do chinese and american children's interpretations of parenting moderate links between...

24
This article was downloaded by: [Simon Fraser University] On: 20 November 2014, At: 16:19 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Parenting: Science and Practice Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpar20 Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment? Linda A. Camras a , Keping Sun b , Yan Li c & Michelle F. Wright c a Department of Psychology, DePaul University, 2219 North Kenmore Ave. , Chicago , IL , 60614 , USA b Shanghai Normal University c DePaul University Published online: 13 Sep 2012. To cite this article: Linda A. Camras , Keping Sun , Yan Li & Michelle F. Wright (2012) Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?, Parenting: Science and Practice, 12:4, 306-327, DOI: 10.1080/15295192.2012.709154 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2012.709154 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. 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 is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Upload: michelle-f

Post on 27-Mar-2017

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

This article was downloaded by: [Simon Fraser University]On: 20 November 2014, At: 16:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Parenting: Science and PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpar20

Do Chinese and American Children'sInterpretations of Parenting ModerateLinks between Perceived Parenting andChild Adjustment?Linda A. Camras a , Keping Sun b , Yan Li c & Michelle F. Wright ca Department of Psychology, DePaul University, 2219 North KenmoreAve. , Chicago , IL , 60614 , USAb Shanghai Normal Universityc DePaul UniversityPublished online: 13 Sep 2012.

To cite this article: Linda A. Camras , Keping Sun , Yan Li & Michelle F. Wright (2012) DoChinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between PerceivedParenting and Child Adjustment?, Parenting: Science and Practice, 12:4, 306-327, DOI:10.1080/15295192.2012.709154

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2012.709154

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Page 2: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 3: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

PARENTING: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE, 12: 306–327, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1529-5192 print / 1532-7922 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15295192.2012.709154

Do Chinese and American Children’sInterpretations of Parenting Moderate Linksbetween Perceived Parenting and Child

Adjustment?

Linda A. Camras, Keping Sun, Yan Li, and Michelle F. Wright

SYNOPSIS

Objective. The researchers in this study investigated whether Chinese and American children’sinterpretations of parents’ coercive authority assertion moderate relations between their self-re-ported parenting and adjustment. Associations between child adjustment and parents’ shamingand critically comparing children to their peers were also investigated. Design. Sixth-, seventh-and eighth-graders (Mages = 11.73, 12.74, and 13.78 years, respectively) residing in Shanghai (n=150) and Chicago (n= 168) rated possible motivations for coercive authority assertion, indicatedwhether they approved of it, and reported their parents’ coercive authority assertion, criticalcomparison and shaming, as well as their own depression, antisocial behavior, and school effort.Results.Children in both cultures indicated that parents practiced coercive authority assertion tobenefit their childrenmore than themselves. Yet approval ratingswere low. Approval of coerciveauthority assertion and the child-beneficial interpretation moderated relations between parents’coercive authority assertion and depression in both cultures. For American children, relationsbetween parents’ coercive authority assertion and both antisocial behavior and school effortwere moderated by a social conventional interpretation. Critical comparison and shaming, andparents’ coercive authority assertion were associated with poorer adjustment in both cultures.Conclusions.Chinese and American children believe parents are well-meaning but misguided intheir practice of coercive authority assertion. Children’s approval and interpretations can mod-erate parents’ coercive authority assertion’s links to psychosocial and academic functioning.Critical comparison and shaming is also associated with poorer adjustment in both cultures.

INTRODUCTION

Developmental scholars continue to discuss and debate the effects of harsh or author-itarian parenting on children from different cultures and subcultures (e.g., Bornstein& Lansford, 2010; Chen, Dong, & Zhou, 1997; Chen & Wang, 2010; Ho, Bluestein, &Jenkins, 2008; Pomerantz & Wang, 2009). To reconcile inconsistent findings across stud-ies, several differing proposals have been advanced (for a review, see Sorkhabi, 2005).One solution proposes that even harsh control may be interpreted by children fromsome cultures in a relatively benignmanner (e.g., reflecting parental caring; Chao, 1994).However, little empirical research has been conducted that directly addresses this pos-sibility. To further illuminate parenting differences across cultures, investigators alsohave called for studies that include measures representing a non-Western perspective,focusing on parenting concepts and practices that have not been highlighted in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 4: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

INTERPRETATIONS OF PARENTING 307

Western-based literature (e.g., Barber, Stolz, & Olsen, 2005; Bornstein, 2010; Wang,Pomerantz, & Chen, 2007). Researchers in the present study begin to address theseneeds by investigating Chinese and U.S. children’s interpretations of some key aspectsof authoritarian parenting, and by also including a Chinese-based parenting measurerepresenting the practices of shaming and critically comparing children to their peers.Researchers in several studies have reported that Chinese and Chinese American par-

ents utilize the authoritarian parenting style more than European American parents(e.g., Chao, 1994, 2000, 2001; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987;Leung, Lau, & Lam, 1998). However, recent findings by other investigators suggest thatdifferences between American parents and Chinese parents may be decreasing (e.g.,Bornstein, Putnick, & Lansford, 2011; Chang, Chen, & Ji, 2011). As indicated earlier,the effects of authoritarian parenting are widely debated, and may vary across culturaland ethnic groups and across areas of functioning (e.g., emotional adjustment versusacademic performance). For example, Chen et al. (1997) reported authoritarian parent-ing to negatively impact Mainland Chinese children’s social and academic functioning,whereas Leung et al. (1998) found a positive relation between authoritarian parentingand Hong Kong Chinese children’s school performance.In recent years, attention has turned to illuminating distinctions between forms of

control that parents may exercise over their children. One form, psychological control,involves emotional manipulation, intrudes on children’s thoughts and feelings, andhas been associated with unfavorable adjustment in U.S. children (Barber, 1996, 2002).Similar to findings for authoritarian parenting, researchers in cross-cultural studieshave reported both similarities and differences in relations between parental controland children’s adjustment in Chinese and American families (e.g., Barber et al., 2005;Wang et al., 2007).In interpreting their findings, both researchers who report cultural differences and

those who emphasize cultural similarities propose that themeaning of various parentingstyles and practices may play an important role in determining their effect on chil-dren (for discussions of this issue, see Bornstein & Lansford, 2010; Sorkhabi, 2005). Forexample, Chao (1994) proposed that the authoritarian parenting style overlaps with anindigenous Chinese parenting concept (guan) that conceptualizes control as part of par-ents’ responsibility to both train and care for their children. Consequently, Chinese andChinese American children may interpret authoritarian parenting in a benign mannerand not be negatively affected as might European American children.To date, studies that directly investigate the meaning of parenting practices in the

eyes of children are rare (but see Kakihara & Tilton-Weaver, 2009; Mason, Walker-Barnes, Tu, Simmons, & Martinez-Arrue, 2004). Similarly, few researchers have exam-ined whether cultural normativeness moderates relations between parental controlpractices and child or family functioning (but see Lansford et al., 2005; Wu & Chao,2011). To our knowledge, no researchers have directly examined relations between chil-dren’s interpretations of either authoritarian parenting or psychological control andtheir psychosocial adjustment.One way of investigating the meaning of parenting for children would be to query

them about parents’ underlying intentions. As suggested by Chao (1994) and others,if children interpret parental control as intended to benefit children, its effects mightbe relatively benign. In addition, children might be asked if they approve or disap-prove of practices exemplifying parenting constructs such as psychological control orauthoritarian parenting. Possibly, children will approve of authoritarian parenting if

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 5: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

308 CAMRAS ET AL.

they believe it reflects concern for the child. In addition, they might approve of it if theycome from cultures in which authoritarian parenting is more common and thus con-ventionally acceptable. Alternatively, children might believe that authoritarian practicesreflect social conventions or even parental concern for the child, but may yet disapproveof them. That is, they may believe that parents are well-meaning but misguided in theiruse of psychological control or authoritarian parenting. Such approval or disapprovalalso might moderate the effects of these specific forms of parenting on child adjustment.In the present study, we investigate children’s interpretations and approval of one

important feature of authoritarian parenting, and also ask whether children’s interpre-tations and/or approval can moderate relations between their self-reported experienceof such parenting and their psychosocial adjustment and academic engagement. As willbe described below, our measure of authoritarian parenting focuses on demands forunquestioning obedience that may be forcefully implemented, and thus overlaps withsome components of psychological control (e.g., the authority assertion subscale ofWang et al.’s 2007 psychological control measure) and coercive power assertion (as oper-ationalized by Baumrind, Larzelere, & Owens, 2010). To reflect our specific focus, wehenceforth utilize the term coercive authority assertion (CAA) to refer to this constructwithin our study.Scholars interested in culture and parenting have also called for extending the range

of parenting constructs under investigation (e.g., Barber et al., 2005; Bornstein, 2010;Wang et al., 2007). Efforts to identify and develop measures for non-Western constructshave demonstrated the potential value of taking a non-Western perspective. For exam-ple, Chao’s (1994) inclusion of the Chinese concept of guan yielded informative resultsand was followed by further research showing that guan has relevance to U.S. children(Stewart, Bond, Kennard, Ho, & Zaman, 2002).Another aspect of Asian parenting that has received some attention in the literature is

shaming (e.g., Fung, 1999). Related to shaming is the practice of comparing the perfor-mance and accomplishments of one’s child to his or her peers. When such comparisonscast the child in a negative light, and especially when they take place in public, shamemight be expected to occur. Although critical comparisons and shaming are describedas being more common in Asian families, these practices also take place in the Westand thus merit cross-cultural investigation regarding their possible negative effects onchildren. Indeed, some Western measures of parenting include items related to thesepractices (e.g., “I let my child know how ashamed and disappointed I am when s/hemisbehaves.”, “I think a child should be encouraged to do things better than others.”;Block, 1981, see also Nelson, Hart, Yang, Olsen, & Jin, 2006.) In our study, we investigatethe practices of critical comparison and shaming (CCS) as distinct from other aspects ofauthoritarian parenting or psychological control by including a measure of these behav-iors developed by one of our Chinese investigators based on her culturally embeddedknowledge. In contrast, our measure of authoritarian parenting (taken from Buri, 1991)includes items that focus exclusively on CAA.In summary, we measure Chinese and American children’s interpretations and

approval (or disapproval) of CAA, and investigate whether they moderate cross-sectional relations between their perceptions of their own parents’ coercive authorityassertion (OPCAA) and several self-reported adjustment variables, including depres-sion, antisocial behavior, and school effort. In addition, we introduce a measure of CCSto investigate its internal reliability within each culture, as well as its relation to ourother measures. Because this is an initial investigation of our CCS measure, we havenot yet examined children’s interpretations of such parenting behaviors. We organize

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 6: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

INTERPRETATIONS OF PARENTING 309

our analyses around a set of tentative hypotheses. Because empirical findings are some-what inconsistent, theoretical differences are still unresolved, and China is undergoingrapid social change that includes changes in attitudes toward children and parenting(Chang et al., 2011; Chen, Chen, Li, & Wang, 2009), we consider our hypotheses to beheuristic rather than definitive. They are: (1) Chinese children will rate their parentshigher on our measures of CAA and CCS than American children will rate their parents;(2) Higher ratings for parental CAA and for CCS will be related to poorer child adjust-ment in both cultures; (3) Chinese children will approve of CAA more than Americanchildren; (4) Chinese children will judge CAA to reflect social convention more than willAmerican children; (5) Both American and Chinese children will judge CAA to reflect anintention to benefit the parent more than an intention to benefit the child; (6) Relationsbetween CAA and child adjustment will be moderated by children’s interpretation andapproval of such practices in both cultures.

METHODS

Participants

Participants were middle-school children (sixth to eighth grade) from Shanghai in thePeople’s Republic of China (n= 150; 89 girls), and Chicago in the United States (n= 168;85 girls). Chinese participants included 50 sixth graders (Mage = 11.80 years, SD = .45;28 girls), 50 seventh graders (Mage = 12.88 years, SD= .33; 27 girls), and 50 eighth graders(Mage = 14.04 years, SD = .40; 34 girls). American participants included 46 sixth graders(Mage = 11.64 years, SD = .48; 24 girls), 59 seventh graders (Mage = 12.63 years, SD = .49;28 girls), and 63 eighth graders (Mage = 13.57 years, SD = .69; 33 girls). Chinese partici-pants were drawn from three schools representing a range of achievement levels (high,medium, and low) as judged within the Chinese educational system. However, becauseachievement levels in all Shanghai schools are relatively high, we recruited three rela-tively high achieving schools in Chicago (ranking in the top 25 out of 458 Chicago publicelementary schools). Among the American children, 59%were European American, 17%were Latin American, 2% were Chinese American, and 22% were of other ethnicities.Among the Chinese children, 99% were Han Chinese. American and Chinese familiesdiffered as would be expected on several demographic variables. American participantshad more siblings than Chinese participants,M = 2.09, SD = .22, versusM = .15, SD =.42, F(1, 215) = 302.54, p < .001. They also had fewer adults in the home, M = 2.07,SD = .87, versusM = 2.42, SD = .93, F(1, 280) = 11.90, p < .01. Adult educational levelswere higher for American families, M = 3.00, SD = 1.12, versus M = 2.51, SD = 1.11,on a 5-point Likert-type scale (see Table 1 for scale values), F(1, 285) = 13.9, p < .001.Income data were not collected but would be expected to be lower for Chinese families.Because parenting and child adjustment may be influenced by demographic variables,particularly socioeconomic status, we selected one of these (highest education level ofany household adult) to include as a covariate in our analyses.

Measures

All measures were translated into written Chinese and subsequently back-translatedinto English by two different bilingual Mandarin speakers (Chapman & Carter, 1979).Disagreements were resolved via discussion.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 7: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

TABLE1

DescriptiveStatisticsandCorrelationsamongMajorVariables

12

34

56

78

910

MSD

Rangea

1.Ownparentcoerciveauthority

assertion

—.44∗

∗−.09

.20∗

.14

.26∗

∗.04

.17∗

−.08

.14

2.68

.96

1–5

2.Criticalcomparisonand

shaming

.35∗

∗—

.01

−.15

.17∗

.22∗

∗.38∗

∗.33∗

∗−.30

∗∗−.11

1.25

.63

0–4

3.Approvalofcoerciveauthority

assertion

.20∗

.09

—−.13

.00

.09

.02

−.13

.09

.02

.96

.42

0–2

4.Childbeneficialinterpretation

.05

−.10

.15

—.16∗

.32∗

∗−.31

∗∗−.08

.25∗

∗.10

2.64

.77

0–4

5.Parentbeneficialinterpretation

.18∗

.26∗

∗.14

.17∗

—.49∗

∗.04

.06

−.11

.15

2.16

.53

0–4

6.Conventionalinterpretation

.24∗

∗.24∗

∗.23∗

∗.06

.55∗

∗—

−.02

.06

.08

.01

2.26

.68

0–4

7.Depression

.38∗

∗.26∗

∗.18∗

−.06

.13

.18∗

—.38∗

∗−.32

∗∗−.14

.36

.33

0–2

8.Antisocialbehavior

.31∗

∗.19∗

.13

−.03

.02

.14

.35∗

∗—

−.52

∗∗.06

.31

.35

0–2

9.Schooleffort

−.13

−.16

−.05

.12

−.02

−.16

−.33

∗∗−.18

∗—

.06

3.22

1.02

1–5

10.Highesteducationb

.09

−.02

.20∗

−.07

.05

.20∗

.18∗

.17∗

.02

—3.00

1.12

0–4

M2.16

1.56

.18

2.65

2.06

2.06

.46

.14

3.89

2.51

SD1.00

.70

.29

.76

.74

.82

.38

.25

.81

1.11

Note.CorrelationsforAmericanparticipants(N

=168)arepresentedabovethediagonal,andcorrelationsforChineseparticipants(N

=150)arepresentedbelowthe

diagonal.MeansandstandarddeviationsforAmericanparticipantsarepresentedintheverticalcolumns,andmeansandstandarddeviationsforChineseparticipants

arepresentedinthehorizontalrows.

a Lastcolumnreportsrangeofpossiblescores.bForhighesteducation,scalepointsrepresentedthefollowinglevelsofeducation:0

=didnotgraduatehighschool;

1=graduatedhighschool;2

=somecollegeeducation;3

=graduatedcollege;4

=post-collegestudies.

∗ p<.05.

∗∗p

<.01.

310

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 8: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

INTERPRETATIONS OF PARENTING 311

Interpretation of coercive authority assertion (ICAA). This measure consisted of 10 state-ments describing authoritarian practices taken from Buri (1991). Item inspection indi-cated that all statements described parenting practices that involve CAA (demands forunquestioning obedience without explanation and sometimes with the use of force).However, for our scale, each practice was generally described and not attributed to thechild’s own parents (e.g., “Some parents are strict and forceful with their child whenthe child does not do what they are supposed to do.”). Each statement was followedby the question “Do you approve of this type of parent behavior?” (for the Approval ofCoercive Authority Assertion [ACAA] subscale), and by nine statements describing pos-sible reasons for the practice. These statements represented three additional subscalesconstituting different interpretation categories: (1) Child Beneficial (three items; e.g.,“for child’s own good”), (2) Parent Beneficial (three items; e.g. “to make things easierfor the parents”), and (3) Conventional Reason (three items; e.g., “because most parentsdo this”). Participants responded to the question regarding approval on a 3-point Likert-type scale (agree, not sure, disagree), and rated their agreement with each interpretationstatement on a 5-point scale. After measurement invariance testing (see Results sec-tion), two ACAA items were removed due to nonsignificant factor loadings. Cronbach’salphas (calculated separately for each culture) generally exceeded .70 for all remainingitems: ACAA, .71 for Americans, .76 for Chinese; Child Beneficial, .94 for Americans,.92 for Chinese; Parent Beneficial, .83 for Americans, .91 for Chinese; Conventional,.93 for each culture.

OPCAA. This measure included the 10 authoritarian subscale items taken from Buri’s(1991) original measure, and referred to the child’s own parents (e.g., “My parents donot allow me to question any decision that they make.”). Children rated their agree-ment with each statement on a 5-point scale. One item was removed due to its causingnon-convergence in the measurement invariance testing, resulting in nine items for thismeasure. Cronbach’s alphas were .88 for Americans and .88 for Chinese participants.

CCS. This exploratory measure originally consisted of 21 statements that representcriticism, comparison, and shaming practices (e.g., “My parents often tell me how otherchildren are better than me.”, “My parents like to discuss my problems in front ofother people.”). Children rated their agreement with each statement on a 5-point scale.Followingmeasurement invariance testing, seven items were removed due to nonsignif-icant factor loadings or their causing non-convergence (see Appendix for final 14 items).Cronbach’s alphas were .67 for Americans and .71 for Chinese participants.

Depression. Taken from Barber et al. (2005), this measure included 10 items. Each itemincluded three statements describing a depressive symptom at different levels of inten-sity. One item was removed due to a nonsignificant factor loading in the measurementinvariance testing. Participants circled the best-fitting statement allowing for scores tobe generated on a 3-point scale. Cronbach’s alphas were .79 for Americans and .81 forChinese.

Antisocial behavior. This measure included 14 items taken from Barber et al. (2005)describing harmful, rebellious, or disruptive behaviors. One item was removed due toa nonsignificant factor loading in the measurement invariance testing. Children rated

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 9: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

312 CAMRAS ET AL.

their agreement with each item on a 3-point scale. Cronbach’s alphas were .87 forAmericans and .88 for Chinese.

School effort. Taken from Chao (2001), this measure consisted of three items askinghow often the child completes his/her school assignments, pays attention in class, andstudies for exams. Participants responded on a 5-point scale. One item was removeddue to its causing non-convergence in the measurement invariance testing. The correla-tions between the remaining two items were r(165) = .48, p < .001, for Americans, andr(148) = .34, p < .001, for Chinese.

RESULTS

Measurement Invariance Testing

We conducted measurement invariance testing at the metric invariance (pattern orloading invariance) level on each construct to ensure the constructs were comparablebetween the two cultural groups. As indicated by Vandenberg and Lance (2000), met-ric invariance allows a comparison of associations among variables between groups,and serves well the main focus of the current study. The original items were used asindicators for all constructs except for the interpretation variables (i.e., the child ben-eficial, parent beneficial, and conventional interpretations). For these, we calculatedan average score across the three items representing each interpretation under eachof the ten CAA statements. This process generated a parcel score for each interpreta-tion construct for each of the ten ICAA items. In the measurement invariance testing,indicators that showed nonsignificant loadings in either or both cultural groups, orthat caused non-convergence were removed from the final model. These items wereidentified by examining the significance of the standardized factor loadings, and whennon-convergence occurred, by testing the model iteratively with one item removedat a time. After achieving adequate model fit, model comparisons were conducted todetermine measurement invariance. For each construct, the chi-square value of theconfirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model without constraints on factor loadings wascompared with that of the CFA model with constraints across groups. The resultsshowed that at least partial invariance (i.e., some of the items demonstrated invariance)for all constructs was established with complete invariance (i.e., all items demonstratedinvariance) established on the three interpretation constructs (i.e., child benefit, parentbenefit, and conventional interpretation). Model fit for the unconstrained and final con-strained models was adequate, and the chi-square change was not significant at the.05 alpha level (details available from author). The number of items for each constructin the final models was presented in the measures section. As suggested by the litera-ture (e.g., Byrne, Shavelson, & Muthen, 1989), partial invariance can allow meaningfulcomparisons between groups. The remaining items in the final models were used in thefollowing analyses.

Correlations among Major Variables

Children’s ratings of their OPCAA and CCS were correlated in both cultures(see Table 1). Both OPCAA and CCS were generally related to poorer child adjust-ment, although relations were not always significant. ACAA was significantly related

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 10: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

INTERPRETATIONS OF PARENTING 313

to greater depression for Chinese (but not American) children. The child beneficialinterpretation was generally related to more positive adjustment, whereas the parentbeneficial interpretation was related to more negative adjustment although, again, rela-tions were not always significant. Conventional interpretation scores were related todepression for Chinese (but not American) children. Highest adult education level wasnot correlated with either OPCAA or CCS in either culture, but was associated withthe conventional interpretation and greater depression and antisocial behavior for theChinese children.

Group Differences in Perceived Parenting Behaviors

To investigate cultural differences in children’s ratings of their own parents’ par-enting, we conducted a 2 (culture) × 2 (child gender) MANCOVA with highest adulteducation (HE) as a covariate, and scores on OPCAA and CCS as dependent variables.Significant effects were found for HE, Wilks’ Lambda= .98, F(2, 271)= 3.48, p< .05, andculture, Wilks’ Lambda = .85, F(2, 271) = 23.78, p < .001. Follow-up ANOVAs showedthat American children rated their parents higher on OPCAA than did Chinese children,F(1, 280) = 11.86, p < .01, whereas Chinese children rated their parents higher on CCS,F(1, 275) = 17.42, p < .01. However, mean differences and effect sizes were small: ForOPCAA, M = 2.68, SD = .96 for American children, M = 2.16, SD = 1.00 for Chinesechildren, η2 = .04; for CCS, M = 1.25, SD = .63 for American children, M = 1.56, SD =.70 for Chinese children, η2 = .06.

Relations between Perceived Parenting Behaviors and Children’s Adjustment

To investigate relations between children’s ratings of their OPCAA and their self-reported depression, antisocial behavior, and school effort, we conducted a separatehierarchical multiple regression for each child adjustment variable. Each included cul-ture, gender, and HE in Block 1, OPCAA scores in Block 2, and the OPCAA × Cultureinteraction in Block 3. Separate follow-up regressions for each culture were conductedto evaluate significant interactions with gender and HE as covariates.For depression, the analysis yielded a significant effect for the OPCAA × Culture

interaction (Block 3; see Table 2). Follow-up analyses showed that greater OPCAA waslinked to greater depression in Chinese children, β = .38, p < .001, R2 = .17, p < .001,but not American children, β = .03. For antisocial behavior, the analysis yielded signif-icant effects for culture and OPCAA (Block 2; see Table 2). American children reportedmore antisocial behavior than Chinese children. For both cultures, greater OPCAA wasassociated with greater antisocial behavior. The analysis for school effort yielded a sig-nificant effect for culture (Block 1), β = .35, p < .001, R2 = .12, p < .001, indicating thatChinese children reported more school effort than American children.To investigate relations between CCS and children’s adjustment, we conducted three

regressions analogous to those described above. For depression, the analysis yielded asignificant effect for CCS (Block 2; see Table 3), but no significant interaction. GreaterCCS was associated with greater depression in both cultural groups. For antisocialbehavior, the analysis yielded a significant effect for gender and for the CCS × Cultureinteraction (Block 3; see Table 3). Boys reported more antisocial behavior than girls.Follow-up regressions showed that greater CCS was associated with greater antisocialbehavior for both cultural groups although more so for the American children, β = .33,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 11: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

TABLE2

HierarchicalRegressionAnalysesRelatingChildAdjustmenttoCultureandOPCAA

ChildDepression

AntisocialBehavior

SchoolEffort

BSE

β�R2

R2

BSE

β�R2

R2

BSE

β�R2

R2

Block1

.04

.04∗

∗.07

.07∗

∗∗.12

.12∗

∗∗Educationallevel

.01

.02

.04

.02

.02

.10

.03

.05

.04

Gender

−.04

.04

−.06

.03

.03

.05

−.07

.11

−.04

Culture

.14

.04

.19∗

∗−.13

.03

−.22

∗∗∗

.67

.11

.35∗

∗∗Block2

.05

.09∗

∗∗.03

.10∗

∗.01

.13

Educationallevel

.00

.02

.01

.02

.02

.08

.04

.05

.05

Gender

−.05

.04

−.07

.02

.03

.04

−.06

.11

−.03

Culture

.17

.04

.24∗

∗∗−.11

.03

−.19

∗∗.64

.11

.34∗

∗∗OPCAA

.08

.02

.23∗

∗∗.05

.02

.18∗

∗−.07

.06

−.07

Block3

.04

.13∗

∗.01

.11

.00

.13

Educationallevel

.01

.02

.02

.02

.02

.08

.04

.05

.05

Gender

−.06

.04

−.08

.02

.03

.04

−.06

.11

−.03

Culture

−.18

.11

−.25

−.25

.09

−.43

∗∗.80

.29

.42∗

∗OPCAA

.00

.03

.01

.02

.03

.07

−.03

.08

−.03

OPCAA

×Culture

.14

.04

.52∗

∗.06

.03

.26

−.07

.11

−.09

Note.OPCAA

=OwnParentCoerciveAuthorityAssertion.

∗∗p

<.01.

∗∗∗ p

<.001.

314

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 12: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

TABLE3

HierarchicalRegressionAnalysesRelatingChildAdjustmenttoCultureandCCS

ChildDepression

AntisocialBehavior

SchoolEffort

BSE

β�R2

R2

BSE

β�R2

R2

BSE

β�R2

R2

Block1

.04

.04∗

.11

.11∗

∗∗.12

.12∗

∗∗Educationallevel

.01

.02

.03

.02

.01

.09

.04

.05

.04

Gender

−.04

.04

−.06

.06

.03

.10

−.08

.11

−.04

Culture

.13

.04

.18∗

∗−.16

.03

−.28

∗∗∗

.67

.11

.35∗

∗∗Block2

.09

.13∗

∗∗.06

.18∗

∗∗.04

.16∗

∗∗Educationallevel

.01

.02

.05

.03

.01

.10

.03

.05

.03

Gender

−.02

.04

−.03

.07

.03

.12∗

−.11

.11

−.06

Culture

.07

.04

.10

−.20

.03

−.35

∗∗∗

.77

.11

.40∗

∗∗CCS

.17

.03

.32∗

∗∗.11

.02

.26∗

∗∗−.29

.08

−.21

∗∗∗

Block3

.00

.13

.02

.09∗

.01

.17

Educationallevel

.02

.02

.05

.03

.01

.11

.02

.05

.03

Gender

−.02

.04

−.03

.07

.03

.12∗

−.11

.11

−.06

Culture

.16

.10

.23

−.04

.07

−.07

.45

.25

.23

CCS

.21

.05

.40∗

∗∗.17

.04

.42∗

∗∗−.43

.12

−.30

∗∗CCS

×Culture

−.07

.06

−.18

−.11

.05

−.37

∗.24

.16

.23

Note.CSS

=CriticalComparisonandShaming.

∗ p<.05.

∗∗p

<.01.

∗∗∗ p

<.001.

315

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 13: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

316 CAMRAS ET AL.

p < .001, R2 = .11, p < .001, and β = .20, p < .05, R2 = .04, p < .05, for American andChinese children respectively. For school effort, the analysis yielded significant effectsfor culture and CCS (Block 2; see Table 3). Chinese children reported greater schooleffort than American children. Greater CCS was related to lower school effort.

Children’s Approval and Interpretations of CAA

To investigate group differences in children’s approval and interpretation of CAA,we conducted a 2 (culture) × 2 (child gender) MANCOVA with HE as a covariate andscores on the ACAA subscale, child beneficial subscale, parent beneficial subscale, andconventional reason subscale as dependent variables. A significant multivariate effectwas found for culture, Wilks’ Lambda = .51, F(4, 276) = 67.55, p < .001. Follow-upANOVAs yielded a significant effect for culture and a significant Gender × Cultureinteraction for ACAA, F(1, 279) = 272.21, p < .001, η2 = .49, and F(1, 279) = 6.58, p <

.05, η2 = .02, respectively. American children approved of CAA more than did Chinesechildren,M = .96, SD = .42 for Americans, andM = .18, SD = .29 for Chinese children,respectively. Further analyses of the interaction indicated that Chinese boys approvedof CAA more than Chinese girls;M = .25, SD = .36 for boys, andM = .15, SD = .24 forgirls, F(1, 139) = 6.79, p < .02, η2 = .05.To investigate our hypothesis that children would interpret CAA as intended to ben-

efit parents more than children, we conducted an additional ANCOVA with cultureand gender as independent variables, HE as a covariate, and the three interpretationcategories (parent beneficial, child beneficial, conventional) as a repeated measure.The analysis yielded a significant effect for interpretation, F(2, 564) = 15.57, p < .001,η2 = .05. Children in both cultures rated the child beneficial interpretation higherthan the parent beneficial or conventional interpretations: For Americans, child ben-eficial M = 2.64, SD = .77; parent beneficial M = 2.16, SD = .53; and conventionalinterpretation M = 2.26, SD = .68. For Chinese, child beneficial M = 2.65, SD = .76;parent beneficial M = 2.06, SD = .74; and conventional interpretation M = 2.06,SD = .82.

Moderation of Relations between OPCAA and Adjustment by Children’s Approvaland Interpretations

To investigate potential moderation of relations between OPCAA and children’sadjustment by their approval and interpretations of CAA, we employed the followingdata analysis plan. We conducted a set of 12 hierarchical multiple regression analy-ses with each one using either depression or antisocial behavior or school effort asthe dependent variable, and one of the three interpretation variables or the approvalscore as the moderator variable. Each included culture, gender, and HE in Block 1,OPCAA (centered), and one of the interpretation variables or the approval score (cen-tered) in Block 2, a two-way interaction term for OPCAA (centered) × the selectedinterpretation or approval score (centered) in Block 3, and a three-way interactionterm for culture × OPCAA (centered) × the selected interpretation or approval score(centered) in Block 4. Significant three-way interactions were examined by conduct-ing follow-up regressions separately for each culture with gender and HE in Block 1,the OPCAA and the interpretation or approval score in Block 2, and a two-way inter-action term for OPCAA × the interpretation or approval score in Block 3. Significant

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 14: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

INTERPRETATIONS OF PARENTING 317

two-way interactions were further examined in follow-up regressions with HE as acovariate, and OPCAA scores as the independent variable at high (+ 1 SD) and low(− 1 SD) levels of the interpretation or approval variable. The significance of the simpleslopes of the regression lines was tested using the software program Interaction (Soper,2010).

Approval of authority assertion. The analysis examining ACAA as potentially moderat-ing the relation between children’s OPCAA ratings and their self-reported depressionyielded a significant OPCAA × ACAA interaction (Block 3; see Table 4). Follow-upregressions indicated that greater OPCAA was associated with greater depression atboth high and low levels of approval but the slope was steeper at the lower level, sim-ple slope B = .06, SE = .02, p < .01, at + 1 SD, and B = .07, SE = .02, p < .01, at − 1SD. Thus, greater OPCAA was associated with greater depression overall but more sowhen approval was low. In contrast, no significant interactions were obtained in anal-yses examining approval as potentially moderating the relations between OPCAA andantisocial behavior or school effort.

Child beneficial interpretation. The analysis examining the child beneficial interpreta-tion as a moderator for depression yielded a near-significant two-way interaction (p =.06; Block 3; see Table 5). Follow-up regressions indicated that greater OPCAA was sig-nificantly linked to greater depression at both high and low levels of the child beneficialinterpretation, but the slope was steeper at the lower level, simple slope B = .07, SE =.02, p < .01, at + 1 SD and B = .08, SE = .03, p < .01, at − 1 SD. Thus, greater per-ceived OPCAA was related to greater depression for all children but less so when theybelieved more strongly that parents’ intention was to benefit the child. Analyses exam-ining the child beneficial interpretation as a moderator for antisocial behavior or schooleffort produced no significant interactions.

Parent beneficial interpretation. The three analyses examining the parent beneficialinterpretation produced no significant results.

Conventional reason interpretation. No significant interaction was yielded in the analy-sis examining the conventional interpretation as a moderator for children’s depression.In contrast, the analysis examining the conventional interpretation as a moderator forantisocial behavior yielded a significant two-way interaction and a virtually significantthree-way interaction (p = .05 in Block 4; see Table 6). Follow-up regressions showedthat the OPCAA × Conventional interaction was significant only for American chil-dren, β = .24, p < .01, R2 = .07, p < .01. Further analyses of the data from Americanchildren showed that greater OPCAA was linked to greater antisocial behavior at bothlevels (albeit nonsignificantly for each separate level), simple slope B = .04 , SE = .03,at + 1 SD and B = .03 , SE = .03, at − 1 SD. However, the slope was somewhat steeperat the higher level. Thus, to some extent, greater perceived CAA was related to greaterantisocial behavior for American children more so when they believed more stronglythat such assertion was practiced because it was conventional.The analysis examining the conventional reason interpretation scores as a moderator

for school effort also yielded a significant three-way interaction (Block 4; see Table 6).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 15: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

TABLE4

HierarchicalRegressionAnalysesRelatingChildAdjustmenttoCulture,OPCAA,andACAA

ChildDepression

AntisocialBehavior

SchoolEffort

BSE

β�R2

R2

BSE

β�R2

R2

BSE

β�R2

R2

Block1

.04

.04∗

.08

.08∗

∗∗.13

.13∗

∗∗Educationallevel

.01

.02

.03

.02

.02

.09

.04

.05

.05

Gender

−.04

.04

−.06

.03

.03

.06

−.09

.11

−.05

Culture

.14

.04

.19∗

∗−.13

.03

−.23

∗∗∗

.67

.11

.35∗

∗∗Block2

.06

.10∗

∗∗.03

.11∗

.01

.13

Educationallevel

−.00

.02

−.00

.02

.02

.07

.05

.05

.06

Gender

−.05

.04

−.07

.03

.03

.05

−.08

.11

−.04

Culture

.25

.06

.35∗

∗∗−.09

.05

−.16

.60

.16

.32∗

∗∗OPCAA

.08

.02

.23∗

∗∗.05

.02

.17∗

∗−.08

.06

−.08

ACAA

.11

.06

.16

.02

.05

.04

−.04

.15

−.02

Block3

.02

.12∗

.00

.11

.00

.13

Educationallevel

.00

.02

.00

.02

.02

.07

.05

.05

.06

Gender

−.05

.04

−.07

.03

.03

.05

−.08

.11

−.04

Culture

.28

.06

.38∗

∗∗−.09

.05

−.16

.60

.16

.32∗

∗∗OPCAA

.08

.02

.21∗

∗∗.05

.02

.17∗

∗−.08

.06

−.08

ACAA

.12

.06

.18∗

.03

.05

.05

−.04

.15

−.02

OPCAA

×ACAA

−.09

.04

−.13

∗−.01

.03

−.01

.00

.11

.00

Block4

.00

.12

.01

.11

.00

.14

Educationallevel

.00

.02

.00

.02

.02

.07

.05

.05

.06

Gender

−.05

.04

−.07

.03

.03

.05

−.08

.11

−.04

Culture

.27

.06

.38∗

∗∗−.09

.05

−.16

.60

.16

.32∗

∗∗OPCAA

.07

.03

.18∗

.02

.02

.08

−.01

.08

−.02

ACAA

.12

.06

.17∗

.02

.05

.04

−.04

.15

−.02

OPCAA

×ACAA

−.06

.07

−.09

.06

.06

.12

−.17

.18

−.09

OPCAA

×ACAA

×Culture

−.06

.11

−.07

−.14

.09

−.19

.34

.29

.14

Note.OPCAA

=OwnParentCoerciveAuthorityAssertion;ACAA

=ApprovalofCoerciveAuthorityAssertion.

∗ p<.05.

∗∗p

<.01.

∗∗∗ p

<.001.

318

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 16: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

TABLE5

HierarchicalRegressionAnalysesRelatingChildAdjustmenttoCulture,OPCAA,andChildBeneficialInterpretation

ChildDepression

AntisocialBehavior

SchoolEffort

BSE

β�R2

R2

BSE

β�R2

R2

BSE

β�R2

R2

Block1

.04

.04∗

∗.07

.07∗

∗∗.12

.12∗

∗∗Educationallevel

.01

.02

.04

.02

.02

.10

.03

.05

.04

Gender

−.04

.04

−.06

.03

.03

.05

−.07

.11

−.04

Culture

.14

.04

.19∗

∗−.13

.03

−.22

∗∗∗

.67

.11

.35∗

∗∗Block2

.09

.13∗

∗∗.04

.12∗

∗.03

.15∗

Educationallevel

.00

.02

.01

.02

.02

.08

.04

.05

.05

Gender

−.05

.04

−.07

.02

.03

.04

−.06

.11

−.03

Culture

.17

.04

.24∗

∗∗−.11

.03

−.19

∗∗.64

.11

.34∗

∗∗OPCAA

.09

.02

.26∗

∗∗.06

.02

.19∗

∗−.09

.06

−.10

CBI

−.10

.03

−.20

∗∗∗

−.04

.22

−.11

∗.19

.07

.15∗

∗Block3

.01

.14

.00

.12

.00

.15

Educationallevel

.00

.02

.01

.02

.02

.08

.04

.05

.05

Gender

−.05

.04

−.07

.02

.03

.04

−.06

.11

−.03

Culture

.16

.04

.23∗

∗∗−.11

.03

−.19

∗∗.65

.11

.34∗

∗∗OPCAA

.09

.02

.26∗

∗∗.06

.02

.19∗

∗−.09

.06

−.10

CBI

−.10

.03

−.21

∗∗∗

−.04

.22

−.12

∗.19

.07

.15∗

∗OPCAA

×CBI

−.05

.03

−.11

−.02

.02

−.05

.06

.07

.05

Block4

.00

.15

.00

.12

.00

.15

Educationallevel

.00

.02

.01

.02

.02

.08

.04

.05

.05

Gender

−.05

.04

−.07

.02

.03

.04

−.06

.11

−.03

Culture

.17

.04

.24∗

∗∗−.11

.04

−.19

∗∗.64

.11

.34∗

∗∗OPCAA

.09

.02

.26∗

∗∗.06

.02

.19∗

∗−.09

.06

−.10

CBI

−.11

.03

−.22

∗∗∗

−.04

.02

−.11

.20

.07

.16∗

∗OPCAA

×CBI

−.02

.04

−.04

−.02

.03

−.07

.04

.10

.04

OPCAA

×CBI

×Culture

−.06

.05

−.09

.01

.04

.03

.03

.14

.02

Note.OPCAA

=OwnParentCoerciveAuthorityAssertion;CBI

=ChildBeneficialInterpretation.

∗ p<.05.

∗∗p

<.01.

∗∗∗ p

<.001.

319

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 17: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

TABLE6

HierarchicalRegressionAnalysesRelatingChildAdjustmenttoCulture,OPCAA,andtheConventionalInterpretation

ChildDepression

AntisocialBehavior

SchoolEffort

BSE

β�R2

R2

BSE

β�R2

R2

BSE

β�R2

R2

Block1

.04

.04∗

∗.07

.07∗

∗∗.12

.12∗

∗∗Educationallevel

.01

.02

.04

.02

.02

.10

.03

.05

.04

Gender

−.04

.04

−.06

.03

.03

.05

−.07

.11

−.04

Culture

.14

.04

.19∗

∗−.13

.03

−.22

∗∗∗

.67

.11

.35∗

∗∗Block2

.05

.09∗

∗∗.03

.10∗

.01

.13

Educationallevel

.00

.02

.01

.02

.02

.08

.04

.05

.05

Gender

−.05

.04

−.07

.02

.03

.04

−.06

.11

−.03

Culture

.17

.04

.24∗

∗∗−.11

.03

−.19

∗∗.64

.11

.34∗

∗∗OPCAA

.08

.02

.21∗

∗.05

.02

.17∗

∗−.06

.06

−.06

CONV

.03

.03

.06

.01

.02

.02

−.07

.07

−.06

Block3

.00

.10

.01

.11

.00

.14

Educationallevel

.00

.02

.01

.02

.02

.08

.05

.05

.05

Gender

−.05

.04

−.08

.02

.03

.04

−.05

.11

−.03

Culture

.17

.04

.24∗

∗∗−.11

.03

−.19

∗∗.64

.11

.34∗

∗∗OPCAA

.07

.02

.21∗

∗.05

.02

.16∗

∗−.05

.06

−.05

CONV

.03

.03

.07

.01

.02

.02

−.08

.07

−.06

OPCAA

×CONV

.03

.03

.06

.03

.02

.07

−.08

.07

−.06

Block4

.01

.10

.01

.12

.02

.15∗

Educationallevel

.00

.02

.00

.02

.02

.08

.04

.05

.05

Gender

−.06

.04

−.08

.03

.03

.05

−.07

.11

−.04

Culture

.15

.04

.22∗

∗−.09

.04

−.16

∗.58

.12

.30∗

∗∗OPCAA

.07

.02

.21∗

∗.05

.02

.17∗

∗−.05

.06

−.05

CONV

.05

.03

.10

−.01

.02

−.02

−.02

.08

−.01

OPCAA

×CONV

−.02

.05

−.05

.09

.04

.24∗

−.31

.13

−.24

∗OPCAA

×CONV

×Culture

.08

.06

.13

−.10

.05

−.21

.36

.16

.23∗

Note.OPCAA

=OwnParentCoerciveAuthorityAssertion;CONV

=ConventionalInterpretation.

∗ p<.05.

∗∗p

<.01.

∗∗∗ p

<.001.

320

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 18: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

INTERPRETATIONS OF PARENTING 321

Follow-up regressions showed that the OPCAA × Conventional interpretation interac-tion was significant only for American children, β = −.27, p < .01, R2 = .06, p < .01.Further analyses showed that greater OPCAA was associated with less school effort inAmerican children at both levels of conventional interpretation (albeit again nonsignifi-cant for each separate level), simple slope, B = −.04 , SE = .10, at + 1 SD and B = −.12,SE= .11, at− 1 SD. These slopes suggest that greater CAA is linked to decreased schooleffort by American children more so when they believe this parenting practice is lessmotivated by conventional reasoning.

DISCUSSION

The present study investigated two types of controversial parenting practices, CAA andCCS. Although these practices are generally considered harsh byWestern psychologists,negative effects are not always found in studies of non-European American children.Some researchers have proposed that children’s benign interpretation of these prac-tices may serve a protective function and mitigate their negative effects. Our studysuggests that this may be true to at least some extent for both American and Chinesechildren.

Group Differences in Perceived Parenting Behaviors

Our hypothesis that Chinese parents would be rated higher than American parentson both CAA and CCS was partially confirmed. Chinese parents were indeed ratedhigher on the CCS measure, but American parents were rated higher on our measureof CAA. As noted earlier, our CAA scale was constituted of items reflecting demandsfor unquestioning obedience that may be forcefully implemented. Other studies assess-ing authoritarian parenting in Chinese and American children often have employedmeasures that incorporate a wider range of items (e.g., control through anxiety induc-tion as included in a frequently used scale developed by Kochanska, Kuczynski, &Radke-Yarrow, 1989; see Chao, 1994; Chen et al., 1997). Therefore, we offer two pos-sible explanations for our findings. One is that CAA is not as crucial a component ofauthoritarian parenting in Chinese families as it is in American families. That is, asmembers of a collectivist culture that places a high value on family obligations, Chinesechildren may more readily accede to parental demands, and thus require their forcefulimplementation (or threats thereof) less often. Another explanation involves recent cul-tural changes in Chinese parenting practices, at least in urban areas such as Shanghai(see Chang et al., 2011; Chen, Chen et al., 2009; Chen, Wang, & Wang, 2009). Perhapscontemporary Chinese parents have substantially reduced their forceful demands forunquestioning obedience, and instead rely more on CCS of children who do not meettheir standards.

Relations between Perceived Parenting Behaviors and Children’s Adjustment

Our findings were generally consistent with our hypothesis that children’s ratings oftheir parents’ CAA and CCS would be associated with poorer self-reported adjustmentin both American and Chinese children. These results were stronger for CCS. HigherCSS scores were associated with greater depression, greater antisocial behavior, and less

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 19: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

322 CAMRAS ET AL.

school effort in both cultures. Higher OPCAA scores were related to greater antisocialbehavior in both cultures and greater depression in Chinese children. However, OPCAAwas not related overall to lower school effort in either sample, and was not related todepression for American children. Measures of both authoritarian parenting and psy-chological control have often included both items related to CCS and items related toCAA (e.g., Barber, 1996; Kochanska et al., 1989). Our findings suggest that these twoforms of harsh parenting may have different effects on child adjustment when examinedboth within and across cultures.

Children’s Approval and ICAA

We hypothesized that Chinese children would approve of coercive authority asser-tion more than American children. Somewhat surprisingly, they approved of it less.Possibly of greater significance, we found that approval ratings for our CAA measureby children in both cultures were low (see Table 1). Thus, both American and Chinesechildren appear to perceive such parenting as being inappropriate or detrimental tochildren’s well-being. These perceptions appear to be supported by our findings regard-ing relations between our OPCAA measure and children’s self-reported depression,antisocial behavior, and school effort.Although their approval ratings were low, both American and Chinese children

judged CAA to be practiced for the benefit of the child significantly more than for thebenefit of parents. These finding were inconsistent with our hypothesis that childrenwould interpret such authoritarian parenting as being practiced for relatively selfishreasons (i.e., to benefit the parents). Instead they suggest that children from both cul-tures believe that parents may be well-meaning but misguided when they engage inCAA.Regarding cultural comparisons, we found no differences in American and Chinese

children’s ratings on the parent beneficial, child beneficial, or conventional interpreta-tion scales. This finding also suggests that children from both cultures interpret CAAsimilarly with regard to parents’ underlying intentions to benefit themselves or to ben-efit their children. In contrast to one of our hypotheses, we did not find that Chinesechildren rated our authority assertion items as being motivated by social conventionsmore than did American children. Our hypothesis was based on the expectation thatauthoritarian practices would be found to be more common in Shanghai than in theUnited States. However, as noted above, this expectation was not confirmed. Thus, itmay not be surprising that Chinese children also do not believe that parents practiceCAA because of social conventions more so than do American children.

Moderation of Relations between OPCAA and Adjustment by Children’s Approvaland Interpretations

Irrespective of overall cultural differences, we hypothesized that associationsbetween children’s ratings of their parents’ CAA and our child adjustment measureswould be moderated by the approval and interpretation of such parenting by childrenin both cultures. Our results provided support for this hypothesis (although our mod-eration effects were modest). Greater CAA was significantly associated with greaterdepression for children in both cultures, but the association was stronger when approvalof such authority assertion was low or when parents’ intention to benefit the child was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 20: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

INTERPRETATIONS OF PARENTING 323

rated as being low. In contrast, these variables did not moderate relations between per-ceived CAA and either antisocial behavior or school effort. Thus, approval and a benignICAAmay have more of a mitigating effect on emotional adjustment than on behavioraladjustment and school involvement.In contrast, moderation effects of the conventional interpretation (i.e., interpreting

CAA as being practiced for normative reasons) were found for antisocial behavior.However, results were weaker and only obtained for American students. For thesechildren, higher levels of CAA were related to more antisocial behavior to a greaterextent when conventional interpretation scores were high. These findings suggest thatAmerican children who believe their parents are authoritarian because they are fol-lowing social conventions may be more susceptible to the modeling effects of parents’own CAA practices. Because these practices and antisocial behavior share elementsof force and aggression, such a modeling effect would not be unexpected. Our find-ing initially may appear inconsistent with some past studies that have reported fewernegative effects of forceful discipline in cultural or ethnic groups in which such dis-cipline is more conventional (i.e., is practiced more frequently; e.g., Lansford et al.,2005). However, in our study, we focused on children’s perceptions of parents’ moti-vations for practicing authority assertion, not how normative it is within the culture.This key distinction may suggest that the normativeness of forceful discipline miti-gates its negative effects only when children do not attribute its practice solely to itsconventionality.Regarding school effort, significant moderation was found only for American chil-

dren. For these children, greater CAA was related to less school effort more so whenconventional interpretation scores were low. These findings are partially consistentwith previous research reporting associations between parenting and academic perfor-mance for European American more than Chinese or Chinese American students (Chao,2001; Wang et al., 2007). However, moderation effects were not investigated in paststudies.

Limitations and Future Directions

One limitation of our study was the omission of a measure to assess children’sapproval and interpretation of CCS. Because our CCS measure was newly developedand its use was exploratory, we did not investigate children’s evaluation of the behav-iors described therein in this initial study. However, the measure proved adequate interms of its internal reliability and its theoretically plausible relations to our other vari-ables. Therefore, children’s approval and interpretation of CCS should be included infuture investigations.A second limitation of our study is the possibility that our Shanghai sample was

not representative of the Chinese population. Recent research suggests that both par-enting and children’s behavior in Westernized urban cities (such as Shanghai) versussmaller cities or rural areas in China may be significantly different (Chen, Wanget al., 2009). Along similar lines, a third possible limitation of our study is the het-erogeneity of the American sample with respect to ethnic backgrounds. Because oursample size was relatively small, we were unable to separately examine subsetsof our American children. Furthermore, because variability in ethnicity character-ized only the American group, we could not include this as a covariate in ouranalyses.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 21: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

324 CAMRAS ET AL.

An additional limitation of our study is shared source variance stemming from ouruse of child report measures for all variables. Shared source variance may lead to overes-timating the strength of associations between parenting behaviors and child adjustment.For this reason, we acknowledge that we must draw our conclusions with caution.Still, other studies have found that children’s perceptions of parents’ behaviors canbe meaningfully related to data provided by other reporters regarding family contextor social adjustment (e.g., Atzaba-Poria & Pike, 2008; Gaylord, Kitzmann, & Coleman,2003). Given the promise of our findings, we believe that it would be profitable to investin future studies that include measures obtained from both parents and children, andthat examine prospective relations among parents’ behavior, children’s interpretationsof their behavior, and children’s adjustment.A final limitation of our study may be that we did not explore a greater range of

potential moderating variables. Our authority assertion approval and interpretationsubscales moderated only a subset of the relations we examined, and sometimes only forthe American children. Other types of interpretation might be more relevant for Chinesechildren or for children from both cultures. At the same time, the moderator variableswe used might be even more successful when examined in relation to CCS rather thanCAA.

Summary

The results of our cross-sectional study of American and Chinese children’s perceivedparenting and adjustment suggest that both CAA and CCS may be generally detri-mental to child development in both cultures. However, CCS was linked to negativeadjustment more often than CAA. In contrast to our expectations, American childrenreported higher levels of CAA, and more approval of such authority assertion thandid Chinese children. However, Chinese children reported higher levels of CCS. BothChinese and American children believe that CAA was practiced with the intention ofbenefiting the child more than for selfish reasons. Nonetheless, they did not approve ofit. We interpret these results as indicating that children in both cultures believe parentsto be well-meaning but misguided when they employ such authority assertion practices.Our data on relations between parenting practices and children’s adjustment (as well asresearch by other investigators) suggest that the children may indeed be correct.Our findings also suggest that CAAmay be moderated by factors that are not equally

relevant across cultures. Future research might focus on identifying additional variablesthat regulate the effects of both CAA and CCS on both Chinese and American children.More generally, we suggest that future research on social cognitive processes underlyingchildren’s responses to parenting behaviors will increase our understanding of parentalinfluences on children’s social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE, APPLICATION, AND POLICY

An implication of our findings is that interventions employed by clinicians, policy-makers, and even parents themselves should pay explicit attention to the two separateaspects of negative parenting examined in our study: CAA and CCS. Interventionsmight also benefit from including an assessment of children’s interpretations of theirparents’ behavior, and perhaps work to institute appropriate changes in both children’s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 22: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

INTERPRETATIONS OF PARENTING 325

interpretations and the parenting behaviors themselves. A third implication is that anassessment of children’s interpretations might aid practitioners in determining whetherspecific practices are (or are not) generally detrimental to children from particularcultural (or ethnic) groups, as well as any individual child within such a group.

AFFILIATIONS AND ADDRESSES

Linda A. Camras, Department of Psychology, DePaul University, 2219 North KenmoreAve., Chicago, IL 60614, USA. E-mail: [email protected]. Keping Sun is at ShanghaiNormal University. Yan Li and Michelle F. Wright are also at DePaul University.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank the children who participated in this study, and the parents who gavetheir permission.

REFERENCES

Atzaba-Poria, N., & Pike, A. (2008). Correlates of parental differential treatment: Parental and contextualfactors during middle childhood. Child Development, 79, 217–232.

Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67,3296–3319.

Barber, B. K. (2002). Reintroducing parental psychological control. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: Howpsychological control affects children and adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological AssociationPress.

Barber, B. K., Stolz, H. E., & Olsen, J. A. (2005). Parental support, psychological control, and behavioral con-trol: Assessing relevance across time, culture, and method. Monographs of the Society for Research in ChildDevelopment, 70(4), 1–147.

Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R., & Owens, E. (2010). Effects of preschool parents’ power assertive patterns andpractices on adolescent development. Parenting: Science and Practice, 10, 157–201.

Block, J. (1981). The child-rearing practices report (CRPR): A set of Q items for the description of parental socializationattitudes and values. Unpublished manuscript, Institute of Human Development, University of California,Berkeley.

Bornstein, M. H. (2010). From measurement to meaning in caregiving and culture: Current challenges andfuture prospects. In C. Worthman, P. Plotsky, D. Schechter, & C. Cummings (Eds.), Formative experiences:The interaction of caregiving, culture, and developmental psychobiology (pp. 36–50). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Bornstein, M. H., & Lansford, J. E. (2010). Parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.),Handbook of cultural developmentalscience (pp. 259–278). New York: Psychology Press.

Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D., & Lansford, J. E. (2011). Parenting attributions and attitudes in cross-culturalperspective. Parenting: Science and Practice, 11, 214–237.

Buri, J. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 110–119.Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthen, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covari-

ance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105,456–466.

Chang, L., Chen, B., & Ji, L. (2011). Attributions and attitudes of mothers and fathers in China. Parenting:Science and Practice, 11, 102–115.

Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chineseparenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111–1119.

Chao, R. K. (2000). The parenting of immigrant Chinese and European American mothers: Relations betweenparenting styles, socialization goals, and parental practices. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21,233–248.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 23: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

326 CAMRAS ET AL.

Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans andEuropean Americans. Child Development, 72, 1832–1843.

Chapman, D., & Carter, J. (1979). Translation procedures for the cross-cultural use of measurement instru-ments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(3), 71–76.

Chen, X., Chen, H., Li, D., & Wang, L. (2009). Early childhood behavioral inhibition and socialand school adjustment in Chinese children: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 80,1692–1704.

Chen, X., Dong, Q., & Zhou, H. (1997). Authoritative and authoritarian parenting practices and social andschool performance in Chinese children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 855–873.

Chen, X., & Wang, L. (2010). China. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of cultural developmental science (pp.429–444). New York: Psychology Press.

Chen, X., Wang, L., & Wang, Z. (2009). Shyness-sensitivity and social, school, and psychological adjustmentin rural migrant and urban children in China. Child Development, 80, 1499–1513.

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation ofparenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244–1257.

Fung, H. (1999). Becoming a moral child: The socialization of shame among young Chinese children. Ethos, 27,180–209.

Gaylord, N., Kitzmann, K., & Coleman, J. (2003). Parents’ and children’s perceptions of parental behavior:Associations with children’s psychosocial adjustment in the classroom. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3,23–47.

Ho, C., Bluestein, D., & Jenkins, J. (2008). Cultural differences in the relationship between parenting andchildren’s behavior. Developmental Psychology, 44, 507–522.

Kakihara, F., & Tilton-Weaver, L. (2009). Adolescents’ interpretations of parental control: Differentiated bydomain and types of control. Child Development, 80, 1722–1738.

Kochanska, G., Kuczynski, L., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1989). Correspondence between mothers’ self-reportedand observed child-rearing practices. Child Development, 60, 56–63.

Lansford, J., Chang, L., Dodge, K., Malone, P., Oburu, P., Palmerus, K., . . .Quinn, N. (2005). Physical disciplineand children’s adjustment: Cultural normativeness as a moderator. Child Development, 76, 1234–1246.

Leung, K., Lau, S., & Lam, W. (1998). Parenting styles and achievement: A cross-cultural study.Merrill-PalmerQuarterly, 44, 157–172.

Mason, C., Walker-Barnes, C., Tu, S., Simons, J., &Martinez-Arrue, R. (2004). Ethnic differences in the affectivemeaning of parental control behaviors. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 25, 59–79.

Nelson, D., Hart, C., Yang, C., Olsen, J., & Jin, S. (2006). Aversive parenting in China: Associations with childphysical and relational aggression. Child Development, 77, 554–572.

Pomerantz, E., & Wang, Q. (2009). The role of parental control in children’s development in western and eastAsian countries. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 285–289.

Soper, D. (2010). Interaction! Unpublished copyrighted software. Retrieved from http://www.danielsoper.com/

Sorkhabi, N. (2005). Applicability of Baumrind’s parent typology to collective cultures: Analysis of culturalexplanations of parent socialization effects. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 552–563.

Stewart, S. M., Bond, M. H., Kennard, B. D., Ho, L. M., & Zaman, R. M. (2002). Does the Chinese construct ofguan export to the west? International Journal of Psychology, 37, 74–82.

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature:Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods,3, 4–70.

Wang, Q., Pomerantz, E., & Chen, H. (2007). The role of parents’ control in early adolescents’ psychologicalfunctioning: A longitudinal investigation in the United States and China. Child Development, 78, 1592–1610.

Wu, C., & Chao, R. K. (2011). Intergenerational cultural dissonance in parent-adolescent relationships amongChinese and European Americans. Developmental Psychology, 47, 493–508.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 24: Do Chinese and American Children's Interpretations of Parenting Moderate Links between Perceived Parenting and Child Adjustment?

INTERPRETATIONS OF PARENTING 327

APPENDIX

Critical Comparison and Shaming (CCS) Measure (Final Set of Items)

0 1 2 3 4Not True Somewhat VeryAt All True True

(Circle One)

0 1 2 3 4 (1) My parents always blame me when other children do better than me inschool.

0 1 2 3 4 (2) My parents do not shame me in front of other people. (R)∗0 1 2 3 4 (3) My parents like to discuss my problems in front of other people.0 1 2 3 4 (4) My parents do not compare me to someone else who they think is better.(R)∗

0 1 2 3 4 (5) My parents believe that I am smarter than other kids. (R)∗0 1 2 3 4 (6) My parents often shame me before family and friends.0 1 2 3 4 (7) My parents only care about their own or my family’s reputation.0 1 2 3 4 (8) My parents encourage me in a positive way to do as well as other kids.(R)∗

0 1 2 3 4 (9) My parents feel that I must do better than other kids that are my age.0 1 2 3 4 (10) My parents feel confident that I can do better than other kids. (R)∗0 1 2 3 4 (11) My parents often are critical of me when they compare me with otherkids.

0 1 2 3 4 (12) My parents often tell me about how other children are better than me.0 1 2 3 4 (13) My parents judge my school performance without comparing me to oth-er kids.(R)∗

0 1 2 3 4 (14) My parents always think I must do better than everyone else.∗Reverse scored.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

19 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014