulevičė","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-02-19 09:05:05","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3969539/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3969539/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":51392508,"identity":"482e5a75-df97-4594-b030-35033c1f971c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-20 18:41:19","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":100095,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFlowchart for the records search and selection\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969539/v1/745f494298a6b75cfcc26c77.jpeg"},{"id":51392205,"identity":"8d56baa7-cf5b-4ef2-890c-890da7fc40f7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-20 18:33:19","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":37388,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eForest plot of the meta-analysis of parental negative discipline and children's self-regulation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969539/v1/a2f1060f68218baab0f7a845.png"},{"id":51392210,"identity":"774f952c-925f-4cef-a9bb-ae9688cbb684","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-20 18:33:20","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":18705,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eForest plot of the meta-analysis of parental positive discipline and children's self-regulation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969539/v1/2ea1d9931d2dfc7781249254.png"},{"id":51392208,"identity":"fbfb11b8-4a79-43bf-9895-10cd18a78a59","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-20 18:33:20","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":24252,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe funnel plots of publication bias for association between parental negative discipline and children's self-regulation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969539/v1/f0401487b14394f425b998c1.png"},{"id":51392209,"identity":"826acec2-6755-40b9-bbe5-8e93d7e74364","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-20 18:33:20","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":23746,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe funnel plots of publication bias for association between parental positive discipline and children's self-regulation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969539/v1/f7ecadbca8c86b0c745ed673.png"},{"id":51393181,"identity":"5d3a5f28-6e74-4ebf-84d4-d9179ac0f863","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-20 18:49:21","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":511077,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969539/v1/338054ab-a2da-4e22-bfe0-a502c89f5c14.pdf"},{"id":51392206,"identity":"dd1b68cf-3033-4189-ae58-6408f8f5cff5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-20 18:33:19","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":51537,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendixes.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969539/v1/a7e7a404bf16f563cce77431.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParental discipline and self-regulation in children aged 2 to 5: A meta-analysis of research conducted from 2000 to 2022\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Highlights","content":"\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe correlation between parental discipline and young children's self-regulation is defined by small effect sizes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth negative and positive parental discipline have contrasting effects on children's self-regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere were no notable variations in effect sizes depending on the type of children's self-regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-regulation is more affected\u0026nbsp;by negative\u0026nbsp;parental discipline in younger children.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eEarly childhood is a crucial stage for the formation of self-regulation systems, which can develop rapidly, exhibit increased adaptability, and be susceptible to manipulation (McClelland et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Eisenberg \u0026amp; Fabes, 1998; Eisenberg et al., 2015a; Malti et al., 2013; Williams et al., 1999; Yavuz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Shin \u0026amp; Kemps, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The developmental phase of self-regulation in early childhood corresponds with the maturation of the brain, specifically the prefrontal cortex (Diamond, 2002; cited by McClelland et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, early childhood represents a phase characterized by preschool attendance, exposing children to diverse challenges and alterations, thereby underscoring the importance of self-regulatory skills. Inadequate parental discipline during this developmental stage may hinder the development of self-regulation, consequently leading to behavioral issues, disturbed social interactions, worsened emotional well-being and mental health, decreased academic achievements, and even worse future lifestyle outcomes (Robson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Gross \u0026amp; Cassidy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Choe, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). A comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between parental discipline and the development of self-regulation in early childhood is crucial for early prevention. Due to its significance, the association between two phenomena has been extensively studied over the past four decades. Research findings constantly indicate that parental discipline significantly affects the developmental trajectory of children\u0026rsquo;s self-regulation. However, there is a lack of comprehensive syntheses of outcomes derived from studies conducted in the last two decades. This period has been marked by rapid societal transformations related to factors such as globalization and the widespread use of social media. Consequently, the present meta-analysis assessed the correlations identified in studies conducted within the previous two decades, specifically examining the relationship between two distinct forms of parental discipline and the self-regulatory capacities observed in children aged 2 to 5 years.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSelf-regulation in young children\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-regulation is a term used by researchers to encompass different abilities in children, including emotion regulation (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), impulse control (Malanchini et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), attention control (Mathis \u0026amp; Bierman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), inhibitory control (Yavuz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), effortful control (Feldman \u0026amp; Olson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), and executive control or executive function (Korucu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In this study, self-regulation is defined as a complex concept covering the ability to control one's emotions, behavior, impulses, attention, and effort, as well as inhibitory and executive control. The initiation of self-regulation development is evident in early childhood (Shin \u0026amp; Kemps, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The self-regulation skills cultivated during early childhood have a significant impact on the self-regulation skills that manifest during later childhood (Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Choe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) and even in adulthood (McClelland et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Moffitt et al., 2011; cited by Morawska et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Montroy et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), Shin and Kemps (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), and Pahigiannis and Glos (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) argue that early childhood is critical in the development of self-regulation skills, which encompass emotional management, behavioral control, and other associated regulatory mechanisms. These skills, in turn, foster positive social behaviors, enhance interpersonal relationships, and promote readiness for school. During this phase, children depend on parental assistance to acquire self-regulation abilities. Therefore, parental disciplinary practices play a crucial role in self-regulation, as the strategies employed by parents to discipline their children serve as the foundation for the development of children's self-regulation capabilities (King et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Baron \u0026amp; Malmberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParental discipline and children's self-regulation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParental discipline refers to the creation and implementation of rules for children, together with parents' responses to their children's misconduct (Cheung et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Along with behavior management techniques, it covers how to handle tantrums, food refusal, and the use of forbidden items by children (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, the literature outlines several disciplinary approaches, such as inconsistent, harsh, physical, punitive, inductive, corrective, and positive methods. The primary focus of this study covers two distinct categories: negative and positive discipline. Negative discipline refers to the tactics employed by parents to regulate their children's behavior and may involve inconsistent, harsh, physical, and punitive actions. These approaches often lack clear norms, expectations, and safety measures for children. Parents may disregard limits and impose punishments without regard for their children's needs (Hamovitch et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), alter rules frequently (Manongdo et al., 2011), or fail to establish explicit expectations for their children (Otto et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Parents who employ punitive disciplinary measures may exhibit extreme strictness and resort to physical or psychological aggression, including physical assault, kicking, punching, verbal abuse, hostility, neglect, or expressing anger toward their children (Dede Yildirim \u0026amp; Roopnarine, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). However, Molinuevo et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) argue that destructive elements of discipline are futile, as they fail to instill a sense of respect for limits and self-regulation in children (Halgunseth et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, the absence of consistency poses difficulties for children in comprehending expectations and behaving suitably across different circumstances (Fuentes-Balderrama et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, the use of negative discipline can impede children's ability to overcome fear and acquire the necessary skills needed for handling internal stress (Bayer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and disrupt the development of conflict management skills, leading to externalizing problems (Zulauf et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, positive discipline encompasses disciplinary, inductive, and corrective components such as correcting undesirable behavior; referring to established rules; limiting specific privileges or interests of children; offering substitute activities; and providing an explanation as to why the behavior is considered inappropriate (Dede Yildirim \u0026amp; Roopnarine, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Choe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Parents who employ positive discipline demonstrate attentiveness to their children's needs while upholding established rules and clear limits (Dede Yildirim \u0026amp; Roopnarine, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). The presence of warmth, empathy, engagement with children, and the provision of a secure environment typically establish the framework for positive discipline and contribute to the development of child emotion regulation strategies (Gordon-Hacker \u0026amp; Gueron-Sela, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, certain studies suggest that parental warmth (e.g., hugs and praise (praises are considered indicators of warm parenting (Fujikawa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e)) (Lawrence, 2021) or empathy might be considered elements of positive disciplinary methods. Grusec et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) argue that one of the essential components of effective discipline is perspective-taking, which is often used in studies together with empathy or as part of it (e.g., Chopik et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Accordingly, we incorporate the described aspects of parental conduct into our definition of positive discipline. According to Xiao et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), employing positive discipline strategies, such as establishing and adhering to limits, offering explanations, and stressing the outcomes of inappropriate behavior, aids young people in comprehending acceptable behavior and developing the skills needed to regulate it. Parents can utilize a variety of methods to efficiently discipline their children. These methods include utilizing mild forms of discipline, redirecting one\u0026rsquo;s attention, physically separating one from situations involving conflict, eliminating materials that may incite conflict, and talking with one another (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, parents may nurture their children's capacity for self-regulation by implementing positive disciplinary methods while demonstrating empathy and providing support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKarreman et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) conducted a thorough meta-analysis in which they combined results from multiple studies published between 1985 and 2004. These studies examined the relationships between responsiveness and parenting styles (specifically, positive control, negative control, and responsiveness) and between responsiveness and the self-regulation of preschool-aged children. Their study revealed that implementing positive control, which entails setting limits through the utilization of gentle-to-moderate authority assertion and providing explicit guidance, was positively associated with children's capacity to regulate their behavior. In contrast, a negative correlation was observed between children's self-regulation and negative control, encompassing hostile remarks, coercive actions, hostile limit setting, and power-assertive behavior. Following the publication of Karreman et al.'s meta-analysis, additional research has been carried out to investigate the effects of parental discipline on children's self-regulation. Nevertheless, a summary of the discoveries made over the last twenty years has not been provided in any recent study. The past two decades, characterized by accelerated globalization processes and the expansion of social media, have potentially led to alterations in disciplinary practices on a global scale (Ryan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Hines et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). These changes might result in differing opinions among researchers about the effects of negative discipline approaches on children's self-regulation. Many studies suggest that negative disciplinary techniques, such as physical punishment, harsh discipline, or inconsistency, are associated with lower levels of self-regulation in children (e.g., Colman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Roskam et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Kim \u0026amp; Holloway, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). However, opposing views suggest that harsh discipline is not significantly related to children's self-regulation (Ringoot et al., 2021), while inconsistency is positively related to emotional self-regulation (Kim \u0026amp; Holloway, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, it can be concluded that a synopsis of research conducted on the subject in the past twenty years is necessary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePresent study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe primary objective of this study is to provide a thorough overview of studies conducted from 2000 to 2022 that have examined the correlation between parental discipline and self-regulation in preschool-aged children. We hypothesize that, similar to the findings of Karreman et al.'s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) research, there will be a negative correlation between negative parental discipline and preschoolers' self-regulation, whereas positive parental discipline will be positively correlated with children's self-regulation. Beyond the period of the studies, it is important to note that our research differs from that of Karreman et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) in several other ways. Karreman et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) excluded non-Western countries from their meta-analysis, citing cross-cultural differences between Western and non-Western cultures in parenting practices. However, given the rapid globalization of the past twenty years, the current meta-analysis aims to integrate findings from both Western and non-Western countries to examine whether the country where the study was conducted might significantly affect the relationship between parental discipline and children's self-regulation. Another notable difference lies in the assessment methods used for parental discipline and self-regulation. While Karreman et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) included laboratory and home observational studies, this meta-analysis exclusively focused on studies in which parents reported on their disciplinary methods as well as children's self-regulation. The decision to include only survey-based studies in our meta-analysis was driven by the desire for methodological consistency and to avoid contradictory outcomes. Furthermore, our objective was to explore variables that could influence the correlation between parental discipline and children's self-regulation. These variables are the age of the children, the country where the study was conducted, and the type of self-regulation measured.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn January 2022, a comprehensive search for relevant articles was performed using databases, including ScienceDirect, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Medline, and Scopus. Additionally, search engines for publishers such as SAGE Journals Online, SpringerLink, and the Wiley Online Library were utilized, as were the online research platforms EBSCOhost and Google Scholar. The following search terms were used in relation to the topics of self-regulation, parental disciple, and young children aged 2\u0026ndash;5 years: 'self-regulation', 'self-control', 'emotion regulation', 'affect regulation', 'behavior(al) regulation, 'inhibitory control', 'inhibition', 'effortful control', 'emotion control', 'inhibition control', 'discipline', 'parenting', 'punishment', 'disciplinary practices', 'parent(al) discipline', 'preschool(er)', 'child(ren) early childhood', 'young child', and 'childhood'. The studies included in this analysis had to meet the following criteria: were published between 2000 and 2022, were written in English, were based on empirical research, were focused on children aged 2 to 5 years without any clinical symptoms or signs of disorders, utilized correlational, cross-sectional, or longitudinal study designs, and employed survey methods. The exclusion criteria included research articles written in languages other than English and published before 2000; case studies; systematic literature reviews; meta-analyses; laboratory or observational studies; and those involving teachers or grandparents as participants. To maintain methodological consistency between studies and prioritize the perspectives of individuals actively involved in the discipline process, we exclusively considered questionnaires completed by parents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe procedures for extracting and synthesizing the data adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards. For data extraction, an Excel spreadsheet was generated, and articles were selected and reviewed by both authors. A Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.91 indicates a high level of agreement between the two authors. In the initial phase, we examined the titles and abstracts of the papers (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). During the second phase, we evaluated the papers' appropriateness by considering the inclusion criteria and eliminating any articles that did not meet these criteria. The chosen articles were subsequently compiled into an Excel sheet, after which duplicates were eliminated. Articles included by one author but not by the other were reviewed together again, and an agreement was established.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eMeta-Analytic approach\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA rigorous and systematic approach, consistent with best practices for conducting meta-analyses (S\u0026aacute;nchez-Meca \u0026amp; Mar\u0026iacute;n-Mart\u0026iacute;nez, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), was employed in the data analysis. The meta-analysis was conducted using two software packages. The \u003cem\u003eMeta-Essentials 1.5 workbook\u003c/em\u003e for correlational data (Suurmond et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) was used to calculate the main statistics and generate forest plots, and \u003cem\u003eComprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 4.0\u003c/em\u003e (Borenstein et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) was used for meta-regression and between-group analysis. The primary effect measure used to evaluate the relationship between parental discipline and children\u0026rsquo;s self-regulation was the correlation coefficient (r). We used Fisher's z-transformation method for combining zero-order correlation coefficients across studies. This transformation converts r values to z scores, making it possible to combine correlation coefficients from different studies, regardless of their sample sizes. The z scores were then converted back to correlation coefficients for reporting purposes. We used random-effects models to generate pooled estimates of the effect size and its associated 95% confidence intervals, as well as 95% prediction intervals, within which the true effect size of future studies is expected to fall. We selected this model because significant heterogeneity was expected due to the use of different measures of parental discipline and children's self-regulation across studies, as well as the cultural backgrounds of participants. To assess the level of heterogeneity among studies, the Q statistic and the inconsistency index (I\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e statistic) were calculated. A significant Q test and I\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e value higher than 50% were considered indicators of the presence of moderators (Higgins \u0026amp; Thompson, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study examined two distinct categories of moderators. Meta-regression was used to examine the effect of the mean age of the children as a continuous moderator, based on evidence indicating that the age of preschoolers can influence their self-regulation (e.g., Montroy et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Through subgroup analyses, categorical moderators, research country, and type of self-regulation were evaluated. We selected these moderators based on exploratory considerations since there is empirical evidence suggesting their relevance to the research variables (e.g., Ho et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). We used funnel plots, Egger's test, Begg's test, and Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill approach for evaluating publication bias. In addition, forest plots were generated to visually represent the effect sizes, corresponding confidence intervals, and prediction intervals for each study. The correlational data obtained from the negative and positive parental discipline subgroups exhibited contrasting correlations\u0026mdash;a negative correlation between parental negative discipline and children's self-regulation and a positive correlation between parental positive discipline and children's self-regulation. Consequently, a meta-analysis was conducted individually within each grouping. However, due to the small size of the positive discipline subgroup (\u003cem\u003ek\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12), it was not possible to carry out within-group and moderation analyses. Therefore, the analysis was limited to the main statistics. Only the negative discipline subgroup was subjected to within-group and moderation examinations. Furthermore, we carried out a between-group comparison. The subgroup of parental negative discipline included studies examining a range of phenomena, covering punishment (both verbal and physical), harsh discipline, negative parenting practices, overreactivity, hostility, negative control, poor discipline, and authoritarian behavior. The subset of parental positive discipline included research investigating the use of inductive reasoning, positive parenting techniques, limit setting, positive control, firm parental control, and authoritative behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eRisk of bias assessment\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe inclusion of a risk of bias assessment in meta-analysis research is necessary because it enables the evaluation of the quality and credibility of the separate studies that are pooled in the meta-analysis (Boutron et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Both authors conducted the risk of bias evaluation. We discussed and settled every disagreement by reaching a consensus. We utilized a tool suggested by Kmet et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) for the evaluation, which is suitable for assessing studies with various designs. Nevertheless, due to the correlational nature of the studies included in this meta-analysis, three out of the 14 criteria that specifically addressed randomization and blinding were not taken into account. The remaining 11 criteria for each study were assessed and given a score based on the degree of adherence: 2 points for complete compliance, 1 point for partial compliance, and 0 points for noncompliance. The aggregate score for each study was computed by adding together the individual scores and thereafter dividing by the highest attainable score of 22. According to Kmet et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), studies that have a cumulative score higher than 0.5 are considered to be of satisfactory quality. All the studies that were assessed had a quality score that exceeded the specified threshold; as a result, they were included in the meta-analysis (see Table A.1 in Appendix A).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eDuring the initial examination of the databases, we identified a total of 39,689 records. After eliminating duplicate entries and articles that were unrelated to the search criteria, a total of 11,765 records were examined. Subsequently, 171 articles were selected for a full-text review to determine their eligibility. After removing articles for various reasons (refer to Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), a total of 29 studies were included in the meta-analysis. However, one study (Xing et al., 2019) was excluded from the analysis due to its nearly identical data presentation to that of another study (Xing et al., 2021) by the same authors. Therefore, the current meta-analysis comprises 28 studies that investigate the correlation between parental discipline, covering both negative and positive discipline, and children's self-regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present meta-analysis included a total of 27,285 children and their caregivers, with sample sizes varying from 55 to 12,474 (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;940.86, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2426.38). Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the data regarding the attributes of the studies that were included. There were more longitudinal studies than cross-sectional studies (16 vs 13), and the majority of the studies were conducted in the U.S. (15). The other countries included China (6 studies); the Netherlands (4 studies); and Turkey, Japan, Spain, and England (4 studies total). Twelve studies exclusively surveyed mothers, 12 studies surveyed both parents, 3 studies surveyed mothers and fathers, and one study failed to identify the respondents. Twenty-five studies investigated negative parental discipline, while 12 studies investigated positive discipline. One study exclusively included boys, whereas the remaining studies involved both girls and boys. Several types of self-regulation were examined, including 5 studies focusing on emotion regulation, 5 on self-regulation, 9 on effortful control, and 10 studies examining inhibition control. The majority of the research examining negative discipline has focused mainly on punishment (32%) and harsh discipline (36%). Two studies (8% of the total) investigated poor discipline, whereas individual studies examined authoritarian behavior, negative control, overreactivity, and hostility. Even more variation existed in regard to research on positive discipline. Four of the 12 studies examined inductive reasoning (33%), 3-positive parenting (25%), and two discipline/limit settings (17%). Positive control, authoritative behavior, and firm parental control were each examined in a single study. A greater proportion (57%) of longitudinal studies were included than cross-sectional studies. Only correlations from the first time point were examined in the longitudinal research, and the impact of parental discipline on children's self-regulation over time was not investigated. We made this decision because the initial time point in longitudinal studies typically fell within the age range of 2\u0026ndash;5 years for children, but successive time points were outside the age of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe main characteristics of the studies in the meta-analytic sample\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudy\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudy design\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParent gender\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChild gender\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(boys \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e) %\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChild age (average or range)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParental discipline\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-regulation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcar et al. (2021)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTurkey\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCross-sectional\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMothers\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (81) 58\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e140\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.21\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN, P\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eER\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBaron \u0026amp; Malmberg (2019)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJK\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal cohort study\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMothers\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (6100) 49\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e12474\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSR\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBater \u0026amp; Jordan (2017)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCross-sectional\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMothers\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (66) 45\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e146\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.61\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN, P\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSR\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCarrasco et al. (2020)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpain\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCross-sectional\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMothers\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (179) 42\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e422\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCecil et al. (2012)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEngland and Wales\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMixed (gender proportion n/r)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (2436) 47\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5184\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSR\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChang et al. (2011)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMothers\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (120) 53\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e228\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN, P\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChang et al. (2003)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChina\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCross-sectional\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (179) 55\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e325\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eER\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChoe et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCross-sectional\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMothers\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (123) 51\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e241\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eColman et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMothers\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (296) 54\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e549\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4\u0026ndash;5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSR\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGaniban et al. (2021)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot specified\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (206) 57\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e361\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHogye et al. (2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNetherlands\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal cohort study\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2131, F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1982)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (1078) 51\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2131\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.04\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYoo \u0026amp; Smetana (2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCross-sectional\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMixed (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;90, F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;22)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (60) 54\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e112\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.82\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYu et al. (2018)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMothers\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (85) 52\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e163\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.56\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKarreman et al. (2008)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNetherlands\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCross-sectional\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (45) 51\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.0\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN, P\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLee et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMothers\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (274) 49\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e559\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.19\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eER\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLi et al. (2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChina\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (103) 50\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e205\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.73\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMeldrum et al. (2016)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNetherlands\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoys\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e110\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNathanson et al. (2009)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCross-sectional\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (91) 50\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e182\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN, P\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlson et al. (2011)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChina\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCross-sectional\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMothers\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (30) 55\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlson et al. (2017)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (124) 52\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e238\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.14\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlson, Lopez-Duran, Lunkenheimer, Chang \u0026amp; Samerof (2011)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMothers\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (n/r)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e199\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.45\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN, P\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePears et al. (2007)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (n/r)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e178\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.25\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePiotrowski et al. (2013)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCross-sectional\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (598) 52\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1141\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.92\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN, P\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSR\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQiu \u0026amp; Shum (2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChina\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCross-sectional\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMixed (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;394, F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;280)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (351) 52\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e674\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.97\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN, P\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eER\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpeidel et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMothers\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (120) 50\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e238\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.95\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eER\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTiberio et al. (2016)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (n/r)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e285\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.0\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN, P\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003evan Prooijen et al. (2018)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNetherlands\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCross-sectional\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (53) 50\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e107\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.08\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eXing et al. (2021)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChina\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth (140) 51\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e276\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.12\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e: N \u0026ndash; Negative Discipline; P \u0026ndash; Positive Discipline; ER \u0026ndash; Emotion Regulation; SR \u0026ndash; Self-Regulation; EC \u0026ndash; Effortful Control; I \u0026ndash; Inhibitory Control; M \u0026ndash; Mothers; F \u0026ndash; Fathers; n/r \u0026ndash; not reported\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVarious questionnaires were used to measure children's self-regulation and parental discipline (Table A.2 in Appendix A). The Children's Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ) was the most frequently used questionnaire for self-regulation or its components in 13 studies (e.g., Choe et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Ganiban et al., 2021; Nathanson et al., 2009; Olson et al., 2011). Other studies have used shortened versions of the CBQ, such as the CBQ-SF (Bater \u0026amp; Jordan, 2017), the CBQ-VSF (Li et al., 2022; Yoo \u0026amp; Smetana, 2021), or the Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire (ECBQ) (van Prooijen et al., 2018), to assess self-regulation. The CBQ measures effortful control and consists of 47 questions, while the CBQ-SF has 26 questions, and the CBQ-VSF has 12 questions on the Effortful Control Scale. The ECBQ differs in its effortful control scale, comprising attention control, inhibitory control, low-intensity pleasure, attention shifting, and cuddliness subscales. In two other studies, the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Preschool version (BRIEF-P), which consists of five scales, was used to measure inhibitory control in children: working memory, planning/organizing, inhibition, emotional control, and shifting (Hogye et al., 2022; Xing et al., 2021). The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) inhibitory control scale, which includes 11 items, was used to assess inhibitory control (Pears et al., 2007). Three studies measured children's emotion regulation using the Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC), whose emotion regulation subscale captures adaptive regulation: emotional awareness, appropriate emotional expression, and empathy (Chang et al., 2003; Qiu \u0026amp; Shum, 2022; Speidel et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, one study used the Leiter-R questionnaire, which consists of four subscales\u0026mdash;energy and mood, mood regulation, anxiety, and sensory reactivity\u0026mdash;to assess emotion regulation (Lee et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Other questionnaires used for self-regulation include the CSBQ (Baron \u0026amp; Malmberg, 2019) and the BPI, which measure affective, attentional, and behavioral regulation (Colman et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Several studies have used composite measures from different questionnaires to assess children's self-regulation and effortful control (Carrasco et al., 2020; Cecil et al., 2012; Tiberio et al., 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA considerable diversity of questionnaires was noted with respect to parental discipline. The most frequently used tool was the Parenting Dimensions Inventory (PDI), which measures inductive discipline (a scale for reasoning, reacting, arguing, and reminding) in four studies (Choe et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Chang et al., 2011; Karreman et al., 2008; Olson et al., 2011b). Three studies used the Parent‒Child Conflict Tactics Scale (PCCTS) to measure harsh parenting and physical punishment (Hogye et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Xing et al., 2021). Further details can be found in Table A.2 in Appendix A.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable A.3 in the Appendix displays the effect sizes (correlations) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals for all studies. The results from the overall mean effect size analyses using a random-effects model indicated that parental negative discipline (\u003cem\u003ek\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;25, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26,356) was significantly negatively correlated with children's self-regulation (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.25, \u003cem\u003eZ\u003c/em\u003e = -9.44, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, 95% CI [-.30, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.20], 95% PI [-.41, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.08]), and parental positive discipline (\u003cem\u003ek\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3,544) was significantly positively correlated with children's self-regulation (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.27, \u003cem\u003eZ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.31, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, 95% CI [.23, .32], 95% PI [.11, .43]).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe forest plots in Figs.\u0026nbsp;2 and 3 show that the majority of effect sizes (and their confidence intervals) for negative parental discipline are on the left side of the vertical line of no effect (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.00), while the majority of effect sizes for positive discipline are on the right side. This indicates a negative relationship between negative discipline and self-regulation and a positive relationship between positive discipline and children's self-regulation. Notably, within the subgroup of negative discipline, 20% of the studies (5 out of 25) did not find statistically significant associations between negative parenting and children's self-regulation. In contrast, in the group with positive parenting styles, all correlations were statistically significant. To assess the variability of effect sizes across studies, the heterogeneity of effect sizes (Q) was calculated. The Q value for studies on negative parental discipline was 156.85 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), and for studies on positive discipline, it was 27.43 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.004), with I\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e values of 84.70% and 59.90%, respectively, indicating significant differences in study effects (Higgins et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). These calculations suggest that there were significant variations in the effect size estimations across studies, accounting for only a moderate proportion of the true variance. Thus, subgroup analysis and meta-regression were conducted to identify potential moderators contributing to the variability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eSubgroup analyses and meta-regression\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe conducted subgroup analyses to investigate whether the effect sizes in our meta-analysis were affected by the type of children's self-regulation or the country of the research. The results of the studies on parental negative discipline are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. We divided the studies into two groups: type of self-regulation (self-regulation, effortful control, emotion regulation, or inhibition control) and country of the research (US, China, the Netherlands, or other). However, the Netherlands subgroup had only 3 studies. The subgroup analyses revealed that neither of the two grouping variables had a significant impact on the effect sizes (random effects model: \u003cem\u003eQ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.957, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.582 for type of self-regulation; \u003cem\u003eQ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.29, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.962 for country of the research). Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows that the effect sizes were similar across all subgroups, with values ranging from \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.22 to \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.29 for the type of self-regulation and from \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.24 to \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.27 for the country of the research. The heterogeneity coefficients were high in all subgroups, except for the Netherlands subgroup, which had only 3 studies; thus, the interpretation of heterogeneity in this subgroup was not possible. The subgroup of inhibition control had an insignificant Q value but a relatively high I\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e, indicating possible heterogeneity in this subgroup as well.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEffect sizes for the association between parental negative discipline and children's self-regulation by type of self-regulation and country of residence\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ek\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eQ\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e95% PI\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLL\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUL\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLL\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUL\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"10\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eType of self-regulation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-regulation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e19494\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.22**\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.27\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.18\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e26.68**\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e85.01%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.35\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.09\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEffortful control\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1901\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.29**\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.45\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.11\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e83.63**\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e91.63%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.70\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e.26\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmotion regulation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3333\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.25**\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.41\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.04\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e14.93*\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e79.91%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.55\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e.14\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInhibition control\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3606\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.24**\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.32\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.18\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e11.76\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e40.47%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.38\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.11\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"10\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCountry of the research\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4341\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.24**\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.33\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.15\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e75.78**\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e84.16%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.50\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e.06\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChina\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1535\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.27**\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.41\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.11\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8.60*\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e65.13%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.51\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e.01\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNetherlands\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2330\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.26**\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.29\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.23\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.97\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.29\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.23\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e18220\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.26**\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.49\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.01\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e61.48**\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e95.12%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.57\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e.10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003ctfoot\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"10\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. PI \u0026ndash; Prediction interval, \u003cem\u003ek\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; the number of studies, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; the number of children\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"10\"\u003e* \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, ** \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tfoot\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, the results of the meta-regression for the children's age moderator showed statistically significant results (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.03, 95% CI [.00; .11], \u003cem\u003eZ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.10, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.036; \u003cem\u003eQ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.40, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.036). Additionally, we conducted a meta-regression analysis of all three moderators. Although the regression model was not significant (random effects model: \u003cem\u003eQ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.35, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.500), we found that the age effect remained significant when considering other covariates (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.08, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.04, 95% CI [.00; .16], \u003cem\u003eZ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.043).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough the total effect sizes for both the negative and positive parental discipline groups were similar, we conducted a between-group analysis and found no statistically significant difference (mixed effects analysis: \u003cem\u003eQ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.424, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.515). These results suggest that negative and positive parental discipline have similar impacts on preschool children's self-regulation, with opposite effects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eEvaluating possible bias\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite undertaking an extensive literature review, there is still potential for the omission of relevant studies from the pool of studies utilized in this analysis. The publication frequency of studies that yield significant results tends to be higher than that of studies that do not, potentially resulting in an overestimation of the actual mean effect (Rosenthal, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e). To mitigate this potential bias, we analyzed funnel plots utilizing Fisher's z transformation for two distinct groups of studies: those involving negative and positive parental discipline. The results of this analysis can be seen in Figs.\u0026nbsp;4 and 5. Additionally, we employed statistical tests, including the classic Fail-Safe N test, Egger's regression test, and Begg \u0026amp; Mazumdar test, using the trim-and-fill method. The classic Fail-Safe N test predicted that 5528 studies with null findings would be necessary to nullify the mean effect in the group of studies on negative discipline. Similarly, a group of studies on positive discipline would require 692 null studies. The trim-and-fill method was employed to impute two studies for the parental negative discipline group, whereas no imputation was performed for the positive discipline group. The outcomes of these assessments revealed no significant asymmetry or bias in either the positive or negative parental discipline groups. The results of Egger's regression test indicated that there was no statistically significant asymmetry in either group when analyzing the funnel plot (negative parental discipline: slope = -0.21, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02, 95% CI [-0.26, -0.17], \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = -1.22, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.23; positive discipline: slope\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.17, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06, 95% CI [0.03, 0.317], \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.542, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.16). Similarly, the results of the Begg and Mazumdar test showed nonsignificant results (negative parental discipline: \u003cem\u003e\u0026tau;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.11, \u003cem\u003eZ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.75, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.455; positive discipline: \u003cem\u003e\u0026tau;\u003c/em\u003e = -0.03, \u003cem\u003eZ\u003c/em\u003e = -0.14, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.891). Overall, it can be concluded that no significant publication bias was detected in this meta-analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis meta-analysis examined studies on the relationship between parental discipline and self-regulation in children aged 2 to 5 years conducted between 2000 and 2022. The findings of this study align with those of previous meta-analyses (Karreman et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) and suggest that there is a small yet consistent association between parental discipline and the self-regulation of young children. Moreover, although both positive and negative forms of parental discipline had similar impact sizes on children's self-regulation, they differed in terms of outcomes. Children who experience more negative parental discipline exhibit diminished self-regulation skills. On the other hand, greater utilization of positive discipline can result in an enhanced level of self-regulation in children. This finding is consistent with previous research (Chen et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Karreman et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) showing that both forms of parental discipline significantly affect children's self-regulation, although in contrasting ways.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese results align with socialization theories that emphasize the crucial role of parental discipline in the development of children's self-regulation (Baker, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Feldman \u0026amp; Klein, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Negative parental discipline typically leads to reduced children's prosocial behavior and more reactive behavior. This, in turn, elicits more negative responses from the surrounding environment, reinforcing the negative association between harsh discipline and self-regulation (Liu et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Various empirical studies support the claim that inconsistent and harsh discipline has a role in the emergence of various problems related to low self-regulation, such as child hostility and a propensity for delinquent behavior (Bayer et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, destructive disciplinary methods are linked to antisocial behavior and the display of psychotic traits (Molinuevo et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Parents who utilize negative discipline may opt for such methods to quickly achieve the desired modifications in their children's behavior. For instance, when a youngster refuses to help their parents clean up their toys, employing physical punishment or verbal aggressiveness might be a successful temporary remedy (Jansen et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Studies have shown that parents with diminished self-control may have challenges in effectively regulating their emotions and behaviors, resulting in difficulty in disciplining their children and fostering their children's self-regulation (Zeytinoglu et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Xiao et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The association between positive discipline, on the other hand, and self-regulation implies that children who obtain constructive discipline from their parents demonstrate higher levels of self-regulation. These findings support previous results that consistent discipline instills an understanding of appropriate behavior in children, which gradually evolves into prosocial behavior as they acquire the ability to anticipate the consequences of their actions (Halgunseth et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). This evidence is supported by the associations between inductive discipline and inhibitory control (Yavuz et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), between corrective discipline and emotion regulation (Liu et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), and between improved self-regulation and the application of kindness and sensitivity (Ringoot et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, the implementation of inductive discipline is highlighted as a proactive approach to preventing the development of externalizing problems in children (Choe et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, we aimed to explore whether children's age, the country where the study was conducted, and the type of children's self-regulation may act as possible moderators of the association between parental discipline and children's self-regulation. The meta-regression analysis demonstrated that children's age is a significant moderator in the relationship between their self-regulation and negative parental discipline. Specifically, the effect of parental negative discipline on self-regulation decreases as children grow older. This finding is partially corroborated by prior research, which has demonstrated that self-regulation is a gradual process that develops over time, becomes internalized, and consequently becomes less reliant on external influences, such as parental negative discipline (Feng et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Roskam et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, Karreman et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) reported different outcomes in their meta-analysis. They revealed that children's age does not influence the correlation between parental discipline and self-regulation, despite their initial predictions. However, further studies are needed to fully understand the role of children's age in this association. Moreover, children's age is a multidimensional concept that includes different milestones and developmental changes that can influence their self-regulation abilities. This finding highlights the importance of considering the child's age, even in early childhood, when evaluating the impact of negative parental discipline on self-regulation, supporting the idea that self-regulation develops over time and is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. However, it is worth noting that we could not test the effect of age on the association between parental positive discipline and children's self-regulation. As children grow older, positive discipline may become more closely linked to their ability to regulate themselves. This is because their cognitive abilities develop, enabling them to learn how to manage their emotions, attention, and behavior with the guidance of positive parenting (Morawska et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Speidel et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results revealed that country of residence was not a significant moderator of effect size in the group with negative parental discipline. This finding is important because it suggests that the relationship between parental discipline and self-regulation, along with the increase in globalization, might be more consistent across different cultures and contexts. In the meta-analysis, we included studies not only from Western countries such as the U.S. but also from China. For example, in their meta-analysis on the relationship between parental discipline and preschoolers' self-regulation, Karreman et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) excluded non-Western countries and relied on older research showing cross-cultural differences between Western and Non-Western cultures in terms of both parenting and children's self-regulation. Therefore, the present meta-analysis expands upon our knowledge by revealing no significant differences between the researched countries. On the other hand, it is also important to consider that the results of this meta-analysis are based on a sample of studies and that the country or type of self-regulation measured may not be representative of the entire population. Therefore, it is important to replicate these findings in a larger sample and in different cultures to gain more insight into the generalizability of the results. Cultural norms and values may influence how parents discipline their children and how children perceive and respond to parental discipline. For example, some cultures may value obedience and respect for authority, while others may value autonomy and self-expression (Kim \u0026amp; Holloway, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Grusec et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). As a result, cultural norms and values may influence how parental discipline is perceived and practiced and how it influences children's self-regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, the subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in the effect sizes based on the type of children's self-regulation (emotion regulation, inhibition control, effortful control) measured for negative parental discipline. This finding suggests that negative parental discipline may have a similar negative impact on children's ability to regulate their emotions, inhibit their impulses, and exert effortful control over their behavior (Yu et al., 2022; Warren \u0026amp; Barnett, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Roskam et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). However, importantly, the related research is still limited, and additional research is needed to gain a more detailed understanding of the relationships between parental discipline and different types of children's self-regulation. Moreover, self-regulation is considered to be a multidimensional construct, and different types of self-regulation may be influenced by different factors. For example, emotion regulation may be more influenced by children's emotional experiences and social interactions, while inhibitory control may be more influenced by children's cognitive development. As a result, the relationship between parental discipline and different types of self-regulation could vary depending on other factors. Thus, the effect of other factors on the relationship between parental discipline and children's self-regulation should be researched in greater depth.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, the current meta-analysis sheds light on the association between parental discipline and self-regulation in young children, specifically those aged 2 to 5 years, over the last two decades. However, when interpreting the results, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, this meta-analysis did not differentiate between parental disciplinary methods applied by fathers and mothers or between boys' and girls' self-regulation. Gender differences could be significant due to conflicting findings in the literature. Some studies suggest that fathers, due to their perceived traditional role in the family as authoritative figures, may have a stronger influence on children (Ringoot et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Chang et al., 2003), while others have found associations between specific disciplinary practices and internalizing problems or anxiety disorders in children based on maternal or paternal discipline (Cheung et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Otto et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, the application of positive parental discipline has been observed to differ based on children's gender (Khan \u0026amp; Sajjad, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). To better understand the relationship between parental discipline and children's self-regulation, future research should explore potential gender differences in disciplinary practices and their effects on self-regulation. Second, in this study, different parental discipline practices were grouped into two broad categories (negative and positive discipline), while different types of children's self-regulation (effortful control, emotion regulation, inhibition control) were combined into one umbrella group. This grouping approach could have influenced the meta-analysis results. To gain a more precise understanding of the impact of specific parental discipline practices on different types of children's self-regulation, future research should perform a meta-analysis with a focus on specific disciplinary practices and specific self-regulation modalities.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn summary, this study examined how parents\u0026apos; disciplinary practices affect the self-regulation of children aged 2 to 5 years. The findings indicate small yet consistent effect sizes between parental discipline and children\u0026apos;s self-regulation, aligning with the results demonstrated before 2000. Both positive and negative forms of parental discipline have similar effect sizes on self-regulation, but their effectiveness differs. Increased use of negative discipline is linked to lower levels of self-regulation, while increased use of positive discipline is linked to higher levels of self-regulation in children. These findings support previous research emphasizing the importance of parental discipline in shaping children\u0026apos;s self-regulation skills. However, the small effect sizes found in this meta-analysis suggest that parental discipline, while influential, is just one of many factors shaping children\u0026apos;s self-regulation abilities, including genetics, temperament, and environmental factors. This highlights the complexity of children\u0026apos;s development and the need to consider multiple influences on self-regulation. Nonetheless, it is essential to interpret these findings cautiously and avoid making broad generalizations. Further research is necessary to thoroughly explore the interactions among the various factors influencing children\u0026apos;s self-regulation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaker, S. (2018). \u003cem\u003eThe Effects of Parenting on Emotion and Self-Regulation\u003c/em\u003e. In: Sanders, M., Morawska, A. (eds) Handbook of Parenting and Child Development Across the Lifespan. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94598-9_10 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBayer, J. K., Prendergast, L. A., Brown, A., Bretherton, L., Hiscock, H., Nelson-Lowe, M., ... \u0026amp; Rapee, R. M. (2023). Prediction of clinical anxious and depressive problems in mid childhood among temperamentally inhibited preschool children: a population study. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Child \u0026amp; Adolescent Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, 32(2), 267\u0026ndash;281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01857-9 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaron, A., \u0026amp; Malmberg, L.-E. (2017). A vicious or auspicious cycle: The reciprocal relation between harsh parental discipline and children\u0026rsquo;s self-regulation. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Developmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2017.1399875.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., \u0026amp; Rothstein, H. (2022\u003cem\u003e). Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 4\u003c/em\u003e. In Biostat, Inc. www.Meta-Analysis.com \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoutron, I., Page, M. J., Higgins, J. P., Altman, D. G., Lundh, A., \u0026amp; Hr\u0026oacute;bjartsson, A. (2019). \u003cem\u003eConsidering bias and conflicts of interest among the included studies\u003c/em\u003e. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 177\u0026ndash;204. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, X., Wu, X., \u0026amp; Wang, Y. (2018). Mothers\u0026rsquo; emotional expression and discipline and preschoolers\u0026rsquo; emotional regulation strategies: Gender differences. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child and Family Studies, 27\u003c/em\u003e, 3709-3716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1199-9 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheung, R. Y., Boise, C., Cummings, E. M., \u0026amp; Davies, P. T. (2018). Mothers\u0026rsquo; and fathers\u0026rsquo; roles in child adjustment: Parenting practices and mothers\u0026rsquo; emotion socialization as predictors. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child and Family Studies, 27\u003c/em\u003e(12), 4033-4043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1214-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChoe, D. E., Olson, S. L., \u0026amp; Sameroff, A. J. (2013). The interplay of externalizing problems and physical and inductive discipline during childhood. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology, 49\u003c/em\u003e(11), 2029\u0026ndash;2039. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032054 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChopik, W. J., O\u0026rsquo;Brien, E., \u0026amp; Konrath, S. H. (2017). Differences in Empathic Concern and Perspective Taking Across 63 Countries. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(1), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022116673910\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eColman, R. A., Hardy, S. A., Albert, M., Raffaelli, M., \u0026amp; Crockett, L. (2006). Early predictors of self‐regulation in middle childhood. \u003cem\u003eInfant and Child Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(4), 421-437. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.469\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDede Yildirim, E., \u0026amp; Roopnarine, J. L. (2019). Positive discipline, harsh physical discipline, physical discipline and psychological aggression in five Caribbean countries: Associations with preschoolers\u0026apos; early literacy skills. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Psychology, 54\u003c/em\u003e(3), 342-350. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12465 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeldman, J. S., \u0026amp; Olson, S. L. (2021). Supportive Maternal and Paternal Caregiving and the Children\u0026rsquo;s Emerging Effortful Control Abilities. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child and Family Studies, 30\u003c/em\u003e(4), 894-904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-01902-w \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeldman, R., \u0026amp; Klein, P. S. (2003). Toddlers\u0026rsquo; self-regulated compliance to mothers, caregivers, and fathers: Implications for theories of socialization. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology, 39\u003c/em\u003e(4), 680\u0026ndash;692. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.4.680 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeng, X., Hooper, E. G., \u0026amp; Jia, R. (2017). From compliance to self-regulation: Development during early childhood. \u003cem\u003eSocial Development, 26\u003c/em\u003e(4), 981\u0026ndash;995. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12245 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFuentes-Balderrama, J., Castillo, C. C. D., Garc\u0026iacute;a, A. O., Loving, R. D., Plaza, B. T., \u0026amp; Cardona, J. R. P. (2020). The effects of parenting styles on internalizing and externalizing behaviors: A Mexican preadolescents study. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Psychological Research, 13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.4478 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFujikawa, S., Ando, S., Nishida, A., Usami, S., Koike, S., Yamasaki, S., Morimoto, Y., Toriyama, R., Kanata, S., Sugimoto, N., Sasaki, T., Furukawa, T. A., Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, M., \u0026amp; Kasai, K. (2018). Disciplinary slapping is associated with bullying involvement regardless of warm parenting in early adolescence. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Adolescence, 68,\u003c/em\u003e 207\u0026ndash;216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.07.018\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGordon-Hacker, A., \u0026amp; Gueron-Sela, N. (2020). Maternal use of media to regulate child distress: A double-edged sword? Longitudinal links to toddlers\u0026apos; negative emotionality. \u003cem\u003eCyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23\u003c/em\u003e(6), 400-405. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2019.0487 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGross, J. T., \u0026amp; Cassidy, J. (2019). Expressive suppression of negative emotions in children and adolescents: Theory, data, and a guide for future research. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology, 55\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1938-1950. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000722 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrusec, J. E., Danyliuk, T., Kil, H., \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Neill, D. (2017). Perspectives on parent discipline and child outcomes. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Behavioral Development, 41\u003c/em\u003e(4), 465\u0026ndash;471. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025416681538 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHalgunseth, L. C., Perkins, D. F., Lippold, M. A., \u0026amp; Nix, R. L. (2013). Delinquent-oriented attitudes mediate the relation between parental inconsistent discipline and early adolescent behavior. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Psychology, 27\u003c/em\u003e(2), 293-302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031962\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHamovitch, E. K., Acri, M. C., \u0026amp; Bornheimer, L. A. (2019). An analysis of the relationship between parenting self-efficacy, the quality of parenting, and parental and child emotional health. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Social Work, 22\u003c/em\u003e(4-5), 337-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2019.1635939 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHiggins, J. P. T., \u0026amp; Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eStatistics in Medicine, 21\u003c/em\u003e(11), 1539\u0026ndash;1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHiggins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., \u0026amp; Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. \u003cem\u003eBMJ, 327\u003c/em\u003e(7414), 557-560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHines, C. T., Kalil, A., \u0026amp; Ryan, R. M. (2022). Differences in Parents\u0026rsquo; Attitudes Toward Spanking Across Socioeconomic Status and Region, 1986\u0026ndash;2016. \u003cem\u003eSocial Indicators Research\u003c/em\u003e, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02803-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHo, C., Bluestein, D. N., \u0026amp; Jenkins, J. M. (2008). Cultural differences in the relationship between parenting and children\u0026rsquo;s behavior. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology, 44\u003c/em\u003e(2), 507\u0026ndash;522. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.507 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJansen, P. W., Raat, H., Mackenbach, J. P., Hofman, A., Jaddoe, V. W., Bakermans‐Kranenburg, M. J., ... \u0026amp; Tiemeier, H. (2012). Early determinants of maternal and paternal harsh discipline: The generation R study. \u003cem\u003eFamily Relations, 61\u003c/em\u003e(2), 253-270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00691.x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarreman, A., van Tuijl, C., van Aken, M. A. G., \u0026amp; Deković, M. (2006). Parenting and self-regulation in preschoolers: A meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eInfant and Child Development, 15\u003c/em\u003e(6), 561\u0026ndash;579. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.478 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhan, S. Y., \u0026amp; Sajjad, S. (2017). Parental behavior to discipline their children on the basis of gender roles. \u003cem\u003eNew Horizons\u003c/em\u003e (1992-4399), 11(1).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, S., \u0026amp; Holloway, S. D. (2018). Parenting and young children\u0026rsquo;s emotional self-regulation in urban Korean families. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Early Childhood Research, 16\u003c/em\u003e(3), 305\u0026ndash;318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718x18775759 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKing, K. M., Lengua, L. J., \u0026amp; Monahan, K. C. (2012). Individual differences in the development of self-regulation during preadolescence: Connections to context and adjustment. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41\u003c/em\u003e(1), 57\u0026ndash;69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9665-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKmet, L. M., Lee, R. C., \u0026amp; Cook, L. C. (2004). \u003cem\u003eStandard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.7939/R37M04F16 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKorucu, I., Litkowski, E., Purpura, D. J., \u0026amp; Schmitt, S. A. (2020). Parental executive function as a predictor of parenting practices and children\u0026apos;s executive function. \u003cem\u003eInfant and Child Development, 29\u003c/em\u003e(1), e2152. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2152 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLawrence, J., Haszard, J. J., Taylor, B., Galland, B., Gray, A., Sayers, R., ... \u0026amp; Taylor, R. (2021). A longitudinal study of parental discipline up to 5 years. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(4), 589-606. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2019.1665570 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, Y. E., Brophy‐Herb, H. E., Vallotton, C. D., Griffore, R. J., Carlson, J. S., \u0026amp; Robinson, J. L. (2016). Do young children\u0026apos;s representations of discipline and empathy moderate the effects of punishment on emotion regulation? \u003cem\u003eSocial Development, 25\u003c/em\u003e(1), 120-138. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12141 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, C., Younkin, F., Hardman, M., Buchanan, B., Nugent, N., Pettus, M., \u0026amp; Lawrence, B. (2021). The longitudinal relations between disciplinary practices and emotion regulation in early years. \u003cem\u003ePersonal Relationships\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(4), 860-882. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12401\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMalanchini, M., Engelhardt, L. E., Grotzinger, A. D., Harden, K. P., \u0026amp; Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2019). \u0026ldquo;Same but different\u0026rdquo;: Associations between multiple aspects of self-regulation, cognition, and academic abilities. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1164\u0026ndash;1188. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000224 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eManongdo, J. A., \u0026amp; Ram\u0026iacute;rez Garc\u0026iacute;a, J. I. (2011). Maternal parenting and mental health of Mexican American youth: a bidirectional and prospective approach. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Psychology, 25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 261-270. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023004 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMathis, E. T., \u0026amp; Bierman, K. L. (2015). Dimensions of parenting associated with child prekindergarten emotion regulation and attention control in low‐income families. \u003cem\u003eSocial Development, 24\u003c/em\u003e(3), 601-620. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12112 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., Piccinin, A., Rhea, S. A., \u0026amp; Stallings, M. C. (2013). Relations between Preschool Attention Span-Persistence and Age 25 Educational Outcomes. \u003cem\u003eEarly childhood research quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(2), 314\u0026ndash;324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.07.008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcClelland, M., Geldhof, J., Morrison, F., Gestsd\u0026oacute;ttir, S., Cameron, C., Bowers, E., ... \u0026amp; Grammer, J. (2018). Self-regulation. \u003cem\u003eHandbook of life course health development\u003c/em\u003e, 275-298. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-47143-3_12\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMolinuevo, B., Pardo, Y., Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, L., \u0026amp; Torrubia, R. (2014). Memories of parenting practices are associated with psychopathy in juvenile male offenders. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Forensic Psychiatry \u0026amp; Psychology, 25\u003c/em\u003e(4), 495-500. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2014.920901\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMontroy, J. J., Bowles, R. P., Skibbe, L. E., McClelland, M. M., \u0026amp; Morrison, F. J. (2016). The development of self-regulation across early childhood. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology, 52\u003c/em\u003e(11), 1744\u0026ndash;1762. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000159 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorawska, A., Dittman, C. K., \u0026amp; Rusby, J. C. (2019). Promoting Self-Regulation in Young Children: The Role of Parenting Interventions. \u003cem\u003eClinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 22\u003c/em\u003e, 43\u0026ndash;51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-019-00281-5 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOtto, Y., Kolmorgen, K., Sierau, S., Weis, S., von Klitzing, K., \u0026amp; Klein, A. M. (2016). Parenting behaviors of mothers and fathers of preschool age children with internalizing disorders. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child and Family Studies, 25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 381-395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0242-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePahigiannis, K., \u0026amp; Glos, M. (2020). Peer influences in self-regulation development and interventions in early childhood. \u003cem\u003eEarly Child Development and Care\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e190\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1053-1064. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1513923 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRingoot, A., Jansen, P., Kok, R., van IJzendoorn, M., Verlinden, M., Verhulst, F., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., \u0026amp; Tiemeier, H. (2022). Parenting, young children\u0026apos;s behavioral self-regulation and the quality of their peer relationships. \u003cem\u003eSocial Development, 31\u003c/em\u003e(3), 715-732. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12573\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRobson, D. A., Allen, M. S., \u0026amp; Howard, S. J. (2020). Self-regulation in childhood as a predictor of future outcomes: A meta-analytic review. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin, 146\u003c/em\u003e(4), 324\u0026ndash;354. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000227 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin, 86\u003c/em\u003e(3), 638\u0026ndash;641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoskam, I., Stievenart, M., Meunier, J.-C., \u0026amp; No\u0026euml;l, M.-P. (2014). The development of children\u0026rsquo;s inhibition: Does parenting matter? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Child Psychology, 122\u003c/em\u003e, 166\u0026ndash;182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.01.003 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyan, R. M., Kalil, A., Ziol-Guest, K. M., \u0026amp; Padilla, C. (2016). Socioeconomic Gaps in Parents\u0026apos; Discipline Strategies From 1988 to 2011. \u003cem\u003ePediatrics, 138\u003c/em\u003e(6), e20160720. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-0720\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u0026aacute;nchez-Meca, J., \u0026amp; Mar\u0026iacute;n-Mart\u0026iacute;nez, F. (2010). Meta-analysis in psychological research. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Psychological Research, 3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 150\u0026ndash;162. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.860\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShin, M., \u0026amp; Kemps, E. (2020). Media multitasking as an avoidance coping strategy against emotionally negative stimuli. \u003cem\u003eAnxiety, Stress, \u0026amp; Coping, 33\u003c/em\u003e(4), 440-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2020.1745194 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeidel, R., Wang, L., Cummings, E. M., \u0026amp; Valentino, K. (2020). Longitudinal pathways of family influence on child self-regulation: The roles of parenting, family expressiveness, and maternal sensitive guidance in the context of child maltreatment. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology, 56\u003c/em\u003e(3), 608\u0026ndash;622. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000782 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSuurmond, R., van Rhee, H., \u0026amp; Hak, T. (2017). Introduction, comparison, and validation of Meta-Essentials: A free and simple tool for meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eResearch Synthesis Methods, 8\u003c/em\u003e(4), 537\u0026ndash;553. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1260 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWarren, S. M., \u0026amp; Barnett, M. A. (2020). Effortful control development in the face of harshness and unpredictability. \u003cem\u003eHuman Nature\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e, 68\u0026ndash;87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-019-09360-6 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXiao, S. X., Spinrad, T. L., \u0026amp; Carter, D. B. (2018). Parental emotion regulation and preschoolers\u0026rsquo; prosocial behavior: The mediating roles of parental warmth and inductive discipline. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Genetic Psychology, 179\u003c/em\u003e(5), 246-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2018.1495611\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYavuz, H. M., Dys, S., \u0026amp; Malti, T. (2022). Parental discipline, child inhibitory control and prosocial behaviors: The indirect relations via child sympathy. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child and Family Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e, 1276\u0026ndash;1289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-02224-7 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYu, R. A., Goulter, N., \u0026amp; McMahon, R. J. (2021). Longitudinal associations between parental warmth, harsh discipline, child emotion regulation, and ODD dimensions. \u003cem\u003eChild Psychiatry \u0026amp; Human Development,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e, 1266\u0026ndash;1280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-021-01205-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZeytinoglu, S., Calkins, S. D., Swingler, M. M., \u0026amp; Leerkes, E. M. (2017). Pathways from maternal effortful control to child self-regulation: The role of maternal emotional support. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Psychology, 31\u003c/em\u003e(2), 170\u0026ndash;180. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000271 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZulauf, C. A., Sokolovsky, A. W., Grabell, A. S., \u0026amp; Olson, S. L. (2018). Early risk pathways to physical versus relational peer aggression: The interplay of externalizing behavior and corporal punishment varies by child sex. \u003cem\u003eAggressive Behavior, 44\u003c/em\u003e(2), 209\u0026ndash;220. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21744 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"preschoolers, 2-5-year-old children, parental discipline, self-regulation, meta-analysis","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3969539/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3969539/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis meta-analysis examined the correlation between parental discipline and self-regulation in children aged 2 to 5 years. The relevant literature was searched using ScienceDirect, PsycINFO, the Web of Science, Medline, and Scopus. Only correlational, cross-sectional, or longitudinal studies conducted between 2000 and 2022 that utilized survey techniques and focused on parents and children aged 2\u0026ndash;5 years without clinical complaints were considered for inclusion. The data were synthesized and extracted in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. This meta-analysis included 28 studies involving a total of 27,285 children and caregivers. The study samples varied in size, ranging from 55 to 12,474. The results demonstrated a weak but consistent correlation between parental discipline and children's self-regulation. Both positive and negative parental discipline exhibited comparable effect sizes on self-regulation, though with distinct outcomes. There was a negative correlation between the use of negative discipline and self-regulation, indicating that children who have more negative discipline have lower levels of self-regulation. Conversely, positive discipline was positively correlated with self-regulation, suggesting that children who experience more positive discipline also exhibit better levels of self-regulation. The findings of meta-regression research indicate that the impact of negative parental discipline on self-regulation in children is influenced by age. As children age, the impact of negative parental discipline on self-regulation diminishes.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Parental discipline and self-regulation in children aged 2 to 5: A meta-analysis of research conducted from 2000 to 2022","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-02-20 18:33:15","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3969539/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"8e79a780-0167-4038-91f8-9d251b736ebb","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 20th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":28834013,"name":"Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-02-20T18:33:15+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-02-20 18:33:15","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3969539","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3969539","identity":"rs-3969539","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}