the mediating effect of self-evaluation bias of competence on the relationship between parental...

British Journal of Educational Psychology (2014), 84, 415–434

© 2014 The British Psychological Society

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

The mediating effect of self-evaluation bias ofcompetence on the relationship between parentalemotional support and children’s academicfunctioning

S�ebastien Cot�e1, Th�er�ese Bouffard1* and Carole Vezeau2

1University of Quebec, Montreal, Quebec, Canada2Regional college of Lanaudiere, Joliette, Quebec, Canada

Background. It is well established that children’s self-evaluation bias of competence is

related to the quality of parent–child emotional relationship. Such biases are linked to

children’s academic functioning and achievement. Links have also been established

between the quality of parent–child emotional relationship and children’s academic

functioning. No study has yet explored how the effects of children’s emotional

relationship with their parents and children’s self-evaluation bias combine to explain their

academic functioning.

Aims. The first goal was to examine whether the quality of parental emotional support

reported by both children and parents was related to the children’s self-evaluation bias of

competence. The second goal was to examine the relationships between children’s and

parents’ reports of emotional support, and children’s academic functioning as measured

by teachers’ report of their motivation, self-regulation of school activities, and academic

achievement. The third goal was to determine whether a children’s self-evaluation bias

mediated the relationship between parental emotional support and academic functioning.

Sample. In a 2-year longitudinal design, participants were 524 elementary pupils (grades

4 and 5), one of their parents, and their teachers.

Results. Our results indicated that a bias in self-evaluation in the first year of the study

mediated the relationship between the quality of parental emotional support assessed at

the first year and their school functioning evaluated by their teacher 1 year later.

Conclusion. The mediational model received clear support when it refers to the

emotional support reported by children, but mixed support when reported by parents.

Contemporary motivational models (Bandura, 1986; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Harter, 1985)

acknowledge that feeling competent in mastering one’s own environment is a basichuman need, which plays a major role in a person’s motivation and adaptation to the

various domains in which she is involved. In a school context, self-perceptions of

competence are clearly involved inmany aspects of students’ functioning and adjustment,

and studies have even shown that they sometimes can better predict academic

achievement than real cognitive capacities (Bandura, 1997; Bouffard, Boisvert, & Vezeau,

2003; Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, & Lariv�ee, 1991). Based on these results, a negative

*Correspondence should be addressed to Th�er�ese Bouffard, D�epartement de psychologie, Universit�e du Qu�ebec �a Montr�eal,C. P. 8888, succursale centre-ville, Montr�eal, Qu�ebec, Canada H3C 3P8 (email: [email protected]).

DOI:10.1111/bjep.12045

415

self-evaluation of scholastic competence is likely to threaten students’ adjustment and

academic achievement and the realization of their potential.

Self-evaluation bias of competence

Sociocognitive theories suggest that children’s perception of their own competence

results from their actions in their environment and their interactions with significant

social agents in their life (Bandura, 1986;Harter, 1990;Harter, 1992). Children are thought

to interpret the results of their actions and related social feedback inorder to formamental

representation of their own competence in various domains. Thus, over their real

capacities or objective history of success and failure, it is their interpretation of these and

their social experiences that would determine their beliefs about their competence.Consequently, students’ self-perception of competence is highly subjective and may not

accurately correspond to their real capacities (Bandura, 2008; Bouffard, Vezeau, Roy, &

Lengel�e, 2011; Bouffard et al., 2003; Phillips, 1984, 1987). This perception can be

optimistic and exceed that predicted by their real capacities; this is referred to as an

illusion of competence or positive illusions (Bouffard et al., 2011; Colvin, Block, &

Funder, 1995; Gresham, Lane, MacMillan, Bocian, & Ward, 2000). Since Taylor and

Brown’s seminal article (1988) suggesting that an optimistic view of self is a mark of

psychological well-being, the question of the adaptive value of such an illusion has beenthe subject of heated controversy (Bouffard & Narciss, 2011). Contrarily, when students’

perception of competence is pessimistic and lower than that predicted by their real

capacities (referred to as an illusion of incompetence), the conclusions of studies are

unequivocal: an illusion of incompetence clearly has detrimental effects on students’

academic functioning and achievement, amongboth gifted students (Phillips, 1984, 1987)

and those in regular school programmes (Borkowski & Thorpe, 1994; Bouffard, Vezeau,

Chouinard, & Marcotte, 2006; Bouffard et al., 2003; Harter, 1985; Vaillancourt &

Bouffard, 2009).The students affected by an illusion of incompetence tend to avoid challenges and see

themselves as being less curious and interested in school subjects than their peers and less

capable ofmaking efforts (Harter, 1985). They aremore anxious about evaluation (Phillips

&Zimmerman, 1990) and attribute their successmore to luck, effort or help received from

others than to their own abilities. They report less pleasure, satisfaction, autonomy, and

participation in class and persist to a lesser degree (Bouffard et al., 2003, 2006;

Miserandino, 1996). They have lower expectations with regard to their performance at

school, and their academic achievement is indeed lower than their real capacities wouldallow (Bouffard et al., 2003; Phillips, 1984, 1987). These students also report lower

self-esteem and more negative perfectionism (Bouffard et al., 2006) and mistakenly feel

less well accepted by their peers (Larouche, Galand, & Bouffard, 2008). In sum,

under-evaluating one’s competence goes together with a set of characteristics that

negatively affect academic functioning and achievement and prevent students from

realizing their full potential.

Does the parent–child relationship play a role in the illusion of incompetence?

Parents are considered to be the most important social agents in children’s interactions

with their environment. The authors of various theoretical approaches have proposed

different processes through which the parents influence the development of their

child’s self-perception of competence. Bandura (1986, 1989) suggested that it is

416 S�ebastien Cot�e et al.

through their feedback and encouragement and the confidence they show in their

child that parents act as an important source of information about the child’s

capacities. These positive messages are persuasive and lead children to develop a

feeling of competence.Harter’s position (1996) is slightly different, suggesting instead that children

internalize their parents’ expectations based on perceived parental feedback and

support. Fulfilling these expectations becomes a criterion on which children build their

own satisfaction with their achievements and the resulting beliefs about their own

competence. For Harter (1992), the most favourable form of parental support is

unconditional emotional support. This idea is not new as already in 1959 Rogers argued

that those receiving conditional love – that is, affection based not on who they are but on

what they do – come to disown the parts of themselves that are not valued. Childreninternalize that the attainment of parentally valued attributes is linked to the provision of

parental warmth. Parental expectations are then transformed into pressuring standards of

self-evaluation. Eventually, children regard themselves as worthy only when they act in

specific ways. Their parent’s love is threatened by their inability or failure to meet their

expectations. Conditional support reflects rigidity in standards and low parental

responsiveness to children and their needs, and following Assor and Tal (2012) is a

form of psychological control. The child struggles to meet the internalized parental

standards in order to fell pride and worthy and avoid feeling worthless and ashamed(Assor, Vansteenkiste, & Kaplan, 2009).

ForDeci and Ryan (1985), parentswhoprovide their childrenwith awarm, reciprocal,

full of confidence and consistent relationship allow them to meet their need to feel

competent (Deci & Ryan, 1995; Guay, Boivin, & Hodges, 1999). The proponents of the

attachment theorypropose that the quality of parent–child relationship forms the basis for

the development of internal working models (Bowlby, 1982; Bretherton & Munholland,

1999; Brumariu & Kerns, 2010; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). The internal working

models are defined as representationalmodels that include positive or negative feelings ofself-worth and self-acceptance (model of self) and trust or distrust in the availability and

responsiveness of the attachment figure (model of others). The emotional security that

flows frompositive internalworkingmodels allows children to explore their environment

with confidence and to experience situations through which he masters some skills, thus

contributing to the development of a positive perception of their competence (Waters &

Cummings, 2000).

Empirical studies have confirmed that the quality of parent–child emotional

relationship is linked to the child’s self-perception of competence (Diener, Isabella,Behunin, & Wong, 2008; Ohannessian, Lerner, Lerner, & von Eye, 1998; Papini &

Roggman, 1992).Other studies have demonstrated the impact of the quality of theparent–child relationship on the child’s self-esteem (Luke, Maio, & Carnelley, 2004; Rubin et al.,

2004; Simons, Paternite, & Shore, 2001).However, the link between the quality of parent–child relationship and a child’s bias of evaluation of competence has not yet been widely

explored.

Phillips (1987) observed that despite achieving as well as their peers, gifted students

with low perceived competence reported feeling more pressure to succeed from theirparents. They also reported believing that their parents saw them as being less capable

and competent. Bouffard et al. (2003) addressed this issue in using a normative sample

of fifth-graders. According to Phillips (1987), children affected by an illusion of

incompetence believed that their parents saw them as less competent than those who

were unaffected. Their parents confirmed their children’s beliefs as they reported that

Evaluation bias, parental support, and academic functioning 417

they were less satisfied with their performance and considered them to be less

competent than the other same age children. According to Phillips (1987) and Bouffard

et al. (2003), children internalize parents’ judgements of their performance and use

them to appraise their competence. Bouffard et al. (2003) proposed that whenacademic expectations are high, a negative dynamic sets in for children who have an

illusion of incompetence. In accordance with their parents’ negative regard of them,

these children are thought to adjust their perception of their own competence

downwards, which in turn leads them to perform less well, thus reinforcing their

parents’ negative opinion of them.

Cot�e and Bouffard (2011) observed that children affected by an illusion of

incompetence perceived their parental support as being less available and unconditional

than the others. In their reports, parents conceded reacting to their children’s difficultiesor mistakes with negative criticism or disapproval more often than the other parents.

These negative practices are analogous to conditional support, as they express the

parent’s dissatisfaction when the child encounters difficulties or makes mistakes and

imply a withdrawal of emotional support in these situations. This study was the first to

focus specifically on the relationship between the quality of emotional support provided

by parents and children’s self-evaluation bias of competence. Its conclusions are

consistent with the results of Phillips (1987) and Bouffard et al. (2003) insofar as the

pressure a child feels to succeed and the dissatisfaction expressed by his parents can beindicative of conditional parental support.

Bias of self-evaluation of competence as a mediator of the link between parental

emotional support and children’s academic functioning

Some studies have established that children’s self-evaluation bias of competence is related

to the quality of parent–child emotional relationship and that such biases are linked to

children’s academic functioning and achievement (Bouffard et al., 2003; Cot�e&Bouffard,2011; Phillips, 1987). Links have also been established between the quality of parent–child emotional relationship and children’ academic functioning in studies that have

focused on parenting styles (Baumrind, 1966; Turner, Chandler, & Heffer, 2009), on

autonomy support (Guay, Ratelle, & Chanal, 2008), and on the attachment relationship

(Jacobsen, Edelstein, & Hofmann, 1994; Jacobsen & Hofmann, 1997; Moss, St-Laurent, &

Parent, 1999; Pianta & Harbers, 1996; Teo, Carlson, Mathieu, Egeland, & Sroufe, 1996).

But few studies have analysed how the effects of these variables combine to explain

children’s academic functioning and achievement. Grolnick, Ryan, and Deci (1991)showed that the children’s perception of their school performance mediated the

relationship between their perception of their parental autonomy support and involve-

ment and their school performance. Jacobsen et al. (1994) showed that children’

self-confidence measured at age 7 mediated the link between secure attachment at the

same age and cognitive functioning at the ages of 9 and 15.Moss, St-Laurent, Pascuzzo, and

Dubois-Comtois (2007) found that students’ IQ moderated the relationship between

attachment at age 6 and academic achievement at age 14. Among high-IQ but not low-IQ

students, those having a secure attachment relationship at age 6 performed better atschool at age 14 than those whose attachment relationship was insecure. Moss et al.

(2007) proposed that higher-IQ studentswhose attachmentwas unsecure did not develop

the socio-emotional abilities needed to realize their academic potential. It is likely that

many of them were affected by an illusion of incompetence.


To our knowledge, no study has yet explored how the effects of children’s emotional

relationship with their parents and their self-evaluation bias of competence combine to

explain their academic functioning. Neither has any study examined the inter-relations

between the quality of parental emotional support, the self-evaluation bias, and academicfunctioning to determine whether children’s bias mediates the relationship between the

other two variables.

Goals and hypotheses

The first goal of the current study was to examine whether the quality of emotionalsupport provided by parents as reported by both children and parents was related to the

children’s self-evaluation bias of competence. Two hypotheses were formulated:

(1) The higher the quality of emotional support the children perceived from their

parents, the more likely they will display positive self-evaluation bias of compe-tence.

(2) The higher the quality of emotional support the parents reported to give to their

child, the more likely the latter will display positive self-evaluation bias of

competence.

The second goal was to examine the relationships between children’s and parents’

reports of emotional support and children’s academic functioning as measured by

teachers’ report of their motivation, self-regulation of school activities, and academic

achievement. The two following hypotheses were to be tested:

(1) The higher the quality of parental emotional support reported by a child and his

parents, the more likely the teacher will positively evaluate the child’s motivation,

self-regulation, and achievement.(2) Themore positive the children’s self-evaluation bias of competence, themore likely

the teacher will positively evaluate the child’s motivation, self-regulation, and

achievement.

The third goal was to determine whether a children’s self-evaluation bias of

competence mediated the relationship between parental emotional support and

academic functioning. Based on our review of the literature, we stated the following

hypothesis:

(1) Children’s self-evaluation bias of competencewill mediate the relationship between

the parental emotional support reported by both children and parents, and their

academic functioning as evaluated by the teacher.

Design

Indexes of bias assessed the extent to which children’s self-perception of competenceeither exceeded or felt below what was predicted by an objective measure of their

competence, thus allowing considering both positive and negative biases. Additionally, to

better examine the mediating role of biases in the relation between parents’ support and

children’s school functioning, we utilized a 2-year longitudinal design. Finally, to avoid

shared variance, we used a multi-informant approach. Parental emotional support was

assessed fromboth the children’s andparents’ point of view, and the teachers assessed the

children’s school functioning.


Methodology

ParticipantsThe project was presented at a steering committee of a school board in the suburb of

Montr�eal (Canada). Seven public elementary schools located in a middle socio-economic

environment and two located in a low socio-economic environment accepted to

participate. Written approval for the data collection was obtained from the children’s

parents, school principals, and teachers. For the purposes of this study, we selected only

the children (524 of 575 of the whole sample) for whom one of their parents (61 fathers)

also agreed to participate. These pupilswere all French-speakers and came fromoneof the

47 classes whose teacher (43women) agreed to participate. The parents’ acceptance ratefor their child participation was 96%, and it was 90% for their own participation. The

teachers’ acceptance ratewas 96%. At the outset of the study, the childrenwere in grade 4

(132 girls; age range = 8–11 years; mean = 10 years, 3 months, SD = 4 months) or

grade 5 (146 girls; age range = 10–12 years; mean = 11 years, 5 months,

SD = 6 months).

Instruments

Measures used with children

Children’s school ability was assessed using the French version of the Otis–LennonMental Ability Test (Sarrazin, McInnis, & Vaillancourt, 1985) widely used in French

Canadian-speaking students to select them for enrolment in special educational tracks.

Used in group testing, this instrument assesses the aspects of intelligence that are

responsive to stimulation and tests general knowledge, vocabulary, the notions of

sequence, set and similarities, and math abilities. It is considered not as a measure of

global intelligence but as a measure of school learning ability. The children’s

chronological age served to transform their total number of correct responses into

indices of School Ability Index (SAI). In a previous research (Bouffard, Roy & Vezeau,2006), the SAI was found to be very stable over a 5-year period (between-years

correlations ranged from .80 to .83) and to strongly relate to end-year marks in

language arts and mathematics (r ranged from .74 to .79) during that period. This

allows concluding that the Mental Ability Test was relevant to assess children’s

intellectual resources related to school learning.

The response format of the other instruments required that the children indicated on a

Likert-type scale ranging from1 (not at all) to 4 (completely) towhat extent theywere like

the fictitious pupil described in each of the items. Referring to a fictitious pupil and thusshowing that other pupils may have characteristics or behaviours similar to those

described in the statements would reduce the threatening nature of some questions

(Harter, 1982).

The children’s perceptionof their own scholastic competencewasmeasured using the

five statements of the widely used ‘Perceived Competence Scale for Children’ (Harter,

1982). The following is an example: ‘This pupil thinks that he/she is good at school.’ The

mean response score for the statements was calculated. The higher was this score, the

more the pupil reported a positive perception of scholastic competence. The internalconsistency (a = .73) was satisfactory.

The perception of availability of parental emotional supportwas assessed using six

statements drawn from the French version (Seidah, 2004) of the parents’ subscale of the


Social Support Scale for Children and Adolescents (Harter, 1985). Availability of parental

emotional support refers to children’s perception that they are important to their parents

and that the latter are available and willing to discuss their concerns and feelings with

them. An example follows: ‘This pupil feels that his/her parents are interested in knowinghis feelings and emotions.’ The internal consistency (a = .83) was good. The higher the

mean score for the statements, the greater the pupils perceived the availability of their

parents’ emotional support.

The perception of unconditional parental support was measured using seven

statements drawn from the French version (Seidah, 2004) of the parents’ subscale of the

Social Support Scale for Children and Adolescents (Harter, 1985). Unconditionality

refers to support that does not depend onmeeting certain standards and expectations and

that reflects acceptance of the individual as he/she is. An example (reverse-coded)follows: ‘This pupil feels that his/her parents love him/her less when he/she makes

mistakes.’ The higher the children’s mean response score, the greater the extent towhich

they perceived that their parents’ support was unconditional. The internal consistency

index for this factor (a = .78) was satisfactory.

Measures used with parents

The parents’ quality of emotional support they provided to their child also included twodimensions. The firstwasavailability of emotional support andwas assessed using seven

statements drawn from ten statements chosen by Kerns, Aspelmeier, Gentlzer and Grabill

(2001) from the instrument of Kerns, Klepac, and Cole (1996) to measure parents’

availability and willingness to serve as an attachment figure for their child. These

statements were selected because they were similar to the ones we used for the children.

As in the original instrument, the parents were asked to indicate on a scale from 1

(completely disagree) to 6 (completely agree) to what extent they agreed with each

statement, an example of which is: ‘I showmy child that I am interested knowing his/herfeelings and emotions.’ In the present study, the internal consistency index reached .85.

The higher was the mean response score, the higher was the parents’ perception of their

availability of support.

The second dimension of parents’ emotional support was similar to, but less direct

than, the measure of unconditional support used for the children. We thought that some

parents could feel offended by being directly asked if their emotional support was

conditional to their child’s accomplishments and success, or at least reluctant to admit it

was the case. We thus chose to use a measure of critical and disapproving reactions

whose items were taken from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth

(Statistics Canada), which is a long-term study of Canadian children that follows their

development and well-being from birth to early adulthood. The eight statements

measured how often the parents clearly show their dissatisfaction to their children by

reacting with criticism and disapproval when they face difficulties or makes mistakes.

These reactions are likely to be interpreted by children as a sign that their parents are

disappointed and annoyed by the situation. The parent assessed on a scale from 1 (never)

to 6 (always) how often he/she reacted in this way (a = .72). An example of thestatements is: ‘I have trouble staying calm when my child repeats the same mistake more

than once.’ The higher the mean score for the statements, the more often the parent

reacted with criticism or disapproval.


Measures used with teachers

In the second year of the study, teachers’ evaluation of children’s school functioning was

assessed using three indicators: motivation, self-regulation, and achievement. Ten

statements from Young Children’s Academic Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (Gottfried,1990) served to assess teachers’ evaluationof children’smotivation in languagearts and

mathematics (five items for each school subject). An example follows: ‘This child shows

curiosity and interest in French (or Maths).’ Seven items were taken from the Motivated

Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991) to

assess children’s self-regulation. An example follows: ‘This child organizes his/her work

so as to finish on time.’ Teachers were asked to assess on a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always)

how often the child displayed various behaviours. A factorial analysis on items of

motivation and self-regulation confirmed the presence of two factors explaining 75% ofthe variance. Motivation in language arts andmathematics formed a single factor (43.4%of

the variance) that included the ten expected statements, and self-regulation constituted

the second factor (31.6%) that included the remaining seven statements. The indices of a

confirmatory factorial analysis confirmed that the data better fit a bidimensional model

than a unidimensional or a three-dimensional model. The internal consistency for

motivation (a = .96) and self-regulation (a = .89) was high.

The grading system to evaluate children’s achievement differed across schools: some

used percentages and others used letters or numbers that refer to teachers’ qualitativejudgement of attainment of learning objectives. Therefore, to have a similar base of

appraisal of children’s academic achievement, teachers were asked to rate on a 5-point

scale ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) how they judged a pupil’s school

performance in comparison with that of the other pupils in the class. This evaluation was

carried out for both language arts and mathematics. The correlation between the pupils’

performance on school subjects was very high (r = .82, p < .001), so average scoreswere

computed and used as a measure of children’s academic achievement.

Procedure

This study was part of a broader longitudinal study that examined the development of

perceptions of competence. Written approval for the data collection was obtained

from the children’s parents, school principals, and teachers. Two trained research

assistants met the students in collective sessions in their classroom during regular

school hours.

At the first year of the study, the questionnaire on self-perception of scholasticcompetence and on parental emotional support was embedded in the questionnaire for

the larger project and was self-administered during the first 50-min session. One of the

research assistants explained the instructions and read each of the items out loud, while

the other research assistant was available to provide assistance in answering any question

the childrenmight have.Onemonth later, theMental Ability Testwas administered during

a 50-min session as prescribed by the authors of the test. At the beginning of each session,

we reminded students that their participationwas voluntary and that they could choose to

end it at any time without prejudice. Parent-rated measures were obtained by askingchildren to take home an envelope containing a copy of the questionnaires to be filled out

by the parent who was usually involved with the child’s daily school activities. The

instructions to the parents emphasized that as each child was different, therewas no right

or wrong response. A pre-stamped envelope was provided for returning the question-

naires to the researchers.


At the second year of the study, while the children were in their classrooms filling out

the questionnaires for the broader longitudinal study, the teachers withdrew to another

room tofill out the questionnairemeasuring the academic functioning and achievement of

each of the participating pupils.

Results

Preliminary analyses and descriptive statistics

Similar to other studies (Bouffard et al., 2006, 2011; Brendgen, Vitaro, Turgeon, & Poulin,

2002; McGrath & Repetti, 2002; Orobio de Castro, Brendgen, Van Boxtel, Vitaro, &Schaepers, 2007), the self-evaluation bias of school competence was indexed using the

residual score of the regression of children’s self-rated competence on their SAI score. This

score determines the valence and the extent of self-evaluation bias: In this study, it ranged

from�3.35 to 2.40. A residual score close to zero indicates that the child’s self-evaluation

was fairly accurate. The more negative was the residual score, the more negatively biased

was the child’s self-evaluation, and conversely, the more positive it was, the more

positively biased was the child’s self-evaluation.

Table 1 presents the average scores and standard deviations of the variables reportedby the children, their parents, and their teacher. An analysis of variance (ANOVA)

conducted to determine whether the self-evaluation bias of competence differed

according to children’s gender and grade level showed no difference based on either

factors or any interaction. A similar analysis conducted on each of the two dimensions of

parental support as reported by the children showed no effects of gender or grade level on

the perceived availability of parental emotional support. However, although the effect

sizes were small, girls perceived their parents’ support to be more unconditional than

boys, F(1, 523) = 8.80, p = .003; g2 = .017, as did children in grade 5 compared withthose in grade 4, F(1, 523) = 4.82, p = .029; g2 = .009. There was no interaction effect

between the factors.

For the variables reported by the parents, no significant difference was found for

children’s gender or grade level. For the variables reported by the teachers, as pupils were

nested in classrooms, preliminary analyses examined whether there was a classroom

effect. The interclass correlations (ICC) were non-significant for all the three variables. A

multivariate ANOVA on the variable of school functioning with children’s gender and

school level as factors revealed that the teachers attributed higher scores to girls than to

Table 1. Average scores and standard deviations () of variables according to children’s gender

Variables

Grade 4 Grade 5

Boys Girls Boys Girls

Available support (C) 3.58 (.55) 3.58 (.48) 3.55 (.55) 3.50 (.62)

Unconditional support (C) 2.18 (.74) 2.30 (.64) 2.36 (.54) 2.43 (.61)

Available support (P) 5.57 (.46) 5.56 (.47) 5.51 (.47) 5.50 (.52)

Critical or disapproving reactions (P) 2.50 (.62) 2.36 (.61) 2.47 (.59) 2.50 (.65)

Motivation (T) 3.64 (.91) 3.92 (.84) 3.50 (.82) 3.97 (.79)

Self-regulation (T) 3.64 (.49) 4.15 (1.13) 3.39 (1.11) 4.17 (1.07)

Academic achievement (T) 3.50 (1.16) 3.73 (1.18) 3.31 (1.04) 3.71 (1.12)

Note. C, reported by children; P, reported by the parents; T, reported by the teachers.


boys for motivation, F(1, 523) = 23.44, p < .001; g2 = .043; self-regulation, F(1,

523) = 31.77, p < .001; g2 = .058; and academic achievement, F(1, 523) = 9.57,

p = .002; g2 = .018. No effect was observed for grade level or for the interaction. As

the relations between the variables assessed by the teachers were very high (over .70),their scores were summed up to create a composite score of academic functioning that

will be used in the remaining analyses.

Correlational analyses

Pearson’s correlation analyseswere performed, and the coefficients are shown in Table 2.

As stated in the first hypothesis, the more available and unconditional the parental

emotional support was perceived by the children, the more positive was theirself-evaluation bias of competence. For the parents, the more they reported providing

emotional support to their child, the more positive was the latter’s self-evaluation bias.

However, the parents’ report of reacting with negative criticism or disapproval following

their child’s errors and misconducts was negatively but not significantly related to the

latter’s self-evaluation bias of competence. These results only partly confirm the second

hypothesis. In support to the third and the fourth hypotheses, the higher the quality of

emotional support reported by the children and the parents, the more positively the

teacher evaluated their academic functioning 1 year later. Finally, children’s self-evalu-ation bias of competence was positively related to teachers’ report of their academic

functioning.

Testing the mediation hypothesis

Our fifth hypothesis proposed that children’s self-evaluation bias of competence would

mediate the relationship between parental emotional support and children’s academic

functioning. A macro for SPSS (indirect macro, version 2 for SPSS) developed by Preacherand Hayes (2008) for path analysis was used to test this mediation hypothesis. According

to MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Williams (2004), this method, based on a procedure of

resampling that is appropriate todealwithnon-normality, provides amorevalid estimation

of correlation coefficients than other methods (e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986; Sobel, 1982).

The bootstrapping sampling distributions of the indirect effects are empirically generated

by taking a sample (with replacement) of sizen from the entire data set and calculating the

indirect effects in the resamples. Point estimates and bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa)

95%confidence intervals (CI)wereused toestimate for the indirect effects. Point estimatesare considered significant in the case zero is not included in the BCa 95% CI.

Table 2. Zero-order correlations between variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5

1. Self-evaluation bias (C)

2. Available support (C) .22**

3. Unconditional support (C) .31** .44**

4. Available support (P) .12** .10* .11**

5. Critical and disapproving reactions (P) �.07 �.14** �.22** �.34**

6. Academic functioning (T) .35** .23** .29** .15** �.19**

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01.


Prior to conducting the analyses, all variables were z-standardized. Children’s gender

was controlled for in the analyses conducted to test the mediation effect of each

dimension of parental emotional support reported by children and parents on children’s

school functioning through self-evaluation bias of competence. When the mediation

effect was significant, a subsequent hierarchical regression analysis controlling for

children’s gender was used to explore the strength of this effect.

With regard to the link between children’s perception of availability of parental

support and academic functioning, as postulated, the mediation effect of children’sself-evaluation bias of competence was significant (see Figure 1a). The more children

perceived that parental support was available, the more positive was their self-evaluation

bias and the more positive the teachers evaluated their academic functioning. However,

the availability of parental support remained directly linked to academic functioning

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Unconditionalparental support

perceived by children

Academic functioning

Self-evaluation bias of

competence1

.29*** .29***

.28***(.22***)

Unconditional parental support

perceived by children

Academic functioning


competence1

.19*** .29***

.16*** (.09*)

(a)

(b)

1Continuous values from very negative to very positive. Positive values indicate overestimation;negative values indicate underestimation. The coefficient out of brackets below the dotted arrow between IV and VD is the value before entering the mediator, and the coefficient in the brackets is the value after the entry of the mediator.

Figure 1. (a) Mediation test of self-evaluation bias on relationship between availability of parental

support perceived by children and academic functioning: F(3, 520) = 36.05, p < .001. (b)Mediation test of

self-evaluation bias on relationship between unconditional parental support perceived by children and

academic functioning: F(3, 520) = 43.95, p < .001. Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.


(c’ = .09, p < .05, BCa 95% CI: .0330–.1010).1 This indicates that self-evaluation bias of

competencewas a partialmediator of the link between availability of parental support and

academic functioning. Results of the hierarchical regression analysis showed a decrement

of 8.4% (from 17% to 8.6%) in the R2 in academic functioning explained by availability ofparental support when it was entered into the regression model as a unique predictor

compared to when it was entered with children’s self-evaluation bias. Thus, children’s

self-evaluation bias explained 49.4% (.084/.17) of the total effect of the availability of

parental support reported by children on their academic functioning assessed by their

teachers.

The mediation effect of children’s self-evaluation bias of competence in the link

between children’s perception of unconditional parental support and academic

functioning was also significant (see Figure 1b). The more the children perceived thatparental support was unconditional, the more positive was their self-evaluation bias and

the more positively the teachers evaluated their academic functioning. However, the

unconditional parental support remained directly linked to academic functioning

(c’ = .22, p < .001, BCa 95% CI: .0255–.0807). This indicates that self-evaluation bias of

competence was a partial mediator of the link between unconditional parental support

and academic functioning. Results of the hierarchical regression analysis indicated a

decrement of 7.4% (from .194 to .12) in the R2 in academic functioning explained by

unconditional parental supportwhen itwas entered into the regressionmodel as a uniquepredictor compared to when it was entered with children’s self-evaluation bias. Thus,

children’s self-evaluation bias explained 38.1% (.074/.194) of the total effect of the

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .0011Continuous values from very negative to very positive. Positive values indicate overestimation;negative values indicate underestimation. The coefficient out of brackets below the dotted arrow between IV and VD is the value before entering the mediator, and the coefficient in the brackets is the value after the entry of the mediator.

Availability ofparental support

reported by parentsAcademic functioning


competence1

10** .32***

.14*** (.11**)

Figure 2. Mediation test of self-evaluation bias on relationship between availability of parental support

reported by parents and academic functioning: F(3, 520) = 33.51, p < .001). Note: *p < .05, **p < .01,

***p < .001.

1 c’ value represents the direct effect of independent variable on dependent variable when the mediator variable is adjusted for.


unconditional parental support perceived by children on their academic functioning

assessed by their teachers.

Concerning the link between parents’ report of the availability of their support and

academic functioning, as postulated, themediation effect of children’s self-evaluation biasof competence was significant (see Figure 2). The more the parents reported that they

were available to support their children, the more positive was the latter’s self-evaluation

bias and themore positively the teachers evaluated their academic functioning. However,

the availability of parental support remained directly linked to academic functioning

(c’ = .11, p < .01, BCa 95% CI: .0063–.0641). This indicates that self-evaluation bias of

competencewas apartialmediator of the link between availability of parental support and

academic functioning. Hierarchical regression analysis used to explore the strength of this

effect revealed a decrement of 9.9% (from .16 to .061) in the R2 in academic functioningexplained by availability of parental support when it was entered into the regression

model as a unique predictor compared to when it was entered with children’s

self-evaluation bias. Thus, children’s self-evaluation bias explained 61.8% (.099/.16) of

the total effect of the availability of support parents reported on their child’s academic

functioning assessed by their teachers.

Finally, as parents’ reports of criticisms and disapproval addressed to their child were

unrelated to the latter’s self-evaluation bias, a mediation test was not allowed. Results of

the regression analysis indicated that altogether, gender (b = .19, p < .001), criticismsand disapproval (b = �.17, p < .001), and children’s self-evaluation bias (b = .32,

p < .001) accounted for 18.1%, F(3, 520) = 37.52, p < .001, of the variance in academic

functioning. Teachers evaluated girls’ academic functioning more positively than that of

boys. Children whose parents reported using less criticism and disapproval and those

having a positive bias of self-evaluation received more positive judgement of their

academic functioning than their classmates.

Discussion

This study is one of the rare that has examined the relationship of children’s self-evaluation

bias of competence, parental support, and academic functioning. Its main goal was to test

whether the type of self-evaluation bias acts as a mediator in the relationship between

parental emotional support and children’s school functioning in elementary school.

Relationship between parental support, children’s self-evaluation bias, and school

functioning

As expected, the availability and unconditional nature of parental support reported by the

children and parents’ report of availability of their emotional support were all related to

the children’s self-evaluation bias of competence. These findings are consistent with

Harter (1992),who suggests that a combination of emotional and unconditional support is

the form of parental support that better sustains the development of children’s positiveself-perceptions of competence. They also are in line with Rogers’ idea (Rogers, 1951;

Rogers & Kinget, 1976) about the favourable role that unconditional positive regard from

significant others plays in the development of a positive self-concept and the actualization

of one’s potential. The presence of a negative self-evaluation bias of competence can

indicate children’s dissatisfaction with their performance, which may stem from the

internalized dissatisfaction expressed by their parents. In accordance with this process,


the child’s academic achievement is gradually lowered to match this negative perception

of competence (Bouffard et al., 2003). Finally, our results are also consistent with the

attachment theory stating that viewing low availability and responsiveness to their

emotional needs from their parents leads children to self-devaluation and to conclude thatthey do not deserve their parents’ love.

Our findings also showed that the quality of parental emotional support at a

given point relates to better academic functioning 1 year later. They are consistent

with the links that have previously been established between the quality of

children’s emotional relationship with their parents and their academic functioning

(Guay et al., 2008; Jacobsen & Hofmann, 1997; Turner et al., 2009). The expected

positive relation between children’s self-evaluation bias and the teachers’ evaluation

of their academic functioning was also observed and supports the position ofauthors who argue that a positive self-evaluation bias makes children highly adaptive

(Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Gerbino & Pastorelli, 2003; Bouffard et al., 2011;

Shogren, Lopez, Wehmeyer, Little & Pressgrove, 2006). Conversely, in line with

other studies, a negative self-evaluation bias was associated with less favourable

academic functioning (Bouffard et al., 2006; Fleury-Roy & Bouffard, 2006). In this

study, this link was true even a year later. By showing that a child’s self-evaluation

bias of competence at a given time is related to school functioning evaluated by a

teacher 1 year later, our results underscore the importance of the implications ofsuch biases for academic achievement. The multi-informant approach and the

longitudinal design of this study extend the findings of previous studies (Cot�e &

Bouffard, 2011; Phillips, 1987).

Mediating effect of children’s self-evaluation bias in the link between parental support

and school functioning

We had postulated that the parental emotional support would act on children’s academicfunctioning through its relation with children’s self-evaluation bias. This hypothesis was

partly supported as self-evaluation bias was a partial mediator of the relationship between

both dimensions of parental emotional support perceived by the pupils and their school

functioning evaluated by their teacher the year later. The mediating effect of self-eval-

uation bias was also significant for the availability dimension of support reported by

parents. Thus,we suggest that the results of themediationmodels testedwith the parents’

report of their emotional support enhance the relevance of those obtained fromchildren’s

reports. When children believe that they must reach high performance to merit theirparents’ support, they are more likely to set themselves high goals that may exceed their

capacity. The repetitive failures and difficulties ensuing surely lower their self-evaluation

of competence. Several studies showed that whether or not it is accurate, children’s low

self-evaluation of competence led to less active engagement, autonomy, effort, and

persistence in school than otherwise (Bouffard et al., 2003, 2006; Miserandino, 1996;

Phillips, 1984, 1987; Phillips & Zimmerman, 1990). In doing so, children miss out on

opportunities to develop their competence.

This being said, in both the children’s and parents’ models, the direct effect ofavailability of parental support remained significant. This finding fits well with Deslandes,

Bouchard, and St-Amant (1998),who reported that parental affective supportwas a strong

predictor of school achievement. They are also in line with Wentzel (1998), who found

that available parental support was a positive predictor of school-related interest and goal

orientations.


As for the availability of parental support, its conditionality reported by children

remained significant after the self-evaluation bias was taken into account. The parents’

parallel of conditional support, their critical or disapproving reactions, directly impacted

on academic functioning. This highlights that the unconditional nature of the parentalsupport is crucial to render children able to benefit from itwhen they need itmost, such as

when they face difficulties. When children are confident that they can count on their

parents’ emotional support when facing difficulties, they are encouraged to engage in

solving process and exploration activities, which, in turn, foster their feeling of

competence (Waters & Cummings, 2000). Moreover, the unconditional parental

emotional support could have an effect on academic functioning through mechanisms

other than those related to self-evaluation of competence. For example, Roth, Assor,

Niemiec, Ryan, and Deci (2009) found that whether it was positive or negative, when theparents’ regard for their child was conditional, it was associated with a dysfunctional

regulation of negative emotions, which interfered with academic functioning. Adoles-

cents whose parents had a conditional negative regard for them felt more resentment

towards their parents and were more likely to disengage from their studies. They were

more likely to suppress or deny their negative emotions and display a more rigid and

restricted mode of functioning based on academic results, making them less open to

explore and benefit from learning opportunities. Contrarily, parents who supported their

children’s autonomy without reserve fostered an integrated regulation of emotions andacademic engagement. Roth et al. (2009, p. 1132) come to conclude that ‘the controlling

parental practice of conditional regard does not promote high quality behaviour in

adolescents.’ Although the participants in our study were younger, it is likely that the

remaining direct effect of conditional support in our mediation models points to other

mechanisms through which it impacts on children’s regulation of emotions and

behaviours.

Conditional support reflects rigidity in standards and low parental responsiveness to

children and their needs and is seen as a formof psychological control (Assor&Tal, 2012).As children internalize that their parents’ support and love depend on their capacity to

fulfil their demands, they feel much pressure to behave in ways to comply with parents’

expectations. A review of the literature (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010) showed that

there are several correlates of parental psychological control. Children whose parents

exert psychological control are more distracted, organize their work less efficiently,

process information in a more superficial manner, and perform less well at school. It thus

appears that emotional concerns that might be related to parental conditional support

make children less inclined to engage in and persist effectively in school activities, whichmay negatively affect their academic functioning.

The perspectives of the sociocognitive, self-determination, and attachment theories

put the parent–child relationship at the centre of the influences acting on the

development of children’s perception of competence. This perception is known to have

a profound effect on motivation and behaviour. In line with these theoretical

perspectives, our findings suggest that perceiving parental emotional support as available

and unconditional leads children to develop a positive self-evaluation bias of competence,

which in turn favours their motivation, self-regulation, and academic achievement. Thefacts that these school-related variables were reported 1 year after the measures of

emotional supportwere taken andwere assessed by a third personwho inmost cases was

unaware of the parent–child dynamic add strength to this conclusion. Our findings are

also in linewith several authorswho assert that a subjective positive belief of competence


is adaptive for children’s school functioning (Bandura, 1986; Bouffard et al., 2011;

Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2006; Felson, 1984).

To our knowledge, this study is the first to have examined the mediating role of

self-evaluation bias of competence in the relationship between quality of parentalemotional support and the children’s academic functioning. Over its large sample, the

multi-informant approach is among its strengths. The children provided reports of their

parents’ support, parents self-reported of their support to their child, and teachers

rated the latter academic functioning and achievement. But, without doubt, the honesty

of the parents, their report of their availability, and reactions to their child’s mistakes

and difficulties may well have been tainted to some degree with a social desirability

bias. This is a limit that may have reduced the sensitivity of the variables and the

strength of the expected relationships. Another limit is our correlational design thatdoes not allow us to conclude that there was a causal effect in the relationships

observed. However, to limit a possible reverse causal effect, we measured the mediator

and the dependent variables successively over time, with a 1-year interval.

Finally, this study helps to understand the interactional dynamic of parental

conditional support and its associated consequences within the children’s school

functioning. Future research using a longer longitudinal follow-up should address the

issue of the variations of parental conditional support over time and their consequences

on both the children’s adaptive school functioning and psychological well-being.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the exceptional participation of school principals,

teachers, children, and parents to this study. This researchwasmade possible thanks to a grant

from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada awarded to the second

and third authors and doctoral fellowships to the first author from the Fonds qu�eb�ecois pour la

recherche sur la soci�et�e et la culture (Quebec Government Fund) and the Social Sciences and

Humanities Research Council of Canada.

References

Assor, A., & Tal, K. (2012). When parents’ affection depends on child’s achievement: Parental

conditional positive regard, self-aggrandizement, shame and coping in adolescents. Journal of

Adolescence, 35, 249–260. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.10.004Assor, A., Vansteenkiste, M., & Kaplan, A. (2009). Identified and introjection approach and

introjection avoidance motivations in school and in sport: The limited benefits of self-worth

strivings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 482–497. doi:10.1037/a0014236Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and

Company.

Bandura, A. (2008). An agentic perspective on positive psychology. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Positive

psychology: Exploring the best in people, Vol. 1 (pp. 167–196). Westport, CT: Greenwood

Publishing Company.

Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of affective

self-regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 74,

769–782. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00567


Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child

Development, 37, 887–907.Borkowski, J. G., & Thorpe, P. K. (1994). Self-regulation and motivation: A life-span perspective on

underachievement. In D. H. Schunk (Ed.), Self regulation of learning and performance: Issues

and educational applications (pp. 45–73). Hillsdale, NJ; UK: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates Inc.

Bouffard, T., Boisvert, M., & Vezeau, C. (2003). The illusion of incompetence and its correlates

among elementary school children and their parents. Learning and Individual Differences,

14, 31–46. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2003.07.001Bouffard, T., & Narciss, S. (2011). Benefits and risks of positive biases in self-evaluation of academic

competence: Introduction. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 205–208.doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2011.08.001

Bouffard, T., Roy, M., & Vezeau, C. (2006). Temperamental and attitudinal correlates of

socioemotional adjustment among low achiever children. International Journal of

Educational Research, 43, 215–235. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2006.06.003Bouffard, T., Vezeau, C., Chouinard, R., & Marcotte, G. (2006). L’illusion d’incomp�etence et les

facteurs associ�es chez l’�el�eve du primaire [The illusion of incompetence and its associated

factors amongprimary school pupils].Revue franc�aise de p�edagogie,155, 9–20. Retrieved fromhttp://rfp.revues.org/61

Bouffard, T., Vezeau, C., Roy, M., & Lengel�e, A. (2011). Stability of biases of self-evaluation and

relations to well-being in elementary school children. International Journal of Educational

Research, 50, 221–229. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2011.08.003Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Lariv�ee, S. (1991). Influence of self-efficacy on self-regulation

and performance among junior and senior high-school age students. International Journal of

Behavioral Development, 14, 153–164. doi:10.1177/016502549101400203Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 52, 664–678. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.tb01456.xBrendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Turgeon, L., & Poulin, F. (2002). Assessing aggressive and depressed

children’s social relations with classmates and friends: A matter of perspective. Journal of

Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 609–624. doi:10.1023/A:1020863730902Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment relationships:

A construct revisited. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment:

Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 89–111). New York, NY: Guilford.

Brumariu, L. E., & Kerns, K. A. (2010). Parent-child attachment and internalizing symptoms in

childhood and adolescence: A review of empirical findings and future directions. Development

and Psychopathology, 22, 177–203. doi:10.1017/S0954579409990344Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006). Self-assessed intelligence and academic

performance. Educational Psychology, 26, 769–779. doi:10.1080/01443410500390921Colvin, C. R., Block, J., & Funder, D. C. (1995). Overly positive evaluations and personality:

Negative implications for mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,

1152–1162. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1152Cot�e, S., & Bouffard, T. (2011). Role of parental emotional support in illusion of scholastic

incompetence. European Review of Applied Psychology, 61, 137–145. doi:10.1016/j.erap.2011.05.003

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsicmotivation and self-determination in human behavior.

New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R.M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. InM.Kernis (Ed.),

Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31–49). New York, NY: Plenum.

Deslandes, R., Bouchard, P., & St-Amant, J. C. (1998). Family variables as predictors of school

achievement: Sex differences in Quebec adolescents. Canadian Journal of Education, 23,

390–404.


Diener, M. L., Isabella, R. A., Behunin, M. G., & Wong, M. S. (2008). Attachment to mothers and

fathers during middle childhood: Associations with child gender, grade, and competence.

Social Development, 17, 84–101. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00416.xFelson, R. B. (1984). The effects of self-appraisals of ability on academic performance. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 944–952. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.5.944Fleury-Roy, M.-H., & Bouffard, T. (2006). Teachers’ recognition of children with an illusion of

incompetence. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 149–161. doi:10.1007/BF03173574

Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525–538. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.525Gresham, F. M., Lane, K. L., MacMillan, D. L., Bocian, K. M., &Ward, S. L. (2000). Effects of positive

and negative illusory biases: Comparisons across social and academic self-concept domains.

Journal of School Psychology, 38, 151–175. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(99)00042-4Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school achievement:

Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 83, 508–517. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.4.508Guay, F., Boivin, M., & Hodges, E. V. E. (1999). Predicting change in academic achievement:

A model of peer experiences and self-system processes. Journal of Educational Psychology,

91, 105–115. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.105Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., & Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of

self-determination in education. Canadian Psychology, 49, 233–240. doi:10.1037/

a0012758

Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87–97.Harter, S. (1985). Competence as a dimension of self-evaluation: Toward a comprehensive model of

self-worth. In R. L. Leahy (Ed.), The development of the self (pp. 55–122). New York, NY:

Academic Press.

Harter, S. (1990). Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-worth: A life-span

perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian Jr (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 67–98).New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Harter, S. (1992). The relationship between perceived competence, affect, and motivational

orientation within the classroom: Processes and patterns of change. In A. K. Boggiano (Ed.),

Achievement and motivation: A social developmental perspective (pp. 77–114). New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Harter, S. (1996). Developmental changes in self-understanding across the 5 to 7 shift. In A. J.

Sameroff & M. M. Haith (Eds.), The five to seven shift: The age of reason and responsibility

(pp. 207–236). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Jacobsen, T., Edelstein, W., & Hofmann, V. (1994). A longitudinal study of the relation

between representations of attachment in childhood and cognitive functioning in

childhood and adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 30, 112–124. doi:10.1037/

0012-1649.30.1.112

Jacobsen, T., & Hofmann, V. (1997). Children’s attachment representations: Longitudinal relations

to school behavior and academic competency in middle childhood and adolescence.

Developmental Psychology, 33, 703–710. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.4.703Kerns, K. A., Aspelmeier, J. E., Gentlzer, A. L., & Grabill, C. M. (2001). Parent-child attachment

and monitoring in middle childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 69–81.doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.1.69

Kenny, D. A. (2009).Mediation. Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm

Kerns, K. A., Klepac, L., & Cole, A. (1996). Peer relationships and preadolescents’ perceptions

of security in the child-mother relationship. Developmental Psychology, 32, 457–466.doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.3.457

Larouche,M.-N., Galand, B., & Bouffard, T. (2008). The illusion of scholastic incompetence and peer

acceptance in primary school. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23, 25–39.doi:10.1007/BF03173138


Luke, M. A., Maio, G. R., & Carnelley, K. B. (2004). Attachment models of self and others: Relations

with self-esteem, humanity-esteem, and parental treatment. Personal Relationships, 11, 281–303. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00083.x

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., &Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect:

Distribution of the product ans resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39,

99–128. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4

Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to

the level of representation.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50,

66–106.McGrath, E. P., & Repetti, R. L. (2002). A longitudinal study of children’s depressive symptoms,

self-perceptions, and cognitive distorsions about the self. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,

111, 77–87. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.111.1.77Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived

competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology,

88, 203–214. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.203Moss, E., St-Laurent, D., & Parent, S. (1999). Disorganized attachment and developmental risk at

school age. In J. Solomon&C. George (Eds.), Attachment disorganization (pp. 160–187). NewYork, NY: Guilford Press.

Moss, E., St-Laurent, D., Pascuzzo, K., & Dubois-Comtois, K. (2007). Roles of attachment and

individual and family processes in predicting achievement at secondary school. Final research

report for theActions concert�eesprogramorganized by the Fonds qu�eb�ecois de recherche sur laculture et la soci�et�e, in collaborationwith Quebec’sMinistery of Education, Leisure and Sport.

Ohannessian, C. M., Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., & von Eye, A. (1998). Perceived parental acceptance

and early adolescent self-competence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 621–629.doi:10.1037/h0080370

Orobio de Castro, B., Brendgen, M., Van Boxtel, H., Vitaro, F., & Schaepers, L. (2007). “Accept Me,

or Else. . .”: Disputed overestimation of social competence predicts increases in

proactive aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 165–178.doi:10.1007/s10802-006-9063-6

Papini, D. R., & Roggman, L. A. (1992). Adolescent perceived attachment to parents in relation to

competence, depression, and anxiety: A longitudinal study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 12,

420–440.Phillips, D. A. (1984). The illusion of incompetence among academically competent children. Child

Development, 55, 2000–2016. doi:10.2307/1129775Phillips, D. A. (1987). Socialization of perceived academic competence among highly competent

children. Child Development, 58, 1308–1320. doi:10.2307/1130623Phillips, D. A., & Zimmerman, M. (1990). The developmental course of perceived competence and

incompetence among competent children. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Competence considered

(pp. 41–66). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Pianta, R. C., & Harbers, K. L. (1996). Observing mother and child behavior in a

problem-solving situation at school entry: Relations with academic achievement. Journal of

School Psychology, 34, 307–322. doi:10.1016/0022-4405(96)00017-9Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the

Motivated Strategies for LearningQuestionnaire (MSLQ). AnnArbor,MI:NCRIPTAL, School of

Education, The University of Michigan.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and

comparing indirect effects in multiples mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40,

879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

Rogers, C. R. (1951).Client-centered therapy: It current practice, implications, and theory. Boston,

MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships, as

developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a


science, vol. III: Formulations of the person and the social context (pp. 184–256). NewYork, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Rogers, C. R., &Kinget,M. (1976).Psychoth�erapie et relations humaines: Th�eorie et pratique de lath�erapie non-directive, [Psychotherapy and human relations: Theory and practice of the

non-directive therapy] Vol. 1. Paris/Louvain: B�eatrice-Nauwelaerts.

Roth, G., Assor, A., Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). The emotional and academic

consequences of parental conditional regard: Comparing conditional positive regard,

conditional negative regard, and autonomy support as parenting practices. Developmental

Psychology, 45, 1119–1142. doi:10.1037/a0015272Rubin, K. H., Dwyer, K. M., Booth-LaForce, C., Kim, A. H., Burgess, K. B., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2004).

Attachment, friendship, and psychosocial functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Early

Adolescence, 24, 326–356. doi:10.1177/0272431604268530Sarrazin, G., McInnis, C. E., & Vaillancourt, R. (1985). Test d’habilet�e scolaire Otis–Lennon: Niveau

�el�ementaire [Otis-Lennon School Ability Test: Elementary level]. Montreal, QC, Canada:

Institute of Psychological Research.

Seidah, A. (2004). Satisfaction de son apparence physique comme pivot de l’estime de soi des

jeunes �a l’adolescence: Facteurs individuels et adaptation psychosociale [Satisfaction of one’s

physical appearance as a pivot of youths’ self-esteem at adolescence: Individual factors and

psychosocial adjustment] (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Quebec at Montreal,

Montreal, QC, Canada.

Shogren, K. A., Lopez, S. J., Wehmeyer, M. L., Little, T. D., & Pressgrove, C. L. (2006). The role of

positive psychology constructs in predicting life satisfaction in adolescents with and without

cognitive disabilities: An exploratory study. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 37–52. doi:10.1080/17439760500373174

Simons, K. J., Paternite, C. E., & Shore, C. (2001). Quality of parent/adolescent attachment and

aggression in young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 182–203. doi:10.1177/0272431601021002003

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equations

models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). Washington, DC:

American Sociological Association.

Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental

psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory.

Developmental Review, 30, 74–99. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2009.11.001Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on

mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193Teo, A., Carlson, E., Mathieu, P. J., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1996). A prospective longitudinal

study of psychosocial predictors of achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 34, 285–306.doi:10.1016/0022-4405(96)00016-7

Turner, E. A., Chandler, M., & Heffer, R. W. (2009). The influence of parenting styles, achievement

motivation, and self-efficacy on academic performance in college students. Journal of College

Student Development, 50, 337–346. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0073Vaillancourt, M.-E., & Bouffard, T. (2009). Illusion of incompetence, dysfunctional attitudes and

cognitive distortions of primary education pupils. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science,

41, 151–160. doi:10.1037/a0014890Waters, E., & Cummings, E. M. (2000). A secure base from which to explore close relationships.

Child Development, 71, 164–172. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00130Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents,

teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 202–209. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.202

Received 19 December 2013; revised version received 5 May 2014


the mediating effect of self-evaluation bias of competence on the relationship between parental...

Documents