Perceived quality of parent–child relationships by Chinese primary school students: The role of parents’ education and parent

Abstract

Previous studies have revealed that the perceived quality of the parent–child relationship is essential for both physical health and psychological well-being. However, most studies have treated the perceived quality of this relationship as an independent variable. In this study, we considered it a dependent variable and examined the role of parents’ education and parent–child literacy activities on children’s perceived quality of the parent–child relationship. One hundred and eighty-six Chinese primary school students and their parents from low socioeconomic backgrounds participated in this study. Parents’ educational level and the parent–child literacy activity status were assessed based on parents’ reports, whereas parent–child relationships were assessed based on children’s reports. Results showed that parents’ educational level positively correlated with the frequency of parent–child literacy activities and children’s perceptions of the quality of the parent–child relationship. There was also a significant positive correlation between the frequency of parent–child literacy activities and children’s perceptions of the quality of the parent–child relationship. Further analyses showed that the frequency of parent–child literacy activities mediated the connection between parents’ educational level and children’s perceived quality of the parent–child relationship. These results suggest that boosting the frequency of parent–child literacy activities may be a useful strategy for facilitating the parent–child relationship.

Keywords

Chinese parent–child literacy activities parent–child relationship parents’ educational level primary school students

I Introduction

Family plays a very important role in children’s development. Family relationships provide a relevant context for children’s development of social and emotional skills (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1994). Over the past decades, much research has been focused on the link between the parent–child relationship and children’s development (Johnson et al., 2010). A positive parent–child relationship is an important protective factor in determining features of children’s physical, social, emotional, and behavioral development (Branje et al., 2010; Fogelholm et al., 1999). In contrast, a poor parent–child relationship may be a risk factor for a child’s emotional and behavioral problems (Buist et al., 2011). For example, children who report high levels of conflict with and hostility toward their parents show increased levels of aggressive behavior, uncaring interactions, as well as greater levels of symptoms associated with depression and anxiety (Buist et al., 2011, 2017; Scaramella et al., 1999). However, previous studies have treated the parent–child relationship mostly as an independent variable. An analysis of the factors related to parent–child relationships is important for strengthening them, and, in turn, promoting children’s development (Johnson et al., 2010). In the current study, the roles of parents’ educational level and parent–child literacy activities were examined as they related to children’s perceptions of their relationships with their parents.

Socioeconomic status (SES), an indicator of one’s overall prestige and social status in society, is usually measured by education, occupation, and income (Conger and Donnellan, 2007). However, among various measures, education is one of the most widely used indices of SES because it is a primary determinant of both income and occupational status (Krieger et al., 1997). Previous studies have shown that parent–child literacy activities are mostly related to parents’ educational level (Curenton and Justice, 2008; Hoff, 2003). Therefore, in the present study, we used parents’ education as the measure of SES. Over the past decades, numerous studies have shown that SES – particularly parents’ educational level – have profound effects on children’s development (Aizer and Currie, 2014; Bradley and Corwyn, 2002). According to the family investment model, family SES may be a crucial factor in parent–child relationships (Conger and Donnellan, 2007; Conger et al., 2010). The model proposes that parents’ material and interpersonal investments in their children may explain, at least partially, the association between family SES and children’s development (Bradley and Corwyn, 2004; Conger and Donnellan, 2007). Families with greater economic resources have more opportunities to invest in goods, products, and services that facilitate children’s development (Bradley and Corwyn, 2002). Additionally, parents who have obtained higher educational levels tend to be more involved in their children’s daily activities, which in turn affects children’s social, emotional, and cognitive functioning (Crittenden, 2008; Sohr-Preston et al., 2013). For example, Sohr-Preston et al. (2013) showed that parents with more education were more responsive in their communications with their preschool children, which in turn facilitated their children’s language development. Highly educated parents may be more knowledgeable regarding their children’s development, more effective in interacting with them, and more helpful in supporting their adaptation to the environment (Bornstein and Bradley, 2003; Rowe et al., 2016). Therefore, parents’ educational level contributes significantly to the quality of parent–child relationships.

Numerous studies have also demonstrated that family SES, particularly in terms of parents’ educational level, was closely associated with children’s language and reading-related skill development (Hoff, 2013; Romeo et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017). Compared to children with better educated parents, children with less educated parents performed much worse in both reading and related language skills (Curenton and Justice, 2008; Noble et al., 2007). Parents provide a basic environment that helps children build their language and reading-related skills (Hart and Risley, 1995; Landry et al., 2006). Less educated parents may not only engage less with their children but also provide their children with fewer language and reading inputs compared to more educated parents (e.g. Curenton and Justice, 2008; Evans et al., 2004; Rowe and Goldin-Meadow, 2009). On the one hand, highly educated parents provide more reading materials and opportunities to enable their children’s language and reading development (Mol and Bus, 2011). On the other hand, parents’ educational backgrounds vary considerably, as do their beliefs concerning their role in promoting children’s language and reading skills (DeBaryshe, 1995). Highly educated parents may have a heightened awareness of the value and importance of parent–child literacy activities for facilitating children’s growth (Curenton and Justice, 2008). For example, Curenton and Justice (2008) showed that parental beliefs served as a mediator for the relationship between maternal education and children’s preliteracy skills.

Parent–child literacy activities refer broadly to the process by which adults read, write, and discuss with their children; it also involves interacting with books. Such activities provide a critical context for developing children’s language and reading-related skills (Bus et al., 1995; Sohr-Preston et al., 2013). Numerous studies have demonstrated that when parents engage actively in parent–child literacy activities, preschool-age children benefit from language and reading development (Curenton and Justice, 2008; Sohr-Preston et al., 2013), as do older children in primary school and beyond (Boerma et al., 2018; Klauda, 2009). Some studies have shown that intervention programs focused on parent–child literacy activities are effective in improving children’s language and reading skills (Breit-Smith et la., 2017; Pollard-Durodola et al., 2011). However, the quantity and quality of parent–child literacy activities vary substantially across the SES spectrum (Korat et al., 2007), and have been identified as important mediators of the relationship between parents’ educational level and children’s language and reading development (Sohr-Preston et al., 2013).

Previous studies on parent–child literacy activities have mainly emphasized their role in facilitating cognitive, language, and reading development. However, parent–child literacy activities may also promote children’s socioemotional competencies (Bergin, 2001; Laible, 2004). For example, a recent study showed that shared reading intervention were effective in promoting academic engagement and socioemotional development in a group of Latinas third graders (Cook et al., 2017). Parent–child literacy activities provide more opportunities for parents to be involved in their children’s daily activities and perceive their children’s development, which, in turn, may help parents select more effective strategies for improving their children’s socioemotional competencies and parent–child connections (Conger and Conger, 2002).

To our knowledge, there have been only a few studies that have directly tested the role of parent–child literacy activities in the parent–child relationship. Therefore, the main purpose of the present study was to examine how parents’ educational level and parent–child literacy activities contributed to children’s perceptions of the parent–child relationship. Based on previous studies (Conger et al., 2010; Korat et al., 2007), we hypothesized that both parents’ educational level and the frequency of parent–child literacy activities would correlate significantly with children’s perceptions of the parent–child relationship. Furthermore, parent–child literacy activities may act as a mediator of the relationship between parents’ educational level and the parent–child relationship. Unlike objective observations or assessments of specific supportive behaviors relevant to a particular situation or delimited time period, perceived support or a relationship may reflect generalized impressions of support and affection abstracted from countless such experiences over time and have greater predictive power regarding psychological well-being (Bolger and Amarel, 2007; Hobfoll, 2009). Therefore, we used children’s perceptions of the quality of parent–child interactions as the indicator of parent–child relationships in this study.

II Method

1 Participants

One hundred and eighty-six primary school students (age range = 8.33–14.25 years, M_age = 11.49 years, SD = 1.29; 59% female) and their fathers (n = 55, age range = 30–52 years, M_age = 40.48 years, SD = 4.69) or mothers (n = 131, age range = 28–50 years, M_age = 38.65 years, SD = 4.58) volunteered to participate in the study. The children were recruited from four primary schools in the Dongxiang county of northwest China. In this county, minorities make up the largest demographic group; more than 90% of the residents are from Dongxiang, and the per capita estimated income per adult in this area was approximately $670 in 2016 (Gansu Province Bureau Statistics, 2017).¹ Although previous studies on parent–child literacy activities have focused mainly on children in preschool (Aram and Levin, 2001; Curenton and Justice, 2008), some studies have shown that parent–child literacy activities were also effective in facilitating reading development in the higher elementary grades (Boerma et al., 2018). All children in the present study were from a minority nationality area. They spoke a dialect of Chinese at home and learned Mandarin (Putonghua) in school. According to school records, hardly any children participated in kindergarten education involving literacy instruction that was provided before primary school. Compared to English (i.e. only 26 letters), there are around 620 stroke patterns that make up different Chinese characters. Thus, Chinese is visually more complex than English, and literacy instruction is one of the main tasks throughout elementary school (Ministry of Education, China, 2011). Therefore, we selected elementary school students as the sample for the present study. All participants were recruited through convenience sampling. Informed consent was obtained from all parents and their children, and ethical approval was granted from the local institutional board.

2 Procedure

All data used in the present study were collected via home visits conducted by the first author and four undergraduates majoring in psychology. Furthermore, one parent per child participated. For each family, there were two visitors; one parent answered the survey questions regarding sociodemographic information and parent–child literacy activities in a face-to-face interview with one of the visitors. Children answered survey questions regarding the parent–child relationship with the other visitor. For both parents and children with limited reading skills, the visitor read all items to them and recorded their answers. Although all the children responded regarding parent–child relationships with both father and mother, we analysed data for only one parent–child relationship to correspond with the parent responding to the parental questionnaire. Small gifts were offered to children as tokens of appreciation.

3 Measures

a Parents’ educational level

Parents reported on their educational attainment according to an eight-point scale: 0 = No school education received, 1 = some years of primary school attended, 2 = completed primary education, 3 = completed junior high/middle school, 4 = completed senior high/secondary school, 5 = completed three years of college, 6 = completed four years of college, and 7 = completed graduate school. Table 1 shows the frequency distribution and percentages for parents’ educational level.

Table 1.

The distribution of frequency and percentages of parent’s education.

Parent educational level	Frequency	Percentages
0: No school education received	4	2.2
1: Some years of primary school attended	4	2.2
2: Completed primary education	24	13.0
3: Completed junior middle school	64	34.4
4: Completed senior middle school	62	33.2
5: Completed three-year college	24	12.8
6: Completed four-year college	2	1.1
7: Completed graduate school	2	1.1

Note. n = 186.

b Parent–child literacy activities

Five questions based on the existing literature that pointed to a variety of parent–child literacy activities were used (e.g. Boerma et al., 2018; Curenton and Justice, 2008; Gest et al., 2004). The questions were as follows: ‘How often do you help your children learn new words, read books to them, write with them, point to words in the environment/books/print materials, and talk about the topics of your previous readings?’ Parents reported regarding the frequency of these activities during the week (including weekends) using a five-point scale (ranging from 1 = Never to 5 = Daily). One hundred and thirty-one mothers and 55 fathers completed the survey questions. For each parent, a mean score was calculated based on these five items; a higher score reflected more frequent parent–child literacy activities. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .73 for the survey questionnaire, indicating adequate (above .70) internal consistency reliability (Bland and Altman, 1997; Devellis et al., 1991). Table 2 shows the distribution of percentages of Parent–child literacy activities.

Table 2.

The distribution of percentages of parent–child literacy activities.

Items	1 (Never)	2 (Once or twice a week)	3 (Three to four times a week)	4 (Five to six times a week)	5 (Daily)
How often do you help your children to learn new words?	32.3%	4.3%	7.5%	21.5%	34.4%
How often do you help your children to read books?	49.5%	10.8%	10.8%	12.9%	16.1%
How often do you help your children to write with them?	66.7%	4.3%	20.4%	4.3%	3.2%
How often do you help your children to point to words in the environment/books/print materials?	12.9%	16.1%	16.1%	34.4%	20.4%
How often do you help your children to talk about the topics of your previous readings?	54.8%	22.6%	7.5%	10.8%	4.3%

Note. n = 186.

c Parent–child relationships

The quality of children’s perceived relationships with their parents was measured with the cohesion subscale of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES) II inventory (Olson et al., 1979), a self-report questionnaire using a five-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 = little or none to 5 = the most). Children answered 20 questions about the relationship with their father and mother. The scale consisted of 10 items for each parent (e.g. ‘My mother [father] and I are supportive of each other during difficult times’, and ‘My mother [father] and I feel very close to each other’). A translated version of the scale has been shown to have high validity and reliability for mainland Chinese samples (Fuligni and Zhang, 2004). The internal consistency reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) was .71 for fathers and .87 for mothers in the present study. The final score was the sum of the 10 items for children’s ratings regarding relationships with their fathers or mothers.

4 Analysis

Descriptive analyses and Pearson’s correlations were performed using SPSS software (IBM SPSS 22.0, Chicago, IL; IBM Corp, 2013). In the descriptive analysis, means and standard deviations were computed for each variable. Pearson’s correlations were calculated to analyse relationships between the variables, and we used the SPSS macro PROCESS program (Hayes, 2013) to examine a mediation model and determine whether the frequency of parent–child literacy activities mediated the relationship between parents’ educational level and the parent–child relationship. We used a bootstrapping method with 5,000 bootstrap resamples to calculate the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the indirect effect (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). If the 95% CI did not overlap with zero, the significance of the mediating effects was accepted (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). All statistical tests were evaluated at the p < 0.05 significance level.

III Results

1 Descriptive statistics and correlations

Table 3 shows the mean scores and standard deviations for parent-reported educational levels and the frequency of parent–child literacy activities; children reported regarding the parent–child relationship. Table 4 shows the correlations for all measures in the present study. Several features of the correlations are noteworthy. First, parents’ educational level was significantly correlated with the frequency of parent–child literacy activities and the quality of the parent–child relationship. Second, the frequencies of parent–child literacy activities were significantly correlated with the quality of the parent–child relationship, confirming our hypothesis.

Table 3.

Mean scores, standard deviations, and range for all measures.

	Father (n = 55)			Mother (n = 121)
	M	SD	Range	M	SD	Range
Educational level	3.72	1.00	1–7	3.34	1.27	0–7
Parent–child literacy activities	2.35	1.48	1–5	2.55	1.19	1–5
Parent–child relationship	21.32	4.80	10–35	23.59	5.85	8–36

Note. n = 186.

Table 4.

Intercorrelations for all measures.

	1	2	3
1 Parent’s educational level	1.00
2 Parent–child literacy activities	.27***	1.00
3 Parent–child relationship	.26***	.29***	1.00

Notes. n = 186, ***p < 0.001.

2 Direct and indirect effects test

We conducted a two step-analysis to understand the complex relationships between parents’ educational levels, parent–child literacy activities, and parent–child relationships. First, we tested a direct model representing the relationships between parents’ educational level and the parent–child relationship. After controlling for the effects of children’s age, gender, and grade, parents’ educational level explained 7% of the variance in parent–child relationships (ΔF(1, 181) = 13.54, p < 0.001). As expected, the direct effect of parents’ educational level on the parent–child relationship was significant (β = .285, t = 3.68, p < 0.001). Then, we tested a mediation model to examine the potential mediating effect of parent–child literacy activities on the association between parents’ educational level and the parent–child relationship. The results showed that the effect of parents’ educational level on the parent–child relationship decreased when parent–child literacy activities entered as a mediator (β = .22, t = 2.82, p < .01). Further, we used the bootstrap estimation procedure (with a specified bootstrap sample of 5,000) to test the significance of the indirect effect of parents’ educational level. The results showed that parents’ educational level exerted a significant indirect effect on the parent–child relationship via parent–child literacy activities (point estimate = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.12).

IV Discussion

The aim of this study was to explore the roles of parents’ educational level and parent–child literacy activities on perceptions of primary school students from mainland China regarding the quality of the parent–child relationship. The results of the present study showed that both parents’ educational level and parent–child literacy activities were significantly associated with children’s perceptions regarding the quality of this relationship. Moreover, our results revealed that parent–child literacy activities played a mediating role between parents’ educational level and children’s perceptions of the quality of the parent–child relationship.

The previous study among Western samples showed that parents’ educational achievements were significantly associated with the parent–child relationship for both preschool children (Thompson and Foster, 2014) and adolescents (Downing-Matibag, 2009). The current study confirmed this result and showed that parents’ educational level was significantly related to the quality of the parent–child relationship among primary school children in a Chinese sample. The findings of the present study partly support the theoretical framework of the family investment model across cultures; thus, human capital measured according to parents’ educational level has an effect on children’s social and emotional development (Conger and Dogan, 2007; Conger and Donnellan, 2007). Highly educated parents may be more involved with their children’s development and enjoy more opportunities to promote their social, emotional, and cognitive functioning (Crittenden, 2008; Sohr-Preston et al., 2013).

Interestingly, findings of the present study provide evidence – for the first time – that widespread activity, such as parent–child literacy activity, mediates the relationship between parents’ educational level and children’s perceptions regarding the quality of the parent–child relationship. Previous studies have focused mostly on the relationship between parent–child literacy activities and young children’s language and reading development (Dexter and Stacks, 2014; Gest et al., 2004). Results of the present study demonstrate that, in addition to their role in language and reading development, parent–child literacy activities were critical in promoting good parent–child relationships for primary school children. While engaging in parent–child literacy activities, parents may not only teach literacy to their children but also appear to perceive and understand their feelings, attitudes, and ideas, thereby establishing a confident parenting style (Ackard et al., 2006; Bergin, 2001). With findings compatible with this assumption, Dexter and Stacks (2014) showed that parents and children shared reading interactions that were positively correlated with parenting quality in a sample of low-income families. However, more research evidence from longitudinal and interventional studies is needed to further verify this assumption. Nevertheless, these findings suggest that highly educated parents engage more frequently in parent–child literacy activities, which in turn may facilitate the formation of a good parent–child connection (Conger and Conger, 2002).

The findings of the present study also have important implications for primary school children by suggesting possible interventions to improve parent–child relationships. Although parents’ educational level is stable and not easily changed based on the mediating role of parent–child literacy activities in linking parents’ educational level with the parent–child relationship, our results suggest that engaging more often in joint literacy activities may be an effective way to develop a more positive parent–child relationship. In addition, although previous studies have revealed that less educated parents may engage less and possess a lack of knowledge regarding their children’s development (e.g. Curenton and Justice, 2008; Evans et al., 2004; Rowe and Goldin-Meadow, 2009), recent studies have shown that enhancing parent–child literacy activities is effective in facilitating children’s language, reading, and socio-cognitive development, regardless of family SES (Aram et al., 2013; Mcgillion et al., 2017). This means that boosting parent–child literacy activities may be a useful strategy for reducing social inequality in children’s language and reading development. However, further studies are needed to examine whether these interventions would be also effective in improving parent–child relationships across different SES backgrounds.

We should acknowledge some possible limitations of the present study. First, participants were recruited with a convenience sampling method instead of random sampling. This approach could hinder the generality of our findings. Second, given the cross-sectional design of the present study, it was not possible to determine the causal relationships between the associated variables. Third, previous studies have shown that both the quantity and quality of parent–child interactions contribute to children’s literacy development. However, in the present study, we only examined the relationship between the frequency of parent–child literacy activities and the quality of parent–child relationships. How the quality of parent–child interactions relates to parent–child relationships should be examined in future studies. Fourth, in the present study, we used only parents’ educational level as an indicator of the SES variable, and we obtained a modest effect between parents’ educational level and the parent–child relationship. Future research should examine how other SES indices, such as parents’ occupation and income, would affect parent–child literacy activities and the parent–child relationship. Despite these limitations, the findings of the present study contribute significantly to the existing literature, showing that parent–child literacy activities play a major role in mediating between parents’ educational level and children’s perceptions of the quality of the parent–child relationship.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2017M613298XB) and Northwest Normal University Young Teachers’ Scientific Research Ability Promotion Plan (humanities and social sciences) (SKFDY003).

ORCID iD

Shifeng Li

Notes

References

Ackard

Neumark-Sztainer

Story

Perry

(2006) Parent–child connectedness and behavioral and emotional health among adolescents. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30: 59–66.

Aizer

Currie

(2014) The intergenerational transmission of inequality: Maternal disadvantage and health at birth. Science 344: 856–61.

Aram

Levin

(2001) Mother–child joint writing in low SES: Sociocultural factors, maternal mediation, and emergent literacy. Cognitive Development 16: 831–52.

Aram

Fine

Ziv

(2013) Enhancing parent–child shared book reading interactions: Promoting references to the book’s plot and socio-cognitive themes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28: 111–22.

Bergin

(2001) The parent–child relationship during beginning reading. Journal of Literacy Research 33: 681–706.

Bland

Altman

(1997) Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. British Medical Journal 314: 572.

Boerma

Mol

Jolles

(2018) Parents adjust the quality of their home literacy environment to the reading interest of their third to sixth graders. Parenting 18: 243–61.

Bolger

Amarel

(2007) Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress: Experimental evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92: 458–75.

Bornstein

Bradley

(2003) Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

10.

Bradley

Corwyn

(2002) Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology 21: 371–99.

11.

Bradley

Corwyn

(2004) Family process investments that matter for child well-being. In: Kalil

DeLeire

(eds) Family investments in children’s potential: Resources and parenting behaviors that promote success. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 1–32.

12.

Branje

Hale

Frijns

Meeus

(2010) Longitudinal associations between perceived parent–child relationship quality and depressive symptoms in adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 38: 751–63.

13.

Breit-Smith

Olszewski

Swoboda

Guo

Prendeville

(2017) Sequence text structure intervention during interactive book reading of expository picture books with preschool children with language impairment. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 33: 287–304.

14.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979) The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

15.

Bronfenbrenner

(1994) Ecological models of human development. International Encyclopedia of Education 3: 37–43.

16.

Buist

Deković

Gerris

(2011) Dyadic family relationships and adolescent internalizing and externalizing problem behavior: Effects of positive and negative affect. Family Science 2: 34–42.

17.

Buist

Verhoeven

Hoksbergen

ter Laak

Watve

Paranjpe

(2017) Associations of perceived sibling and parent–child relationship quality with internalizing and externalizing problems: Comparing Indian and Dutch early adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence 37: 1163–90.

18.

Bus

van IJzendoorn

Pellegrini

(1995) Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational literacy. Review of Educational Research 65: 1–21.

19.

Conger

(2002) Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family 64: 361–73.

20.

Conger

Dogan

(2007) Social class and socialization in families. In: Grusec

Hastings

(eds) Handbook of socialization theory and research. New York: Guilford, pp. 433–60.

21.

Conger

Donnellan

(2007) An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology 58: 175–99.

22.

Conger

Martin

(2010) Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family 72: 685–704.

23.

Cook

Silva

Hayden

Brodsky

Codding

(2017) Exploring the use of shared reading as a culturally responsive counseling intervention to promote academic and social-emotional development. Journal of Child and Adolescent Counseling 3: 14–29.

24.

Crittenden

(2008) Raising parents: Attachment, parenting and child safety. London: Willan.

25.

Curenton

Justice

(2008) Children’s preliteracy skills: Influence of mothers’ education and beliefs about shared-reading interactions. Early Education and Development 19: 261–83.

26.

DeBaryshe

(1995) Maternal belief systems: Linchpin in the home reading process. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 16: 1–20.

27.

Devellis

(1991) Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28.

Dexter

Stacks

(2014) A preliminary investigation of the relationship between parenting, parent–child shared reading practices, and child development in low-income families. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 28: 394–410.

29.

Downing-Matibag

(2009) Parents’ perceptions of their adolescent children, parental resources, and parents’ satisfaction with the parent–child relationship. Sociological Spectrum 29: 467–88.

30.

Evans

Fox

Cremaso

Mckinnon

(2004) Beginning reading: The views of parents and teachers of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology 96: 130–41.

31.

Fogelholm

Nuutinen

Pasanen

Myöhänen

Säätelä

(1999) Parent–child relationship of physical activity patterns and obesity. International Journal of Obesity 23: 1262–68.

32.

Fuligni

Zhang

(2004) Attitudes toward family obligation among adolescents in contemporary urban and rural China. Child Development 75: 180–92.

33.

Gansu Province Bureau Statistics (2017) Gansu development yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press.

34.

Gest

Freeman

Domitrovich

Welsh

(2004) Parent–child literacy activities and children’s language comprehension skills: The moderating role of parental discipline practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 19: 319–36.

35.

Hart

Risley

(1995) Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes.

36.

Hayes

(2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Journal of Educational Measurement 51: 335–37.

37.

Hobfoll

(2009) Social support: The movie. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26: 93–101.

38.

Hoff

(2003) The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development 74: 1368–78.

39.

Hoff

(2013) Interpreting the early language trajectories of children from low-SES and language minority homes: Implications for closing achievement gaps. Developmental Psychology 49: 4–14.

40.

IBM Corp (2013) IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

41.

Johnson

Kent

Leather

(2010) Strengthening the parent–child relationship: A review of family interventions and their use in medical settings. Child Care Health and Development 31: 25–32.

42.

Klauda

(2009) The role of parents in adolescents’ reading motivation and activity. Educational Psychology Review 21: 325–63.

43.

Korat

Klein

Segal-Drori

(2007) Maternal mediation in book reading, home literacy environment, and children’s emergent literacy: A comparison between two social groups. Reading and Writing 20: 361–98.

44.

Krieger

Williams

Moss

(1997) Measuring social class in US public health research: concepts, methodologies, and guidelines. Annual Review of Public Health 18: 341–78.

45.

Laible

(2004) Mother–child discourse in two contexts: Links with child temperament, attachment security, and socioemotional competence. Developmental Psychology 40: 979–92.

46.

Landry

Smith

Swank

(2006) Responsive parenting: Establishing early foundations for social, communication, and independent problem-solving skills. Developmental Psychology 42: 627–42.

47.

Mcgillion

Pine

Herbert

Matthews

(2017) A randomised controlled trial to test the effect of promoting caregiver contingent talk on language development in infants from diverse socioeconomic status backgrounds. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 58: 1122–31.

48.

Mol

Bus

(2011) To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin 137: 267–96.

49.

Ministry of Education, China (2011) 2011 Chinese curriculum for Chinese primary schools and junior/senior middle schools. Beijing: People Education Press.

50.

Noble

McCandliss

Farah

(2007) Socioeconomic gradients predict individual differences in neurocognitive abilities. Developmental Science 10: 464–80.

51.

Olson

Sprenkle

Russell

(1979) Circumplex model of marital and family systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process 18: 3–28.

52.

Pollard-Durodola

Gonzalez

Simmons

, et al. (2011) The effects of an intensive shared book-reading intervention for preschool children at risk for vocabulary delay. Exceptional Children 77: 161–83.

53.

Preacher

Hayes

(2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40: 879–91.

54.

Romeo

Christodoulou

Halverson

, et al. (2017) Socioeconomic status and reading disability: Neuroanatomy and plasticity in response to intervention. Cerebral Cortex 28: 2297–2312.

55.

Rowe

Goldin-Meadow

(2009) Differences in early gesture explain SES disparities in child vocabulary size at school entry. Science 323: 951–53.

56.

Rowe

Denmark

Harden

Stapleton

(2016) The role of parent education and parenting knowledge in children’s language and literacy skills among White, Black, and Latino families. Infant and Child Development 25: 198–220.

57.

Scaramella

Conger

Simons

R L

(1999) Parental protective influences and gender-specific increases in adolescent internalizing and externalizing problems. Journal of Research on Adolescence 9: 111–41.

58.

Sohr-Preston

Scaramella

Martin

, et al. (2013) Parental socioeconomic status, communication, and children’s vocabulary development: A third-generation test of the family investment model. Child Development 84: 1046–62.

59.

Thompson

Foster

(2014) Socioeconomic status and parent–child relationships predict metacognitive questions to preschoolers. Journal of Psycholinguist Research 43: 315–33.

60.

Wang

Soden

Deater-Deckard

, et al. (2017) Development in reading and math in children from different SES backgrounds: The moderating role of child temperament. Developmental Science 20: e12380.

Perceived quality of parent–child relationships by Chinese primary school students: The role of parents’ education and parent–child literacy activities

Abstract

Keywords

I Introduction

II Method

1 Participants

2 Procedure

3 Measures

a Parents’ educational level

b Parent–child literacy activities

c Parent–child relationships

4 Analysis

III Results

1 Descriptive statistics and correlations

2 Direct and indirect effects test

IV Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

References