See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333842964

Perceived Parental Acceptance–Rejection in Childhood Predict Psychological

Adjustment and Rejection Sensitivity in Adulthood

Article  in  Psychological Studies · June 2019

DOI: 10.1007/s12646-019-00508-z

CITATIONS READS

0 53

5 authors, including:

Abdul Khaleque Muhammad Kamal Uddin

University of Connecticut University of Dhaka
84 PUBLICATIONS   1,713 CITATIONS    78 PUBLICATIONS   91 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kazi Nur Hossain nur-e-alam Siddique

Jagannath University - Bangladesh University of Rajshahi
8 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Interpersonal Acceptance-Rejection and its Behavioral Outcomes View project

Environmental Studies of Bangladesh View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Kamal Uddin on 28 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychol Stud (October–December 2019) 64(4):447–454
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-019-00508-z
ASSESSMENT
Perceived Parental Acceptance–Rejection in Childhood Predict
Psychological Adjustment and Rejection Sensitivity in Adulthood
Abdul Khaleque1 • Muhammad Kamal Uddin2 • Kazi Nur Hossain3
Md. Nur-E-Alam Siddique4 • Anjuman Shirin4
Received: 18 June 2018 / Accepted: 11 July 2019 / Published online: 6 August 2019
Ó National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2019
Abstract The present study examined relationships
between childhood parental acceptance–rejection and the
current psychological adjustment and rejection sensitivity
of young adult men and women. The study also explored
independent effects of childhood parental acceptance–re-
jection on the current psychological adjustment and
rejection sensitivity of young adult men and women. Data
were collected from 514 university students (49% female
and 51% male) in Bangladesh. The mean age of the
respondents was 22 years with a range of 18 through
26 years. Measures used were Adult version (short form) of
the Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire for
Mothers and Fathers, the Rejection Sensitivity Question-
naire, and the Adult version of the Personality Assessment
Questionnaire. Results revealed significant correlations
between remembered maternal and paternal acceptance–
rejection in childhood and current psychological adjust-
ment and rejection sensitivity of young adult men and
women. Hierarchical regression analysis showed that both
maternal and paternal acceptance in childhood have sig-
nificant independent effects on the current psychological
adjustment of both male and female young adults. Results
& Abdul Khaleque
abdul.khaleque@uconn.edu
1
Department of Human Development and Family Studies,
University of Connecticut, 348 Mansfield Road, Unit 1058,
Storrs, CT 06269, USA
2
Department of Psychology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka,
Bangladesh
3
Department of Psychology, Jagannath University, Dhaka,
Bangladesh
4
Department of Psychology, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi,
Bangladesh
•
also showed that perceived paternal rejection in childhood
has significant independent effects on the rejection sensi-
tivity of both young adult men and women, but perceived
maternal rejection in childhood has no significant effects
on the rejection sensitivity of young adult men and women.
Keywords Maternal and paternal acceptance–rejection

Rejection sensitivity

Psychological adjustment/maladjustment
The feeling of acceptance is a powerful motivator for
positive interpersonal behavior, personality, and psy-
chosocial development (Khaleque, 2013). Contrarily, the
feeling of rejection has an array of negative effects on
individuals’ personality, behavior, and psychological well-
being (Khaleque, 2017). Childhood rejection has many
negative effects on later development including increased
internalizing and externalizing difficulties in adolescence
(Pedersen, Vitaro, Barker, & Borge, 2007) and hostility,
aggression, psychological maladjustment, and a host of
other psychopathological symptoms in adulthood (Khale-
que & Rohner, 2011). Rejected individuals often tend to
develop and hold distorted mental representations that may
lead them to perceive hostility and rejection in interper-
sonal relationships, and interpret relationships as untrust-
worthy without any objective basis (Lansford, Malone,
Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2010). Contrarily, experiences of
acceptance are associated with a host of positive outcomes
including good psychological adjustment, and positive
personality development, such as higher levels of self-es-
teem and self-competence in children, adolescence, and
adults (Khaleque & Ali, 2017; Ohannessian, 2012).
Rejection sensitivity (RS) is an individual’s tendency or
predisposition to expect, perceive, and interpret
123
448
interpersonal interactions as rejections (Downey & Feld-
man, 1996). An individual with rejection sensitivity often
perceives and reacts extremely to rejection (Downey &
Feldman, 1996). Research findings show that people prone
to rejection sensitivity are likely to interpret ambiguous
interpersonal situations—imagined or real, as rejections
and tend to overreact to them (Ayduk et al., 2008). One
study showed that the level of remembered parental
acceptance–rejection in childhood uniquely contributed to
the level of rejection sensitivity in adulthood, and accep-
tance–rejection from the same-sex parent accounted for
more variance in rejection sensitivity than did acceptance–
rejection from the other-sex parent for both men and
women (Ibrahim, Rohner, Smith, & Flannery, 2015).
Heightened concern and sensitivity about the possibility
of rejection have several maladaptive relational, behav-
ioral, and personality outcomes including social with-
drawal, disruption of interpersonal functioning, hostility,
aggression, violence in intimate relationship, loneliness,
anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem (Robillard, 2009).
Rejection sensitivity has also been found related to a
number of psychological disorders including social phobia,
avoidant personality disorder, and borderline personality
disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). In
addition, rejection sensitivity has been found associated
with higher levels of depression, loneliness, exclusion, and
victimization from others (Zimmer-Gembeck, Sieben-
bruner, & Collins, 2001). Rejection sensitivity has also
been implicated to increased risk of victimization in mul-
tiple contexts such as peer relationships, friendships, and
romantic relationships (Zimmer-Gembeck, Trevaskis,
Nesdale, & Downey, 2014). Rejection sensitivity also
affects the quality of various types of relationships. For
example, young adults who were high in rejection sensi-
tivity in adolescence tended to be less interested in
romantic relationships during emerging adulthood, and
those who were in romantic relationships tended to be
anxious about the quality and stability of their relationships
(Hafen, Spilker, Chango, Marston, & Allen, 2014). Fur-
thermore, rejection sensitivity was found to have a positive
significant relationship with anxiety and a negative sig-
nificant relationship with self-esteem (Khoshkam, Bah-
rami, Ahmadi, Fatehizade, & Etemadi, 2012).
Research on rejection sensitivity often draws from the-
ories of interpersonal relationships (Ayduk et al., 2008).
According to these theories, rejection sensitivity originates
from childhood experience of rejection, and the impacts of
which extend to adulthood with a wide range of problem-
atic behaviors and maladaptive developmental outcomes
(Downey & Feldman, 1996). One such theory is interper-
sonal acceptance and rejection theory (IPARTheory)
developed by Ronald P. Rohner in 1975 (Rohner, 1986/
2000). This is an evidence-based theory of socialization
123
Psychol Stud (October–December 2019) 64(4):447–454
and lifespan development that attempts to predict and
explain causes, consequences, and other correlates of
interpersonal acceptance and rejection across culture
(Rohner, 1986/2000, 2016; Rohner, Khaleque, & Cour-
noyer, 2012). In IPARTheory, parental acceptance refers to
warmth, affection, care, comfort, nurturance, support, or
simply love of parents toward their children. Parental
rejection, on the other hand, refers to the withdrawal or
lack of parental warmth, affection, care, comfort, nurtu-
rance, support, or love of parents toward their children
(Rohner, 2016). According to IPARTheory, parental
rejection takes four major forms: (1) emotional coldness
and lack of affection—absence or withdrawal of emotion-
ally expressed affection; (2) hostility and aggression—
feeling and expression of enmity, anger, or resentment,
leading to hurtful verbal and physical behavior of parents
toward their children; (3) indifference and neglect—lack of
concern of parents for children’s physical, psychological,
and social needs; and (4) undifferentiated rejection. The
theory assumes that humans have the phylogenetically
acquired need for positive response or acceptance from
people most important to them (Rohner, 2016).
IPARTheory states that in childhood the need for parental
acceptance is reflected in parental warmth, affection, care,
comfort, support, and nurturance. The theory assumes that
if and when this need for positive response is not fulfilled
by parents or significant others, children tend to develop
the following negative personality dispositions, including:
(1) hostility/aggression, (2) dependence, (3) negative self-
esteem, (4) negative self-adequacy, (5) emotional insta-
bility, (6) emotional unresponsiveness, and (7) negative
worldview. The theory postulates that rejected children
tend to develop a negative worldview characterized by
beliefs that this world is a dangerous place, where people in
general are unfriendly, hostile, and not trustworthy (Batool
& Najam, 2012).
The theory also predicts that the experience of parental
rejection in childhood often leads to the development of
rejection sensitivity and psychological maladjustment that
tend to extend into adulthood worldwide across culture
(Rohner & Khaleque, 2010; Ibrahim et al., 2015). How-
ever, as we know, to date, only one study was conducted in
the USA to test this prediction of the IPARTheory (Ibrahim
et al., 2015). Clearly, further research is needed to explore
if this prediction is true globally. To address the above
prediction, this study was designed to explore if there are
relationships between perceived parental acceptance–re-
jection in childhood and current psychological adjustment,
and rejection sensitivity of young adults in Bangladesh.
The study addressed the following specific questions: (1)
Are there any relationships between remembrance of per-
ceived maternal and paternal acceptance–rejection of
young adults in childhood and their current psychological
Psychol Stud (October–December 2019) 64(4):447–454
adjustment and rejection sensitivity? (2) Do young adults’
perceived maternal and paternal acceptance–rejection have
significant independent effects on their psychological
adjustment and rejection sensitivity? (3) Do relationships
between perceived parental acceptance–rejection, psycho-
logical adjustment, and rejection sensitivity vary by the
gender compositions of parent–child dyad?
Methods
Sample
Sample consisted of 514 young adults (51% male and 49%
female) selected from six major universities in Bangladesh.
Mean age of the sample was 22 years ranging from 18
through 26 years. Educational levels of the sample varied
from undergraduate (88%) through graduate (12%). The
majority of the sample was from middle class (i.e., middle
income) families. The respondents were selected on the
basis of convenience, willing consent, and availability.
Measures
Four self-report questionnaires were used in this study.
These are: the Adult Parental Acceptance–Rejection
Questionnaire (short form): Mother version (Adult PARQ:
Mother; Rohner, 2005), the Adult Parental Acceptance–
Rejection Questionnaire (short form): Father version
(Adult PARQ: Father; Rohner, 2005); Personality Assess-
ment Questionnaire (PAQ; Rohner & Khaleque, 2005); and
Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ; Downey &
Feldman, 1996). Each of these questionnaires is described
below.
The Adult Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire:
Mother and Father Versions (Adult PARQ: Mother
and Father)
The Adult PARQ: Mother and Father versions (short
forms) were used to assess adult’s remembrance about their
maternal and paternal acceptance and rejection during
childhood. The mother and father versions of the Adult
PARQ short form consists of 24 items. The two versions
are virtually identical except for reference to ‘‘mother’s’’
behavior versus ‘‘father’s’’ behavior. Both versions ask
respondents to reflect on their mothers’ or fathers’ behavior
toward them during their childhood. Both the question-
naires measure adults’ perceptions of maternal and paternal
warmth/affection, hostility/aggression, indifference/ne-
glect, and undifferentiated rejection. Examples of test items
on the both version of the PARQ short form include, ‘‘My
mother/father makes me feel wanted and needed’’
449
(perceived warmth or affection); ‘‘My mother/father goes
out of her/his way to hurt my feelings’’ (perceived hostility
or aggression); ‘‘My mother/father ignores me as long as I
do to bother her/him’’ (perceived indifference or neglect);
‘‘My mother/father does not really love me’’ (perceived
undifferentiated rejection).
The sum of the four PARQ subscales (with the warmth/
affection subscale reverse-scored to create a measure of
coldness/lack of affection) constitutes a measure of overall
perceived maternal and paternal acceptance–rejection. The
possible scale score ranges from a low of 24 to a high of
96. The midpoint of the PARQ is 60. Score at or above the
scale midpoint indicates more parental rejection than
acceptance and below the midpoint indicates more parental
acceptance than rejection. In this study, alpha coefficient
for the Adult PARQ Mother was .87 and that of the Adult
PARQ Father was .91. The PARQ has been used in over
2000 studies worldwide and is known to have robust reli-
ability and validity for use in cross-cultural research
(Khaleque & Rohner, 2002; Rohner, 2005). The alpha
coefficients for the mother version have been found to
range from .76 to .97 and for the father version range from
.81 to .97 (Rohner & Khaleque, 2005).
The Adult Version of Personality Assessment
Questionnaire (Adult PAQ)
The Adult PAQ consists of seven subscales assessing self-
reports about seven personality dispositions as construed in
IPARTheory’s personality subtheory. The Adult PAQ
consists of 63 items, nine items for each of seven subscales:
(1) Hostility/Aggression, (2) Dependence, (3) Negative
Self-Esteem, (4) Negative Self-Adequacy, (5) Emotional
Unresponsiveness, (6) Emotional Instability, and (7)
Negative Worldview. Individuals respond to PAQ items on
a four-point Likert-style scale ranging from (4) ‘‘almost
always true of me’’ to (1) ‘‘almost never true of me.’’ A
profile of an individual’s overall self-reported psychologi-
cal adjustment is achieved by summing the seven subscale
scores after reverse scoring appropriate items. Scores on
the Adult PAQ range from a low of 63, indicating healthy
psychological adjustment, to a high of 252 indicating
serious psychological maladjustment. The instrument is
designed in such a way that scores at or above the test’s
midpoint of 157 reveal that individuals experience them-
selves to be more psychologically maladjusted than
adjusted.
The Adult PAQ is available in about 30 languages. The
instrument is known to have been used in more than 500
studies on five continents and among most American ethnic
groups (Khaleque & Ali, 2017). Meta-analysis of 252 adult
respondents who used the Adult PAQ in the Caribbean and
most American ethnic groups revealed that the overall
123
450
mean unweighted effect size of coefficient alpha is .90, and
the overall mean weighted effect size of coefficient alpha is
.86 (Khaleque & Rohner, 2012). Moreover, the test–retest
reliability coefficient across time periods of 12 through
18 months for the Adult PAQ is .76. Evidence about the
validity of the PAQ along with additional evidence
regarding its reliability is summarized in Rohner (1986/
2000), Rohner and Chaki-Sircar (1988), Rohner and
Khaleque (2005), and Khaleque and Ali (2017). Alpha
coefficient of the Adult PAQ in this study is .85.
Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ)
The RSQ is a self-report questionnaire for measuring
individuals’ level of sensitivity of being rejected by friends
or significant others. There are two versions of the mea-
sure: an eight-item version and an 18-item version. The
18-item version was used in this study. This version con-
sists of 18 hypothetical situations relevant to adult inter-
actions with significant others. One item, for example,
states: ‘‘You ask your boyfriend/girlfriend to move in with
you.’’ Participants are then asked to indicate how anxious
or concerned they would feel about the way in which
significant others would respond using a six-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 (very unconcerned) to 6 (very con-
cerned). In addition, participants are asked to rate on a six-
point scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 6 (very likely),
the likelihood that the significant others would accept the
invitation. High likelihood reveals the expectation of being
accepted, whereas low likelihood reveals the expectation of
being rejected. An overall rejection sensitivity score is
computed on the basis of the mean scores of 18 items.
Possible rejection sensitivity scores can range from 1
(minimum rejection sensitivity) through 36 (maximum
rejection sensitivity). Downey and Feldman (1996) repor-
ted high internal reliability (alpha coefficient) for the total
scale (a = .83), as well as a 3-week test–retest reliability
coefficient of r = .83 (p \ .001). Coefficient alpha of the
RSQ in this study is .85.
Procedures
Data were collected from the sample using the four ques-
tionnaires, which were administered to the respondents
during classes with the permission of the concerned
teachers.
The questionnaires were administered in the following
order: Adult PARQ: Mother, RSQ, Adult PAQ, and Adult
PARQ: Father. The two versions of the PARQ were sep-
arated by the RSQ and PAQ in order to minimize halo-
effect bias, where students might not tend to respond to the
father version of the PARQ in specific ways that they
responded to the mother version of the PARQ.
123
Psychol Stud (October–December 2019) 64(4):447–454
Results
To see gender differences, we analyzed the data separately
for men and women. As shown in Table 1, means scores of
both paternal and maternal acceptance indicate that on
average both men and women experienced relatively more
acceptance than rejection in childhood. However, the mean
score of parental acceptance–rejection (PARQ) is signifi-
cantly higher for men than for women. A higher mean
score of PARQ indicates a lower acceptance. Thus, men
perceived their fathers and mothers significantly less
accepting and more rejecting than did women. Table 1 also
shows that on average, both men and women reported that
they are psychologically well adjusted. However, there
were no significant gender differences between the mean
scores of psychological adjustment and rejection sensitivity
for men and women.
Results in Table 2 show that perceived paternal and
maternal acceptance are significantly related with the
psychological adjustment of both men and women. Results
also show that the remembrance of paternal (not maternal)
acceptance–rejection is significantly related to both men’s
and women’s rejection sensitivity. The less paternal
acceptance men and women experienced in childhood, the
more sensitive they reported themselves to be to the pos-
sible threat of rejection. But remembrance of maternal
acceptance has significant correlation with the rejection
sensitivity of men and not of women. The table also shows
that both maternal acceptance and paternal acceptance are
significantly correlated with each other.
To see the independent contributions of paternal
acceptance and maternal acceptance on the psychological
adjustment and rejection sensitivity of both men and
women, we conducted hierarchical multiple regressions
separately for men and women. Table 3 shows that both
paternal acceptance and maternal acceptance make sig-
nificant independent contributions for the psychological
adjustment of men. Results in step 1 show that after con-
trolling for the effect of maternal acceptance and rejection
sensitivity, paternal acceptance alone explains about 24%
of variability in the psychological adjustment of both men
and women. Results in step 2 show that paternal accep-
tance and maternal acceptance jointly explain about 26%
of variability in the psychological adjustment of both men
and women of which paternal acceptance alone explains
24% of variability and maternal acceptance explains only
2% of variability in men’s and women’s psychological
adjustment. However, rejection sensitivity has no signifi-
cant independent effect on men’s and women’s psycho-
logical adjustment.
Results in Table 4 show that only paternal acceptance
has significant independent effect on the rejection
Psychol Stud (October–December 2019) 64(4):447–454 451

Table 1 Gender differences in mean scores of major variables

Variables Gender N Mean SD t

PARQ: father Male 262 45.27 11.79 6.55**

Female 246 38.40 11.84
PARQ: mother Male 262 42.87 10.21 3.96**
Female 246 39.32 10.02
PAQ Male 262 98.66 15.31 0.47
Female 246 98.02 15.50
RSQ Male 262 9.59 4.40 0.71
Female 246 9.87 4.41
**p \ .001

Table 2 Correlations among major variables by gender

1 2 3 4

1. Paternal acceptance–rejection – .47** .49** .31**

2. Maternal acceptance–rejection .47** – .35** .13*
3. Psychological adjustment .36** .31** – .10
4. Rejection sensitivity .22** .07 .09 –
Correlation coefficients above the diagonal are for men and below the diagonal are for women
**p \ .001; *p \ .01

Table 3 Hierarchical multiple regression analyses of paternal acceptance, maternal acceptance, and rejection sensitivity as predictors of
psychological adjustment of male and female respondents
Predictors Model for men Model for women
2 2
b R DR b R2 DR2

Step 1 .24*** .24*** .24** .24**

PARQ: father .49*** .22**
Step 2 .26*** .26*** .26*** .25***
PARQ: father .41*** .41***
PARQ: mother .16** .15**
Excluded variable: RSQ .05 .04
***p \ .001; **p \ .01

sensitivity of both men and women. After controlling for Discussion

the effects of maternal acceptance and psychological
adjustment, paternal acceptance alone accounts for about
9% of variance in men’s and women’s rejection sensitivity.
Neither maternal acceptance nor psychological adjustment
has any significant independent effect on the rejection
sensitivity of men and women.
Findings of this study show that both men and women
tended to perceive considerable maternal and paternal
acceptance during childhood, although men tended to
report significantly less maternal and paternal acceptance
than do women. However, childhood experience of ma-
ternal and paternal acceptance is significantly correlated
with the current psychological adjustment of both men and
women. Although both paternal acceptance and maternal

123
452
Table 4 Hierarchical multiple regression analyses of paternal acceptance, maternal acceptance, and psychological adjustment as predictors of
rejection sensitivity of male and female respondents
Predictors Model for men
2 2
b R
Step 1 .09***
PARQ: father .31***
Excluded variable
PARQ: mother 0.01
PAQ 0.05
***p \ .001; **p \ .01
acceptance make unique contributions to the psychological
adjustment of both men and women, paternal acceptance
has greater effect on men’s and women’s psychological
adjustment than that of maternal acceptance. Multiple
regression analysis shows that paternal acceptance
explains 24% of variability men’s and women’s psycho-
logical adjustment, whereas maternal acceptance explains
only 2% of variability. These findings are consistent with
the interpersonal acceptance–rejection theory’s prediction
that perceived paternal acceptance often has as strong or
even stronger implications than perceived maternal
acceptance for children’s and adults’ positive develop-
mental outcomes, including psychological adjustment
globally (Rohner, 2016). Evidence from several empirical
studies supports this assumption (Rohner & Veneziano,
2001; Veneziano, 2008). Some other studies have found
that men perceive to be less accepted/more rejected by
parents (Shek, 2008). In addition, a meta-analytic review
has shown that paternal acceptance tends to have a sig-
nificantly stronger relationship than maternal acceptance
with individuals’ psychological adjustment cross-culturally
(Khaleque & Rohner, 2012).
In terms of relations between rejection sensitivity and
gender, the result shows no significant difference between
young men and women in rejection sensitivity. Some
authors, however, suggested that in gender role socializa-
tion, parents often encourage their daughters more than
their sons to be responsive and caring to others’ feelings
(Rudolp & Conley, 2005). Consistent to this views, find-
ings of some studies show that girls tend to be more sen-
sitive to the thoughts and feelings of others than boys
(Smith & Rose, 2011). However, some other studies have
reported that adolescent males had higher levels of rejec-
tion sensitivity than adolescent females (Hafen et al.,
2014). We also explored the role of gender in terms of the
relative impact of maternal versus paternal acceptance–
rejection on rejection sensitivity of young men and women.
Results show that perceived paternal acceptance–rejection
123
Psychol Stud (October–December 2019) 64(4):447–454
Model for women
DR b R2 DR2
.09*** .05** .04**
.22**
.02
.06
has significant correlations with the rejection of both young
men and women, and perceived maternal acceptance–re-
jection has significant correlation with the rejection sensi-
tivity of men and not of women. However, results of
multiple regression analysis show that paternal rejection
has significant unique effects on the rejection sensitivity of
both men and women, but maternal rejection has no sig-
nificant unique effects on the rejection sensitivity of men
and women. As noted earlier, after literature review on
parental acceptance–rejection and rejection sensitivity, we
found only one study that shows that paternal rejection
explains more variability in rejection sensitivity of men
than that of women, whereas maternal rejection explains
more variability in rejection sensitivity of women than that
of men (Ibrahim et al., 2015). However, Rohner and Brit-
ner (2002) found a worldwide tendency for perceived pa-
ternal rejection to be a better predictor of negative feelings
and behavior problems than maternal rejection.
Although the evidence provided in this study is based on
a relatively large number of sample, the study is not free
from certain limitations. For example, this study relies on
adults’ memories of parental acceptance–rejection in
childhood, which might have been partially forgotten or
distorted by memories of other events during adolescence
and adulthood. Another limitation is about the skepticism
concerning the reliability of respondents’ self-reports to
subjective questionnaires, although a number of studies
have shown that claims about the unreliability of self-re-
ports are often exaggerated (e.g., Cournoyer & Rohner,
1996). Moreover, this is a cross-sectional and not longi-
tudinal study. For this reason, it is not possible to draw any
conclusions about the causal nature of relationships
between variables. These limitations should be addressed
in future research.
Despite these limitations, the study provides evidence in
support of the relationships between childhood memory of
paternal and maternal acceptance–rejection with adults’
current psychological adjustment and rejection sensitivity.
Psychol Stud (October–December 2019) 64(4):447–454
The study also provide interesting evidence about how
different gender compositions of parent–child dyad can
have different effects on the relationships between parental
acceptance–rejection, psychological adjustment, and
rejection sensitivity of adult men and women. Overall,
findings of this study provide empirical support to predic-
tions of the IPARTheory that the experience of parental
acceptance in childhood is likely to have specific positive
consequences and the experience of parental rejection in
childhood is likely to have specific negative consequences
for psychological functioning in adulthood for both men
and women. These findings clearly show the critical
importance of paternal acceptance over maternal accep-
tance in determining the developmental outcomes of chil-
dren and adult offspring. The findings seem to be
meaningful in the context of male dominance in most of
the world societies, where men enjoy and exercise more
power than women in the family (Khaleque & Shirin,
2014).
These findings may be useful to clinicians in their effort
to treat children, who are experiencing parental, especially
paternal, rejection and consequently suffering from psy-
chological maladjustment and behavioral problems. In
addition, the findings seem to have strong implications for
theory, research, policy, and practice about child-parent
relationships, and children’s personality development and
behavioral functioning as this study and several other
studies show that children’s perception of parental rejec-
tion is associated worldwide with psychological malad-
justment, rejection sensitivity, conduct disorders,
depression, delinquency, externalizing behaviors, and
substance abuse (e.g., Rohner & Britner, 2002).
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Amer-
ican Psychiatric Association.
Ayduk, O., Zayas, V., Downey, G., Cole, A. B., Shoda, Y., &
Mischel, W. (2008). Rejection sensitivity and executive control:
Joint predictors of borderline personality features. Journal of
Research in Personality, 42(1), 151–168.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.04.002.
Batool, S., & Najam, N. (2012). Relationship between perceived
parenting style, perceived parental acceptance–rejection and
perception of God among young adults. Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 22(1), 1–7.
Cournoyer, D. E., & Rohner, R. P. (1996). Reliability of retrospective
reports of perceived maternal acceptance–rejection in childhood.
Psychological Reports, 78(1), 147–150.
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implication of rejection
sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327–1343.
Hafen, C. A., Spilker, A., Chango, J., Marston, E. S., & Allen, J. P.
(2014). To accept or reject? The impact of adolescent rejection
453
sensitivity on early adult romantic relationships. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 24(1), 55–64.
Ibrahim, D. M., Rohner, R. P., Smith, R. L., & Flannery, K. L. (2015).
Adults’ remembrances of parental acceptance–rejection in
childhood predict current rejection sensitivity in adulthood.
Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 44(1), 51–62.
https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12119.
Khaleque, A. (2013). Perceived parental warmth and affection, and
children’s psychological adjustment, and personality disposi-
tions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
22(2), 297–306.
Khaleque, A. (2017). Perceived parental hostility and aggression, and
children’s psychological maladjustment, and negative personal-
ity dispositions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 26(4), 977–988.
Khaleque, A., & Ali, S. (2017). A systematic review of meta-analyses
of research on interpersonal acceptance–rejection theory: Con-
structs and measures. Journal of Family Theory and Review,
9(4), 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12228.
Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (2011). Transnational relations
between perceived parental acceptance and personality disposi-
tions of children and adults: A meta-analytic review. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 16(2), 103–115.
Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (2012). Pancultural associations
between perceived parental acceptance and psychological
adjustment of children and adults: A metal analytic review of
worldwide research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
43(5), 784–800.
Khaleque, A., & Shirin, A. (2014). Influence of perceived parental
power and prestige on parental acceptance and psychological
adjustment of adult offspring. Bangladesh Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 20(1), 1–14.
Khoshkam, S., Bahrami, F., Ahmadi, S. A., Fatehizade, M., &
Etemadi, O. (2012). Attachment style and rejection sensitivity:
The mediating effect of self-esteem and worry among Iranian
college students. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 8(3),
363–374. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v8i3.463.
Lansford, J. E., Malone, P. S., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J.
E. (2010). Developmental cascades of peer rejection, social
information processing biases, and aggression during middle
childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 22(3), 593–602.
Ohannessian, C. M. (2012). Parental problem drinking and adolescent
psychosocial adjustment: The mediating role of adolescent–
parent communication. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
22(3), 498–511.
Pedersen, S., Vitaro, F., Barker, E. D., & Borge, A. I. (2007). The
timing of middle-childhood peer rejection and friendship:
Linking early behavior to early-adolescent adjustment. Child
Development, 78(4), 1037–1051.
Robillard, L. (2009). Rejection sensitivity, information processing
deficits attachment style and empathic accuracy in violent
relationships (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Queensland, Queensland.
Rohner, R. P. (1986/2000). The warmth dimension: Foundations of
parental acceptance–rejection theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc. [Reprinted by Rohner Research Publishers].
Rohner, R. P. (2005). Intimate partner acceptance–rejection/control
questionnaire (IPAR/CQ): Test manual. In R. P. Rohner & A.
Khaleque (Eds.), Handbook for the study of parental acceptance
and rejection (pp. 227–242). Storrs, CT: Rohner Research
Publications.
Rohner, R. P. (2016). Introduction to interpersonal acceptance–
rejection theory, methods, evidence, and implications. University
of Connecticut, Ronald and Nancy Rohner Center for the Study
of Interpersonal Acceptance Rejection Website:
http://csiar.uconn.edu/.
123
454
Rohner, R. P., & Britner, P. A. (2002). Worldwide mental health
correlates of parental acceptance–rejection: Review of cross-
cultural and intracultural evidence. Cross-Cultural Research,
36(1), 16–47.
Rohner, R. P., & Chaki-Sircar, M. (1988). Women and children in a
Bengali village. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
(Reprinted 2011 as e-book; Storrs, CT: Rohner Research
Publications).
Rohner, R. P., & Khaleque, A. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook for the study
of parental acceptance and rejection (4th ed.). Storrs, CT:
Rohner Research Publications.
Rohner, R. P., & Khaleque, A. (2010). Testing the central postulates
of parental acceptance–rejection theory (PARTheory): A meta-
analysis of cross-cultural studies. Journal of Family Theory and
Review, 2(1), 73–87.
Rohner, R. P., Khaleque, A., & Cournoyer, D. E. (2012). Parental
acceptance–rejection theory, methods, evidence, and implica-
tions. http://www.csiar.uconn.edu/intro.
Rohner, R. P., & Veneziano, R. A. (2001). The importance of father
love: History and contemporary evidence. Review of General
Psychology, 5(4), 382–405.
Rudolph, K. D., & Conley, C. S. (2005). The socio-emotional costs
and benefits of social-evaluative concerns: Do girls care too
much? Journal of Personality, 73(1), 115–138.
Shek, D. T. L. (2008). Perceived parental control and parent–child
relational qualities in early adolescent in Hong Kong: Parent
123
View publication stats
Psychol Stud (October–December 2019) 64(4):447–454
gender, child gender and grade differences. Sex Roles, 58(9–10),
666–681.
Smith, R. L., & Rose, A. J. (2011). The ‘‘cost of caring’’ in youths’
friendships: Considering associations among social perspective
taking, co-rumination, and empathetic distress. Developmental
Psychology, 47(6), 1792–1803.
Veneziano, R. A. (2008). The relative importance of fathers versus
mothers for offspring’s behavior: Theory and implications for
future research. Paper presented at the Second International
Congress on Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection, University
of Crete, Rethymno, Greece, July 3–6.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Siebenbruner, J., & Collins, W. A. (2001).
Diverse aspects of dating: associations with psychosocial
functioning from early to middle adolescence. Journal of
Adolescence, 24(3), 313–336.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M., Trevaskis, S., Nesdale, D., & Downey, G.
(2014). Relational victimization, loneliness and depressive
symptoms: Indirect associations via self and peer reports of
rejection sensitivity. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 43(4),
568–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9993-6.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.