Parents' and Children's Perceptions of Parental Behavior: Associations with Children's Psychosocial Adjustment in the Classroom

This article was downloaded by: [University of Bath]On: 19 November 2014, At: 07:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Parenting: Science and PracticePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpar20

Parents' and Children'sPerceptions of ParentalBehavior: Associations withChildren's PsychosocialAdjustment in the ClassroomNoni K. Gaylord , Katherine M. Kitzmann & JenniferK. ColemanPublished online: 18 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Noni K. Gaylord , Katherine M. Kitzmann & Jennifer K. Coleman(2003) Parents' and Children's Perceptions of Parental Behavior: Associations withChildren's Psychosocial Adjustment in the Classroom, Parenting: Science and Practice,3:1, 23-47, DOI: 10.1207/S15327922PAR0301_02

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327922PAR0301_02

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpar20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1207/S15327922PAR0301_02

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327922PAR0301_02

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Parents’ and Children’s Perceptionsof Parental Behavior: Associations

with Children’s PsychosocialAdjustment in the Classroom

Noni K. Gaylord, Katherine M. Kitzmann,and Jennifer K. Coleman

SYNOPSIS

Objective. We examined correspondence in parents’ and children’s perceptionsofparentingandassociationsbetweentheseperceptionsandchildren’ssocialad-justment in the classroom. Design. The sample included 214 children (M age = 9)from third to fifth grades and their parents. Children and parents reported onparenting behavior. Results. Parents’ self-reports and children’s reports aboutparents showed systematic differences, with parents perceiving themselves asmoresupportivethanchildrenperceivedthemtobe.Directionofdiscrepancybe-tween child and parent reports appeared to be more important than size of dis-crepancy in predicting child outcomes. Hierarchical regression analyses showedthat parents’ self-perceptions of parenting and children’s perceptions ofparenting were predictive of different measures of child psychosocial adjust-ment.Conclusions.Theresultsof thisstudysupport theassumptionthatparents’self-perceptionsandchildren’sperceptionsofparentingprovideuniqueviewsofthe family and unique relations to children’s psychosocial adjustment.

INTRODUCTION

Extensive research has demonstrated associations between parentingquality and children’s social adjustment in the peer domain (Ladd, 1992;Mize, Russell, & Pettit, 1998). This line of research is important, both be-cause the development of successful peer relationships is a major task ofchildhood, and because problematic peer relationships have been identi-fied as a risk factor for both concurrent and long-term difficulties inpsychosocial adjustment (Cohn, Patterson, & Christopoulos, 1991; Parker& Asher, 1987). However, a major limitation of this research is that par-enting is typically assessed only from the perspective of parents or observ-ers. When children’s perceptions of parenting are assessed, their reports

PARENTING: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE Copyright © 2003, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.January–March 2003 Volume 3 Number 1 Pages 23–47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

are often integrated with those of multiple informants (Tein, Roosa, & Mi-chaels, 1994), rather than being considered in their own right. In this study,we examined the relative importance of parent and child reports ofparenting as predictors of children’s psychosocial adjustment in the class-room — sociometric status, internalizing and externalizing behavior. Weincluded internalizing and externalizing behavior because past child de-velopment research has shown that these behaviors contribute signifi-cantly to problematic peer relationships (Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994; Waas& Graczyk, 1999).

In the following sections, three areas of research are reviewed as back-ground to this study: research on the influences of parenting on children’spsychosocial adjustment, research on children’s perceptions of parenting,and research on the discrepancies between children’s and parents’ reportsof parenting. Next, we describe the small number of studies that have usedboth children’s and parents’ perceptions of parenting as predictors of chil-dren’s peer relationships and behaviors. This study extends these earlierstudies.

Influences of Parenting on Children’s Outcomes

Parents can have both direct and indirect influences on children’s peerrelationships and behavior in the peer context. Parents directly influencechildren’s peer relationships and behavior by intentionally controllingpeer-related activities and through attempts to enhance children’s skillswith peers (Ladd, 1991; Ladd & Pettit, 2002) by organizing features of a so-cial environment, providing access to play partners, choosing types ofplaymates, and by planning and supervising children’s interactions withpeers (Ladd, Profilet, & Hart, 1992). Parents also indirectly affect children’speer relationships through behaviors that do not target peer relationships,but nevertheless can promote or hinder children’s social competence withpeers. Indirect influences include attachment quality, family emotional cli-mate, parental support and control, disciplinary strategies, and parentingbeliefs (Ladd, 1991). Both direct and indirect influences are related to chil-dren’s social adjustment (Dekovic & Janssens, 1992; Mize & Pettit, 1997;Russell & Finnie, 1990).

Much of the research on parenting’s indirect influences on children’s so-cial competence is concerned with parenting styles, as reflected by affectiveaspectsofparenting,disciplinepatterns,andoverallqualityofparent–childinteractions (Mize et al., 1998). Aquilino (1986) noted that factor analytic in-vestigations of inventories for assessing children’s perceptions of parentinghave consistently found three factors, all of which have been shown to be re-lated to children’s peer and behavioral outcomes: (1) global positive versus

24 GAYLORD, KITZMANN, COLEMAN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

negative affect, conceptualized as parental love and support versus rejec-tion and hostility; (2) covert or psychological control reflecting achievementdemands and affective punishment; and (3) punitive discipline.

Parents who are warm, supportive, and responsive have children whohave higher peer sociometric standings and lower teacher-rated exter-nalizing problems; whereas parents who are coercive, controlling, de-manding, use harsh discipline strategies, and show less warmth have chil-dren with lower peer sociometric standings (Clark & Ladd, 2000; Dishion,1990; Hart, DeWolf, Wozniak, & Burts, 1992) and higher teacher-ratedexternalizing problems in the classroom (Hart, Nelson, Robinson, Olsen, &McNeilly-Choque, 1998; Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 1997). Coercive, control-ling parenting and harsh discipline strategies have been shown to predictchildren’s internalizing difficulties (Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, 1994; Mar-chand & Hock, 1998) although this result has not been found in all studies(e.g., Johnson, Cowan, & Cowan, 1999; Weiss, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1992).

Children’s Perceptions of Parenting

It is important to note that most of these conclusions about the associa-tion between parenting style and children’s psychosocial adjustment arebased on parent or observer reports of parenting. It is important also toconsider children’s perceptions of parenting as predictors of children’s ad-justment, as children’s perceptions may influence how they respond toparenting and, in turn, how they interact with other children (Dunn, 1993).One way that children’s perceptions of parent behavior can impact behav-ior with peers is through a process of modeling, with children imitating be-haviors that parents model during parent – child interactions (Putallaz,1987). Children’s perceptions of parent behavior may also impact peer re-lationships by way of generalized expectations about social relationshipsthat may in turn impact how children behave toward other children.

Indeed, children’s perceptions of parenting have been shown to be re-latedtochildren’spsychosocial adjustment with thedirection of theassocia-tion dependent on the dimension of parenting being rated — for example,children’s perceptions of parental support tend to be associated with morepositive child outcomes, and children’s perceptions of parental rejectiontend to be associated with more negative child outcomes. Research hasshown that children’s perceptions of parenting are related to psychosocialmeasures such as sociability among peers (Mboya, 1996; Rigby, 1993), inter-nalizingandexternalizingproblemsintheclassroom(Anan&Barnett,1999;Fincham, Beach, Arias, & Brody, 1998), aggression with peers (MacKinnon-Lewis, Starnes, Volling, & Johnson, 1997), and peer rejection and popularitywith peers (Cox, 1974; C. J. Patterson, Kupersmidt, & Griesler, 1990).

CHILDREN’S PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTAL BEHAVIOR 25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Research Examining Discrepancies Between Children’sand Parents’ Reports of Parenting

Researchers have addressed several questions related to associations be-tween children’s perceptions of parenting and children’s psychosocial ad-justment. First, do children’s perceptions of parenting actually provide in-formation that is different from what could be learned about parenting fromother sources? Although most research has assessed parenting using parentself-reports or observer ratings, questionnaire studies show that children’sperceptionsofparentingoftendiffersignificantly fromthoseofadults (Gon-zales, Cauce, & Mason, 1996; Muris, Bogels, Meesters, van der Kamp, & vanOosten, 1996; Pierce & Klein, 1982). In addition, child age and gender havebeen found to contribute to variation in how children versus parents viewparenting (Rigby, 1993; Tein et al., 1994).

Second, what are the implications for children’s outcomes when parentsand children show discrepancies in their reports of parenting? Develop-mental theories suggest that parent – adolescent discrepancies in percep-tions of parenting reflect adolescents’ need for greater independence andseparateness and are developmentally appropriate (Maccoby & Martin,1983). A number of studies based on this view have shown that adoles-cents’ perceptions differ from parents’ self-perceptions (Cohen & Rice,1997; Feinberg, Howe, Reiss, & Hetherington, 2000; Gonzales et al., 1996;Noller & Callan, 1988) and that these discrepancies are related to adoles-cent outcomes (Carlson, Cooper, & Spradling, 1991; Holmbeck & O’Don-nell, 1991; Paikoff, Carlton-Ford, & Brooks-Gunn, 1993).

Because the need for autonomy and separateness from parents is lessdevelopmentally salient in childhood than in adolescence, divergent par-ent – child perceptions may indicate greater problems than would diver-gent parent – adolescent perceptions. Two perspectives can frame predic-tions in these cases. Family systems theorists have proposed that a lack ofcorrespondence in parent and child may reflect family disorganization anda lack of cohesion, and thus would predict more negative child outcomes(Minuchin, 1985). For example, Scherer, Melloh, Buyck, Anderson, andFoster (1996) found that more parent – child disagreement about parentingwas related to more behavior problems and less social competence. Ac-cording to this perspective, the size of discrepancies in either direction(i.e., parents’ self-report scores higher than children’s scores, or children’sscores higher than parents’ self-report scores) would predict more negativeoutcomes for children. An alternative perspective focuses on the idea that,if children’s perceptions of parenting affect children’s outcomes, then thedirection of the discrepancy would be important for predicting child out-comes. For example, East (1991) found that withdrawn children tended toprovide higher ratings of maternal support than mothers provided, and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

aggressive children tended to provide lower ratings of maternal supportthan mothers provided. By contrast, Edens, Cavell, and Hughes (1999)found that aggressive children tended to provide higher ratings of mater-nal support relative to mothers’ self-reports. No previous studies of chil-dren have examined which view of discrepancies is most relevant (i.e.,whether the size or the direction of the discrepancy is more salient).

Research Examining Children’s Versus Parents’ Perceptionsof Parenting as Predictors of Children’s Outcomes

Third, what is the relative value of child versus parent reports in pre-dicting child outcomes? Researchers interested in this question note that,rather than determine which source of information is more “accurate,”research should address what different sources of information revealabout the child’s functioning in particular areas or contexts (Achenbach,McConaughy, & Howell, 1987). Unlike the adolescent literature, only ahandful of published studies on middle childhood have directly comparedchildren’s and parents’ perceptions of parenting as predictors of children’speer relationships and psychosocial behavior. Serot and Teevan (1961)found that children’s perceptions of the parent – child relationship, but notparents’ reports, predicted child personal and social adjustment scores,with the highest level of adjustment found among children who perceivedthe parent – child relationship to be happy and close to ideal. Similarly,Roff, Sells, and Golden (1972) found that children’s reports of parental af-fection showed a stronger positive correlation with peer acceptance thandid parents’ self-reports. Finally, Michaels, Messe, and Stollak (1983) foundthat the relation between adaptive play and other parenting dimensionsdepended on who was reporting on the parenting. For example, children’sadaptive play was negatively related to parents’ self-reported use of pun-ishment, but positively related to children’s reports of parental punish-ment. In sum, the results of these three studies suggest that children’s andparents’ perceptions of parenting may differ in their association with chil-dren’s social behavior. In some cases, children’s reports are more predic-tive of child outcomes. In other cases, both child and parent reports are as-sociated with child outcomes, but in different ways.

This Research

The research reviewed earlier suggests that different information maybe gained from children’s and parents’ reports of parenting style. Thisstudy expands on this earlier research in several ways. First, parenting wasassessed on several dimensions (support, covert control, and punitive dis-cipline) that, as mentioned earlier, have consistently been found to account


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

for the structure of parental behavior. Second, information was collectedfrom and about both the mother and the father in each family. Third, chil-dren’s psychosocial adjustment (i.e., internalizing, externalizing, and ac-ceptance by peers) was assessed based on reports from teachers and peersto avoid problems associated with shared method variance when the samerater describes both parenting and child outcomes. Finally, both be-tween-group and within-group analyses were conducted to examine sys-tematic differences in parents’ and children’s perceptions as well aswithin-family discrepancies in parent and child reports.

As a first hypothesis, we predicted that children’s and parents’ reportswould show significant discrepancies, consistent with other research (Mi-chaels et al., 1983; Roff et al., 1972; Serot & Teevan, 1961). Age and genderwere included in tests of the first hypothesis, but because no consistent pat-terns have emerged in earlier research with age and gender, no specific pre-dictions were made. Our second hypothesis looked more closely at the sizeof the discrepancies and predicted that discrepancies in children’s and par-ents’ reports of parenting would be associated with more negative child out-comes, consistent with the family systems idea that lack of correspondencereflectsmaladaptive family interactionpatterns (Minuchin,1985).Our thirdhypothesis was that the association between parent – child discrepanciesandchildoutcomeswouldbemoderatedbythedirectionof thediscrepancy.That is, the implications of low parent – child agreement for children’s peeroutcomes would depend on whether it was the child or parent providinghigh ratings of the parenting dimension being evaluated. Finally, our fourthhypothesis was that children’s reports of parenting would be stronger pre-dictorsofchildren’soutcomesthanwouldbeparents’self-reportsofparenting.

We tested these hypotheses in a sample of children in middle childhood.This is an important age group in which to test hypotheses about family –peer links, as peer relationships take on critical importance during middlechildhood (Berndt & Ladd, 1989; Gottman & Mettetal, 1986). It is also a pe-riod when parents begin to have less direct influence on children’s socialinteractions with peers, so that the indirect influences of parenting becomemore salient (Bhavnagri & Parke, 1991; G. R. Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984). Children in this age group are also old enough to report reli-ably on their perceptions of parent behavior.

METHODS

Participants

Participants in this study were 214 school-aged children (M age = 9.41,SD = 1.00) and their parents. Children were from the same public school


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

district in the Southern region of the United States. Of the 214 children, 62were third graders (M age = 8.46, SD = .80), 79 were fourth graders (M age= 9.34, SD = .69), and 73 were fifth graders (M age = 10.30, SD = .56). Thesample consisted of 109 boys (51%) and 105 girls (49%). In addition, thesample was approximately 43% European American (n = 91), 57% AfricanAmerican (n = 121), and 1% other (n = 2). The families were from a ruralarea and were selected from schools in which 80% to 100% of children re-ceived free or reduced lunch, indicating predominantly lower socioeco-nomic status.

Measures

Cornell Parent Behavior Inventory (CPBI; Devereux, Bronfenbrenner, &Rodgers, 1969). This measure is a 30-item self-report inventory on whichchildren use a 5-point Likert scale to indicate how frequently their parentsshow behaviors related to 14 parenting domains. Children completed thescale once describing mother’s parenting and once describing father’sparenting. Confirmatory factor analysis (Aquilino, 1986) has shown thatthe 14 domain scores are associated with three major factors: support (“Mymother or father comforts and helps me when I have troubles.”), covert con-trol (“When I do something my mother or father does not like, they act hurtand disappointed.”), and discipline (“My mother or father scolds me.”),with internal consistency ranging from .70 to .82. These three major factorsare consistent with factors identified for the original version (Siegelman,1965). Also, as reported in Devereux, Bronfenbrenner, and Rodgers (1969),responses of English and American children to the CPBI were consistentwith observational measures of parent – child interactions in both cultures.For this study, the CPBI was modified for parents to self-report on the samechildrearing attitudes and behaviors reported on by the child (e.g., “I com-fort and help my child when he/she has troubles.”).

Two examiners were present to provide instructions for each question-naire, answer questions, and monitor the progress of each child. An exam-iner also read each question aloud as children followed along, to ensure thatchildren understood the content of the items. Parent forms were sent homewith the children. Parents completed the forms according to instructions pre-sentedinacoverletter,whichindicatedthatparentalparticipationwasvolun-tary. Completed forms were returned to school with the children. The overallreturn rate for parent forms was approximately 50%. From the completedformsreturned,all two-parentfamilies(n=214)wereselectedforthisstudy.

Confirmatory factor analysis showed a three-factor solution for moth-ers’ reports, almost identical to the factors of support, control, and disci-pline found for child reports. For fathers’ reports, a two-factor solution


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

emerged; the support factor was identical to the support factor found inchild reports, but control and discipline items loaded together. Althoughfather reports showed a two-factor solution, these scores were analyzed interms of three factors to maintain symmetry (i.e., three scales for each re-porter) among the various scales. Alpha reliability coefficients for the scalescores were as follows: for children’s reports about mothers, .76 for sup-port, .68 for control, and .75 for discipline; for children’s reports about fa-thers, .85 for support, .74 for control, and .83 for discipline; for mothers’self-reports, .69 for support, .64 for control, and .73 for discipline; and forfathers’ self-reports, .79 for support, .65 for control, and .77 for discipline.

Teacher Report Form (TRF; Achenbach, 1991). Children’s classroom beha-viors were assessed using the Externalizing and Internalizing scales of theTRF, designed for teachers and teachers’ aides to assess the school behaviorof children ages 5 to 18. Teachers used a true, sort of true, or not true responseformattoratealistof113problembehavior items, formingtwooverallscalesfor externalizing and internalizing, both used in the analyses for this study.The externalizing scale is composed of two subscales: aggressive behaviorand delinquent behavior. The internalizing scale is composed of threesubscales: withdrawn, somatic complaints, and anxious – depressed. Thereliability of this measure is well established (Achenbach, 1991). Teacherswere given the questionnaires to complete for each child in the classroom.Teachers completed the forms according to instructions presented in a coverletter, which indicated that participation was voluntary. Teachers who com-pleted the forms for all students in the classroom were paid $25.

Sociometric ratings were obtained by giving children a class roster with abox beside each student’s name. Children were instructed to rate howmuch they like each student in their class based on a rating scale of 1 (verylow liking) to 6 (very high liking). To assist the children in understanding therating scale, a series of six glasses with increasing amounts of liquid waspictured below the class roster, with the numbers 1 through 6 beneath theglasses. An average acceptance score was then calculated for each child,based on the ratings provided by all classmates.

RESULTS

Descriptive Analyses

Correlations within and between reporters were conducted. Table 1shows the correlations within child reports of parental behavior (i.e., childabout mother and child about father). All nine correlations were signifi-cant and in the positive direction, ranging from .14 to .65. Table 1 also


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

shows the correlations within parent self-reports of behavior (i.e., motherself-reports and father self-reports). Mothers’ self-reports of support werepositively related to fathers’ self-reports of support. Mothers’ self-reportsof control were positively related to fathers’ self-reports of control and dis-cipline, and mothers’ self-reports of discipline were positively related tofathers’ self-reports of control and discipline.

The correlations between children’s reports of mothers’ behavior andmothers’ self-reports are presented in Table 2. Child reports of maternalsupport and control were both significantly correlated with mothers’ self-


TABLE 1Correlations Within Child Reports of Parental Behaviorand Correlations Within Parent Self-Reports of Behavior

Mothers’ Behavior

Child Report Mother Self-Report

Fathers’ Behavior Support Control Discipline Support Control Discipline

Child reportSupport .58*** .47*** .15* — — —Control .46*** .65*** .29*** — — —Discipline .14* .33*** .58*** — — —

Father self-reportSupport — — — .42*** .09 –.05Control — — — –.01 .69*** .24**Discipline — — — –.08 .29*** .67**

Note. The measure of parenting was the Cornell Parent Behavior Inventory, n = 214.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

TABLE 2Correlations Between Children’s Reports

of Parents’ Behavior and Parents’ Self-Reports

Child Report Support Control Discipline

Mother reportSupport .14* .14* .05Control .10 .12 .04Discipline –.03 –.01 .11

Father reportSupport .24** .16* .14*Control .02 .15* .12Discipline –.01 –.07 .18**

Note. The measure of parenting was the Cornell Parent Behavior Inventory, n = 214.*p < .05. **p < .01 .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

report of support. Correlations between reporters were low, ranging from.01 to .14. The correlations between child reports of fathers’ behavior andfathers’ self-reports are also presented in Table 2. The results showed posi-tive correlations between child reports of paternal support and fathers’self-reports of support, child reports of parental control and fathers’ self-reports of support and control, and child reports of discipline and fathers’self-reports of support and discipline. Correlations between reporters werelow, ranging from .01 to .24.

Hypothesis 1: Children’s and Parents’ ReportsWill Show Significant Discrepancies

To test for systematic differences between children’s reports of parentalbehavior and parents’ self-reports, the three CPBI factor scores (support,control, and discipline) were used as dependent measures in a 2 (gender ofchild) × 3 (grade level: 3, 4, 5) × 4 (reporter) multivariate analysis of vari-ance. The four levels of reporter refer to (1) child reports about mother, (2)child reports about father, (3) mother self-reports, and (4) father self-re-ports. The results indicated a significant overall main effect for reporter,F(9, 2,020) = 12.01, p < .001. Univariate analyses showed this effect to bedue to differences by reporter on the factors of support, F(3, 832) = 26.15, p< .001, and control, F(3, 832) = 3.28, p < .05.

With respect to the significant main effect for reporter in predictingCPBI support scores, Newman – Keuls post hoc analyses showed thatmothers perceived themselves as significantly more supportive than chil-dren perceived them to be, p < .05, and fathers also perceived themselves assignificantly more supportive than children perceived them to be, p < .05.With respect to the significant main effect for reporter in predicting CPBIcontrol scores, Newman – Keuls post hoc analyses indicated results thatwere not of direct relevance to the hypothesis. Specifically, there was a sig-nificant difference between fathers’ self-reports and children’s reportsabout mothers, p < .05. In sum, the results of tests of the first hypothesisshowed systematic differences in parent and child reports of parental sup-port, with parents perceiving themselves to be more supportive than chil-dren perceived them to be. The means and standard deviations of chil-dren’s reports and parents’ self-reports for the three CPBI factors arepresented in Table 3.

Gender and grade effects. In predicting CPBI support scores, there was aninteraction effect between gender and grade, with fourth-grade boys re-porting significantly more support (M = 37.52, SD = 6.46) than third-gradeboys (M = 35.47, SD = 7.97). Also, third-grade girls reported significantly


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

more support (M = 37.73, SD = 6.42) than third-grade boys (M = 35.47, SD =7.97), and fifth-grade girls reported more support (M = 37.99, SD = 5.52)than 5th grade boys (M = 36.09, SD = 6.60). In predicting CPBI controlscores, there was an interaction effect between gender and reporter, whichshowed that girls perceived their fathers to be significantly more control-ling (M = 28.75, SD = 6.37) than boys perceived their fathers to be (M =25.88, SD = 7.93). In predicting CPBI discipline scores, there was a signifi-cant main effect for gender, F(1, 832) = 7.18, p < .01, indicating that boys re-ported significantly more parental discipline (M = 17.07, SD = 6.02) thangirls reported (M = 16.07, SD = 6.17, p < .05).

Tests of race effects. Due to the heterogeneity of the sample with regard torace, we repeated this design using race as a covariate. The results of themultivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) did not differ from pre-vious analyses in which race was not controlled. When controlling for race,the results indicated a significant overall main effect for reporter, F(9,2,012) = 11.90, p < .001. Univariate results of the MANCOVA showed thiseffect to be due to differences by reporter on the factors of support, F(3, 829)= 25.94, p < .001, and control, F(3, 829) = 3.20, p < .05. In predicting CPBIsupport scores, there was an interaction effect between gender and grade,F(2, 829) = 4.33, p < .05. In predicting CPBI control scores, there was an in-teraction effect between gender and reporter, F(3, 829) = 2.78, p < .05. Inpredicting CPBI discipline scores, there was a significant main effect forgender, F(1, 829) = 7.87, p < .01, indicating that boys reported significantlymore parental discipline (M = 17.07, SD = 6.02) than girls reported (M =16.07, SD = 6.17, p < .05).


TABLE 3Mean Scores of the Three Cornell Parent Behavior

Inventory Parenting Factors by Reporter

Reporter

FactorChild About

MotherMother

About SelfChild About

FatherFather

About SelfMultivariate F(9, 2,020)

= 12.01, p < .001

Support 36.99a 39.56b 34.21a 37.34b Univariate F(3, 832) =SD 6.51 3.79 8.70 5.40 26.15, p < .05

Control 28.61a 27.35a, b 27.29a, b 26.86 b Univariate F (3, 832) =SD 6.53 4.64 7.33 4.73 3.528, p < .05

Discipline 17.36a 16.66a 16.10a 16.22 a Univariate F (3, 832) =SD 6.68 4.83 7.49 4.99 2.01, p < .05

Note. For each reporter, n = 214. Within a row, cell means that do not share a common sub-script are significantly different (Newman – Keuls post hoc tests). Possible scores for supportrange from 9 to 45; for control, 8 to 40; for discipline, 7 to 35.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Hypothesis 2: Discrepancies in Children’s and Parents’Reports of Parenting Will Be Associated With NegativeChild Outcomes

Multiple regression analyses were used to test the second and third hy-potheses. In these analyses, a series of regression analyses was performedfor each of the three dependent measures (TRF internalizing and ex-ternalizing scores and sociometric ratings). Child gender, age, and racewere entered in Step 1 and parent – child discrepancy scores, direction ofthe discrepancies, and the interaction term were entered in Step 2. Hy-pothesis 2 predicted that parent – child discrepancies would be positivelycorrelated with internalizing and externalizing behaviors and negativelycorrelated with sociometric ratings. Parent – child discrepancies were cal-culated by subtracting parent scores from child scores and then using theabsolute value of this result. Scores were calculated for each of the threeparenting dimensions (support, covert control, and punitive discipline).The t values (ratio of the standardized beta coefficient to the standard er-ror) are reported for each predictor to describe the association betweenparent – child discrepancies for each parenting dimension and each of thethree dependent measures (TRF internalizing and externalizing scores andsociometric ratings).

Parent – child discrepancies about support. There was no significant rela-tion between mother – child discrepancies about support and child out-comes. There was also no significant relation between father – child dis-crepancies about support and child outcomes.

Parent – child discrepancies about control. As expected, father – child dis-crepancies about paternal control were positively related to children’s in-ternalizing behavior, t(190) = 2.50, p < .05. Contrary to expectations, father– child discrepancies about paternal control were unrelated to children’sinternalizing scores or sociometric ratings. Also, mother – child discrepan-cies about maternal control were unrelated to child outcomes.

Parent – child discrepancies about discipline. As expected, the mother – childdiscrepancies about maternal discipline were positively related to chil-dren’s internalizing behavior as reported by teachers, t(190) = 2.79, p < .01.The mother – child discrepancy about maternal discipline was unrelated tochildren’s sociometric ratings. Father – child discrepancies about paternaldiscipline were unrelated to child outcomes.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Hypothesis 3: The Association Between Parent – ChildDiscrepancies and Child Outcomes Will Be Moderatedby the Direction of the Discrepancy

In the analyses for Hypothesis 3, the direction of the discrepancy refersto two groups of children: those who provided lower ratings than theirparents and those who provided higher ratings than their parents pro-vided. These two subgroups of children were created separately based onratings for each parenting dimension (support, control, and discipline).Therefore, the group sizes varied depending on the dimension of par-enting that was rated by parents and children. As mentioned earlier, childgender, age, and race were entered in Step 1 and absolute value of parent –child discrepancy scores, direction of the discrepancies, and the interactionterm between absolute value of the discrepancy and direction of discrep-ancy were entered in Step 2.

Parent – child discrepancies about support. The interaction between moth-er – child discrepancies about support and direction of discrepancy wasnot significant in the prediction of child outcomes. Similarly, the interac-tion between father – child discrepancies about support and direction ofdiscrepancy was not significant in these analyses.

Parent – child discrepancies about control. The interaction between mother– child discrepancies about control and direction of discrepancy was non-signficant in the prediction of child outcomes. The interaction between theabsolute value of the discrepancy and direction of discrepancy for father –child discrepancies about control was significant, t(190) = –2.43, p < .05 inpredicting internalizing behavior. Follow-up analyses indicated that therewas a significant positive relation between the absolute value of the dis-crepancy and internalizing behavior for children who reported less pater-nal control than fathers reported, t(190) = 2.07, p < .05. Specifically, as thediscrepancy increased, internalizing behavior increased among childrenwho reported less paternal discipline than fathers self-reported.

Parent – child discrepancies about discipline. The interaction between theabsolute value of the discrepancy and direction of discrepancy for mother– child discrepancies about discipline was significant, t(190) = –2.89, p <.01, in the prediction of internalizing behavior. The interaction between theabsolute value of the discrepancy and direction of discrepancy for father –child discrepancies about discipline was nonsignficant in the prediction ofchild outcomes.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Summary of Results Related to Hypotheses 2 and 3

Results of Hypotheses 2 and 3 suggest that the effects of size of discrep-ancy between child and parent reports on outcomes were moderated bythe direction of the discrepancy. These analyses do not address the possi-bility that the relation between discrepancy size and child outcomes mayactually reflect the direct influence of the child’s perception of parenting,regardless of the discrepancy size. For example, children who show dis-crepancies with their parents because they rated their parents low in sup-port may have lower social competence because they perceive low sup-port, rather than because of the parent – child discrepancy in perceptionsof support. These findings highlight the possibility that children’s percep-tions of parenting may be more influential than parents’ perceptions inpredicting children’s outcomes. This question was addressed more di-rectly in Hypothesis 4.

Hypothesis 4: Children’s Reports of Parenting Will Be MorePredictive of Children’s Outcomes Than Parent Self-Reports

To test the fourth hypothesis, regression analyses were conducted. Inthese analyses, four sets of hierarchical regression analyses were per-formed for each of the three dependent measures (TRF internalizing andexternalizing scores and sociometric ratings). These hierarchical regres-sion analyses tested (1) whether child reports of mother behavior contrib-uted uniquely to variance in child outcomes, above and beyond mothers’self-reports of behavior; (2) whether mothers’ self-reports contributeduniquely to child outcomes, above and beyond child reports of mother be-havior; (3) whether child reports of father behavior contributed uniquelyto variance in child outcomes, above and beyond fathers’ self-reports of be-havior; and (4) whether fathers’ self-reports contributed uniquely to childoutcomes, above and beyond child reports of father behavior. In Models 1and 3, gender, age, and race were entered in Step 1, parent reports were en-tered in Step 2, and child reports were added in Step 3. In Models 2 and 4,gender, age, and race were entered in Step 1, child reports were entered inStep 2, and parent reports were added in Step 3. Each set of models was re-peated three times to predict each of the outcome measures. For interpreta-tion, t values (ratio of the standardized beta coefficient to the standard er-ror) were reported for each predictor to show which individual variablesretained statistical significance when all of the predictors were taken intoaccount in Step 3 of each equation. The results are presented in Table 4(analyses related to mothers’ parenting) and Table 5 (analyses related to fa-thers’ parenting) separately for each child outcome measure.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

37

TAB

LE

4H

iera

rchi

calR

egre

ssio

nA

naly

ses

Perf

orm

edon

Chi

ldO

utco

me

Var

iabl

esas

Pred

icte

dby

Chi

ldre

n’s

and

Mot

hers

’Rep

orts

ofPa

rent

alB

ehav

ior

Out

com

eV

aria

bles

Inte

rnal

izin

gE

xter

naliz

ing

Peer

Acc

epta

nce

Step

Var

iabl

eR

2∆R

2t

R2

∆R2

tR

2∆R

2t

Mod

el1

1D

emog

raph

ics

.025

.025

.045

*.0

45*

.099

***

.099

***

Rac

e1.

410.

201.

76G

end

er–0

.97

–2.1

9*2.

81**

Gra

de

0.33

0.84

3.07

*2

Mot

her

repo

rts

.184

***

.159

***

.251

***

.206

***

.131

†.0

32†

Supp

ort

–1.3

1–1

.39

1.37

Con

trol

1.58

1.38

–0.8

5D

isci

plin

e4.

76**

*5.

79**

*–1

.43

3C

hild

repo

rts

.186

.002

.259

.008

.162

†.0

31†

Supp

ort

–0.3

10.

151.

06C

ontr

ol0.

130.

28–0

.74

Dis

cipl

ine

–0.6

61.

14–2

.05*

Mod

el2

1D

emog

raph

ics

.025

.025

.045

*.0

45*

.099

***

.099

***

2C

hild

repo

rts

.026

.002

.064

.019

.134

*.0

35*

3M

othe

rre

port

s.1

86**

*.1

60**

*.2

59**

*.1

95*

.162

†.0

29†

Not

e.T

hem

easu

reof

pare

ntin

gw

asth

eC

orne

llPa

rent

Beh

avio

rIn

vent

ory,

n=

214.

Dep

end

entm

easu

res

wer

eth

eTe

ache

rR

epor

tFor

m(I

n-te

rnal

izin

gan

dE

xter

naliz

ing,

n=

197)

and

peer

rati

ngs

ofac

cept

ance

,n=

214.

R2

=in

dic

ates

the

amou

ntof

vari

ance

pred

icte

dby

repo

rts

ofpa

rent

ing;

∆R2

=in

dic

ates

the

amou

ntof

add

itio

nalv

aria

nce

pred

icte

dw

hen

add

itio

nalr

epor

tsof

pare

ntin

gw

ere

add

ed;

t=in

dic

ates

that

the

ind

ivid

ual

pare

ntin

gd

imen

sion

was

asi

gnif

ican

tpr

edic

tor

ofth

eou

tcom

em

easu

re.t

valu

esfo

rM

odel

2ar

eid

enti

cal

toth

ose

pres

ente

din

Mod

el1.

† p<

.10.

* p<

.05.

**p

<.0

1.**

* p<

.001

.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

38

TAB

LE

5H

iera

rchi

calR

egre

ssio

nA

naly

ses

Perf

orm

edon

Chi

ldO

utco

me

Var

iabl

esas

Pred

icte

dby

Chi

ldre

n’s

and

Fath

ers’

Rep

orts

ofPa

rent

alB

ehav

ior

Out

com

eV

aria

bles

Inte

rnal

izin

gE

xter

naliz

ing

Peer

Acc

epta

nce

Step

Var

iabl

eR

2∆R

2t

R2

∆R2

tR

2∆R

2t

Mod

el1

1D

emog

raph

ics

.025

.025

.045

*.0

45*

.099

***

.099

***

Rac

e0.

43–0

.19

1.96

†

Gen

der

–1.4

3–2

.31*

2.59

*G

rad

e0.

430.

732.

93**

2Fa

ther

repo

rts

.142

***

.117

***

.236

***

.190

***

.114

.015

Supp

ort

–2.1

3*–1

.80†

–0.2

7C

ontr

ol3.

24**

1.57

–1.3

8D

isci

plin

e2.

12*

5.27

***

–0.1

53

Chi

ldre

port

s.1

48.0

06.2

43.0

07.1

38.0

24Su

ppor

t–0

.19

0.98

1.26

Con

trol

–0.2

2–0

.81

0.38

Dis

cipl

ine

–0.8

01.

01–1

.88†

Mod

el2

1D

emog

raph

ics

.025

.025

.045

*.0

45*

.099

***

.099

***

2C

hild

repo

rts

.030

.006

.059

.014

.126

.027

3Fa

ther

repo

rts

.148

***

.118

***

.243

***

.184

***

.138

.012

Not

e.T

hem

easu

reof

pare

ntin

gw

asth

eC

orne

llPa

rent

Beh

avio

rIn

vent

ory,

n=

214.

Dep

end

entm

easu

res

wer

eth

eTe

ache

rR

epor

tFor

m(I

n-te

rnal

izin

gan

dE

xter

naliz

ing,

n=

197)

and

peer

rati

ngs

ofac

cept

ance

,n=

214.

R2

=in

dic

ates

the

amou

ntof

vari

ance

pred

icte

dby

repo

rts

ofpa

rent

ing.

∆R2

=in

dic

ates

the

amou

ntof

add

itio

nalv

aria

nce

pred

icte

dw

hen

add

itio

nalr

epor

tsof

pare

ntin

gw

ere

add

ed;t

=in

dic

ates

that

the

in-

div

idua

lpar

enti

ngd

imen

sion

was

asi

gnif

ican

tpre

dic

toro

fthe

outc

ome

mea

sure

.tva

lues

forM

odel

2ar

eid

enti

calt

oth

ose

pres

ente

din

Mod

el1.

† p<

.10.

*p<

.05.

**p

<.0

1.**

*p<

.001

.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Child reports of mothers’ behavior did not make significant contributionsto the prediction of children’s internalizing behavior, above and beyondmothers’self-reportsofbehavior,∆R2 = .002,p=.899,butmothers’self-reportsof behavior made significant incremental predictions to children’s internaliz-ingbehavioraboveandbeyondchildreportsofmothers’behavior,∆R2 = .160,p < .001. Results reflected in t values indicated that mothers’ self-perceptionsof discipline were positively related to children’s internalizing behavior, p <.001. Child reports of fathers’ behavior did not make significant contributionsto the prediction of children’s internalizing behavior, above and beyond fa-thers’ self-reports of behavior, ∆R2 = .006, p = .694, but fathers’ self-reports ofbehavior made significant incremental predictions to children’s internalizingbehavior above and beyond child reports of fathers’ behavior, ∆R2 = .118, p <.001. Results reflected in t values indicated that fathers’ self-perceptions ofsupport were negatively related to children’s internalizing behavior, p < .05,whereas fatherself-reportsofcontrolanddisciplinewerepositivelyrelatedtochildren’s internalizing behavior, p < .01 and p < .05.

Child reports of mothers’ behavior did not make significant contributionsto the prediction of children’s externalizing behavior, above and beyondmothers’self-reportsofbehavior,∆R2 = .008,p=.532,butmothers’self-reportsof behavior made significant incremental predictions to children’s exter-nalizingbehavioraboveandbeyondchildreportsofmothers’behavior,∆R2 =.195, p < .001. Results reflected in t values indicated that mothers’ self-percep-tionsofdisciplinewerepositivelyrelatedtochildren’sexternalizingbehavior,p < .001. Child reports of fathers’ behavior did not make significant contribu-tions to thepredictionofchildren’sexternalizingbehavior,aboveandbeyondfathers’ self-reports of behavior, ∆R2 = .007, p = .594, but fathers’ self-reports ofbehaviormadesignificant incrementalpredictionstochildren’sexternalizingbehavior above and beyond child reports of fathers’ behavior, ∆R2 = .184, p <.001.Resultsreflectedin tvaluesindicatedthatfathers’self-perceptionsofdis-cipline were positively related to children’s externalizing behavior.

Results reflected in t values indicated that children’s perceptions of dis-cipline were negatively related to peer acceptance, p < .05. In sum, the re-sults of tests of the fourth hypothesis showed that, compared to parents’self-reports of behavior, children’s reports about parenting were more pre-dictive of children’s acceptance by peers. Both mothers’ and fathers’ self-reports of parenting were more predictive of children’s internalizing andexternalizing behavior than were child reports.

DISCUSSION

Research on links between parenting and children’s social adjustment hasgenerally relied on parents or observers to provide assessments of par-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

enting. This study addressed the possibility that child reports of parentalbehavior may be more influential than parent reports in predicting chil-dren’s social adjustment. This is one of only a few studies that have directlycompared child and parent perceptions of parenting on multiple dimen-sions and related these perceptions to child outcomes (Michaels et al., 1983;Roff et al., 1972; Serot & Teevan, 1961). Two sets of results underscore theidea that not only do children’s perceptions of parenting differ signifi-cantly from parents’ self-perceptions, but children’s and parents’ percep-tions also show different patterns of association to measures of children’spsychosocial adjustment. First, whereas parents and children providedcomparable ratings of parental control and discipline, both mothers andfathers described themselves as more supportive than their children per-ceived them to be. Second, children’s reports about parenting were morepredictive of children’s peer acceptance than were parents’ self-reports,whereas parents’ self-reports were more predictive of children’s internaliz-ing and externalizing than were children’s reports of parenting.

The results of this study are consistent with other studies showing thatchildren’s views about parenting differ from the views of their parents orother adults (Kaufman, Hallahan, & Ball, 1975; Pierce & Klein, 1982) andunderscore the importance of including children’s perceptions in researchexamining the link between family relationships and child outcomes.However, in this study, children’s and parents’ descriptions of parentingwere significantly different only with respect to supportive parenting,with mothers and fathers perceiving themselves as more supportive thanchildren perceived them to be. There were no significant differences inchildren’s and parents’ perceptions of covert control or punitive discipline.One possible explanation for these findings may be that descriptions ofsupportive parenting rely more on subjective information, and descrip-tions of covert control and punitive discipline rely more on observable be-haviors that are more easily agreed on. Another explanation may be thegreater salience that restricting behaviors have for both the punisher andthe individual being punished (Brook, Whiteman, Gordon, Brenden, &Jinishian, 1980), resulting in more congruence between children and par-ents for these factors.

Other research has shown that children’s perceptions of parental behav-ior differ according to child gender and grade, but findings have not beenconsistent across studies. Although no specific predictions were madeabout child age or gender in this study, we identified gender differences inchildren’s perceptions of their parents’ behavior. Girls perceived more pos-itive parental behavior (support) and less negative parental behavior (dis-cipline) than boys perceived. Girls also perceived more control than boysperceived, but these results were found only for perceptions of fathers’


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

control. Future research can examine children’s perceptions of parentingby same- and opposite-sex parents and links to relationships with same-and opposite-sex peers.

In this study, we also used parent and child reports of parenting to pre-dict child outcomes, defined in terms of teachers’ reports of children’s in-ternalizing and externalizing and peer reports of acceptance. The use ofteacher and peer reports eliminates concerns about shared method vari-ance and allowed us to examine whether parenting may be more stronglyrelated to some aspects of psychosocial adjustment than to others. As ex-pected, supportive parenting predicted lower externalizing scores andhigher peer acceptance, and covert control and punitive discipline pre-dicted higher externalizing scores and lower peer acceptance. These find-ings are consistent with other research examining the effects of parentingon children’s peer status and social behavior (Clark & Ladd, 2000; Pettit etal., 1997). The effect of parenting may be due to the parent – child interac-tion providing children with an opportunity to learn both positive andnegative ways of relating to others that may generalize to peer relation-ships (Mize et al., 1998).

We also examined whether discrepancies in parent and child perceptionsof parenting predicted child adjustment. Our representation of parent –child discrepancy in descriptions of parenting took into account both the ab-solute value of the discrepancy between raters and whether the child or par-ent was providing the higher rating of the parenting dimension under anal-ysis. We expected that larger discrepancies would be correlated with worseoutcomes because the lack of parent – child agreement suggests a lack of fa-miliarity in the parent – child relationship and more maladaptive family in-teraction patterns (East, 1991). The results provided some support for thishypothesis: Larger parent – child discrepancies of parenting (specifically,discrepancies about paternal control and maternal discipline) were relatedto more internalizing and externalizing behavior. The different pattern of re-sults for mothers and fathers may reflect the possibility that mothers in thissample are more involved in day-to-day management of children’s behav-ior and maternal discipline is more salient for children’s behavior, so thatmaternaldisciplinewouldbemoresalient forchildren’sbehavior.However,these findings may also be due to differences in how mothers and fathers in-terpreted items on the parenting measure. Mothers appeared to distinguishitems reflecting control from those reflecting discipline, as did children. Bycontrast, factor analysis suggested that fathers made less of a distinction be-tween these two aspects of parenting.

When the direction of the discrepancy was taken into account, we foundthat parent – child discrepancies were especially predictive of negativeoutcomes when children perceived less covert control and less punitive


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

discipline than parents perceived. When parents think they are showingcovert control and punitive discipline, but children do not perceive it, chil-dren’s outcomes are worse. These findings highlight the importance of ex-amining both the size and the direction of the discrepancy in parent andchild reports. Perhaps in this study, parents’ reports are more accurate rep-resentations of parent – child relationships than are children’s reports, asmore punitive discipline would be expected to be related to more negativechild outcomes. Alternatively, less sociable children or children with inter-nalizing and externalizing difficulties may be less attuned to their parents’behavior (East, 1991; Edens et al., 1999), and therefore parental punitivediscipline may not be “getting through,” resulting in behavior problems.Surprisingly, discrepancies on the support factor, which yielded clear par-ent – child discrepancies in the first hypothesis, did not feature in predict-ing child outcomes. However, descriptions of supportive parenting rely onmore subjective behaviors that may be less easily agreed on than descrip-tions of covert control and discipline.

Analyses comparing the relative value of parent and child reports forpredicting children’s peer-related outcomes provide more informationabout the aforementioned results, suggesting that children’s perceptionsare more influential than parents’ perceptions in predicting children’s peeracceptance. Specifically, children’s perceptions of punitive discipline pre-dicted lower peer acceptance, even after controlling for parents’ percep-tions of these same parenting dimensions. By contrast, mothers’ and fa-thers’ self-perceptions made unique contributions to the prediction ofchild internalizing and externalizing behavior above and beyond childperceptions of parenting. Specifically, mothers’ self-reported disciplinepredicted higher internalizing and externalizing behavior. Fathers’ sup-port predicted lower internalizing behavior, fathers’ control predictedhigher internalizing behavior, and fathers’ discipline predicted higher in-ternalizing and externalizing behavior after controlling for the child re-ports of these same parenting dimensions.

It is interesting to note that parent – child discrepancies in this studywere consistently related to negative outcomes, suggesting that separate-ness from parents is not developmentally appropriate for children in mid-dle childhood. Together, these findings support family systems theoriessuggesting that discrepancies may reflect disorganized family relation-ships (Minuchin, 1985). However, the findings do not fully support the no-tion that the effects of the direction of the discrepancy are due to children’sperceptions. Instead, the findings suggest that the effects of discrepanciesmay be explained by parents’ reporting of parenting. When parents’ per-ceptions were directly compared to children’s perceptions, they werefound to be more predictive of internalizing and externalizing behavior.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Therefore, the study’s multimethod design provided a stronger basisfor drawing conclusions about links between parental behavior and chil-dren’s social adjustment than was possible based on earlier research.First, rather than determining which source of information was the mostaccurate measure of parenting, this study examined the relative impor-tance of parent and child perceptions in predicting child functioning.Second, this study examined an overall pattern of social behavior as as-sessed by two sources — teachers and peers — allowing for the detectionof more complex relations between perceptions of parenting and childoutcomes. However, it should be noted that teacher and peer evaluationsare not completely objective and may not generalize to settings outsidethe classroom.

Limitations of this study should be noted. First, this study is impor-tant because it assesses perceptual discrepancies in a low economic sta-tus, mostly African American sample, whereas most research in this areahas been conducted on middle class, European American families. How-ever, the racial distribution in this study may limit the generalizability ofthe findings to neighborhoods and school districts with a higher percent-age of African American families. The 50% return rate for the parentquestionnaires may also limit the sample’s representativeness. Second,the CPBI was also modified for parents to self-report on the samechildrearing attitudes and behaviors reported on by the child. Althoughinternal consistencies for the parent scales were adequate, fathers’ re-ports showed a different factorial structure from that found for mothers’or children’s reports, making it difficult to draw conclusions about find-ings related to fathers’ control and discipline. Therefore, conclusions re-lated to fathers’ self-reports in this study may be identical for behaviorsassessing control and discipline.

Together, the results of this study highlight important reasons for in-cluding children’s perceptions of parental behavior, in addition to parents’self-perceptions, in research examining the relations between parentingand children’s social adjustment. In future research, parenting dimensionsbeyond support, covert control, and punitive discipline can be assessed tocapture parent – child differences in reports not just of observable par-enting behaviors but also of children’s subjective evaluations of these be-haviors. In addition, future research using a similar method should incor-porate a social desirability scale to control for the influence of socialdesirability factors in children’s and parents’ reports about parenting.Finally, future research can test whether children’s cognitions act as media-tors of “family effects” on child outcomes, and, if so, whether children’sperceptions of parenting affect peer outcomes because of generalized ex-pectations about relationships or because of another mechanism.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

AFFILIATIONS AND ADDRESSES

Noni K. Gaylord, Department of Psychology, 202 Psychology Building, Uni-versity of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152–3230. Email: [email protected]. Katherine M. Kitzmann is at the University of Memphis, andJennifer K. Coleman is at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Robert Cohen and Sam Morgan for their helpful feed-back on this manuscript, and James Whelan for his permission to collectdata as part of the Classroom Coping Skills Project in the Fayette County,Tennessee, public school system. Portions of this article were presented atthe Conference on Human Development, Memphis, Tennessee, April 2000.

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 Profile. Bur-lington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/Adolescent behavioraland emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational spec-ificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213–232.

Anan, R. M., & Barnett, D. (1999). Perceived social support mediates between prior attach-ment and subsequent adjustment: A study of urban African American children. Develop-mental Psychology, 35, 1210–1222.

Aquilino, W. S. (1986). Children’s perceptions of marital interaction. Child Study Journal, 16,159–172.

Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. E., & Shagle, S. C. (1994). Associations between parental psychologicaland behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized behaviors. Child Develop-ment, 65, 1120–1136.

Berndt, T. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1989). Peer relationships in child development. New York: Wiley.Bhavnagri, N. P., & Parke, R. D. (1991). Parents as direct facilitators of children’s peer relation-

ships: Effects of age of child and sex of parents. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8,423–440.

Brook, J. S., Whiteman, M., Gordon, A., Brenden, C., & Jinishian, A. (1980). Relationship ofmaternal and adolescent perceptions of maternal child rearing practices. Perceptual andMotor Skills, 51, 1043–1046.

Carlson, C. I., Cooper, C. R., & Spradling, V. Y. (1991). Developmental implications of sharedversus distinct perceptions of the family in early adolescence. New Directions for Child De-velopment, 51, 87–102.

Clark, K. E., & Ladd, G. W. (2000). Connectedness and autonomy support in parent – child re-lationships: Links to children’s socioemotional orientation and peer relationships. Devel-opmental Psychology, 36, 485–498.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Cohen, D. A., & Rice, J. (1997). Parenting styles, adolescent substance use, and academicachievement. Journal of Drug Education, 27, 199–211.

Cohn, D. A., Patterson, C. J., & Christopoulos, C. (1991). The family and children’s peer rela-tions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 315–346.

Cox, S. H. (1974). The association of peer acceptance–rejection with children’s perception ofparental behaviors. Psychology in the Schools, 11, 222–223.

Dekovic, M., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (1992). Parents’ child-rearing style and children’ssociometric status. Developmental Psychology, 28, 925–932.

Devereux, E. C., Bronfenbrenner, U., & Rodgers, R. R. (1969). Child-rearing in England and theUnitedStates:Across-nationalcomparison. JournalofMarriageandtheFamily,31,257–270.

Dishion, T. J. (1990). The family ecology of boys’ peer relations in middle childhood. Child De-velopment, 61, 874–892.

Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Socialization mediators of the relation betweensocioeconomic status and child conduct problems. Child Development, 65, 649–665.

Dunn, J. (1993). Young children’s close relationships: Beyond attachment. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

East, P. L. (1991). The parent–child relationships of withdrawn, aggressive, and sociable chil-dren: Child and parent perspectives. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 37, 425–444.

Edens, J. F., Cavell, T. A., & Hughes, J. N. (1999). The self-systems of aggressive children: Acluster-analytic investigation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disci-plines, 40, 441–453.

Feinberg, M. E., Howe, G. W., Reiss, D., & Hetherington, E. M. (2000). Relationship betweenperceptual differences of parenting and adolescent antisocial behavior and depressivesymptoms. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 531–555.

Fincham,F.D.,Beach,S.R.H.,Arias, I.,&Brody,G.H.(1998).Children’sattributionsinthefamily:The children’s relationship attribution measure. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 481–493.

Gonzales, N. A., Cauce, A. M., & Mason, C. A. (1996). Interobserver agreement in the assess-ment of parental behavior and parent–adolescent conflict: African-American mothers,daughters, and independent observers. Child Development, 67, 1483–1498.

Gottman, J. M., & Mettetal, G. (1986). Speculations about social and affective development:Friendship and acquaintanceship through adolescence. In J. M. Gottman & J. G. Parker(Eds.), Conversations of friends: Speculations on affective development (pp. 192–237). Cam-bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Hart, C. H., DeWolf, M. D., Wozniak, P., & Burts, D. C. (1992). Maternal and paternal disciplin-ary styles: Relations with preschoolers’ playground behavioral orientations and peer sta-tus. Child Development, 63, 879–892.

Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, S. F., & McNeilly-Choque, M. K. (1998).Overt and relational aggression in Russian nursery-school-age children: Parenting styleand marital linkages. Developmental Psychology, 34, 687–697.

Holmbeck, G. N., & O’Donnell, K. (1991). Discrepancies between perceptions of decisionmaking and behavioral autonomy. New Directions for Child Development, 51, 51–69.

Johnson, V. K., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (1999). Children’s classroom behavior: Theunique contribution of family organization. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 355–371.

Kaufman, J. M., Hallahan, D. P., & Ball, D. W. (1975). Parents’ predictions of their children’sperceptions of family relations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39, 229–235.

Ladd, G. W. (1991). Family–peer relations during childhood: Pathways to competence andpathology. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 307–314.

Ladd, G. W. (1992). Themes and theories: Perspectives on processes in family–peer relation-ships. In R. Parke & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Family–peer relationships: Modes of linkage (pp. 3–34).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ladd, G. W., & Pettit, G. D. (2002). Parents and children’s peer relationships. In M. H.Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, Vol. 5: Practical parenting (2nd ed., pp. 269–309).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Ladd, G. W., Profilet, S. M., & Hart, C. H. (1992). Parents’ management of children’s peer rela-tions: Facilitating and supervising children’s activities in the peer culture. In R. Parke & G.W. Ladd (Eds.), Family–peer relationships: Modes of linkage (pp. 215–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child in-teraction. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of childpsychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, social development (pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley.

MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Starnes, R., Volling, B., & Johnson, S. (1997). Perceptions of parentingas predictors of boys’ sibling and peer relations. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1024–1031.

Marchand, J. F., & Hock, E. (1998). The relation of problem behavior in preschool children todepressive symptoms in mothers and fathers. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159, 353–366.

Mboya, M. M. (1996). Perceived family and school social environments and their relation-ships to African adolescents’ self-concepts. School Psychology International, 17, 133–148.

Michaels, G. Y., Messe, L. A., & Stollak, G. E. (1983). Seeing parental behavior through differ-ent eyes: Exploring the importance of person perception processes in parents and chil-dren. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 107, 3–60.

Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field offamily therapy. Child Development, 56, 289–302.

Mize, J., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Mothers’ social coaching, mother–child relationship style, andchildren’s peer competence: Is the medium the message? Child Development, 68, 312–332.

Mize, J., Russell, A., & Pettit, G. S. (1998). Further explorations of family–peer connections: Therole of parenting practices and parenting style in children’s development of social compe-tence.InP.T.Slee&K.Rigby(Eds.),Children’speerrelations (pp.31–44).NewYork:Routledge.

Muris, P., Bogels, S., Meesters, C., van der Kamp, N., & van Oosten, A. (1996). Parental rearingpractices, fearfulness, and problem behavior in clinically referred children. Personality andIndividual Differences, 21, 813–818.

Noller, P., & Callan, V. J. (1988). Understanding parent – adolescent interactions: Perceptionsof family members and outsiders. Developmental Psychology, 24, 707–714.

Paikoff, R. L., Carlton-Ford, S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1993). Mother–daughter dyads view thefamily: Associations between divergent perceptions and daughter well-being. Journal ofYouth and Adolescence, 22, 473–492.

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low ac-cepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357–389.

Patterson,C. J.,Kupersmidt, J.B.,&Griesler,P.C. (1990).Children’sperceptionsofselfandofrela-tionshipswithothersasafunctionofsociometricstatus.ChildDevelopmental,61,1335–1349.

Patterson, G. R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family management anddelinquency. Child Development, 55, 1299–1307.

Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Supportive parenting, ecological context, andchildren’s adjustment: A seven-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 68, 908–923.

Pierce, L., & Klein, H. (1982). A comparison of parent and child perception of the child’s be-havior. Behavioral Disorders, 7, 69–74.

Putallaz, M. (1987). Maternal behavior and children’s sociometric status. Child Development,58, 324–340.

Rigby, K. (1993). School children’s perceptions of their families and parents as a function ofpeer relations. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, 501–513.

Roff, M., Sells, S. B., & Golden, M. M. (1972). Social adjustment and personality development inchildren. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Russell, A., & Finnie, V. (1990). Preschool children’s social status and maternal instructions toassist group entry. Developmental Psychology, 26, 603–611.

Scherer, D. G., Melloh, T., Buyck, D., Anderson, C., & Foster, A. (1996). Relation between chil-dren’s perceptions of maternal mental illness and children’s psychological adjustment.Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 156–169.

Serot, N. M., & Teevan, R. C. (1961). Perception of the parent–child relationship and its rela-tion to child adjustment. Child Development, 32, 373–378.

Siegelman, M. (1965). Evaluation of Bronfenbrenner’s questionnaire for children concerningparental behavior. Child Development, 36, 163–174.

Tein, J., Roosa, M. W., & Michaels, M. (1994). Agreement between parent and child reports onparental behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 341–355.

Waas, G. A., & Graczyk, P. A. (1999). Child behaviors leading to peer rejection: A view fromthe peer group. Child Study Journal, 29, 291–305.

Weiss, B., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1992). Some consequences of early harshdiscipline: Child aggression and a maladaptive social information processing style. ChildDevelopment, 63, 1321–1335.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:11

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Parents' and Children's Perceptions of Parental Behavior: Associations with Children's Psychosocial Adjustment in the Classroom