Pancultural Gender Differences in the Relation Between Perceived Parental Acceptance and Psychological Adjustment of Children and Adult Offspring

Abstract

This cross-cultural meta-analysis is based on 220 studies involving 33,081 respondents from 23 nations across five continents. The study addressed a major question drawn from the basic postulates of interpersonal acceptance–rejection theory (IPARTheory): Is the psychological adjustment of both males and females universally (i.e., panculturally) associated with children’s and adults’ perceptions of both maternal and paternal acceptance in childhood? To remain true to the major postulates of IPARTheory (formerly known as parental acceptance–rejection theory, PARTheory), all studies included in this meta-analysis used the Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire for Mothers and Fathers (Child and Adult PARQ: Mother and Father versions), as well as the Personality Assessment Questionnaire (Child and Adult versions). Results showed that both paternal and maternal acceptance correlate significantly with the psychological adjustment of both children and adults across all cultures. The study also showed that there are no gender differences in the relation between children’s perception of parental acceptance and their psychological adjustment. However, remembrances of maternal acceptance in childhood showed significantly stronger relations with adult sons’ current psychological adjustment than that of adult daughters. Moreover, remembrances of paternal acceptance in childhood were found to have significantly stronger relations with adult daughters’ psychological adjustment than did daughters’ remembrances of maternal acceptance.

Keywords

meta-analysis paternal acceptance maternal acceptance gender differences psychological adjustment

Children’s and adults’ perceptions of interpersonal (e.g., parental) acceptance is the underpinning of healthy psychological adjustment. That is the essence of R. P. Rohner’s (1980, 1986, 2014) interpersonal acceptance–rejection theory (IPARTheory). IPARTheory (formerly known as parental acceptance–rejection theory, PARTheory) is an evidence-based theory that aims to explain and predict the major consequences and other correlates of interpersonal acceptance–rejection worldwide (R. P. Rohner, 1986; R. P. Rohner, Khaleque, & Cournoyer, 2012). For example, the theory asserts that the psychological, behavioral, and cognitive adjustment of children and adults everywhere throughout the world—regardless of differences in culture, race, language, or other such defining characteristics—is likely to be affected in at least 10 ways when they perceive themselves to be accepted or rejected by their parents and other people most important to them. Specifically, the theory postulates that children who experience themselves to be rejected by parents or other attachment figures—or adults who remember having been rejected as children—tend to be (a) anxious and (b) insecure, and to develop a cluster of seven personality dispositions associated with psychological maladjustment (Khaleque & Rohner, 2002a; Rohner & Khaleque, 2010). These dispositions include (c) anger, hostility, aggression, passive aggression, or problems with the management of hostility and aggression; (d) dependence or defensive independence depending on the form, frequency, duration, timing, and intensity of perceived rejection; (e) impaired self-esteem; (f) impaired self-adequacy; (g) emotional unresponsiveness; (h) emotional instability; and (i) negative worldview. In addition, perceived rejection is said in the theory to be associated with the development of (j) cognitive distortions, among other developmental problems (R. P. Rohner et al., 2012).

Beyond this, it is important to note that five and one-half decades of research with tens of thousands of individuals in close to 90 nations worldwide have shown that children and adults everywhere tend to experience themselves to be cared about by the people most important to them—that is to be accepted or rejected—in the same four ways (R. P. Rohner, 2004). These include the perception of warmth/affection (or coldness and the lack of affection), hostility/aggression, indifference/neglect, and undifferentiated rejection. Undifferentiated rejection refers to individuals’ feelings that their parents, intimate partners, or other attachment figures do not really care about or love them, without necessarily having objective indicators that the attachment figure is unaffectionate, aggressive, or neglectful. Together, these four expressions of interpersonal acceptance and rejection form the warmth dimension of attachment relationships (R. P. Rohner, 1986).

Prior meta-analyses and reviews of cross-cultural and intracultural studies have suggested that perceived parental acceptance in childhood is indeed associated with the psychological adjustment of both children and adults in the ways that IPARTheory suggests (Khaleque & Rohner, 2002a, 2012a; R. P. Rohner & Britner, 2002). However, previous meta-analyses testing the theory have not inquired about possible gender differences in the correlation between parental acceptance–rejection and offspring adjustment (Khaleque, 2013). Thus, one major question in IPARTheory is still unresolved: Is the psychological adjustment of both males and females universally (i.e., panculturally) associated with children’s and adults’ perceptions of maternal and paternal acceptance? A corollary question asks, “Does one parent’s acceptance have a greater impact on male or female offspring’s (children’s or adults’) psychological adjustment than perceived acceptance of the other parent?”

Conclusions about gender differences in perceived parental acceptance–rejection from the existing literature relevant to this question are mixed and inconsistent. For example, some researchers claim that mothers tend to be more accepting than fathers (Forehand & Nousiainen, 1993; Gamble, Ramakumar, & Diaz, 2007; Gerlsma & Emmelkamp, 1994; Winsler, Madigan, & Aquilino, 2005). Putnick et al. (2012), for instance, found in nine nations that mothers tended to be warmer and more accepting than fathers. Other researchers, however, have found either no significant differences between offspring’s perceptions of mothers’ and fathers’ acceptance, or occasionally, fathers are perceived by offspring to be more accepting than mothers (Chen, Liu, & Li, 2000; R. P. Rohner & Britner, 2002; R. P. Rohner & Veneziano, 2001; Russell & Russell, 1989).

Studies regarding males’ versus females’ perceptions of parental acceptance have also been mixed. Some studies, for example, report that girls perceive their parents to be more accepting than do boys (Chung, Zappulla, & Kaspar, 2008). Other studies report that boys perceive their parents to be more accepting than do girls. Still other studies have found no differences in males’ versus females’ perceptions of parental acceptance (Lila, Garcia, & Gracia, 2007). Results of studies such as these expose great variability in conclusions about relations between maternal and paternal acceptance on males versus females.

More to the point for purposes of this meta-analysis is the fact that few studies have looked cross-culturally at gender differences of parents and their relations to the psychological adjustment of boys versus girls. And to the best of our knowledge, no study has yet looked at the possible pancultural relations between adults’ (men’s vs. women’s) remembrances of parental acceptance in childhood and adults’ current psychological adjustment. These two issues are addressed in this meta-analysis. These issues are important because IPARTheory is devoted to anthroponomy (R. P. Rohner, 1986), a conceptual and methodological orientation that intends to establish cross-culturally valid generalizations or principles about the pancultural consequences, antecedents, and other correlates of interpersonal acceptance–rejection—principles that can be shown empirically to hold true across cultures, races, languages, genders, and other such defining characteristics.

The Present Study

To summarize, the objective of this meta-analysis is to address the following question: Is the psychological adjustment of both males and females universally (i.e., panculturally) associated with children’s and adults’ perceptions of both maternal and paternal acceptance? A corollary to this question asks, “Does one parent’s acceptance have a greater impact on male or female offspring’s (children’s or adults’) psychological adjustment than perceived acceptance of the other parent?”

Method

Literature Search Procedure

To generate a pool of potentially usable studies, we adopted multiple retrieval strategies, as recommended by Johnson and Eagly (2000). These strategies use both electronic databases and manual methods. More specifically, we systematically reviewed past literature from 1976 through 2014. The start date of 1976 was selected because it was known to be the earliest date when all relevant studies met the selection criteria for this study, as specified below. Search for relevant studies was carried out on PsycARTICLES and PsycNET databases, Dissertation Abstracts International (DAI), National Council on Family Relations (NCFR), Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Social Science Index, Sociological Abstracts (SOCA), Anthropological Literature, Child Development Abstracts, and Social Work Abstracts. Also, studies—especially unpublished studies—archived in the Ronald and Nancy Rohner Center for the Study of Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection at the University of Connecticut were sought using these keywords: perceived maternal acceptance, perceived paternal acceptance, and psychological adjustment.

Finally, we conducted a forward and backward reference search using the same databases and Google Scholar to identify any publications eligible for inclusion in the study. Unpublished studies were especially sought, because published research tends to be biased toward significant results (Wolf, 1986). Conference proceedings from the International Congresses on Interpersonal Acceptance Rejection (ICIAR) were also used as sources for relevant studies.

Inclusion Criteria

To be included in the meta-analysis, studies had to meet the following criteria. They had to (a) be empirical studies investigating relations between perceived parental (both maternal and paternal) acceptance and offspring’s (both children’s and adults’) psychological adjustment, (b) use measures that were explicitly designed to assess perceived parental acceptance and offspring’s psychological adjustment as defined in IPARTheory. These measures include child and adult versions of the Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire for mothers and fathers (Child and Adult PARQ: Mother and Father; R. P. Rohner, 2005) as well as child and adult versions of the Personality Assessment Questionnaire (Child and Adult PAQ; R. P. Rohner & Khaleque, 2005). The PAQ is the only measure that explicitly assesses the seven personality dispositions most central to IPARTheory’s personality subtheory. These measures are described later. Studies also had to (c) report effect sizes using Pearson correlation coefficients and (d) be in the English language, with full-text availability. Eventually, 220 studies were found that met all inclusion criteria.

Coding Procedures

We coded the following information from each study: (a) sample size, (b) country where the study was conducted, (c) mean age and/or age range of participants, (d) number of respondents, (e) effect sizes, and (f) the publication status of the study (i.e., published or unpublished).

Study Sample

A total of 220 studies conducted between 1976 and 2014 met the selection criteria. Among these, 85 were published and 135 were unpublished. Collectively, these studies included 33,081 respondents. Among them, 13,822 were children (54% girls), and 19,259 were adults (63% women). The overall mean age of the children was 14 years, with ages ranging from 6 through 20 years. The overall mean age of adult respondents was 25 years, with ages ranging from 13 through 71 years. The meta-analysis consisted of respondents from 23 nations, including Bangladesh, China, Colombia, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Greece, India, Iran, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States. Details about the demographic characteristics of the sample studies are shown in Tables 1 through 8. Studies included in the meta-analysis are marked with an asterisk in the “References” section.

Table 1.

Studies Regarding Relations Between Boys’ Perceptions of Paternal Acceptance and Boys’ Psychological Adjustment.

Author (year)	Published/unpublished	n	M age	Age range	r	Country (ethnicity)
Ahmed, Rohner, and Carrasco (2012)	p	96	16	13-18	.51**	Kuwait
Ali (2010)	u	50	15	13-16	.39**	Pakistan
Ali (2011)	u	98	12	11-13	.67***	Pakistan
Ali (2013)	u	150	13	11-15	.53**	Pakistan
Borkan, Erkman, and Keskiner (2014)	u	138	17	16-20	.51**	Turkey
Carrasco (2011-2014)	u	168	13	10-16	.30**	Spain
Giotsa and Touloumakos (2014)	u	81	11	7-12	.26*	Greece
Giovazolias, Kothali, Louvrou, and Mitsopoulou (2010)	u	205	16	12-18	.48**	Greece
Glavak-Tkalic and Kukolja-Cicmanovic (2014)	u	129	16	15-19	.49**	Croatia
Gurel (2013)	u	165	13	12-14	.69**	Turkey
Gürmen and Rohner (2013)	p	86	16	12-18	.65**	Turkey
Khaleque (2014)	p	243	13	10-16	.04	Multi-national^a
Lee and Chyung (2014)	u	102	12	11-13	.37**	Korea
Li (2014)	u	151	14	11-16	.43**	China
Machado, Machado, Neves, and Favero (2014)	u	348	22	18	.40**	Portugal
Nasrin (2013)	u	200	14	13-16	.55**	Pakistan
Parmar and Rohner (2010)	p	102	11	10-11	.30*	India
Riaz (2010)	u	88	—	11	.36**	Pakistan
R. P. Rohner, Khaleque, Elias, and Sabina (2010)	p	89	13	12-15	.46**	Bangladesh
R. P. Rohner, Parmar, and Ibrahim (2010)	p	93	11	10-13	.58***	Kuwait
Tulviste and Rohner (2010)	p	109	12	11-14	.44***	Estonia

Note. u = unpublished; p = published.

This multi-national study included Bangladesh, Colombia, Estonia, Finland, India, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Puerto Rico, Turkey, and the United States.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 2.

Studies Regarding Relations Between Boys’ Perceptions of Maternal Acceptance and Boys’ Psychological Adjustment.

Author (year)	Published/ unpublished	n	M age	Age range	r	Country
Ahmed, Rohner, and Carrasco (2012)	p	96	16	13-18	.53**	Kuwait
Ali (2010)	u	50	15	13-16	.40**	Pakistan
Ali (2011)	u	98	12	11-13	.58**	Pakistan
Ali (2013)	u	150	13	11-15	.56**	Pakistan
Borkan, Erkman, and Keskiner (2014)	u	138	17	16-20	.37**	Turkey
Carrasco (2011-2014)	u	168	13	10-16	.42**	Spain
Giotsa and Touloumakos (2014)	u	81	11	7-12	.13	Greece
Giovazolias, Kothali, Louvrou, and Mitsopoulou (2010)	u	205	16	12-18	.46**	Greece
Glavak-Tkalic and Kukolja-Cicmanovic (2014)	u	129	16	15-19	.45**	Croatia
Granum and Starkey (1976)	u	101	—	9-11	.76***	The United States
Gurel (2013)	u	165	13	12-14	.67**	Turkey
Gürmen and Rohner (2013)	p	86	16	12-18	.60**	Turkey
Haque (1986)	p	116	12	—	.28*	Pakistan
Khaleque (2014)	p	243	13	10-16	.07	Multi-national^a
Lee and Chyung (2014)	u	102	12	11-13	.45**	Korea
Li (2014)	u	151	14	11-16	.44**	China
Machado, Machado, Neves, and Favero (2014)	u	348	23	18	.44**	Portugal
Nasrin (2013)	u	200	14	13-16	.45**	Pakistan
Parmar and Rohner (2010)	p	102	11	10-11	.34***	India
Reddy (1981)	u	50	—	—	.44**	India
Reddy (1981)	u	50	—	—	.76***	India
Reddy (1982)	u	50	12	7-14	.11	India
Riaz (2010)	u	88	—	11	.31**	Pakistan
R. P. Rohner, Khaleque, Elias, and Sabina (2010)	p	89	13	12-15	.46**	Bangladesh
E. C. Rohner and Rohner (1977)	u	142	9	8-12	.62***	The United States
R. P. Rohner, Parmar, and Ibrahim (2010)	p	93	11	10-13	.56***	Kuwait
Roll (1977)	u	100	11	8-12	.38**	Mexico
Tulviste and Rohner (2010)	p	109	12	11-14	.50***	Estonia

Note. u = unpublished; p = published.

This multi-national study included Bangladesh, Colombia, Estonia, Finland, India, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Puerto Rico, Turkey, and the United States.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3.

Studies Regarding Relations Between Girls’ Perceptions of Paternal Acceptance and Girls’ Psychological Adjustment.

Author (year)	Published/ unpublished	n	M age	Age range	r	Country
Ahmed, Rohner, and Carrasco (2012)	p	153	16	13-18	.62**	Kuwait
Ali (2010)	u	50	15	13-16	.30**	Pakistan
Ali (2011)	u	98	12	11-13	.50***	Pakistan
Ali (2013)	u	150	13	11-15	.38**	Pakistan
Borkan, Erkman, and Keskiner (2014)	u	168	17	16-20	.34**	Turkey
Carrasco (2011-2014)	u	228	13	10-16	.58**	Spain
Giotsa and Touloumakos (2014)	u	87	11	7-12	.21*	Greece
Giovazolias, Kothali, Louvrou, and Mitsopoulou (2010)	u	248	16	12-18	.51**	Greece
Glavak-Tkalic and Kukolja-Cicmanovic (2014)	u	140	16	15-19	.48**	Croatia
Gurel (2013)	u	174	13	12-14	.53**	Turkey
Gürmen and Rohner (2013)	p	94	16	12-18	.52**	Turkey
Khaleque (2014)	p	325	13	10-16	.09	Multi-national^a
Lee and Chyung (2014)	u	107	12	11-13	.52**	Korea
Li (2014)	u	184	14	11-16	.40**	China
Machado, Machado, Neves, and Favero (2014)	u	437	22	18	.33**	Portugal
Nasrin (2013)	u	200	14	13-16	.41**	Pakistan
Parmar and Rohner (2010)	p	115	11	10-11	.34***	India
Riaz (2010)	u	88	—	11	.48**	Pakistan
R. P. Rohner, Khaleque, Elias and Sabina (2010)	p	111	13	12-15	.31*	Bangladesh
R. P. Rohner, Parmar, and Ibrahim (2010)	p	112	11	10-13	.46***	Kuwait
Tulviste and Rohner (2010)	p	115	12	11-14	.52*	Estonia

Note. u = unpublished; p = published.

This multi-national study included Bangladesh, Colombia, Estonia, Finland, India, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Puerto Rico, Turkey, and the United States.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 4.

Studies Regarding Relations Between Girls’ Perceptions of Maternal Acceptance and Girls’ Psychological Adjustment.

Author (year)	Published/unpublished	n	M age	Age range	R	Country
Ahmed, Rohner, and Carrasco (2012)	p	153	16	13-18	.48**	Kuwait
Ali (2010)	u	54	15	13-16	.44**	Pakistan
Ali (2010)	u	98	12	11-13	.48**	Pakistan
Ali (2010)	u	150	13	11-15	.56**	Pakistan
Borkan, Erkman, and Keskiner (2014)	u	138	17	16-20	.45**	Turkey
Carrasco (2011-2014)	u	228	13	10-16	.36**	Spain
Giotsa and Touloumakos (2014)	u	87	11	7-12	.34**	Greece
Giovazolias, Kothali, Louvrou, and Mitsopoulou (2010)	u	248	16	12-18	.51**	Greece
Glavak-Tkalic and Kukolja-Cicmanovic (2014)	u	140	16	15-19	.43**	Croatia
Granum and Starkey (1976)	u	119	—	9-11	.41**	The United States
Gurel (2013)	u	165	13	12-14	.50**	Turkey
Gürmen and Rohner (2013)	p	94	16	12-18	.50**	Turkey
Imam (2004a)	p	63	12	—	.39***	Pakistan
Imam (2004b)	p	56	13	—	.56***	Pakistan
Khaleque (2014)	p	325	13	10-16	.11*	Multi-national^a
Lee and Chyung (2014)	u	107	12	11-13	.59**	Korea
Li (2014)	u	184	14	11-16	.49**	China
Machado, Machado, Neves, and Favero (2014)	u	437	22	18	.36**	Portugal
Nasrin (2013)	u	200	14	13-16	.57**	Pakistan
Parmar and Rohner (2010)	p	115	11	10-11	.37***	India
Reddy (1981)	u	57	—	—	.44**	India
Reddy (1982)	u	55	12	7-14	.48**	India
Riaz (2010)	u	88	—	11	.07	Pakistan
R. P. Rohner, Khaleque, Elias, and Sabina (2010)	p	111	13	12-15	.37*	Bangladesh
R. P. Rohner, Parmar, and Ibrahim (2010)	p	112	11	10-13	.48***	Kuwait
E. C. Rohner and Rohner (1977)	u	174	9	8-12	.64***	The United States
E. C. Rohner and Rohner (1979)	u	101	10	6-11	.19	The United States
Roll (1977)	u	73	11	8-12	.59***	Mexico
Tulviste and Rohner (2010)	p	115	12	11-14	.52***	Estonia

Note. u = unpublished; p = published.

This multi-national study included Bangladesh, Colombia, Estonia, Finland, India, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Puerto Rico, Turkey, and the United States.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 5.

Studies Regarding Relations Between Adult Sons’ Remembrances of Paternal Acceptance and Adult Sons’ Psychological Adjustment.

Author (year)	Published/ unpublished	n	M age	Age range	r	Country (ethnicity)
Ahmed and Ibrahim (2013)	u	292	19	13-25	.43**	Kuwait
Ali (2010)	u	50	15	13-16	.29**	Pakistan
Ali (2012)	u	112	40	35-46	.67***	Pakistan
Chyung and Lee (2008)	p	71	23	19-35	.44**	Korea
Fateme (2013)	u	390	36	—	.28*	Iran
Filus and Roszak (2014)	u	76	21	20-22	.35**	Poland
Giovazolias (2014)	u	61	21	—	.36**	Greece
Hussain and Munaf, (2011)	p	103	22	18-38	.44***	Pakistan
Khaleque (2001)	u	14	22	—	.15	The United States (European American)
Khaleque (2014)	p	726	27	17-67	.52***	Multi-national^a
Khaleque, Rohner, and Laukkala (2008)	p	32	28	19-66	.42*	Finland
Khaleque, Rohner, and Patel (2008)	u	50	26	—	.89***	The United States (European American)
Khaleque, Rohner, and Shirin (2010)	u	100	22	19-26	.24*	Bangladesh
Khaleque, Shirin, and Uddin (2013)	p	178	36	25-40	.52*	Bangladesh
Khan and Rohner (2007)	u	90	22	—	.54***	Bangladesh
Khan, Rohner, and Khaleque (2007)	u	125	—	—	.21*	Bangladesh
Kostic and Zezelj (2012)	p	91	23	20-31	.40**	Serbia
Parmar (2013)	u	66	20	19-24	.60**	The United States
Parmar, Ibrahim, and Rohner (2008)	p	179	21	17-33	.49***	Kuwait
Parmar and Rohner (2005)	p	41	23	19-33	.63**	India
Parmar and Rohner (2008)	p	56	32	20-38	.78***	India
Ripoll-Nunez and Alvarez (2008)	p	96	22	15-70	.17	The United States (Colombia, Puerto Rico)
R. P. Rohner, Melendez, and Kraimer-Rickaby (2008)	p	67	24	18-65	.31*	The United States (European, American, African Hispanic, Asian)
R. P. Rohner, Rising, and Sayre-Scibona (2009)	p	37	24	—	.09	The United States (European, African, Asian, Hispanics, Native)
R. P. Rohner, Uddin, Shamsunnaher, and Khaleque (2008)	p	24	23	19-31	.12	Japan
Ruan and Rohner (2006)	u	90	29	—	.39***	The United States (Asian American)
Shirin (2011)	u	171	36	25-40	.52*	Bangladesh
Varan, Rohner, and Eryuksel (2008)	p	161	32	17-71	.30***	Turkey

Note. u = unpublished; p = published.

This multi-national study included Bangladesh, Colombia, Estonia, Finland, India, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Puerto Rico, Turkey, and the United States.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 6.

Studies Regarding Relations Between Adult Sons’ Remembrances of Maternal Acceptance and Adult Sons’ Psychological Adjustment.

Author (year)	Published/ unpublished	n	M age	Age range	r	Country (ethnicity)
Ahmed and Ibrahim (2013)	u	292	19	13-25	.48**	Kuwait
Ali (2012)	u	112	40	35-46	.60***	Pakistan
Chaki-Sircar (1982)	u	20	39	21-53	.32**	India
Chyung and Lee (2008)	p	71	23	19-35	.59**	Korea
Fateme (2013)	u	390	36	—	.20*	Iran
Filus and Roszak (2014)	u	76	21	20-22	.38**	Poland
Giovazolias (2014)	u	61	21	—	.41**	Greece
Haque (1981)	u	228	24	—	.43**	Nigeria
Haque (1981)	u	73	22	—	.54**	Nigeria
Khaleque (2014)	p	733	28	17-67	.53***	Multi-national^a
Khaleque, Rohner, and Patel (2008)	u	50	26	—	.88***	The United States (European American)
Khaleque, Rohner, & Shirin (2010)	u	100	22	19-26	.20*	Bangladesh
Khan, Rohner, and Khaleque (2007)	u	125	—	—	.42***	Bangladesh
Khaleque, Rohner, and Laukkala (2008)	p	32	28	19-66	.44*	Finland
Khan and Rohner (2007)	u	90	22	—	.54***	Bangladesh
Kostic and Zezelj (2012)	p	91	23	20-31	.40**	Serbia
Parmar (2013)	p	66	20	19-24	.19	The United States
Parmar, Ibrahim, and Rohner (2008)	p	179	21	17-33	.43***	Kuwait
Parmar and Rohner (2005)	p	41	23	19-33	.40**	India
Parmar and Rohner (2008)	p	56	32	20-38	.68***	India
Ripoll-Nunez and Alvarez (2008)	p	96	22	15-70	.26*	The United States (Colombian, Puerto Rican)
R. P. Rohner, Melendez, and Kraimer-Rickaby (2008)	p	67	24	18-65	.26***	The United States (Multi-Ethnic)
R. P. Rohner, Rising, and Sayre-Scibona (2009)	p	37	24	—	−.20*	The United States (European, African, Asian, Hispanics, Native)
R. P. Rohner, Uddin, Shamsunnaher, and Khaleque (2008)	p	24	23	19-31	.43*	Japan
Ruan and Rohner (2006)	u	90	29	—	.30***	The United States (Asian American)
Shirin (2011)	u	171	36	25-40	.50*	Bangladesh
Varan, Rohner, and Eryuksel (2008)	p	161	32	17-71	.39***	Turkey

Note. u = unpublished; p = published.

This multi-national study included Bangladesh, Colombia, Estonia, Finland, India, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Puerto Rico, Turkey, and the United States.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 7.

Studies Regarding Relations Between Adult Daughters’ Remembrances of Paternal Acceptance and Adult Daughters’ Psychological Adjustment.

Author (year)	Published/ unpublished	n	M age	Age range	r	Country (ethnicity)
Ahmed and Ibrahim (2013)	u	479	19	13-25	.48**	Kuwait
Ali (2012)	u	112	40	35-46	.43**	Pakistan
Brown et al. (2012)	u	83	24	16-59	.12*	The United States (Africa, Hispanic, White, Asian)
Chyung and Lee (2008)	p	62	23	19-35	.57**	Korea
Fateme (2013)	u	390	36	—	.29*	Iran
Filus and Roszak (2014)	u	124	21	20-22	.49**	Poland
Giovazolias (2014)	u	191	21	—	.26**	Greece
Hussain and Munaf, (2011)	p	103	23	18-38	.35**	Pakistan
Khaleque (2001)	u	100	22	—	.32**	The United States (European American)
Khaleque (2004)	p	64	21	—	.32**	The United States (European American)
Khaleque (2014)	p	1,396	24	17-70	.45***	Multi-national^a
Khaleque, Rohner, and Patel (2008)	u	48	26	—	.91***	The United States (European American)
Khaleque, Rohner, and Shirin (2010)	u	100	22	18-26	.67**	Bangladesh
Khaleque, Rohner, and Laukkala (2008)	p	134	28	19-66	.31**	Finland
Khaleque, Shirin, and Uddin (2013)	p	176	32	18-40	.57*	Bangladesh
Khan, Rohner, and Khaleque (2007)	u	125	—	—	.20*	Bangladesh
Khan and Rohner (2007)	u	74	22	—	.27*	Bangladesh
Kostic and Zezelj (2012)	p	100	23	20-31	.39**	Serbia
Parmar (2013)	p	77	20	19-24	.43**	The United States
Parmar, Ibrahim, and Rohner (2008)	p	210	21	17-33	.37***	Kuwait
Parmar and Rohner (2005)	p	38	23	19-33	.54**	India
Parmar & Rohner (2008)	p	59	32	20-38	.65***	India
Ripoll-Nunez and Alvarez (2008)	p	126	22	14-58	.32**	The United States (Colombia, Puerto Rico)
R. P. Rohner, Melendez, and Kraimer-Rickaby (2008)	p	421	22	18-70	.40***	The United States (European American, African Hispanic, Asian)
R. P. Rohner and Khaleque (2008)	p	88	22	19-43	.32***	The United States (European African, Hispanic)
R. P. Rohner, Rising, and Sayre-Scibona (2009)	p	89	24	—	.33*	The United States (European, African, Asian, Hispanics, Native)
R. P. Rohner, Uddin, Shamsunnaher, and Khaleque (2008)	p	58	23	19-31	.40**	Japan
Ruan and Rohner (2006)	u	90	29	—	.41**	The United States (Asian American)
Shirin (2011)	u	171	31	18-40	.60*	Bangladesh
Varan, Rohner, and Eryuksel (2008)	p	520	32	17-71	.29***	Turkey

Note. u = unpublished; p = published.

This multi-national study included Bangladesh, Colombia, Estonia, Finland, India, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Puerto Rico, Turkey, and the United States.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 8.

Studies Regarding Relations Between Adult Daughters’ Remembrances of Maternal Acceptance and Adult Daughters’ Psychological Adjustment.

Author (year)	Published/ unpublished	n	M age	Age range	r	Country (ethnicity)
Ahmed and Ibrahim (2013)	u	479	19	13-25	.42**	Kuwait
Ali (2012)	u	112	40	35-46	.40***	Pakistan
Brown et al. (2012)	u	84	24	16-59	.36**	The United States (Africa, Hispanic, White, Asian)
Chaki-Sircar (1981)	u	50	36	20-70	.20	India
Chaki-Sircar (1982)	u	51	36	20-70	.64***	India
Chyung & Lee (2008)	p	62	23	19-35	.60**	Korea
Fateme (2013)	u	390	36	—	.33*	Iran
Filus and Roszak (2014)	u	124	21	20-22	.29**	Poland
Giovazolias (2014)	u	191	21	—	.32**	Greece
Haque (1981)	u	301	—	—	.45***	Nigeria
Haque (1986)	p	74	12	—	.74***	Pakistan
Khaleque (2001)	u	100	22	—	.23*	The United States (European American)
Khaleque (2004)	p	64	21	—	.20	The United States (European American)
Khaleque (2014)	p	1,410	24	17-70	.38**	Multi-nationala
Khaleque, Rohner, and Laukkala (2008)	p	134	28	19-66	.33**	Finland
Khaleque, Rohner, and Patel (2008)	u	48	26	—	.88***	The United States (European American)
Khaleque, Rohner, and Shirin (2010)	u	100	22	18-26	.59*	Bangladesh
Khaleque, Shirin, and Uddin (2013)	p	176	32	18-40	.26*	Bangladesh
Khan and Rohner (2007)	u	90	22	—	.40***	Bangladesh
Khan, Rohner, and Khaleque (2007)	u	125	—	—	.40***	Bangladesh
Kitahara (1987)	u	71	—	—	.45***	Sweden
Kostic and Zezelj (2012)	p	100	23	20-31	.44**	Serbia
Parmar (2013)	p	77	20	19-24	.19	The United States
Parmar, Ibrahim, and Rohner (2008)	p	210	21	17-33	.36***	Kuwait
Parmar and Rohner (2005)	p	38	23	19-33	.51**	India
Parmar and Rohner (2008)	p	56	32	20-38	.57***	India
Ripoll-Nunez and Alvarez (2008)	p	126	22	14-58	.39**	The United States, Colombia, Puerto Rico
Rohner & Chaki-Sircar (1988)	u	47	—	—	.64***	India
Rohner, Melendez, & Kraimer-Rickaby (2008)	p	421	24	18-65	.31*	The United States (European, African, Asian, Hispanic)
Rohner & Khaleque (2008)	p	88	22	19-43	.24*	The United States (European, African, Hispanic)
Rohner, Rising, & Sayre-Scibona (2009)	p	89	24	—	.31*	The United States (European, African, Asian, Hispanic, Native)
E. C. Rohner and Rohner (1978)	u	43	—	—	.44**	The United States
Rohner, Uddin, Shamsunnaher, and Khaleque (2008)	p	58	23	19-31	.15	Japan
Ruan and Rohner (2006)	u	90	29	—	.29*	The United States (Asian American)
Shirin (2011)	u	171	31	18-40	.26*	Bangladesh
Varan, Rohner, and Eryuksel (2008)	p	520	32	17-71	.33***	Turkey

Note. u = unpublished; p = published.

This multi-national study included Bangladesh, Colombia, Estonia, Finland, India, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Puerto Rico, Turkey, and the United States.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Meta-Analytic Procedures

Computation of effect size

Because all effect sizes in our study were based on Pearson’s r, the computational method recommended by Rosenthal (1994) was used. As correlation coefficients increase in magnitude, the distribution of rs become increasingly skewed. To address this problem, we used Fisher’s z transformation (Fisher, 1928), as suggested by Rosenthal (1994). That is, we converted the rs into z scores, and computed their weighted means, and then back-converted the zs into rs (weighted effect sizes). Following recommendations by Hedges and Olkin (1985), we computed the weighted mean effect sizes by adjusting the z scores in proportion to the sample sizes. We then back-converted the zs into corresponding rs (weighted effect sizes).

Heterogeneity in effect sizes

Differences in sample demographics, measures used, and other such factors can produce heterogeneity in effect sizes that result in erroneous findings. Hedges and Olkin (1985) cautioned that effect sizes are meaningful only if they provide a reasonably homogeneous estimate of population effect sizes. Thus, in consideration of this fact, we ran a heterogeneity test to identify possible outliers using Rosenthal’s (1984) formula.

Fail-safe N

As stated earlier, published studies are often biased toward significant findings. To test for the possibility of bias in this meta-analysis, we performed the fail-safe N test suggested by Cooper (1979) and Rosenthal (1979). We should note here that fail-safe N estimates the minimum number of additional studies, all with non-significant results, required to reject statistically significant meta-analytic results as being non-significant (Durlak & Lipsey, 1991). According to Rosenthal (1995), results of a meta-analytic study are considered to be robust if the fail-safe number exceeds 5 times the number of studies, plus 10.

Measures

As noted earlier, all the studies in this meta-analysis used the (a) Child and Adult PARQ: Mother and Father and (b) Child and Adult PAQ. R. P. Rohner and Khaleque (2005) provide extensive evidence demonstrating that these measures are reliable and valid for use in cross-cultural research. More recent confirmatory factor analyses by Gomez and Rohner (2011), Gomez and Suhaimi (2014), and Senese et al. (2015) confirm the measurement invariance of the PARQ across cultures. Additional detail about these measures is provided below.

Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ)

Children reflect in the child PARQ on their parents’ (mothers’ or fathers’) current behavior toward them; in the adult PARQ, adults reflect on their childhood experiences of maternal or paternal acceptance–rejection. The two versions are virtually identical except for the use of verb tense: The present tense is used in the child PARQ, whereas the past tense is used in the adult PARQ. Both versions are 60-item self-report measures assessing respondents’ perceptions of maternal and paternal warmth/affection, hostility/aggression, indifference/neglect, and undifferentiated rejection. Sample items on the mother version of the child PARQ include the following: “My mother makes me feel wanted and needed” (perceived warmth/affection), “My mother goes out of her way to hurt my feelings” (perceived hostility/aggression), “My mother ignores me as long as I do nothing to bother her” (perceived indifference/neglect), and “My mother does not really love me” (perceived undifferentiated rejection). The mother and father versions of the child PARQ are identical except for reference to “mother’s” behavior versus “father’s” behavior in each version.

Individuals respond to items such as these on a 4-point Likert-type scale from (4) “almost always true” to (1) “almost never true.” Scores on these scales are summed after reverse scoring the warmth/affection scale to create a measure of perceived coldness and lack of affection. Possible scores range from a low of 60 (maximum perceived acceptance) to a high of 240 (maximum perceived rejection). Both versions are conceptually designed in such a way that scores at or above 150 reveal the perception of qualitatively more parental rejection than acceptance, although scores between 140 and 149 reveal the experience of serious rejection. Extensive evidence cited earlier documents the reliability and validity of the PARQ for use in cross-cultural (international) research. Khaleque and Rohner’s (2002b) meta-analysis of the reliability of PARQ used in 51 studies worldwide, for example, revealed that the mean weighted size of coefficient alpha aggregated across all versions of the PARQ was .89.

Personality Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ)

Both the child PAQ and adult PAQ contain seven scales assessing self-reports about the seven personality dispositions most central to IPARTheory’s personality subtheory, discussed earlier. The child version contains 42 items; the adult version contains 63 items. Sample items on the child PAQ include the following: “I think about fighting or being mean” (hostility/aggression), “I like my parents to make a fuss over me when I am hurt or sick” (dependence), “I like myself” (positive self-esteem), “I can compete successfully for the things I want” (positive self-adequacy), “It is easy for me to show my friends that I really like them” (emotional responsiveness), “I am cheerful and happy one minute and gloomy or unhappy the next” (emotional instability), and “I think the world is a good, happy place” (positive worldview). Individuals respond to items such as these on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from (4) “almost always true of me” to (1) “almost never true of me.” A profile of an individual’s overall self-reported psychological adjustment is achieved by summing the seven scale scores after reverse scoring appropriate items.

Scores on the child PAQ range from a low of 42, indicating healthy psychological adjustment, to a high of 168, indicating serious psychological maladjustment. Scores on the adult PAQ range from a low of 63, indicating healthy psychological adjustment, to a high of 252, indicating serious psychological maladjustment. The instrument is designed in such a way that scores at or above the test’s midpoint of 105 on the child version and 157 on the adult version reveal that individuals experience themselves to be more psychologically maladjusted than adjusted.

Existing evidence shows that both versions of the PAQ are reliable and valid for use in cross-cultural research. For example, a meta-analysis of 51 studies worldwide revealed that the overall mean weighted effect size of coefficient alpha on the Child PAQ was .83. On the Adult PAQ, it was .86 (Khaleque & Rohner, 2002b). Test–retest reliability across time periods ranging from 1 through 18 months for the child PAQ was shown to be .61; test–retest reliability across time periods of 6 through 12 months for the adult PAQ was shown to be .76. Additional reliability and validity evidence is summarized in R. P. Rohner and Chaki-Sircar (1988), R. P. Rohner and Khaleque (2005), and elsewhere.

Possible Response Bias in the Relation Between the PARQ and PAQ

Research designs that use two sets of self-report questionnaires are sometimes criticized for the fact that the same person responds to both measures. As a result, it sometimes happens that reported relations between the measures are an artifact of response bias or response set. The “response bias” explanation of results achieved is often difficult to rule out unequivocally. Thus, although the PARQ and PAQ have demonstrably strong reliability and validity for use in cross-cultural and intracultural research, it is still possible that correlations between them result from response bias. Data from a variety of external sources, however, minimize this likelihood.

For example, cross-cultural survey (holocultural) evidence from a sample of 101 societies described by anthropologists documents the worldwide association between parental acceptance–rejection and offspring’s psychological adjustment of the kind postulated in IPARTheory (R. P. Rohner, 1975). Results for a larger holocultural study of 186 societies (R. P. Rohner, 1986) tend to confirm these results. Beyond this, community studies that use a variety of measurement modalities such as interviews, questionnaires, and behavior observations also provide supportive evidence about the true link between perceived parental acceptance and the overall psychological adjustment of respondents (see, for example, R. P. Rohner and Chaki-Sircar’s, 1988 study in West Bengal, India).

Finally, prior research outside the IPARTheory tradition has also shown that perceived parental rejection tends to precede the development of such personality characteristics as anger, low self-esteem, and other dispositions central to IPARTheory’s personality subtheory (Chen et al., 2000; Deković, Reitz, Asscher, & Prinzie, 2008; Mullineaux, Deater-Deckard, Petrill, & Thompson, 2009). Thus, cumulative evidence from a multiplicity of methodologies such as these suggests that response bias is not likely to be a major contributor to the pancultural association between the PARQ and PAQ.

Results

Results of the meta-analysis are presented in Tables 9 and 10. Table 9 contains results regarding the relation between children’s (boys’ and girls’) perceptions of parental (paternal and maternal) acceptance and children’s psychological adjustment. The table shows that the study yielded a total of 42 effect sizes dealing with correlations between paternal acceptance and children’s (boys’ and girls’) psychological adjustment. Twenty one of these effect sizes deal with boys’ psychological adjustment, and 21 deal with girls’ psychological adjustment. The mean weighted effect size of the correlation between perceived paternal acceptance and psychological adjustment for boys was .45, and for girls, it was .42. Both correlations were in the range of large effect sizes according to Cohen’s criteria (Cohen, 1969, 1992). Moreover, heterogeneity test results showed no significant outliers. Fail-safe N test results showed that 1,124 and 1,203 additional studies, all with non-significant results, would be required to nullify the conclusion that paternal acceptance is significantly associated with the psychological adjustment of boys and girls, respectively. Both fail-safe numbers are higher than the critical limit proposed by Rosenthal (1995), thus indicating robust relationships between psychological adjustment and perceived paternal acceptance of children.

Table 9.

Summary of Meta-Analysis of the Relationships Between Children’s Perceptions of Parental Acceptance and Children’s Psychological Adjustment, by Gender.

	Paternal acceptance and children’s adjustment			Maternal acceptance and children’s adjustment
Summary measures	Boys	Girls	Combined	Boys	Girls	Combined
M weighted effect size (r)	.45***	.42***	.43***	.46***	.43***	.44***
95% CI of mean effect size (r)	[.39, .53]	[.37, .49]	[.40, .49]	[.39, .52]	[.39, .49]	[.41, .49]
Total heterogeneity (χ²)	3.41	2.39	5.71	5.55	3.95	9.51
Probability level (p)	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
Fail-safe N	1,124	1,203	4,675	2,069	2,204	8,630
Number of effect sizes (r)	21	21	42	28	29	57
Sum of sample sizes	2,891	3,184	6,275	3,500	4,047	7,547

Note. Adjustment = Personality Assessment Questionnaire (child PAQ); Paternal Acceptance = Child version of Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire for Fathers (child PARQ/Father); Maternal Acceptance = Child version of Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire for Mothers (child/PARQ/Mother); ns = not significant; CI = confidence Interval.

***

p < .001.

Table 10.

Summary of Meta-Analysis of the Relationships Between Adult Offspring’s Remembrances of Parental Acceptance in Childhood and Adults’ Current Psychological Adjustment, by Gender.

	Paternal acceptance and adults’ adjustment			Maternal acceptance and adults’ adjustment
Summary measures	Adult sons	Adult daughters	Combined	Adult sons	Adult daughters	Combined
M weighted effect size (r)	.44***	.42***	.43***	.44***	.38***	.40***
95% CI of mean effect size (r)	[.38, .51]	[.37, .48]	[.39, .48]	[.36, .50]	[.35, .44]	[.37, .45]
Total heterogeneity (χ²)	6.12	2.37	10.49	5.05	4.19	9.43
Probability level (p)	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
Fail-safe N	1,712	2,414	8,280	1,714	3,329	9,928
Number of effect sizes (r)	28	30	58	27	36	63
Sum of sample sizes	3,549	5,808	9,357	3,532	6,370	9,902

Note. Adjustment = Personality Assessment Questionnaire (adult PAQ); Paternal Acceptance = Adult version of Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire for Fathers (adult PARQ/Father); Maternal Acceptance = Adult version of Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire for Mothers (adult PARQ/Mother); ns = not significant; CI = confidence interval.

***

p < .001.

Table 9 also displays the relations between perceived maternal acceptance and children’s (boys’ and girls’) psychological adjustment. The study yielded 57 effect sizes dealing with correlations between maternal acceptance and children’s psychological adjustment. Twenty-eight of these effect sizes deal with boys’ psychological adjustment, and 29 deal with girls’ psychological adjustment. The mean weighted effect size of the correlation between perceived maternal acceptance and psychological adjustment for boys was .46, and for girls, it was .43. These correlations were within the range of large effect sizes according to Cohen’s criteria. Fail-safe N was 2,069 and 2,204 for boys and girls, respectively. These results indicate robust findings in that the fail-safe numbers are well above Rosenthal’s critical value.

Finally, Table 10 contains results of the relation between adults’ (sons’ and daughters’) remembrances of parental acceptance in childhood and adult offspring’s current psychological adjustment. The table shows the mean weighted effect size of correlations between adults’ remembrances of paternal acceptance in childhood and adults’ current psychological adjustment. For sons, the effect size was .44; for daughters, it was .42. These are large effect sizes according to Cohen’s criteria. Fail-safe N for adult sons was 1,712, and for adult daughters, it was 2,414. This indicates that the findings are robust and above Rosenthal’s critical value.

Table 10 also reveals that the mean weighted effect size for correlations between adults’ remembrances of perceived maternal acceptance and adults’ current psychological adjustment for adult sons was .44, and for adult daughters, it was .38. To determine whether any of the differences in effect sizes among these results were significant, we used Cohen’s formula (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Results showed that although the magnitude of the difference was not great, adult sons’ remembrances of maternal acceptance in childhood had a significantly stronger effect on sons’ current psychological adjustment than did adult daughters’ remembrances of maternal acceptance in childhood (z = 3.43, p < .001). There was no significant difference, however, in the relation between adult sons’ and adult daughters’ remembrances of paternal acceptance in childhood and the offspring’s psychological adjustment. Adult daughters’ remembrances of paternal acceptance in childhood, though, did have a significantly stronger effect on the daughters’ psychological adjustment than did daughters’ remembrances of maternal acceptance (z = 2.57, p < .01). Again, however, the magnitude of the difference was not great. The fail-safe N test showed that an additional 3,532 and 6,370 studies respectively—all with non-significant results—would be needed to reject the conclusion that remembrances of perceived maternal acceptance in childhood have a significant effect on adult sons’ and adult daughters’ current psychological adjustment. Heterogeneity test results showed no significant heterogeneity in the sample.

Discussion

The major objective of this research was to quantitatively synthesize available literature to discover whether significant gender differences exist panculturally in the relation between male and female offspring’s (children’s and adults’) perceptions of parental (maternal and paternal) acceptance, and offspring’s current psychological adjustment. Results of this research unequivocally demonstrate that both maternal acceptance and paternal acceptance are significantly related to both male and female offspring’s adjustment throughout childhood and adulthood.

Findings from this meta-analysis shed new light on pancultural associations among perceived parental acceptance and children’s and adults’ psychological adjustment. Results reported here are consistent with previous findings (e.g., Khaleque & Rohner, 2012a, 2012b). Moreover, Cournoyer and Hirao (2008)—in their review of 265 studies involving more than 17,000 respondents—found that 72% of the studies reported parents (both mothers and fathers) as significantly influencing offspring’s psychological adjustment. Collectively, these studies provide strong support for two of IPARTheory’s central postulates: (a) Children’s perceptions of maternal and paternal acceptance are panculturally associated with children’s (both boys’ and girls’) psychological adjustment, as specified in IPARTheory—regardless of differences in culture, geographical location, race, gender, or other such conditions. (b) Both adult sons’ and adult daughters’ remembrances of maternal and paternal acceptance in childhood are associated with the same form of psychological adjustment as is children’s current perceptions of parental acceptance.

Having said this, however, results of this meta-analysis also show that adult sons’ remembrances of maternal acceptance in childhood have a significantly greater impact on sons’ current psychological adjustment than do adult daughters’ remembrances of maternal acceptance in childhood. Moreover, results of this meta-analysis show that adult daughters’ remembrances of paternal acceptance in childhood have a significantly stronger impact on daughters’ adjustment than do daughters’ remembrances of maternal acceptance in childhood. Thus, this study shows an unanticipated cross-gender effect in the impact of remembered maternal and paternal acceptance in childhood on adult men’s and women’s psychological adjustment. A task for future research and theory construction is to try to determine why this cross-gender difference exists.

Despite the large literature reviewed and synthesized in this meta-analysis, we cannot minimize limitations of the study. That is, studies in this review are cross-sectional and correlational. Therefore, it is not possible to make causal inferences about relationships between parental acceptance and offspring’s psychological adjustment. Firm inferences about causality must await longitudinal studies in a sampling of sociocultural settings worldwide. An outstanding start to needed longitudinal evidence is provided by Putnick et al. (2014), however. In that 3-year longitudinal study of 1,247 families in nine nations, the authors found that children’s perceptions of maternal and paternal acceptance–rejection have nearly universal effects on multiple aspects of children’s adjustment and development. Specifically, higher perceived parental rejection predicted increases in internalizing and externalizing behavior problems as well as decreases in school performance, and prosocial behavior.

A second limitation of this study pertains to the fact that we cannot unequivocally rule out the possibility that results of the meta-analysis have been affected by response bias resulting from the fact that the same person responded to both the PARQ and PAQ. Evidence provided in R. P. Rohner and Khaleque (2005), however, reduces the plausibility of the argument that response bias is a major contributor to the apparently universal relationship between these measures.

A third limitation of this study is our inability to address questions about the possible contribution of genetics and genetic transmission to relationships between maternal versus paternal acceptance and offspring’s (sons’ vs. daughters’) psychological adjustment. Questions such as these await future research with twins and other genetically informed research designs.

Despite these limitations, results of this meta-analysis are robust and appear to suggest that feeling accepted by one’s parents—and probably by other attachment figures as well—is a fundamental human need. As important as cultural and other such factors are in human life, they do not seem to exert enough influence to override the universal and probably biologically based need for individuals everywhere to feel cared about by people most important to them—or to alter the tendency for individuals everywhere to respond in the same way when they feel this need is insufficiently satisfied. Given these conclusions, we believe researchers, clinicians, and other professionals should feel comfortable developing policies and practice applications based on evidence provided here.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

*Ahmed

R. A.

Ibrahim

M. A.

(2013, January). Kuwaiti adolescents’ and young adults’ perceptions of parental power/prestige, parental acceptance-rejection and psychological adjustment. Paper presented at the 4th International Congress on Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection, Chandigarh, India.

*Ahmed

R. A.

Rohner

R. P.

Carrasco

M. A.

(2012). Relations between psychological adjustment and perceived parental, sibling, best friend, and teacher acceptance among Kuwaiti adolescents. In Ripoll-Nunez

Comunian

A. L.

Brown

C. M.

(Eds.), Expanding horizons: Current research on interpersonal acceptance (pp. 1-10). Boca Raton, FL: Brown Walker Press.

*Ali

(2010). [Correlations between the child PARQ and child PAQ in Pakistan]. Unpublished raw data.

*Ali

(2011). [Correlations between the child PARQ and child PAQ in Pakistan]. Unpublished raw data.

*Ali

(2012). [Correlations between the adult PARQ and adult PAQ in Pakistan]. Unpublished raw data.

*Ali

(2013, January). Perceived teacher and parental relations and children’s outcomes in Pakistan. Paper presented at the 4th International Congress on Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection, Chandigarh, India.

*Borkan

Erkman

Keskiner

(2014). Effects of parental power/prestige and acceptance on the psychological adjustment of Turkish youth [Special issue]. Cross-Cultural Research, 48, 316-325.

*Brown

C. M.

Nadimi

Riley

Creer

Onabanjo

Alcala

. . .Cummings

(2012). [Correlations between the adult PARQ and adult PAQ for females in US]. Unpublished raw data.

*Carrasco

M. A.

(2011-2014). [Analysis of the father involvement on the children psychological adjustment: Acceptance-rejection, control and, power and prestige as mediating and moderating variables]. Unpublished raw data.

10.

*Chaki-Sircar

(1981). [Correlations between the child PARQ and child PAQ in India]. Unpublished raw data.

11.

*Chaki-Sircar

(1982). [Correlations between the child PARQ and child PAQ in India]. Unpublished raw data.

12.

Chen

Liu

(2000). Parental warmth, control, and indulgence and their relations to adjustment in Chinese children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 401-419.

13.

Chung

Zappulla

Kaspar

(2008). Parental warmth and socio-emotional adjustment in Brazilian, Canadian, Chinese, and Italian children: A cross-cultural perspective. In Ramirez

R. N.

(Ed.), Family relations, issues, and challenges (pp. 21-41). New York, NY: Nova Science.

14.

*Chyung

Y. J.

Lee

(2008). Intimate partner acceptance, remembered parental acceptance in childhood, and psychological adjustment among Korean college students in ongoing intimate relationships. Cross-Cultural Research, 42, 77-86.

15.

Cohen

(1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.

16.

Cohen

(1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 98-101.

17.

Cohen

(1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

18.

Cooper

H. M.

(1979). Statistically combining independent studies: A meta-analysis of sex differences in conformity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 13-146.

19.

Cournoyer

D. E.

Hirao

(2008, February). Differential contribution of maternal and paternal rejection to children’s psychological adjustment. Paper presented at the Society for Cross Cultural Research (SCCR) Conference, New Orleans, LA.

20.

Deković

Reitz

Asscher

Prinzie

(2008). Mediation model linking quality of parent-adolescent relationship, adolescent self-esteem, and quality of peer relations: A three-wave longitudinal study. In Ramirez

(Ed.), Family relations issues and challenges (pp. 169-183). New York, NY: Nova Science.

21.

Durlak

J. A.

Lipsey

M. W.

(1991). A practitioner’s guide to meta-analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 291-332.

22.

*Fateme

(2013). [Correlations between the child PARQ and child PAQ in Iran]. Unpublished raw data.

23.

*Filus

Roszak

(2014). Relationships between parental power, prestige, and acceptance, and the psychological adjustment of young adults in Poland [Special issue]. Cross-Cultural Research, 48, 286-294.

24.

Fisher

R. A.

(1928). Statistical methods for research workers. London, England: Oliver & Boyd.

25.

Forehand

Nousiainen

(1993). Maternal and paternal parenting: Critical dimensions in adolescent functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 213-221.

26.

Gamble

W. C.

Ramakumar

Diaz

(2007). Maternal and paternal similarities and differences in parenting: An examination of Mexican-American parents of young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 72-88.

27.

Gerlsma

Emmelkamp

P. M. G.

(1994). How large are gender differences in perceived parental rearing styles? A meta-analytic review. In Perris

Arrindell

W. A.

Eisemann

(Eds.), Parenting and psychopathology (pp. 55-74). New York, NY: Wiley.

28.

*Giotsa

Touloumakos

A. K.

(2014). Perceived parental acceptance and psychological adjustment: The moderating role of parental power and prestige among Greek pre-adolescents [Special issue]. Cross-Cultural Research, 48, 250-258.

29.

*Giovazolias

(2014). The moderating role of parental power and prestige on the relationship between remembered parental acceptance and psychological adjustment among young Greek adults [Special issue]. Cross-Cultural Research, 48, 240-249.

30.

*Giovazolias

Kothali

Louvrou

Mitsopoulou

(2010, July). The role of father involvement in children’s bullying behavior: Empirical findings from Greek sample. Paper presented at the 3rd International Congress on Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection, Padua, Italy.

31.

*Glavak-Tkalic

Kukolja-Cicmanovic

(2014). Effects of perceived parental acceptance-rejection and interpersonal power-prestige on the psychological adjustment of Croatian adolescents [Special issue]. Cross-Cultural Research, 48, 231-239.

32.

Gomez

Rohner

R. P.

(2011). Tests of factor structure and measurement invariance in the United States and Australia using the adult version of the Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire. Cross-Cultural Research, 4, 267-285.

33.

Gomez

Suhaimi

(2014). Malaysian parent ratings of the Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire-Short Form: Factor structure and invariance across girls and boys and mothers and fathers. Parenting: Science and Practice, 14, 195-214.

34.

*Granum

Starkey

(1976). [Analysis of psychometric properties of PARQ & PAQ]. Unpublished data.

35.

*Gurel

(2013). The mediating role of psychological adjustment on the relations among perceived parental acceptance-rejection, perceived parental control and cross-situational coping styles during early adolescence (Unpublished master’s thesis). Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey.

36.

*Gürmen

M. S.

Rohner

R. P.

(2013). Effects of marital distress on Turkish adolescents’ psychological adjustment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 1155-1162. doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9773-7

37.

*Haque

(1981). [Correlations between the adult PARQ and adult PAQ in Nigeria]. Unpublished raw data.

38.

*Haque

(1986). Social class differences in perceived maternal acceptance-rejection and personality dispositions among Pakistani children. In Kagitcibasi

(Ed.), Growth and progress in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 189-195). Berwyn, IL: Swets North America.

39.

Hedges

L. V.

Olkin

(1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.

40.

*Hussain

Munaf

(2011). Father behavior in childhood: The predictor of psychological adjustment in adulthood. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 5, 71-85.

41.

*Imam

(2004a/b). Perceived maternal warmth and personality dispositions of high and low achieving girls in Karachi. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 19, 51-60.

42.

Johnson

B. T.

Eagly

A. H.

(2000). Quantitative synthesis of social psychological research. In Reis

H. T.

Judd

C. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 496-528). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press

43.

*Khaleque

(2001). Parental acceptance-rejection, psychological adjustment, and intimate adult relationships (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

44.

*Khaleque

(2004). Intimate adult relationships, quality of life and psychological adjustment. Social Indicators Research, 69, 351-360.

45.

Khaleque

(2013). Testing the central postulate of parental-acceptance-rejection theory: An overview of meta-analyses. Interpersonal Acceptance Newsletter, 7, 1-3.

46.

*Khaleque

(2014). Effects of multiple acceptance and rejections on the psychological adjustment of children and adults: A multi-cultural study. Disabilities and Impairments, 28, 1-15.

47.

Khaleque

Rohner

R. P.

(2002a). Perceived parental acceptance-rejection and psychological adjustment: A meta-analysis of cross-cultural and intracultural studies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 54-64.

48.

Khaleque

Rohner

R. P.

(2002b). Reliability of measures assessing the relationship between perceived parental acceptance-rejection and psychological adjustment: A meta-analysis of cross-cultural and intracultural studies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 86-98.

49.

Khaleque

Rohner

R. P.

(2012a). Pancultural associations between perceived parental acceptance and psychological adjustment of children and adults: A meta-analytic review of worldwide research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 784-800.

50.

Khaleque

Rohner

R.P.

(2012b). Transnational relations between perceived parental acceptance and personality dispositions of children and adults: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 103-115.

51.

*Khaleque

Rohner

R. P.

Laukkala

(2008). Intimate partner acceptance, parental acceptance, behavioral control, and psychological adjustment among Finnish adults in ongoing attachment relationships. Cross-Cultural Research, 42, 35-45.

52.

*Khaleque

Rohner

R. P.

Patel

(2008). [Intimate partner acceptance, parental acceptance, and psychological adjustment among American adults]. Unpublished raw data.

53.

*Khaleque

Rohner

R. P.

Shirin

(2010, July). Impact of fathers’ power, prestige, and love in Bangladeshi families. Paper presented at the 3rd International Congress on Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection, Padua, Italy.

54.

*Khaleque

Shirin

Uddin

M. K.

(2013). Attachment relationships and psychological adjustment of married adults. Social Indicators Research, 110, 237-244.

55.

*Khan

Rohner

R. P.

(2007). [Intimate partner acceptance, parental acceptance, and psychological adjustment of Bangladeshi and African American students]. Unpublished raw data.

56.

*Khan

Rohner

R. P.

Khaleque

(2007). [Intimate partner acceptance, parental acceptance, and psychological adjustment of Bangladeshi students]. Unpublished raw data.

57.

*Kostic

Zezelj

(2012). Parental and partner acceptance as predictors of psychological adjustment among Serbian university students. In Ripoll-Nunez

K. J.

Comunian

A. L.

Brown

C. M.

(Eds.). Expanding horizons current research on interpersonal acceptance (pp. 49-60). Boca Raton, FL: Brown Walker Press.

58.

*Lee

Chyung

Y. J.

(2014). Parental power-prestige and the effects of paternal versus maternal acceptance on the psychological adjustment of Korean children [Special issue]. Cross-Cultural Research, 48, 259-269.

59.

*Li

(2014). Parental power-prestige and the effects of paternal versus maternal acceptance on the psychological adjustment of Chinese adolescents [Special issue]. Cross-Cultural Research, 48, 223-230.

60.

Lila

Garcia

Gracia

(2007). Perceived paternal and maternal acceptance and children’s outcomes in Colombia. Social Behavior and Personality, 35, 115-124.

61.

*Machado

Machado

Neves

Favero

(2014). How do parental acceptance-rejection, power, and prestige affect psychological adjustment? A quantitative study with a sample of Portuguese college students [Special issue]. Cross-Cultural Research, 48, 295-304.

62.

Mullineaux

P. Y.

Deater-Deckard

Petrill

S. A.

Thompson

L. A.

(2009). Parenting and child behavior problems: A longitudinal analysis of non-shared environment. Infant and Child Development, 18, 133-148.

63.

*Nasrin

(2013). [Correlations between the child PARQ and child PAQ in Pakistan]. Unpublished raw data.

64.

*Parmar

(2013, January). Mothers’, fathers’, siblings’, and intimate partner acceptance: It’s relationship to psychological adjustment. Paper presented at the 4th International Congress on Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection, Chandigarh, India.

65.

*Parmar

Ibrahim

Rohner

R. P.

(2008). Relations among perceived spouse acceptance, remembered parental acceptance in childhood, and psychological adjustment among married adults in Kuwait. Cross-Cultural Research, 42, 67-76.

66.

*Parmar

Rohner

R. P.

(2005). Relations among Perceived Intimate Partner Acceptance, remembered parental acceptance, and psychological adjustment among young adults in India. Ethos, 33, 402-413.

67.

*Parmar

Rohner

R. P.

(2008). Relations among spouse acceptance, remembered parental acceptance in childhood, and psychological adjustment among married adults in India. Cross-Cultural Research, 42, 57-66.

68.

*Parmar

Rohner

R. P.

(2010). Perceived teacher and parental acceptance and behavioral control, school conduct, and psychological adjustment among school-going adolescents in India [Special issue]. Cross-Cultural Research, 44, 253-268.

69.

Putnick

D. L.

Bornstein

M. H.

Lansford

J. E.

Chang

Deater-Deckard

Giunta

. . . Bombi

A. S.

(2012). Agreement in mother and father acceptance-rejection, warmth, and hostility/rejection/neglect of children across nine countries. Cross Cultural Research, 46, 191-223.

70.

Putnick

D. L.

Bornstein

M. H.

Lansford

J. E.

Malone

P. S.

Pastorelli

Skinner

A. T.

. . .Oburu

(2014). Perceived mother and father acceptance-rejection predict four unique aspects of child adjustment across nine countries. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56, 923-932. doi:10.1111/jccp.12366

71.

*Reddy

N. Y.

(1981). Perceived parental acceptance-rejection: Cross-cultural applicability. Unpublished manuscript, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India.

72.

*Reddy

N. Y.

(1982). [Perceived parental acceptance-rejection: Cross-cultural applicability in India]. Unpublished raw data.

73.

*Riaz

M. N.

(2010, July). Perceived parental warmth, father involvement and psychological adjustment of children in Pakistan. Paper Presented at the 3rd International Congress on Interpersonal Acceptance Rejection, Padua, Italy.

74.

*Ripoll-Nunez

Alvarez

(2008). Perceived intimate partner acceptance, remembered parental acceptance, and psychological adjustment among Colombian and Puerto Rican youths and adults. Cross-Cultural Research, 42, 23-34.

75.

*Rohner

E. C.

Rohner

R. P.

(1977). [Correlation between the adult PARQ: Mother, and the adult PAQ in Enfield, Connecticut, USA]. Unpublished raw data.

76.

*Rohner

E. C.

Rohner

R. P.

(1978). [Correlation between the child PARQ: Mother, and the child PAQ in Enfield, Connecticut, USA]. Unpublished raw data.

77.

*Rohner

E. C.

Rohner

R. P.

(1979). [Correlation between the child PARQ: Mother, and the child PAQ]. Unpublished raw data.

78.

Rohner

R. P.

(1975). They love me, they love me not: A worldwide study of the effects of parental acceptance and rejection. New Haven, CT: HRAF Press.

79.

Rohner

R. P.

(1980). Worldwide tests of parental acceptance-rejection theory. Behavior Science Research, 15, 1, 1-21.

80.

Rohner

R. P.

(1986). The warmth dimension: Foundation of parental acceptance-rejection theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

81.

Rohner

R. P.

(2004). The parental “acceptance-rejection syndrome”: Universal correlates of perceived rejection. American Psychologist, 59, 830-840.

82.

Rohner

R. P.

(2005). Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ) Test manual. In Rohner

R. P.

Khaleque

(Eds.), Handbook for the study of parental acceptance and rejection (4th ed., pp. 137-186). Storrs, CT: Rohner Research Publications.

83.

Rohner

R. P.

(2014). PARTheory gets a new name. Interpersonal Acceptance, 8(3), 6.

84.

Rohner

R. P.

Britner

P. A.

(2002). Worldwide mental health correlates of parental acceptance-rejection: Review of cross-cultural and intracultural evidence. Cross-Cultural Research, 36, 16-47.

85.

*Rohner

R. P.

Chaki-Sircar

(1988). Women and children in a Bengali village. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

86.

Rohner

R. P.

Khaleque

(Eds.). (2005). Handbook for the study of parental acceptance and rejection (4th ed.) Storrs, CT: Rohner Research Publications.

87.

*Rohner

R. P.

Khaleque

(2008). Relations between perceived partner and parental acceptance. In Quinn

J. K.

Zambini

I. G.

(Eds.), Family relations: 21^st century issues and challenges (pp. 187-197). New York, NY: Nova Science.

88.

Rohner

R. P.

Khaleque

(2010). Testing central postulates of parental acceptance-rejection theory (PARTheory): A meta-analysis of cross-cultural studies. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 3, 73-87.

89.

Rohner

R. P.

Khaleque

Cournoyer

D. E.

(2012). Introduction to parental acceptance-rejection theory, methods, evidence, and implications. Available from http://www.csiar.uconn.edu

90.

*Rohner

R. P.

Khaleque

Elias

M. S.

Sabina

(2010). The relationship between perceived teacher and parental acceptance school conduct and the psychological adjustment of Bangladeshi adolescents [Special issue]. Cross-Cultural Research, 44(3), 239-252.

91.

*Rohner

R. P.

Melendez

Kraimer-Rickaby

(2008). Intimate partner acceptance, parental acceptance in childhood, and psychological adjustment among American adults in ongoing attachment relationships. Cross-Cultural Research, 42, 13-22.

92.

*Rohner

R. P.

Parmar

Ibrahim

(2010). Perceived teachers’ acceptance, parental acceptance, behavioral control, school conduct, and psychological adjustment among school-age children in Kuwait [Special issue]. Cross-Cultural Research, 44, 269-282.

93.

*Rohner

R. P.

Rising

D. G.

Sayre-Scibona

(2009). Sex differences in relations among remembered parental behavior in childhood, adults’ current psychological adjustment, and career indecision. Psychological Reports, 104, 558-566.

94.

*Rohner

R. P.

Uddin

M. K.

Shamsunnaher

Khaleque

(2008). Intimate partner acceptance, parental acceptance in childhood, and psychological adjustment among Japanese adults. Cross-Cultural Research, 42, 87-97.

95.

Rohner

R. P.

Veneziano

R. A.

(2001). The importance of father love: History and contemporary evidence. Review of General Psychology, 5, 382-405.

96.

*Roll

(1977). [Correlation between the child PARQ: Mother, and the child PAQ in Mexico]. Unpublished raw data.

97.

Rosenthal

(1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641.

98.

Rosenthal

(1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Russell Sage Foundations.

99.

Rosenthal

(1994). Parametric measures for effect size. In Cooper

Hedges

L. V.

(Eds.), The handbook for research synthesis (pp. 231-244). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundations.

100.

Rosenthal

(1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183-192.

101.

*Ruan

C. C.

Rohner

R. P.

(2006). Pathfinder school students’ experiences of physical punishment at home. Unpublished manuscript, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

102.

Russell

(1989). Warmth in mother-child and father-child relationships in middle childhood. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7, 219-235.

103.

Senese

V. P.

Bacchini

Miranda

M. C.

Aurino

Somma

Amato

Rohner

R. P.

(2015). Measurement invariance of the Adult Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire: A cross-cultural comparison of Italian and American short forms. Submitted for publication.

104.

*Shirin

(2011). [Correlation between the adult PARQ: Mother, and the adult PAQ in Bangladesh]. Unpublished raw data.

105.

*Tulviste

Rohner

R. P.

(2010). Relationships among perceived teachers’ and parental behavior, and adolescent outcomes in Estonia [Special issue]. Cross-Cultural Research, 44, 222-238.

106.

*Varan

Rohner

R. P.

Eryuksel

(2008). Intimate partner acceptance, parental acceptance in childhood, and psychological adjustment among Turkish adults in ongoing attachment relationships. Cross-Cultural Research, 42, 46-56.

107.

Winsler

Madigan

A. L.

Aquilino

S. A.

(2005). Correspondence between maternal and paternal parenting styles in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 1-12.

108.

Wolf

F. M.

(1986). Meta-analysis: Qualitative methods for research synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.