Content uploaded by Suniya S. Luthar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Suniya S. Luthar on Nov 03, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running Head: IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
When Mothers and Fathers Are Seen as Disproportionately Valuing Achievements:
Implications for Adjustment Among Upper Middle Class Youth
In press: Journal of Youth and Adolescence
Pre-publication version
For published version, please contact Lucia Ciciolla
Lucia Ciciollaab, Alexandria S. Curleea, Jason Karageorgec, & Suniya S. Luthara
aArizona State University
bOklahoma State University
c Psychologist in Private Practice, San Francisco, CA
We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Masters and Doctoral students in Luthar’s prior
lab at Teachers College, Columbia University, and funding by the National Institutes of Health
(R01DA014385; R13MH082592). Sincere thanks also to all the participants in this study.
Address correspondence to:
Lucia Ciciolla, Ph.D.
Psychology Department, Oklahoma State University
408 North Murray Hall
Stillwater, Oklahoma, 74078-3064
Email: lucia.ciciolla@okstate.edu
1
2
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
When Mothers and Fathers Are Seen as Disproportionately Valuing Achievements:
Implications for Adjustment Among Upper Middle Class Youth
Abstract
High achievement expectations and academic pressure from parents have been implicated in rising levels of stress
and reduced well-being among adolescents. In this study of affluent, middle school youth, we examined how
perceptions of parents’ emphases on achievement (relative to prosocial behavior) influenced youth’s psychological
adjustment and school performance, and examined perceived parental criticism as a possible moderator of this
association. The data were collected from 506 (50% female) middle school students from a predominately white,
upper middle class community. Students reported their perceptions of parents’ values by rank ordering a list of
achievement- and prosocial-oriented goals based on what they believed was most valued by their mothers and
fathers for them (the child) to achieve. The data also included students’ reports of perceived parental criticism,
internalizing symptoms, externalizing symptoms, and self-esteem, as well as school-based data on grade point
average and teacher-reported classroom behavior. Person-based analyses revealed six distinct latent classes based on
perceptions of both mother and father emphases on achievement. Class comparisons showed a consistent pattern of
healthier child functioning, including higher school performance, higher self-esteem, and lower psychological
symptoms, in association with low to neutral parental achievement emphasis, whereas poorer child functioning was
associated with high parental achievement emphasis. In variable-based analyses, interaction effects showed elevated
maladjustment when high maternal achievement emphasis coexisted with high (but not low) perceived parental
criticism. Results of the study suggest that to foster early adolescents’ well-being in affluent school settings, parents
focus on prioritizing intrinsic, prosocial values that promote affiliation and community, at least as much as, or more
than, they prioritize academic performance and external achievement; and strive to limit the amount of criticism and
pressure they place on their children.
Keywords: Achievement, Parental values, Child adjustment, Parental criticism
3
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
Introduction
Today’s young people face more competition for academic and career achievement than any previous
generation, a reality that includes declining college acceptance rates (NCES, Snyder & Dillow, 2015; U.S. News &
World Report, 2014) and rising rates of underemployment and unemployment for recent graduates (Abel, Dietz, &
Su, 2014). Parents, all too aware of the competition and high stakes associated with college admissions, are thought
to contribute to the mounting achievement pressure on children by raising academic expectations and emphasizing
excellence (Garn, Matthews, & Jolly, 2010; Grolnick & Seal, 2008; Mudrak, 2011). In light of this pressure to
achieve, it is not surprising that among the weightiest stressors reported by contemporary youth are: doing well in
school and getting into college (American Psychological Association, 2009; Leonard, Gwadz, Ritchie, Linick,
Cleland, et al., 2015).
The pressure to achieve, along with other extrinsic motivations governed by external rewards and sources
of approval such as the quest for good grades, acceptance to top universities, and financial success, have been
associated with elevated levels of maladjustment, chronic stress, decreased well-being, and inconsistent academic
engagement (Garn & Jolly, 2014; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Leonard et al., 2015). According to Self-Determination
Theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000), extrinsic motivations are generally viewed as counter to intrinsic ones, which
are pursued for their own sake and oriented toward personal growth, interpersonal intimacy, and community (Deci
& Ryan, 2000; Kasser, 2002). Intrinsic goals are thought to satisfy basic psychological needs of relatedness,
competence, and growth, promoting overall well-being. For example, high levels of prosocial behavior, that is,
intrinsically-motivated behavior intended to benefit other people (Beutel & Johnson, 2004; Zaki & Mitchell, 2011),
has been linked to lower levels of externalizing and internalizing symptoms in children (Flouri & Samardi, 2016;
Flynn, Ehrenreich, Beron, & Underwood, 2015; Zimmer-Gembeck, Hunter, & Pronk, 2007), as well as to higher
academic achievement and greater subjective well-being (Chen, Rubin, & Li, 1997).
By contrast, extrinsic motivations are thought to function more as a substitute or stand-in for true need
satisfaction, and are often considered a means to an end (Grouzet, Kasser, Ahuvia, Dols, Kim, et al., 2005; Kasser,
2002; Lekes, Hope, Gouveia, Koestner, & Philippe, 2012). For example, the pursuit of extrinsic goals like wealth or
success may not have a meaningful or lasting effect on one’s level of happiness because these pursuits do not satisfy
basic psychological needs, tend to foster excessive ego involvement and social comparison, and may even “crowd
out” other (more intrinsic) pursuits likely to promote well-being (Dittmar, Bond, Hurst, & Kasser, 2014; Kasser,
4
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
2002). When the balance tips disproportionately to extrinsic goals relative to intrinsic ones, there is increased risk
for personal maladjustment, including impairments in mental health, physical health, and social functioning (Kasser,
2002; Kasser & Ryan, 1996).
Balancing intrinsic and extrinsic values and goals can be especially challenging for students in high
pressure environments, as high emphasis on academic achievement, for example, may come at the cost of
connection to others. Studies with adults have shown that when people focus intensively on maximizing their own
goals, they feel increasingly disconnected from the group around them (Myers & Diener, 1995). This effect may be
particularly salient when considering that students often compete directly against their peers, and at times friends,
for coveted awards and admissions to top-tier institutions. In achievement-oriented, upper middle class communities
especially, academic pressure is often accompanied by a push for “resume-building,” wherein students strive to
outshine their peers through stellar academic and extra-curricular accomplishments (Luthar, Barkin, & Crossman,
2013), a push clearly reflected in the rapid spread of expensive college preparation programs and professional
consultants enlisted by parents to give students an edge on their college applications (see also “concerted
cultivation,” Lareau, 2002; Pappano, 2015). Unfortunately, these pursuits leave little time for building social
relationships with peers, and may even sabotage relationships as students become increasingly focused on besting
others rather than forging close, mutually trusting friendships (Lyman & Luthar, 2014).
Notably, these pressures set in several years before college admissions actually occur. Despite recent
urging by elite institutions to “bring summer back” and reduce the race for extracurricular activities (Fitzsimmons,
McGrath, & Ducey, 2011), the pressure of college admissions is encroaching on the middle school years, with
advisors encouraging parents to start college preparation as early as grade 6 (Ma, 2012; Pappano, 2015). The
emphasis on extrinsic goals and pressure to achieve may be particularly important during this stage of early
adolescence when youth are discovering and developing their own identities and value systems (Erikson, 1968;
Meeus, van, Keijsers, Schwartz, & Branje, 2010). Values developed during this time may form the foundation of
lifelong goals and could affect multiple aspects of future well-being (Bosma & Kunnen, 2001; Phinney & Goossens,
1996).
Perceptions of Parents’ Values: Mothers and Fathers
As with other aspects of children’s attitudes and value systems, the relative orientation toward extrinsic
versus intrinsic values is shaped to large degree by what they see at home (Gniewosz & Noack, 2012). Part of the
5
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
transmission of values includes children’s perceptions of the importance their parents place on certain goals over
others, and subsequent identification with and emulation of these (Gniewosz & Noack, 2012). For example, Heady,
Muffels, and Wagner (2012) found that parental values and behaviors were transmitted to and adopted by their adult
children. More than that, parental values that prioritized prosocial behavior and family relatedness over materialistic
ones emphasizing wealth and career success were found to positively influence adult children’s life satisfaction,
even when adult children had been living outside of the family home for a number of years.
There is reason to believe that, regardless of what parents report their values to be, it is what children
perceive and understand about their parents’ values that may be most important to shaping their own values and
behaviors (Dogan, Conger, Kim, & Masyn, 2007), and possibly their psychosocial well-being. For example, parents
may advocate the importance of “being kind to others” to their children, but in daily practice focus their attention
and expectations on high achievement and status, thus communicating to children that the latter are more highly
valued than kindness or social relatedness. Further, there is evidence that well-being suffers when individuals are
encouraged to engage in more extrinsic than intrinsic pursuits (Lekes et al., 2012), suggesting, again, that perceived
parental values may have notable influence on children’s well-being.
Parental Criticism
One parental behavior that has been implicated as important for children’s well-being, as well as associated
with high-pressure academic culture, is parental criticism (Luthar, Barkin, & Crossman, 2013). It is possible that
when parents are perceived as overly valuing children’s achievements, this may at times be communicated to, and
internalized by children, as excessively high performance standards and critical performance evaluations (Frost,
Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Luthar & Latendresse, 2005b), and this in turn could impair functioning
(Horwitz, Marceau, Narusyte, Ganiban, Spotts, et al., 2015). Notably, harsh and controlling parenting and parental
expressions of negative-dominant emotions (i.e., contempt), tend to be associated with greater extrinsic orientation
toward material achievement and with poorer psychosocial outcomes (Dunsmore, Bradburn, Costanzo, &
Fredrickson, 2009; Ginsburg & Bronstein, 1993). In the current study, therefore, it was hypothesized that children
who perceived their parents as highly achievement-oriented would also report high levels of parental criticism. Of
course, it is possible for parents to emphasize and encourage achievement without being critical of children and that,
without accompanying criticism, parental achievement-orientation may have little association, or could actually be
beneficial, for children’s functioning (Cheung & Pomerantz, 2015; Spera, 2005).
6
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
Role of Child and Parent Gender
Although parents in heteronormative, intact families may share overlapping family experiences, each has a
separate relationship with his or her children as a mother or as a father. Therefore, it is important to take into account
perceptions of each parent’s values individually and, additionally, consider the impact that different combinations of
value emphasis might have on children’s adjustment (Kerig, 1995). It is quite possible that within families, children
observe differences in the degrees to which their mothers, as opposed to their fathers, value “getting ahead” versus
“getting along.” As mothers have long been considered children’s primary socialization agents, particularly in
regard to shaping values (Grusec, Chaparro, Johnston, & Sherman, 2013), there is reason to believe that perceptions
of mothers’ values may be more influential on children than perceptions of fathers’ values (Starrels, 1994), as for
example, closeness to mothers tends to have stronger associations with the adjustment profiles of upper middle class
youth than closeness to fathers (see Luthar et al., 2013). Furthermore, there may be cumulative risks to children’s
well-being when both parents, as opposed to one, are perceived as valuing achievement over prosocial behavior.
Daughters and sons may also perceive the values of their parents differently, and in particular, daughters
may respond differently when mothers are perceived to highly emphasize achievement. Today’s girls, especially
those from affluent communities, face steep demands for attractiveness, popularity, and “feminine” standards of
kindness and politeness, in addition to academic and athletic achievements (Hinshaw & Kranz, 2009; Luthar &
Goldstein, 2008). These demands may also reflect values held by their mothers – women with high expectations
about their roles as mothers, wives, and often career-women, consistently striving for perfection (Slaughter, 2012),
which may be more influential on daughters than sons, as seen in previous work on parental achievement emphasis
(Luthar, Shoum, & Brown, 2006; Luthar et al., 2013).
Current Study
In this study, in view of the literature summarized, we examined the influence of perceived parental values,
as well as perceived criticism, on children’s well-being in an upper middle class, middle school sample. The current
study was designed to address several gaps in the existing literature, as described more fully in the ensuing
discussions. First, there is little research that reports on the intergenerational influence of extrinsic versus intrinsic
parental value orientation on children’s adjustment and well-being (Heady et al., 2012), and the current work
demonstrates how salient perceptions of parental values can be on children’s day-to-day functioning (Dogan et al.,
2007). Second, the current study entailed a multi-method, multi-informant approach to assessing youth adjustment
7
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
and well-being, to gain a better understanding of the functional domains most vulnerable to perceived achievement
pressure. Third, the data analytic plan used both person-based and variable-based models that enable the unique
examination of joint and independent contributions of mothers and fathers to children’s adjustment. Finally, much of
the extant research on children from upper middle class communities has focused on high school aged youth (Luthar
et al., 2013; Luthar & Becker, 2002), when there is growing evidence that achievement pressure may already be felt
by grade 6 (Ma, 2012; Pappano, 2015). Thus, the focus on early adolescence and the transition to middle school for
youth in an upper middle class community captures a developmental range important to identity formation and the
establishment of a system of values that has significant implications for future adaptation (Erikson, 1968; Meeus,
van, Keijsers, Schwartz, & Branje, 2010; Steinberg & Silk, 2002).
Amplifying on the first of the aforementioned issues, our primary aims were to examine associations
between perceived mothers and fathers’ emphases on children’s achievements (relative to prosocial behaviors), in
relationship to diverse child adjustment outcomes. To examine perceptions of parental value-orientation, we asked
children to rank order the top three of six specific intrinsic or extrinsic goals that they believed were most important
to their parents, a method commonly employed in research on values (DeCarlo & Luthar, 2000; Luthar & Becker,
2002; Rodriguez & Olswang, 2003). The resulting ranking reflects children’s perceptions of parental emphasis on,
or prioritization of, achievements relative to prosocial behavior (for details, please see Methods). This information
on what children understand about their parents’ values enables further investigation of how these perceived values
may help shape children’s well-being. Further, we also sought to examine whether there are additional factors, such
as parental criticism, that may contribute to both children’s perceptions of parental values as well as children’s well-
being (for review, Spera, 2005).
In regard to children’s adjustment outcomes, we used broad-band measures of overall internalizing and
externalizing symptoms to measure children’s subjectively experienced psychological distress and disruptive
behavior, in addition to measuring their self-reported self-esteem. Replication of findings across conceptually related
outcomes is considered important when testing associations in heretofore little-examined research questions and
hypotheses (Maner, 2014; Sheldon & Hoon, 2007; Stroebe & Strack, 2014). In addition to these self-reported
assessments, we obtained reports of classroom behaviors from teachers as well as grade point average directly from
school records. The use of multiple sources of data enables a broader understanding of children’s functioning that
may not be accurately reflected within a single domain. Moreover, functional domains may vary in their relationship
8
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
to children’s value orientation, and it is certainly possible that adaptation may be superior in one domain while
faltering in others (Leekes et al., 2012).
Finally, in a significant extensions of prior work, we used person-based analyses to uncover discrete classes
based on both parents’ perceived values, with the goal (a) of first determining the range of classes (from high
achievement emphasis to low among pairs of mothers and fathers), and then (b) examining how children fared
across these classes on adjustment domains, as well as on overall levels of perceived parental criticism.
Additionally, (c) using a variable-based approach, we examined the strength of associations between each parent’s
achievement emphasis with children’s adjustment and perceived criticism, and (d) examined perceived parental
criticism as a moderator of each parent’s achievement emphasis on adjustment outcomes. Our hypotheses were that
perceiving both parents as being high on achievement emphasis would be worse for children’s adjustment than
perceiving just one parent (regardless of which one), and that children with parents who equally emphasized
achievements and prosocial behavior (neutral parents) would fare the best on adjustment outcomes, followed by
children of parents with low achievement emphasis relative to prosocial behavior. With regard to the moderator
effects of criticism, we expected that the associations between each parent’s achievement emphasis and
maladjustment would be stronger at higher levels of criticism.
Method
Sample
This is the first empirical report on the current sample of youth, who were recruited as part of larger
programmatic work in affluent communities with the aim of accruing data on students at different developmental
stages and with extended measurement of potentially important subculture-specific constructs (see Luthar &
Latendresse, 2005a; Luthar et al., 2013). Participants in this study included 506 sixth grade students (50% female)
from three middle schools in one town, with similar demographic characteristics (i.e., no significant school
differences in family income, race and ethnicity, and parental education). Across the schools, ninety percent of the
children were Caucasian, 3% were Hispanic, 2% were African-American, and 5% were of other ethnic backgrounds.
Graduate degrees had been attained by 51% of fathers and 29% of mothers; 90% of fathers were employed versus
64% of mothers. Based on 2004 census data, the mean annual family income in this town was $124,000, comparable
to earlier studies of youth in affluent school contexts (Luthar & Becker, 2002). Further, the three schools did not
differ significantly on major study variables, including mother and father achievement emphasis, measures of well-
9
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
being, or school-based variables (described under measures). Thus, data from the three different schools were
combined.
Procedure
Students’ inclusion in the sample was based on active consent received from parents: Consent forms were
mailed to their homes with a pre-addressed, stamped envelope to return the form indicating or refusing consent for
the child’s participation in the study. A total of 506 students participated from an eligible pool of 690, representing a
participation rate of 73%. Of the 184 sixth graders who did not participate, 181 had parents disallow participation
and 3 were excused from participation by the principal or personally refused on the day of the administration. All of
the measures were administered in groups, and teachers were compensated $5 for every student they rated.
Measures
Parents’ emphases on achievement. Perceived parents’ emphases on achievements versus prosocial behavior were
assessed by the six-item Parental Values Scale (DeCarlo & Luthar, 2000), where students were asked to rank order
the top three of the following six items based on what they believe was most valued by their mothers and fathers for
them (the child) to achieve: a) be respectful to others; b) attend a good college; c) try to help others in need; d) excel
academically; e) be kind to others; and f) have a successful career in the future. As can be seen, three of these goals
are achievement-oriented and three are oriented toward prosocial behavior, or behaving in a way that benefits others.
The scores for emphasis on achievement were derived by adding the weights of items ranked, where the top ranked
value contributed a score of three to its respective scale (i.e., achievement scale or prosocial scale), the second
ranked value contributed a score of two, and third ranked value contributed a score of one. This method captures a
relative emphasis on achievement versus prosocial behavior.
To illustrate, a student endorsing an achievement item as the top ranked parental value, a prosocial item as
second ranked, and another achievement item as the third ranked parental value, would receive a score of 4 (3 + 0 +
1) on the achievement scale (and in turn, a score of 2 on the prosocial scale). Thus, the range of achievement
emphasis scores was 0-6, where a score of 6 indicated achievement was valued fully over prosocial behavior, and a
score of 0 indicated prosocial behavior was valued fully over achievement. A score of 3 indicated that achievement
and prosocial behavior were more or less valued equally. Each participant received an achievement emphasis score
for each parent. Psychometric analyses have established the validity of the scale (DeCarlo & Luthar, 2000; Luthar &
Becker, 2002; Luthar & Latendresse, 2005b).
10
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
Parental criticism. Parental criticism was assessed using the four-item, five-point subscale of the Multidimensional
Perfectionism Scale (Frost et al., 1990), with items such as “I am punished for doing things less than perfectly (by
my parents).” Items were summed to form the subscale, and higher scores indicated higher perceptions of parental
criticism. Internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) were .80 and .64 among girls and boys respectively.
Internalizing and externalizing symptoms. The Youth Self Report (YSR; Achenbach, Rescorla, & Maruish, 2004)
is a 112-item self-report that assesses problem behaviors in children and adolescents (ages 11-17) along broadband
composite scales: Internalizing and Externalizing behaviors. Behaviors are rated on a 3-point scale: 0-Not true, 1-
Somewhat or sometimes true, and 2-Very true or often true, based on the preceding 6-months. Total scores are
computed by summing the responses for each scale, and T-scores computed according to the manual. For the current
sample, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for internalizing symptoms were .87 and .83 for girls and boys, respectively;
and for externalizing symptoms, alpha coefficients were .87 for girls and .86 for boys.
Self-esteem. Students’ self-esteem was assessed via the six-item, four-point Global Self-Worth subscale of the Self-
Perception Profile for Adolescents (Harter, 1988). The items were summed to form a total score, with higher scores
representing greater global self-worth. For the current sample, Cronbach's alphas were .85 for girls and .80 for boys.
Teacher-rated classroom competence. Teacher-rated classroom competence was assessed via the 36-item
Teacher-Child Rating Scale (Hightower, 1986), completed independently by Math and English teachers for all
students (i.e., each child was rated by two separate teachers). Two of the classroom problems subscales were used:
Acting Out & Learning Problems, with higher scores reflecting greater behavior or learning problems in the
classroom. For the current sample, Cronbach’s alphas with combined teacher reports were .87 for girls and .86 for
boys for the acting out subscale, and were .86 for girls and .84 for boys for the learning problems subscale.
School grades. School grades were obtained from school records; a cumulative grade-point average (GPA) was
computed based on students’ grades in social studies, science, math, and English across the previous two full
quarters of the school year. The letter grades were coded such that an A+ represented a score of 13, and an F a score
of 1. GPA scores ranged from 4.63 to 12.75.
Data Analysis Plan
Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was conducted to classify participants into distinct profiles of parental
achievement emphasis. LPA is a version of Latent Class Analysis (LCA) suitable for continuous indicator variables
(Lazarsfeld, Henry, & Anderson, 1968). As with LCA, LPA is used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a
11
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
heterogeneous population based on similarity of responses to measured variables (Lanza, Flaherty, & Collins, 2003;
Nylund, Asparouhov, & Muthén, 2007). The primary advantage of LCA over alternative approaches, such as cluster
analysis, is the reliance on a model-based method for estimating population characteristics derived from sample
data, adjustment of estimates for measurement error, formal statistical procedures for determining the number of
classes, use of probabilities as the basis for interpretation of results, and flexible treatment of variance among classes
(Nylund et al., 2007). LCA provides estimates of class membership probabilities (e.g., achievement-emphasis
classes) and behavioral probability estimates within class (e.g., class-specific patterns of achievement-emphasis)
(Lanza et al., 2003).
An initial series of models were run separately without the covariate to determine the appropriate number
of classes based on children’s individual perceptions of mothers and fathers’ emphases on achievement. We began
with a one-class model and then tested a series of models specifying increased number of classes (e.g., two class,
three class…seven class) representing different patterns of mother-father achievement orientation. Optimal model
selection was based on recommended indices including low adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion and Akaike
Information Criterion relative to other models, statistically significant Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test
(LMR LRT), statically significant Bootstrapped Likelihood Ratio Test (BLRT), and acceptable quality of
classification (i.e., entropy values) (Asparouhov, & Muthén, 2012; Nylund et al., 2007). Each of these types of
criteria is interpreted in different ways. Information Criterion values (AIC and BIC) are used to choose between
competing statistical models. In general, lower AIC and BIC criterion values indicate a better model. Likelihood
ratios test (LMR LRT and BLRT) utilize p-values to determine model fit. Finally, the entropy value ranges from 0 to
1, with 1 indicating a greater precision in membership classification; values > 0.80 indicate that the latent classes are
highly discriminating (Muthén & Muthén, 2000).
In a preliminary analysis, repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare scores for mothers and fathers’
achievement-emphases within child and by child sex. The results showed significant differences in scores for
mothers and fathers, F(1, 478) = 42.23, p < .001; Wilks’ Lamda = 0.92; Partial
2 = .08. Within-child comparisons
established that fathers were rated as significantly more achievement-oriented than mothers. Furthermore, there were
mean level differences in ratings of mothers and fathers’ achievement emphases based on children’s sex (i.e., boys
rated both of their parents as higher in achievement emphasis than girls, on average; see Table 1). Thus, direct
effects of child sex on the indicator variables were included in the LPA model to ensure correct model specification.
12
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
Fit statistics were re-assessed with the inclusion of the covariate, and log-likelihood nested model testing was used
to determine whether the addition of the covariate improved the fit of the model. It should be noted that the LPA
model was initially analyzed for boys and girls separately, but that due to very small n’s in the classes and overall
similarity in the pattern of findings for boys and girl, the decision was made to solely include gender as a covariate.
Once model selection was completed, the latent categorical variable (i.e., class) was used in the prediction
of distal outcome variables measuring child-reported psychosocial functioning, child perceptions of parental
behavior, and teacher-reported classroom behavior and GPA (see Table 1). The distal outcome analyses were run
using the automated 3-step method in Mplus 7.11 (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014). The three-step method ensures
that the measurement of the latent class variable is not affected by the inclusion of distal outcomes by fixing the
measurement parameters of the latent class variable of the model with covariates at values from the unconditional
latent class model. As the name suggests, it involves three modeling steps: (1) estimating the unconditional mixture
model, (2) assigning individuals to latent classes using modal class assignment, and (3) estimating a mixture model
with measurement parameters that are fixed at values that account for the measurement error in the class assignment.
Then, auxiliary variables (i.e., distal outcomes) are assessed using a Wald 2 test of statistical significance to test the
equality of outcome means across the various achievement-emphasis classes, while also taking into consideration
the most likely class membership and classification error rate (see Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014).
Finally, multiple regression analysis was used to examine the direct relationship between children’s
perceptions of their mothers and fathers’ achievement emphases and parental criticism on their emotional and
behavioral outcomes, as well as whether children’s perceptions of parental criticism moderated the association
between perceived achievement emphasis and children’s emotional and behavioral outcomes. Mother and father
achievement emphasis and parental criticism were group-mean centered for boys and girls, respectively, and
interaction terms computed. The interaction terms between perceived mothers’ achievement emphases and perceived
parental criticism, and perceived fathers’ achievement emphases and perceived parental criticism, were
simultaneously included in each analysis. The analyses were initially run separately for boys and girls in SPSS, and
subsequently examined using a multiple group model in Mplus 7.11 to determine if differences between boys and
girls were statistically significant using nested model testing (Enders, 2010). Due to the large number of analyses, a
p-value correction was used to reduce the risk for Type I errors. Coefficients were considered statistically significant
at p-values less than .01. Statistically significant interactions were probed using simple slopes analysis (Aiken, West,
13
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
& Reno, 1991) to examine the relationship between perceived mother or father achievement emphasis and child
outcomes at different levels of perceived parental criticism, (i.e., low criticism, 1 SD below the mean; average
criticism, at the mean; and high criticism, 1 SD above the mean).
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Means and standard deviations for all study variables are presented in Table 1 and correlations are
presented in Table 2. Mean comparisons showed that girls fared more positively than boys across school variables
and externalizing symptoms, and as noted earlier, boys perceived both mothers and fathers as being higher in
achievement-emphasis than girls. All outcome variables were transformed into Z-scores for the subsequent analyses
so that the variables would be on a standard scale for distal outcome comparisons.
Parallel to strategies used in prior studies of affluent youth (Luthar & Barkin, 2012; Luthar & Becker,
2002), we too examined functioning of this sixth grade sample in relationship to national norms on the Youth Self-
Report. In almost all instances, the proportion of students reporting ‘above average’ scores (T>64), as well as ‘much
above average’ scores (T>70), was at or lower than those in national normative samples. This was true for girls and
boys across the Withdrawn-Depressed, Social Problems, Thought Problems, and Rule-Breaking/ Aggressive
subscales. The only exceptions of any note were that boys (but not girls) showed elevated vulnerability on the
Anxious-Depressed and Somatic subscales. In these two domains respectively, 13% and 10% of boys reported
‘above average’ symptoms (versus 7% in norms); 3% and 7% reported ‘much above average’ symptoms (versus 2%
in norms).
Latent Profile Analysis
Class enumeration. The results of successive LPA models without covariates are presented in Table 3. None of the
solutions with five or fewer classes showed a minimum of the AIC, or adjusted BIC, suggesting a solution with six
or more classes. In addition, the BLRT and LMR LRT did not lead to consistent results as to the number of classes
to retain. BLRT was significant for each and every model comparison (p < .001), suggesting more than six classes.
However, class solutions with seven or more classes tended to show estimation problems and were difficult to
interpret, and thus were not considered. The LMR LRT resulted in a non-significant value for a five class solution,
but was inconsistent in terms of showing significant differences again for six classes. The five- and the six-class
models demonstrated acceptable entropy, indicating good separation among the classes.
14
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
Thus, class enumeration was determined using recommendations from Marsh and colleagues (Marsh,
Lüdtke, Trautwein, & Morin, 2009). One criterion proposed is that the solution should not only reflect quantitative,
but also qualitative (typological) differences between individuals in which some of the classes should differ from
each other in terms of profile shape rather than just in profile elevation. The five- and six-class models revealed
almost identical class structures, with the six-class model including an additional, qualitatively different class that
represented approximately 7.5% of the sample (Low Mom/ Neutral Dad, described below). Models with more than
six classes either did not uncover any additional substantively interesting types or the additional classes were of very
small size (< 1 %). In addition, solutions with more than six classes tended to be unstable (i.e., they were associated
with warning messages that indicated problems in the estimation of standard errors or failures to converge). The
average latent class probabilities for most likely latent class membership by latent class for the six-class model
ranged from .86 to .98 on the diagonal elements, indicating acceptable classification quality (Muthén & Muthén,
2000). Thus we accepted the six-class model as a meaningful, interpretable, and parsimonious solution that provided
the best overall fit to the data for mother-father achievement orientation.
Subsequent analyses included child sex as a covariate assessing direct effects on the indicators. The
addition of the direct effect of the covariate, constrained to be equal across classes, strengthened the fit of the six-
class solution according to nested model testing, 2(1) = 16.30, p<.001, and did not alter the classification quality
(See Table 3). Including child sex as a predictor of class membership did not further improve the fit of the model,
2(5) = 11.06, n.s.
The six latent profiles, based on the model that included child sex as a covariate of the indicators, are
characterized in Table 4 using both standardized and raw scores on perceived mother and father achievement-
emphasis. Three of the latent profiles, which included the majority of parents, were those in which mothers and
fathers were aligned in their emphasis on achievement versus prosocial behavior: a) High-Both (with achievement
emphasis standardized mean scores above 1 for each parent); (b) Neutral-Both (standardized scores near 0); and (c)
Low-Both (standardized mean scores below -1). Three unique ‘dissonant’ groups also emerged, which were
represented by one parent highly emphasizing achievement over prosocial behavior, or highly emphasizing prosocial
behavior over achievement, with the other parent neutral. These dissonant groups were labeled (d)
HighMom/NeutralDad; (e) HighDad/NeutralMom; and (f) LowMom/NeutralDad.
Distal outcome analysis. The results of the distal outcome analyses are reported in Table 4, and graphical
15
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
representations of the class-specific means on child adjustment outcomes and perceived parental criticism are
presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The overall model test indicated significant differences among the classes.
Pairwise mean comparisons are indicated using subscripts, where values with the same subscripts had statistically
equivalent means (Table 4). The children in the Neutral-Both and Low-Both classes generally showed better
functioning across outcomes in comparison with other classes, with low levels of parental criticism, low levels of
internalizing symptoms, high levels of self-esteem, high GPA scores, and the lowest levels of acting out and
learning problems. Still, there were a few significant differences between children in the Neutral-Both class and the
Low-Both class, limited to measures of internalizing symptoms, with children in the Neutral-Both class reporting
lower levels of internalizing symptoms.
The children in the LowMom/NeutralDad class had scores generally consistent with the Neutral-Both and
Low-Both classes, although the pattern of scores suggested slightly more positive functioning than the latter two
classes, with a significant difference noted for self-esteem.
Although not always significantly different from all of the other classes across outcomes, likely in part due
to small sample sizes and low power, the pattern of scores for children in the three “high” classes –
HighDad/NeutralMom, HighMom/NeutralDad, and High-Both – indicated the poorest functioning across outcomes
in comparison to the other classes. The children in these “high” classes reported higher levels of parental criticism,
higher levels of internalizing symptoms and externalizing symptoms, and lower self-esteem; they also had lower
GPA scores and higher levels of teacher-reported acting out and learning problems (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Moderation Analysis
The results of each multiple regression analysis predicting child internalizing symptoms, externalizing
symptoms, self-esteem, GPA, teacher-reported acting out, and teacher-reported learning problems, are presented in
Table 5. For the model predicting internalizing symptoms only, the results differed for boys and girls based on
nested model testing that indicated allowing the model to be freely estimated for girls and boys fit the data better
than when the paths were constrained to be equal for girls and boys, χ2diff (5) = 19.48, p < .001. Main effects of
perceived parental criticism were found to be significantly associated with higher externalizing symptom scores and
lower GPA for both girls and boys (Table 5). With regard to interaction effects, perceived parental criticism did not
moderate the association between perceived father achievement emphasis and any of the child outcomes for girls or
boys. On the other hand, parental criticism did moderate the association between mother achievement emphasis and
16
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
internalizing symptoms among girls, and among both girls and boys, the association between mother achievement
emphasis and learning problems and self-esteem.
According to analyses of simple slopes (see Figure 3), at high levels of perceived parental criticism, girls
who perceived their mothers as high in achievement emphasis reported higher levels of internalizing symptoms, t =
4.46, p < .001. For the combined sample of both boys and girls, the risk for learning problems was greater for
children who perceived their mothers as highly achievement-oriented when they also experienced high levels of
parental criticism, t = 2.20, p < .01. In turn, boys and girls who perceived their mothers as high in achievement
emphasis reported higher levels of self-esteem at low levels, t = 3.44, p < .001, and average levels, t = 2.63, p < .01,
of perceived parental criticism.
Discussion
In affluent school communities, there are many risks associated with high achievement pressures and
intense competition, including potential for elevated psychopathology, chronic stress, inconsistent academic
engagement, and low well-being (see Deci & Ryan, 2000; Leonard et al., 2015). Parents have been implicated as a
major source of achievement pressure and stress, in part as a reflection of their value orientations regarding the
motivations and goals they emphasize to their children (Garn et al., 2010; Grolnick & Seal, 2008; Mudrak, 2011).
Addressing gaps in the literature associated with the limited research on perceptions of parental value orientation
and children’s adjustment, and the limitations of prior analytic and methodological designs, we examined how
perceptions of mothers and fathers’ emphases on achievement, relative to prosocial emphases, influenced youth
adjustment and well-being. Additionally, the focus of our study was on youth entering middle school given the
developmental importance of early adolescence to the formation of identity and a value system (Erikson, 1968;
Meeus, van, Keijsers, Schwartz, & Branje, 2010) as well as evidence for the rise in pressure for high academic
achievement beginning as early as grade 6 (Ma, 2012; Pappano, 2015). The current study contributes to our
understanding of the conditions under which parental achievement orientation may be harmful to children and has
implications for possible interventions to prevent maladjustment and improve youth well-being.
Most importantly, in this study of middle school youth from an affluent community, we uniquely explored
possible differences between perceptions of mothers and fathers’ values, as well as the role of perceived parental
criticism as moderating the association between perceived parental emphasis on achievement and children’s
adjustment. Findings indicated that as early as 6th grade, both parental value priorities, as perceived by children,
17
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
were associated with children’s behavioral and psychological functioning. Person-based analyses revealed six
distinct latent profile classes based on perceptions of mothers and fathers’ emphases on achievement, and class
comparisons showed a consistent pattern of healthier child functioning in association with low to neutral
achievement emphasis, and poorer child functioning when children perceived their parents as disproportionately
prioritizing achievement over kindness to others. Further, children’s reports of parental criticism varied by class,
with “High” achievement-emphasis classes corresponding to higher perceived parental criticism. Variable-based
findings suggested increased risk to children’s psychosocial adjustment in association with perceptions of high
mother achievement emphasis, conditional on the extent to which children also perceived parents as critical.
Mothers and Fathers’ Perceived Values: Family Subtypes and Children’s Adjustment
Comparisons across the classes suggested that there were risks associated with overemphasizing personal
achievements relative to prosocial behavior. Specifically, findings showed that the children who fared the best were
those who perceived their parents as equally valuing achievement and prosociality (i.e., Neutral-both) and those
whose parents were perceived to prioritize prosociality over achievement (Low-Both). These findings are consistent
with arguments that it is critical for upper middle class parents to shield their children from the resounding “achieve
more” message in school and the community (Luthar et al., 2013). In affluent settings, the premium on children’s
academic accomplishments is ubiquitous, pervading the school climate, peer group, and community. It can therefore
be protective for children to perceive their home environments as insulated from the reverberating cultural messages
of achievement to reach pinnacles of excellence. Just as inner-city parents seek to protect youth from the context-
specific risks of violence and gangs (Romich, 2009), there are significant benefits for children if upper middle class
parents can offset or counterbalance, in the home, the resounding emphasis on “do more, get ahead at all costs” in
the school and community (Luthar et al., 2013).
Importantly, results of this study reaffirmed that children’s actual academic performance does not suffer
when parents ease up on pressure. As in Luthar and Becker (2002), perceptions that parents were low on
achievement emphasis by no means implied worse academic performance among the children; in fact, in this study,
their grades and teacher ratings were better than those children with even one parent who disproportionately
emphasized achievement. Again, the lack of vulnerability associated with perceiving parents as relatively low in
valuing achievement may reflect a counterbalancing, “protective” effect. It should be emphasized, furthermore, that
our measure of achievement emphasis was not absolute but relative, such that even for children in the “Low-Both”
18
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
class, achievement was likely still valued, but its valuation was perceived to be low in comparison to the emphasis
on decency and kindness to others. That said, these parents may provide children the space, permission, and support
to pursue fulfilling experiences that promote affiliation and well-being, rather than limit children largely to the
attainment of externally-dictated successes (Dittmar et al., 2014).
Extending the findings of Luthar and Becker (2002), our data suggest that high emphasis on achievement is
not just unhelpful for children’s functioning, but may be harmful. When children received the message from parents,
intentional or not, that academic success and career gains took much priority over kindness to others, this was
associated with relatively poor functioning both personally and academically (also see Dittmar et al., 2014).
Parental Value Alignment and Gender Differences
In terms of variations by gender, results of the study suggested that by early adolescence, children tended to
perceive their fathers as more achievement-oriented than their mothers. At the same time, the majority of mothers
and fathers were seen as aligned in their relative emphasis on achievements. The three “both” groups (high, neutral,
and low) collectively represented over 70% of the sample, suggesting that children generally perceived their parents
as presenting a “united front” in regard to the communication of values (Gneiwosz & Noack, 2012).
Overall, little statistical difference in child functioning was found among the three “High” classes, which is
thought to be due in part to small class sizes and reduced power. However, the pattern of results among these “High”
classes suggests some differences worth considering. First, children in the “High-both” class may have more school-
based problems than the classes with only one parent high on achievement emphasis (scores on acting out, learning
problems, and GPA were respectively .27, .38, and -.24 SDs from the mean). These findings could reflect children’s
school problems in response to parents’ united achievement pressure and the minimization of prosocial behavior, but
as likely, could reflect parents’ heightened concern with achievements when their children were performing poorly
in school (Fan & Chen, 2001; Pomerantz & Eaton, 2001). These cross-sectional data only show that there is a
concurrent association between perceiving both parents as high on achievement emphasis and school-based
problems, but do not allow for conclusions to be made about whether high achievement emphasis came before, or in
response to, problems at school.
Second, there was some indication that the mismatch between mothers and fathers’ perceived values was
itself problematic for children’s subjective psychological adjustment. In particular, children in the dissonant classes
generally reported lower levels of self-esteem than children in “Both” classes, which may reflect inconsistent
19
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
messages from parents that leave children feeling uncertain about how to meet parental expectations and how to
perceive their own performances (Block, Block, & Morrison, 1981; Lindsey & Mize, 2001). Further, of the families
that made up the dissonant classes, the least common grouping was the one in which the mother was perceived to be
high on achievement emphasis while the father was neutral.
The “atypicality” of the latter combination was seen not just in the small size of the class, but also in the
notably lower self-esteem and higher internalizing symptoms of children in this group, as well as the higher levels of
perceived parental criticism, with all three values at approximately half a standard deviation from the respective
sample means (with externalizing symptoms at about a third of a standard deviation). Thus, from the perspective of
children’s subjectively experienced distress, it did not seem to be the case that they were necessarily “protected”
from impairment if just one parent was relatively balanced (i.e., Neutral) in their valuation of achievement (Lewin,
Mitchell, Waters, Hodgkinson, Southammakosane, & Gilmore, 2015). Rather, more in line with the theory that
intrinsic and extrinsic values are antagonistic, opposing forces (Grouzet et al., 2005), the push toward achievement,
even from one parent – especially when it is only the mother – may occur at the expense of more intrinsic pursuits
and undermine the associated satisfaction of basic psychological needs, including relatedness (Dittmar et al., 2014).
The relatively high maladjustment of the HighMom/NeutralDad group may also possibly reflect social
gender norms that generally prescribe women as nurturers rather than competitors or individualists in regard to
assertions of power (Maroda, 2004). Mothers are typically the primary caregivers of children, even in two career
white-collar, professional families (Luthar et al., 2013), and they are also expected to be central in the nurturing role
(McHale, Crouter, & Whiteman, 2003). Thus, in this study, having a mother disproportionately high in achievement
emphasis – especially when she contrasted with a non-competitive father – might well have conflicted with
traditional gender norms, exacerbating children’s distress at perceiving their mothers as not particularly exhorting,
or personally exemplifying, compassion, respect, and kindness in close relationships (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2004;
Heilman & Okimoto, 2007).
Parental Criticism as a Moderator
In a process reflecting additive vulnerability, children who perceived their mothers as high on achievement
emphasis and also experienced high levels of parental criticism had higher levels of internalizing symptoms (girls
only) and teacher-reported learning problems. Interestingly, when reports of parental criticism were lower than
average, children who perceived their mothers to be high on achievement emphasis actually reported relatively high
20
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
levels of self-esteem. Thus, the perception of high maternal achievement emphasis was apparently not in itself the
primary ingredient that increased risk for maladjustment. Rather, consistent with prior research, parental criticism
consistently emerged as a key factor for children’s adjustment across domains (Madjar, Voltsis, & Weinstock, 2015;
Rice & Dellwo, 2002; Rice, Lopez, & Vergara, 2005), and the risks for children’s maladjustment were magnified
when mothers’ high achievement emphases coincided with harsh and critical parenting. When children see
themselves as falling short of parents’ expectations of them, this may engender negative self-evaluations as well as
anxiety about their performance (Dunsmore et al. 2009). Fears of failing or “not being good enough” can be
crippling, disruptive of both daily functioning and overall well-being (Conroy, 2003; Luthar et al., 2013; Sagar,
Lavallee, & Spray, 2009).
The slightly different pattern found for self-esteem suggests that when children do not feel criticized,
perceptions of mothers emphasizing achievement may actually boost children’s sense of competency and
motivation. Having a mother supportively encourage achievement may convey to children that their mothers believe
in their abilities to succeed (Juang & Silbereisen, 2002; Masud, Ahmad, Jan, & Jamil, 2016; Turner, Chandler, &
Heffer, 2009). By contrast, perceptions of fathers emphasizing achievement had the opposite influence on self-
esteem. It is possible that, when they are perceived to emphasize achievement, fathers may also appear to express
greater disapproval about children’s levels of achievement (Sagar & Lavallee, 2010).
Notably, child gender differences emerged for internalizing symptoms, such that girls’ adjustment in
particular was influenced by the interaction of high maternal achievement emphasis and parental criticism. This
finding is consistent with prior research on gender differences in several ways. First, gender differences in the
prevalence of internalizing disorders emerges early in adolescence, with girls more likely to experience depression
and anxiety (Hankin & Abramson, 2001; Martel, 2013). Second, a few studies have suggested that the association
between negative well-being and extrinsic values are stronger for girls, and that girls may be more sensitive to the
combination of parental criticism and high achievement orientation (Dittmar et al., 2014; Luthar et al., 2006). This
may be due in part to gender-related differences in socialization and identity formation, where the social expectation
is that girls place greater importance on prosocial values than boys (see Beutel & Johnson, 2004). When there is a
violation to that social expectation, such as when girls feel pushed toward high achievement, over being prosocial,
psychological distress may emerge as girls attempt to reconcile the conflicting expectations (Swann Jr, Langlois, &
Gilbert, 1999), as well as to navigate the social penalties associated with achievement-orientation for females (see
21
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
Caleo & Heilman, 2013; Rudman & Fairchild, 2004; Sheppard & Aquino, 2014).
Coexisting with parental criticism, maternal achievement emphasis was also specifically implicated in
learning problems for both girls and boys, which may reflect the notion that mothers are more influential than
fathers for children’s learning. Alternatively, it is more likely that mothers, more so than fathers, become
increasingly involved in children’s schooling in response to poor performance (Laflamme, Pomerleau, & Malcuit,
2002; McWayne, Campos, & Owsianik, 2008). As noted earlier, there is evidence that mothers continue to hold the
primary responsibilities for childrearing (McHale et al., 2003), and tend to be the parent tasked with interfacing with
the schools and making sure children keep up with their lessons (Laflamme, Pomerleau, & Malcuit, 2002; Luthar et
al., 2013; McWayne et al., 2008). Thus, it often falls to mothers to set and enforce academic expectations for
children, which, when children are struggling, may exacerbate perceptions of parental criticism (Pomerantz,
Moorman, & Litwack, 2007).
Limitations and Strengths
There are several limitations of this study that should be noted. The cross-sectional nature of this work
precludes any conclusions about causality or direction of influence, and it is quite possible that third variables could
underlie significant associations. Moreover, the data on parental values and psychological functioning were limited
to children’s self-report. Although we believe children’s perceptions of parental values to be a strength of the study,
it is quite possible that children who struggle psychosocially may misinterpret parental input and perceive it more
negatively than others (Oliver, Raftery, Reeb, & Delaney, 1993). Furthermore, children did not provide reports of
their own values, limiting a comparison of children’s values with those of their parents’ as reported in prior research
(Gniewosz & Noack, 2012). Finally, these data were limited to 6th graders from a single affluent U.S. community.
Future studies should assess latent classes based on both parents’ values with samples from varying backgrounds
and single-mother/ father households, as well as examine how these latent classes compare separately for girls and
boys. Also needed are longitudinal designs to examine specific parenting practices as possible mechanisms through
which children adopt values and make lifestyle choices (Lekes et al., 2010; Prioste, Narciso, Goncalves, & Pereira,
2015), and the inclusion of other covariates salient to parenting and adjustment outcomes, such as children’s
temperament (Dittmar et al., 2014; Lengua & Kovacs, 2005).
The limitations of this study are offset by several strengths. First, the data were taken from an independent
sample of middle school children from an upper middle class community, which will provide an important
22
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
comparison point in relationship to prior research (Luthar et al., 2013; Luthar & Latendresse, 2005a). Second, by
measuring children’s perceptions of their parents’ values, rather than parent-reported values, we learn about the
messages that children are actually taking away from their parents, regardless of parents’ intentions (Dogan et al.,
2007). Third, in addition to self-reports, school data were collected from academic records and ratings by two
independent teachers for more objective measures of children’s functioning. Of note is the remarkable consistency
in the school and child report outcome data in relationship to perceived parental emphasis on achievement,
confirming both the broad importance of value orientation to multiple aspects of well-being (Kasser, 2002) as well
as providing a check on the replicability of the associations (Stroebe & Strack, 2014). Finally, the current study
extended prior research on parental value orientation through the use of sophisticated person-based and variable-
based analyses, which provided a unique examination of both the individual and joint influence of perceived
parental value orientation on children’s adjustment, as well as the opportunity to examine the influence of perceived
parental criticism on children’s adjustment.
Conclusions
If one were to pose the question, “What do you hope for your children?”, parents invariably respond that
they want the very best for their children, often meaning some combination of success and happiness. In order to
foster well-being and academic success in early adolescents, our findings suggest that parents focus on prioritizing
intrinsic, prosocial values that promote affiliation and community at least as much (or more than) they prioritize
academic performance and external achievement. Parenting practices that directly or indirectly (i.e., modeling)
encourage intrinsic versus extrinsic pursuits, and contribute to the satisfaction of children’s needs for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness, may help children adopt life goals that foster happiness and well-being (Dittmar et al.,
2014; Lekes, Gingras, Philippe, Koestner, & Fang, 2010). Notably, our data suggest that perceptions of parental
values are very salient and influential for early adolescents entering middle school, a developmental period that has
been identified as tumultuous for both children and parents (Luthar & Ciciolla, 2016; Steinberg & Silk, 2002), as
well as important for youth identity formation (Erikson, 1968). Our findings suggest that the entry into middle
school may be a time to help parents understand the empirically demonstrated risks of disproportionately
emphasizing achievement, and to promote the protective influence of prosocial values through modeling (in addition
to parenting dimensions that are usually emphasized including warm, authoritative parenting, and appropriate limit-
setting; Padilla-Walker, Carlo, Christensen, & Yorgason, 2012). With regard to implications for future interventions,
23
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
relevant also is evidence on the potential malleability of parents’ and children’s value orientations (see Kasser,
2002). Value orientation can change over time as a function of changing life events (Sheldon & Krieger, 2004;
Verkasalo, Goodwin, & Bezmenova, 2006) as well as in response to targeted interventions that promote the pursuit
of intrinsic goals, including kindness and authentic connections with other in their communities (Lekes et al., 2012;
Luthar, 2015). In addition, parenting interventions have increasingly begun to incorporate autonomy-supportive
parenting techniques that are thought to promote intrinsic value orientation (Coatsworth, Duncan, Nix, Greenberg,
Gayles, et al., 2015; Joussemet, Mageau, & Koestner, 2014). In future work, it will be important to assess how these
parenting interventions, particularly those targeting parents of early adolescents, might influence value orientations
in both parents and children, and determine whether changes in parents’ values could affect the long-term well-being
of children in school contexts that are highly achieving, but at the same time, highly pressured for too many of
today’s youth.
24
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
References
Abel, J. R., Deitz, R., & Su, Y. (2014). Are recent college graduates finding good jobs? Current Issues in
Economics and Finance, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 20(1), 1-8. Retrieved from
http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci20-1.pdf
Achenbach, T. M., Rescorla, L. A., & Maruish, M. E. (2004). The Achenbach system of empirically based
assessment (ASEBA) for ages 1.5 to 18 years. In M.E. Maruish (Ed.), The Use of Psychological Testing for
Treatment Planning and Outcomes Assessment, Volume 2: Instruments for children and adolescents (3rd
ed.) (pp. 179 – 213). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
American Psychological Association (2009). Stress in America. Retrieved from
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2009/stress-exec-summary.pdf
Asparouhov, T. & Muthén, B. (2012). Using Mplus TECH11 and TECH14 to test the number of latent classes.
Mplus Web Notes: No. 14. Retrieved from http://www.statmodel.com/examples/webnotes/webnote14.pdf
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using
Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 329-341. doi:
10.1080/10705511.2014.915181
Beutel, A. M., & Johnson, M. K. (2004). Gender and prosocial values during adolescence: A research note. The
Sociological Quarterly, 45(2), 379-393. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2004.tb00017.x.
Block, J. H., Block, J., & Morrison, A. (1981). Parental agreement-disagreement on child-rearing orientations and
gender-related personality correlates in children. Child Development, 52, 965-974. doi:
10.1177/016502548901200107
Bosma, H. A., & Kunnen, E. S. (2001). Determinants and mechanisms in ego identity development: A review and
synthesis. Developmental Review, 21(1), 39-66. doi: 10.1006/drev.2000.0514
Caleo, S., & Heilman, M. E. (2013). Gender stereotypes and their implications for women’s career progress. In S.
Vinnicombe, R. J. Burke, S. Blake-Beard & L. L. Moore (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Promoting (pp.
143-161). Massachussets, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Chen, X., Rubin, K. H., & Li, D. (1997). Relation between academic achievement and social adjustment: Evidence
25
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
from Chinese children. Developmental Psychology, 33(3), 518.
Cheung, C. S., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2015). Value development underlies the benefits of parents’ involvement in
children’s learning: A longitudinal investigation in the united states and china. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 107(1), 309-320. doi: 10.1037/a0037458
Coatsworth, J. D., Duncan, L. G., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Gayles, J. G., Bamberger, K. T., ... & Demi, M. A.
(2015). Integrating mindfulness with parent training: Effects of the mindfulness-enhanced strengthening
families program. Developmental Psychology, 51(1), 26-35. doi: 10.1037/a0038212
Conroy, D.E. (2003). Representational models associated with fear of failure in adolescents and young adults.
Journal of Personality, 71, 557–783. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.7105003
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn't cut the ice.
Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), 701-718. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00381.x
DeCarlo, L. T., & Luthar, S. S. (2000). Analysis and class validation of a measure of parental values perceived by
early adolescents: An application of a latent class model for rankings. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 60(4), 578-591. doi: 10.1177/00131640021970736
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-
determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Dittmar, H., Bond, R., Hurst, M., & Kasser, T. (2014). The relationship between materialism and personal well-
being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5), 879-924. doi:
10.1037/a0037409
Dogan, S. J., Conger, R. D., Kim, K. J., & Masyn, K. E. (2007). Cognitive and parenting pathways in the
transmission of antisocial behavior from parents to adolescents. Child Development, 78(1), 335-349. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01001.x
Dunsmore, J. C., Bradburn, I. S., Costanzo, P. R., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2009). Mothers' expressive style and
emotional responses to children's behavior predict children's prosocial and achievement-related self-
ratings. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(3), 253-264. doi:
10.1177/0165025408098025
Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity. New York, NY: Norton.
26
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students' academic achievement: A meta-analysis.
Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22. doi: 10.1023/A:1009048817385
Fitzsimmons, W., McGrath, M. E., & Ducey, C. (2011). Time out or burn out for the next generation. Harvard
College Admissions & Financial Aid. Retrieved from https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/preparing-
college/should-i-take-time
Flouri, E., & Sarmadi, Z. (2016). Prosocial behavior and childhood trajectories of internalizing
and externalizing problems: The role of neighborhood and school contexts. Developmental
Psychology, 52(2), 253. doi: 10.1037/dev0000076
Flynn, E., Ehrenreich, S. E., Beron, K. J., & Underwood, M. K. (2015). Prosocial behavior: Long‐term trajectories
and psychosocial outcomes. Social Development, 24(3), 462-482. doi: 10.1111/sode.12100
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 14(5), 449-468. doi: 10.1007/BF01172967
Garn, A. C., Matthews, M. S., & Jolly, J. L. (2010). Parental influences on the academic motivation of gifted
students: A self-determination theory perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(4), 263-272.
doi:10.1177/0016986210377657
Garn, A. C., & Jolly, J. L. (2014). High ability students’ voice on learning motivation. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 25(1), 7-24. doi: 10.1177/1932202X13513262
Ginsburg, G. S., & Bronstein, P. (1993). Family factors related to children's intrinsic/extrinsic motivational
orientation and academic performance. Child Development, 64(5), 1461-1474. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8624.1993.tb02964.x
Gniewosz, B., & Noack, P. (2012). The role of between-parent values agreement in parent-to-child transmission of
academic values. Journal of Adolescence,35(4), 809-821. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.11.007
Grolnick, W. S., & Seal, K. (2008). Pressured parents, stressed-out kids: Dealing with competition while raising a
successful child. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Grouzet, F. M. E., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Dols, J. M. F., Kim, Y., Lau, S., . . . Sheldon, K. M. (2005). The
structure of goal contents across 15 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 800-816.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.800
Grusec, J. E., Chaparro, M. P., Johnston, M., & Sherman, A. (2013). The development of moral behavior and
27
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
conscience from a socialization perspective. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of Moral
Development (2nd ed., pp. 113-134). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Hankin, B. L., & Abramson, L. Y. (2001). Development of gender differences in depression: An elaborated
cognitive vulnerability–transactional stress theory. Psychological Bulletin, 127(6), 773-796. doi: 10.1O37//
O033-29O9.127.6.773
Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the self-perception profile for adolescents. Denver, CO: University of Denver.
Heady, B., Muffels, R., & Wagner, G. (2012). Choices which change life satisfaction: Similar results for Australia,
Britain, and Germany. Social Indicators Research, 112(3), 725-748. doi: 10.1007/s11205-012-0079-8
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied
communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 81-92. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81
Hightower, A. D. (1986). The Teacher–Child Rating Scale: A brief objective measure of elementary children's
school problem behaviors and competencies. School Psychology Review, 15, 393-409. doi:
10.1177/073428299100900103
Hinshaw, S., & Kranz, R. (2009). The triple bind: Saving our teenage girls from today's pressures. New York, NY:
Ballantine Books.
Horwitz, B. N., Marceau, K., Narusyte, J., Ganiban, J., Spotts, E. L., Reiss, D., . . . Neiderhiser, J. M. (2015).
Parental criticism is an environmental influence on adolescent somatic symptoms. Journal of Family
Psychology, 29(2), 283-289. doi: 10.1037/fam00000
Joussemet, M., Mageau, G. A., & Koestner, R. (2014). Promoting optimal parenting and children’s mental health:
A preliminary evaluation of the How-to Parenting Program. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(6),
949-964. doi: 10.1007/s10826-013-9751-0
Juang, L. P., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2002). The relationship between adolescent academic capability beliefs,
parenting and school grades. Journal of Adolescence, 25(1), 3-18. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0445
Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and
extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 280-287.
doi:10.1177/0146167296223006
Kerig, P. K. (1995). Triangles in the family circle: Effects of family structure on marriage, parenting, and child
28
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 9(1), 28-43. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.9.1.28
Laflamme, D., Pomerleau, A., & Malcuit, G. (2002). A comparison of fathers' and mothers' involvement in
childcare and stimulation behaviors during free-play with their infants at 9 and 15 months. Sex Roles, 47,
507-518. doi: 10.1023/A:1022069720776
Lanza, S. T., Flaherty, B. P., & Collins, L. M. (2003). Latent class and latent transition analysis. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families and white families.
American Sociological Review, 747-776. doi:10.2307/3088916
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Henry, N. W., & Anderson, T. W. (1968). Latent structure analysis. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Lekes, N., Gingras, I., Philippe, F. L., Koestner, R., & Fang, J. (2010). Parental autonomy-support, intrinsic life
goals, and well-being among adolescents in China and North America. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 39(8), 858-869. doi: 10.1007/s10964-009-9451-7
Lekes, N., Hope, N. H., Gouveia, L., Koestner, R., & Philippe, F. L. (2012). Influencing value priorities and
increasing well-being: The effects of reflecting on intrinsic values. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 7(3), 249-261. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2012.677468
Lengua, L. J., & Kovacs, E. A. (2005). Bidirectional associations between temperament and parenting and the
prediction of adjustment problems in middle childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
26(1), 21-38. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2004.10.001.
Leonard, N. R., Gwadz, M. V., Ritchie, A., Linick, J. L., Cleland, C. M., Elliott, L., & Grethel, M. (2015). A multi-
method exploratory study of stress, coping, and substance use among high school youth in private schools.
Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1028. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01028
Lewin, A., Mitchell, S. J., Waters, D., Hodgkinson, S., Southammakosane, C., & Gilmore, J. (2015). The protective
effects of father involvement for infants of teen mothers with depressive symptoms. Maternal and Child
Health Journal, 19(5), 1016-1023. doi: 10.1007/s10995-014-1600-2
Lindsey, E. W., & Mize, J. (2001). Interparental agreement, parent‐child responsiveness, and children's peer
competence. Family Relations, 50(4), 348-354. doi:10.1111/j.1741–3729.2005.00322.x
Luthar, S.S. (2015). Mothering mothers. Research in Human Development, 12, 295–303. doi:
29
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
10.1080/15427609.2015.1068045
Luthar, S. S., & Barkin, S. H. (2012). Are affluent youth truly “at risk”? Vulnerability and resilience across three
diverse samples. Development and Psychopathology, 24(2), 429-449. doi: 10.1017/S0954579412000089
Luthar, S. S., Barkin, S. H., & Crossman, E. J. (2013). “I can, therefore I must”: Fragility in the upper-middle
classes. Development and Psychopathology, 25(4), 1529-1549. doi: 10.1017/S0954579413000758
Luthar, S. S., & Becker, B. E. (2002). Privileged but pressured? A study of affluent youth. Child
Development, 73(5), 1593-1610. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00492
Luthar, S. S., & Ciciolla, L. (2016). What it feels like to be a mother: Variations by children’s developmental
stages. Developmental Psychology, 52(1), 143. doi: 10.1037/dev0000062
Luthar, S.S., & Goldstein, A.S. (2008). Substance use and related behaviors among suburban late adolescents: The
importance of perceived parent containment. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 591–614. doi:
10.1017/S0954579408000291
Luthar, S. S., & Latendresse, S. J. (2005a). Children of the affluent: Challenges to well-being. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 14(1), 49-53. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00333.x
Luthar, S. S., & Latendresse, S. J. (2005b). Comparable “risks” at the socioeconomic status extremes:
Preadolescents' perceptions of parenting. Development and Psychopathology, 17(01), 207-230. doi:
10.1017/S095457940505011X
Luthar, S. S., Shoum, K. A., & Brown, P. J. (2006). Extracurricular involvement among affluent youth: A
scapegoat for "ubiquitous achievement pressures"? Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 583-597. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.42.3.583
Lyman, E. L., & Luthar, S. S. (2014). Further evidence on the “costs of privilege”: Perfectionism in high‐achieving
youth at socioeconomic extremes. Psychology in the Schools, 51(9), 913-930. doi: 10.1002/pits.21791
Ma, J. (2012, April 1). Why to start preparing for college in sixth grade. Forbes, retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonma/2012/04/01/why-to-start-preparing-for-college-in-sixth-grade/
#2bf5b511c8a2
Madjar, N., Voltsis, M., & Weinstock, M. P. (2015). The roles of perceived parental expectation and criticism in
adolescents’ multidimensional perfectionism and achievement goals. Educational Psychology, 35(6), 765-
778. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2013.864756
30
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
Maner, J. K. (2014). Let’s put our money where our mouth is if authors are to change their ways, reviewers (and
editors) must change with them. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 343-351. doi:
10.1177/1745691614528215
Maroda, K. J. (2004). A relational perspective on women and power. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 21(3), 428-435.
doi:10.1037/0736-9735.21.3.428
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Morin, A. J. (2009). Classical latent profile analysis of academic self-
concept dimensions: Synergy of person-and variable-centered approaches to theoretical models of self-
concept. Structural Equation Modeling, 16(2), 191-225. 10.1080/10705510902751010
Martel, M. M. (2013). Sexual selection and sex differences in the prevalence of childhood externalizing and
adolescent internalizing disorders. Psychological Bulletin, 139(6), 1221-1259. doi:10.1037/a0032247
Masud, H., Ahmad, M. S., Jan, F. A., & Jamil, A. (2016). Relationship between parenting styles and academic
performance of adolescents: Mediating role of self-efficacy. Asia Pacific Education Review, 17(1), 121-
131. doi: 10.1007/s12564-015-9413-6
McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Whiteman, S. D. (2003). The family contexts of gender development in
childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 12(1), 125-148. doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00225
McWayne, C., Campos, R., & Owsianik, M. (2008). A multidimensional, multilevel examination of mother and
father involvement among culturally diverse Head Start families. Journal of School Psychology, 46(5),
551-573. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.001
Meeus, W., van, d. S., Keijsers, L., Schwartz, S. J., & Branje, S. (2010). On the progression and stability of
adolescent identity formation: A five-wave longitudinal study in early-to-middle and middle-to-late
adolescence. Child Development, 81(5), 1565-1581. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01492.x
Mudrak, J. (2011). ‘He was born that way’: Parental constructions of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 22(2), 199-
217. doi: 10.1080/13598139.2011.622941
Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. K. (2000). Integrating person‐centered and variable‐centered analyses: Growth mixture
modeling with latent trajectory classes. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 24(6), 882-891.
doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2000.tb02070.x
Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6(1), 10-19. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
9280.1995.tb00298.x
31
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis
and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 535-
569. doi: 10.1080/10705510701575396
Oliver, J.M., Raftery, M., Reeb, A., & Delaney, P. (1993). Perceptions of parent-offspring relationships as
functions of depression in offspring: "Affectionless control," "negative bias," and "depressive realism."
Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 8(3), 405-424. doi: 10.1016/S0272-7358(96)00040-2
Padilla‐Walker, L. M., Carlo, G., Christensen, K. J., & Yorgason, J. B. (2012). Bidirectional relations between
authoritative parenting and adolescents’ prosocial behaviors. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(3),
400-408. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00807.x
Pappano, L. (2015). Is your first grader college ready? Education Life, The New York Times. Retrieved from http://
www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/education/edlife/is-your-first-grader-college-ready.html?_r=0
Phinney, J. S., & Goossens, L. (1996). Introduction identity development in context. Journal of Adolescence, 19,
401–403. doi: 10.1007/s10964-009-9401-4
Pomerantz, E. M., & Eaton, M. M. (2001). Maternal intrusive support in the academic context: Transactional
socialization processes. Developmental Psychology, 37, 174–186. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.37.2.174
Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of parents’ involvement in
children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 373-410. doi:
10.3102/003465430305567
Prioste, A., Narciso, I., Gonçalves, M. M., & Pereira, C. R. (2015). Family relationships and parenting practices: A
pathway to adolescents’ collectivist and individualist values? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24,
3258-3267. doi: 10.1007/s10826-015-0129-3
Rice, K. G., & Dellwo, J. P. (2002). Perfectionism and Self‐Development: Implications for College Adjustment.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 80(2), 188-196. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2002.tb00182.x
Rice, K. G., Lopez, F. G., & Vergara, D. (2005). Parental/social influences on perfectionism and adult attachment
orientations. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 580-605. doi:10.1521/jscp.2005.24.4.580
Rodriguez, B. L., & Olswang, L. B. (2003). Mexican-American and Anglo-American mothers' beliefs and values
about child rearing, education, and language impairment. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 12(4), 452-462. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2003/091
32
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
Romich, J. (2009). Trying to keep children out of trouble: Child characteristics, neighborhood quality, and within-
household resource allocation. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 338-345. doi:
10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.08.002
Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural
stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 157-176. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.87.2.157
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. doi: 10.1037//0003066X.55.1.68
Sagar, S.S., & Lavallee, D. (2010). The developmental origins of fear of failure in adolescent athletes: Examining
parental practices. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11(3), 177–187. doi:
10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.01.004
Sagar, S. S., Lavallee, D., & Spray, C. M. (2009). Coping with the effects of fear of failure: a preliminary
investigation of young elite athletes. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 1, 1-27. doi:
10.1080/10413201003664962
Sheldon, K. M., & Krieger, L. S. (2004). Does legal education have undermining effects on law students?
Evaluating changes in motivation, values, and well-being. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22(2), 261-286.
doi: 10.1002/bsl.582
Sheldon, K. M., & Hoon, T. H. (2007). The multiple determination of well-being: Independent effects of positive
traits, needs, goals, selves, social supports, and cultural contexts. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8(4), 565-
592. doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9031-4
Sheppard, L. D., & Aquino, K. (2014). Sisters at arms: A theory of female same-sex conflict and its
problematization in organizations. Journal of Management, published online. doi:
10.1177/0149206314539348
Slaughter, A. M. (2012, July/August). Why women still can’t have it all. The Atlantic, retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/
Snyder, T.D., and Dillow, S.A. (2015). Digest of Education Statistics 2013 (NCES 2015-011). National Center for
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015011.pdf
33
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school
achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 125-146. doi: 10.1007/s10648-005-3950-1
Starrels, M. E. (1994). Gender differences in parent-child relations. Journal of Family Issues, 15(1), 148-165. doi:
10.1177/019251394015001007
Steinberg, L.D., & Silk, J.S. (2002). Parenting adolescents. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed.,
Vol.1, pp. 103-134). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stroebe, W., & Strack, F. (2014). The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 9(1), 59-71. doi:10.1177/1745691613514450
Swann Jr, W. B., Langlois, J. H., & Gilbert, L. A. E. (1999). Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: The gender
science of Janet Taylor Spence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Turner, E. A., Chandler, M., & Heffer, R. W. (2009). The influence of parenting styles, achievement motivation,
and self-efficacy on academic performance in college students. Journal of College Student Development,
50(3), 337-346. doi:10.5901/ajis.2013.v2n3p123
US News and World Report (2014). Best Colleges, retrieved from http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/
Verkasalo, M., Goodwin, R., & Bezmenova, I. (2006). Values following a major terrorist incident: Finnish
adolescent and student values before and after September 11, 2001. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 36(1), 144-160. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00007.x
Zaki, J., & Mitchell, J. P. (2011). Equitable decision making is associated with neural markers of intrinsic
value. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(49), 19761-19766. doi: 10.1073/pnas
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Hunter, T. A., & Pronk, R. (2007). A model of behaviors, peer relations and depression:
Perceived social acceptance as a mediator and the divergence of perceptions. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 26(3), 273-302. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2007.26.3.273
34
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
Tables
Table 1
Descriptive Data on All Variables, Separately by Girls and Boys
Girls (n=251) Boys (n=244) T-test
Mean SD Mean SD
Parent variables
Dad Achievement Emphasis 2.76 2.02 3.27 1.97 -2.80*
Mom Achievement Emphasis 2.23 1.86 2.90 1.91 -3.98*
Parental Criticism 7.45 3.36 7.94 3.18 -1.68
Child variables
Internalizing (YSR T score) 8.15 (47) 7.89 7.81 (51) 7.46 0.48
Externalizing (YSR T score) 5.91 (46) 6.21 7.80 (49) 6.63 -3.25*
Self-esteem 3.32 0.65 3.36 0.56 -0.73
School Variables
Grade Point Average 10.10 1.44 9.30 1.64 5.77*
Teacher-rated Learning Problems 1.42 0.65 1.91 0.89 -7.06*
Teacher-rated Acting Out 1.19 0.39 1.55 0.66 -7.30*
Note. Mom and Dad Achievement Emphasis variables were based on children’s reported perceptions of parental
values.
* p < .001.
35
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
Table 2
Correlations Among Study Variables by Child Sex
123456789
1. Dad Achievement Emphasis - .66** .30** .18** .20** -.20** -.01 .01 .07
2. Mom Achievement Emphasis .70** - .26** .25** .25** -.13*-.14*.09 .13*
3. Parental Criticism .21** .24** - .42** .37** -.50** -.20** .22** .14*
4. Internalizing .13 .03 .17** - .73** -.59** -.12 .27** .24**
5. Externalizing .16*.11 .33** .58** - -.48** -.15*.27** .28**
6. Self-esteem -.12 -.01 -.29** -.49** -.41** - .25** -.30** -.28**
7. GPA -.16*-.09 -.26** -.10 -.24** .33** - -.71** -.52**
8. Teacher-rated Learning Problems .15*.12 .17** .02 .19** -.24** -.77** - .70**
9. Teacher-rated Acting Out .09 .03 .13 .03 .24** -.16*-.46** .69** -
Note. Correlations for boys are presented below the diagonal and correlations for girls are presented above the
diagonal; GPA = Grade Point Average.
*p<.05; **p<.01.
36
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
Table 3
Fit Statistics for Successive Latent Class Models
Model AIC Adjusted
BIC
BIC BLRT
p value
LMR LRT
p value
Entropy Error
Message
Without Covariate
One Class 2769.95 2774.06 2786.76 - - - no
Two Class 2443.51 2450.71 2472.92 <.001 <.001 0.78 no
Three Class 2306.83 2317.11 2348.85 <.001 <.001 0.90 no
Four Class 2291.95 2395.32 2346.58 <.001 <.01 0.84 no
Five Class 2275.31 2291.76 2342.55 <.001 0.44 0.84 no
Six Class 2212.11 2231.65 2291.96 <.001 <.001 0.88 no
Seven Class -41.47 -18.84 50.99 <.001 .91 0.99 yes
With Covariate
Five Class 2244.06 2263.60 2323.90 <.001 0.23 0.85 no
Six Class 2185.30 2207.93 2277.76 <.001 <.05 0.87 no
Seven Class 2165.64 2191.35 2270.70 <.001 0.10 0.88 yes
Note. AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; BLRT = Bootstrapped
Likelihood Ratio Test; LMR LRT = Lo–Mendell–Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test. Child sex was subsequently
included as a covariate with direct effects on the indicators, i.e., Perceived Mom and Dad Achievement
Emphases, improving the overall fit of the model.
37
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
Table 4
Description of Latent Classes and Distal Outcomes Analyses
Achievement Emphases
Latent Classes
Low-Both Low Mom/
Neutral Dad
Neutral-Both High Dad/
Neutral Mom
High Mom/
Neutral Dad
High-Both Overall Model
2(5) Test
n=149 n=36 n=119 n=71 n=26 n=93 -
Dad Achievement emphasis -1.11 (0.78)a0.34 (3.68) -0.22 (2.57) 1.07 (5.16) -0.51 (1.97) 1.05 (5.11) -
Mom Achievement emphasis -1.08 (0.48) -0.98 (0.68) 0.07 (2.68) 0.13 (2.80) 1.25 (4.94) 1.37 (5.17) -
Parental Criticism -0.30b-0.10bc -0.29b0.31a0.53ac 0.28ac 34.72*
Internalizing symptoms -0.12a0.06a-0.32b0.13a0.48ab 0.17a24.62*
Externalizing symptoms -0.21b-0.10ab -0.20b0.18a0.29ab 0.27a20.27*
Self-esteem 0.22bc -0.37a0.42b-0.28a-0.54ac -0.02ac 39.97*
Cumulative GPA 0.25bc -0.20ac 0.41b-0.13a-0.67a-0.24a25.06*
Teacher-rated Acting Out -0.08a-0.12a-0.10a0.04ab 0.05ab 0.27b15.11*
Teacher-rated Learning
Problems -0.08a-0.10a-0.22a-0.07a0.21ab 0.38b15.03*
Note. Latent class membership was based on the model with child sex included as a direct covariate on the indicator variables, i.e., Mom and Dad achievement
emphases. Mom and Dad Achievement Emphases variables were based on children’s reports on each individual parent’s values. All variables included in the
model were Z-scores, and values here represent standardized scores.
a Values in parentheses represent the raw scores for Mom and Dad Achievement emphases in each of the latent classes.
Pairwise mean comparisons are indicated using subscripts, where values with the same subscripts had statistically equivalent means.
*p<.01.
38
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
Table 5
Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Child Outcome Variables From Mother and Father Achievement
Emphases and Parental Criticism
Girls (n = 244) Boys (n =233)
Individual Paths b SE (b)
R2b SE (b)
R2
Internalizing Symptoms 0.29* 0.07☨
Mom Achievement 0.63 0.33 0.15 -0.54 0.35 -0.14
Dad Achievement -0.09 0.31 -0.02 0.71 0.34 0.19☨
Parental Criticism 0.84 0.14 0.36* 0.30 0.16 0.13
[Mom Achievement*Criticism] 0.43 0.09 0.34* 0.21 0.11 0.19☨
[Dad Achievement*Criticism] -0.13 0.09 -0.11 -0.05 0.11 -0.04
Externalizing Symptoms 0.17* 0.14*
Mom Achievement 0.19 0.19 0.06 0.19 0.19 0.06
Dad Achievement 0.20 0.20 0.07 0.20 0.20 0.07
Parental Criticism 0.61 0.09 0.33* 0.61 0.09 0.33*
[Mom Achievement*Criticism] 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.09
[Dad Achievement*Criticism] 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.04
Self-esteem 0.18* 0.19*
Mom Achievement 0.05 0.02 0.15* 0.05 0.02 0.15*
Dad Achievement -0.05 0.02 -0.17* -0.05 0.02 -0.17*
Parental Criticism -0.07 0.01 -0.35* -0.07 0.01 -0.35*
[Mom Achievement*Criticism] -0.01 0.01 -0.12* -0.01 0.01 -0.12*
[Dad Achievement*Criticism] -0.00 0.01 -0.02 -0.00 0.01 -0.02
GPA 0.06☨0.05☨
Mom Achievement -0.05 0.05 -0.05 -0.05 0.05 -0.05
Dad Achievement 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.02
Parental Criticism -0.10 0.02 -0.21* -0.10 0.02 -0.21*
[Mom Achievement*Criticism] -0.03 0.01 -0.11 -0.03 0.01 -0.11
[Dad Achievement*Criticism] 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.10
Acting Out 0.05☨0.02☨
Mom Achievement 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.08
Dad Achievement -0.00 0.01 -0.01 -0.00 0.01 -0.01
Parental Criticism 0.02 0.01 0.13☨0.02 0.01 0.13☨
[Mom Achievement*Criticism] 0.01 0.00 0.13☨0.01 0.00 0.13☨
[Dad Achievement*Criticism] -0.00 0.00 -0.02 -0.00 0.00 -0.02
Learning Problems 0.08* 0.04
Mom Achievement 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.06
Dad Achievement -0.01 0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0.02 -0.02
Parental Criticism 0.04 0.01 0.20* 0.04 0.01 0.20*
[Mom Achievement*Criticism] 0.02 0.01 0.21* 0.02 0.01 0.21*
[Dad Achievement*Criticism] -0.01 0.01 -0.13 -0.01 0.01 -0.13
Note. Mom and Dad Achievement Emphases variables were based on children’s reports on each individual
parent’s values.
☨p<.05; *p<.01
39
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
Figures
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Self-esteem
Internalizing
Externalizing
ParCriticism
Z-scores
Figure 1. Class-specific means for child-reported adjustment outcomes and perceived parental criticism.
ParCriticism=Perceived parental criticism.
40
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
Neutral-Both
Low-Both
LowMom/NeutDad
HighDad/NeutMom
HighMom/NeutDad
High-Both
-0.3
0.2
0.7
GPA
Teach-ActOut
TeachLearnProbs
Z-scores
Figure 2. Class-specific means for school-based adjustment outcomes. GPA = Grade Point Average; Teach-ActOut
= Teacher-reported Acting Out; TeachLearnProbs = Teacher-reported Learning Problems.
Figure 3. Moderation with simple slopes analyses demonstrating the association between perceived maternal
41
IMPLICATIONS OF VALUING ACHIEVEMENTS
achievement emphasis and children’s (a) self-reported internalizing symptoms (girls); (b) teacher-reported learning
problems; and (c) self-reported global self-esteem, at different levels of perceived parental criticism (1SD below the
mean; at the mean; and 1SD above the mean).
Authors’ Contributions
As a postdoctoral scholar in Dr. Luthar’s lab at ASU, LC performed the statistical analysis, participated in
the interpretation of the data, and drafted the manuscript. ASC participated in the interpretation of the
data, and helped to draft the manuscript. JK participated in the development of the research question,
statistical analysis, and interpretation of the data. SSL conceived of the study and participated in its
design and coordination and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final
manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors report no conflict of interests.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Funding
This research was supported with funding by the National Institutes of Health (R01DA014385;
R13MH082592).
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical
standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration
and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
(a) (b)
(c)
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Journal of Youth and Adolescence
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
