Ajeng Ayu Widiastuti, Adi Atmoko, Nur Eva, Domingos Soares
Background: Diana Baumrind’s parenting style framework, based on the dimensions of responsiveness and demandingness, has long served as a cornerstone in developmental psychology. However, its assumed universality is increasingly questioned in light of cross-cultural evidence showing that cultural, socioeconomic, and contextual factors profoundly shape parenting practices and outcomes. In collectivistic societies such as Javanese culture, values like rukun (harmony), nrimo (acceptance), and tut wuri handayani (guiding from behind) foster parenting approaches that integrate authority with care in ways that challenge Western categorizations, particularly the idealization of authoritative parenting. Objective: This systematic literature review aims to critically evaluate the limitations of Baumrind’s parenting typology in diverse cultural contexts and to explore emerging, culturally responsive models that better capture the complexity and adaptability of parenting across societies. Methods: A comprehensive synthesis was conducted of 37 peer-reviewed studies published between 1966 and 2025, identified through systematic searches in databases including Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Studies were selected based on relevance to cross-cultural parenting, methodological rigor, and theoretical contribution. Thematic analysis and critical appraisal were employed to identify patterns, discrepancies, and innovations in parenting research. Results: Findings reveal that Baumrind’s four-category model—authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful—fails to account for the contextual adaptability and cultural specificity of parenting behaviors. In collectivistic settings such as African American, Asian, Arab, and Latin American communities, authoritarian and indulgent parenting styles are often associated with positive child outcomes, contradicting Western-centric assumptions. Latent profile analysis has further uncovered novel parenting patterns—such as controlling-indulgent, absent, and ambiguous styles—that fall outside the traditional typology. Emerging frameworks grounded in Self-Determination Theory, emotion coaching, positive discipline, and gentle parenting emphasize autonomy support, emotional attunement, and non-coercive guidance, offering more dynamic and culturally sensitive alternatives. Conclusion: Parenting is not a fixed set of behaviors but a fluid, reciprocal, and contextually embedded process. This review calls for a paradigmatic shift from rigid typologies to dynamic, universalist models toward ecologically valid, culturally grounded approaches or models that recognize the diversity of family systems and developmental goals. Future research must prioritize the development of culturally adaptive instruments and theories, especially in underrepresented regions like Java, to advance a more inclusive, equitable, and globally relevant science of parenting. © The Author(s) 2026.
Department of Psychology, State University of Malang, Malang, Indonesia; Department of Early Childhood Education Teacher Program, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga, Indonesia; Department of Guidance & Counseling, State University of Malang, Malang, Indonesia; Instituto Nacional de Saúde Publica de Timor-Leste, East Timor, Dili, Timor-Leste
