Psychology in The Schools - 2023 - Georgiou - Parental Styles and Adolescent Externalizing Problems A Cross Lagged Model

Received: 25 August 2022 | Revised: 28 May 2023 | Accepted: 28 July 2023
DOI: 10.1002/pits.23046
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Parental styles and adolescent externalizing

problems: A cross‐lagged model examining the
direction of influence
Stelios N. Georgiou | Kyriakos Charalampous
Department of Psychology, University of

Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus Abstract
The present study aimed at examining the transactional effects
Correspondence
Stelios N. Georgiou, Department of between parental styles and adolescent externalizing prob-
Psychology, University of Cyprus, 75
lems. The total sample included 868 students, 410 preadoles-
Kallipoleos Str., POB 20537, 1678 Nicosia,
Cyprus. cents (Mage = 10.63, SD = 0.63) attending the last two grades
Email: stege@ucy.ac.cy
of elementary school and 458 early adolescents (Mage = 12.65,
SD = 0.67) attending the first two grades of high school.
Participating schools (N = 15) were purposefully selected to be
diverse in terms of urban/rural residence of families they
serve, as well as their socioeconomic status, and came from
three different Districts of Cyprus. In terms of gender, 451
(52.0%) were girls and 410 (47.5%) were boys. The self‐report
version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire was used
for measuring externalizing problems and the Parental
Authority Questionnaire was used for measuring parental style.
A short‐term longitudinal design was used, with the data
collected at two points in time having 5‐month intervals. By
means of a cross‐lagged model, and in contrast to prior studies
claiming that certain parental styles influence positively or
negatively externalizing problems, the current study found that
the opposite effect is true. That is, externalizing problems
affected positively authoritarian parenting and negative
authoritative style. Also, a multigroup analysis revealed that
age/developmental phase moderated these relationships.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2023 The Authors. Psychology in the Schools Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
190 | wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits Psychol Schs. 2024;61:190–204.

15206807, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pits.23046, Wiley Online Library on [21/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
GEORGIOU and CHARALAMPOUS | 191
Specifically, T1 authoritarian parenting seemed to be a risk

factor for preadolescents, but not for adolescents.
KEYWORDS
externalizing problems, parental styles
1 | INTRODUCTION
Do parents affect their children or is it children that affect their parents' behavior toward them? Most people would
say that the first is true, based on the fact that parents pre‐exist the birth and later the developmental process of
their children. That is, they are there first! Therefore, the general belief is that parents act as models and as
influencing factors and their children and adolescents are the recipients of this influence. Regarding the relationship
between parenting variables (such as involvement, practices, styles) and adolescent behavior (such as school
adaptation, social functioning, internalizing/externalizing problems), numerous studies have reported that parents
induce certain behaviors from their off‐springs (e.g., Galambos et al., 2003; Hoeve et al., 2009; Miller et al., 2009;
Muris et al., 2003; Pettit et al., 2001; Richaud de Minzi, 2010). In other words, authoritarian parents, for example,
end up having children and adolescents that are violent to their peers. Similarly, permissive parents tend to have
children prone to victimization and so on. The dominant position in the relevant literature is that the direction of
influence is from the parental behavior to the behavior of the child and adolescent.
However, a much smaller group of studies challenge this position and emphasize the opposite direction of
influence (i.e., from child to parent) (Bell & Harper, 1977; Collins, et al., 2000; Dodge & Pettit, 2003; Georgiou &
Fanti, 2013; Snyder, et al., 2005). The present study examined the direction of influence between parental styles
and adolescent externalizing problems in an effort to contribute to the discussion outlined above.
1.1 | Externalizing and internalizing problems
Externalizing and internalizing behaviors are differentiated in that the former is overt, whereas the latter is covert.
Externalizing problems include rule‐breaking actions, aggression toward others, and delinquency. Longitudinal
research shows that adolescent externalizing behaviors are a major risk factor for a number of negative outcomes,
such as juvenile delinquency and future crime and violence (Liu, 2004), as well as decreased educational and
occupational attainment in adulthood (Siennick, 2007; Tanner et al., 1999). On the other hand, internalizing
problems refer to behaviors that are inner‐directed and overcontrolled. Symptoms include social isolation,
withdrawal, anxiety, and depression (Madigan et al., 2012). Only externalizing problems were included in the
current study, and therefore, internalizing problems will not be further discussed.
Externalizing problems relate to problematic outward behaviors, such as disruptive, hyperactive, and aggressive
behavior (Liu, 2004). Whereas externalizing problems are not as severe as psychopathological disorders, they hinder
adolescents' psychological functioning and influence how they interact with their environment (Levesque, 2011). A
number of studies have found that dysfunctional peer relationships influence adolescent's externalizing behaviors
(Charalampous et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2017; Lee & Park, 2017), since adolescents that perceive their peers as being
nonsupportive or trustworthy and feel alienated from their peer group, are prone to display externalizing problems
(Gorrese, 2016). On the other hand, studies also claim that close peer relationships may lead adolescents to display
externalizing behaviors. For example, studies have shown (Fortuin et al., 2015; Sijtsema & Lindenberg, 2018) that
negative peer influence is strongly related to displaying externalizing behaviors such as damaging or destroying
property, participating in gang activities, and fighting.
192 | GEORGIOU and CHARALAMPOUS
In many prior studies, externalizing problems in adolescence were seen as outcomes of poor parenting practice.
Hence, previous research (Eichelsheim et al., 2010; Hoeve et al., 2009; Ireland & Power, 2004; Marmorstein &
Iacono, 2004; Zadeh et al., 2010) has demonstrated that dysfunctional families tend to include young members who
exhibit a variety of psychopathologies, implying that problematic parental behavior is to be blamed for child and
adolescent externalizing problems.
1.2 | Parental styles
Parenting styles were initially described by Baumrind (1991). These styles are based on two dimensions of parent
practice: demandingness and responsiveness. The first dimension refers to having high expectations, setting
behavioral boundaries, and applying rules and regulations, including monitoring child behavior. The second refers to
responding to the child's emotional and other needs, being available to talk with, and support the child, and
generally providing for a safe environment in which to learn and develop. The combination of the two dimensions
defines the four types of parenting styles: that is, authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful. The
authoritative parenting style is characterized by parental behavior which is high on both demandingness and
responsiveness, and presents a consistent and flexible parental behavior pattern. In contrast, the authoritarian
parental style is characterized by high scores on the demandingness dimension but low scores on the
responsiveness dimension. Authoritarian parents often use punishment as a means to achieve control over their
children. The permissive parental style characterizes parents who are found to be high in responsiveness and
warmth but low in demandingness. These parents exercise low to no control over their children. Finally, parents
who are neglectful score low on both dimensions; they are neither responsive to their child's needs nor demanding
in regard to their child's behavior and actions.
A large number of empirical studies have consistently found authoritative parenting to be related to adaptive
behaviors, whereas both the authoritarian parenting style and the permissive parenting style are positively related
to externalizing symptomatology (e.g., Georgiou et al., 2013; Olweus, 1993; Rinaldi & Howe, 2012). Furthermore,
links have also been reported between parenting styles and psychosocial adjustment. For example, a study
(Milevsky et al., 2007) has found that the authoritative parenting style predicts well‐being in adolescence, since it
was related to higher self‐esteem and to lower tendency for depression.
1.3 | Parenting styles and adolescent externalizing problems
The relationship between parenting styles and the exhibition of externalizing problems in adolescence has been
studied extensively since the 1930s (Spera, 2005). Most of these studies were correlational in nature, but some
sought out predictions via multiple regression designs. A few attempted to establish cause‐and‐effect relations. In
all the cases, the implication was that certain parental styles bring about adolescent problematic behavior. As
documented in several influential reviews (Maccoby & Martin, 1983), warm and supportive parenting styles are
consistent predictors of favorable developmental outcomes in children and adolescents, whereas authoritarian and
distant ones predict unfavorable outcomes. Specifically, in the extensive literature linking parenting styles to
adolescent behavior problems, authoritative parenting is negatively associated with externalizing problems
including conduct disorder, and delinquent behavior (Steinberg et al., 2006), while both permissive and authoritarian
parenting are positively associated with these problems (e.g., Querido et al., 2002; Steinberg et al., 1994; Thompson
et al., 2003). In line with this view, Marcone et al. (2017) argue that the most functional style for promoting
adolescent adjustment is authoritative, and the most harmful one is the authoritarian style.
In prior studies examining the direction of influence, it is almost always assumed that parenting is the
influencing factor (Fletcher et al., 1995), and child effects are often neglected. Some studies that explicitly
investigated both parent and child effects, found evidence for reciprocal relations between parenting and
adolescent problem behavior (Ge, et al., 1996; Rueter & Conger, 1998; Stice & Barrera, 1995).
Regarding the relationship between parental styles and practices and adolescent externalizing problems in
Cyprus (where the current study was conducted), the few prior studies identified (Charalampous et al., 2018;
Georgiou & Symeou, 2018; Symeou & Georgiou, 2017) report similar findings to those of adolescents in other
western type of countries. That is, authoritarian parenting is associated with externalizing problems, while
authoritative parenting is not.
As it was mentioned earlier, the emphasis in this line of research has been on the most obvious path; that is, on
how parental qualities predict or relate to children's outcomes. There are only a few studies in the literature that
explore the reverse association. This alternative view claims that the child's psychosocial problems influence the
development of specific parental styles. As Dodge and Pettit (2003) argue, in symbiotic models of development,
influences tend to become reciprocal over time. In support of this view, Zadeh et al. (2010) identified reciprocal
associations among maternal behavior and child externalizing problems from ages 10 to 15, with evidence of a
recursive feedback loop over time. That is, negative maternal behavior had an influence on the child's exhibition of
externalizing symptoms from time 1 to time 2 and the child's externalizing behavior at time 2 could predict a change
in maternal behavior from Time 2 to Time 3. Along the same lines, Georgiou and Fanti (2013) provided further
evidence that the influence between parents and children is bidirectional in nature. They found that mother–child
conflict at age 7 affected the child's behavioral problems at age 9, but also that the existence of the child's
behavioral problems at age 7 affected the intensity of mother–child conflict at age 9. These researchers concluded
that the child's conflict with the mother and the child's externalizing problems reinforce each other over time.
The age of children and adolescents is included as a mediating or moderating factor usually in large‐scale
longitudinal studies dealing with life‐span human development (Rankin‐Williams, et al., 2009). Regardless of its
importance, this factor has not been examined extensively in either the parental style or the externalizing behavior
literature. There is some evidence, however, that age/developmental stage moderates the relationship between
parental style and child externalizing problems. For example, in a meta‐analysis integrating research from 1435
studies on associations of parenting styles with externalizing symptoms in children and adolescents (Pinquart, 2017),
an authoritative parenting style showed negative concurrent and longitudinal associations with externalizing
problems. In contrast, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful parenting were associated with higher levels of
externalizing problems. It was found that the child's age moderated these relationships.
1.4 | The present study: Rationale and innovation
Most empirical studies identified the area of parenting styles as parameters of adolescent externalizing problems
that are correlational in nature. Only a few were designed to look for cause‐and‐effect results. Furthermore, the
great majority of the studies that have examined the relationship between parental styles and adolescent
externalizing problems imply that the former influence the latter. A much smaller number of studies claim that the
opposite is true. Thus, there seems to be considerable vagueness in the relevant literature concerning the direction
of influence between parental styles and externalizing problems in adolescence. The aim of the present study is to
contribute to the effort for clarifying this relationship using a short‐term longitudinal design and a cross‐lagged
model able to examine the simultaneous transactional association between all the relevant variables.
1.5 | Hypotheses
Based on the literature outlined above, the following hypotheses were stated and tested:
1. Authoritarian and permissive parental styles at T1 will have a positive effect on externalizing problems at T2,
while authoritative parenting at T1 will have a negative effect on the same variable at T2.
2. Externalizing problems at T1 will have a positive effect on authoritarian and permissive parental styles at T2 and
a negative effect on authoritative parenting at T2.
3. Age/developmental stage (preadolescence vs. adolescence) will moderate these relationships.
2 | M E TH O D S
2.1 | Participants
The total sample for this study included 868 students with their ages ranging from 10 to 15 years (M = 11.72,
SD = 1.20). Of these, 410 were preadolescents (Mage = 10.63, SD = 0.63) attending the last two grades of
elementary school and 458 were early adolescents (Mage = 12.65, SD = 0.67) attending the first two grades of high
school.1 Participating schools were purposefully selected to be diverse in terms of urban/rural residence of families
they serve, and came from three different Districts of Cyprus. In terms of gender, 451 (52.0%) were girls and 410
(47.5%) were boys. Finally, with respect to parental education as an index of SES, 2.5% of participating parents
attended only elementary school, 37.95% finished some form of secondary education, 39.5% received some form
of tertiary education, and 19.95% did not provide the relevant information. The distribution of parental education
for this sample is representative of the general population in Cyprus as described in the United Nations Development
Program, 2016.
2.2 | Instruments
2.2.1 | Externalizing problems
The self‐report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) was used for measuring externalizing
problems. SDQ consists of five subscales, each containing five items. For the purpose of the present study, the
conduct problems and the hyperactivity‐inattention subscales were used. Together, these subscales form
externalized problems. Answers were given on a 5‐point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = not true to 5 = certainly true.
Previous applications of the SDQ showed acceptable structural validity and reliability with this age group and in the
same context (Georgiou et al., 2021).
2.2.2 | Parental style
The parental style was measured through the Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ; Buri, 1991), a self‐report
measure that assesses children's perspective concerning their parents' rearing practices that constitute a parental
style. Based on Baumrind's (1991) taxonomy, the instrument yields three distinct factors and consists of 30 items
(10 for each factor): Authoritarian (α = .84), Authoritative (α = 0.81), and Permissive (α = .68). Items are answered on
a 5‐point Likert‐type scale, ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree» to “5 = strongly agree.” Earlier studies have shown
satisfactory psychometric properties of the PAQ subscales within the Cypriot context (e.g., Georgiou et al., 2013).
1
The Cypriot elementary school comprises grades 1–6 and junior high school grades 7–9, which is a policy followed by many countries (International
Bureau of Education, 2008).
2.3 | Procedure
Permission to conduct this study was secured from the Cyprus Ministry of Education, which is the local authority
regulating research using school‐aged children and adolescents. Then, 15 elementary schools and high schools were
randomly selected using only one selection criterion; namely the average socioeconomic level of the communities
they serve. The final sample of selected schools is representative of the total population of schools according to the
Educational Statistics Guide, 2018. Following this, the principals of the selected schools were contacted and asked to
participate in the study. Members of the research group visited each school and described the goals and the
procedure of the study to the participants, teachers, and administrators. Each student of the selected schools was
provided with a letter of consent that at least one parent or legal guardian should sign in order for them to
participate. Students were also informed about the survey anonymity protocol, data protection procedures, and
their right to withdraw from the study at any time they wished without any consequences. Upon the return of the
consent forms, the questionnaire administration took place. Students completed the questionnaires during one
class period and returned it to the researchers at that time for both administration waves. Wave 1 was conducted
between the 15 and 22 October and wave 2 between 1 and 10 of April the following year (2019). Trained research
assistants were in charge of the data collection procedures.
2.4 | Analysis plan
The main analysis technique for the present study was structural equation modeling (SEM). The maximum likelihood
estimation was used and analyses were performed with the Analysis of Moment Structures software (Arbuckle,
2006). Several indices were examined to assess model fit including the χ2 goodness of fit statistic, the comparative
fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) (Browne &
Cudeck, 1989; Byrne, 2009; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Marsh et al., 2004). Adequate fit is indicated by nonsignificance
for the χ2. For the CFI and TLI values over 0.90 indicate adequate and over 0.95 indicate excellent fit. Finally, for the
RMSEA values less than 0.08 indicate adequate fit, and less than 0.05 excellent fit. Model comparisons to assess the
moderation effect were based on the Expected Cross Validation Index and the Modified Expected Cross Validation
Index (Browne & Cudeck, 1989).
The hypothesized theoretical model that was examined in this study appears as model 1 in Figure 1. According
to this model, all the exogenous variables (externalizing problems and parental styles) at T1 affect all the
endogenous variables at T2. Gender served as a covariate, while the developmental level (preadolescent vs.
adolescent) moderates these relationships (see Figure 1).
This model was applied to the total sample to test the transactional associations between all variables and was
applied to the two sub‐groups (preadolescents and adolescents) separately to test for a possible moderation effect.
First, the psychometric properties of the instruments were examined. Next, SEM was applied to investigate the
cross‐lagged and moderation effect. Zero‐order correlations were initially estimated, followed by the examination
of the cross‐lagged model in which T1 Externalized problems and T1 parental styles were set to load on all their
respective T2 variables, assessing at the same time both auto‐regressive and cross‐lagged effects. At the same time,
gender served as a covariate in the model, loading on all T2 variables.
Following this, the moderation hypothesis was tested. The sample was split between students attending late
elementary grades (preadolescents) and early high school grades (early adolescents). The same model was then
tested for both subgroups simultaneously (multigroup analysis). For each potential moderated effect (i.e., an effect
that differed considerably for each subgroup) further comparison of a multigroup‐constrained model (a model
assuming that the effect of interest was equal across the two groups) with the original unconstrained multigroup
model. If the constrained model offered an improvement in model fit, then the moderation hypothesis would be
rejected. If not, then the moderation hypothesis would be sustained.
FIGURE 1 The hypothesized model.
3 | RESULTS
3.1 | Psychometric properties
The psychometric properties of the PAQ were examined first. For this examination, the sample was randomly split
in half. Subsample 1 comprised 403 participants and subsample 2 of 465. Initially, EFA was performed on data from
subsample 1, the results of which were further examined with data from subsample 2, with the application of CFA.
The existence of three factors, namely Permissive, the Authoritarian, and the Authoritative parenting were
supported [χ2 (227, n = 465) = 511.59, p < .001, χ2/df = 2.25, CFI = 0.88, RMSEA = 0.052].
For the externalizing symptoms, subscale reliability was performed for all T1 and T2 scales. Four items were
removed from the analysis because their presence lowered the internal consistency of their respective scale (items
5, 7, 21, and 25). Subsequent EFA and second‐order factor CFA with items, first and second‐order factors for both
T1 and T2 data simultaneously supported the factorial structure of the SDQ—Externalizing problems. Next, a
simpler first‐order cross‐time CFA model was examined, to be used in the subsequent models that test the
hypotheses of the present study. The psychometrics results of the SDQ scale are presented in more detail below:
The second‐order CFA model fit [χ2 (45, n = 868) = 214.88, p < .05, χ2/df = 4.78, CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.066]
was acceptable. Next, a simpler first‐order crossed‐time CFA model was examined, to be used in the subsequent
models that test the hypotheses of the present study. In this, the T1 Externalizing problems latent factor loaded on
T1 hyperactivity and T1 conduct problems scales, and at the same time the T2 Externalizing problems latent factor
loaded on T2 hyperactivity and T2 conduct problems scales. The errors associated with T1 and T2 conduct problems
were set to be equal and the same was done for T1 and T2 hyperactivity for model identification purposes. Results
were indicative of an excellent fitting model [χ2 (1, n = 868) = 0.39, p = .53, χ2/df = 0.39, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.000].
The descriptive statistics along with the internal consistency for all the variables of the study are presented in
Table 1.
3.2 | The cross‐lagged model
The cross‐lagged model was examined next for the total sample of participants (see Figure 2). The tested model was
based on the hypothesized model 1 described earlier. Results indicated that the model was a good fit to the data
TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics regarding the variables of the study, along with internal consistency.
Variable Range M SD α
T1 Externalizing problems
Conduct problems 1.00–5.00 1.60 0.68 .67
Hyperactivity 1.00–5.00 1.99 0.93 .65
T2 Externalizing problems
Conduct problems 1.00–5.00 1.72 0.83 .79
Hyperactivity 1.00–5.00 2.12 0.99 .63
T1 parental styles
Permissive 1.00–5.00 3.01 1.01 .68
Authoritarian 1.00–5.00 2.37 0.80 .81
Authoritative 1.10–5.00 3.85 0.79 .85
T2 parental styles
Permissive 1.00–5.00 3.00 0.96 .73
Authoritarian 1.00–5.00 2.28 0.81 .85
Authoritative 1.10–5.00 3.73 0.91 .89
Demographics
Gender 1.00–2.00 1.48 0.50 –
Developmental level (preadolescent/adolescent) 1.00–2.00 1.54 0.50 –
[χ2 (16, n = 868) = 43.36, p < .001, χ2/df = 2.71, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.044] and model parameters were
in the expected direction associated with reasonable standard errors.
Given the short time period (5 months) between the two data collection waves and the large number of
exogenous variables, many significant cross‐lagged effects were reported. T1 Externalizing problems seemed to be
the most important influencing variable in the model. More specifically T1 Externalizing problems had a significant
positive effect on T2 Authoritarian parenting and a negative effect on T2 Authoritative parenting.
For parental styles, a number of significant effects were found. T1 Authoritarian parenting had a positive effect
on T2 Externalizing problems and a negative effect on T2 Authoritative parenting. T1 Authoritative parenting had a
positive effect on T2 Permissive parenting and finally, T2 Permissive parenting had no effect on any T2 variable.
In terms of gender, boys reported higher T2 Externalizing problems and higher T2 Authoritarian parenting,
whereas girls reported higher T2 Authoritative parenting.
The tested model accounted for 47%, 21%, 44%, and 35% of the variance of T2 Externalizing problems,
Permissive, Authoritarian, and Authoritative parenting.
3.3 | The moderation model
For the examining of the moderation hypothesis, the participants were divided into two groups based on their age
and developmental stage: students attending elementary school (preadolescents, n1 = 410) and students attending
high school (early adolescents, n2 = 458). Two models based on Model 1 were simultaneously tested through
multigroup analysis, one with preadolescent and one with early‐adolescent participants (see Figure 3).
F I G U R E 2 The structural part of the cross‐lagged model for the total sample, along with regression and multiple
correlation coefficients. Only significant effects are depicted. All coefficients shown are standardized and significant
at p < .05. Values associated with single‐headed arrows represent standardized regression coefficients. Dashed lines
represent covariate effects. Values placed over endogenous variables represent squared multiple correlations.
F I G U R E 3 The structural part of the multigroup models along with regression and multiple correlation
coefficients. Only significant effects are depicted. All coefficients shown are standardized and significant at p < .05.
Values associated with single‐headed arrows represent standardized regression coefficients. Dashed lines represent
covariate effects. Values placed over endogenous variables represent squared multiple correlations. The first value
is the value for the preadolescent group and the second one is the value for the adolescent group. ns, not
significant.
Results were indicative of a well‐fitting multigroup model [χ2 (32, n1 = 410, n2 = 458) = 55.27, p < .001,
χ /df = 1.73, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.029]. Model parameters were in the expected direction, associated
2
with reasonable standard errors.

As can be seen, despite the small developmental‐age difference, different results were found in some instances
and not in others. The negative effect of T1 Externalizing problems on T2 Authoritative parenting was significant
only for preadolescents. In contrast, the positive effect of T1 Externalizing problems on T2 Authoritarian parenting
was similar for both groups. Interestingly, T1 Authoritarian parenting effects on T2 Externalizing problems were
significant only for preadolescents, whereas the effect of T1 Authoritarian parenting on T2 Permissive and
Authoritative parenting and the effect of T1 Authoritative on T2 Permissive parenting were significant only for
adolescent participants. In general, interactive effects between parenting styles and Externalizing problems were
present mainly in the preadolescence subgroup, whereas interactive effects between different parenting styles
were present mainly in the early adolescence subgroup.
Next, discrepancies in the two models were tested through the comparison of models in which potential
moderated effects were constrained to be equal, with the original unconstrained multigroup model (see Table 2).
Results clearly supported that moderation was present for all the potential moderation effects examined, except for
the effect of T1 Authoritarian parenting on T2 Permissive parenting.
4 | DISC US SION
As Reitza et al. (2006) point out, the behaviors of both parent and child are intertwined in cycles of reciprocal causality.
Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the child's problem behavior interacts with parenting in predicting developmental
outcomes. “Still, the predominant focus of research has been on the unidirectional relation from the parent to the child”
(p. 420). A review of the current literature easily leads to this conclusion. For example, Lorence et al. (2019) state that
“Parental behavior is one of the most influential factors on the development of adolescent externalizing and internalizing
behavior problems” (abstract). This is certainly a popular statement, shared by many other recent papers and research
reviews (Newman et al., 2008). But is it accurate? According to the results of the present study, the direction of
influence is the opposite of what is widely believed. That is, the adolescent is the main influencing factor rather than the
parent. And, of course, the influence is bidirectional. These results are summarized as follows:
Both parenting and child effects were found, in line with Reitz et al. (2006). Only the authoritarian style at T1
had a significant effect on externalizing problems at T2. The other two parental styles did not. Thus, research
hypothesis 1 was partially accepted. T1 Externalizing problems were the most important influencing variable in the
model since they had the highest magnitude of cross‐lagged effects. More specifically, T1 Externalizing problems
had a significant positive effect on T2 Authoritarian parenting and a negative effect on T2 Authoritative parenting. It
did not have a significant effect on Permissive parenting. Thus, research hypothesis 2 was also partially accepted.
T A B L E 2 Constrained effect models, ECVI, MECVI, and values of the regression effect for the two groups in
the initial multigroup model.
Values in the initial (unconstrained) model
Effect constrained equal for both groups ECVI MECVI Preadolescent group Adolescent group
None (unconstrained model) 0.346 0.354 – –
T1 Externalizing problems → T2 Authoritative 0.345 0.353 −0.16* −0.07
T1 Authoritarian → T2 Externalizing problems 0.343 0.351 0.19** 0.10
T1 Authoritarian → T2 Authoritative 0.349 0.357 0.01 −0.16**
T1 Authoritative → T2 Authoritative 0.345 0.353 −0.04 −0.11*
T1 Authoritarian → T2 Permissive 0.344 0.352 0.05 0.11*
Note: Only the constrained models for which moderation is present are reported.
Abbreviation: ECVI, Expected Cross Validation Index; MECVI, Modified Expected Cross Validation Index.
*p < .05; **p <.01.
The most important finding of the present study is perhaps that parental behavior expressed through the
“styles” typology (i.e., authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive) does not bring about specific child behavior as
outcome, positive or negative, as numerous prior studies imply (Marcone et al., 2017; Querido et al., 2002;
Steinberg et al., 2006; Thompson et al., 2003). Rather, the child's behavior, exhibiting externalizing problems or not,
brings about certain parental styles.
Specifically, students having high scores in externalizing problems at T1 reported at T2 that their parents were
authoritarian, while students having low scores in externalizing problems at T1 reported at T2 that their parents
were authoritative. In other words, parents' style was authoritarian or authoritative depending on their child's
exhibiting externalizing problems or not. Earlier, mostly correlational studies, associating authoritarian parenting
style with undesirable adolescent outcomes (such as having externalizing problems) and authoritative parenting
style with desirable outcomes are in line with the findings of the present study (e.g., Querido et al., 2002; Steinberg
et al., 2006; Thompson et al., 2003).
A possible explanation of this study's main finding is that a difficult child or adolescent, one who is aggressive
toward peers, has issues with authority figures, and so forth, actually obligates his/her parents to use more
monitoring, boundary setting, behavior control, and so forth, thus becoming more authoritarian and less
authoritative (responsive, supporting, communicative). In other words, a parent becomes what he/she believes is
best for dealing with the specific child. This explains also the phenomenon of a parent who has more than one child
and is more restrictive with some and more permissive with some of the others.
The discussion so far refers to the found child effects and these were emphasized because they challenge the
dominant view outlined earlier that parental behavior is the main influencing factor. However, parenting effects
were also found in the current study, in agreement with earlier longitudinal studies (Reitz et al., 2006). Parenting,
and specifically the authoritarian style could influence externalizing problems, especially among younger
adolescents. Hence, in agreement with earlier research (Ge et al., 1996; Rueter & Conger, 1998; Stice &
Barrera, 1995), the present study proposes that child characteristics (such as externalizing behavior problems)
interact with parental practices and bring about developmental outcomes over time.
Research hypothesis 3 was partially supported, in that significant moderation effects were detected between
the two compared subgroups (preadolescents and early adolescents). The most interesting finding in this type of
analysis was that T1 Authoritarian parenting seemed to be a risk factor, for increased externalizing problems during
the time frame of the study, for preadolescents, but not for adolescents. Also, an increase in externalizing problems
during the study seemed to cause a decrease in Authoritative parenting for preadolescents but not for adolescents.
This is in line with a recent meta‐analysis (Pinquart, 2017) arguing that age moderates the relationship between
parental style and adolescent externalizing problems. It seems that parenting effects decrease as the child grows
older. More research is needed to verify this finding since age as a moderator of the relationship between parental
styles and child/adolescent externalizing problems has not been widely examined.
The moderation analysis revealed less important results, in that only a few significant cross‐lagged effects were
found. Nevertheless, it made the point that certain relationships, especially those that require a certain degree of
maturity, may come later in life even if they are not present at all earlier. An example of this is the finding that
preadolescents who had authoritarian parents tended to report higher externalizing problems at T2, while this was
not true for the adolescent group. The transition from childhood to early adolescence results in a dramatic shift in
the social focus of children. Children entering adolescence seek independence from their caregivers and turn to
their friends and peers for social support (Charalampous et al., 2018).
4.1 | Limitations and contribution
The present study bears some limitations, which should be taken into consideration when interpreting its findings.
Whereas internationally accredited questionnaires were used and their psychometric properties were established,
the external validity of the study would further benefit from the use of quantitative data with interviews or
observational data. This issue also relates to the threat of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In
addition, parental data would also further strengthen the measurement of some constructs such as externalizing
problems. Nonetheless, student self‐reports on adjustment problems have been shown to have no statistically
significant difference with parental data and are considered as more appropriate for clinical settings (e.g., Arman
et al., 2013). Another limitation is that it is not known whether the cross‐sectional time (T1) can be accepted as a
starting point for the mutual interaction between parental and adolescent behavior. That is, earlier elements of the
relationship may have affected the end result in T2.
The present study contributes to the relevant literature by employing a methodology capable of simultaneously
examining all the cross‐lagged relations between the variables. Furthermore, through the short‐term longitudinal
design, cause‐and‐effect relationships were examined, rather than correlational associations between the variables
included in the model. It should be noted, however, that the use of two waves of data may not be sufficient for
examining such complex relationships. This is another limitation of the present study. Future studies should employ
more waves to investigate the interaction of the key variables over time. Finally, through multigroup analysis
moderation effects were detected. The findings are mostly in contrast to prior research since the direction of
effects was from child behavior to parent practice and not the other way around as the dominant view is in the
current discussion. More research is needed to verify or not these results. In any case, the statement that parents
and adolescents co‐construct their relationship (Collins, et al., 2000) seems fair and the present study offers some
support to it.
The results of the present study offer some support to the idea that parent‐child relationships are transactional
in nature and the two parties influence each other continuously (Bell & Harper, 1977; Collins, et al., 2000).
Following this logic, one could argue that parental styles do not exist a priori. They develop depending on the
particular child's personality characteristics, temperament, and general behavior. Thus, an authoritarian parent, for
example, could act differently if he or she had a more cooperative child. The said relationship is not static; rather, it
is dynamic and changes through time as the two interactive partners change as well.
What follows from this discussion is that there may be a need to redirect intervention programs from parents to
adolescents themselves and to lift the burden that parents carry for so many years as the sole creators of their children's
problematic behavior. Similarly, there may be a need to rethink the adolescents' active role in the designing of their own
behavioral profile rather than over‐emphasizing the parental influence. As Kerr et al. (2012) correctly point out,
“parenting‐style research still adheres to a unidirectional perspective in which parents affect youth behavior but are
unaffected by it. (…) Thus, parenting style cannot be seen as independent of the adolescent. In summary, both the
theoretical premises of parenting‐style research and the prior findings should be revisited” (p. 1540).
In conclusion, the present study (in line with earlier longitudinal studies such as Dodge & Pettit, 2003; Georgiou
& Fanti, 2013; Reitz et al., 2006; Snyder et al., 2005) suggests that both the externalizing behavior of the adolescent
and his or her parents' rearing style could reciprocally predict each other over time. Therefore, to emphasize only
one direction of influence, usually from parent to child, as current studies continue to do, is like telling half the story
of what actually happens in this symbiotic relationship.
CO NFL I CT OF INTERES T S T ATEME NT

The authors declare no conflict of interest.
D A TA A V A I L A B I L I T Y S T A T E M E N T
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/cbf3x/.
ETHICS STATEME NT
The research that is described in this paper was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Cyprus Ministry of
Education.
ORCID
Stelios N. Georgiou http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0419-1214
REFERENCES
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos 7.0 User's Guide. Amos Development.
Arman, S., Amel, A. K., & Maracy, M. R. (2013). Comparison of parent adolescent scores on strengths and difficulties
questionnaire. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 18(6), 501–505.
Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks‐Gunn, R. Lerner, & A. Petersen (Eds.), The
encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 746–758). Garland.
Bell, R., & Harper, L. (1977). Child effects on adults. Erlbaum.
Browne, B. W., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross‐validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 24, 136–162.
Buri, J. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1, 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327752jpa5701_13
Byrne, B. M. (2009). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming (2nd ed.). Taylor
and Francis.
Charalampous, K., Demetriou, C., Tricha, L., Ioannou, M., Georgiou, S., Nikiforou, M., & Stavrinides, P. (2018). The effect of
parental style on bullying and cyber bullying behaviors and the mediating role of peer attachment relationships:
A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence, 64, 109–123.
Collins, W., Maccoby, E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E., & Bornstein, M. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting:
The case for and against nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55, 218–232.
Dodge, K., & Pettit, G. S. (2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic conduct problems in adolescence.
Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 349–371.
Eichelsheim, V. I., Buist, K. L., Deković, M., Wissink, I. B., Frijns, T., van Lier, P. A. C., Koot, H. M., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2010).
Associations among the parent–adolescent relationship, aggression and delinquency in different ethnic groups:
A replication across two Dutch samples. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 45, 293–300.
Fletcher, A. C., Darling, N. E., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1995). The company they keep: Relation of adolescents'
adjustment and behavior to their friends' perceptions of authoritative parenting in the social network. Developmental
Psychology, 31(2), 300–310.
Fortuin, J., van Geel, M., & Vedder, P. (2015). Peer influences on internalizing and externalizing problems among
adolescents: A longitudinal social network analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(4), 887–897.
Galambos, N. L., Barker, E. T., & Almeida, D. M. (2003). Parents do matter: Trajectories of change in externalizing and
internalizing problems in early adolescence. Child Development, 74(2), 578–594.
Ge, X., Conger, R. D., Cadoret, R. J., Neiderhiser, J. M., Yates, W., Troughton, E., & Stewart, M. A. (1996). The developmental
interface between nature and nurture: A mutual influence model of child antisocial behavior and parent behaviors.
Georgiou, S., Charalampous, K., & Stavrinides, P. (2021). The mediating effects of adolescents' internalizing and
externalizing problems on the relationship between emotion regulation, mindfulness and bullying/victimization at
school. School Psychology International, 42(6), 657–676.
Georgiou, S. N., & Fanti, K. A. (2013). Transactional associations between mother–child conflict and child externalising and
internalising problems. Educational Psychology, 34, 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.785055
Georgiou, S. N., Fousiani, K., Michaelides, M., & Stavrinides, P. (2013). Cultural value orientation and authoritarian parenting
as parameters of bullying and victimization at school. International Journal of Psychology, 48(1), 69–78.
Georgiou, S., & Symeou, M. (2018). Parenting practices and the development of internalizing and externalizing
problems in adolescence. In L. Benedetto & M. Ingrassia (Eds.), Parenting: Empirical Advances and Intervention
Resources (pp. 15–29). InTech.
Gorrese, A. (2016). Peer attachment and youth internalizing problems: A meta‐analysis. Child & Youth Care Forum, 45,
177–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-015-9333-y
Hoeve, M., Dubas, J. S., Eichelsheim, V. I., van der Laan, P. H., Smeenk, W., & Gerris, J. R. M. (2009). The relationship
between parenting and delinquency: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 749–775.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus
new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10705519909540118
Ireland, J. L., & Power, C. L. (2004). Attachment, emotional loneliness, and bullying behaviour: A study of adult and young
offenders. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 298–312.
Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Özdemir, M. (2012). Perceived parenting style and adolescent adjustment: Revisiting directions of
effects and the role of parental knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 48(6), 1540–1553.
Lee, C. T., Padilla‐Walker, L. M., & Memmott‐Elison, M. K. (2017). The role of parents and peers on adolescents' prosocial
behavior and substance use. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(7), 1053–1069.
Lee, M. R., & Park, B. H. (2017). The structural relationships among externalizing problems, internalizing problems,
achievement value, and school adjustment in adolescents. The Journal of Learner‐Centered Curriculum and Instruction,
17(1), 517–535.
Levesque, R. J. R. (2011). Externalizing and internalizing symptoms. In R. J. R. Levesque (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence
(pp. 903–905). Springer.
Liu, J. (2004). Childhood externalizing behavior: Theory and implications. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing,
17(3), 93–103.
Lorence, B., Hidalgo, V., Pérez‐Padilla, J., & Menéndez, S. (2019). The role of parenting styles on behavior problem profiles
of adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(15), 2767. https://doi.org/10.
3390/ijerph16152767
Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent‐child interaction. In P. Mussen (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology. Socialization, personality and social development (Vol. 4, pp. 1–101). Wiley.
Madigan, S., Atkinson, L., Laurin, K., & Benoit, D. (2013). Attachment and internalizing behavior in early childhood: A meta‐
analysis. Developmental Psychology, 49(4), 672–689.
Marcone, R., Affuso, G., & Borrone, A. (2017). Parenting styles and children's internalizing‐ externalizing behavior: The
mediating role of behavioral regulation. Current Psychology, 39, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9757-7
Marmorstein, N. R., & Iacono, W. G. (2004). Major depression and conduct disorder in youth: Associations with parental
psychopathology and parent‐child conflict. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(2), 377–386.
Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z., & Hau, K.‐T. (2004). Structural equation models of latent interactions: Evaluation of alternative
estimation strategies and indicator construction. Psychological Methods, 9, 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-
989X.9.3.275
Milevsky, A., Schlechter, M., Netter, S., & Keehn, D. (2007). Maternal and paternal parenting styles in adolescents:
Associations with self‐esteem, depression and life‐satisfaction. Journal of child and family studies, 16, 39–47.
Miller, H. V., Jennings, W. G., Alvarez‐Rivera, L. L., & Lanza‐Kaduce, L. (2009). Self‐control, attachment, and deviance among
Hispanic adolescents. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 77–84.
Muris, P., Meesters, C., & van den Berg, S. (2003). Internalizing and externalizing problems as correlates of self‐reported
attachment style and perceived parental rearing in normal adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12(2),
171–183.
Newman, K., Harrison, L., Dashiff, C., & Davies, S. (2008). Relationships between parenting styles and risk behaviors in
adolescent health: An integrative literature review. Revista Latino‐Americana de Enfermagem, 16(1), 142–150.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell.
Pettit, G. S., Laird, R. D., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Criss, M. M. (2001). Antecedents and behavior‐problem outcomes of
parental monitoring and psychological control in early adolescence. Child Development, 72(2), 583–598.
Pinquart, M. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and
adolescents: An updated meta‐analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 873–932. https://doi.org/10.1037/
dev0000295
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research:
A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Querido, J. G., Warner, T. D., & Eyberg, S. M. (2002). Parenting styles and child behavior in African American families of
preschool children. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 31, 272–277.
Rankin‐Williams, L., Degnan, K. A., Perez‐Edgar, K. E., Henderson, H. A., Rubin, K. H., Pine, D. S., Steinberg, L., & Fox, N. A.
(2009). Impact of behavioral inhibition and parenting style on internalizing and externalizing problems from early
childhood through adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 1063–1075.
Reitz, E., Deković, M., & Meijer, A. M. (2006). Relations between parenting and externalizing and internalizing problem
behaviour in early adolescence: Child behaviour as moderator and predictor. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 419–436.
Richaud de Minzi, M. C. (2010). Gender and cultural patterns of mothers' and fathers' attachment and links with children's
self‐competence, depression and loneliness in middle and late childhood. Early Child Development and Care, 180(1–2),
193–209.
Rinaldi, C. M., & Howe, N. (2012). Mothers' and fathers' parenting styles and associations with toddlers' externalizing,
internalizing, and adaptive behaviors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(2), 266–273.
Rueter, M. A., & Conger, R. D. (1998). Reciprocal influences between parenting and adolescent problem‐solving behavior.
Siennick, S. E. (2007). The timing and mechanisms of the offending‐depression link. Criminology, 45(3), 583–615.
Sijtsema, J. J., & Lindenberg, S. M. (2018). Peer influence in the development of adolescent antisocial behavior: Advances
from dynamic social network studies. Developmental Review, 50, 140–154.
Snyder, J., Cramer, A., Afrank, J., & Patterson, G. R. (2005). The contributions of ineffective discipline and parental hostile
attributions of child misbehavior to the development of conduct problems at home and school. Developmental
Psychology, 41, 30–41.
Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school
achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 125–146.
Steinberg, L., Blatt‐Eisengart, I., & Cauffman, E. (2006). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from
authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful homes: A replication in a sample of serious juvenile offenders.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 47–58.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over‐time changes in adjustment and
competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child
Development, 65, 754–770.
Stice, E., & Barrera Jr., M. (1995). A longitudinal examination of the reciprocal relations between perceived parenting and
adolescents' substance use and externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 322–334.
Symeou, M., & Georgiou, S. (2017). Externalizing and internalizing behaviours in adolescence and the importance of
parental behavioural and psychological control practices. Journal of Adolescence, 60, 104–113.
Tanner, J., Davies, S., & O'Grady, B. (1999). Whatever happened to yesterday's rebels? Longitudinal effects of teenage
delinquency on education and occupational outcomes. Social Problems, 46(2), 250–274.
Thompson, A., Hollis, C., & Dagger, D. R. (2003). Authoritarian parenting attitudes as a risk for conduct problems: Results
from a British national cohort study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00787-003-0324-4
Zadeh, Z. Y., Jenkins, J., & Pepler, D. (2010). A transactional analysis of maternal negativity and child externalizing behavior.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34(3), 218–228.
How to cite this article: Georgiou, S. N., & Charalampous, K. (2024). Parental styles and adolescent
externalizing problems: A cross‐lagged model examining the direction of influence. Psychology in the Schools,
61, 190–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23046

Psychology in The Schools - 2023 - Georgiou - Parental Styles and Adolescent Externalizing Problems A Cross Lagged Model

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychology in The Schools - 2023 - Georgiou - Parental Styles and Adolescent Externalizing Problems A Cross Lagged Model

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 25 August 2022 | Revised: 28 May 2023 | Accepted: 28 July 2023

Parental styles and adolescent externalizing

Stelios N. Georgiou | Kyriakos Charalampous

Department of Psychology, University of

190 | wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits Psychol Schs. 2024;61:190–204.

Specifically, T1 authoritarian parenting seemed to be a risk

1.1 | Externalizing and internalizing problems

1.2 | Parental styles

1.3 | Parenting styles and adolescent externalizing problems

1.4 | The present study: Rationale and innovation

2.2.1 | Externalizing problems

2.2.2 | Parental style

2.4 | Analysis plan

FIGURE 1 The hypothesized model.

3.1 | Psychometric properties

3.2 | The cross‐lagged model

Conduct problems 1.00–5.00 1.60 0.68 .67

Hyperactivity 1.00–5.00 1.99 0.93 .65

Conduct problems 1.00–5.00 1.72 0.83 .79

Hyperactivity 1.00–5.00 2.12 0.99 .63

Permissive 1.00–5.00 3.01 1.01 .68

Authoritarian 1.00–5.00 2.37 0.80 .81

Authoritative 1.10–5.00 3.85 0.79 .85

Permissive 1.00–5.00 3.00 0.96 .73

Authoritarian 1.00–5.00 2.28 0.81 .85

Authoritative 1.10–5.00 3.73 0.91 .89

Gender 1.00–2.00 1.48 0.50 –

Developmental level (preadolescent/adolescent) 1.00–2.00 1.54 0.50 –

3.3 | The moderation model

with reasonable standard errors.

Values in the initial (unconstrained) model

None (unconstrained model) 0.346 0.354 – –

T1 Externalizing problems → T2 Authoritative 0.345 0.353 −0.16* −0.07

T1 Authoritarian → T2 Externalizing problems 0.343 0.351 0.19** 0.10

T1 Authoritarian → T2 Authoritative 0.349 0.357 0.01 −0.16**

T1 Authoritative → T2 Authoritative 0.345 0.353 −0.04 −0.11*

T1 Authoritarian → T2 Permissive 0.344 0.352 0.05 0.11*

4.1 | Limitations and contribution

CO NFL I CT OF INTERES T S T ATEME NT

You might also like