The Influence of Authoritarian Parenting on Adolescents’ Emotional Intelligence: A Study of Ninth-Grade Students at SMPN 4 Purbalingga

Introduction

Adolescence represents a critical developmental period marked by profound biological, cognitive, and socio-emotional changes, during which individuals begin to consolidate emotional regulation, interpersonal competence, and self-identity (1). Emotional intelligence (EI), defined as the capacity to perceive, understand, regulate, and utilize emotions adaptively, has been widely recognized as a key determinant of adolescents’ psychological adjustment, academic functioning, and social well-being (2). However, adolescence is also characterized by heightened emotional volatility and vulnerability to maladaptive behaviors when emotional competencies are insufficiently developed (3). Empirical evidence indicates that deficits in emotional intelligence during early and middle adolescence are associated with increased risks of internalizing and externalizing problems, including anxiety, aggression, academic disengagement, and poor peer relationships (4). Consequently, understanding contextual factors that shape adolescents’ emotional intelligence is a pressing concern in developmental and educational psychology (5). Among the most influential contexts shaping emotional development is the family environment, particularly parenting practices (6).

Parenting style has consistently been identified as a central determinant of children’s and adolescents’ emotional competencies, with authoritarian parenting, characterized by high control, low responsiveness, strict discipline, and limited emotional warmth, drawing increasing scholarly attention (7). From the perspective of Social Learning Theory, adolescents acquire emotional patterns through observing and internalizing parental behaviors, including how parents express, suppress, and regulate emotions in everyday interactions (8, 9). In authoritarian households, parents tend to emphasize obedience, punishment, and rigid control, thereby limiting opportunities for adolescents to model adaptive emotional expression and open communication. Simultaneously, Attachment Theory posits that emotionally responsive and supportive parent-child relationships foster emotional security, empathy, and self-regulation, whereas emotionally distant parenting may inhibit adolescents’ ability to recognize and manage emotions effectively (10, 11). These theoretical perspectives jointly suggest that authoritarian parenting may negatively influence emotional intelligence by restricting emotional autonomy, reducing emotional validation, and weakening adolescents’ interpersonal competence.

Empirical studies generally demonstrate that authoritarian parenting is associated with lower emotional intelligence, particularly in dimensions of emotional regulation, empathy, and social communication (12). Adolescents raised under highly controlling parenting practices have been reported to experience greater emotional suppression, lower self-confidence, and difficulties in interpersonal adjustment (13). Nevertheless, findings across studies remain inconsistent. Several investigations conducted in collectivist cultural settings have reported that strict parental control may be interpreted as a form of parental concern, responsibility, or moral guidance, thereby reducing its negative psychological impact on adolescents (14). In contrast, other studies continue to identify authoritarian parenting as a risk factor for emotional maladjustment even within collectivist societies (15). These inconsistencies indicate that the relationship between authoritarian parenting and emotional intelligence is not consistently uniform across cultural contexts and could be influenced by contextual, developmental, and socio-cultural factors.

Several previous studies in Indonesia have examined the relationship between authoritarian parenting and emotional intelligence. Ikesari (2024) found a significant relationship between authoritarian parenting style and emotional intelligence among students of SMP Negeri 3 Kandangan, Temanggung Regency (16). Likewise, Sihombing (2024) also reported a significant relationship in students of SMP Negeri 2 Panai Tengah (17). Despite these findings, several important limitations remain in the existing literature. First, prior studies have largely been descriptive and correlational, focusing primarily on whether a relationship exists rather than explaining the psychological mechanisms underlying how authoritarian parenting influences adolescents’ emotional intelligence. Second, previous research rarely integrates theoretical perspectives, such as Social Learning Theory and Attachment Theory, into a coherent explanatory framework. Third, inconsistencies in findings across collectivist contexts suggest that the negative effects of authoritarian parenting may not operate similarly across adolescent populations, yet empirical clarification in Indonesian junior high school settings remains limited. Furthermore, ninth-grade students represent a particularly important developmental group because they simultaneously encounter heightened academic demands, identity exploration, and school transition pressures that require stronger emotional regulation capacities (18).

Accordingly, the present study seeks not only to identify the relationship between authoritarian parenting and emotional intelligence, but also to examine the extent to which authoritarian parenting contributes to variations in adolescents’ emotional intelligence within a specific educational context. Addressing this gap, the present study aims to examine the predictive relationship of authoritarian parenting on adolescents’ emotional intelligence among ninth-grade students at State Junior High School 4 Purbalingga. Using a quantitative ex post facto design, data were collected using standardized scales for authoritarian parenting and emotional intelligence and analyzed using simple linear regression. By elucidating the extent to which authoritarian parenting contributes to emotional intelligence outcomes, this study seeks to advance the empirical literature, inform evidence-based parenting practices, and support the development of emotionally supportive educational and family interventions.

Methodology

Study Design

This study employed a quantitative cross-sectional, non-experimental (ex post facto) design to examine the relationship between authoritarian parenting and adolescents’ emotional intelligence. This design was selected because the independent variable, parenting style, had naturally occurred and could not be manipulated experimentally. The approach allows researchers to analyze relationships between variables based on observed data and is widely used in developmental and educational psychology research. Accordingly, the findings were interpreted as statistical associations rather than causal effects.

Study Setting and Participants

The study was conducted at State Junior High School 4 Purbalingga, Central Java, Indonesia, in January 2023. Data were collected using an online questionnaire administered through Google Forms to ensure accessibility and standardized administration.

The study population comprised all ninth-grade students enrolled at the school during the 2022/2023 academic year (N = 248). Using the Isaac and Michael sample size determination formula with a 10% margin of error, a minimum sample size of 130 participants was required. A total of 131 students participated in the study. Participants were selected using proportionate stratified random sampling to ensure balanced representation across eight Grade IX classes (9A–9H). The final sample consisted of 71 male students (54%) and 60 female students (46%). Inclusion criteria required participants to be actively enrolled in Grade IX, living with at least one parent or guardian, and willing to participate voluntarily. Responses with incomplete data were excluded from the analysis. Because the sample was limited to one school, the findings primarily describe the characteristics of this study setting and may not fully represent adolescents in other schools or regions. Nevertheless, the sampling procedure was intended to improve representativeness within the selected school population.

Instruments

The study employed structured self-report questionnaires to measure the two main research variables: emotional intelligence and authoritarian parenting. All instruments were administered in Indonesian to ensure that participants clearly understood each statement and could respond accurately according to their experiences. Prior to large-scale administration, the questionnaires were reviewed to ensure linguistic clarity, readability, and suitability for junior high school students.

Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence was measured using a self-report Emotional Intelligence Scale developed based on Goleman’s theoretical framework, encompassing five dimensions: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills. The instrument consisted of 54 items rated on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Higher scores reflected higher levels of emotional intelligence.

Before administration, the instrument underwent expert review to evaluate content relevance and clarity. Item validity was then tested using corrected item-total correlation analysis, and items with coefficients ≥ 0.30 were retained. The scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.957. Total scores were computed by summing item responses, resulting in a continuous variable used for subsequent descriptive categorization and inferential analysis.

Authoritarian Parenting

Authoritarian parenting was assessed using an Authoritarian Parenting Scale grounded in Baumrind’s parenting style theory. The scale measured two core dimensions: high demandingness and low responsiveness. It comprised 17 items rated on a four-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating greater exposure to authoritarian parenting practices. The same item validity procedure was applied, and total scores were computed by summing item responses, resulting in a continuous variable used for subsequent descriptive categorization and inferential analysis.

Both variables were measured through student self-report responses; therefore, responses reflected participants’ personal perceptions of parenting experiences and emotional abilities.

Data Collection Procedure

Data collection was carried out during regular school hours following formal approval from school authorities. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, and confidentiality assurances. The online questionnaire link was distributed to eligible students, and completion required approximately 30–40 minutes. Researchers monitored the process to ensure procedural consistency without influencing participants’ responses.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 24.0. Preliminary assumption testing included assessments of normality using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and linearity analysis to confirm the suitability of parametric testing. Descriptive statistics were computed to summarize participant characteristics and variable distributions.

To test the research hypothesis, simple linear regression analysis was performed, with authoritarian parenting as the independent variable and emotional intelligence as the dependent variable. Statistical significance was determined at p < 0.05, and the strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²). As the study aimed to examine the predictive contribution of the independent variable, additional demographic variables were not included as statistical controls in the regression model.

Ethical Considerations

The study adhered to ethical standards for research involving human participants. Informed consent was obtained from both students and their parents or guardians before data collection. Participant anonymity and data confidentiality were strictly maintained, and all data were used solely for academic research purposes. Participation was voluntary, and students could decline or withdraw at any stage without academic consequences. The research protocol received approval from the relevant institutional and school authorities.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Score Categorization

To facilitate descriptive interpretation, score categorization was conducted using the empirical mean and standard deviation derived from the observed sample distribution. This approach is commonly applied in psychological research to classify continuous variables into meaningful categories based on their relative position within the sample distribution, typically using the Mean ± 1 Standard Deviation criterion.

In this study, individual scores were classified into three categories based on their deviation from the sample mean. Scores falling below one standard deviation from the mean (X < M − 1SD) were categorized as low, scores within one standard deviation of the mean (M − 1SD ≤ X < M + 1SD) were categorized as moderate, and scores equal to or above one standard deviation above the mean (X ≥ M + 1SD) were categorized as high. In this formulation, X represents the individual score, M represents the empirical mean, and SD represents the standard deviation.

For emotional intelligence, the empirical mean was 172.76 with a standard deviation of 10.43. Based on these parameters, the cut-off points were 162.33 and 183.19, corresponding respectively to the boundaries between low, moderate, and high categories. Thus, scores below 162.33 were classified as low, scores between 162.33 and 183.19 as moderate, and scores equal to or above 183.19 as high. Similarly, for authoritarian parenting, the empirical mean was 52.26 with a standard deviation of 3.77. This yielded cut-off values of 48.49 and 56.03. Accordingly, scores below 48.49 were categorized as low, scores between 48.49 and 56.03 as moderate, and scores equal to or above 56.03 as high.

This categorization is purely descriptive in nature and is intended to facilitate interpretation of score distribution within the sample. It does not represent clinical thresholds or normative diagnostic criteria. The use of the Mean ± 1 Standard Deviation approach is widely adopted in psychological and educational research for simplifying interpretation of continuous data into ordinal categories in non-clinical contexts

Assumption Test Results

Normality Test

A normality test was conducted using the One-Sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. As shown in Table 1, the test yielded a statistic of 0.069 with an asymptotic significance value of 0.200. Since the significance value exceeded 0.05, the residuals were normally distributed, indicating that the regression model met the normality assumption.

Linearity Test

A linearity test was conducted using ANOVA. As presented in Table 2, the deviation from linearity produced an F value of 1.036 with a significance level of 0.426. Since the significance value exceeded 0.05, the relationship between authoritarian parenting and emotional intelligence was linear. Additional residual analysis indicated no substantial deviation from homoscedasticity, and data screening identified no extreme outliers capable of significantly distorting the regression estimates. Collectively, these findings support the appropriateness of applying a simple linear regression model to examine the predictive relationship between authoritarian parenting and emotional intelligence.

Hypothesis Testing Results

The study hypothesized that authoritarian parenting has a significant effect on adolescents’ emotional intelligence. This hypothesis was tested using simple linear regression analysis with the assistance of SPSS version 24.0.

Regression Significance Test (F-test)

The regression model was statistically significant, F (1.129) = 57.064, p < 0.001, indicating that authoritarian parenting significantly predicted emotional intelligence (Table 3). This finding suggests that variation in authoritarian parenting scores was systematically associated with variation in adolescents’ emotional intelligence scores rather than occurring by chance alone.

Regression Coefficients (t-test)

As shown in Table 4, authoritarian parenting significantly predicted emotional intelligence (β = 0.554, t = 7.554, p < 0.001). The regression model can be expressed mathematically as follows:

Y = 92.669 + 1.533X

where represents emotional intelligence and represents authoritarian parenting. The positive regression coefficient indicates that higher authoritarian parenting scores were associated with higher emotional intelligence scores within the observed sample. The standardized coefficient further indicates a moderate positive relationship between the two variables, suggesting that authoritarian parenting contributed meaningfully, although not exclusively, to emotional intelligence outcomes.

Coefficient of Determination

The coefficient of determination (R²) was 0.307, indicating that 30.7% of the variance in adolescents’ emotional intelligence was explained by authoritarian parenting. Although this proportion reflects a meaningful contribution, the remaining 69.3% of unexplained variance indicates that emotional intelligence is influenced by multiple psychological, familial, educational, and social factors beyond authoritarian parenting alone. Therefore, the present model should be interpreted as providing a partial rather than comprehensive explanation of adolescents’ emotional intelligence development.

Discussion

The findings indicated that authoritarian parenting significantly predicted emotional intelligence and explained 30.7% of its variance (R² = 0.307). Interestingly, the relationship was positive, suggesting that higher perceived authoritarian parenting was associated with higher emotional intelligence in this sample.

This result contradicts much of the existing literature, particularly studies conducted in Western contexts, which generally report negative associations between authoritarian parenting and emotional adjustment (19, 20). The inconsistency suggests that the effects of authoritarian parenting are context-dependent rather than universally uniform.

From a theoretical standpoint, this finding can be understood through a culturally situated interpretation of Social Learning Theory and Attachment Theory. In collectivist environments, parental control is often embedded within norms of responsibility, discipline, and academic socialization. Consequently, adolescents may learn to associate emotional restraint, obedience, and self-control with adaptive functioning through observational learning processes. Within this framework, authoritarian practices may not only be perceived as restrictive but also as formative structures that shape discipline-oriented emotional regulation.

However, this interpretation does not imply that authoritarian parenting directly enhances emotional competence. Instead, the positive association may reflect how adolescents interpret and internalize parental behavior within specific cultural scripts. In such contexts, emotional intelligence scores may partly represent perceived emotional control and compliance rather than fully developed socio-emotional competencies such as empathy and relational sensitivity.

Alternative explanations should also be considered. Because the study relied on self-report measures, perception bias may have influenced the results, particularly if adolescents normalize strict parenting and evaluate it positively. In addition, emotional intelligence as measured in this study may capture subjective self-perceptions rather than objective emotional skills. These measurement limitations may partially inflate the observed positive association.

The sample characteristics may further contribute to the findings. Most participants reported moderate levels of both authoritarian parenting and emotional intelligence, indicating that the parenting style experienced may not reflect extreme authoritarianism characterized by harshness or emotional neglect. Instead, it may represent a culturally moderated form of strict parenting combined with involvement in academic supervision, which may function differently from the authoritarian patterns described in Western literature.

Despite its significant effect, the explanatory power of the model remains moderate (R² = 0.307), indicating that emotional intelligence is shaped by multiple determinants beyond parenting style. Factors such as peer relationships, school climate, teacher support, temperament, self-esteem, and broader socio-economic conditions likely play substantial roles in adolescents’ emotional development. This supports ecological perspectives that view emotional intelligence as a multi-determined construct rather than the outcome of a single familial factor.

Finally, it is important to note that the cross-sectional ex post facto design limits causal interpretation. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted as an association rather than evidence of direct causal influence. These results highlight that the relationship between authoritarian parenting and emotional intelligence is more complex than typically assumed. Its effects appear to be shaped by cultural interpretation, measurement context, and broader psychosocial influences, rather than operating as a uniformly negative or positive parenting dimension.

Conclusion

This study found a statistically significant relationship between authoritarian parenting and adolescents’ emotional intelligence among ninth-grade students at SMPN 4 Purbalingga. The regression analysis indicated that authoritarian parenting explained 30.7% of the variance in emotional intelligence (R² = 0.307), reflecting a moderate predictive contribution.

However, this relationship should be interpreted as a context-dependent statistical association rather than a causal effect, given the cross-sectional ex post facto design and the influence of unmeasured variables.

The findings suggest that emotional intelligence is shaped by a combination of parenting practices and broader environmental and individual factors, including peer relationships, school environment, and psychological characteristics. Future research is recommended to employ longitudinal or mixed-method approaches to better capture causal mechanisms and contextual variation.