The Impact of Parenting Styles and Attachment Styles on

Neuroticism Levels

Congyi Su

School of Information Engineering, Zhejiang University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Hangzhou, 310018, China

Keywords: Parenting Style, Neuroticism, Attachment Style, Mental Health.

Abstract: The level of neuroticism is a crucial indicator for assessing an individual’s emotional stability when

confronted with stress and is also regarded as closely associated with health. In the studies of this personality

trait, the influential factors that cannot be overlooked are the parenting style during childhood and the

attachment style in intimate relationships. This paper aims to investigate the influence of parenting styles and

attachment styles on an individual’s level of neuroticism. Through the method of literature review, this

research analyzes relevant studies and summarizes the definitions and measurement methods of the above

three concepts, as well as their relationships and the mechanism of action. The research reveals that parenting

styles and attachment styles have a significant impact on the level of neuroticism. The authoritative parenting

style and the secure attachment style are conducive to reducing the level of neuroticism and promoting

individual mental health; while the authoritarian, neglectful parenting styles and the anxious, avoidant

attachment styles may result in an elevated level of neuroticism and increase the risk of mental health issues.

1 INTRODUCTION

Neuroticism, one of the Big Five personality traits,

indicates the likelihood of an individual reacting

negatively to stressful events — they experience a lot

of fear, anxiety, and sadness. There is no doubt that

studies regarding neuroticism have offered valuable

results that health officials can implement in the

public health system. An elevated level of

neuroticism is more likely to be associated with

pathology and emotional disturbances, both of which

negatively affect people’s mental state and overall

happiness. Identifying the explanatory factors and

underlying influencing mechanisms for neuroticism

will contribute to the creation of effective preventive

and therapeutic interventions for mood disorders, thus

leading to better outcomes.

This paper will focus on two concepts, which are

related to neuroticism, as they have been extensively

studied: parenting and attachment styles. While

parenting styles refer to behavioral and emotional

tendencies manifested by parents, attachment styles

reflect the modes of emotional communication and

interaction used by an individual in relationships.

Parenting styles and attachment styles are both

prevalent in early childhood, and these two factors

have a sustained potency during the course of an

individual’s psychological growth.

This study sought to look into the impact of

parenting style and attachment style on neuroticism.

More specifically, this paper will explore which

parenting and attachment styles contribute to the

formation of high levels of neuroticism, as well as the

way these factors operate. By understanding the

relationship mechanism between parenting style,

attachment style, and neuroticism, this study can

provide valuable insights for optimizing parenting

strategies and promoting individual mental health,

retrieving subjectivity and belonging in intimate

relationships, and realizing personality integrity and

self-consistency.

2 INTRODUCTION TO

RESEARCH SUBJECTS

2.1 Parental Rearing Style

Parental style refers to the behavioral tendencies,

emotional atmosphere, and educational attitudes that

parents exhibit in raising and educating their children.

This parenting style is stable across time and

situations and profoundly impacts children’s

Su, C.

The Impact of Parenting Styles and Attachment Styles on Neuroticism Levels.

DOI: 10.5220/0014115000004942

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Applied Psychology and Marketing Management (APMM 2025), pages 383-390

ISBN: 978-989-758-791-7

383

psychological development and behavior patterns

(Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Baumrind classified

parenting style into three patterns: authoritarian,

authoritative, and permissive (Baumrind, 1971). The

permissive style was later divided into indulgent and

neglectful (or uninvolved) types.

The interaction pattern between parents and

children can be evaluated by two dimensions:

Responsiveness and Demandingness (McCoby,

1983). “Responsiveness” involves parents actively

engaging in communicating with their children,

showing care and concern, providing emotional and

practical support, and fulfilling the child’s specific

needs. “Demandingness” includes setting clear rules

and boundaries, monitoring the child’s activities,

establishing expectations, and making children

responsible and competitive enough for society.

Authoritative parenting is high in both

demandingness and responsiveness, parents set clear

and reasonable standards for their children’s behavior

while being supportive and encouraging, explain the

reasons behind the rules and are willing to share

opinions with their children (Baumrind, 1991).

In Authoritarian parenting, which is high in

demandingness but low in responsiveness, parents

impose strict rules and expect obedience without

much explanation or flexibility, they often use

controlling methods such as scolding, corporal

punishment, and psychological control (Baumrind,

1991).

Indulgent (Permissive) parenting is marked by

low demandingness but high responsiveness. Parents

are lenient and often take on more of a friend role

rather than an authority figure. They have few

expectations for self-control and maturity from their

children (Baumrind, 1991).

Neglectful (Uninvolved) Parenting is

characterized by low demandingness and low

responsiveness, parents neither set behavioral

standards nor provide emotional support. They may

be insensitive to their children’s needs and emotional

reactions, leading to feelings of neglect for their

children emotionally and behaviorally (Baumrind,

1991).

Some scholars have also divided the parenting

style into different dimensions, such as warmth (such

as acceptance, displays of affection, and positive

feedback), behavioral control (such as enforcing

rules, setting regulations, and supervision), and

psychological control (such as invasiveness,

manipulation through guilt) (Barber et al., 2005). In

general, parental warmth and behavioral control are

associated with better psychosocial functioning (for

example, competence, self-regulation, and academic

success), whereas psychological control is associated

with impairments in psychosocial development

(Barber et al., 2005).

The Parenting Style Questionnaire (Egna Minnen

av Barndoms Uppfostran, or EMBU) was developed

by Swiss scholars in the 1980s to measure parents’

parenting styles. Respondents are asked to reflect on

their parents’ behavior toward them during their

upbringing (Perris et al., 1980). The standard version

of EMBU includes four primary dimensions:

Overprotection, Emotional Warmth, Rejection, and

Favoritism. EMBU has been revised and applied in

many countries because of its good reliability and

validity (Huang et al., 1996, Rapee, 1997).

2.2 Attachment Style

The attachment style is formed in infancy and early

childhood, it continues to influence individuals

throughout their whole lives. After birth, attachment

can be described as the special emotional bonding

between infants and their caregivers, such as the

immediate provision of water, food, and comfort

when the baby cries. As the individual develops and

becomes mature, the objects of attachment gradually

shift from parents to friends and romantic partners.

The patterns of emotional interaction in intimate

relationships are, to a significant extent, shaped by

early experiences during infancy.

Freud pointed out that the interaction of infants

with their parents affects human relationships in

adulthood (Freud, 1905). Harlow demonstrated,

through the “wire mother” and “cloth mother”

experiments, that maternal love requires emotional

care and not just physical satisfaction (Harlow, 1962).

Bowlby developed attachment theory on this basis,

emphasizing the importance of the safe base provided

by caregivers for emotional development (Bowlby,

1969). Ainsworth identified secure, avoidant, and

resistant attachment styles through the “unfamiliar

situation” experiment, further confirming the impact

of early parent-child interaction on subsequent

relationships (Ainsworth et al., 1978).

For adults, the distinguishing feature of

attachment relationships is that individuals will rely

on a specific person when they feel threatened or

insecure. People have a stable pattern of cognitions

about themselves, significant others, and

interpersonal relationships, which gradually become

part of their personality characteristics as they grow

up and fully socialize (Rholes, 2004).

APMM 2025 - International Conference on Applied Psychology and Marketing Management

384

2.3 Neuroticism

Personality traits quantify significant differences in a

person’s typical responses to their environment that

distinguish one person from another (Mischel, 2004).

Neuroticism personality traits refer to a relatively

stable tendency to react negatively emotionally to

threats, setbacks, or losses. There is considerable

variation among people in this trait, with some

individuals exhibiting frequent and intense emotional

reactions to minor difficulties, while others may show

little to no emotional response even in the face of

major adversities (Lahey, 2009). While the term

“neuroticism” originated from Freudian theory, as

well as in the historical philosophical and medical

traditions that underpin psychodynamic models, the

modern concept of “neurotic” has evolved. Today, it

is not linked to the concept of unconscious conflict

but is instead defined in purely descriptive,

psychometric terms.

Neuroticism can be characterized by a range of

attributes involving irritability, anger, sadness,

anxiety, worry, hostility, heightened self-awareness,

and emotional vulnerability. These traits have been

found to exhibit significant correlations with each

other through factor analysis (Costa & McCrae, 1992,

Goldberg, 1993). In addition, people with high

neuroticism are often inclined to be self-critical, feel

sensitive to criticism from others, and experience a

sense of personal insufficiency (Watson e al., 1994).

This dimension of personality, commonly known as

negative emotions or affectivity, is integrated into

almost all prominent personality trait models

(Matthews,2003). A common personality model is

the three-factor model (Eysenck,1991, Tellegen,

1982). A five-factor model has also been proposed

(Costa & McCrae, 1992, Goldberg, 1993, Zuckerman

et al., 1993).

An extensive review consistently shows that high

neuroticism is a critical contributor to the emergence

of depressive disorders (Ormel et al., 2013, Klein et

al., 2011). The DSM-5 emphasizes that neuroticism

serves as an influential component in the

development of major depression (American

Psychiatric Association, 2013). It is therefore

understandable that a person’s personality traits,

especially neuroticism, are strongly linked to the risk

or tendency to develop depression.

3 THE IMPACT OF PARENTAL

REARING STYLE ON

NEUROTICISM LEVEL

Over the past few years, many studies have been

dedicated to exploring the connection between

parenting styles and neuroticism. There are several

studies have generally shown that neuroticism,

irritability, distrust, hostility, and other forms of

negative emotions expressed in individuals are

associated with a lack of warmth and a tendency to

experience negative parenting, while agreeableness,

extroversion, and conscientiousness are associated

with more positive and adaptive parenting.

Neuroticism was positively associated with

retrospective recall of controlled parenting and

negatively associated with parental warmth (Reti et

al., 2002, Ayoub et al., 2019).

3.1 Empirical Studies Overview

Averina et al. carried out an online questionnaire

survey among 228 young individuals aged 18 to 25

residing in the Jakarta Metropolitan Area and

discovered that parental care and protection exerted a

significant influence on neuroticism levels (Averina

et al., 2021). Specifically, as the degree of parental

affection rose, neuroticism declined. Conversely, as

the level of overprotection increased, neuroticism

levels also rose, suggesting that parents have a crucial

impact on child development by providing positive

affirmation, love, and respect.

Ono et al. focused on 401 Japanese adult

volunteers and inquired about their neuroticism,

parenting style, and life experiences through a self-

filling questionnaire (Ono et al., 2017). The findings

indicated that inadequate parental nurturing coupled

with excessive parental overprotection during the

childhood period were found to elevate neuroticism

traits in adulthood, which in turn indirectly affected

depressive symptoms.

Yu et al. followed 290 European American

adolescents for 9 years to explore how adolescent

self-efficacy and parenting styles affect optimism and

neuroticism in early adulthood (Yu et al., 2019).

Studies have found that parental behaviors

characterized by heightened psychological control

and lax behavioral regulation can reduce adolescents’

self-efficacy, which in turn leads to decreased

optimism and heightened neuroticism during early

adulthood. Especially in an authoritarian family

environment, the warm influence of the mother may

be diminished by the authoritarian parenting style.

The Impact of Parenting Styles and Attachment Styles on Neuroticism Levels

385

This dynamic exacerbates adolescents’ sense of

helplessness and loss of control, thereby further

elevating their neuroticism levels.

In China, Qian Mingyi and Xia Guohua conducted

a study on 79 high school students and found that

parents’ severe punishment, overprotection, and

denial tendency were associated with their children’s

anxiety and worry emotional responses through

questionnaire survey (Qian & Xia, 1996). Liu Jinhong

conducted a study on 113 college students and found

that neuroticism was exhibited a positive correlation

with paternal refusal to deny, the mother’s excessive

interference and overprotection, and negatively

linked with paternal understanding and emotional

warmth (Liu, 2008).

Xu Dong conducted a study on 300 junior high

school students by using the Parenting Style

Assessment Scale(EMBU) and the State-Trait

Anxiety Scale(STAI) and found that children’s trait

anxiety level was negatively correlated with parents’

understanding of emotional warmth, while positively

correlated with father’s overprotection and mother’s

preference (Xu, 2002). The study also pointed out that

there were differences in parents’ parenting styles,

with fathers scoring higher on the factors of harshness

of punishment and preference, and mothers scoring

higher on the factors of denial and denial.

3.2 Summary of Findings

Through a thorough examination of these studies, it

becomes evident that there exists a notable

relationship between parenting styles and the levels

of neuroticism exhibited by individuals. Averina et al.

showed that the degree of parental care and protection

was inversely correlated with neuroticism, while

overprotection exhibited a direct positive correlation

with neuroticism. Ono et al. observed that insufficient

parental care combined with heightened

overprotection in childhood increased neuroticism

levels in adulthood and indirectly influenced

depressive symptoms. Yu et al. pointed out that

excessive psychological control and loose behavioral

control by parents can reduce adolescents’ self-

efficacy, which in turn affects levels of optimism and

neuroticism in early adulthood. Chinese studies have

also come to similar conclusions. For example, Qian

Mingyi and Xia Guohua found that severe

punishment and overprotection are related to

children’s anxiety and worry; Liu Jinhong and Xu

Dong also confirmed the positive or negative

correlation between different parenting styles and

children’s neuroticism. These studies have arrived at

a unified understanding regarding the general effect

of parenting style on neuroticism, but there are

differences in the specific mechanism and influencing

factors. For instance, Yu and colleagues highlighted

the mediating function of self-efficacy, while

alternative research endeavors have primarily

concentrated on the immediate consequences of

parenting styles themselves.

3.3 Methodological Considerations

The study broadly follows the questionnaire survey

approach. Online questionnaire survey tools were

utilized by Averina et al. , whereas self-filled

questionnaires and integrated multiple scales were

applied by Ono et al. for a broader evaluation. Yu et

al. used the design method of longitudinal tracking in

a scientific study, and the multiple surveys were

utilized to discover the area of dynamics between

variables. For instance, the Parenting Style Rating

Scale and the State Trait Anxiety Scale were

presented in questionnaires, as they were used by

Chinese researchers to measure the appropriate

variables.

3.4 Strengths and Limitations

These studies included people from different stages

of life and geographical locations, and the

heterogeneity of subjects constituted a significant

ground for discovering the particularity and

commonality of parenting styles’ influence on

neuroticism. The longitudinal study approach

increased the internal validity of the research and

afforded the opportunity to scrutinize the connection

between parenting styles and neuroticism in a more

rounded manner.

Nevertheless, some problems persist. To

illustrate, several studies that employ self-reported

measurement tools may be extremely prone to

subjective biases, which might be due to the power of

social expectations. Additionally, the sample may

have a trimmed representation collection and not be

able to generalize issues associated with different

cultural and social contexts. Furthermore, these

studies give less consideration to other factors, such

as genetics and environment.

In conclusion, these studies revealed the

significant impact of parenting style on neuroticism

level, but there were some limitations in study design,

sample selection, and methodology. Future research

should consider using more diversified methods, such

as experimental studies, genetic analysis, etc., to

improve precision and generalizability. Furthermore,

it will be worthwhile to delve deeper into the

APMM 2025 - International Conference on Applied Psychology and Marketing Management

386

underlying mechanism by which parenting style

influences neuroticism, considering the influence of

cultural and social background on parenting practice

and its effect, and how to optimize parenting

strategies to promote individual mental health will be

worthy of further discussion.

4 THE IMPACT OF

ATTACHMENT STYLE ON

NEUROTICISM LEVEL

4.1 Empirical Studies Overview

In the field of research on the effect of attachment

style on neuroticism, several articles have provided

valuable data and analysis in recent years.

First, in a 2009 study that looked at 274 Chinese

college students, Pu sought to reveal the link between

attachment, neurotic personality traits, and the

perception of social support (Pu, 2009). A series of

self-rating scales were used to evaluate the

psychological state of the participants. These scales

cover mood states, anxiety levels, social support,

attachment styles, and neurotic tendencies in

personality traits. In terms of attachment style, the

study adopts a three-dimensional model, which

covers three dimensions: secure attachment, avoidant

attachment, and anxious attachment. Through the

data collection of these scales, the study conducted a

detailed analysis of the relevant variables. The result

showed that insecure attachment was positively

correlated with neurotic personality, with social

support functioning as a mediator in this relationship.

The authors attempt to provide a psychopathological

explanation for the findings, pointing out that

neuroticism is the biogenetic basis for anxiety, while

early interaction experiences influence adult

attachment. Attachment theory suggests that

individuals’ early interactions with their parents

influence the formation of internal working models,

which subsequently impact their interpersonal

interactions and emotional regulation (Bowlby,

1977). Neuroticism, as a factor closely related to

biological mechanisms, may affect an individual’s

interactions with their parents, and thus their

attachment patterns, beginning in infancy. These two

factors work together on an individual’s mental

health, making them more prone to anxiety.

Subsequently, Crawford, Shaver, & Goldsmith

conducted a study involving 287 college students

with a highly racially diverse sample (Crawford et al.,

2007). This multicultural sample enabled a detailed

investigation into the attachment-neuroticism link

across different cultural settings. The present research

employed a cross-sectional design to gather data from

questionnaires. In terms of data analysis, multiple

regression analysis was applied to examine the

relationship between anxious attachment and

neuroticism, as well as to explore the moderating

factors of conscientiousness and avoidant attachment.

The study results indicated that the relationship

between anxious attachment and neuroticism was not

simply linear, conscientiousness and avoidant

attachment showed their moderating effects on this

relationship. Specifically, high conscientiousness

weakened the association between neuroticism and

anxious attachment, while low conscientiousness

strengthened it. Additionally, the effects of avoidant

attachment on anxious attachment differed at

different neurotic levels: at high neurotic levels,

avoidant attachment could reduce anxious

attachment; at low neuroticism levels, avoidance of

attachment actually increased anxious attachment.

The study highlights the importance of emotional

regulation in understanding the relationship between

attachment and personality, with neuroticism having

less impact on anxious attachment when people are

better able to control their emotions. People with

anxious attachment may have elevated levels of

anxiety as a result of their inability to regulate their

emotions effectively, while people with stronger

emotional regulation are better able to control anxious

attachment regardless of their neurotic level.

Although the study considered multiple moderating

factors, its cross-sectional design still could not

determine causation, and the sample, while diverse,

was largely concentrated in the United States and may

not be fully representative of attachment and neurotic

relationships in other cultural contexts around the

globe.

Next, Crawford, Livesley, Jang, Shaver, Cohen,

& Ganiban studied 239 pairs of twins from the

Vancouver area of Canada (Crawford et al., 2007).

The advantage of twin studies is that they can better

understand the relationship between attachment and

personality disorders by isolating genetic and

environmental factors. Factor analysis and twin

model analysis were used to investigate the

relationship between anxious attachment, avoidant

attachment, 11 personality disorder dimensions

(emotional dysregulation), and 4 personality disorder

dimensions (inhibitiveness). The researchers also

used the Attachment Style Inventory (ECR) and the

Personality Disorders Questionnaire (PDQ-IV). The

results showed that anxious attachment was

associated with 11 personality disorder dimensions

The Impact of Parenting Styles and Attachment Styles on Neuroticism Levels

387

(emotional dysregulation), while avoidant attachment

was associated with 4 personality disorder

dimensions (inhibition). This suggests a strong link

between anxious attachment and mood dysregulation,

while avoidance attachment is associated with

inhibitory behaviour. Mood disorders are a broadly

defined dimension of personality disorders closely

related to neuroticism (Jang & Livesley, 1999,

Schroeder et al., 2002). Therefore, this study further

supports the relationship between attachment and

neuroticism. Although twin studies were able to

separate genetic and environmental factors, the

sample size was relatively small and limited to a

specific geographic area, potentially limiting the

generality of the findings. In addition, the study

focused on the personality disorder dimension rather

than directly measuring neuroticism, so caution is

needed in interpreting the relationship between

attachment and neuroticism.

Finally, Yu and Li investigated 160 college

students, with the samples encompassing students of

diverse genders and majors, concentrating on the

relationship between adult attachment behaviors and

personality traits of Chinese college students (Yu &

Li, 2015). The study was carried out using the Adult

Intimate Relationship Questionnaire (ECR) and the

Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ). To

explore the relationship between attachment anxiety,

attachment avoidance, and personality traits, the

Pearson correlation analysis was used for data

analysis. The results clearly show that attachment

insecurity, both anxiety and avoidance, were

correlated with low levels of extraversion, whereas

neuroticism and psychoticism personality traits were

positively associated with attachment anxiety and

attachment avoidance. This implies that individuals

with insecure attachment (high scores of attachment

anxiety and attachment avoidance) are more prone to

exhibit high neuroticism and psychopathic traits,

while individuals with low attachment anxiety and

avoidance are more likely to display high extroverted

traits.

4.2 Summary of Findings

Taken collectively, the four studies probed into the

relationship between attachment and neuroticism.

Despite the samples being derived from different

countries and regions, all studies discovered a

significant positive correlation between attachment

anxiety, attachment avoidance, and neuroticism.

Nevertheless, Crawford et al. argued the importance

of emotion regulation techniques in the connection

between attachment and neuroticism is further

enhanced. The link between attachment and

neuroticism is widely accepted, and insecure

attachment, particularly attachment anxiety and

attachment avoidance, largely correlates with the

experience of high levels of neuroticism. Thus, it can

be inferred that the default attachment patterns that

were built during the early childhood years strongly

determine the emotional integration and mental

stability of the individual throughout their life. Future

research should address the causality between

attachment and neuroticism, with belief to work in the

mechanism of emotion-regulation strategies.

Additionally, cross-cultural research and longitudinal

design will contribute to a more comprehensive

comprehension of this complex relationship. Future

research could consider longitudinal designs to

explore how attachment affects neuroticism levels

over time by tracking the development of individuals

from childhood to adulthood; cross-cultural

comparisons should be made and similar studies

replicated in different cultural contexts to test the

universality of the relationship between attachment

and neuroticism; experimental intervention studies

should be designed to explore whether improving

attachment quality can effectively reduce neuroticism

levels, especially in high-risk populations; self-

reports, observational methods, and physiological

measures (e.g., heart rate variability, cortisol levels,

etc.) should be combined to obtain more

comprehensive data. The effect of attachment on

neuroticism is a complex and multi-dimensional

issue, involving multiple levels of biology,

psychology, and socioculture. Through a

comprehensive analysis of existing studies, a deeper

understanding of the relationship between attachment

and neuroticism can be gained and a theoretical basis

can be provided for future interventions and

treatments. Future research should continue to

explore the unknown areas of this field, with a view

to providing more scientific support for promoting the

mental health of individuals.

5 DISCUSSION AND

SUGGESTION

Consistent research indicates that there is a close

connection between parenting styles and neuroticism.

Authoritative parenting, characterized by high

responsiveness and high demandingness, has been

found to be associated with lower levels of

neuroticism and concurrently promotes the

development of self-esteem, autonomy, and

APMM 2025 - International Conference on Applied Psychology and Marketing Management

388

emotional regulation skills. In contrast, authoritarian

and neglectful parenting styles, respectively marked

by low responsiveness and high demandingness, as

well as low responsiveness and low demandingness,

are correlated with higher levels of neuroticism and

can result in feelings of insecurity, low self-esteem,

and poor emotional regulation capabilities, thereby

elevating neuroticism levels.

Attachment types also play a vital role in the

development of neuroticism. Secure attachment,

characterized by trust and comfort in close

relationships, is associated with lower degrees of

neuroticism. Individuals with this type of attachment

are capable of exploring the world with confidence

and effectively coping with stress. Conversely,

insecure attachment types, including anxious and

avoidant attachments, are associated with higher

levels of neuroticism. These attachment types are

characterized by a lack of trust and comfort in

relationships, leading to anxiety, insecurity, and

difficulties in emotional regulation.

It is worth mentioning that warm, supportive, and

responsive parents can cultivate secure attachment,

which, in turn, contributes to better emotional

regulation and a reduction in neuroticism. Therefore,

parents should set clear expectations for their children

while providing emotional support during the

upbringing process, avoiding overprotection and

fostering independence. Additionally, parents should

consciously teach children effective emotional

regulation skills, such as recognizing, expressing, and

managing their own emotions, as well as how to use

effective strategies to cope with emotional problems.

Parents should consistently respond to their

children’s needs and provide assistance, establishing

a safe and intimate relationship with their children

and creating a reliable environment for their growth,

where children feel loved and respected, promoting

the development of healthy personality traits and

reducing the risk of anxiety disorders and other

mental health problems.

6 CONCLUSION

This article examines an interrelated model of

parenting styles, attachment styles, and neuroticism

levels, pointing out the fact that children’s early life

experiences significantly become the basis for later

personality formation and mental health. More

precisely, authoritative parenting styles and securely

attached relationships are deemed to be the referent

pillars both to lower neuroticism and to develop self-

regulation, self-esteem, and mental resilience. Thus,

on the contrary, authoritarian, neglectful parenting

styles, and insecure attachment relationships attest to

the higher degree of neuroticism and show a direct

connection with anxiety, mood disorders, and other

mental illnesses.

The research outcomes provide pertinent notions

in the field of practice and future studies.

Interventions targeting parenting styles and

attachment styles can effectively reduce neuroticism

levels and enhance mental health. These interventions

may include the improvement of regulation of

emotions, the development of constructive

communication, and the establishment of a secure

relationship.

All in all, clarifying the decisive role that

parenting styles and attachment styles play in an

individual’s neuroticism level can assist parents and

educators in creating a superior nurturing

environment for children and also enable adults to

comprehend the shaping process of their own

personality, thereby facilitating better self-

acceptance, timely awareness of their mental state

and making adjustments, to embrace a healthier self

in the future.

REFERENCES

N. Darling & L. Steinberg. Parenting style as context: An

integrative model. Psychol. Bull., 113(3), 487–496

(1993).

D. Baumrind. Current patterns of parental authority. Dev.

Psychol., 4(1p2), 1 (1971).

E. E. McCoby. Socialization in the context of the family:

Parent-child interaction. Handb. Child Psychol., 4, 1–

101 (1983).

D. Baumrind. The influence of parenting style on

adolescent competence and substance use. J. Early

Adolesc., 11(1), 56–95 (1991).

B. K. Barber, H. E. Stolz, J. A. Olsen, W. A. Collins & M.

Burchinal. Parental support, psychological control, and

behavioral control: Assessing relevance across time,

culture, and method. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev., i–

147 (2005).

C. Perris, L. Jacobsson, H. Linndström, L. von Knorring &

H. Perris. Development of a new inventory for

assessing memories of parental rearing behaviour. Acta

Psychiatr. Scand., 61(4), 265–274 (1980).

Y. Huang, T. Someya, S. Takahashi, C. Reist & S. W. Tang.

A pilot evaluation of the EMBU Scale in Japan and the

USA. Acta Psychiatr. Scand., 94(6), 445–448 (1996).

R. M. Rapee. Potential role of childrearing practices in the

development of anxiety and depression. Clin. Psychol.

Rev., 17(1), 47–67 (1997).

S. Freud. Three essays on the theory of sexuality. Se., 7,

125–243 (1905).

The Impact of Parenting Styles and Attachment Styles on Neuroticism Levels

389

H. F. Harlow. Development of affection in primates. Roots

Behav. Genet. Instinct Soc. Animal Behav. (1962).

J. Bowlby. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New

York, NY: Basic Books. (1969).

M. D. S. Ainsworth, M. C. Blehar, E. Waters & S. Wall.

Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the

strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (1978).

W. S. Rholes. Adult attachment: Theory, research, and

clinical implications. Guilford Publish. (2004).

W. Mischel. Toward an integrative science of the person.

Annu. Rev. Psychol., 55(1), 1–22 (2004).

B. B. Lahey. Public health significance of neuroticism. Am.

Psychol., 64(4), 241 (2009).

P. T. Costa Jr. & R. R. McCrae. Four ways five factors are

basic. Pers. Individ. Dif., 13(6), 653–665 (1992).

L. R. Goldberg. The structure of phenotypic personality

traits. Am. Psychol., 48(1), 26 (1993).

D. Watson, L. A. Clark & A. R. Harkness. Structures of

personality and their relevance to psychopathology. J.

Abnorm. Psychol., 103(1), 18 (1994).

G. Matthews. Personality traits. Cambridge Univ. Press.

(2003).

H. J. Eysenck. Dimensions of personality: The biosocial

approach to personality. In Explor. Temper. Int.

Perspect. Theory Meas., 87–103. Boston, MA: Springer

US. (1991).

A. Tellegen. Brief manual for the multidimensional

personality questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript,

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 8, 1031–1010

(1982).

M. Zuckerman, D. M. Kuhlman, J. Joireman, P. Teta & M.

Kraft. A comparison of three structural models for

personality: the big three, the big five, and the

alternative five. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 65(4), 757

(1993).

J. Ormel, B. F. Jeronimus, R. Kotov, H. Riese, E. H. Bos,

B. Hankin, ... & A. J. Oldehinkel. Neuroticism and

common mental disorders: Meaning and utility of a

complex relationship. Clin. Psychol. Rev., 33(5), 686–

697 (2013).

D. N. Klein, R. Kotov & S. J. Bufferd. Personality and

depression: explanatory models and review of the

evidence. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol., 7(1), 269–295

(2011).

American Psychiatric Association, D. S. M. T. F. &

American Psychiatric Association, D. S. Diagnostic and

statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5.

Washington, DC: American psychiatric association

(2013).

I. M. Reti, J. F. Samuels, W. W. Eaton, O. J. Bienvenu III,

P. T. Costa Jr. & G. Nestadt. Influences of parenting on

normal personality traits. Psychiatry Res., 111(1), 55–

64 (2002).

M. Ayoub, D. A. Briley, A. Grotzinger, M. W. Patterson,

L. E. Engelhardt, J. L. Tackett, ... & E. M. Tucker-Drob.

Genetic and environmental associations between child

personality and parenting. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci.,

10(6), 711–721 (2019).

G. C. Averina, Y. A. Zhafira, C. B. Corinna, J. L. B.

Emmanuela & M. P. Sari. The Role of Parenting Styles

on Neuroticism in Young Adults. In Int. Conf. Econ.

Bus. Social Humanities (ICEBSH 2021), 1076–1083.

Atlantis Press (2021).

Y. Ono, Y. Takaesu, Y. Nakai, M. Ichiki, J. Masuya, I.

Kusumi & T. Inoue. The influence of parental care and

overprotection, neuroticism and adult stressful life

events on depressive symptoms in the general adult

population. J. Affect. Disord., 217, 66–72 (2017).

J. Yu, D. L. Putnick, C. Hendricks & M. H. Bornstein.

Long-Term Effects of Parenting and Adolescent Self-

Competence for the Development of Optimism and

Neuroticism. J. Youth Adolesc., 48(8), 1544 (2019).

M. Qian & G. Xia. A study on the relationship between

adolescent personality and parenting style. Chin. Ment.

Health J., 10(2), 58–59 (1996).

J. Liu. The relationship between college students’

personality traits, parenting styles, and their

achievement motivation. Chin. J. Health Psychol., 157–

159 (2008).

D. Xu. Analysis of factors related to parenting styles and

children’s anxiety levels. Chin. Ment. Health J., 16(9),

631–632 (2002).

W. Pu. A study on the relationship between college

students’ adult attachment, perceived social support,

neuroticism, and anxiety (Doctoral dissertation).

Central South University, Changsha, China (2009).

J. Bowlby. The making and breaking of affectional bonds:

II. Some principles of psychotherapy: The Fiftieth

Maudsley Lecture (expanded version). Br. J.

Psychiatry., 130(5), 421–431 (1977).

T. N. Crawford, P. R. Shaver & H. H. Goldsmith. How

affect regulation moderates the association between

anxious attachment and neuroticism. Attachment Hum.

Dev., 9(2), 95–109 (2007).

T. N. Crawford, W. J. John Livesley, K. L. Jang, P. R.

Shaver, P. Cohen & J. Ganiban. Insecure attachment

and personality disorder: A twin study of adults. Eur. J.

Pers., 21(2), 191–208 (2007).

K. L. Jang & W. J. Livesley. Why do measures of normal

and disordered personality correlate? A study of genetic

comorbidity. J. Pers. Disord., 13(1), 10–17 (1999).

M. L. Schroeder, J. A. Wormworth & W. J. Livesley.

Dimensions of personality disorder and the five-factor

model of personality. J. Pers. Disord., 16(3), 234–250

(2002).

T. Yu & M. Li. A study on the correlation between college

students’ adult attachment behavior and personality

traits. China Market, (32), 196–197 (2015).

APMM 2025 - International Conference on Applied Psychology and Marketing Management

390