Interpretations of Parenting by Mainland Chinese and U.S. American Children

SYNOPSIS

Objective. This study examined whether mainland Chinese and U.S. American children’s interpretations of their parents’ coercive authority assertion and critical comparison and shaming moderate relations between their reports of parenting and adjustment. Design. Middle-school children from mainland China (n = 217) and the United States (n = 207) rated their parents on coercive authority assertion and critical comparison and shaming, indicated whether they approved of their parents’ practices, rated their parents’ underlying intentions, and reported their own depression, antisocial behavior, and school motivation. Results. Moderation analyses showed that associations between coercive authority assertion or critical comparison and shaming and child depression were stronger for American and Chinese children whose approval ratings for these practices were relatively low. Greater coercive authority assertion was related to lower antisocial behavior for children who rated their parents high for the child beneficial interpretation and to lower school motivation for children who rated their parents low for the parent beneficial interpretation. For American children, greater coercive authority assertion also was related to greater depression for those who rated their parents relatively low for the child beneficial interpretation. For Chinese children, greater critical comparison and shaming was related to increased school motivation for those who rated their parents high on the child beneficial and/or parent beneficial interpretations. Conclusions. When children interpret their parents’ behavior in a more positive manner (i.e., they approve or think it is motivated by concern for the child), negative effects of coercive authority assertion and critical comparison and shaming may be mitigated. However, some cultural differences were found, particularly with respect to school motivation.

ARTICLE INFORMATION

Conflict of interest disclosures: Each author signed a form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No authors reported any financial or other conflicts of interest in relation to the work described.

Ethical principles: The authors affirm having followed professional ethical guidelines in preparing this work. These guidelines include obtaining informed consent from human participants, maintaining ethical treatment and respect for the rights of human or animal participants, and ensuring the privacy of participants and their data, such as ensuring that individual participants cannot be identified in reported results or from publicly available original or archival data.

Funding: DePaul University and Shanghai Normal University provided funding to support this research.

Role of the funders/sponsors: None of the funders or sponsors of this research had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Acknowledgments: We express appreciation to the children and parents who participated in this study in both the United States and PRC and to the school staff who supported our efforts.

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website.