Influence of Perceived Teacher Acceptance and Parental Acceptance on Youth’s Psychological Adjustment and School Conduct

Abstract

This cross-cultural meta-analysis tests the contribution of teachers’ and parents’ acceptance to youth’s psychological adjustment and school conduct. It is based on nine studies involving 2,422 school-going youth in 12 nations. The study addressed two questions drawn from one of the basic postulates of interpersonal acceptance–rejection theory (IPARTheory): (a) To what extent are boys’ and girls’ perceptions of teacher acceptance related internationally to their psychological adjustment and school conduct? (b) To what extent are boys’ and girls’ perceptions of maternal and paternal acceptance related internationally to their psychological adjustment and school conduct? All studies included in this meta-analysis used the child version of the Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire for Mothers and Fathers (child PARQ: Mother and Father), child version of the Personality Assessment Questionnaire (child PAQ), the Teacher’s Evaluation of Student’s Conduct (TESC), and the Teacher Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire (TARQ). Results showed that both parental and teacher acceptance correlate significantly in all countries with psychological adjustment and school conduct of children, regardless of gender differences. The study also showed that perceived teacher acceptance has a significantly stronger relation with the school conduct of boys than of girls.

Keywords

meta-analysis IPARTheory paternal acceptance maternal acceptance teacher acceptance psychological adjustment school conduct

Theorists and researchers agree that parent–child relationships are of utmost importance for the upbringing of children (e.g., Baumrind, 1991; Bowlby, 1958; Rohner, 1975, 1986/1999; Santrock, 2002). Worldwide evidence testing major postulates in interpersonal acceptance–rejection theory (IPARTheory), for example, confirms the theory’s central postulate that the psychological adjustment of children everywhere—regardless of differences in culture, ethnicity, race, gender, language, or other such defining characteristics—tend to be affected in the same way (described below) when children perceive themselves to be accepted or rejected by their parents (Khaleque, 2012; Khaleque & Rohner, 2002). Cross-cultural evidence from IPARTheory research also shows that children’s perceptions of the accepting or rejecting behaviors of other important people such as teachers often influence the adjustment of children in the same way that perceived parental acceptance–rejection does (Rohner, 2010b).

IPARTheory is an evidence-based theory of socialization and life span development that aims to explain and predict the major causes, consequences, and other correlates of interpersonal acceptance–rejection worldwide (Rohner, 1986/1999; Rohner, Khaleque, & Cournoyer, 2012). The theory asserts that the psychological, behavioral, and cognitive adjustment of children everywhere throughout the world is likely to be affected in at least 10 ways when they perceive themselves to be accepted or rejected by their parents and other people most important to them. Specifically, children who experience themselves to be rejected by parents tend to be (a) anxious and (b) insecure, and develop a cluster of seven personality dispositions associated with psychological maladjustment (Khaleque & Rohner, 2002). These dispositions include (c) anger, hostility, aggression, passive aggression, or problems with the management of hostility and aggression; (d) dependence or defensive independence depending on the form, frequency, duration, timing, and intensity of perceived rejection; (e) impaired self-esteem; (f) impaired self-adequacy; (g) emotional unresponsiveness; (h) emotional instability; and (i) negative worldview. In addition, perceived rejection tends to be associated with the development of (j) cognitive distortions, among other developmental problems (Rohner et al., 2012).

Beyond this, it is important to note that five decades of pancultural evidence has shown that children throughout the world tend to experience themselves to be cared about—that is to be accepted or rejected—in at least four ways (Rohner, 2004). These include the perception of warmth/affection (or coldness and the lack of affection), hostility/aggression, indifference/neglect, and undifferentiated rejection. Undifferentiated rejection refers to children’s feeling that their parent or other attachment figure does not really care about or love them, without necessarily having objective indicators that the parent or other person is unaffectionate, aggressive, or neglectful.

A burgeoning literature suggests that after children start attending school, teachers play a significant role in their development (Cornelius-White, 2007; Hamre & Pianta, 2005). It has been argued that even kindergartners perform better at school if they have a close relationship with their teachers than when the teacher–child relationship is distant (Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999; Pianta, La Paro, Payne, Cox, & Bradley, 2002). In addition, conflict with teachers may lead to conduct problems and other behavioral adjustment issues for children (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg, Pianta, & Howes, 2002). It has also been found that students who experience approval and support from their teachers tend to be more successful in school and to perform better academically than do students who do not (Ahnert, Milatz, Kappler, & Fischer, 2013; Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Roorda, Koomen, Spilt, & Oort, 2011). For reasons such as these many researchers focus on the teacher–child relationship when they design interventions for children’s academic performance, adjustment problems, and conduct (Cavell & Hughes, 1999; Pianta, 1999).

Disruptive behaviors such as aggression, lying, stealing, noncompliance, and bullying are among the most common conduct problems that school-going youth face. Evidence suggests that all these problems may be associated with parent–teacher relationships (Bowes et al., 2009; Dadds, Maujean, & Fraser, 2003; Dallaire et al., 2006). In addition, Veenstra et al. (2005) found many bullies and bullying victims had experienced more parental rejection than had children who were not involved in bullying. Furthermore, Blankemeyer, Flannery, and Vazsonyi (2002) argued that teacher–student relationships and school adjustment, school achievement, peer acceptance, and school engagement are all significantly associated. They also found that children who do not have a positive relationship with their teachers are less likely to enjoy school and are more likely to avoid going to school than children who have a positive relationship with teachers.

Despite the documented importance of parent–child and teacher–student relationships in the Western world, only a few studies have looked at these issues outside that region. Moreover, few studies have looked simultaneously at the impact of perceived teacher acceptance and perceived parental acceptance on youth’s psychological adjustment and school conduct. These studies are the focus of this meta-analysis. More specifically, the objective of this meta-analysis is to address two questions: (a) To what extent are boys’ and girls’ perceptions of teacher acceptance related cross-culturally to their psychological adjustment and school conduct? (b) To what extent are boys’ and girls’ perceptions of maternal and paternal acceptance related cross-culturally to their psychological adjustment and school conduct?

Method

Selection of Studies

To generate a pool of potentially usable articles, we adopted multiple retrieval strategies, as recommended by Johnson and Eagly (2000). These strategies use both electronic databases and manual methods. More specifically, we systematically reviewed past literature, from 2005 through September 2013. The start date of 2005 was selected because it was known to be the earliest date when all relevant studies met the selection criteria for this study, as specified below (Rohner, 2010a). Search for relevant studies was carried out on PsycARTICLES and PsycNET databases, Dissertation Abstracts International (DAI), National Council on Family Relations, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Social Science Index, Sociological Abstracts (SOCA), Anthropological Literature, Child Development Abstracts, and Social Work Abstracts. Also, studies archived in the Ronald and Nancy Rohner Center for the Study of Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection at the University of Connecticut were sought using these keywords: “perceived parental acceptance,” “perceived teacher acceptance,” “school conduct,” and “psychological adjustment.”

Moreover, ancestral published materials referenced in other publications were sought. Unpublished studies were also sought because published research tends to be biased in favor of significant results (Wolf, 1986). Conference proceedings from the International Congress on Interpersonal Acceptance Rejection (ICIAR) were also used as sources for relevant studies. Most importantly, we collected published studies from the special issue of the journal Cross-Cultural Research (Rohner, 2010b) on teacher and parental acceptance–rejection.

Selection Criteria

To be included in the meta-analysis, studies had to meet four criteria. That is, they had to

be empirical studies investigating relationships between perceived parental and teacher acceptance, children’s psychological adjustment, and school conduct;

use the only known measures described below that are explicitly designed to assess both perceived parental and teacher acceptance–rejection and youth’s psychological adjustment and school conduct as defined in IPARTheory. These measures included the child version of the Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire (child PARQ: Mother and Father; Rohner, 2005a) for mothers and fathers, the child version of the Personality Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ; Rohner & Khaleque, 2005), the Teacher Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire (TARQ; Rohner, 2005b), and the Teacher’s Evaluation of Student’s Conduct (TESC; Rohner, 2005c). These measures are described later.

report effect sizes using Pearson correlation coefficients; and

be in the English language with full-text availability.

Coding of Studies

We coded the following information from each study: (a) sample size, (b) country where the study was conducted, (c) mean age and age range of participants, (d) number of participating males and females, (e) measures used to assess key variables, (f) effect sizes, and (g) the publication status of the study (i.e., whether the study was published or unpublished).

Study Sample

A total of nine studies met the selection criteria. Among these, six were published and three were unpublished. These nine studies included 2,422 respondents (1,105 males and 1,317 females). Respondents ranged in age from 9 through 18 years (M = 13 years). The meta-analysis consisted of respondents from 12 countries including Bangladesh, Colombia, Estonia, Finland, India, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Pakistan, Puerto-Rico, Turkey, and the United States. Specific details and the demographic characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 1. Studies included in the meta-analysis are marked with an asterisk in the References.

Table 1.

Demographic Data of the Studies.

			Gender		Age
Author (year)	Published/unpublished	N	Male (n)	Female (n)	M	Range	Measures	Country
Ahmed, Rohner, and Carrasco (2012)	p	249	96	153	16	13-18	child PARQ/C: Mother; child PARQ/C: Father; child TARQ/C; child PAQ	Kuwait
Ali (2013)	u	300	150	150	13	11-15	child PARQ/C: Mother; child PARQ/C: Father; child TARQ/C; child PAQ; TESC; GPA	Pakistan
Khaleque (2014)	u	565	242	323	13	10-16	child PARQ/C: Mother; child PARQ/C: Father; child TARQ/C; child PAQ	Multi-national^a
Khan, Haynes, Armstrong, and Rohner (2010)	p	362	174	188	13	12-16	child TARQ/C; child PARQ/C: Mother (short form); child PARQ/C: Father (short form); TESC; GPA	United States
Malik and Ranjha (2013)	u	100	50	50	11	9-14	child TARQ/C; child PAQ; TESC	Pakistan
Parmar and Rohner (2010)	p	217	102	115	14	12-16	child PARQ/C: Mother; child PARQ/C: Father; child PAQ; child TARQ/C; TESC	India
Rohner, Khaleque, Elias, and Sultana (2010)	p	200	89	111	13	12-15	child PARQ/C: Mother; child PARQ/C: Father; child PAQ; child TARQ/C (short form); TESC	Bangladesh
Rohner, Parmar, and Ibrahim (2010)	p	205	93	112	11	10-13	child PARQ/C: Mother; child PARQ/C: Father; child PAQ; child TARQ/C; TESC	Kuwait
Tulviste and Rohner (2010)	p	224	109	115	12	11-14	child PARQ/C: Mother; child PARQ/C: Father; child TARQ/C; child PAQ; TESC; GPA	Estonia

Note. Data from the control scale on the PARQ/C and the TARQ/C were not used in this meta-analysis. Child PARQ/C: Mother = child version of Parental Acceptance–Rejection/Control Questionnaire for Mothers; child PARQ/C: Father = child version of Parental Acceptance–Rejection/Control Questionnaire for Fathers; child TARQ/C = Teacher Acceptance–Rejection/Control Questionnaire; child/PAQ = child Personality Assessment Questionnaire; TESC = Teacher’s Evaluation of Student’s Conduct; GPA = grade point average; p = published; u = unpublished.

Bangladesh, Colombia, Estonia, Finland, India, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Puerto-Rico, Turkey, and the United States.

Meta-Analytic Procedures

Effect size calculations

Effect size in meta-analyses can be computed by various methods such as Pearson’s r and Cohen’s d. The true population effect size of a relationship is estimated by converting individual effect sizes into a common metric and then calculating the weighted average effect by using sample size as the weight. Because all effect sizes in our study were based on Pearson’s r, the computational method recommended by Rosenthal (1994) was used. To address the problem of skewness that tends to result from increases in the magnitude of correlations, we used Fisher’s z transformation (Fisher, 1928), as suggested by Rosenthal (1994). That is, we converted the rs to z scores, computed their unweighted means, and then back converted the zs to rs. Following recommendations by Hedges and Olkin (1985), we also computed the weighted mean effect sizes by adjusting the z scores in proportion to the sample sizes. We then back converted the zs to corresponding rs (weighted effect sizes).

Heterogeneity in effect sizes

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

Fail-safe N

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

Measures

All the studies in this meta-analysis used the (a) child PARQ: Mother and Father, (b) child PAQ, (c) child TARQ, and (d) TESC. Rohner and Khaleque (2005) provide extensive evidence supporting the conclusion that these measures are reliable and valid for use in cross-cultural research.

Child PARQ: Mother and Father

The mother and father versions of the child PARQ are self-report measures consisting of 60 items each designed to assess children’s perceptions of maternal and paternal acceptance. The two versions are the same except for reference to “mother’s” behavior versus “father’s” behavior. Both versions consist of the same four scales measuring children’s perceptions of maternal or paternal warmth/affection, hostility/aggression, indifference/neglect, and undifferentiated rejection. Sample items on the mother version of the child PARQ include “My mother makes me feel wanted and needed” (perceived warmth/affection); “My mother goes out of her way to hurt my feelings” (perceived hostility/aggression); “My mother ignores me as long as I do not do anything to bother her” (perceived indifference/neglect); “My mother does not really love me” (perceived undifferentiated rejection).

Children respond to items such as these on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 4 = almost always true to 1= almost never true. Scores on these scales are summed after reverse scoring the warmth/affection scale to create a measure of perceived coldness and lack of affection. Possible scores range from a low of 60 (maximum perceived acceptance) to a high of 240 (maximum perceived rejection). Both versions are conceptually designed in such a way that scores at or above 150 reveal the perception of qualitatively more parental rejection than acceptance, though scores between 140 and 149 reveal the experience of serious rejection. Extensive evidence reported in Rohner and Khaleque (2005) and elsewhere documents the reliability and validity of the PARQ for use in cross-cultural (international) research. Khaleque and Rohner’s (2002) meta-analysis of the reliability of PARQ used in cross-cultural and intracultural studies, for example, revealed that the mean weighted size of coefficient alpha aggregated across all versions of the PARQ was .89.

Child PAQ

The child PAQ contains 42 items that assess the seven personality dispositions most central to IPARTheory’s personality subtheory. These dispositions include hostility and aggression (e.g., “I think about fighting or being mean”), dependence (e.g., “I like my parents to give me a lot of attention”), negative self-esteem (e.g., “When I meet someone I do not know, I think (s)he is better than I am”), negative self-adequacy (e.g., “I think I am a failure”), emotional unresponsiveness (e.g., “It is hard for me to show the way I really feel to someone I like”), emotional instability (e.g., “I am cheerful and happy one minute and gloomy and unhappy the next”); and negative worldview (e.g., “I see the world as a dangerous place”). Children respond to items such as these on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 4 = almost always true of me to 1 = almost never true of me.

Children’s overall self-reported psychological adjustment is assessed by summing the seven scale scores after reverse scoring appropriate items. The higher the score, the higher the level of psychological maladjustment. Specifically, scores of 105 or higher reveal self-reported maladjustment. Scores from 42 through 83 reveal excellent to good self-reported adjustment. The mean weighted alpha coefficient of the PAQ in nine studies internationally was .83 (Khaleque & Rohner, 2002). Additional evidence regarding the reliability and validity of the PAQ is summarized in Rohner and Khaleque (2005).

Child TARQ

The child TARQ is a 24-item adaptation of the standard child PARQ. It asks children to reflect on the level of warmth/affection, hostility/aggression, indifference/neglect, and undifferentiated rejection—and overall acceptance–rejection—they experience at the hands of their classroom teachers. The warmth/affection scale contains eight items; the hostility/aggression scale and the indifference/neglect scale each contain six items; the undifferentiated rejection scale contains four items. Sample items on the questionnaire include “My teacher says nice things about me” (warmth/affection), “My teacher punishes me when (s)he is angry” (hostility/aggression), “My teacher pays no attention to me” (indifference/neglect), “My teacher seems to dislike me” (undifferentiated rejection). Respondents score each item on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 4 = almost always true of me to 1 = almost never true of me.

The higher the total score, the less accepting students perceive their teachers to be. Scores on the measure range from a low of 24 (maximum perceived teacher acceptance) to a high of 96 (maximum perceived teacher rejection). Scores at or above 60 reveal the student’s perception that the teacher is qualitatively more rejecting than accepting, whereas scores between 56 and 59 reveal the perception of serious rejection. Scores between 24 and 48, on the other hand, reveal the perception of substantial teacher acceptance. Coefficient alpha for the total TARQ in six earlier studies spread from .72 to .91, with the exception of .57 in one study (Rohner, 2010b).

TESC

The TESC is an 18-item measure of students’ school conduct problems, as judged by teachers. Sample items include the following: the student “shoves and hit other people,” “refuses to do school work,” and “lies to get out of trouble.” Items such as these are scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale, from 5 = very often to 1 = almost never. Total scores range from a low of 18 (minimal or no conduct problems) to a high of 90 (maximum/serious conduct problems). Scores at or above the midpoint of 54 indicate teachers’ reports of significant conduct problems. Scores between 18 and 32 indicate that the student is rarely seen to be a behavior problem in school; scores between 33 and 47 indicate that the student is occasionally but not often seen to be a behavior problem; scores between 48 and 61 indicate that the student is sometimes seen to be a behavior problem; scores between 62 and 76 indicate that the student is often seen to be a behavior problem; and, scores between 77 and 90 indicate that the student is seen as a serious behavior problem. Prior research has shown the TESC to be reliable and valid for use in cross-cultural research (Rohner, 2005c). Coefficient alpha in five earlier studies, for example, spread from .93 to .97 (Rohner, 2010b).

Results

Results of the meta-analysis are presented in Tables 2 to 6. Table 2 displays overall effect sizes (correlations) for relations between youth’s psychological adjustment and their perceptions of teacher acceptance and parental (maternal and paternal) acceptance. The table also displays overall effect sizes for relations between teachers’ perceptions of students’ school conduct and youth’s perception of teacher and parental acceptance.

Table 2.

Overall Effect Size (r) for Relations Between Youth’s Psychological Adjustment, School Conduct, and Teacher and Parental Acceptance.

	Effect size (r) for teacher acceptance		Effect size (r) for father acceptance		Effect size (r) for mother acceptance
Author (year)	Adjustment	Conduct	Adjustment	Conduct	Adjustment	Conduct
Ahmed, Rohner, and Carrasco (2012)	.50***	—	.58***	—	.50***	—
Ali (2013)	.29**	.18*	.46***	.08	.56***	.04
Khaleque (2014)	.12**	.14**	.07	.01	.09*	.02
Khan, Haynes, Armstrong, and Rohner (2010)	—	.22*	—	.43***	—	.43***
Malik and Ranjha (2013)	.55***	.18*	—	—	—	—
Parmar and Rohner (2010)	.26**	.14*	.32***	.23**	.36***	.25*
Rohner, Khaleque, Elias, and Sultana (2010)	.56***	.06	.38***	.53***	.41***	.11*
Rohner, Parmar, and Ibrahim (2010)	.34**	.12*	.51***	.07	.52***	.12*
Tulviste and Rohner (2010)	.32**	.25**	.48***	.19*	.51***	.13*

Note. Adjustment = Personality Assessment Questionnaire (child PAQ); Conduct = Teacher’s Evaluation of Student’s Conduct (TESC).

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

Table 3.

Effect Size (r) by Gender for Relations Between Youth’s Psychological Adjustment, School Conduct, and Teacher and Parental Acceptance.

	Effect size (r) for teacher acceptance				Effect size (r) for father acceptance				Effect size (r) for mother acceptance
	Adjustment		Conduct		Adjustment		Conduct		Adjustment		Conduct
Author (year)	M	F	M	F	M	F	M	F	M	F	M	F
Ahmed, Rohner, and Carrasco (2012)	.35**	.51***	—	—	.51**	.62***	—	—	.53***	.48**	—	—
Ali (2013)	.13*	.45**	.18*	.17*	.53***	.38**	.16*	.00	.56***	.56***	.16*	.04
Khaleque (2014)	.11	.12*	.14*	.11	.04	.09	.14*	−.14*	.07	.11*	.07	−.13*
Khan, Haynes, Armstrong, and Rohner (2010)	—	—	−.21*	−.23*	—	—	−.14*	−.07	—	—	−.14*	−.07
Malik and Ranjha (2013)	.35*	.67***	.09	.40**	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Parmar and Rohner (2010)	.24*	.28**	.06	−.22*	.30**	.34***	.21*	−.24**	.34***	.37***	.20*	−.29**
Rohner, Khaleque, Elias, and Sultana (2010)	.64***	.49***	−.07	−.06	.46***	.31*	−.19*	.08	.46**	.37**	−.19*	−.04
Rohner, Parmar, and Ibrahim (2010)	.41***	.28**	.18*	.07	.58***	.46***	.01	−.12	.56***	.48***	.07	−.16*
Tulviste and Rohner (2010)	.38***	.30**	.22*	.28**	.44***	.52***	.11	.26*	.50***	.52***	.03	.22*

Note. Adjustment = Personality Assessment Questionnaire (child PAQ); Conduct = Teacher’s Evaluation of Student’s Conduct (TESC); M = Male; F = Female.

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

Table 4.

Summary of Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Students’ Perception of Teacher Acceptance and Students’ Psychological Adjustment and School Conduct, by Gender.

Summary measures	Adjustment			Conduct
Summary measures	Males	Females	Combined	Males	Females	Combined
Mean weighted effect size (r)	.29***	.34***	.32***	.28***	.17**	.22***
95% CI of mean effect size (r)	[.23, .34]	[.29, .39]	[.29, .36]	[.22, .33]	[.11, .23]	[.17, .26]
Total heterogeneity (χ²)	2.17	0.70	3.52	2.00	3.4	6.46
Probability level (p)	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
Fail-safe N	139	176	628	54	90	291
Number of effect sizes (r)	8	8	16	8	8	16
Sum of sample sizes	932	1,123	2,063	1,002	1,158	2,160

Note. Adjustment = Personality Assessment Questionnaire (child PAQ); Conduct = Teacher’s Evaluation of Student’s Conduct (TESC); CI = confidence interval; ns = not significant.

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

Table 5.

Summary of Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Youth’s Perceptions of Paternal Acceptance and Youth’s Adjustment and School Conduct, by Gender.

Summary measures	Adjustment			Conduct
Summary measures	Males	Females	Combined	Males	Females	Combined
Mean weighted effect size (r)	.38***	.36***	.37***	.14**	.12**	.13**
95% CI of mean effect size (r)	[.32, .44]	[.30, .41]	[.33, .40]	[.08, .20]	[.06, .18]	[.09, .17]
Total heterogeneity (χ²)	6.39	3.09	6.67	3.23	7.29	8.48
Probability level (p)	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
Fail-safe N	107	112	446	37	36	151
Number of effect sizes (r)	7	7	14	7	7	14
Sum of sample sizes	882	1,081	1,963	952	1,108	2,060

Note. Adjustment = Personality Assessment Questionnaire (child PAQ); Conduct = Teacher’s Evaluation of Student’s Conduct (TESC); CI = confidence interval; ns = not significant.

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

Table 6.

Summary of Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Youth’s Perceptions of Maternal Acceptance and Youth’s Adjustment and Conduct, by Gender.

Summary measures	Adjustment			Conduct
Summary measures	Males	Females	Combined	Males	Females	Combined
Mean weighted effect size (r)	.40***	.38***	.39***	.12*	.13**	.13**
95% CI of mean effect size (r)	[.35, .45]	[.33, .43]	[.34, .42]	[.06, .18]	[.07, .19]	[.08, .17]
Total heterogeneity (χ²)	2.58	6.02	7.62	1.16	5.14	9.05
Probability level (p)	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
Fail-safe N	123	111	533	34	25	147
Number of effect sizes (r)	7	7	14	7	7	14
Sum of sample sizes	882	1,081	1,963	952	1,108	2,060

Note. Adjustment = Personality Assessment Questionnaire (child PAQ); Conduct = Teacher’s Evaluation of Student’s Conduct (TESC); CI = confidence interval; ns = not significant.

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

Table 3 shows that the study yielded a total of 16 effect sizes dealing with correlations between teacher acceptance and students’ psychological adjustment. Eight of these effect sizes deal with males’ adjustment and eight deal with females’ adjustment. The study also yielded 14 effect sizes dealing with correlations between paternal acceptance and students’ adjustment. Seven of these effect sizes deal with males’ adjustment and seven deal with females’ adjustment. In addition, the study yielded 14 effect sizes dealing with correlations between maternal acceptance and students’ adjustment. Seven of these effect sizes deal with males’ adjustment and seven deal with females’ adjustment. It also yielded 16 effect sizes for teacher acceptance and students’ school conduct. Eight effect sizes deal with males’ adjustment and eight deal with females’ adjustment. The relation between paternal acceptance and school conduct yielded seven effect sizes for both males and females.

Table 4 provides a summary of the meta-analysis dealing with relationships between perceived teacher acceptance and youth’s psychological adjustment and school conduct, by gender of student. The table shows that the mean weighted effect size for the relation between perceived teacher acceptance and psychological adjustment was .32 for males and females combined. The mean weighted effect size for males only, however, was .29, and for females it was .34. These correlations approach the range of large effect sizes according to Cohen’s criteria (Cohen, 1969, 1992). Heterogeneity test results showed no significant outliers. Fail-safe N test results showed that 139 and 176 additional studies, all with non-significant results, would be required to nullify the conclusion that teacher acceptance is significantly associated with the psychological adjustment of males and females, respectively. Both fail-safe numbers are higher than the critical limit proposed by Rosenthal (1995).

Table 4 also displays the relation between teacher acceptance and youth’s school conduct. It shows that the mean weighted effect size for youth (both males and females combined) was .22. The mean weighted effect size for males only, however, was .28, and for females it was .17. Fail-safe N was 54 and 90 for males and females, respectively. These results indicate robust findings as the fail-safe numbers are well above Rosenthal’s critical value. To determine the mean differences between boys and girls we used Cohen’s (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) formula. Results showed that the difference was significant (z = 2.7, p = .001). That is, the correlation between school conduct and perceived teacher acceptance was significantly higher for males than it was for females. All effect sizes were significant.

Table 5 contains results of analyses for relationships between perceived paternal acceptance and youth’s psychological adjustment and school conduct. The table shows that the mean weighted effect size between perceived paternal acceptance and youth’s psychological adjustment was .37 for males and females combined. This is a large effect size according to Cohen’s criteria. The mean weighted effect size for males only was .38, and for females it was .36. Fail-safe N is 446 for both males and females combined. This number indicates that findings are robust and above Rosenthal’s critical value.

In addition, Table 5 reveals that the mean weighted effect size for the correlation between school conduct and perceived paternal acceptance was .13 for males and females combined. For males, however, it was .14, and for females it was .12. The fail-safe N test showed that an additional 151 studies—all with non-significant results—would be needed to reject the conclusion that perceived paternal acceptance has a significant relationship with teacher’s evaluation of students’ school conduct. Furthermore, heterogeneity test results showed that there was no significant heterogeneity in the sample.

Finally, Table 6 displays the mean weighted effect size for the relationship between perceived maternal acceptance and youth’s psychological adjustment and school conduct. The table shows that the relation between perceived maternal acceptance and youth’s psychological adjustment has an overall weighted effect size of .39, whereas it was .40 for males and .38 for females. These correlations approach the range of large effect sizes according to Cohen’s criteria. Heterogeneity test results showed no significant outliers. Males’ and females’ perceptions of maternal acceptance were significantly related to teachers’ reports of student’s conduct. Fail-safe N results showed that an additional 147 studies—all with non-significant results—would be required to nullify the conclusion that perceived maternal acceptance has a significant relationship with teachers’ reports of youth’s (both males and females) school conduct.

Discussion

This cross-cultural meta-analytic review sheds new light on the emergent study of parent–child–teacher relationships. In particular, it helps provide answers about the pancultural generalizability of two questions derived from IPARTheory. These questions are as follows: (a) To what extent are boys’ and girls’ perceptions of teacher acceptance related cross-culturally to their psychological adjustment and school conduct? (b) To what extent are boys’ and girls’ perceptions of maternal and paternal acceptance related cross-culturally to their psychological adjustment and school conduct? These questions are derivative from IPARTheory’s central postulate that the psychological adjustment and behavioral dispositions of children everywhere—regardless of differences in race, language, culture, gender, and other such defining attributes—are affected by their perceptions of acceptance or rejection by the people most important to them, including parents, teachers, and other classes of attachment figures.

Findings from this meta-analysis support this postulate in that they reveal that both parental (maternal and paternal) as well as teacher acceptance correlate significantly with youth’s psychological adjustment and school conduct in every nation studied. The fact that there was no significant heterogeneity in this study adds to global evidence provided by Rohner (2010b) that teacher acceptance as well as parental acceptance tend to have a significant association with youth’s psychological adjustment as well as school conduct everywhere. In addition, evidence provided here shows that the relationship between teacher acceptance and youth’s school conduct tends worldwide to be stronger for males than for females. This conclusion supports the common Western assumption that boys often tend more than girls to present behavior problems in school (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Hamre & Pianta, 2001).

One should be cautious about overstating results found in this meta-analysis in view of its limitations. More specifically, studies included in this review are cross-sectional and correlational. Thus, it is not possible to make causal inferences about the direction of relationships between parental and teacher acceptance, and youth’s psychological adjustment or school conduct. Firm inferences about causality must await longitudinal studies in a sampling of sociocultural settings worldwide. Another limitation of the study lies in the fact that self-reports were used to assess the association between parental and teacher acceptance and psychological adjustment. School conduct, however, was evaluated by teachers. Furthermore, even though results of these analyses suggest the possibility of a pancultural association between perceived teacher and parental acceptance, and students’ conduct in school, the magnitude of the associations tends to be modest, with correlations spreading from .12 through .28. Thus, clearly a great part of the variance in children’s school conduct is to be explained by factors not tested in this meta-analysis. Future research will probably show that children’s peer relationships and other such factors also account cross-culturally for significant portions of the variance in children’s school conduct.

Despite these limitations, findings in this meta-analysis appear to be robust and stable across cultures, genders, geographical boundaries, and other such factors. The meta-analysis provides strong overall support for IPARTheory’s postulate about the pancultural association between parental and teacher acceptance. Thus educators, administrators, researchers, clinicians, and other professionals can probably feel confident in developing policies and practice applications based on evidence provided here.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Author Biographies

Sumbleen Ali, MS, is a graduate of Punjab University in Pakistan and was a research scholar at the Ronald and Nancy Rohner Center for the Study of Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection in Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Connecticut. Her research interests deal with meta-analysis, especially, on interpersonal acceptance and rejection by attachment figures among children and adolescents.

Abdul Khaleque obtained BA Honors in philosophy from the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh; MSc in applied psychology from the University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan; MA in human development and family studies from the University of Connecticut, United States; and PhD in psychology from the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. He is currently working as a senior scientist at the Ronald and Nancy Rohner Center for the Study of Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection, University of Connecticut, United States. He also works as a part-time faculty in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Connecticut. He has published about 100 research articles, 30 book chapters, and authored 12 books in psychology and human development. His current research interests include cross-cultural parenting and child development, intimate adult relationships and psychological adjustment, meta-analysis of cross-cultural research for testing the central postulates of IPARTheory, and interpersonal acceptance–rejection and life span development.

Ronald P. Rohner is professor emeritus of human development and family studies and of anthropology at the University of Connecticut, United States. There he is also director of the Rohner Center for the Study of Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection, and he is executive director of the International Society for Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection (ISIPAR). He is also the recipient of the American Psychological Association’s Award for Distinguished Contributions to the International Advancement of Psychology, as well as of the award for being the Outstanding International Psychologist from the United States in 2008. Beyond this, he is founding president of ISIPAR and a former president of the Society for Cross-Cultural Research. He also served on the Executive Council of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology. In addition, he is a fellow of the American Psychological Association and of the American Psychological Society, and he is a fellow and distinguished member of the American Anthropological Association. Finally, he is author, coauthor, or editor of 17 books and special issues of journals and of approximately 200 articles, chapters, and other publications and electronic media.

References

Ahmed

R. A.

Rohner

R. P.

Carrasco

M. A.

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

Comunian

A. L.

Brown

C. M.

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

Ahnert

Milatz

Kappler

Fischer

(2013). The impact of teacher–child relationships on child cognitive performance as explored by a priming paradigm. Developmental Psychology, 49, 554-567.

*Ali

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

Baumrind

(1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95.

Birch

S. H.

Ladd

G. W.

(1998). Children’s interpersonal behaviors and the teacher-child relationship. Developmental Psychology, 34, 934-946.

Blankemeyer

Flannery

D. J.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

(2002). The role of aggression and social competence in children’s perception of the child-teacher relationship. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 293-304.

Bowes

Arseneault

Maughan

Taylor

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

(2009). School, neighborhood, and family factors are associated with children’s bullying involvement: A nationally representative longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 48, 545-553.

Bowlby

(1958). The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 39, 1-23.

Burchinal

M. R.

Peisner-Feinberg

Pianta

R. C.

Howes

(2002). Development of academic skills from preschool through second grade: Family and classroom predictors of developmental trajectories. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 415-436.

10.

Cavell

T. A.

Hughes

(1999). Secondary prevention as context for assessing change processes in aggressive children. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 199-235.

11.

Cohen

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

12.

Cohen

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

13.

Cohen

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

14.

Cooper

H. M.

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

15.

Cornelius-White

(2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77, 113-143.

16.

Dadds

M. R.

Maujean

Fraser

J. A.

(2003). Parenting and conduct problems in children: Australian data and psychometric properties of the Alabama parenting questionnaire. Australian Psychologist, 38, 238-241.

17.

Dallaire

D. H.

Pineda

A. Q.

Cole

D. A.

Ciesla

J. A.

Jacquez

LaGrange

Bruce

A. E.

(2006). Relation of positive and negative parenting to children’s depressive symptoms. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 313-322.

18.

Durlak

J. A.

Lipsey

M. W.

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

19.

Fisher

R. A.

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

20.

Hamre

B. K.

Pianta

R. C.

(2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625-638.

21.

Hamre

B. K.

Pianta

R. C.

(2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76, 949-967.

22.

Hedges

L. V.

Olkin

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

23.

Johnson

B. T.

Eagly

A. H.

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

H. T.

Judd

C. M.

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

24.

Khaleque

(2012). Perceived parental warmth, and children’s psychological adjustment, and personality dispositions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22, 297-306.

25.

*Khaleque

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

26.

Khaleque

Rohner

R. P.

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

27.

*Khan

Haynes

Armstrong

Rohner

R. P.

(2010). Perceived teacher acceptance, parental acceptance, academic achievement, and school conduct of middle school students in the Mississippi Delta Region of the United States [Special issue]. Cross-Cultural Research, 44, 283-294.

28.

Ladd

G. W.

Birch

S. H.

Buhs

E. S.

(1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70, 1373-1400.

29.

*Malik

Ranjha

A. Y.

(2013). Teachers’ acceptance-rejection/control as predictor of psychological adjustment and academic achievement in school children. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Government College University, Lahore, Pakistan.

30.

*Parmar

Rohner

R. P.

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

31.

Pianta

R. C.

(1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

32.

Pianta

R. C.

La Paro

K. M.

Payne

Cox

Bradley

(2002). The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, and school characteristics and child outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 225-238.

33.

Rohner

R. P.

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

34.

Rohner

R. P.

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

35.

Rohner

R. P.

(2004). The parental “acceptance-rejection syndrome”: Universal correlates of perceived rejection. American Psychologist, 59, 827-840.

36.

Rohner

R. P.

(2005a). Parental acceptance-rejection questionnaire (PARQ): Test manual. In Rohner

R. P.

Khaleque

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

37.

Rohner

R. P.

(2005b). Teacher acceptance-rejection/control questionnaire (TARQ): Test manual. In Rohner

R. P.

Khaleque

(Eds.), Handbook for the study of parental acceptance and rejection (4th ed., pp. 327-334). Storrs, CT: Rohner Research Publications.

38.

Rohner

R. P.

(2005c). Teacher’s evaluation of student conduct. In Rohner

R. P.

Khaleque

(Eds.), Handbook for the study of parental acceptance and rejection (4th ed., pp. 327-334). Storrs, CT: Rohner Research Publications.

39.

Rohner

R. P.

(2010a). Perceived teacher acceptance, parental acceptance, and the adjustment, achievement, and behavior of school-going youths internationally [Special issue]. Cross-Cultural Research, 44, 211-221.

40.

Rohner

R. P.

(Ed.). (2010b). Teacher acceptance, parental acceptance and the adjustment, achievement, and behavior of school-going youth [Special issue]. Cross-Cultural Research, 44, 211-309.

41.

Rohner

R. P.

Khaleque

(2005). Personality assessment questionnaire (PAQ): Test manual. In Rohner

R. P.

Khaleque

(Eds.), Handbook for the study of parental acceptance and rejection (4th ed., pp. 187-226). Storrs, CT: Rohner Research Publications.

42.

Rohner

R. P.

Khaleque

Cournoyer

D. E.

(2012). Introduction to parental acceptance-rejection theory, methods, evidence, and implications. Ronald and Nancy Rohner Center for the Study of Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection, University of Connecticut. Available from http://www.cspar.uconn.edu

43.

*Rohner

R. P.

Khaleque

Elias

M. S.

Sultana

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

44.

*Rohner

R. P.

Parmar

Ibrahim

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

45.

Roorda

D. L.

Koomen

H. M. Y.

Spilt

J. L.

Oort

F. J.

(2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81, 493-529.

46.

Rosenthal

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

47.

Rosenthal

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

48.

Rosenthal

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

Hedges

L. V.

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

49.

Rosenthal

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

50.

Santrock

J. W.

(2002). Life-span development (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

51.

*Tulviste

Rohner

R. P.

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

52.

Veenstra

Lindenberg

Oldehinkel

A. J.

De Winter

A. F.

Verhulst

F. C.

Ormel

(2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: A comparison of bullies, victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41, 672-682.

53.

Wolf

F. M.

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