Xingnan Cui
Xiang Zhang1,2- 1Faculty of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing, China
- 2School of Mechanical Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China
Introduction: This study investigated the association between parenting styles and malevolent creativity.
Methods: It used latent profile analysis to compare the differences in malevolent creativity between different combinations of parenting styles with an online sample (N = 620).
Results: The results of the study suggest that a three-profile solution best fits the data, and the three profiles were labelled positive open parenting, undifferentiated parenting and negative limited parenting. Subsequent analyses revealed that there were significant differences in malevolent creativity performance among the three parenting styles, with participants in the positive open parenting having more malevolent creativity. Those with undifferentiated parenting had the lowest scores.
Discussion: The findings provide theoretical guidance for parenting strategies. Future intervention studies on malevolent creativity should also consider the potential impact of parenting style to obtain better results.
1 Introduction
Creativity is widely acknowledged as a crucial faculty for navigating the myriad challenges and threats posed by our increasingly complex and ever-evolving environment. It is delineated as the process through which ideas, solutions, and products that are both novel and practical are generated (Amabile, 1982; Oldham and Cummings, 1996). From the utilization of innovative tools in early societies to enhance agricultural production to the reshaping of business transaction models through internet technology in contemporary society, creativity has always been a key driver for organizational growth and societal prosperity. It plays a significant role in artistic creation, medical breakthroughs, and in providing new strategies and tools for social development (Hermanni, 2016). While creativity is largely viewed as benevolent and positive due to its substantial contributions to societal progress and economic development, this perspective often overlooks that much creativity actually serves negative outcomes, such as the development of bullets and nuclear weapons, which cause immense harm and negative impacts on others and society (McLaren, 1993; Cropley, 2010). Just as a coin has two sides, creativity too possesses a “dark side.” When creative potential is utilized within a societal context to produce something deemed both novel and useful, with the intention of harming others or oneself for illicit gain, such acts of creativity are referred to as malevolent creativity (Plucker et al., 2004; Harris et al., 2013). The manifestations of malevolent creativity range from minor unethical behaviors such as lying to major criminal acts like terrorism and financial fraud, all of which can cause harm to individuals (Hunter and Cushenbery, 2015). Consequently, researchers have endeavored to investigate the elements that hinder malevolent innovation to limit or reduce its harmful consequences effectively.
According to the 6P model, the manifestation of malevolent creativity is influenced by six factors: process, person properties, person motivation, person feelings, product, and press (Cropley et al., 2008). However, not all these factors are conducive to the generation of malevolent creative ideas; it is only the specific combination of certain factors that facilitates malevolent creativity. The generative process of malevolent creativity typically depends on both internal personal factors and external environmental influences. Personal factors include traits such as sensitivity to aggression, anger, low emotional regulation, and low self-control, which can lead to the generation of more malevolent and harmful ideas in response to conflictual environments and problem-solving in daily life. Experiments have found that under conditions of low provocation and alcohol consumption, trait anger significantly predicts reactive aggressive behaviors within the Taylor Aggression Paradigm (Giancola et al., 2022). External environmental factors include social exclusion, unfair conditions, and provocation, which can spur more original creative ideas. Research using a modified version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma Task to manipulate social threats and the Alternate Use Task (AUT) for creativity assessment showed that social threats increased cognitive aggression and malevolent creativity, with participants generating more malevolent creative ideas compared to the control group (Harris et al., 2013; Harris and Reiter-Palmon, 2015; da Costa et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2021). Despite these advances, few studies have discussed the mechanisms behind these different effects of malevolent creativity. Malevolent creativity shares cognitive foundations with general creativity but is distinguished by its malevolent intent and harmful characteristics. The generation of malevolent creative ideas and subsequent behavioral decisions remain influenced by cognitive reappraisal and emotional regulation, which can prevent the transformation from general to malevolent creativity. These capabilities are closely linked to an individual’s upbringing and experiences. Brooks (2001) suggests that future research should focus on parenting style. This not only helps children experience happiness, academic success, and life satisfaction and build a complete and healthy personality and quality but also improves their ability to cope with challenges and stress, such as self-control and emotional intelligence (Goldstein and Brooks, 2023). Following these expectations, this study focuses on the impact of parenting style on malevolent creativity and the underlying mechanisms (Wang, 2023).
Regarding the definition of parenting style, scholars propose that the more stable external behavioral patterns and styles displayed by parents in teaching and nurturing their children in their daily lives are a collection of more fixed attitudinal stances that are linked to rearing (Baumrind, 1971; Prevatt, 2003). In general, positive interaction between parents and children has a protective effect on the emergence and development of malevolent creativity. For example, good positive interaction styles and giving the child independent space to play can increase creativity beliefs and creativity self-efficacy, whereas behaviors such as excessive demands and imposing one’s will on the child are detrimental to the child’s creativity development (Moltafet et al., 2018; Gralewski and Jankowska, 2020). Positive, emotionally supportive parenting that creates a warm environment contributes to the formation of creative thinking in children, whereas disorganized, indifferent, emotionally neglectful parenting is harmful to creativity (Zhao and Yang, 2021). Childhood neglect as well as witnessing intimate partner violence are both risk factors for malevolent creativity (Mehrinejad et al., 2015; Jia et al., 2020). Previous research on the relationship between parenting styles and malicious creativity has primarily used a variable-centered approach focusing on specific parenting styles as predictors of malevolent creative behavior. However, parenting styles are multifaceted, and using a variable-centered approach that examines parenting styles separately would overlook the effects of various combinations of parenting styles on malevolent creativity (Fang and Shen, 2021; Li et al., 2022; Ren et al., 2022; Bedu-Addo et al., 2023; Shi et al., 2023). Based on the three types of parenting styles found in previous studies—positive, mixed, and negative parenting—we hypothesized that three types of parenting styles may exist (Qiu et al., 2022).
H1: There are three types of parenting styles.
Additionally, children who experienced parental neglect and apathetic rejection were more likely to have psychological disorders and social adjustment problems, exhibiting higher levels of aggression and anti-social problems (Wang, 2023). We hypothesized that participants with parenting styles similar to negative parenting styles may exhibit higher levels of malevolent creativity. Conversely, children with positive parenting styles may exhibit lower malevolent creativity, and emotionally warm family support may shape a child’s complete and healthy personality with higher self-control and empathy (Vasiou et al., 2023).
H2: Negative parenting styles may exhibit higher levels of malevolent creativity.
2 Methods
2.1 Samples and procedures
This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology at Southwestern University. The questionnaire survey method was adopted by online distribution; 805 questionnaires were distributed to college students through an online network platform; 185 questionnaires that were not answered seriously, invalid, or with obvious patterns were excluded through two panic questions, and 620 effective questionnaires were retained. The age range of the participants was 15–30 years old (M = 21.04, SD = 2.41). A sample size of 620 is statistically sufficient to detect the correct number of profiles in LPA (Latent Profile Analysis) (Tein et al., 2013).
2.2 Measurements
2.2.1 Parenting styles
We used a Chinese short-form of the Egna Minnen Beträffande Uppfostran: One’s Memories of Upbringing (s-EMBU-C). The scale has 42 items and consists of two main dimensions, father and mother, and each of these dimensions includes rejection, emotional warmth, and overprotection, for a total of six dimensions (e.g., “My father/mother wanted to decide how I should be dressed or how I should look”) (Li et al., 2012). In this study, father rejection, emotional warmth, and overprotection had a Cronbach’s α of 0.890, 0.893, and 0.784, respectively, while mother’s rejection, emotional warmth, and overprotection had a Cronbach’s α of 0.887, 0.886, and 0.815, respectively. The confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit: χ2/df = 3.174, CFI = 0.852, TLI = 0.841, and RMSEA = 0.059.
2.2.2 Malevolent creativity
We used the Malevolent Creativity Behavior Scale (MCBS) for measurement (Hao et al., 2016). The scale includes an array of 13 items (e.g., “How often do you have ideas about new ways to punish people?”), requesting subjects to evaluate the frequency of malevolent behavior they face in everyday life. The Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.942, and a confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit: χ2/df = 2.102, CFI = 0.981, TLI = 0.976, RMSEA = 0.042.
3 Results
We completed the data analysis process using Mplus software and the R package tidyLPA (Rosenberg et al., 2019). We started with two profile models as the base model, added one profile in each turn, and picked the best model based on the fit index. After identifying the most appropriate model, we utilized the BCH method for a more profound examination of the possible differences in malevolent creativity (Asparouhov and Muthén, 2014). Table 1 describes the participants’ basic information and variable scores. Table 2 presents the values of the fit indicators for each LPA model. We considered a comprehensive range of indicators, and we selected the 3-profile solution as the best model. Figure 1 and Table 3 illustrate that Profile 1 had an average level on all indicators, suggesting that the participants may be in a balanced mode between positive and negative parenting styles. Therefore, Profile 1 is named undifferentiated parenting. Profile 2 had higher scores on the dimension of emotional warmth and lower scores on the dimensions of rejection and overprotection. Profile 2 was more prominent in the positive parenting style, which is labeled positive open parenting. The characteristics of Profile 3 are the opposite of the characteristics of Profile 1, with higher scores on the dimension of negative parenting styles. Profile 3 was named negative limited parenting. With this three-step approach, we further examined the differences in malevolent creativity performance among the subject populations with different profiles. As presented in Table 4, significant differences existed between the three parenting styles (χ2 = 254.61, p < 0.001). Children under positive open parenting characterized by high emotional warmth and low parental rejection and overprotection exhibited the highest malevolent creativity performance. A significant difference between undifferentiated parenting (χ2 = 231.20, p < 0.001) and negative limited parenting (χ2 = 64.62, p < 0.001) existed; the latter has the lowest malevolent creativity performance.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics (n = 620).
Table 2. Fit indices and profile proportions for 2 ~ 5 profile models.
Figure 1. Description of LPA profiles. Fr, father’s rejection; Few, father’s emotional warm; Fo, father’s overprotection; Mr., mother’s rejection; Mew, mother’s emotional warmth; Mo, mother’s overprotection.
Table 3. Profile 1 ~ 3 differences.
Table 4. Profile differences on malevolent creativity.
4 Discussion
This study used a person-centered approach (LPA) to examine the association between different parenting style patterns and malevolent creativity performance. The results of the LPA indicate three different profiles of parenting styles: undifferentiated parenting (medium level of engagement and dysfunctional), positive open parenting (high level of emotional warmth and supportive openness), and negative limited parenting (high level of dysfunctional and limited).
The subsequent analyses indicated that three different parenting styles exhibited significant differences in malevolent creativity. These three parenting styles were similar to the results of previous studies: positive parenting, negative parenting, and moderate parenting. Particularly, positive parenting was consistent with positive open parenting characteristics, representing high levels of emotional warmth (Qiu et al., 2022). Previous research has also classified parenting styles as permissive, typical, and authoritarian, with authoritarian parenting similar to negative limited parenting (Klukas et al., 2021). These studies not only indicate the accuracy of the three profiles we use but also emphasize the stability of the parenting style categories. In a further study, we found that positively open-parented adolescents exhibit higher levels of malevolent creativity, which differs from the previous study (Wang, 2023). We propose the following reasons: (1) Malevolent creativity belongs to the creativity category; the core of malevolent creativity is to generate novel and malevolent creative ideas, which remain influenced by working memory and cognitive flexibility factors. It has been demonstrated that warm parental support is positively correlated with children’s ideational fluency, flexibility, and originality (Harvey and Berry, 2022). It dramatically improves children’s working memory and executive functioning (Ren et al., 2017; Lam et al., 2018). Overprotective parents who impose their ideas on their children neglect their needs for autonomy and self-esteem. This prevents them from facing challenges and difficulties independently, which are essential preconditions for creativity (Pinquart and Gerke, 2019). However, a friendly and positive atmosphere in which parents interact with their children, giving them more freedom to use their imagination, enhances their creative motivation to produce more original ideas (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Gralewski and Jankowska, 2020). (2) Lower parental rejection and parental overprotection may lead to the phenomenon of spoiling and indulging children’s immoral behaviors, failing to stop their initial malicious behaviors, which causes a lack of moral development in children (Ścigała et al., 2022). This makes them more likely to engage in violent and antisocial behaviors when they mature (Schroeder et al., 2010). Here, our results differed from previous research (Csathó and Birkás, 2018). Children with intact and healthy family relationships exhibited more malevolent creativity performance when compared to those children who were not thoughtfully cared for by their parents. Therefore, we propose that parents should provide warm emotional support, create harmonious and positive interactions with their children, and emphasize their moral development by immediately providing them with necessary and preventative education when they engage in unethical behaviors (Fatima et al., 2022; Luo and Bussey, 2023).
First, we supplemented the malevolent creativity component of the effect of family parenting styles on the development of creative thinking. We obtained more accurate results using latent profile analysis by linking the combined combination of specific parenting styles to malevolent creativity performance. Second, our study can also provide some help for parents’ parenting strategies and parenting models: for the good development of their children’s creative thinking, parents should pay more attention to the development of their children’s moral cognitive development while providing positive emotional warmth and a good atmosphere for parent–child interactions and should add more moral elements into their normal educational environment to help their children’s growth.
There are a few limitations to this study that deserve clarification. First, the data and sample were distributed online and limited to a single university, making it challenging to ensure the validity of the data and extend the results to other cultures and sample populations. Future studies could consider large, diverse, and multicultural sample populations to help draw generalizable conclusions. Second, although we used latent profile analysis to examine the data, we could not establish a definitive causal relationship between parenting style and malevolent creativity. In future research, we encourage using experimental methods or longitudinal studies to explore the effects of family parenting styles on the fluency, novelty, or flexibility of malevolent creativity and its associated influence factors, such as family moral education.
5 Conclusion
We used latent profile analysis to classify three parenting styles in a sample of college students. The results indicated that significant differences exist in malevolent creativity performance among college students in the three parenting modes, with subjects in the positive open parenting mode exhibiting more malevolent creativity. Therefore, we propose that parents should focus on the development of their children’s moral character while providing warm emotional support.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology at Southwestern University. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation was not required from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin in accordance with the national legislation and institutional requirements.
Author contributions
XC: Writing – original draft. XZ: Writing – review & editing. HZ: Writing – review & editing, Data curation.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 43, 997–1013. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997
Asparouhov, T., and Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: three-step approaches using Mplus. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 21, 329–341. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2014.915181
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Dev. Psychol. 4, 1–103. doi: 10.1037/h0030372
Bedu-Addo, P. K., Mahama, I., Amoako, B. M., Amos, P. M., and Antwi, T. (2023). Neglectful parenting and personality traits as predictors of malevolent creativity among Ghanaian tertiary education students. Creat. Educ. 14, 232–244. doi: 10.4236/ce.2023.142016
Brooks, R. B. (2001). Fostering motivation, hope, and resilience in children with learning disorders. Ann. Dyslexia 51, 9–20. doi: 10.1007/s11881-001-0003-4
Cheng, R., Lu, K., and Hao, N. (2021). The effect of anger on malevolent creativity and strategies for its emotion regulation. Acta Psychol. Sin. 53:847. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00847
Cropley, D. H. (2010). Malevolent innovation: Opposing the dark side of creativity (Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge University Press).
Cropley, D. H., Kaufman, J. C., and Cropley, A. J. (2008). Malevolent creativity: a functional model of creativity in terrorism and crime. Creat. Res. J. 20, 105–115. doi: 10.1080/10400410802059424
Csathó, Á., and Birkás, B. (2018). Early-life stressors, personality development, and fast life strategies: an evolutionary perspective on malevolent personality features. Front. Psychol. 9:305. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00305
da Costa, C. G., Zhou, Q., and Ferreira, A. I. (2020). State and trait anger predicting creative process engagement—the role of emotion regulation. J. Creat. Behav. 54, 5–19. doi: 10.1002/jocb.236
Fang, Y., and Shen, Y. (2021). The relationship between undergraduate students’ parenting style and creativity. Psychology 12, 498–510. doi: 10.4236/psych.2021.124031
Fatima, S., Dawood, S., and Munir, M. (2022). Parenting styles, moral identity and prosocial behaviors in adolescents. Curr. Psychol. 41, 902–910. doi: 10.1007/s12144-020-00609-3
Giancola, M., Palmiero, M., Bocchi, A., Piccardi, L., Nori, R., and D’Amico, S. (2022). Divergent thinking in Italian elementary school children: the key role of probabilistic reasoning style. Cogn. Process. 23, 637–645. doi: 10.1007/s10339-022-01104-2
Goldstein, S., and Brooks, R. B. (Eds.). (2023). Handbook of resilience in children. Springer Nature.
Gralewski, J., and Jankowska, D. M. (2020). Do parenting styles matter? Perceived dimensions of parenting styles, creative abilities and creative self-beliefs in adolescents. Think. Skills Creat. 38:100709. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100709
Hao, N., Tang, M., Yang, J., Wang, Q., and Runco, M. A. (2016). A new tool to measure malevolent creativity: the malevolent creativity behavior scale. Front. Psychol. 7:682. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00682
Harris, D. J., and Reiter-Palmon, R. (2015). Fast and furious: the influence of implicit aggression, premeditation, and provoking situations on malevolent creativity. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 9, 54–64. doi: 10.1037/a0038499
Harris, D. J., Reiter-Palmon, R., and Kaufman, J. C. (2013). The effect of emotional intelligence and task type on malevolent creativity. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 7, 237–244. doi: 10.1037/a0032139
Harvey, S., and Berry, J. (2022). Toward a meta-theory of creativity forms: how novelty and usefulness shape creativity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 48:3. doi: 10.5465/amr.2020.0110
Hermanni, A. J. (2016). Business guide für strategisches management: 50 tools zum geschäftlichen Erfolg. Springer-Verlag.
Hunter, S. T., and Cushenbery, L. (2015). Is being a jerk necessary for originality? Examining the role of disagreeableness in the sharing and utilization of original ideas. J. Bus. Psychol. 30, 621–639. doi: 10.1007/s10869-014-9386-1
Jia, X., Wang, Q., and Lin, L. (2020). The relationship between childhood neglect and malevolent creativity: the mediating effect of the dark triad personality. Front. Psychol. 11:613695. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.613695
Klukas, E., Draper, E., Kaseweter, K., Gregoire, N., and Cioe, J. (2021). The impact of parenting style on attitudes toward masturbation: a latent profile analysis. J. Genet. Psychol. 182, 435–449. doi: 10.1080/00221325.2021.1948386
Lam, C. B., Chung, K. K. H., and Li, X. (2018). Parental warmth and hostility and child executive function problems: a longitudinal study of Chinese families. Front. Psychol. 9:1063. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01063
Li, W., Zhang, L., Qin, Z., Chen, J., and Liu, C. (2022). Childhood trauma and malevolent creativity in Chinese college students: moderated mediation by psychological resilience and aggression. J. Intelligence 10:97. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence10040097
Li, W., Zhongquan, L., and Zhang, L. (2012). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of a short-form of the EMBU among Chinese adolescents. Psychol. Rep. 110, 263–275. doi: 10.2466/02.08.09.21.PR0.110.1.263-275
Luo, A., and Bussey, K. (2023). Moral disengagement in youth: a meta-analytic review. Dev. Rev. 70:101101. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2023.101101
McLaren, R. B. (1993). The dark side of creativity. Creat. Res. J. 6, 137–144. doi: 10.1080/10400419309534472
Mehrinejad, S. A., Rajabimoghadam, S., and Tarsafi, M. (2015). The relationship between parenting styles and creativity and the predictability of creativity by parenting styles. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 205, 56–60. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.09.014
Moltafet, G., Sadati Firoozabadi, S. S., and Pour-Raisi, A. (2018). Parenting style, basic psychological needs, and emotional creativity: a path analysis. Creat. Res. J. 30, 187–194. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2018.1446748
Oldham, G. R., and Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Acad. Manag. J. 39, 607–634. doi: 10.2307/256657
Pinquart, M., and Gerke, D.-C. (2019). Associations of parenting styles with self-esteem in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. J. Child Fam. Stud. 28, 2017–2035. doi: 10.1007/s10826-019-01417-5
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., and Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educ. Psychol. 39, 83–96. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
Prevatt, F. F. (2003). The contribution of parenting practices in a risk and resiliency model of children’s adjustment. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 21, 469–480. doi: 10.1348/026151003322535174
Qiu, Z., Guo, Y., Wang, J., and Zhang, H. (2022). Associations of parenting style and resilience with depression and anxiety symptoms in Chinese middle school students. Front. Psychol. 13:897339. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.897339
Ren, F., Li, Y., and Zhang, J. (2017). Perceived parental control and Chinese middle school adolescents’ creativity: the mediating role of autonomous motivation. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 11, 34–42. doi: 10.1037/aca0000078
Ren, F., Sun, Y., Ji, L., and Wei, X. (2022). The relationship between social creativity and aggressive behavior among Chinese junior high school students: the moderating role of hostile attribution bias. Front. Psychol. 13:953361. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.953361
Rosenberg, J. M., Beymer, P. N., Anderson, D. J., Van Lissa, C., and Schmidt, J. A. (2019). tidyLPA: an R package to easily carry out latent profile analysis (LPA) using open-source or commercial software. J. Open Source Soft. 3:978. doi: 10.21105/joss.00978
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55, 68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Schroeder, R. D., Bulanda, R. E., Giordano, P. C., and Cernkovich, S. A. (2010). Parenting and adult criminality: an examination of direct and indirect effects by race. J. Adolesc. Res. 25, 64–98. doi: 10.1177/0743558409354215
Ścigała, K. A., Schild, C., and Zettler, I. (2022). Dark, gray, or bright creativity? (re)investigating the link between creativity and dishonesty. Eur. J. Personal. 36, 108–129. doi: 10.1177/08902070211010993
Shi, Z., Zhou, Z., Tian, L., Zhu, Y., Liu, C., and Xu, L. (2023). What causes malevolent creative people to engage in malevolent behaviors? Mediating role of moral disengagement and moderating effects of conscience. Think. Skills Creat. 49:101329. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101329
Tein, J.-Y., Coxe, S., and Cham, H. (2013). Statistical power to detect the correct number of classes in latent profile analysis. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 20, 640–657. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2013.824781
Vasiou, A., Kassis, W., Krasanaki, A., Aksoy, D., Favre, C. A., and Tantaros, S. (2023). Exploring parenting styles patterns and Children’s socio-emotional skills. Children 10:1126. doi: 10.3390/children10071126
Wang, Q. (2023). The effect of parenting practices on creativity: mediating role of psychological resilience. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 16, 4501–4514. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S436370
Keywords: latent profile analysis, malevolent creativity, moral, parenting style, university student
Citation: Cui X, Zhang X and Zhang H (2024) The impact of parenting style on malevolent creativity based on Chinese university students: a latent profile analysis. Front. Psychol. 15:1363778. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1363778
Edited by:
Nelly Lagos San Martín, University of the Bío Bío, ChileReviewed by:
Francisco Manuel Morales, University of Granada, SpainInuusah Mahama, University of Cape Coast, Ghana
Copyright © 2024 Cui, Zhang and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Hua Zhang, emgxNzI5NUBzd3UuZWR1LmNu