Child-invested contingent self-esteem and parenting: exploring differentiations by child successes or failures and ethnicity/race

Abstract

Child-invested contingent self-esteem (CSE), or the extent to which parents derive their self-esteem from their children’s accomplishments, has wide implications for parents and the parenting context. This study investigates links between CSE and parenting behaviors and beliefs and differentiates between CSE based on children’s success versus failure. It also examines whether associations vary across ethnicity/race. Recruited through Qualtrics, participants were 1077 parents (50% fathers; 65% White, 16% Latinx, 13% Black; 6% Asian American) of children (55% boys) in 6^th–12^th grade. Structural Equation Modeling shows that parents who based their self-esteem on their children’s failures tended to also practice negative parenting behaviors and hold negative parental beliefs. However, parents who based their self-esteem on children’s successes reported positive behaviors and beliefs. Interactions suggest that CSE-success counteracts negative associations between CSE-failure and parenting, at least for White and Black parents. Additional differences across ethnicity/race and related implications are discussed.

Keywords

psychology contingent self-esteem parent–child relationships adolescent parent ethnicity/race

Individuals seek situations and experiences to feel good about themselves and increase self-esteem. Although many theoretical and empirical conceptualizations of self-esteem focus on internal derivations, the less often studied construct of contingent self-esteem (CSE) centers on external factors as drivers of self-evaluations (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). CSE is complex, multidimensional, and can be broken down into general and domain-specific sub-constructs (Schwinger, Schone, & Otterpohl, 2017). One domain in need of more understanding is child-invested CSE, which refers to the extent to which parents derive their self-esteem from their children’s accomplishments (Ng et al., 2014; Wuyts, Chen et al., 2015). Not only is child-invested CSE highly relevant to parents themselves, but it also has implications for parent–child interactions and children’s outcomes. For example, higher child-invested CSE has been correlated with lower parental well-being and more negative parenting practices (e.g., psychological control) (Grolnick et al., 2007) which, in turn, can predict poor developmental outcomes among children (Goldner et al., 2018).

Yet, given its potential impact on parents and children alike, child-invested CSE remains understudied within both the self-esteem and parenting literatures. The present study aims to further understanding by unpacking nuances of child-invested CSE and examining how it relates to diverse parenting behaviors and beliefs. We investigate whether associations might differ based on CSE founded in child successes versus failures, a distinction that has not been made in prior research. By examining these dimensions separately, we hoped to gain insight into possible independent and/or interactive effects, and better distinguish specific conditions in which CSE might be related to the parenting context. The current study also extends knowledge to understudied families from minoritized backgrounds (Ochocka & Janzen, 2008). By examining links between child-invested CSE and parenting behaviors and beliefs across White, Black, Latinx, and Asian American families, we can gain insight on how these processes might be similar or different among parents from diverse backgrounds.

Theoretical grounding of child-invested CSE

The importance and implications of child-invested CSE within the parenting context can be highlighted through several theoretical perspectives and frameworks. Most broadly, attachment theory advocates for the promotion of positive, high quality parent–child relationships (Bowlby, 1969). In fostering a secure attachment, parents must provide consistent support during times of distress and a secure base from which children can explore and develop their autonomy. However, parents with high child-invested CSE could engage in parenting behaviors that block their children’s autonomy and growth and do not allow their children to thrive (Feeney & Collins, 2015; Goldner et al., 2018).

Compared to a child-centered orientation, child-invested CSE is characterized by a more controlling and parent-centered parenting style (Grolnick et al., 2007). In part, what drive such parenting styles are individual differences in worldviews and motivational orientations (Deci & Ryan, 1995). For example, parents who measure their self-worth in terms of their children’s successes and failures likely have a controlling orientation that renders them sensitive to external expectations and pressures (Wuyts, Vansteenkiste et al., 2015). Even more broadly, such worldviews stem from sociocultural values perceived from the environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Depending on what is valued in one’s context, there could be more or less social pressure for parents to adopt an achievement-oriented parenting approach or one that is more autonomous and child-focused (Grolnick & Apostoleris, 2002).

Self-Determination Theory also can be used to frame how child-invested CSE can be linked to parenting. SDT suggests that all humans have three basic needs–competence, autonomy, and relatedness. If these needs are not met, overall functioning and wellness may suffer (Chen et al., 2015). Conceptually, parents who base their self-worth on external contingencies could be lacking in their competence needs and thereby seek these feelings from other sources, such as through their children. Ironically, this process could serve to simultaneously disrupt their children’s needs. For example, parents whose needs for competence are not being met could engage in more achievement-oriented psychological control (Ng et al., 2014) which, in turn, directly hinders children’s own SDT needs (e.g., autonomy and relatedness) (Goldner et al., 2018).

Differentiating contingencies of child success/failure

Considering this theoretical background, child-invested CSE can be seen as being directly related to parenting behaviors and beliefs. Because child-invested CSE is derived from children’s accomplishments, parenting behaviors might shift depending on whether the child succeeds or fails. As previously stated, research suggests that parents who report high levels of child-invested CSE and who perceive their child to be failing in their goals are more likely to be psychologically controlling, perhaps as a means to help their child avoid such failure and, in turn, preserve their own self-esteem (Wuyts, Vansteenkiste, et al., 2015). However, it is important to note that child-invested CSE has been largely defined and measured in ways that could conflate contingencies based on child success and child failure. Perhaps parents enact psychological control in an attempt to avoid their child’s failure, but other strategies might be used to increase their child’s success. That is, parenting might depend on what outcomes the self-worth contingency factor is based (i.e., success vs. failure). Separating these dimensions, which to our knowledge has not been done, is worthwhile given that they reflect qualitatively different circumstances. Success is not the same as not-failing, and vice versa. Indeed, drawing from the general CSE literature, adolescents with high CSE report feeling shame upon failure, but value and worth upon success (Otterpohl et al., 2019).

Parents high in child-invested CSE could similarly experience feelings of shame and low self-esteem if their children fail, and engage in controlling tactics as the quickest way to increase their child’s success, help their child avoid failure, and elevate their own self-evaluations (Ng et al., 2014; Soenens et al., 2015). Yet, the interpretation of these results is problematic given that common CSE assessments aggregate items that focus on both extrinsic success and failure (Wutys et al., 2015b). Perhaps it is the dimension of perceived child failure that connotes the poor outcomes that are typically linked to CSE. Given that uniform successes are rare, failures could be damaging to self-esteem in and of itself and also contribute to greater self-esteem instability (Deci & Ryan, 1995). In contrast, the dimension of CSE based on the child’s perceived success could either offset these negative effects of CSE-failure or have neutral or even positive direct effects on parenting that are independent from such negative contingencies. For instance, research on a similar construct, parental academic conditional positive regard (PACPR), suggests negative links with child outcomes (e.g., test anxiety); however, at the same time, parents with high PACPR are more attentive and affectionate when children succeed in academic goals (Otterpohl et al., 2019).

Although no studies, to our knowledge, have separately examined CSE based on children’s success and failure, previous work implies that they represent dual pathways to parental self-worth. For example, when children succeed, parents also feel as if they are succeeding; yet, when children fail, parents’ self-esteem will lower as if they, themselves, failed (Ng et al., 2014). Furthermore, Soenens et al., 2015 suggest that parents adjust their behaviors and might become more controlling in order to secure success from their children. CSE based on child success and/or failure could therefore trigger different parenting behaviors and beliefs, as well as potentially compound or buffer the other’s effect.

The current study disaggregates these two dimensions of CSE, success and failure, to determine how they are independently and interactively associated with parenting behaviors and beliefs that are particularly salient to adolescents. With respect to behaviors, we examine three different components: positive parenting, parental involvement, and discussion during punishment. These behaviors were examined given that they each represent primary promotive parenting practices that aim to prevent negative child adjustment (Furstenberg et al., 1999). Concerning parental beliefs, we also examine three components: competence, self-efficacy, and sense of powerlessness. These are all related concepts tapping into parents’ beliefs about their influence on children’s behaviors (Vance & Brandon, 2017; Wittkowski et al., 2017), and are theoretically and empirically linked to positive parenting practices (e.g., Glatz & Buchanan, 2015; Jones & Prinz, 2005). Examining all of these constructs will allow for an in-depth understanding of CSE and how it relates to diverse parenting features.

Child-invested CSE and ethnic/racial considerations

Ethnic/racial variation in values and perspectives can have an influence on parenting, and there have been calls to systematically investigate parenting across contexts (e.g., among immigrant families and socioeconomic groups) (Kiang et al., 2017; Ochocka & Janzen, 2008). A quarter century ago, Garcia Coll et al. (1996) proposed an integrative model that centers social position variables (i.e., race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and gender) in child development. The model suggests that social stratification, contextual circumstances, and cultural experiences (e.g., acculturation and cultural traditions) can shape children’s outcomes as well as the family environment (e.g., values, beliefs, and goals) in which they develop. Consistent with other theoretical underpinnings (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1979), the integrative model provides a framework for understanding how child-invested CSE might be viewed and manifested depending on a parent’s race/ethnicity and sociocultural values.

Relevant to Garcia Coll et al.’s (1996) idea of the family context, culturally relevant views are likely to correspond to the degree to which parents feel connected to the fates of other family members. In turn, such connection could contribute to a unique presentation of CSE and parenting behaviors and beliefs, suggesting that child-invested CSE might be particularly salient among parents (e.g., Latinx) who espouse values characterized by sociocentrism and, even more specifically, familism. In contrast to individualism, sociocentrism implies a strong focus on the family and of the self as inherently related to others (Bulcroft et al., 1996; Harwood et al., 2002). Latinx values also include respeto and familismo, which prioritize the family over the self (Morcillo et al., 2011; Stein et al., 2014).

Akin to Latinx experiences, Asian American values and traditions also emphasize interdependence and family relationships as part of the self. For example, “face culture” is highly underscored among the Chinese, which refers to the idea that individual self-esteem is derived from extrinsic sources such as how others view the individual and how much the individual abides by societal norms (Ng et al., 2014). In contrast, European American culture is considered a “dignity culture” that is deeply rooted in independence, autonomy, a focus on the individual, and intrinsic derivations of self-esteem (Hardway & Fuligni, 2006; Harwood et al., 2002). Thus, child-invested CSE might also be prominent among Chinese and, more broadly, Asian American parents.

In one of the few studies directly comparing child-invested CSE among multiple ethnic/racial groups, Ng et al. (2014) indeed found that Chinese American mothers reported deriving their self-esteem from their children’s performance to a greater degree than White and Black parents, even though children’s accomplishments were highly important to all parents. Furthermore, higher CSE among both Chinese and Chinese American mothers was associated with using psychological control as a parenting tactic, no matter if their children were perceived as failing or succeeding in their goals (Ng et al., 2014). Another study that examined CSE and parental control among Black and White parents found that although the former were more controlling than the latter, both groups used psychological control to ensure their children’s success and, presumably, to maintain their own feelings of self-worth (Grolnick et al., 2007). Importantly, Grolnick et al. (2007) suggested that parental control could be deemed as more acceptable among Black families due to cultural emphases on obedience and respect for elders.

However, above and beyond mean-level differences, it is important to consider whether associations between CSE and parenting (e.g., in relation to behaviors or beliefs) might differ by race/ethnicity. For example, although research with European Americans shows that authoritarian parenting is linked to negative youth outcomes, these same effects are not consistently found among Chinese or Black parents (Chao, 1994; Jackson-Newsom et al., 2008; Pinquart & Kauser, 2018). Similarly, despite prior work suggesting that CSE increases maladaptive parenting (e.g., psychological control), it could be that detrimental effects of CSE are not uniform. For instance, although Chinese parents have reported high levels of child-invested CSE and controlling parenting behaviors, they also exhibit positive parental involvement, perhaps because they feel more accountable for their children’s achievement, actions, and development than do parents from other ethnic/racial backgrounds (Ng et al., 2014). Among groups in which CSE is accepted and tied to traditional values (e.g., Latinx and Asian), the links between CSE and parenting could be neutral or even positive.

Although research regarding child-invested CSE among Black families is limited, there is abundant work examining general self-esteem. In contrast to deficit models that predict low levels of self-esteem, contemporary studies consistently indicate that African Americans report higher levels of self-esteem relative to others (Twenge & Crocker, 2002). One explanation is that African Americans might be less likely to derive their self-esteem from others’ validation as a resiliency strategy evolving from a legacy of negative societal views toward their group (Ziegler-Hill, 2007).

Within the parenting domain, it is therefore possible that Black parents would report lower child-invested CSE, as well as less striking links between CSE and parenting. Just as Black Americans are sometimes able to preserve their self-esteem in ambiguous situations by not internalizing negative occurrences and attributing failures to external sources (Crocker & Major, 1989), parents could attribute their children’s failures to external factors. And, even if they base their self-esteem on their children’s outcomes, they might be able to interpret their children’s successes or failures as outside of their control (e.g., perhaps due to prejudiced attitudes). Due to such self-protection strategies (Zieger-Hill, 2007), Black parents’ behaviors or beliefs might be less reactive to their children’s accomplishments or failures.

Additional demographic considerations

In considering associations between child-invested CSE and parenting behaviors and beliefs, demographic variables such as parent gender, child gender, and age were included as covariates. Gender differences in general constructs of CSE have been found whereby women report higher CSE as well as negative correlates (e.g., stress and rumination) (Burwell & Shirk, 2009). Although prior work on child-invested CSE is scarce, Wuyts et al., (2015b) did not find evidence for differences based on adolescent gender or age. In addition, in one study that addressed child-invested CSE among parents of adolescents, fathers were higher than were mothers in psychological control, but the links between child-invested CSE and achievement-oriented psychologically controlling parenting was consistent across parent gender, child gender, and child age (Soenens et al., 2015). Notably, with regard to children’s age, prior work on child-invested CSE has focused on parents of children in late elementary or early middle school (Wuyts, Vansteenkiste, et al., 2015). However, even though the parenting context is front and center in these early adolescents’ lives, the parent–child relationship remains important in later years (Laursen & Collins, 2009). The current study centers on early to middle adolescents and thus extends the developmental scope of existing research.

In addition to gender and age, we followed prior work and also considered income as a covariate (proxy for socioeconomic status) (e.g., Otterpohl et al., 2019; Soenens et al., 2015; Wuyts et al., 2015a, 2015b). Regarding possible differences in cognitions and expectations among biological and adoptive parents (Lo & Grotevant, 2020), parental status was included as another covariate.

The current study

Drawing on conceptual models of parenting, individual, and child development (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2017; Chen et al., 2015; Garcia Coll et al., 1996), the current study extends prior work by addressing the following: (1) How do the two dimensions of CSE (failure and success) independently and interactively relate to critical parenting behaviors (i.e., positive parenting, involvement, and discussion during punishment) and beliefs (i.e., competence, efficacy, and powerlessness) and (2) Do associations between child-invested CSE and parenting vary across parents from different ethnic/racial backgrounds?

Based on prior research suggesting that parental behaviors might differentially change based on child success or failure (Otterpohl et al., 2019; Wuyts et al., 2015b), but also the lack of attention toward possible confounds in existing measurements of CSE, the first question examines how CSE-success and CSE-failure are separately and interactively associated with parenting correlates. We hypothesized that parents whose self-esteem increases when their child succeeds would report more promotive parenting behaviors and more positive parental beliefs. In contrast, parents whose self-esteem is contingent upon their child’s failures were expected to report less promotive behaviors and less positive beliefs. We also expected possible interactions in which CSE-success would serve as a protective buffer in the face of any negative correlates related to CSE-failure.

The second question addresses the importance of considering ethnicity/race in understanding parenting processes and parent–child relationships (Kiang et al., 2017; Ochocka & Janzen, 2008). Our sample of White, Black, Latinx, and Asian parents allowed us to first examine the factorial invariance of CSE to test if this measure was consistent across groups. After establishing factorial invariance, we examine whether the links between CSE and parenting differ across ethnicity/race. Based on the idea that child-invested CSE might be more or less accepted across different worldviews (e.g., Hardway & Fuligni, 2006; Ng et al., 2014), we hypothesized that associations between child-invested CSE and parenting outcomes would not be universal. Prior research predominately focusing on White families suggest that CSE is uniformly negative (Wuyts, Vansteenkiste, et al., 2015). However, for families that traditionally espouse sociocentrist values (e.g., Latinx and Asian) or for those whom CSE might be protectively impervious to external influences (e.g., Black Americans) (Zieger-Hill, 2007), child-invested CSE might be more neutral or even help promote positive parenting.

Method

Participants

Participants were parents (N = 1077) of 6^th–12^th graders within one of the following groups: White or European American (n = 703, 65%), Black or African American (n = 140, 13%), Latinx (n = 168, 13%), and Asian American (n = 66, 6%). The majority reported on their biological child (90%), but some reported on their adoptive child (5%) or step-child (5%). Most parents lived together with the child’s other biological parent (76%). The sample included mothers and fathers (50% each) and was ethnically representative according to U.S. Census data (2014). The children being reported on by parents were 55% sons and 45% daughters. Annual family income was distributed as follows: less than $20,000 (8%), $37,999–$20,000 (16%), $61,999–$38,000 (25%), $101,000–$62,000 (28%), and over $101,000 (23%). Participants’ median income was $38,000 to $61,999, which falls within the median income for the United States (U.S. Census, 2021). Concerning parental education, 1% had less than a high school education, 16% had high school education only, 26% had some college or vocational school, 38% had a college degree only, and 19% had a graduate or professional degree. For White and Black parents, most had lived their entire life in the United States (96% and 94%). The percentage of U.S.-born was lower for Latinx (86%) and lowest for Asian American parents (54%).

Procedures

Parents were recruited through Qualtrics Panel and completed a survey collected in 2014 in the United States of America. Members of any of Qualtrics’ partner panel providers who qualified (i.e., parents of 6^th–12^th graders within one of the following groups: White, Black, Latinx, and Asian American) received an invitation message through their membership portal. Parents who had more than one child in 6^th–12^th grade were randomly assigned to respond for their youngest, middle, or oldest child. Upon providing consent, participants responded to questions through an online platform, which took approximately 40 minutes to complete. All materials were available only in English.

Measures

Parental child-invested CSE

Child-invested CSE was measured using a 15-item scale reflecting the extent to which parents’ self-esteem is contingent on children’s achievement (Wuyts, Vansteenkiste, et al., 2015). Six items are based on successes (e.g., “When my child succeeds I feel good about myself”) and six items are based on failures (e.g., “My child’s failure is also my failure”). The measure also includes three general items (e.g., “How I feel about myself is often related to my child’s achievements”), but these were excluded in the current analyses because of our focus on differentiating CSE that is based specifically on child success versus failure. The response options ranged from 1 (Not at all applicable) to 6 (Totally applicable) (CSE-success α = .83; CSE-failure α = .91).

Positive parenting behaviors

Based on prior work (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015), a collection of promotive parenting practices drawn from three scales was used to reflect an overall latent construct of positive parenting behaviors. The positive parenting practices scale (Frick et al., 1999) included six items tapping parents’ positive behaviors in relation to their child. Parents rated how often situations took place (e.g., “You reward or give something extra to your child for obeying you or behaving well,” “You hug or kiss your child when he or she has done something well”) (α = .87). The parental involvement scale (Frick et al., 1999) included 10 items and measured parents’ general involvement in their child’s life. Parents responded how often various types of involvement occurred (e.g., “friendly talk,” “play games”) (α = .85). The discussion during punishment scale was specifically developed to capture parents’ communication about the consequences of their child’s actions and misbehavior (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015), which was not covered in prior work (e.g., Frick et al., 1999). Parents were asked, “How often does each of the following occur in your home when your child misbehaves” along with three statements: “You encourage your child to talk about his or her misbehavior,” “You try to discuss with your child reasons for his or her behavior,” and “You encourage your child to express his or her emotions” (α = .82). For all items across all scales, responses ranged from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always).

Parenting beliefs

Three measures reflected a latent construct of parental beliefs. Parental competence was assessed through the competence subscale from the Parenting Stress Index (Abidin & Brunner, 1995) and refers to parents’ general perceptions of competence in their parenting role. There are 12 items in the original subscale, but one was excluded as it asked about infants and was not applicable to the current study’s parents. Items ranged from 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) with higher numbers reflecting more perceived competence (α = .74). A second indicator, parental self-efficacy, was measured using a 23-item scale adapted from Bandura (2006). The items assess parents’ perceived influence in four domains: children’s school-related performance; children’s leisure time activities; setting limits, monitoring the child’s activities, and peer affiliations; and exercising control over high-risk behavior. The stem, “How much can you do to…” was first presented and followed by each item rated from 1 (Nothing) to 9 (A great deal) (α =.96). Similar to other scales in this area (e.g., Parent Attribution Test; Bugental & Shennum, 1984), five items were developed to measure parents’ sense of powerlessness in their parenting. For four items (e.g., “Have you had such big problems with your youth that neither reprimands nor discussions work”), parents answered on 1 (Has not happened) to 5 (Yes, very often) scale. For one item, “Do you feel that you have tried absolutely everything to correct your youth’s behavior, but nothing has helped?” the scale was 1 (Disagree) to 4 (Totally agree). Higher scores indicated lower powerlessness (α =.95).

Analytic strategy

All analyses were performed using Mplus 7.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012) with the maximum likelihood estimator. We examined model fit using three indices: Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). CFI and TLI values between .90 and .95 and RMSEA values between .05 and .08 are considered indicators of acceptable fit between the hypothesized model and the data.

We first examined the factor structures of the four different factors using three different Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFAs): The two factors of parental child-invested contingent self-esteem (based on the child’s failure vs. success), parenting behaviors, and parental beliefs. In the CFA with the two CSE factors, each of the 12 items was allowed to load on only one of the two factors (items 1–6 on the first and items 7–12 on the second), and we estimated the correlation between the factors. In the CFA with parenting behavior, positive parenting practices, parental involvement, and discussion during punishment were used as indicators of the latent variable. In the CFA with parental beliefs, parents’ sense of competence, parental self-efficacy, and powerlessness were indicators of the latent factor.

In the three CFAs, we tested for factorial invariance between the four ethnic/racial groups. This was done in three steps to test for (1) configural factorial invariance, (2) weak factorial invariance, and (3) strong factorial invariance (Little, 2013; Putnick & Bornstein, 2016). In the model testing for configural factorial invariance, a CFA with a multiple group approach is used, but without adding equality constraints. In testing for weak factorial invariance, factor loadings are constrained to be equal between the samples, but the intercepts of the indicators are allowed to vary. In the model testing for strong factorial invariance, both intercepts of the indicators of the factor loadings are constrained to be equal between the samples. The KNOWNCLASS option was used to specify and test for differences between the four ethnic/racial groups on the factor structure.

After establishing factorial invariance, we ran one Structural Equation Model (SEM) in which we used the two CSE dimensions separately, as well as their interaction, in predicting the parenting behavior factor and the parental belief factor (Figure 1). The metric of the latent factors was set by fixing the first factor loading to one. The interaction term was computed of parents’ CSE concerning the child’s success*child’s failure. Both these variables were mean-centered before computing the interaction term, and the XWITH MPlus command was used to examine this interaction. Correlations between the behaviors and beliefs factors, as well as between the two CSE dimensions were estimated. We tested for differences between the four ethnic/racial groups on all regression paths using the KNOWNCLASS option. In this model, we also controlled for the following covariates used as observed variables: parents’ gender, child’s grade in school, child’s gender, parental status (i.e., biological), and income.

Figure 1.

Statistical model controlling for parents’ gender, child’s grade in school, child’s gender, parental status, and income.

Results

Descriptive analyses

Table 1 displays means and standard deviations across ethnicity/race. Within each group, parents reported higher child-invested CSE based on their child’s successes compared to their child’s failures. All parents also reported promotive parenting behaviors and parental beliefs that averaged toward the higher end of the scales.

Table 1.

Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) among study variables by race/ethnicity.

	White (n = 703)		Black (n = 140		Latinx (n = 168		Asian American (n = 66
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
CSE-failure	3.78	1.28	3.79	1.42	3.98	1.35	4.39	.93
CSE-success	4.91	.78	5.17	.84	4.96	.82	4.97	.75
Positive parenting	4.14	.64	4.23	.68	4.06	.75	4.00	.64
Parental involvement	3.95	.61	4.03	.65	3.88	.72	3.84	.67
Discussion-punishment	4.05	.69	4.21	.68	3.97	.79	3.90	.70
Competence	3.63	.57	3.70	.59	3.61	.62	3.57	.58
Efficacy	7.15	1.11	7.52	1.12	7.40	1.21	7.17	1.17
Powerlessness	3.93	1.06	3.99	1.08	3.92	.62	3.85	1.05

Note. CSE = contingent self-esteem. High scores on the Powerlessness measure indicate low levels of powerlessness.

Measurement model properties

Child-invested CSE

We first ran a CFA with the full sample to establish that the two-factor solution (CSE concerning child’s failure and success) fit the data. Two factors with six items each showed an acceptable fit, χ² = 442.04 (52), p < .001, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .06. In this model, we estimated a correlation between items 4 and 5 (within the failure factor), as the modification index showed that this would improve fit significantly. The two factors correlated significantly, r = .48, p < .001, and all loadings were above .60, suggesting that they comprised two underlying latent factors.

We next performed CFAs to establish factorial invariance between the four groups. The fit statistics for all steps in the test of factorial invariance are reported in Table 2. In the first step, and to examine configural factorial invariance, the same factor structure was examined in all four subsamples without any equality constraints. Then, we examined both weak and strong invariance by first adding equality constraints on the factor loadings or the intercepts of the indicators. The model testing for weak factorial invariance (factor loadings constrained to be equal across samples) showed a non-significant increase in χ², Δχ² = 30.67 (30), p = .432, compared to the model testing for configural factorial invariance. Additionally, the RMSEAs of the models fell within each other’s RMSEA CIs, suggesting that weak factorial invariance was reached for the latent factors. This means that the factor loadings (i.e., factor structure) are the same in all four groups, supporting the possibility of examining differences in the correlations with other variables. The model testing for strong factorial invariance produced a significantly worse fit compared to the model testing for weak factorial invariance, Δχ² = 90.98 (36), p < .001. Hence, the factors did not reach strong invariance suggesting that the groups did not have equal values on the single indicators that the factors are based on. In sum, the latent variables of CSE-failure and -success showed weak factorial invariance between the four ethnic/racial groups.

Table 2.

Model fit indices of the tests of measurement invariance.

Step	χ² (df)	p	CFI	TLI	RMSEA (90% CI)	SRMR	∇χ² (df)	∇χ² p
					Child-invested CSE
1. Configural factorial invariance	717.30 (208)	<.001	.93	.91	.10 (.09, .10)	.07
2. Weak factorial invariance	747.97 (238)	<.001	.93	.92	.09 (.08, .10)	.08	30.67 (30)	.432
3. Strong factorial invariance	838.95 (274)	<.001	.92	.92	.09 (.08, .09)	.11	90.98 (36)	<.001
					Parenting behaviors
1. Configural factorial invariance	0.00 (0)	<.001	1.00	1.00	.00 (.00, .00)	.00
2. Weak factorial invariance	6.59 (6)	.360	1.00	1.00	.02 (.00, .08)	.06	6.59 (6)	.360
3. Strong factorial invariance	21.72 (15)	.116	1.00	1.00	.04 (.00, .08)	.08	15.13 (9)	.087
					Parental beliefs
1. Configural factorial invariance	0.00 (0)	<.001	1.00	1.00	.00 (.00, .00)	.00
2. Weak factorial invariance	9.96 (6)	.127	.99	.99	.05 (.00, .10)	.07	9.96 (6)	.126
3. Strong factorial invariance	32.04 (15)	.006	.97	.97	.07 (.03, .10)	.06	22.08 (9)	.009

N = 1077.

Parenting behaviors

The same steps to establish factorial invariance were undertaken for parenting behaviors, using the three indicators (positive parenting, parental involvement, and discussion during punishment) and across the four groups. As with the CFA examining CSE, the model testing for weak factorial invariance on parenting behaviors showed a non-significant increase in χ², Δχ² = 6.59 (6), p = .360, compared to the model testing for configural factorial invariance. Additionally, the model testing for strong factorial invariance produced a non-significant change in χ², Δχ² = 15.13 (9), p = .087. In sum, the latent variable of parenting behaviors showed weak and strong factorial invariance between the groups.

Parental beliefs

The CFA examining the factor structure of parental beliefs showed similar results to the CFA on CSE. The model testing for weak factorial invariance (factor loadings constrained to be equal across samples) showed a non-significant χ² increase, Δχ² = 9.96 (6), p = .126, compared to the model testing for configural factorial invariance, but strong factorial invariance was not reached, Δχ² = 22.08 (9), p = .009. Hence, the latent variable of parental beliefs showed weak factorial invariance between the four groups.

Summary of measurement models

For all latent factors, results suggested that weak factorial invariance was reached. This means that the factor loadings (i.e., factor structure) are the same in all four groups (i.e., the indicators of the latent factors work together and form similar dimensions across groups). Given that our research questions focused on potential differences in correlations between the four groups, attaining weak factorial invariance is enough to justify testing for possible group differences, as is done in the SEM below. Notably, only the parenting behavior factor reached strong factorial invariance. That strong factorial invariance was not reached for the CSE and the parental belief latent factors suggests that the groups differed on the values on the indicators that the factors are based on, which precludes any reliable mean-level comparisons.

SEM predicting parenting behavior and parental beliefs

In the SEM, we used the two separate latent factors of CSE of the child’s success and failure, as well as the interaction between these, to predict the parenting behavior and the parental belief factors. This model did not produce model fit statistics, as there are no absolute fit statistics presented for models using the XWITH command in MPlus. In this model, the following controls were used as additional predictors: parents’ gender, child’s grade in school, child’s gender, parents’ status (i.e., biological, step, and adoptive), and income. Table 3 presents unstandardized betas for all four groups separately. As shown, there were similar group patterns as well as differences. These are presented below separately for the two CSE dimensions and their interaction.

Table 3.

Unstandardized betas from SEM in which CSE predicts parenting behaviors and beliefs.

	White			Black			Latinx			Asian American
Predictor	b	SE	p	B	SE	p	b	SE	p	b	SE	p
	Parenting behaviors
Success	.92	.08	<.001	.97	.12	<.001	1.23	.16	<.001	.74	.23	.001
Failure	−.42	.06	<.001	−.48	.12	<.001	−.49	.14	.001	−.54	.35	.124
Interaction	.38	.06	<.001	.45	.11	<.001	.27	.30	.370	.91	.26	.001
Child gender	.09	.09	.311	−.09	.18	.623	.50	.21	.015	.10	.26	.705
Parent gender	.45	.09	<.001	.39	.19	.036	.48	.22	.027	.19	.39	.617
Income	.05	.04	.150	.16	.07	.017	.05	.07	.460	.16	.16	.338
Parental status	.02	.06	.753	−.19	.15	.199	−.22	.20	.281	−.22	.17	.180
Grade	−.04	.02	.037	.02	.05	.636	−.12	.04	.009	−.07	.07	.351
	Parental beliefs
Success	.70	.10	<.001	.91	.15	<.001	.93	.17	<.001	.85	.19	<.001
Failure	−.77	.08	<.001	−.80	.13	<.001	−.80	.14	<.001	−1.19	.31	<.001
Interaction	.20	.07	.002	.36	.13	.006	.18	.16	.260	.38	.27	.155
Child gender	.22	.11	.046	−.18	.21	.387	.24	.23	.288	.46	.26	.076
Parent gender	−.16	.11	.137	.09	.20	.668	.04	.25	.885	−.26	.36	.469
Income	.19	.04	<.001	.25	.08	.003	.22	.09	.013	.10	.14	.489
Parental status	−.03	.08	.759	−.21	.16	.170	.04	.19	.825	.21	.25	.399
Grade	−.08	.03	.005	−.01	.06	.917	−.14	.05	.005	.05	.07	.513

Note. Child gender: 1 = boy; parent gender: 1 = male; parental status: 1 = biological child, 2 = non-biological child.

Abbreviation: CSE: contingent self-esteem; SEM: Structural Equation Modeling.

CSE-success

Child-invested CSE-success is uniformly associated with promotive parenting behaviors and positive parental beliefs. When parents base their self-worth on their child’s success, they also report higher levels of the measured positive parenting behaviors and beliefs, and this is true across ethnic/racial groups.

CSE-failure

Basing self-esteem on child’s failure is associated with more negative parenting behaviors and beliefs in all cases except for Asian American parents’ behaviors. That is, the more White, Black, and Latinx parents base their self-worth on their child’s failure, the lower their reported levels of positive parenting practices and beliefs. For Asian Americans, CSE-failure was not associated with parenting behaviors, even though it was significantly and negatively linked to beliefs.

Interaction between CSE-success and -failure

The interaction between CSE-success and -failure was significant for White, Black, and Asian American parents’ parenting behaviors. This interaction was not significant for Latinx parents. For beliefs, the interaction was significant for White and Black parents, but not for Latinx or Asian Americans. As illustrated in Figure 2, when parents report high CSE-success, their CSE-failure was not associated with parenting outcomes. However, when parents reported low levels of CSE connected to their child’s success, their CSE-failure did matter. Put another way, basing self-esteem on one’s child’s failure was associated with more negative parenting behaviors among White, Black, and Asian parents, and with more negative parenting beliefs among White and Black parents, but only among those who also had low CSE-success. Hence, CSE-success “buffered” these negative effects of CSE-failure (Figure 3).

Figure 2.

Interaction effects for White, Black, and Asian American parents, respectively.

Figure 3.

Interaction effects for White and Black parents, respectively.

Discussion

Self-esteem varies as a function of general and domain-specific external factors (Schwinger et al., 2017). Within the parenting domain, a considerable amount of effort and investment is directed toward children and, in their endeavors, children can succeed or fail. Parents’ derivation of self-worth from such contingencies of their child’s successes or failures is not well understood, but important to consider in light of parenting practices and child well-being (Ng et al., 2014; Wuyts, Chen, et al., 2015). Theoretical perspectives ranging from attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969) to SDT (Chen et al., 2015; Ryan & Deci, 2017) to bioecological models (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) to the integrated model (Garcia Coll et al., 1996) all touch on the critical role child-invested CSE might play in children’s parenting environment, and how CSE might be shaped by parents’ ethnicity/race.

Parents who place conditions on the regard they give to their children tend to promote more affection and esteem only when their child is succeeding (Otterpohl et al., 2019). Furthermore, previous studies have detailed the ways in which psychologically controlling parents can block their children’s ability to achieve basic needs, including autonomy (Chen et al., 2015; Goldner et al., 2018; Grolnick et al., 2007). The current study builds upon the foundation of prior investigations by focusing on child-invested CSE, and also remediates literature gaps by focusing on how CSE based on child success and failure independently and interactively relate to parenting behaviors and beliefs across diverse ethnic/racial groups.

The nuances related to child-invested CSE are important to consider given wide implications for children and parent–child relationships. Most research to date has used CSE measures that potentially conflate self-esteem that is contingent on child success versus failure (Soenens et al., 2015; Wuyts et al., 2015b); hence, we began by establishing these two CSE dimensions as separate factors. One advantage to such parsing rests in isolating whether failure and/or success have differential associations with parenting. Perhaps the detrimental correlates of child-invested CSE that have been found in prior work (Grolnick et al., 2007; Wuyts et al., 2015a, 2015b) were actually driven by one dimension (e.g., failure) over the other. Indeed, our results generally revealed very different patterns of association with CSE-failure replicating these earlier findings, whereas CSE-success did not. Interactions were also found with CSE-success appearing to buffer negative effects of CSE-failure.

Our results also revealed consistencies and differentiation across ethnicity/race. More specifically, significant, positive associations between CSE-success and parenting behaviors and beliefs were found regardless of ethnicity/race. Consistent with prior work establishing negative implications of child-invested CSE (Goldner et al., 2018; Grolnick et al., 2007), we also found that CSE-failure was associated with less positive parenting behaviors and beliefs. Although not statistically significant among Asian Americans, it is worth noting that the association was in a consistent direction and it is possible that significant effects could have emerged with a larger subgroup.

Prior work has highlighted important implications of CSE in that parents who are high in CSE and who perceive their child to be failing tend to engage in psychologically controlling behaviors (Wuyts, Chen, et al., 2015). One explanation for such patterns is that psychological control (e.g., withholding love and pressuring) is often perceived as an immediate, efficient strategy to change children’s trajectories (Soenens et al., 2015). Although we did not measure explicitly negative parenting practices, such as psychological control, our findings suggest that CSE-failure is associated with less promotive parenting behaviors and beliefs, as measured through links with parental involvement, discussion about discipline, parenting competence, efficacy, and feelings of power. In short, CSE-failure could hinder parenting practices that are typically reflective of parent–child engagement and communication, and impede positive parental beliefs. Perhaps perceiving their child to have failed in their goals motivates parents to enact stricter parenting practices and harsh responses as a way to prevent future failures and preserve their own sense of self-worth (Grolnick et al., 2007; Ng et al., 2014). However, at the same time, parents with high CSE-failure appear to feel less efficacious and more powerless. Our one-time correlational data cannot establish cause, but it would be consistent with theory and evidence on parenting self-efficacy that low efficacy accompanies or even promotes low parenting effort and less positive parenting practices (e.g., Bandura, 2006; Glatz & Buchanan, 2015). This process could contribute to a negative parenting cycle whereby efforts to control children backfire and lead to children’s failures, which then drive parents to be stricter and perceive that they have less control, and so on. Although more research is needed, our results point to complex, dual contingencies within the parenting context and between parents’ strategies, behaviors, and beliefs that could promote or hinder children’s outcomes.

Again, there was one exception found whereby the negative association between CSE-failure and parenting behaviors was not statistically significant for Asian Americans. As stated earlier, this effect could have been significant had we included a larger subsample. Yet, the non-significant finding might also be explained by the notion of “face,” which tends to be highly valued among Asians and suggests that CSE might be more common (Harwood, et al., 2002; Ng et al., 2014). As an expected and perhaps more accepted construct, CSE could have less of an impact on family life, a phenomenon that has been documented with respect to other group differences in parenting and child outcomes (Chao, 1994; Pinquart & Kauser, 2018). Although we had similar expectations for Latinx parents, it is important to note that CSE-failure was, in fact, correlated with less positive parenting behavior and beliefs among this group. We initially hypothesized that the cultural values and resiliency strategies of Black, Latinx, and Asian American parents might protect them from negative correlates of CSE that have been found in prior work. However, these same values likely foster close contingencies among family members. For example, the strong family focus in Latinx culture via familismo and respeto (Stein et al., 2014) could explain the importance (rather than acceptance, as hypothesized) of CSE in the parenting context. Clearly, more research is needed to untangle possible ethnic/racial differences and/or similarities.

In contrast to negative main effects of CSE-failure, there were widely positive associations found between the child success dimension of CSE and promotive aspects of the parenting context, which further justifies the value in disaggregating the two dimensions. For all parents, basing self-esteem on children’s success seemed uniformly positive in terms of parenting behaviors and beliefs. These findings are inconsistent with prior research that states that CSE is linked with psychologically controlling parenting tactics (Grolnick et al., 2007; Ng et al., 2014). Because parents who are high in CSE tend to feel responsible for their child’s achievements, it makes some sense that basing one’s self-esteem in one’s child’s successes might reinforce their engagement in promotive parenting behaviors and promote more adaptive parental beliefs. In fact, the uplift that could arise from focusing on one’s child’s successes appears to provide resilience in the face of their child’s failures. Perhaps these parents are able to think hopefully and parent in engaged ways even when they perceive their child to fail in their endeavors.

Indeed, the positive trends with respect to CSE-success have the potential to counteract negative associations between CSE-failure and parenting. However, it is through these interactions that notable ethnic/racial variation was found in that such buffering was consistent for White and Black parents and across both latent constructs of parenting behaviors and beliefs. For Asian Americans, the interaction was significant only for parenting behaviors and not beliefs, and no interactions were found for Latinx parents. For ethnic/racial groups that are high on sociocentrism (Harwood, et al., 2002; Stein et al., 2014), it could be that the potential benefits of children’s success do not offset their failures because of the high degree of connection within the family, regardless of the circumstances. It is also possible that, due to the unique context of parenting among immigrant families (Ochocka & Janzen, 2008), parenting beliefs and behaviors are less malleable to factors such as CSE. As mentioned, some of the group differences found (or lack thereof) could have also been due to unequal sample sizes. Although our study provides insightful first steps in exploring ethnic/racial variation in key parenting constructs, more work is needed to understand the roots of this variation.

Future research could also attempt to pinpoint specific processes and mechanisms to explain how CSE plays a role in shaping family functioning. Basing self-esteem on children’s success appears to be associated with promotive parenting but, to the extent that self-image is based on children’s failure, more intrusiveness and psychological control of children could occur (Grolnick et al., 2007). How or why might this be the case and why might there be variation across ethnicity/race? How do these processes play out in everyday life? It is also valuable to recall that the current study focused on parents of early to middle adolescents. Certainly, the role of parents remains important throughout the adolescent period (Laursen & Collins, 2009); however, future work might consider parents of children of other age groups, to see whether associations are different across developmental periods.

Some limitations to this study should be noted. With surveys, there might be reporting bias due to the nature of self-report. Our study was cross-sectional, so we cannot draw conclusions about which variables predict the rest. While our results and interpretations suggest that parents who base their self-esteem on children’s failures might subsequently endorse negative parenting beliefs and engage in maladaptive behaviors, it could also be that parents who believe in and do more ineffective parenting are more likely to be sensitive to and take personally their children’s failures. In contrast, parents who engage in more positive parenting are not as quick to feel badly about themselves if their children fail but do gain a boost to their own self-esteem when their children succeed. In the latter case, perhaps such a boost is actually warranted, to the extent that positive parenting of the sort measured here is linked to more positive outcomes in children. Multiwave data could clarify directions of effects, and also address more complex links among CSE, parenting, and parent, child, and family outcomes. Perhaps parenting behaviors and beliefs, as well as more precise constructs such as child disclosure of information and parent–child communication, could be examined in future work as temporal mediators to explain how child-invested CSE can have downstream implications for development (Goldner et al., 2018). We also used panethnic/racial recruitment strategies, meaning that we cannot disaggregate or examine heterogeneity among Latinx and Asian American parents, which would be key directions for future work. As stated earlier, the ethnic/racial groups included in the current study were also uneven in size with a relatively small number of Asian Americans and larger numbers of White Americans. Perhaps more robust conclusions could have been drawn with larger and more evenly distributed subsamples.

Furthermore, some notable variables and demographic information were not collected, which could have provided more context to our study. For example, we did not collect data on the cities or regions in which participants resided. We also did not include parents’ age, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Future work could also consider parents who had planned versus unplanned pregnancies to provide a deeper understanding of parents’ relationships with their children and with parenthood and parenting more broadly.

Despite limitations, our findings have important implications and extend prior work by providing information about the varying manifestations of child-invested CSE. A breakdown of CSE-success and -failure allowed for the initial determination of which aspects are associated with child-invested parenting interactions. By uncovering mechanisms of CSE more fully, we can work toward a stronger understanding of how CSE dimensions might interact in shaping the parenting context. The idea that parenting can be linked to the degree to which parents base their self-worth on children’s outcomes has implications for researchers as well as practitioners who work with parents and children to promote and maximize individual, family, and relationship functioning and well-being.

Moreover, being aware of the different ways in which child-invested CSE presents depending on ethnicity/race might help maximize parent–child interactions. This awareness may lead to possible ways to leverage CSE to maximize the promotive parental behaviors linked to it and, thereby, strengthen parent–child relationships. For instance, because the link between CSE-failure and parental beliefs was statistically significant for White, Black, and Latinx parents, it might be especially beneficial for these parents to consider and safeguard against possible negative effects of child-invested CSE, as they may be particularly prone to be influenced by child-invested CSE-failure. Also, since CSE-success seemed to buffer these negative effects for White and Black parents, it could be valuable to encourage parents to reframe and shift their focus on their children’s success rather than failures.

All of these implications, in terms of conceptually separating children’s successes and failures and considering ethnic/racial variation in CSE processes, are relevant to clinical work with parents and families, as well as possible parenting interventions. For example, clinicians might discuss parents’ sources of self-esteem and work toward minimizing the role of external, child-based factors. Similarly, interventions could directly target the parent–child relationship and consider CSE along with strategies to mitigate parents’ conditional regard for their children. Given that children are developmentally faced with navigating many endeavors in which they might succeed or fail, our work points to the utility of encouraging parents to focus more on the former experiences over the latter, and this emphasis has clinical and real-world applications. Building on a deeper understanding of CSE, future researchers should consider conducting investigations using separate success and failure scales. Taken together, by understanding the nuanced patterns and correlates of child-invested CSE and by potentially splitting the scales in future investigations, researchers and practitioners can better understand how to boost positive parenting behaviors and beliefs across ethnically/racially diverse families, which may lead to better family relationship functioning overall.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council (grant number: 350-2012-283). The manuscript has no history outside of the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. The corresponding author can be contacted via phone at 412-897-8443 or by email at busqme18@wfu.edu.

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.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data and materials used in the research are not available but can be obtained upon reasonable request by emailing: Terese.Glatz@oru.se

ORCID iDs

Marisa Busquets

Christy Buchanan

References

Abidin

R. R.

Brunner

J. F.

(1995). Development of a parenting alliance inventory. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2401_4

Bandura

Pajares

Urdan

(2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Information Age Publishing. (pp. 307–337.

Bowlby

(1969). Attachment and loss. Basic Books.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.

Bugental

Shennum

(1984). “Difficult” children as elicitors and targets of adult communication patterns: An attributional-behavioral transactional analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 49(1), 1–79. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165910

Bulcroft

R. A.

Carmody

D. C.

Bulcroft

K. A.

(1996). Patterns of parental independence giving to adolescents: Variations by race, age, and gender of child. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(4), 866–883. https://doi.org/10.2307/353976

Burwell

R. A.

Shirk

S. R.

(2009). Contingent self-worth and gender differences in adolescent depression: A commentary. Sex Roles, 61(11–12), 769–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9694-5

Chao

(1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65(4), 1111–1119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00806.x

Chen

Vansteenkiste

Beyers

Boone

Deci

E. L.

Van der Kaap-Deeder

Duriez

Lens

Matos

Mouratidis

Ryan

R. M.

Sheldon

K. M.

Soenens

Van Petegem

Verstuyf

. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. motivation and Emotion, 39(2), 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1

10.

Crocker

Major

(1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96(4), 608–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.96.4.608

11.

Crocker

Wolfe

(2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108(3), 593–623. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.593

12.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1995). Human autonomy. In Kernis

M. H.

(Ed), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem. Plenum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1280-0_3 (pp. 31–49).

13.

Feeney

Collins

(2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. personality and. Social Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314544222

14.

Frick

P. J.

Christian

R. E.

Wootton

J. M.

(1999). Age trends in the association between parenting practices and conduct problems. Behavior Modification, 23(1), 106–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445599231005

15.

Furstenberg

F. F.

Cook

T. D.

Eccles

Elder

G. J.

Jr. Sameroff

(1999). Managing to make it: Urban families and adolescent success. University of Chicago Press.

16.

García Coll

Lamberty

Jenkins

McAdoo

Crnic

Wasik

Vázquez García

(1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67(5), 1891–1914. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131600

17.

Glatz

Buchanan

(2015). Over-time associations among parental self-efficacy, promotive parenting practices, and adolescents’ externalizing behaviors. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(3), 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000076

18.

Goldner

Scharf

view (2018). “If you really love me, you will do/be…”: Parental psychological control and its implications for children’s adjustment. Developmental Re, 49, 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.07.002

19.

Grolnick

W. S.

Apostoleris

N. H

Deci

E. L.

(2002). What makes parents controlling. In Ryan

& R. M.

(Ed), Handbook of Self-determination Research. University of Rochester Press (pp. 161–182).

20.

Grolnick

Price

Beiswenger

Sauck

(2007). Evaluative pressure in mothers: Effects of situation, maternal, and child characteristics on autonomy supportive versus controlling behavior. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 991–1002. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.991

21.

Hardway

Fuligni

(2006). Dimensions of family connectedness among adolescents with Mexican, Chinese, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1246–1258. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1246

22.

Harwood

Leyendecker

Carlson

Asencio

Miller

(2002).Parenting among Latino families in the U.S. In Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed), Handbook of parenting 4th ed. Lawrence Erlbaum (pp. 21–39).

23.

Jackson-Newsom

Buchanan

C. M.

McDonald

R. M.

(2008). Parenting and perceived maternal warmth in European American and African American adolescents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(1), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00461.x

24.

Jones

T. L.

Prinz

R. J.

(2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25(3), 341–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2004.12.004

25.

Kiang

Glatz

Buchanan

C. M.

(2017). Acculturation conflict, cultural parenting self-efficacy, and perceived parenting competence in Asian American and Latino/a families. Family Process, 56(4), 943–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12266

26.

Laursen

Collins

W. A

(2009). Parent-child relationships during adolescence. In R. Lerner

Steinberg

(Eds), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Contextual influences on adolescent development. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy002002 (pp. 3–42)

27.

Little

T. D

(2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Guilford.

28.

A. Y. H.

Grotevant

H. D.

(2020). Adoptive parenting cognitions: Acknowledgement of differences as a predictor of adolescents’ attachment to parents. Parenting, 20(2), 83–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2019.1694826

29.

Morcillo

Duarte

Shen

Blanco

Canino

Bird

(2011). Parental familism and antisocial behaviors: Development, gender, and potential mechanisms. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50(1), 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2011.01.014

30.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O

(1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

31.

Pomerantz

Deng

(2014 Jan-Feb). Why are Chinese mothers more controllingthan American mothers? “My child is my report card. Child Development, 85(1), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12102

32.

Ochocka

Janzen

(2008). Immigrant parenting: A new framework of understanding. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 6(1), 85–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/15362940802119286

33.

Otterpohl

Lazar

Stiensmeier-Pelster

(2019). The dark side of perceived positive regard: When parents’ well-intended motivation strategies increase students’ test anxiety. Contemporary Education Psychology, 56, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.11.002

34.

Pinquart

Kauser

(2018). Do the associations of parenting styles with behavior problems and academic achievement vary by culture? Results from a meta-analysis. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000149

35.

Putnick

D. L

Bornstein

M. H

(2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004

36.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L

(2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford.

37.

Schwinger

Schöne

Otterpohl

(2017). Structure of contingent self-esteem: Global, domain-specific, or hierarchical construct? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33(5), 388–397. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000296

38.

Soenens

Wuyts

Vansteenkiste

Mageau

G. A.

Brenning

(2015). Raising trophy kids: The role of mothers’ contingent self-esteem in maternal promotion of extrinsic goals. Journal of Adolescence, 42, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.04.001

39.

Stein

G. L.

Cupito

A. M.

Mendez

J. L.

Prandoni

Huq

Westerberg

(2014). Familism through a developmental lens. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 2(4), 224–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/lat0000025

40.

Twenge

Crocker

(2002). Race and self-esteem: Meta-analyses comparing whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians and comment on gray-little and hadal (2000). Psychological Bulletin, 128(3), 371–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.3.371

41.

U.S. Census Bureau (2014). American community survey estimates. November 7, 2021, https://www.census.gov

42.

Vance

A. J.

Brandon

D. H

(2017). Delineating among parenting confidence, parenting self-efficacy, and competence. ANS. Advances in Nursing Science, 40(4), 18–37. https://doi.org/10.1097/ans.0000000000000179

43.

Wittkowski

Garrett

Calam

Weisberg

(2017). Self-reported measures of parental self-efficacy: A systematic review of the current literature. Journal of Family Studies, 26, 2960–2978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0830-5

44.

Wuyts

Chen

Vansteenkiste

Soenens

(2015a). Social pressure and unfulfilled dreams among Chinese and Belgian parents: Two roads to controlling parenting via child-invested contingent self-esteem. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(9), 1150–1168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115603125

45.

Wuyts

Vansteenkiste

Soenens

Assor

(2015b). An examination of the dynamics involved in parental child-invested contingent self-esteem. Parenting: Science and Practice, 15(2), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2015.1020135

46.

Ziegler-Hill

(2007). Contingent self-esteem and race: Implications for the black self-esteem advantage. Journal of Black Psychology, 33(1), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798406295096