meternal and paternal parenting styles

8/12/2019 Meternal and Paternal Parenting Styles

1/39


2/39

ative parenting behaviors of mothers and fathers are associated

with childrens relational aggression and that these associations

are in case of fathers contingent upon a number of sampling

and procedural characteristics.

2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction

During the last couple of decades, researchers in the field of aggression have increasingly devoted

their attention to covert and indirect forms of aggression such as relational, social, or indirect aggres-

sion (Bjorkqvist, 1994; Ct, Vaillancourt, Barker, Nagin, & Tremblay, 2007; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995;

Galen & Underwood, 1997; Murray-Close, Ostrov, & Crick, 2007; Underwood, Beron, & Rosen, 2009 ).

For these types of aggression as opposed to physical and verbal aggression, we use here the term rela-

tional aggression to be consistent and avoid confusion. Relational aggression is conceptually and

qualitatively different from physical aggression in that it focuses on behaviors that harm othersthrough damage to relationships (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Examples of relational aggression include

various hurtful behaviors such as intentionally withdrawing friendships, spreading rumors to hurt

others, and excluding others from the peer group (Crick et al., 1999). Recent studies in this area have

also demonstrated that relational aggression is one of the favorite forms of aggression through the

internet and digital text messages (e.g.,Berger, 2007; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). A substantial body

of research has reported consistent, negative outcomes for both the perpetrators and the victims of

relational aggression, including peer rejection, isolation from peer groups, externalizing and internal-

izing adjustment problems (e.g., Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008; Crick, Ostrov, & Kawabata,

2007; Crick et al., 1999).

In addition to the study on the outcomes and correlates of relational aggression, many efforts have

been made to identify the antecedents of relational aggression, and one of the major areas of research

has been parenting (Crick et al., 1999). Studies on the associations between parenting and relational

aggression have produced both positive and non-significant results with varying effect sizes (e.g.,

Reed, Goldstein, Morris, & Keyes, 2008). Because relational aggression may have detrimental conse-

quences for the perpetrators as well as for their victims (e.g., Crick et al., 1999, 2001; Crick &

Zahn-Waxler, 2003; Hawker & Boulton, 2000), it is crucial to determine whether and how strongly dif-

ferent aspects of parenting are associated with the perpetration of relational aggression. This knowl-

edge can be used to inform family-based interventions aimed at preventing the perpetration of

relational aggression. Therefore, the goal of the present meta-analytic study was to analyze and syn-

thesize the existing research on the associations between parenting and relational aggression, and to

identify potential substantive and methodological factors that may influence these associations. Be-

cause numerous terms have been used to describe various types of parenting, we conducted a quan-

titative conceptual analysis in order to create some conceptual order and structure in this burgeoning

but also somewhat chaotic literature (for an example of a quantitative conceptual analysis, see De

Wolff & Van IJzendoorn, 1997).

Relational, social, and indirect aggression

The concepts of relational, social, and indirect aggression have been interchangeably used to de-

scribe forms of aggression that are behaviorally and conceptually different from direct physical and

verbal aggression. Although these constructs have a lot in common, each of them captures a somewhat

different dimension of aggression. Relational aggression is usually defined as a form of aggression inwhich relationships serve as an agent of harm, as distinct from a direct, physical form of aggression

(for a review, seeCrick et al., 1999). By definition, relational aggression includes both covert and overt

behaviors that are used to hurt peers through the damage and manipulation of relationships. For

example, spreading mean rumors and other forms of subtle social exclusion may be more covert,

Y. Kawabata et al. / Developmental Review 31 (2011) 240278 241


3/39

whereas ignoring a member of the group and threatening to end friendships (e.g., I wont be your

friend unless you do what I say) are more overt in nature.

Social aggression includes, in addition to manipulative behaviors used for relational aggression, a

broader spectrum of behaviors that damage peers self-esteem, social status, and reputations (e.g., fa-

cial expressions of disdain, gossiping;Galen & Underwood, 1997). Indirect aggression includes indi-

rect forms of aggression such as ignoring and social exclusion, which are similar to relational and

social aggression, but it also includes behaviors that are not directly related to manipulation of rela-

tionships (e.g., criticizing the other ones hair or clothing; Bjorkqvist, 1994). Although these constructs

are similar to one another by definition of content, relational aggression includes those specific behav-

iors that reflect intent to harm others through the damage and manipulation ofrelationships (Crick

et al., 1999). In this meta-analytic synthesis, we used the term relational aggression to be consistent,

but we did include studies on social and indirect aggression as well.

The association between parenting and relational aggression: theoretical views

A long tradition of research in child development is the study of the role of parentchild relation-

ships and parenting behaviors in the development of aggression. As such, a substantial body of liter-ature has documented that aggression, including relational aggression, is associated with positive or

negative dimensions of parenting in childhood and adolescence (for a review, see Nelson & Crick,

2002). In this section, we discuss the main theoretical mechanisms underlying the association be-

tween parenting and relational aggression in addition to the possibility of child effects and genetically

mediated influences. In the next section, we will review empirical studies on the link between rela-

tional aggression and parenting styles and propose specific hypotheses based on our literature review.

Social learning theory

In line with social learning theory (Bandura, 1973), the association between parenting and rela-

tional aggression can be explained by modeling and (vicarious) reinforcement. Children may observe

and model their parents own use of relational aggression. For example, children may copy theirmothers use of socially excluding her own friends or spreading rumors about them. Or children

may observe their mothers use of relational aggression as a parenting strategy directed at the children

themselves. However, it is important to note that modeling is not just simple mimicry of acts (Bandu-

ra, 1989). For example, children may observe their parents punitive and hostile parenting behaviors.

But the manifestation of childrens aggressive acts as a result of modeling may not be identical to what

they have observed. That is, children may learn from modeling their parents behaviors that being hos-

tile and punitive is effective in getting ones own way; hence, these children may adopt aggressive

strategies, including physical and relational aggression, in their interactions with peers. These children

may choose different forms of aggression, depending on specific situations and contexts they

encounter.

Children may also be reinforced or observe others being reinforced (vicarious reinforcement) fortheir use of relational aggression. This reinforcement can be positive (praise) or negative (absence

of punishment). For example, permissive parenting may be related to childrens use of relational

aggression (Casas et al., 2006) because it is a means of negative reinforcement. Parents who are per-

missive provide negative reinforcement for childrens undesired or disruptive behaviors (e.g., aggres-

sion) via their use of inconsistent discipline or laxness (Nelson & Crick, 2002). These parents usually

fail to provide sufficient behavioral control to counteract the development and maintenance of their

childrens aggressive or disruptive behaviors (Nelson & Crick, 2002).

Attachment theory

According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982), children develop internal working models of

the (social) world based on their early experiences with their primary caregiver(s). When a caregiver issensitive and responsive early in the childs life, the child is likely to develop a secure attachment rela-

tionship with this caregiver. However, growing up with an insensitive and unresponsive caregiver may

put the child at risk for developing an insecure attachment relationship (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, &

Wall, 1978). Children who have experienced insensitivity and rejection by their caregiver may develop

242 Y. Kawabata et al. / Developmental Review 31 (2011) 240278


4/39

a blueprint of relationships that is characterized by insecurity and uncertainty. As a result, insecurely

attached children are likely to develop a lack of confidence in themselves and in others, which puts

them at risk for problems in peer relationships (Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005). For example,

Sroufe et al. (2005)showed that insecurely attached children exhibited more negative affect in their

initiation of contact with others and reaction to others initiations, were more aggressive and less pop-

ular according to their peers and teachers, and showed less prosocial behavior as compared to securely

attached children. This lack of social skills may be an explanation for these childrens use of relational

aggression and their being the targets of such aggression.

Parental sensitivity plays a fundamental role in the development of a secure attachment relation-

ship, but other parenting strategies, such as harsh or psychologically controlling parenting, may also

be of importance. For example, Soenens and colleagues posit that the association between psycholog-

ically controlling parenting and relational aggression can be explained by attachment theory (Soenens,

Vansteenkiste, Goossens, Duriez, & Niemiec, 2008). They note that psychologically controlling parent-

ing can result in insecurity and a thwarted sense of belongingness in the child, which in turn may lead

to an insecure model of relationships with others. To compensate for these feelings of insecurity, chil-

dren may engage in relationally aggressive behavior (Soenens et al., 2008). A recent meta-analysis has

shown that attachment insecurity is a risk factor for the development of externalizing problems (Fea-ron, Bakermans-Kranenburg, Van IJzendoorn, Lapsley, & Roisman, 2010). Unfortunately, research on

the association between attachment and relational aggression is scarce. However, there are some indi-

cations that insecurely attached children are indeed more likely to show relational aggression in the

interactions with their peers than securely attached children (for a review see Michiels, Grietens,

Onghena, & Kuppens, 2008).

Emotion regulation theory

Related to attachment theory, emotion regulation theory focuses on factors influencing the early

development of emotion regulation and the role of emotion regulation in later social and emotional

development. In the first year of life, the caregiver plays an important role in the childs development

of emotion regulation skills. Whereas emotion regulation is a dyadic process in this first year, it grad-ually becomes an individual process during early childhood (Sroufe, 1995). Sensitive caregivers help

the child to regulate his or her emotions so the child does not get overly distressed and thus can grad-

ually learn how to regulate his or her own emotions. However, when the parent does not provide en-

ough guidance and support (e.g., by exhibiting insensitive or harsh caregiving) the development of

effective emotion regulation skills may be compromised (e.g., Crockenberg, Leerkes, & Lekka, 2007).

Several studies have shown that emotion dysregulation may hamper social and emotional develop-

ment (e.g.,Alink, Cicchetti, Kim, & Rogosch, 2009). More specifically, the association between emotion

regulation and relational aggression has been investigated by Crick (1995). She found that relationally

aggressive children reacted with heightened anger and distress to instrumental provocations (e.g., a

peer breaks the childs toy). This suggests that when provoked, relationally aggressive children may

not be able to regulate their emotions effectively, and may use relational aggression as a means ofdealing with their heightened distress.

Social information processing theory

Implied in the theories mentioned above is the idea that aggressive behavior may be triggered by a

hostile interpretation of social cues (Crick & Dodge, 1994). An important aspect of social communica-

tion is the interpretation of another persons intent. Dodge (1980)has shown that physically aggres-

sive children often (negatively) misinterpret ambiguous cues, and as a result, feel provoked by others

and react aggressively. Research has shown that this bias does not only explain physical aggression

but also relational aggression. For example,Crick, Grotpeter, and Bigbee (2002)showed that relation-

ally aggressive children exhibited hostile attributional biases when confronted with ambiguous rela-

tional information.Parents may directly or indirectly teach their children to interpret ambiguous social information

in a hostile, relationally aggressive manner. For example, parents can reinforce the childs own skep-

ticism of other peoples intentions. Or a mother may explicitly express that she is not inviting her

friend over for dinner because this friend had celebrated his/her birthday with his/her family and



5/39

therefore had not invited the mother. Indeed, research has shown that there is an association between

maternal (instrumental and relational) intent attributions and those of her child (Nelson, Mitchell, &

Yang, 2008) and a link between paternal aversive parenting and his childs hostile attribution biases

(Nelson & Coyne, 2009).

Another explanation for deficits in social information processing that possibly leads to relational

aggression can be found in attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982). As described above, insecurely

attached children may have developed an inner working model representing a hostile world in which

the child is not worthy of love, support and respect from others, including peers. As a result, insecure

children may interpret ambiguous relational cues as more negative than securely attached children.

Relatedly, emotion regulation may play an important role in the development of deficits in social

information processing.Izard, Stark, Trentacosta, and Schultz (2008) argue that emotion regulation

and emotion information processing mutually influence each other. Children who are not good at reg-

ulating and recognizing their own emotions may have difficulties accurately interpreting others

(ambiguous) emotions. And in turn, when children are not able to correctly process external emotional

cues, this leads to inaccurate emotion knowledge, which hampers their abilities to regulate and ex-

press (appropriate) emotions themselves.

Genetic explanations and child effects

Often the association between parenting and child behavior is interpreted as a unidirectional effect

with parenting influencing child behavior. However, other explanations for this relationship are also

possible. For example, the association between parenting and relational aggression may be explained

by genetic effects (cf. Rowe, 1994). In their behavioral genetic study on 618-year old twins, Tackett

and colleagues (2009)have shown that 4963% of the variance in (self- and mother-reported) rela-

tional aggression can be explained by genetic differences. The same genes may account for (dysfunc-

tional) parenting as well as child relational aggression.

Another possibility is that child behavior may evoke certain parenting strategies. Ge et al. (1996)

investigated adopted children who were at genetic risk for antisocial behavior, based on their birth

parents psychopathology. They showed that these at risk children were more likely to evoke harshand inconsistent parenting than other adopted children, suggesting that the childrens behavior was

(at least partially) influencing the type of parenting they received. On a similar note, Jaffee et al.

(2004)have shown that the genetic factors that influenced corporal punishment and child antisocial

behavior were largely similar, suggesting that child antisocial behavior partially evokes parental phys-

ical punishment (although this was not true for physical maltreatment). Similar effects may be in-

volved in the association between parenting and relational aggression although to date the

empirical evidence for this is scarce. One of the few studies that did investigate the direction of effects

in the association between parenting and relational aggression revealed that in motherchild dyads

the association between psychological control and child relational aggression represented a reciprocal

process (Kuppens, Grietens, Onghena, & Michiels, 2009a).

Relational aggression and parenting

Relational aggression has been examined at various developmental stages in preschool (e.g.,

Crick, Casas, & Mosher, 1997), middle childhood (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), and adolescence

(e.g., Werner & Crick, 1999). Whereas numerous studies have demonstrated consistent findings

regarding negative consequences of relational aggression, the findings of existing research examining

relational aggression and parenting vary with effect sizes ranging from small to moderate at best

(Nelson & Crick, 2002). It has long been theorized that what children learn, how they react to the

events and to others around them, and what they expect from themselves and others is affected by

their relationships with parents and the behaviors of parents (Collins & Laursen, 1999; Hartup & Ru-

bin, 1986; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Parentchild interactions constitute an important developmentalcontext in which children acquire social and behavioral expectations and learn social behaviors that

could carry over into other relationship contexts such as peer relationships (e.g., Maccoby & Martin,

1983). Indeed, a substantial body of literature has demonstrated that dimensions of positive or nega-

tive parenting (i.e., authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglecting) are differentially



6/39

associated with a wide variety of childrens social behavior such as aggression and prosocial behavior

toward peers (Alink, Mesman, et al., 2009; Romano, Tremblay, Boulerice, & Swisher, 2005; Steinberg,

Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994). However, one of the limitations of this research is the

fact that the majority of the samples include only one child per family. With such research designs, it

is impossible to disentangle parenting and genetic influences. Indeed, behavioral genetic studies have

shown that a large part of the variance in relational aggression can be explained by genetic differences

(4963%;Tackett, Waldman, & Lahey, 2009). Nevertheless, a substantial amount of the variance is ex-

plained by shared environmental factors (3751%;Tackett et al., 2009), indicating that parenting, in

addition to other shared environmental factors such as siblings, friends, school environment, do play

an important role in the development of relational aggression.

Taken together, it is crucial to fully understand whether and how dimensions of positive or nega-

tive parenting such as Baumrinds three parenting styles are associated with childrens use of rela-

tional aggression in the peer context. Baumrind describes three prototypical parenting styles which

are authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting (Baumrind, 1971). Each parenting style is

thought to differ in terms of two dimensions (i.e., responsiveness/warmth and control). Authoritative

parenting is described as parenting behavior that is high in control and high in responsiveness,

whereas authoritarian parenting is characterized as high in control and low in responsiveness. Permis-sive parenting is low in control and high in responsiveness. These parenting styles have been shown to

be differentially linked with child behaviors in the short and long run. For example, whereas author-

itative parenting is predictive of childrens adaptive social skills and coping mechanisms such as high

levels of social competence, prosocial behavior, and emotion regulation, authoritarian parenting typ-

ically results in maladaptive behaviors such as aggression, delinquency, and social withdrawal (Baum-

rind, 1971). In this section, we discuss whether each type of parenting style is associated with specific

child outcomes, including aggression, especially relational aggression. In addition, we discuss the

association between psychologically controlling parenting and relational aggression, because this par-

enting strategy has been studied quite extensively in relation to relational aggression.

Authoritative parenting

Early studies on childrearing strived to identify parenting styles that would promote childrens

competent behaviors such as self-reliance, self-control, and friendliness (Baumrind, 1967, 1971). This

research yielded consistent results; that is, a combination of warmth, firm control, and clear standards

of conduct formed the important characteristics of positive parenting. The term authoritative parent-

ing, which meant that parents are high on both warmth and demand, was later used to describe po-

sitive parenting. Authoritative parent generally sets clear limits for the child and encourages

compliance, but is also warm and uses reasoning as a means of explaining the rules. It has been widely

documented that positive parenting is associated with better peer relations and with fewer aggressive

behaviors (Baumrind, 1973). More recent studies have demonstrated that positive parenting, charac-

terized as mutually contingent, warm, sensitive, and responsive interactions with the child, is associ-ated with more social competence, including prosocial behavior and positive interactions with peers,

and with less aggression and delinquency (e.g.,Chen, Dong, & Zhou, 1997; Collins & Steinberg, 2006;

Harrist, Pettit, Dodge, & Bates, 1994; Mize & Pettit, 1997; Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 1997; Steinberg et al.,

1994). Overall, parenting behaviors that are warm, responsive, and synchronous in the interactions

with children may lead to higher levels of childrens social competence and lower levels of aggression

toward peers.

Researchers who are interested in a more covert or indirect form of aggression such as relational

aggression have contended that positive dimensions of parenting may also influence the development

of relational aggression. Whereas some studies have generated weak and null findings in this area

(Casas et al., 2006; Russell, Hart, Robinson, & Olsen, 2003; Underwood, Beron, Gentsch, Galperin, & Ris-

ser, 2008), other studies have found that positive parenting is associated with lower levels of relationalaggression (Crick et al., 1999). Similarly, Brown and colleagues showed that positive maternal affect

(features of authoritative/positive parenting) is associated with less relational aggression in preschool-

ers (Brown, Arnold, Dobbs, & Doctoroff, 2007). Taken together, it is hypothesized that positive parent-

ing would lead to less use of relational aggression toward peers.



7/39

Authoritarian parenting

Authoritarian parenting, in contrast to authoritative parenting, is characterized by high control and

low responsiveness (Baumrind, 1967, 1971). Authoritarian parents value obedience and use strict

rules. They usually use punitive discipline tactics, have an absolute standard, restrict the autonomy

of the child, are low in warmth, and do not use induction as a means of explaining their demands. This

type of parenting has been shown to be associated with childrens negative social adjustment such as

being moody, hostile toward others, and low in self-esteem (Baumrind, 1973; Coie & Dodge, 1998). For

example, a large body of literature has demonstrated that authoritarian parenting styles (e.g., punitive

or coercive discipline) predict childrens use of physical aggression and hostile behaviors toward peers

(e.g., Chen et al., 1997; Coie & Dodge, 1998; Hart, DeWolf, Wozniak, & Burts, 1992; Ladd & Pettit,

2002).

Whereas findings with regard to the link between authoritarian parenting and childrens physical

aggression are generally consistent, evidence for relational aggression again is somewhat varying with

some weak and null findings. For example, mothers and fathers authoritarian parenting (Casas et al.,

2006), maternal and paternal coercion (Hart, Nelson, Robinson, Olsen, & McNeilly-Choque, 1998), and

mothers negative affect (Brown et al., 2007) have been shown to be concurrently related to increased

relational aggression in preschoolers. Moreover, hostility in motherchild dyads and harsh/ineffectiveparenting were associated with childrens use of relational aggression toward peers (e.g.,Vaillancourt,

Miller, Fagbemi, Ct, & Tremblay, 2007). Other studies, however, did not find significant associations

between authoritarian parenting and childrens relational aggression reported by teachers (Russell

et al., 2003; Underwood et al., 2008). Overall, the majority of previous studies have shown that neg-

ative/harsh parenting may lead to childrens relational aggression; however, it is unclear how large the

effect size across pertinent studies would be and which moderators might explain the divergent

outcomes.

Permissive parenting

Another parenting style that was described by Baumrind (1967, 1971) is permissive parenting. This

parenting style is characterized by low control and high responsiveness. Permissive parents areresponsive to their childrens needs but do not set clear limits and boundaries. They make few de-

mands, allow children to regulate their own actions as much as possible, and react in an accepting,

nonpunitive way to their childrens impulses and wishes. This type of parenting or parentchild rela-

tionship that lacks firm rules and consistent discipline may create a socializing context for childrens

negative behaviors such as aggression. For example, children with permissive parents may not fully

develop an ability to control their negative emotions such as anger presumably because their parents

typically do not monitor their childrens behaviors and do not make them reflect on this behavior.

Consequently, these children are unable to regulate their aggressive impulses when dealing with

problems, conflicts, and disagreements with peers and as a result display excessive levels of aggressive

behaviors when they are angry. In support of this view, akin to negative/harsh parenting, the literature

in this area has suggested that permissive or inconsistent parenting or lack of monitoring are generallyrelated to higher rates of physical aggression in children (Rubin, Stewart, & Chen, 1995). Similarly, re-

search has shown that permissive parenting, including lack of parental consistent monitoring, is asso-

ciated with relational aggression at various developmental ages such as preschool age (e.g., Casas

et al., 2006), school age (e.g.,Sandstrom, 2007; Vaillancourt et al., 2007), and adolescence (e.g.,Stock-

er, 2000).

Psychologically controlling behavior

A parenting style that has not been specifically distinguished by Baumrind but has been investi-

gated in association with relational aggression is psychologically controlling parenting. Psychological

control, in contrast to behavioral control in which childrens behaviors are the loci of control, is a neg-

ative form of parental control that interferes with childrens psychological autonomy (Barber, Stolz, &Olsen, 2005). Psychological control often hinders childrens development of social competence be-

cause it limits their opportunities to develop self-regulatory and coping skills to deal with social sit-

uations (Nelson, Hart, Wu, et al., 2006). Psychologically controlling parenting behaviors include tactics

such as love withdrawal, guilt induction, negative affect-laden expressions (e.g., the expression of



8/39

disappointment and shame to the child), and excessive possessiveness or protectiveness, which are

very similar to relationally aggressive strategies (i.e., manipulation of parentchild relationships or

control of childs behavior;Nelson & Crick, 2002). Hence, parental use of psychological control tactics

may serve as a primer that makes children more likely to adopt relationally aggressive strategies in

their interactions with peers (Casas et al., 2006).

Supporting this view, the majority of studies in this area have demonstrated that parental psycho-

logical control is related to increased relational aggression at varying ages and in different cultures,

including preschool girls in the United States (Casas et al., 2006) and in China (Nelson, Hart, Yang, Ol-

sen, & Jin, 2006) as well as school-aged children (girls) in the United States (Nelson & Crick, 2002) and

in Belgium (Kuppens et al., 2009a). Hence, it was hypothesized that psychologically controlling behav-

ior would be related to increased relational aggression.

To investigate whether the parenting constructs in the studies that were included in the current

meta-analysis could be grouped according to Baumrinds parenting styles (including psychologically

controlling behavior), we asked experts in research on parenting to sort the parenting constructs

and conducted a multiple correspondence analyses to cluster the different constructs. Separate

meta-analyses were performed for each of these parenting constructs.

Moderators

Sex of child and parent

An important research question regarding the development of aggression is whether the link be-

tween parenting and the development of relational aggression differs for males and females ( Casas

et al., 2006). Early work examining gender differences (main effects) in relational forms of aggression

suggested that whereas males were more likely to engage in physical forms of aggression, females

were more likely to exhibit relational forms of aggression (see Crick et al., 1999, for a review;Ostrov

& Crick, 2007). This is especially the case during the late elementary school years as females become

increasingly focused on close relationships with peers and their friendships become increasingly close,intimate, and exclusive (Kistner et al., 2010). This proposal is consistent with findings from meta-ana-

lytic reviews documenting that, relative to boys, girls place more emphasis on close, dyadic relation-

ships, are more likely to adopt relational orientations, and are more frequently exposed to relational

conflicts (Rose & Rudolph, 2006).

Given these theoretical views and findings regarding sex differences favoring girls in relational

aggression and forming close relationships, it is conceivable that parenting behaviors may be differen-

tially linked with relational aggression, depending on the gender of parent and the child. Indeed, sev-

eral studies in this area have demonstrated that paternal and maternal parenting behaviors are

differentially associated with the development of relational aggression for boys and girls. For example,

mothers use of psychological control (i.e., love withdrawal and guilt induction; Casas et al., 2006),

physical coercion (Nelson, Hart, Wu, et al., 2006), and permissive parenting (Casas et al., 2006) andfathers use of psychological control (Casas et al., 2006; Nelson & Crick, 2002; Nelson, Hart, Wu,

et al., 2006) and authoritarian parenting (Casas et al., 2006) were predictive of relational aggression

for girls. Moreover, mothers use of coercive control (i.e., verbal hostility and corporal punishment;

Nelson & Crick, 2002) and fathers use of love withdrawal, one dimension of psychological control that

closely resembles relational aggression, were associated with increased relational aggression for boys

(Casas et al., 2006). Another study revealed that physical coercion was positively related to forms of

aggression (relational and physical) for boys, and psychological control was largely predictive of forms

of aggression for girls (Nelson, Hart, Wu, et al., 2006). These sex-specific associations may be congru-

ent with the view that relational aggression, which co-vary with high levels of intimacy and closeness,

is considered to be relatively normative for females (i.e., mothers and daughters) as compared to

males (i.e., fathers and sons; Crick, 1997; Crick, Bigbee, & Howes, 1996; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).We expect the associations between parenting styles such as psychological control (parental relational

aggression) and relational aggression would be stronger for girls than for boys. Accordingly, the pres-

ent meta-analysis examined the moderating effect of childrens sex on the association between mater-

nal or paternal parenting and relational aggression.



9/39

Other sample characteristics

Besides sex, we also considered moderators concerning sample characteristics such as the chil-

drens age and their cultural background. The varying effect sizes regarding the associations between

parenting and relational aggression (i.e., ranging from moderate to null) may be due to the age differ-

ences in the samples. Given that there are developmental trends and differences with regard to the

development and maintenance of relational aggression (Crick et al., 1999) and the significance of par-

enting behaviors (Darling & Steinberg, 1993), differential associations between parenting and rela-

tional aggression may exist for children at different developmental ages. For example, given the

literature that has suggested that peer relationships and friendships become more salient (Hartup &

Stevens, 1997) and that relationships with parents are less central for older children and adolescents,

parenting may have less influence on childrens behavior with increasing age.

Further, childrens cultural backgrounds may be a moderator of the associations between parenting

styles and relational aggression given the weak and null findings in the literature with different sam-

ples from different cultures. Although studies that directly examined cross-cultural differences in the

association between parenting and relational aggression are scarce, they seem to indicate that rela-

tional aggression is more salient for children in Asian cultures than for children in Western cultures.

For example, the literature suggests that for cultures in which individuals place more emphasis onrelationships (e.g., Japan, China), as compared to Western cultures, relational aggression, which is cov-

ert and interpersonally aversive, is more commonly used than physical aggression, which is direct,

confrontational in nature; relational aggression also seems to be more detrimental to childrens so-

cialpsychological adjustment problems such as depressive symptoms (Crick, Ostrov, & Kawabata,

2007; Kawabata, Crick, & Hamaguchi, 2010a, b). These findings suggest that relative to children in

Western cultures, relational aggression, which is interpersonally aversive in nature, exerts a greater

impact on child outcomes for children in non-Western cultures. Combined with the view that par-

entchild relationships are closer, more intimate, and more interdependent for Asian cultures such

as Japan, it is possible that the impact of parenting on child behaviors may be stronger for children

in such (Eastern) relationship-oriented cultures and, thus, place these children at higher risk for devel-

oping negative behaviors such as relational aggression. For example, these children who experiencepsychologically controlling parenting (i.e., being ignored, manipulated, and controlled by parents)

within relationships that are more interdependent in nature may be more likely to learn relationally

aggressive behaviors through modeling of parents behaviors than children who form more indepen-

dent relationships with parents in Western cultures.

Procedural moderators

The varying magnitudes of the associations between parenting and relational aggression may also

be due to methodological issues (i.e., differences in the assessment methods or in the sources of infor-

mants used in the studies). Therefore, we evaluated the effects of the methods of assessment (ques-

tionnaires, peer nominations, observations), sources of relational aggression (child, peer, parent, or

teacher) and parenting (parent, child, or observer) on the strength of the association between parent-ing and relational aggression. Next, we tested whether the type of aggression that was assessed (rela-

tional, social, or indirect) was a significant moderator. In addition, it has been well documented that

information about both the predictor and the outcome measure obtained from a single informant may

be contaminated with informant-specific error of measurement (Kuppens, Grietens, Onghena, & Mich-

iels, 2009b), which in turn may inflate true relations between parenting and relational aggression. For

example, maternal psychological control was not associated with teacher-rated relational aggression

(Casas et al., 2006; Hart et al., 1998), whereas parental psychological control was indeed associated

with relational aggression when both constructs were reported by mothers (Casas et al., 2006). There-

fore, we tested whether effect sizes are larger when measures were obtained from the same informant

(on both relational aggression and parenting constructs) versus different informants.

Other potentially important moderators include research design (i.e., concurrent versus longitudi-nal), whether physical aggression was used as a control variable in the analyses, and the inclusion of

other covariates (e.g., age, sex). We hypothesized that concurrent designs would provide higher cor-

relations between parenting and relational aggression than longitudinal ones because assessments of

these constructs at the same time period may inflate the strength of the targeted association. Given



10/39

that relational aggression has been shown to be highly correlated with physical aggression (Card et al.,

2008) and that both forms of aggression are associated with parenting (Crick et al., 1999), controlling

for the contribution of physical aggression may allow us to examine the unique effect of parenting on

relational aggression. Hence, we expected that the association between parenting and relational

aggression would be stronger for studies, which did not take into account the effect of physical aggres-

sion statistically. In the same vein, given that sex, age, and other covariates are supposedly involved in

the effects of parenting on relational aggression, we hypothesized that the association between par-

enting and relational aggression would be attenuated by controlling for the effects of these variables.

Finally, in order to evaluate potential publication bias, we evaluated the effect of publication status of

the studies (i.e., published versus unpublished/dissertation) on the association between parenting and

relational aggression. It is possible that larger effect sizes are reported in published studies relative to

unpublished studies or dissertations given that significant findings are more likely to be published

than non-significant findings (Rosenthal, 1979).

In the present study, we conducted separate meta-analyses for fathers and mothers parenting

behaviors given that the association between parenting and relational aggression may vary by the

sex of the parent (Nelson & Crick, 2002; Underwood et al., 2008). Indeed, research has generated re-

sults with varying degrees of statistical significance concerning associations between maternal andpaternal parenting (i.e., psychologically controlling behavior) and relational aggression for boys and

girls (Casas et al., 2006; Hart et al., 1998; Nelson & Crick, 2002). To date, the majority of studies have

examined the association between maternal parenting behaviors and relational aggression, and no sys-

tematic comparison of the effects of maternal and paternal parenting on relational aggression has

been done. Hence, the present meta-analytic study was conducted to examine the effects of paternal

and maternal parenting on relational aggression separately.

The present study

The present study includes a conceptual analysis of the parenting constructs used in research on

parenting and relational aggression, and it presents a set of quantitative meta-analyses on this asso-

ciation in each of the parenting domains uncovered in the conceptual analysis. Meta-analyses run the

risk of combining too heterogeneous constructs, and thus comparing apples and oranges (Lipsey &

Wilson, 2001). The conceptual approach paves the way to a better focused quantitative analysis of

dimensions of parenting associated with relational aggression. Comparisons of effect sizes across

these domains may provide some insight into what the most important components of parenting

are to target in preventive interventions. Our overall hypothesis is that parenting style of mothers

and fathers is substantially associated with relational aggression, for boys as well as for girls, but that

different dimensions of parenting might show varying effect sizes depending on the sex of the parent

and of the child. To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first meta-analytic study that

summarizes research findings on the associations between relational aggression and parenting and

investigates multiple potential moderators of these associations across studies.

Study 1: clustering the parenting constructs

Method

Literature search

We obtained relevant articles and dissertations through the electronic databases EconLit, ERIC,

PAIS, PsychInfo, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Art and Human-

ities Citation Index, using the keywords for parenting behaviors and parentchild relationships (par-

ent

the asterisk indicates that the search includes the word or word fragment; for example, the keywordswere parenting, parental, parents etc. attachment, discipline, control, warmth, involvement, abuse, mal-

treatment, monitoring or sensitivity) and the keywords for relational aggression (social aggression, indi-

rect aggression, relational aggression, victimization, or bullying). We also searched relevant studies using

the reference lists of the collected papers and dissertations. To minimize the risk of publication bias,



11/39

we included unpublished data, which were available for our meta-analysis. To be able to include PhD

theses, we also searched Dissertation Abstracts International. We included PhD theses asRosenthal

(1991) showed how excluding PhD dissertations leads to inflated effect sizes (see also Van IJzendoorn,

Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Alink, 2012). The last search was conducted at the end of January 2011.

We selected studies that met the following criteria: (1) statistics were presented on the association

between relational aggression (including social and indirect aggression) and parenting behaviors that

directly involved parents and their children (i.e., constructs that assessed family environment, marital

relationships, and sibling relationships were excluded); and (2) the sample consisted of children who

were 18 years or younger (i.e., adult samples were excluded). We started with the number of 4218

articles and selected the final number of those fulfilling criteria, after reading the abstract, and some-

times the paper itself. Several studies on similar parenting constructs presented data on (partly) over-

lapping samples (e.g., Ct et al., 2007; Vaillancourt et al., 2007; and Loukas et al., 2005; Paulos, 2007).

Because in a meta-analysis studies should be independent and participants should only included once

in the same meta-analysis, studies using the same sample of participants cannot be included in the

same meta-analysis more than once. The papers that reported on the largest groups of participants

(Vaillancourt et al., 2007) and/or had a longitudinal design (Paulos, 2007) were included in our

meta-analysis. In total, 48 independent studies, including 28,097 children, were included in ourmeta-analyses.

Conceptual analysis: the sorting task

Overall, 142 different parenting constructs were identified in the studies that were selected based

on our literature search. We designed a separate card for each construct, including the definition that

was given in the paper and examples for the specific parenting construct (e.g., items that were used in

a questionnaire). To avoid that parenting constructs would be grouped together because they were as-

sessed with the same method, the specific method that was used to assess parenting was not men-

tioned on the cards. In addition, any information about the source of the construct was absent.

In order to cluster the constructs we asked experts, who were blind to the hypotheses of our study,

to sort them. Because a number of these 142 constructs were almost identical, we decided to ask twoexperts to group the constructs that were obviously similar. The two experts agreed on 88% of the con-

structs (i.e., they both placed them in the same group or kept them as a separate construct), and

reached consensus on grouping the other constructs. Of the 142 constructs, 42 were used separately

and 100 were grouped into 34 different groups. This resulted in a set of 76 different constructs. Next,

we asked other experts to sort these parenting constructs into 10 groups. This number of groups was

chosen to facilitate the sorting task and to guarantee the statistical power of the subsequent analyses

(Verkes, Van der Kloot, & Van der Meij, 1989). The instructions for the coders were as follows: These

cards contain different parenting constructs, all referring to various aspects of maternal and paternal

behavior toward the child. On each card, the name and definition and/or examples of the specific con-

struct are written. We would like to ask you to sort these constructs into 10 subgroups based on your

idea of conceptual similarity between the constructs. A group of one card is also possible. The num-ber of constructs in each group does not have to be equal. Experts were defined as persons who had

been actively involved in research on parenting for several years and who were at least participating in

a graduate program in the child and family studies. A total of 17 experts were asked and 15 of them

actually completed the sorting task. All of these coders had had extensive training in observing par-

entchild interactions. Almost half of the coders (N= 7) had a doctoral degree; the others were ad-

vanced graduate students.

Data analysis

We created a 76 (parenting constructs) 15 (expert coders) data matrix. The same numerical code

(110) was given to parenting constructs that were sorted in the same group by a specific coder. Con-structs that were sorted into different groups received different numerical codes. Next, we performed

a multiple correspondence analysis in order to specify dimensions according to which the different

constructs could be defined. Multiple correspondence analysis can be considered the counterpart of

principal component analysis for categorical data. It detects and represents underlying structures,



12/39

or dimensions, in a data set. For each parenting construct, object scores are generated that represent

the constructs score on a specific dimension. Finally, we conducted a two-step cluster analysis on the

object scores that resulted from the multiple correspondence analysis in order to cluster the parenting

constructs into different groups.

Results

A multiple correspondence analysis with three dimensions specified yielded results that were most

clearly interpretable. Inertias for the three dimensions were .88, .79, and .72 respectively. The dimen-

sions (which we labeled positivenegative, uninvolvedinvolved, and harshnonharsh) each ex-

plained 88%, 79%, and 72% of the variance. The three object scores on the dimensions that each

parenting construct received were saved. We performed a two-step cluster analysis on these object

scores. To specify the optimal number of clusters we searched for the lowest value of the Schwarzs

Bayesian Criterion (BIC) in combination with a large Ratio of BIC Changes and the Ratio of Distance

Measures. For four clusters, the BIC was lowest (147.42) and the Ratio of BIC Changes and the Ratio

of Distance Measures were reasonably large (0.16 and 2.63, respectively). The clusters are presented

inTable 1andFig. 1. Cluster 1 consisted of 24 parenting constructs, used in 23 different studies (in

some cases, similar parenting constructs were used in different studies and some studies used several

parenting constructs that fitted in the same cluster), and was labeled Positive parenting. Cluster 2

was labeled Psychologically controlling parenting and consisted of 25 parenting constructs, used

in 22 different studies. Cluster 3 consisted of 21 constructs reflecting Negative/harsh parenting, used

in 24 different studies, and six constructs that were used in eight different studies were included in

Table 1

Parenting clusters yielded by the two-step cluster analysis on the multiple correspondence analysis object scores.

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4

Positive parenting Psychologically controlling

parenting

Negative/harsh parenting Uninvolved

parenting

Nurturance Monitoring Emotional maltreatment Permissive (2)

Attachment Psychological control (3) Parentchild conflict Poor family

management

Positive relationship Parental dignity Negative affect Inconsistent

parenting

Positive reinforcement Overprotective/intrusive Authoritarian physical Laxness

Authoritative (2) Directiveness Harsh discipline Poor monitoring

Responsiveness Rule violation Hostile/ineffective parenting

Positive and involved parenting Love withdrawal Coercion

Discussion Monitoring/rules Negative interactionHelp and guidance Consistent parenting Sexual abuse

Positive affect Erratic emotional behavior Physical punishment

Warmth Guilt induction Neglect

Authoritative/sensitivity Non-physical discipline Inconsistent/physical discipline

Positive interaction (2) Power assertion Physical abuse

Conflict resolution Conformity Conflict

Acceptance Training parenting Authoritarian: verbal/physical

Encouragement Behavioral control Authoritarian

Parental responsiveness Invalidating feelings Differential treatment

Autonomy granting Personal attacks Non-reasoning/punitive

strategies

Open communication with parents Intervention Verbal hostility

Intimacy Encouragement of modesty Conflict mutualValidation Relational aggression Negativity

Coaching Constraining verbal expression

Psych. control/love

withdrawal/guilt induction



13/39

cluster 4, which was labeled Uninvolved parenting. It is clear that the sorters did not completely

reproduce the Baumrind typology of parenting. For example, the permissive style was not represented

as the uninvolved style did not load on anything close to warmth or positive affect.

Study 2: meta-analyses

Method

Coding system

The studies that were included in the meta-analyses are indicated in the list of references at the

end of this paper with an asterisk and presented in Table 2. The studies were coded with the coding

system presented inTable 3. As mean age we took the age at the first assessment in case of a longi-

tudinal study. If the exact numbers for boys and girls were only given for maternal parenting and not

for paternal parenting but the total number of participants for whom paternal parenting measures

were available was smaller than that for maternal parenting, we used the percentage of boys derivedfrom the analysis on maternal parenting to estimate the number for paternal parenting (e.g., Hart

et al., 1998). Unfortunately, the numbers of effect sizes for the subgroups of effect sizes on indirect

and social aggression were too small to conduct moderator analyses. Therefore, we decided to exclude

this moderator from our analyses. Intercoder reliability was assessed by two coders who indepen-

Fig. 1. Two-dimensional representations (for each combination of dimensions) of the parenting concepts in the multiple

correspondence solution.



14/39

dently coded 10 of the studies. The agreement between the coders across the moderator variables was

100%.

Meta-analytic procedures

If studies reported data separately on boys and girls, both effect sizes were used in the meta-anal-

ysis (e.g.,Hart et al., 1998; Underwood et al., 2008). If effect sizes for the relation between relationalaggression and several parenting measures that would fall into the same parenting cluster were pre-

sented (e.g.,Casas et al., 2006), we first conducted a meta-analysis within the study, and included the

combined effect size in the final meta-analytic dataset.

Several studies presented effect sizes based on data from multiple informants (e.g., correlations be-

tween mother-, father-, teacher-, and peer-reported aggression versus child-, mother-, and father-re-

ported parenting;Kuppens et al., 2009a, 2009b, 2009c). For these studies we choose to include the

most conservative effect sizes, i.e., effect sizes for which parenting and aggression data from different

informants had been used (e.g., correlation between mother-reported aggression and child- and

father-reported parenting, father-reported aggression and child- and mother-reported parenting,

etc.). In addition, to be able to test whether the design of the study (longitudinal or concurrent) would

affect the effect size, we included the longitudinal effect size when available (instead of the concurrenteffect size).

Generally, if studies reported effect sizes from analyses which controlled for the effect of physical

aggression, we used this effect size, with the exception of the study by Nelson et al. (2006). In this

case, the multivariate effect sizes controlled for physical aggression were only available for the com-

Fig. 1 (continued)



15/39

bined measure of parenting (including both mothers and fathers). Because the bivariate correlations

were available for fathers and mothers separately, we decided to include those in our meta-analyses.

In addition, because no clear statistics were available for the relation between coaching and rela-

tional aggression in the study byUpdegraff et al. (2005), we only focused on parental warmth (clus-

ter 1) and intervention (cluster 2) for this study. Finally, a few studies presented the range ofN(e.g.,

Risser, 2007; Russell et al., 2003). In these cases, we took the lowest number as a conservative

estimate.

Separate meta-analyses were performed for the four parenting clusters for fathers and mothers(studies that reported on the person most knowledgeable were included in the set on mothers;

e.g., Foster, 2001). The meta-analysis on the relation between maternal positive parenting and rela-

tional aggression included 42 effect sizes on 25,538 children and the meta-analysis on this parenting

cluster for fathers included 18 effect sizes and 3161 children. There were 36 effect sizes and 11,691

children in the meta-analysis on maternal psychologically controlling parenting and 18 effect sizes

and 3288 children in the one on fathers. The meta-analysis on negative/harsh parenting contained

41 effect sizes and 7938 children for maternal parenting and 15 effect sizes and 1889 children for

paternal parenting. Finally, 15 effect sizes and 4227 children were included in the meta-analysis on

maternal uninvolved parenting. Because there were only two effect sizes in this cluster for fathers,

it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis on the relation between paternal uninvolved parenting

and relational aggression. Five studies yielding nine effect sizes (two for positive parenting, four forpsychologically controlling parenting, and three for negative/harsh parenting) presented data on the

average score for fathers and mothers or asked the children about at least one of your parents (Baier,

2005; Burnette & Reppucci, 2009; Foo, 2002; Rodgers, 2001). These studies could not be grouped in

either the mother or the father clusters.

Fig. 1 (continued)



16/39

Table 2

Studies included in the meta-analyses.

Study Parent Parenting

cluster aSample size Age range

(years)

Country

Albrecht et al. (2007) Mother,

father

2 530 1219 b Canada

Ando et al. (2005) Mother 1, 2 2301 1215 Japan

Baier (2005) Combined 2 382 1315 b Germany

Baldry (2004) Mother,

father

1 661 1115 Italy

Brown et al. (2007) Mother 1, 3, 4 23 boys, 34 girls 58 USA

Burnette and Reppucci

(2009)

Combined 3 121 1319 USA

Campbell (1999) Mother 1, 3, 4 73 boys, 66 girls 911 USA

Casas et al. (2006) Mother,

father

1, 2, 3, 4 52 boys, 70 girls 26 USA

Crick (2009) Mother 1, 2, 3, 4 70 boys, 63 girls 36 USA

Crick (1999a) Mother,

father

1, 2, 3 60 boys, 57 girls 910 USA

Crick (1999b) Mother,

father

1, 2, 3 61 boys, 69 girls 1012 Japan

Cullerton-Sen et al. (2008) Mother 3 410 613 USA

Donovan (2009) Mother 3 221 boys 200 girls 1013 USA

Doyle (2010) Mother 1 513 78 USA

Foo (2002) Combined 3 39 boys, 43 girls 89 b USA

Foster (2001) Mother 1, 2, 3 7183/2302/737 c 211 Canada

Gaertner et al. (2010) Combined 2 89 912 USA

Hart et al. (1998) Mother,

father

1, 2, 3 M: 101 boys, 106 girls F: 82 boys,

85 girls

37 Russia

Herrenkohl et al. (2007) Mother 4 1749 1215 USA

Hutchison (2003) Mother,

father

1 119 boys, 180 girls 1115 USA

Jung (2005) Mother 1, 2, 3 349 1013 KoreaKuppens et al. (2009a,

2009b, 2009c)

Mother,

father

2 552 810 b Belgium

Li (2007) d Mother,

father

1, 2, 3 307 boys, 364 girls 911 China

Lindsey et al. (2009) Mother 1, 3 135 boys, 133 girls 1214 USA

McNamara et al. (2010) Mother 1, 2 119 36 USA

Murray et al. (2010) Mother 1, 2 141 12 USA

McNeill (2002) Mother 1, 3, 4 213 boys, 151 girls 59 USA

Mrug et al. (2008) Mother 1, 2 330 1011 USA

Nelson et al. (2006) Mother,

father

2, 3 100 boys, 115 girls 46 China

Ostrov and Bishop (2008) Mother 3 47 3.6 e

(SD = 0.7)

USA

Park et al. (2005) Mother 3 207 34 b USA

Paulos (2007) Mother 2, 3 230 boys, 261 girls 1014 b USA

Penney (2007) Mother 1, 2 1348 1114 Canada

Perkins (2009) Mother 1, 2, 3 201 and 143 12 Canada

Pernice-Duca et al. (2010) Mother,

father

1 158 912 USA

Reed et al. (2008) Mother 2 21 boys, 20 girls 515 USA

Risser (2007) Mother 2 73 boys, 73 girls 89 USA

Rodgers (2001) Combined 1, 2 281 boys, 276 girls 1112 USA

Russell et al. (2003) Mother 1, 3 M cl 1: 349, M cl 3: 350 F cl 1:

210, F cl 3: 211

46 Australia

USA

Sandstrom (2007) Mother 1, 3, 4 Cl 1,2: 82 Cl 4: 45 boys, 37 girls 911 USA

Soenens et al. (2008) Mother,

father

2 284 1520 Belgium

Tseng and Kawabata

(2008)

Mother,

father

2 (M + F), 3

(M)

61 boys, 69 girls 1011 Taiwan

(continued on next page)



17/39

Statistical analyses

The meta-analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) program

(Borenstein, Rothstein, & Cohen, 2005, Version 2). For each study, an effect size (correlation) was cal-

culated. Combined effect sizes were computed in CMA. Significance tests and moderator analyses

were performed through random-effect models, which are more conservative than fixed-effect mod-

els. In the random-effect model, the true effect could vary between studies, depending on character-

istics of the specific sample. Because of these different characteristics, there may be different effect

sizes underlying different studies (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). To test the homo-geneity of the overall and specific sets of effect sizes, we computed Q-statistics (Borenstein et al.,

2009). In addition, we computed 85% confidence intervals (CIs) around the point estimate of each

set of effect sizes (cf. Van IJzendoorn, Juffer, & Klein Poelhuis, 2005). Q-statistics and p-values were

also computed to assess differences between combined effect sizes for specific subsets of study effect

sizes grouped by moderators. Contrasts were only tested when at least two of the subsets consisted of

at least four studies each (cf. Bakermans-Kranenburg, Van IJzendoorn, & Juffer, 2003). Finally, we

examined differences in (absolute values of) combined effect sizes between the four parenting con-

structs for mothers and fathers separately, and we compared effect sizes for the same parenting con-

struct between mothers and fathers. Nonoverlapping 85% confidence intervals indicated significant

differences (Goldstein & Healy, 1995; Van IJzendoorn, Juffer, & Klein Poelhuis, 2005).

Funnel plots for each subset were examined in order to detect possible publication bias. A funnelplot is a plot of each studys effect size against its standard error (usually plotted as 1/SE, or precision).

It is expected that this plot has the shape of a funnel, because studies with smaller sample sizes (larger

standard errors) have increasingly large variation in estimates of their effect size as random variation

becomes increasingly influential, representing the broad side of the funnel, whereas studies with lar-

ger sample sizes have smaller variation in effect sizes which represents the narrow end of the funnel

(Duval & Tweedie, 2000b; Sutton, Duval, Tweedie, Abrams, & Jones, 2000). However, smaller studies

with non-significant results or with effect sizes in the non-hypothesized direction are less likely to

be published, whereas for large studies, publication of small or non-significant effect sizes or effect

sizes in the non-hypothesized direction is more likely because large studies are generally deemed

more trustworthy. Therefore, a funnel plot may be asymmetrical around its base (i.e., for small studies

no effect sizes for non-significant results or results in the non-hypothesized direction). The degree ofasymmetry in the funnel plot was examined by estimating the number of studies which have no sym-

metric counterpart on the other side of the funnel. The trim and fill method was used to test the

influence of possible adjustments of the sets of studies for publication bias (Duval & Tweedie,

2000a, 2000b).

Table 2(continued)

Study Parent Parenting

cluster aSample size Age range

(years)

Country

Underwood et al. (2008) Mother,

father

1, 3 128 boys, 128 girls 9 b USA

Updegraff et al. (2005) f Mother,

father

1, 2 370 1316 USA

Vaillancourt et al. (2007) Mother 1, 3, 4 736 boys, 665 girls 2 b Canada

Wang et al., 2009 Mother 1 7182 1216 USA

Werner et al. (2006) Mother 1, 2 87 35 USA

Yu and Gamble (2008) Mother 2, 3 433 14.3 e

(SD = 2.1)

USA

a 1 = Positive parenting; 2 = psychologically controlling parenting; 3 = negative/harsh parenting; 4 = uninvolved parenting.b Longitudinal studies; Age at first assessment is given.c Foster (2001): the number of participants was Winsorized separately for the different parenting clusters and was adjusted

to,7183 for cluster 1, 2302 for clusters 2, and 737 for cluster 3.d Li (2007): we used only peer measures for aggression, because these clearly reflect relational aggression.e

Age range not clear, mean and SD is given.f Updegraff et al. (2005): the effect sizes on the parenting measure coaching were unclear so we did not use this in the

analyses.



18/39

We checked for outlying effect sizes and sample sizes separately for the different subsets of studies.

Z-values below 3.29 or greater than 3.29 were considered outliers (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). No

outliers were detected for effect size, but there was one study with outlying sample sizes (Foster,

2001). We winsorized (highest non-outlying number plus 1) this number of participants separately

for the different parenting clusters, which resulted in anNof 7183 for cluster 1, 2302 for clusters 2,

and 737 for cluster 3.

Results

Maternal positive parentingThe combined effect size for the relation between relational aggression and maternal positive par-

enting was small but significant (r= .06, 85% CI = .09, .03,p< .05;Fig. 1) in a heterogeneous set of

studies (Q= 201.34,p< .01; Table 4). Overall, more experience with positive parenting by mothers was

related to less relational aggression in children. None of the moderators were significant.

Table 3

Coding system for meta-analyses.

Variable Coding

Sample

Age (at first assessment) 1 = 05

2 = 610

3 = 1120

4 = broad

Sex of children 1 = boys

2 = mixed

3 = girls

Country 1 = east

2 = west

Design

Aggression 1 = relational

2 = social

3 = indirect

Informant aggression 1 = child

2 = peers3 = parent

4 = teacher

5 = observer

6 = other

Type of assessment aggression 1 = questionnaire

2 = peer nomination

3 = observation

4 = other

Informant parenting 1 = parent

2 = child

3 = observer

4 = other

Type of assessment parenting 1 = questionnaire

2 = observation3 = other

Same informant aggression and parenting? 0 = n o

1 = yes

Longitudinal design 0 = no

1 = yes (parenting assessed > 3 mo before aggression)

Controlled for physical aggression? 0 = no

1 = yes

Other covariates in the analysis? 0 = no

1 = yes

Published 0 = no (including dissertation)

1 = yes



19/39

Maternal psychologically controlling parenting

The meta-analytic relation between maternal psychologically controlling parenting was not signif-

icant (r= .04, 85% CI = .01, .07,p = .09;Fig. 1) in a heterogeneous set of studies (Q = 121.94,p< .00;Ta-

ble 5). Again, none of the moderators that we tested were significant.

Table 4

Meta-analytic results of studies relating maternal positive parenting and relational aggression.

Characteristics k n r 85%CI Qa p

Total set 42 25,538 .06 .09, .03 201.34 .00

Sample

Age 0.27 .88

05 years 9 1017 .05 .12, .02

610 years 15 2357 .04 ..10, 01 17.51

1119 years 15 13,580 .07 .11, .02 139.54

Broad 3 8584 .08 .16, .01 16.27

Sex 0.14 .93

Boys 13 2078 .05 .10, .01 9.24

Mixed 14 20,531 .07 .11, .03 167.14

Girls 15 2929 .06 .11, .01 12.32

Culture/country 0.26 .61

West 36 22,078 .06 .09, .03 190.53

East 6 3451 .04 .10, .03 8.09

Study design

Informant aggression 0.17 .92Child 8 12,322 .07 .13, .01 135.56

Peers 3 753

Parent 3 8584

Teacher 16 2359 .05 .10, .00 14.19

Other 0

Multiple 12 1520 .06 .10, .00 12.84

Type of assessment aggression 0.01 .92

Questionnaire 35 24,535 .06 .09, .03 194.73

Peer nomination 3 753

Observation 0

Multiple 4 250 .05 .17, .06 2.17

Informant parenting 0.92 .82

Parent 21 11,142 .05 .09, .01 45.96

Child 9 12,420 .09 .14, .03 133.88

Observer 6 464 .07 .16, .03 5.51

Other 0

Multiple 6 1512 .03 .11, .04 8.86

Type of assessment parenting 0.02 .89

Questionnaire 36 25,074 .06 .09, .03 195.60

Observation 6 464 .07 .16, .02 5.51

Multiple 0

Same informant aggr-parenting? 1.56 .21

No 31 4463 .04 .07, .01 22.72

Yes 11 21,075 .09 .13, .05 159.92

Partially

Longitudinal 0.68 .41

Concurrent 33 22,758 .07 .10, .04 182.06

Parenting aggression 9 2780 .03 .09, .02 6.83

Controlled for phys aggr?

No 40 24,137 .06 .09, .03 195.08

Yes 2 1401

Other covariates? 0.82 .36

No 33 15,667 .05 .08, .02 178.26

Yes 9 9871 .09 .14, .03 17.71

Publication 1.80 .18

Published paper 23 14,091 .08 .12, .04 39.44

Dissertation/unpublished data 19 11,447 .03 .07, .01 156.69

Note. Subsets with fewer than four effect sizes were not included in the moderator tests.



20/39

Maternal negative/harsh parenting

The combined effect size for the relation between maternal negative/harsh parenting and relational

aggression was significant (r= .11, 85% CI = .08, .13,p < .01;Fig. 1) in a heterogeneous set of studies

Table 5

Meta-analytic results of studies relating maternal psychologically controlling parenting and relational aggression.

Characteristics k n r 85% CI Q a p

Total set 36 11,691 .04 .01, .07 121.94 .00

Sample

Age 0.19 .91

05 years 10 883 .05 .01, .11 4.76

610 years 9 1616 .03 .02, .09 3.32

1119 years 14 6850 .05 .01, .09 65.55

Broad 3 2342

Sex 0.84 .66

Boys 11 1136 .06 .01, .12 6.16

Mixed 13 8958 .02 .02, .07 20.71

Girls 12 1597 .05 .00, .11 3.25


West 26 7895 .03 .01, .07 83.01

East 10 3796 .05 .01, .11 36.72

Study design

Informant aggression 6.25 .10Child 8 5284 .00 .03, .04 37.79

Peers 4 886 .06 .00, .13 0.84

Parent 1 2301

Teacher 8 600 .00 .07, .06 4.74

Other a 1 433

Multiple 14 2187 .09 .05, .13 6.33


Questionnaire 24 9589 .02 .01, .07 102.62

Peer nomination 4 886 .07 .02, .15 0.84

Observation 0

Multiple 8 1216 .06 .01, .13 2.62


Parent 22 4416 .02 .02, .06 51.21

Child 10 5720 .02 .03, .07 40.77

Observer 0

Other 0

Multiple 4 1555 .11 .04, .18 2.06

Type of assessment parenting

Questionnaire 35 11,321 .03 .00, .06 113.34

Observation 0

Multiple 1 370


No 27 3879 .05 .01, .08 22.15

Yes 9 7812 .01 .03, .06 69.51

Partially 0


Concurrent 31 9977 .03 .01, .06 103.61

Parenting aggr 5 1714 .07 .01, .14 1.23


No 35 11,258 .09 .06, 24 116.89

Yes 1 433

Other covariates? .00 .96

No 31 10,296 .04 .00, .07 103.22

Yes 5 1395 .03 .03, .11 10.44


Published paper 18 5732 .05 .01, .10 58.51

Dissertation/unpublished data 18 5959 .02 .02 .06 59.94

Note. Subsets with fewer than four effect sizes were not included in the moderator tests.a Yu and Gamble (2008): Sibling reports were used to assess sibling relational aggression.



21/39

(Q= 77.87,p < .01;Table 6). More maternal negative/harsh parenting was associated with more rela-

tional aggression in the child. One of the studies in this subset presented data on child maltreatment

(Cullerton-Sen et al., 2008) which may reflect a parenting strategy that is much more severe than the

other strategies in this cluster. However, excluding this study did not make a difference. Studies in

which no covariates were used in the analyses generated larger effect sizes ( r= .12, p< .01, k = 35,

n = 5635) as compared to studies in which covariates were included (r= .05, p= .16, k = 6, n = 2303;

Q = 3.92,p < .05). None of the other moderators were significant.

Maternal uninvolved parenting

Maternal uninvolved parenting was significantly positively related to relational aggression (r= .07,

85% CI = .05, .09,p < .01;Table 7,Fig. 1). The set of effect sizes was homogeneous (Q = 13.93,p = .46).

None of the moderators were significant.

Paternal positive parenting

The combined effect size for the relation between paternal positive parenting and relational aggres-

sion was also significant (r=

.08, 85% CI =

.13,

.04,p< .01; Table 8, Fig. 1) in a heterogeneous set ofstudies (Q= 37.75,p < .01). More paternal positive parenting was related to lower levels of child rela-

tional aggression. The gender of the children was a significant moderator (Q= 5.86,p = .05). The com-

bined effect sizes for the mixed gender group (r= .17, p< .01, k= 4, n= 1241) was significantly

different from that only girls (r= .02,p = .59,k =7,n =953;Q =5.90,p < .05) but not from the group

of boys (r= .06, p= .23;k = 7,n = 809; Q =2.44, p= .12) The difference between the effect size that

result from published papers (r= .14, p < .01;k =10,n =1944) versus those from nonpublished data

and dissertations (r= .00,p = .94;k =8,n =1217) was also significant (Q = 10.03,p < .01). None of the

other moderators were significant.

Paternal psychologically controlling parenting

Results of the meta-analysis on paternal psychologically controlling parenting indicated that thisconstruct was significantly positively related with relational aggression (r= .05, 85% CI = .03, .08,

p< .01; Fig. 1) in a homogeneous set of studies (Q= 11.64,p= .82; Table 9). More controlling parenting

by fathers was associated with more relational aggression in their children, in particular in girls. When

the combined effect size for boys was compared to that of girls, sex appeared to be a significant mod-

erator. The relation between paternal psychologically controlling parenting and relational aggression

was significantly larger for girls (r= .10, p< .01, k = 7, n = 829) than for boys (r= .01, p= .87, k = 7,

n = 723;Q =3.90, p < .05). None of the other moderators were significant.

Paternal negative/harsh parenting

The meta-analytic relation between paternal negative/harsh parenting and relational aggression

was also significant (r= .12, 85% CI = .08, .16, p< .01; Fig. 1) in a homogeneous set of studies(Q = 21.58,p = .09;Table 10). This indicates that more paternal negative/harsh parenting was related

to more relational aggression in children. None of the moderators was significant.

Comparisons between effects of parenting strategies

To test whether the effect sizes for the different maternal and paternal parenting strategies were

significantly different, we compared the 85% confidence intervals (of the absolute values of the effect

sizes). Nonoverlapping confidence intervals indicated a significant difference (Goldstein & Healy,

1995; Van IJzendoorn et al., 2005). None of the effect sizes for the three parenting clusters (positive

parenting, psychologically controlling parenting, and negative/harsh parenting) differed between

mothers and fathers (the fourth cluster, uninvolved parenting, could not be compared because the

number of effect sizes for fathers was too small). However, for both maternal and paternal parenting,the effect sizes for negative/harsh parenting (r= .11, 85% CI = .08, .13,p< .01 for mothers andr= .12,

85% CI = .08, .16,p< .01 for fathers) were significantly larger than those for psychologically controlling

parenting (r= .04, 85% CI = .01, .07,p = .09 for mothers andr= .05, 85% CI = .03, .08,p < .01 for fathers;

Fig. 2).



22/39

Table 6

Meta-analytic results of studies relating maternal negative/harsh parenting and relational aggression.

Characteristics k n r 85%CI Q a p

Total set 41 7938 .11 .08, .13 77.87 .00

Sample

Age 0.42 .94

05 years 10 1074 .11 .05, .17 10.21

610 years 16 2226 .10 .05, .14 17.05

1119 years 11 2293 .10 .05, .15 12.87

Broad 4 2345 .13 .06, .19 36.47

Sex 2.04 .36

Boys 16 2571 .11 .06, .15 11.61

Mixed 9 2816 .14 .09, .18 37.59

Girls 16 2551 .08 .04, .20 20.16


West 32 6443 .10 .08, .13 70.09

East 9 1495 .11 .06, .17 7.48

Study design

Informant aggression 0.30 .86Child 3 692

Peers 7 1398 .11 .05, .17 6.49

Parent 3 2138

Teacher 13 1641 .10 .05, .15 11.47

Other a 1 433

Multiple 14 1645 .11 .06, .16 15.39


Questionnaire 26 5712 .11 .08, .14 58.83

Peer nomination 7 1398 .11 .06, .17 6.49

Observation 0

Multiple 8 837 .07 .00, .14 12.17


Parent 25 5041 .10 .07, .13 60.78

Child 4 912 .11 .03, .18 2.36Observer 5 532 .16 .07, .24 5.15

Other b 1 410

Multiple 6 1043 .09 .02, .16 6.79


Questionnaire 33 6857 .10 .07, .13 70.61

Observation 5 532 .16 .07, .24 5.15

Other b 1 410

Multiple 2 139


No 35 4876 .11 .08, .13 34.07

Yes 5 2629 .13 .07, .18 36.11

Partially 1 433


Concurrent 29 4693 .12 .09, .15 55.87

Parenting aggr 12 3245 .09 .05, .13 16.34


No 38 6104 .12 .10, .15 55.46

Yes 3 1834

Other covariates? 3.92 .05

No 35 5635 .12 .10, .15 52.62

Yes 6 2303 .05 .00, .10 9.68


Published paper 20 4055 .10 .06, .13 32.70

Dissertation/unpublished data 21 3883 .11 .08, .15 36.71

Note. Subsets with fewer than four effect sizes were not included in the moderator tests.a Yu and Gamble (2008): Sibling reports were used to assess sibling relational aggression.b Cullerton-Sen et al. (2008): CPS reports were used to assess parenting.



23/39

Publication bias

Using the trim and fill method (Duval & Tweedie, 2000a, 2000b), asymmetry (missing studies in the

non-hypothesized direction) was only found for the meta-analysis on maternal psychologically con-

Table 7

Meta-analytic results of studies relating maternal uninvolved parenting and relational aggression.

Characteristics k n r 85%CI Qa p

Total set 15 4047 .07 .05, .09 13.93 .46

Sample

Age 0.07 .79

05 years 4 255 .06 .04, .15 2.17

610 years 8 642 .08 .02, .14 9.42

1119 years 1 1749

Broad 2 1401

Sex 2.30 .13

Boys 7 1212 .02 .02, .06 4.07

Mixed 1 1749

Girls 7 1086 .09 .04, .13 5.81

Culture/country

West 15 4047 .07 .05, .09 13.93

East 0

Study design

Informant aggr .10 .76Child 1 1749

Peers 2 82

Parent 2 1401

Teacher 6 560 .08 .02, .15 7.97

Other 0

Multiple 4 255 .06 .04, .15 2.17

Type of assessment aggr

Questionnaire 11 3832 .07 .04, .10 11.14


Observation 0

Multiple 2 133


Parent 8 1980 .04 .01, .08 3.58

Child 1 1749Observer 4 196 .08 .01, .20 6.88

Other 0

Multiple 2 122


Questionnaire 11 3851 .07 .04, .09 6.91

Observation 4 196 .10 .01, .20 6.88

Other 0

Multiple 0

Same informant aggr-parenting?

No 12 897 .07 .02, .12 11.67

Yes 3 3150

Partially 0

Longitudinal

Concurrent 13 2646 .09 .06, .11 11.98

Parenting aggr 2 1401

Controlled for phys aggr? 2.04 .15

No 11 2564 .09 .06, .12 10.48

Yes 4 1483 .04 .00, .08 1.41

Other covariates?

No 13 2646 .09 .06, .11 11.98

Yes 2 1401


Published paper 9 33,411 .07 .04, .10 10.87

Dissertation/unpublished data 6 636 .06 .00, .12 3.01

Note. Subsets with fewer than four effect sizes were not included in the moderator tests.



24/39

trolling. Two effect sizes were imputed, resulting in an effect size that was also not significant (r= .03,

85% CI = .01, .07). No asymmetry was found in the funnel plots for the other meta-analyses. There-

fore, no evidence for publication bias was found in these meta-analyses.

Table 8

Meta-analytic results of studies relating paternal positive parenting and relational aggression.

Characteristics k n r 85%CI Q a p

Total set 18 3161 .08 .13, .04 37.75 .00

Sample

Age 0.75 .69

05 years 5 499 .13 .22, .04 6.74

610 years 7 1202 .06 .13, .01 22.24

1119 years 6 1460 .08 .15, .01 5.64

Broad 0

Sex 5.86 .05

Boys 7 809 .06 .12, .01 10.14

Mixed 4 1241 .17 .23, .11 10.29

Girls 7 953 .02 .09, .04 5.03


West 14 2360 .11 .15, .06 26.29

East 4 801 .01 .09, .07 2.75

Study design

Informant aggr 1.13 .29Child 2 819

Peers 2 671

Parent 0

Teacher 5 633 .13 .20, .05 4.73

Other 0

Multiple 9 1038 .05 .12, .01 9.46

Type of assessment aggr

Questionnaire 14 2373 .12 .16, .08 24.36


Observation 0

Multiple 2 117


Parent 9 880 .10 .17, .03 7.24

Child 4 1118 .12 .20, .03 15.15

Observer 0 12.06

Other 0

Multiple 5 1163 .03 .11, .05

meternal and paternal parenting styles

Documents