thesis on school adjustment

Academic adjustment of first year students and their transition experiences: The moderating effect of social adjustment

• Original Paper
• Published: 24 March 2023
• Volume 29 , pages 189–209, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Yaw Owusu-Agyeman   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6730-5456 1 &
• Taabo Mugume 1  

680 Accesses

2 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Universities today are facing challenges regarding students’ persistence and success especially among first year students who converge from diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds and anticipate a smooth academic and social adjustment to the university setting. However, contextual and individual factors play important role in the academic and social adjustment of first year students. In order to provide an empirical explanation to this phenomenon, the current study examines the moderating effect of social adjustments on the relationship between academic adjustment and the transition experiences of first year students in a multi-campus university in South Africa. Data was gathered by way of a survey from a sample of 1538 students while the analysis was performed using bivariate correlation and hierarchical regression analysis. Results showed that while all the five academic adjustment factors evaluated demonstrated positive and significant relationship with the transition experiences of students, intellectual engagement and online engagement served as the strongest predictors of the transition experiences of first year students. The study further revealed that social adjustment significantly moderate the relationship between three academic adjustment factors (student-lecturer engagement, peer engagement and online learning) and the transition experiences of first year students. Therefore, through students’ interaction with their peers and staff as well as their involvement in social and cultural activities, they enhance their academic adjustment and transition experiences. We highlight the implications of our findings in relation to theory and practice and propose ways that universities could develop structures and policies to enhance the transition experiences of first year students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The Tertiary Experience: Of Social Integration, Retention and Persistence – A Review

Nurudeen Abdul-Rahaman, Evgeniy Terentev & Vincent Ekow Arkorful

Readiness, resilience, and engagement: Analyzing the core building blocks of online education

Mustafa Polat

First-year university students’ academic success: the importance of academic adjustment

Els C. M. van Rooij, Ellen P. W. A. Jansen & Wim J. C. M. van de Grift

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin , 103 (3), 411.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baik, C., Larcombe, W., & Brooker, A. (2019). How universities can enhance student mental wellbeing: the student perspective. Higher Education Research & Development , 38 (4), 674–687.

Baron, P., & Corbin, L. (2012). Student engagement: Rhetoric and reality. Higher Education Research & Development , 31 (6), 759–772.

Bean, J., & Eaton, S. B. (2001). The psychology underlying successful retention practices. Journal of College Student Retention: Research Theory & Practice , 3 (1), 73–89.

Boulter, L. (2002). Self-concept as a predictor of college freshmen academic adjustment. College Student Journal , 36 (2), 234–246.

Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2016). Cultivating student–staff partnerships through research and practice. International Journal for Academic Development , 21 (1), 1–3.

Briggs, A. R. J., Clark, J., & Hall, I. (2012). Building bridges: understanding student transition to university. Quality in Higher Education , 18 (1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2011.614468 .

Bye, L. A., Muller, F., & Oprescu, F. (2020). The impact of social capital on student wellbeing and university life satisfaction: a semester-long repeated measures study. Higher Education Research & Development , 39 (5), 898–912.

Cloete, N. (2014). The south african higher education system: performance and policy. Studies in Higher Education , 39:8 , 1355–1368.

Coertjens, L., Brahm, T., Trautwein, C., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2017). Students’ transition into higher education from an international perspective. Higher Education , 73 (3), 357–369.

Collings, R., Swanson, V., & Watkins, R. (2016). Peer mentoring during the transition to university: assessing the usage of a formal scheme within the UK. Studies in Higher Education , 41 (11), 1995–2010.

Daniels, J., & Brooker, J. (2014). Student identity development in higher education: implications for graduate attributes and work-readiness. Educational research , 56 (1), 65–76.

Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: what, why, when, and how. Journal of business and psychology , 29 (1), 1–19.

Denny, E. (2021). Student views on transition to higher education in Ireland: Challenges, impacts and suggestions. Higher Education Quarterly , 75 (1), 113–145.

DHET (Department of Higher Education and Training) (2018). Statistics on Post-School Education and Training in South Africa: 2019. Available at: https://www.dhet.gov.za/SiteAssets/Post-School%20Education%20and%20Training%20Monitor%20Report_March%202019.pdf Retrieved on 05/09/2020

DHET (Department of Higher Education and Training) (2013). White Paper on Post-School Education and Training. Pretoria: DHET. Available at: https://www.justice.gov.za/commissions/FeesHET/docs/2013-WhitePaper-Post-SchoolEducationAndTraining.pdf . Accessed on 05/09/2020.

Duque, L. C., & Weeks, J. R. (2010). Towards a model and methodology for assessing student learning outcomes and satisfaction. Quality assurance in education , 18 (2), 84–105.

Faloye, S. T., Ajayi, N. A., & Raghavjee, R. (2020). Managing the Challenges of the Digital Divide Among First Year Students: A Case of UKZN. In 2020 IST-Africa Conference (IST-Africa) (pp. 1–11). May 2020, IEEE.

Farrell, O., Brunton, J., & Trevaskis, S. (2020). ‘If I had missed it I would have been the lost little sheep’: exploring student narratives on orientation to first year. Journal of Further and Higher Education , 44 (7), 865–876.

Fong, C. J., Davis, C. W., Kim, Y., Kim, Y. W., Marriott, L., & Kim, S. (2017). Psychosocial factors and community college student success: a meta-analytic investigation. Review of Educational Research , 87 (2), 388–424.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research , 18 (3), 382–388.

Garrison, R. D. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: a community of inquiry framework for research and practice (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Ghedamsi, I., & Lecorre, T. (2021). Transition from high school to university calculus: a study of connection. ZDM–Mathematics Education , 53 , 563–575.

Goggin, T., Rankin, S., Geerlings, P., & Taggart, A. (2016). Catching them before they fall: a vygotskian approach to transitioning students from high school to university. Higher Education Research & Development , 35 (4), 698–711.

Guzmán, P., Gomez, C., G., & Santelices, M. V. (2021). Secondary students’ expectations on transition to higher education. Educational Research , 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2021.1915173 [Advance online publication].

Hair, J. F. Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling ( . Thousand Oaks, CA: PLS-SEM) SAGE.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hilliard, L. P., & Stewart, M. K. (2019). Time well spent: creating a community of inquiry in blended first-year writing courses. The Internet and Higher Education , 41 , 11–24.

Jensen, K., & Bennett, L. (2016). Enhancing teaching and learning through dialogue: a student and staff partnership model. International Journal for Academic Development , 21 (1), 41–53.

Krause, K. L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in First-year University. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 33 (5), 493–505.

Locks, A. M., Hurtado, S., Bowman, N. A., & Oseguera, L. (2008). Extending notions of campus climate and diversity to students’ transition to college. The Review of Higher Education , 31 (3), 257–285.

Marksteiner, T., Janke, S., & Dickhäuser, O. (2019). Effects of a brief psychological intervention on students’ sense of belonging and educational outcomes: the role of students’ migration and educational background. Journal of school psychology , 75 , 41–57.

Mayhew, M. J., Grunwald, H. E., & Dey, E. L. (2005). Curriculum matters: creating a positive climate for diversity from the student perspective. Research in Higher Education , 46 (4), 389–412.

McGhie, V. (2017). Entering university studies: identifying enabling factors for a successful transition from school to university. Higher Education , 73 (3), 407–422.

Mpungose, C. B. (2020). Is moodle or WhatsApp the preferred e-learning platform at a south african university? First-year students’ experiences. Education and information technologies , 25 (2), 927–941.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Perander, K., Londen, M., & Holm, G. (2021). Supporting students’ transition to higher education. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education , 13 (2), 622–632.

Räisänen, M., Postareff, L., Mattsson, M., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2020). Study-related exhaustion: first-year students’ use of self-regulation of learning and peer learning and perceived value of peer support. Active Learning in Higher Education , 21 (3), 173–188.

Samad, S., Nilashi, M., & Ibrahim, O. (2019). The impact of social networking sites on students’ social wellbeing and academic performance. Education and Information Technologies , 24 (3), 2081–2094.

Schutze, H., & Bartyn, J. (2020). Development, implementation and students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary for-credit subject to help students transition to university. Student Success , 11 (2), 1–13.

Shih, T. H., & Fan, X. (2009). Comparing response rates in e-mail and paper surveys: a meta-analysis. Educational Research Review , 4 (1), 26–40.

Soudien, C. (2008). Report of the ministerial committee on transformation and social cohesion and the elimination of discrimination in public higher education institutions. Available at: https://ukzn.ac.za/wp-content/miscFiles/publications/ReportonHEandTransformation.pdf . Accessed on June 10, 2021.

Thomas, L., Orme, E., & Kerrigan, F. (2020). Student loneliness: the role of social media through life transitions. Computers & Education , 146 , 103754.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: a theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research , 45 , 89–125.

van der Zanden, P. J., Denessen, E., Cillessen, A. H., & Meijer, P. C. (2019). Patterns of success: first-year student success in multiple domains. Studies in Higher Education , 44 (11), 2081–2095.

Walsh, C., Larsen, C., & Parry, D. (2009). Academic tutors at the frontline of student support in a cohort of students succeeding in higher education. Educational Studies , 35 (4), 405–424.

Wilson-Strydom, M. (2010). Traversing the chasm from school to university in South Africa: a student perspective. Tertiary education and Management , 16 (4), 313–325.

Wong, B., & Chiu, Y. L. T. (2019). Let me entertain you: the ambivalent role of university lecturers as educators and performers. Educational Review , 71 (2), 218–233.

Xerri, M. J., Radford, K., & Shacklock, K. (2018). Student engagement in academic activities: a social support perspective. Higher education , 75 (4), 589–605.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Directorate for Institutional Research and Academic Planning, University of the Free State, 205 Nelson Mandela Drive Park West, Bloemfontein, South Africa

Yaw Owusu-Agyeman & Taabo Mugume

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yaw Owusu-Agyeman .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Owusu-Agyeman, Y., Mugume, T. Academic adjustment of first year students and their transition experiences: The moderating effect of social adjustment. Tert Educ Manag 29 , 189–209 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-023-09120-3

Download citation

Received : 12 November 2020

Accepted : 24 February 2023

Published : 24 March 2023

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-023-09120-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social adjustment
• Academic engagement
• Transition experience
• Learning resources
• First year students
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Parenting styles and adolescents’ school adjustment: investigating the mediating role of achievement goals within the 2 × 2 framework.

• Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

This study examines the multiple mediating roles of achievement goals based on a 2 × 2 framework of the relationships between parenting styles and adolescents’ school adjustment. The study sample included 1061 Chinese adolescent students (50.4% girls) between the ages of 12 and 19, who completed questionnaires regarding parenting styles (parental autonomy support and psychological control), achievement goals (mastery approach, mastery avoidance, performance approach, and performance avoidance goals) and school adjustment variables (emotion, students’ life satisfaction, school self-esteem, problem behavior, academic achievement, and self-determination in school). A structural equation modeling (SEM) approach was used to test our hypotheses. The results indicated that parental autonomy support was associated with adolescents’ school adjustment in an adaptive manner, both directly and through its positive relationship with both mastery and performance approach goals; however, parental psychological control was associated with adolescents’ school adjustment in a maladaptive manner, both directly and through its positive relationship with both mastery and performance avoidance goals. In addition, the results indicated that mastery avoidance goals suppressed the relationship between parental autonomy support and adolescents’ school adjustment, and performance approach goals suppressed the relationship between this adjustment and parental psychological control. These findings extend the limited literature regarding the 2 × 2 framework of achievement goals and enable us to evidence the mediating and suppressing effects of achievement goals. This study highlights the importance of parenting in adolescents’ school adjustment through the cultivation of different achievement goals.

Introduction

Achievement goals are crucial determinants of students’ academic performance and school adjustment. Prior studies have shown that achievement goals can help us understand how students’ social environments affect their academic motivation ( Dinger et al., 2013 ), emotions ( Putwain et al., 2013 ), well-being ( Tian et al., 2017 ), and performance ( Diaconu-Gherasim and Măirean, 2016 ). However, few studies have analyzed why students develop and adopt different achievement goals. Because parents play a prominent role in shaping adolescents’ development ( Grolnick and Ryan, 1989 ), it is important to evaluate how parental behaviors influence adolescents in endorsing certain goals while discouraging them from adopting other goals. In the present study, we investigated the mediating role of achievement goals, which were defined using a 2 × 2 framework ( Pintrich, 2000 ; Elliot and McGregor, 2001 ) for the relationship between parental behaviors and school adjustment.

Achievement Goals: Conceptual Differences and Various Influences

The achievement goal theory is one of the most prominent theoretical perspectives that explains and predicts the direction and intensity of individuals’ behavior in school-related situations. Early studies distinguished between mastery goals, which focused on the development of competence and the attainment of task mastery, and performance goals, which focused on the demonstration of competence relative to others ( Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ). When individuals adopt mastery goals, failure feedback may be construed as helpful information to develop their competence; however, when individuals adopt performance goals, failure feedback implies a lack of normative ability ( Elliot, 2005 ). Many researchers have proposed that a mastery/performance goal dichotomy exists. According to this idea, mastery goals are associated with adaptive patterns that include better academic performance, less anxiety, less depression, and superior well-being ( Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ; Luo et al., 2011 ; Tian et al., 2017 ). In contrast, performance goals are associated with maladaptive patterns such as a lack of interest ( Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ). However, Elliot et al. (1997) proposed that it may not be productive to consider all performance goals as maladaptive or directly opposed to mastery goals. Therefore, they revised the dichotomous achievement framework to form a trichotomous framework that bifurcated the conventional performance goals into approach and avoidance orientations. Performance approach goals denote aiming for demonstrating normative competence and outperforming others; performance avoidance goals denote aiming for not being the worst or not appearing stupid relative to others. Researchers have reported inconsistent results regarding these two types of performance goals. Performance avoidance goals have been positively related to poor outcomes, including a lack of interest, low grades, high anxiety, and self-handicapping strategies ( Yeo et al., 2009 ; Dinger et al., 2013 ; Luo et al., 2013 ). Conversely, performance approach goals can have a positive relationship with grades, use of learning strategies, subjective well-being, and positive emotions ( Lau and Nie, 2008 ; Liem et al., 2008 ; Tian et al., 2017 ). Barron and Harackiewicz (2001) have proposed a multiple goal perspective that claims it might be most adaptive for individuals to use both mastery goals and performance approach goals to reap the benefits from both types.

More recently, the approach and avoidance distinction has been incorporated with regard to mastery and performance goals ( Pintrich, 2000 ; Elliot and McGregor, 2001 ). Mastery approach goals entail making efforts to improve one’s knowledge and skills, and mastery avoidance goals entail striving to avoid losing one’s skills and abilities or letting one’s development stagnate. Individuals who endorse mastery avoidance goals are concerned with being wrong in reference to themselves or the task, and might be considered “perfectionists” who always desire to be correct ( Pintrich, 2000 ; Elliot and McGregor, 2001 ). In some studies, researchers have measured mastery avoidance goals and found that they were positively related to maladaptive outcomes, including negative emotions, threats to help-seeking, and less intrinsic motivation and perceived competence ( Chiang et al., 2011 ; Luo et al., 2013 ; Putwain et al., 2013 ). However, other researchers determined that these goals were not related to performance ( Cury et al., 2006 ; Elliot and Murayama, 2008 ; Yeo et al., 2009 ), whereas Diaconu-Gherasim and Măirean (2016) found that they were positively related to academic achievement. Overall, however, based on the results of prior studies, mastery avoidance goals are generally expected to produce less desirable consequences than mastery approach goals.

Parenting Styles and Achievement Goals

Parents are generally concerned with, and involved in, shaping their children’s development. From a self-determination perspective, parental autonomy support and psychological control are two important factors that affect adolescents’ autonomous motivation and adjustment ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005 ; Roth et al., 2009 ). Parental autonomy support refers to parental behaviors that encourage a child’s independent problem solving and decision making and promote the child’s autonomous regulation by considering the child’s perspective and providing a rationale and intrinsic value demonstration ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ; Roth et al., 2009 ). Parental psychological control refers to parental behaviors that are intrusive and manipulative of their children’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors; these behaviors promote children’s introjected regulation and coerce them into conforming to the parents’ expectations ( Barber, 1996 ; Assor et al., 2004 ).

Although parental autonomy support and psychological control are important factors for understanding motivation and adjustment, studies have only recently examined the influence of these two parenting styles on students’ achievement goals, particularly using a 2 × 2 framework. Generally, positive parental behaviors, including parental involvement, authoritarianism, and autonomy support, were positively associated with mastery goals. In contrast, negative parental behaviors, including control and permissiveness, were positively related to performance goals ( Gonzalez et al., 2002 ; Gurland and Grolnick, 2005 ; Duchesne and Ratelle, 2010 ). However, when a 2 × 2 framework of achievement goals is used, the evidence for the links between parenting styles and achievement goals, particularly performance approach and mastery avoidance goals, is mixed. Specifically, some researchers have found that parental involvement, autonomy support, and control are positively related to performance approach goals ( Kim et al., 2010 ; Luo et al., 2013 ). In contrast, other researchers have reported negative associations between performance approach goals and maternal involvement ( Duchesne and Ratelle, 2010 ) or reported that a link does not exist between performance approach goals and parental autonomy support ( Diaconu-Gherasim and Măirean, 2016 ). Because parental psychological control refers to a series of intrusive behaviors, including guilt-induction, contingent love, and instilling anxiety ( Barber, 1996 ), adolescents who perceive psychological control might endorse performance approach goals to earn the approval of their parents and to reduce negative emotions. Conversely, because behaviors are instigated or directed by a positive and desirable event or possibility in approach motivation ( Elliot and Covington, 2001 ), parental autonomy support might also contribute to an increase in approach motivation, including mastery and performance approach goals.

Few studies have examined the associations between parenting styles and mastery avoidance goals, and the authors of these studies have also reported mixed results. Luo et al. (2013) first examined the influence of parenting styles on mastery avoidance and found that parental control was positively associated with mastery avoidance goals and that parental involvement was not related to mastery avoidance goals. However, Diaconu-Gherasim and Măirean (2016) reported that parental rejection was negatively associated with mastery avoidance goals, but parental autonomy was positively associated with mastery avoidance goals. Gong et al. (2016) provided additional indirect evidence regarding the influence of parenting styles on mastery avoidance goals and reported positive associations between parental autonomy support and perfectionistic strivings, in addition to positive associations between parental psychological control and perfectionistic strivings and concerns. Because individuals who endorse mastery avoidance goals may be perfectionists and strive to avoid making mistakes ( Pintrich, 2000 ; Elliot and McGregor, 2001 ), Gong et al.’s (2016) study provides additional indirect evidence for the assumption that both parental autonomy support and psychological control may positively predict adolescents’ mastery avoidance goals.

The Mediating Role of Achievement Goals

Recent research has mainly focused on autonomous motivation as a potential mechanism underlying the role of autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting in children’s adjustment ( Soenens and Vansteenkiste, 2005 ). Very few studies have addressed this issue by evaluating the role of achievement goals to explain how different styles of parenting influence children’s school adjustment. Certain studies have determined that parents’ and teachers’ emphases on mastery and performance goals predicted children’s personal goal orientation, which subsequently predicted children’s efficacy beliefs, coping strategies and behavioral and emotional engagement regarding their learning ( Friedel et al., 2007 ; Gonida et al., 2009 ). Boon (2007) found that mastery goals mediated the relationships between parenting styles (parental warmth and strictness) and adolescents’ learning outcomes (self-efficacy and academic achievement). However, many of these studies only focused on mastery and performance orientations, and to our knowledge, only Luo et al. (2013) and Diaconu-Gherasim and Măirean (2016) examined the mediating role of achievement goals using a 2 × 2 framework for the relationship between parenting behaviors and adolescents’ adjustment. Luo et al. (2013) determined that parental involvement was associated with adaptive learning outcomes, including low anxiety, high perceived competence, and high achievement, partially or primarily because of its positive relationship with mastery approach goals. They also found that parental control was associated with maladaptive learning outcomes, such as low persistence, high anxiety, and low achievement, partially through its positive relationship with mastery and performance avoidance goals. Nevertheless, Diaconu-Gherasim and Măirean (2016) reported mixed results regarding the mediating role of achievement goals, particularly mastery avoidance ones. In this study, parental rejection negatively predicted academic achievement, mainly through its negative relationship with mastery approach and avoidance goals. They also found that parental autonomy positively predicted academic achievement, primarily because of its positive relationship with mastery avoidance goals. Generally, the mastery approach goal act as a positive mediator and the performance avoidance goal act as a negative mediator. However, the mediating roles of mastery avoidance and performance approach goals are unclear and additional studies are needed to examine the mediating role of these goals as regards the relationship between parenting styles and adolescents’ adjustment.

The Current Study

The current study explored the mediating role of achievement goals based on a 2 × 2 framework of the relationship between parenting styles and school adjustment on a sample of adolescents. The first goal of the study was to investigate the relationship between achievement goals and school adjustment. Specifically, we hypothesized that mastery and performance approach goals would be associated with adaptive school adjustment and that mastery and performance avoidance goals would be associated with maladaptive school adjustment. The second goal was to investigate the relationship between parenting styles and achievement goals. We hypothesized that parental autonomy support would be positively associated with mastery approach, mastery avoidance, and performance approach goals and that parental psychological control would be positively associated with performance avoidance, performance approach, and mastery avoidance goals. The third goal was to explore whether achievement goals mediate the associations between parenting styles and adolescents’ school adjustment. We expected that the mastery approach and performance approach goals would assume mediating roles in the relationship between parental autonomy support and adolescents’ school adjustment. In addition, we expected that mastery avoidance and performance avoidance goals would assume mediating roles in the relationship between parental psychological control and adolescents’ school adjustment.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

Participants were 1016 Chinese adolescents (50.4% girls) ranging from 12 to 19 years of age, with a mean of 14.81 ( SD = 1.78). Data were collected from students in Wuhan and Urumqi, which were two typical provincial capital cities of central and western China respectively. Several schools received our request to carry out our study and three public schools (one in Wuhan and two in Urumqi) agreed to take part. The sample comprised 893 students who reported Han nationality, 113 who reported minority nationalities, and 8 who did not report their nationality. Most participants were in their first year of middle (33.2%) or high school (32.9%). Few families earned less than ¥3,000CNY (8.8%) or more than ¥20,000CNY (5.4%) per month while most families earned between ¥3,000CNY and ¥12,000CNY (74.5%). Most parents of the participants had obtained a high school or university degree (35.0 and 37.6% respectively).

We adopted widely used standardized measures in this study. Validated Chinese versions of the measures were used when available. Measures not previously validated with Chinese samples (i.e., the Achievement Goal Questionnaire, the Student’s Life Satisfaction Scale, and the school self-esteem subscale of the Hare Self-Esteem Scale) were translated using the following procedure. The first author and the corresponding author, who are both researchers in the field of adolescent development and fluent in both English and Chinese, translated the measures from English to Chinese separately. Translations were compared and discrepancies were resolved among all three researchers to agree upon a common version. Then, three undergraduate students who major in Psychology and a junior high school psychology teacher checked the clarity of each of the questionnaire items. Final modifications were made by the three authors together. We report the psychometric properties of these three scales in the relevant following sub-sections.

Parental Autonomy Support

Parental autonomy support was assessed using Cheung and Pomerantz’s (2011) 12-item measure. The items in this scale were adopted from McPartland and Epstein (1977) , Steinberg et al. (1992) , and Robbins (1994) . Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which their parents used autonomy-supportive practice on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all true, 7 = very true). A sample item is “My parents allow me to make choices whenever possible.” The mean of the 12 items was calculated, and higher numbers indicated greater parental support for autonomy. The measure has been successfully used in a Chinese sample before ( Cheung and Pomerantz, 2011 ), and the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.92 in the current study.

Parental Psychological Control

Parental psychological control was assessed using Wang et al.’s (2007) 18-item measure. The items in this measure were adopted from Barber (1996) and Silk et al. (2003) or created by Wang et al. (2007) . Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which their parents used psychologically controlling practice on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all true, 7 = very true). A sample item is “My parents tell me that I should feel guilty when I do not meet their expectations.” The mean of the eighteen items was calculated, and higher numbers indicated greater parental psychological control. The measure has been successfully used in Chinese samples before ( Wang et al., 2007 ; Cheung and Pomerantz, 2011 ), and the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.91 in the current study.

Achievement Goals

The Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ; Elliot and McGregor, 2001 ) was used to measure four types of achievement goals using a 2 × 2 framework. The questionnaire is a 12-item scale that includes four subscales of three items each: mastery-approach goals (e.g., “I want to learn as much as possible from this class”), mastery-avoidance goals (e.g., “I worry that I may not learn all that I possibly could in this class”), performance-approach goals (e.g., “It is important for me to do better than other students”), and performance-avoidance goals (e.g., “I just want to avoid doing poorly in this class”). Participants indicated the extent to which they believed that each item was true on a 7-point scale that ranged from “not at all true” to “very true.” The construct validity of this Chinese version was tested using confirmatory factor analysis. Fit indices indicated an adequate model fit: χ 2 (45) = 259.56, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.069, 90% CI [0.061,0.077], and SRMR = 0.039. Cronbach’s alpha internal reliability coefficients were 0.77 for performance approach, 0.70 for performance avoidance, 0.80 for mastery approach and 0.76 for mastery avoidance.

Problem Behavior

We used Wang et al.’s (2010) Problem Behavior Scale to measure participants’ problem behavior. This scale consists of 7 items (e.g., fighting, stealing, alcohol use) to which participants were asked to indicate how often they had engaged in each activity during the last 3 months on a 5-point scale, ranging from “never” to “five times or more.” As in a previous study ( Bao et al., 2015 ), the responses were averaged across all the items, with higher scores representing greater problem behavior. In the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha internal reliability coefficient was 0.71 for the entire scale.

Students’ Life Satisfaction

The Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (SLSS; Terry and Huebner, 1995 ) was used to assess participants’ life satisfaction. Participants indicated the truth of seven statements (e.g., “I feel good about what’s happening to me”) using a 7-point scale that ranged from “not at all true” to “very true.” A high score on the scale indicates greater life satisfaction. The construct validity of this Chinese version was tested using confirmatory factor analysis. Fit indices indicated a good model fit: χ 2 (10) = 47.89, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.061, 90% CI [0.044,0.079], and SRMR = 0.029. The Cronbach’s alpha internal reliability coefficient was 0.75 for the entire scale.

School Self-esteem

Participants’ school self-esteem was assessed with the school self-esteem subscale of the Hare Self-Esteem Scale (HSES; Shoemaker, 1980 ). This 10-item measure uses a 7-point scale that ranges from “not at all true” to “very true.” Sample items include “School is harder for me than for most other people.” In the present study, one item (“My teachers expect too much of me”) was removed because of its negative factor loading after reverse scoring the relevant items. The construct validity of this Chinese version was tested using confirmatory factor analysis. Fit indices indicated an adequate model fit: χ 2 (22) = 132.96, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.071, 90% CI [0.059,0.082], and SRMR = 0.043. The Cronbach’s alpha internal reliability coefficient was 0.75 for the entire scale.

Positive and Negative Emotions

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988 ) was used to measure participants’ positive and negative emotions. This questionnaire includes 10 positive and 10 negative affect descriptors that are randomly distributed. Participants indicated how often they had experienced each mood state during the past few weeks using a 7-point scale that ranged from “never” to “very often.” The scale has been successfully used in Chinese samples before ( Liu et al., 2010 ), and the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.88 for positive affect and 0.86 for negative affect in the current study.

Academic Achievement

Because of the students’ right to confidentiality, we were unable to obtain their specific test scores from schools; therefore, we employed the self-report method for our data collection. Participants were asked to consider their grades in examinations for the most important subjects (Chinese, mathematics, English, physics, etc.) at the end of the last semester and report their academic achievement in school using a 6-point scale that ranged from “the top five percent” to “the last twenty percent.” The distribution of the academic achievement score fitted the normal distribution. Thus, scores were binned into a continuous variable as follows: The top 5 or 5–20% = 5; 20–40% = 4; 40–60% = 3; 60–80% = 2; the last 20% = 1. Higher numbers reflect better academic achievement.

Self-determination in School

We used a short 16-item version of the Self-Regulation Questionnaire - Academic (SRQ-A; Ryan and Connell, 1989 ; Van Ryzin et al., 2009 ) to assess students’ reasons for completing homework and trying to do well in school. Participants answered each item using a 7-point scale that ranged from “not at all true” to “very true.” The reasons for engaging in academic work reflect four different forms of regulation: External regulation is based on external pressures and reward, introjected regulation is based on internal pressure such as a feeling of guilt and anxiety, identified regulation is based on perceived value and worth, and intrinsic motivation is based on interest and inherent enjoyment. The Chinese version has been validated and widely used with Chinese samples ( Zhang et al., 2011 ; Luo et al., 2014 ). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha internal reliability coefficients were 0.72 for external regulation, 0.65 for introjected regulation, 0.60 for identified regulation and 0.84 for intrinsic motivation. The item scores from each of the four scales were averaged, then weighted according to their relationships with autonomy and summed to create the Self-Determination Index (SDI; Levesque et al., 2004 ). Consistent with previous research ( Chirkov et al., 2003 ; Levesque et al., 2004 ), SDI was calculated as follows: SDI = (2 × Intrinsic) + (Identified) – (Introjected) – (2 × External). A higher score for SDI indicates a higher level of autonomy in school.

Controlling Variables

Data were collected on gender, age, and family socioeconomic status. To measure family socioeconomic status ( Chen and Paterson, 2006 ), adolescents were presented with a drawing of a 10-rung ladder and asked to place their family on the ladder in comparison to other families.

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Psychology, Beijing Normal University. Because the protocol was judged to pose a low risk and the data were collected and processed anonymously, letters that described the study and consent forms were only sent to school administrators and teachers, and oral consent was recommended and obtained from participants after a complete description of the study and before the data collection. Participants were told that they could omit any questions they felt uncomfortable answering and were free to withdraw from the study at any time during data collection. The set of questionnaires was completed during a 30-min session. Trained native research staff were available during completion of the questionnaire in case the participants had any questions. The teacher in charge of the class was also available to help with class discipline. Participants provided their own responses using the various rating scales and received a small gift (e.g., a highlighter) as a token of appreciation at the end of the session.

All inferential analyses were performed using Mplus 7 software. The rate for individuals omitting items was 1.29% for all considered items. For the initial descriptive analyses and correlations, SPSS version 20 was used, and missing data were addressed using a listwise deletion procedure. For other analyses, missing data were addressed using the Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) approach implemented in Mplus. We used the Maximum Likelihood Estimator with Robust Standard Errors (MLR), which is appropriate for data that do not meet the assumption of multivariate normality ( Kelloway, 2014 ). We used a three-step procedure to test our hypotheses. First, because item parceling is used to increase the stability of parameter estimates and is recommended if the relationships among latent variables are of focal interest ( Little et al., 2002 ), each construct that was assessed using more than three items (with the exceptions of academic achievement and self-determination in school) was randomly aggregated into three item parcels. These served as manifest indicators of the respective latent variable. Second, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using Mplus 7 was performed to test the factorial structure of each scale. Third, we used a two-step procedure to test our hypotheses. First, we examined the associations between main study variables. Then, we estimated and evaluated the measurement model. If the result indicated a well-fitted measurement model, then the hypothesized outcomes of parental autonomy support and psychological control were examined separately. We analyzed the fit of all models using multiple indicators: The Chi square (χ 2 ) with its associated degrees of freedom, the root mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). For the CFI and TLI indices, values greater than 0.90 indicate an adequate fit to the data and values greater than 0.95 are considered excellent. For RMSEA and SRMR indices, values less than 0.08 are considered acceptable and values less than 0.06 reflect a good fit ( Hu and Bentler, 1999 ).

Descriptive Statistics

The relationships among all study variables, including the three covariates (i.e., gender, age, and family socioeconomic status), were presented in Table 1 . Gender and achievement goals were significantly and negatively related, which indicated that girls tended to be more mastery-oriented than boys. Age was positively related to mastery approach and avoidance goals and negatively related to performance avoidance goals. Family socioeconomic status was positively associated with autonomy support and negatively associated with psychological control. It was also positively associated with mastery approach and performance approach goals. In addition, gender, age, and family socioeconomic status were all related to various school adjustment variables. Therefore, the three covariates were controlled for in the analysis.

TABLE 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations for the observed variables.

Associations between the Main Study Variables

First, we examined the relationship between parenting styles and school adjustment separately. The model of autonomy support had an adequate fit to the data: χ 2 (183) = 521.06, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.043, 90% CI [0.039,0.048], and SRMR = 0.045. Results indicated that autonomy support was related to more positive emotions (β = 0.35, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.17), fewer negative emotions (β = -0.34, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.12), higher life satisfaction (β = 0.38, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.19), higher school self-esteem (β = 0.44, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.25), less problem behavior (β = -0.15, SE = 0.07, p < 0.05, R 2 = 0.05), higher academic achievement (β = 0.20, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.04), and higher self-determination in school (β = 0.34, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.22). The model of psychological control also had an adequate fit to the data: χ 2 (183) = 511.88, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.043, 90% CI [0.038,0.047], and SRMR = 0.044. Results indicated that psychological control was related to fewer positive emotions (β = -0.21, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.10), more negative emotions (β = 0.32, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.12), lower life satisfaction (β = -0.31, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.14), lower school self-esteem (β = -0.36, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.19), more problem behavior (β = 0.17, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.06), lower academic achievement (β = -0.15, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.03), and lower self-determination in school (β = -0.27, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.18).

Second, we examined the relationship between achievement goals and school adjustment to test our initial hypothesis. Fit indices indicated an adequate model fit: χ 2 (390) = 1147.35, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.044, 90% CI [0.042,0.047], and SRMR = 0.047. Results indicated that mastery approach goals were associated with all seven school adjustment variables in an adaptive manner, such as more positive emotions (β = 0.44, SE = 0.10, p < 0.001), fewer negative emotions (β = -0.46, SE = 0.10, p < 0.001), higher life satisfaction (β = 0.42, SE = 0.08, p < 0.001), higher school self-esteem (β = 0.83, SE = 0.11, p < 0.001), less problem behavior (β = -0.31, SE = 0.10, p < 0.01), higher academic achievement (β = 0.24, SE = 0.07, p < 0.01), and higher self-determination in school (β = 0.43, SE = 0.08, p < 0.001). Mastery avoidance goals were associated with fewer positive emotions (β = -0.29, SE = 0.11, p < 0.01), more negative emotions (β = 0.42, SE = 0.13, p < 0.01), lower life satisfaction (β = -0.28, SE = 0.10, p < 0.01), lower school self-esteem (β = -0.71, SE = 0.13, p < 0.001) and lower academic achievement (β = -0.22, SE = 0.09, p < 0.05). Performance approach goals were positively associated with positive emotions (β = 0.30, SE = 0.10, p < 0.01) and academic achievement (β = 0.27, SE = 0.10, p < 0.01). Performance avoidance goals were negatively associated with positive emotions (β = -0.32, SE = 0.11, p < 0.01) and self-determination in school (β = -0.39, SE = 0.11, p < 0.001).

Third, we examined the relationship between parenting styles and achievement goals separately to test our second hypothesis. The model of autonomy support had an adequate fit to the data: χ 2 (113) = 467.11, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.057, 90% CI [0.051,0.062], and SRMR = 0.051. Results indicated that autonomy support was positively related to mastery approach (β = 0.34, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001), mastery avoidance (β = 0.15, SE = 0.04, p < 0.01), and performance approach goals (β = 0.12, SE = 0.04, p < 0.01). In addition, the model of psychological control had an adequate fit to the data: χ 2 (113) = 474.67, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.057, 90% CI [0.052,0.062], and SRMR = 0.052. Results indicated that psychological control was positively related to mastery avoidance (β = 0.16, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001), performance approach (β = 0.16, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001) and performance avoidance goals (β = 0.26, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001).

Effects Mediated by Achievement Goals

The third goal of the study was to explore the mediating role of achievement goals between parenting styles and school adjustment. The measurement model was first tested and it provided an acceptable fit to the data: χ 2 (440) = 1100.52, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.038, 90% CI [0.036,0.041], and SRMR = 0.043. All item parcels showed statistically significant loadings for the latent constructs, with all βs ≥ 0.54, and all p s < 0.001.

In the first structural model of autonomy support, three goals (mastery approach, mastery avoidance and performance approach goals) were entered simultaneously as mediators of the relationship between parental autonomy support and the seven school adjustment variables. This included all direct paths when the effects of gender, age, and family socioeconomic status on the three achievement goals and the seven school adjustment variables, and the effects of performance avoidance goals on school adjustment variables were controlled. Furthermore, as per previous research ( Luo et al., 2013 ), the residuals of the four achievement goals were allowed to be correlated. This model had an adequate fit to the data: χ 2 (479) = 1281.35, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.041, 90% CI [0.038,0.044], and SRMR = 0.044. Figure 1 illustrated the significant paths in the resulting path model of parental autonomy support.

FIGURE 1. The multiple mediation model depicting the relations between parental autonomy support, multiple achievement goals, and school adjustment variables. Only significant path coefficients are reported. The values in the parentheses are percentage explained variances.

An examination of the specific indirect effects indicated that these were significant for parental autonomy support on school adjustment through achievement goals (see Table 2 ). Parental autonomy support was positively related to all seven school adjustment variables both directly and through its positive relationship with mastery approach, mastery avoidance and performance approach goals. Mastery approach and performance approach goals mediated the direct relationship between parental autonomy support and certain school adjustment variables because when these goals were accounted for, this direct relationship was diminished. Conversely, mastery avoidance goals suppressed the direct relationship between parental autonomy support and certain school adjustment variables because when these goals were accounted for, the direct relationship was enhanced.

TABLE 2. Standardized total, direct, and indirect effects through achievement goals.

In the second structural model, parental psychological control was the independent variable, and three goals (mastery avoidance, performance approach, and performance avoidance goals) were entered simultaneously as mediators. The effects of mastery approach goals on school adjustment variables were controlled, and other paths remained the same. This model also had an adequate fit to the data: χ 2 (474) = 1244.90, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.040, 90% CI [0.037,0.043], and SRMR = 0.043. Figure 2 illustrated the significant paths in the resulting path model of parental psychological control.

FIGURE 2. The multiple mediation model depicting the relations between parental psychological control, multiple achievement goals, and school adjustment variables. Only significant path coefficients are reported. The values in the parentheses are percentage explained variances.

An examination of the specific indirect effects indicated that there were significant indirect effects of parental psychological control on school adjustment through achievement goals (see Table 2 ). In contrast to autonomy support, parental psychological control was negatively related to all the school adjustment variables and the relationships were partially mediated by mastery avoidance, performance approach, and avoidance goals. Notably, mastery avoidance and performance avoidance goals acted as mediators and performance approach goals acted as a suppressor between parental psychological control and certain school adjustment variables.

This study was designed to enhance our understanding of achievement goals based on a 2 × 2 framework. Specifically, we examined the important roles of achievement goals in the relationship between parenting styles and adolescents’ school adjustment. Three important results were obtained. First, mastery approach and performance approach goals were associated with school adjustment variables in an adaptive manner, but mastery avoidance and performance avoidance were associated with school adjustment variables in a maladaptive manner. Second, parental autonomy support was positively related to mastery approach, mastery avoidance, and performance approach goals and parental psychological control was positively related to mastery avoidance, performance approach, and performance avoidance goals. Third, mastery approach and performance approach goals mediated the relationship between parental autonomy support and adolescents’ school adjustment and mastery avoidance and performance avoidance goals mediated the relationship between parental psychological control and adolescents’ school adjustment. Furthermore, mastery avoidance goals suppressed the relationship between parental autonomy support and school adjustment, and performance approach goals suppressed the relationship between parental psychological control and school adjustment.

Achievement Goals and School Adjustment

The results of this study support the hypothesis that mastery approach and performance approach goals are positively associated with adolescents’ adjustment, which is consistent with findings from previous research ( Barron and Harackiewicz, 2001 ; Liem et al., 2008 ; Tian et al., 2017 ). Because performance approach goals may contribute to positive emotions and academic achievement even when the effect of mastery approach goals is controlled, our results confirmed the multiple goals perspective ( Elliot et al., 1997 ; Barron and Harackiewicz, 2001 ) that setting both mastery approach and performance approach goals benefits students the most. Furthermore, we also found that mastery avoidance and performance avoidance goals harmed the adolescents’ adjustment, which was in agreement with previous research ( Chiang et al., 2011 ; Luo et al., 2013 ; Dinger et al., 2013 ).

Additionally, it is important to note that mastery goals had a greater impact on adolescents’ adjustment when compared with performance goals. Previous research has suggested that performance approach goals are likely to transform to performance avoidance goals when students are faced with difficulties or the likelihood of failure ( Luo et al., 2011 ). Because performance goals might change for different situations and because mastery goals are more stable, mastery approach goals were associated with more school adjustment variables in an adaptive manner when compared with performance approach goals, and mastery avoidance goals harmed more school adjustment variables than performance avoidance goals.

Parenting and Achievement Goals

Our results indicated that adolescents with a higher family socioeconomic status reported a higher level of perceived autonomy support and a lower level of perceived psychological control. This is in line with previous research ( September et al., 2016 ) that indicated that parents with high socioeconomic status were more authoritative and less harsh in their parenting. This highlights that it is important to provide opportunities for parents of low socioeconomic status to acquire skills that could enhance autonomy-supportive parenting.

Consistent with previous studies, parental autonomy support was positively related to mastery approach, mastery avoidance and performance approach goals ( Gurland and Grolnick, 2005 ; Duchesne and Ratelle, 2010 ). Nevertheless, parental autonomy support was unrelated to performance avoidance goals, which contradicts prior studies that have reported a negative or positive association between these constructs ( Gurland and Grolnick, 2005 ; Luo et al., 2013 ). These inconsistent results may be explained by considering how we measured parenting compared with previous research. For example, Gurland and Grolnick (2005) asked mothers to report their attitudes on autonomy support. In our study, the adolescents reported perceptions of parental autonomy support. In addition, our results were consistent with previous findings that parental psychological control was positively associated with mastery avoidance, performance approach and performance avoidance goals and unrelated to mastery approach goals ( Gonzalez et al., 2002 ; Luo et al., 2013 ).

In terms of the associations between parenting styles and achievement goals, our data indicated that both styles of parental involvement (parental autonomy support and psychological control) were positively associated with performance approach and mastery avoidance goals. Positive associations of both parenting styles with performance approach goals might explain why performance approach goals were beneficial to adolescents’ school adjustment-related variables such as well-being and academic achievement ( Liem et al., 2008 ; Tian et al., 2017 ) but were also likely to transform into performance avoidance goals, which might harm the adolescents’ adjustment ( Luo et al., 2011 , 2013 ). Moreover, it was interesting to find positive associations between parental autonomy support and mastery avoidance goals. Because autonomy-supportive parents generally have a high-quality relationship with their children ( Niemiec et al., 2006 ), parental autonomy support might increase adolescents’ introjected regulation or their greater willingness to comply with their parents’ rules and willingness to engage in behaviors to obtain the approval of others ( Zhou et al., 2009 ; Vansteenkiste et al., 2014 ). Therefore, it is reasonable that children of autonomy-supportive parents may feel guilty when they do something wrong and strive to avoid making mistakes.

Achievement Goals: Mediators or Suppressors?

As hypothesized, mastery and performance approach goals mediated the positive impact of parental autonomy support on adolescents’ school adjustment, and mastery and performance avoidance goals mediated the negative impact of parental psychological control on adolescents’ school adjustment. Specifically, parental autonomy support was related to high academic achievement, both directly and through the two approach goals. In addition, parental autonomy support was associated with other school adjustment variables (less problem behavior, higher life satisfaction, higher school self-esteem, more positive emotion, less negative emotion, and higher self-determination in school) in an adaptive manner both directly and through mastery approach goals. Parental psychological control was associated with lower self-determination in school both directly and through performance avoidance goals and it was associated with other school adjustment variables (lower life satisfaction, lower school self-esteem, and more negative emotions) in a maladaptive manner both directly and through mastery avoidance goals. Generally, parenting styles were related to adolescents’ school adjustment primarily through mastery approach and avoidance goals; however, performance goals played a role in explaining the associations between parenting and adolescents’ adjustment.

In Luo et al.’s (2013) study, parenting style was measured as the involvement in and control of students’ learning, and adolescents’ adjustment was measured as self-engagement in learning activities, persistence, achievement, and anxiety in math class. In Diaconu-Gherasim and Măirean’s (2016) study, the acceptance versus rejection dimension and the autonomy versus psychological control dimension were measured as parenting styles, and only academic achievement was examined. However, in our research, we focused on parental autonomy support and psychological control, which had great impacts on adolescents’ motivation. We also measured adolescents’ school adjustment in different dimensions including adolescents’ emotion, life satisfaction, self-esteem, problem behavior, academic achievement, and self-determination in school. In addition, both in Luo et al.’s (2013) and Diaconu-Gherasim and Măirean’s (2016) studies, they only found a mediating role of achievement goals between parenting styles and school adjustment, and their results were seemingly contradictory to each other. For example, Luo et al. (2013) found that mastery avoidance goals could not explain the relationship between parental involvement and adolescents’ adjustment, while Diaconu-Gherasim and Măirean (2016) found that mastery avoidance goals could be a mediator to explain the relationship between parental autonomy and adolescents’ academic achievement. Contrary to prior studies, utilization of the 2 × 2 framework enabled us to demonstrate a second intermediary role: Suppressor variables for achievement goals. Specifically, parental psychological control was associated with performance approach goals, and these goals counteracted the overall inimical influence of parental psychological control on positive emotions and academic achievement. Cury et al. (2006) reported a similar result in the social-cognitive domain; these authors reported that performance approach goals could suppress the negative effect of entity theory on academic performance. Because performance approach goals were likely to transform to performance avoidance goals when adolescents were faced with difficulties and pressure ( Luo et al., 2011 ), the seemingly positive effect of psychological control through performance approach goals might exist only when adolescents are engaged in easy tasks and this positive effect cannot completely counteract the detrimental effect of parental psychological control. In addition, parental autonomy support was associated with mastery avoidance goals, and these goals suppressed the overall positive influence of parental autonomy support on adolescents’ school adjustment, including students’ life satisfaction, school self-esteem, positive emotion, less negative emotion, and academic achievement. Therefore, perceptions of parental autonomy support did not produce a uniformly positive effect on adolescents’ school adjustment, and perceptions of parental psychological control did not produce a uniformly negative effect. Our results suggest that each specific goal adopted has an important impact on the eventual school adjustment variables.

Limitations and Future Research

Although this study makes several contributions, it also has some limitations that should be taken into account. First, this study was based on cross-sectional survey data, and the proposed causal sequence of parenting, achievement goals and school adjustment cannot be fully justified from this design. Although the postulated directions of arrows in the models are based on the achievement goal theory and previous research, adolescents’ school adjustment may affect their parents’ behavior, which could be tested using a longitudinal design in the future. Second, all data were based on adolescents’ self-reports; therefore, it would be beneficial to use multiple methods of assessment in future studies. Third, because of students’ right to confidentiality, schools were not allowed to provide the students’ exact scores, and the self-report method was used to measure students’ academic achievement. Finally, key individual difference factors could be explored in future studies to explain why the same parenting style predicts different achievement goals.

Implications

Despite these limitations, our findings have possible implications related to the links among adolescents’ perceptions of parenting styles, achievement goals, and school adjustment. First, the results revealed that both approach goals were positively related to school adjustment and both avoidance goals were negatively related to this. Therefore, parents and teachers may consider promoting adolescents’ school adjustment through the cultivation of mastery approach and performance approach goals. Second, the results suggest that parenting plays an important role in shaping adolescents’ adjustment through its effect on adolescents’ endorsement of achievement goals. Therefore, significant parental autonomy support and low control would be beneficial during adolescence. Third, this study added to the limited literature regarding the use of a 2 × 2 achievement goal model, particularly regarding mastery avoidance goals and the mediating role of achievement goals between parenting and adolescents’ school adjustment. Our utilization of the 2 × 2 framework enabled us to provide evidence for the mediating and suppressing effects of achievement goals. Therefore, in addition to parenting style, the specific goal that is adopted also has a very important influence on the eventual school adjustment variables. Autonomy-supportive parents and controlling parents should all consider the specific goals that adolescents endorse to help create a better environment for their children.

Ethics Statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of “the Ethics Committee of School of Psychology, Beijing Normal University” with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the “the Ethics Committee of School of Psychology, Beijing Normal University.”

Author Contributions

SX, YL, and LB substantially contributed to the conception and the design of the work. SX and LB contributed to the acquisition of the data. SX and YL analyzed and interpreted the data. SX prepared the draft and YL and LB reviewed it critically and gave important intellectual content. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

This research was supported by “the MOE Project of Key Research Institutes of Humanities and Social Science at Universities (Adolescent Autonomy: Influencing Factors and Promoting Strategies)” and “the National Social Science Foundation of China (The Child Development Database Establishment under Rural-to-Urban Migration Context and the Establishment of Positive Youth Development System; 15ZDB138).”

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Assor, A., Roth, G., and Deci, E. L. (2004). The emotional costs of parents’ conditional regard: a self-determination theory analysis. J. Pers. 72, 47–88. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00256.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bao, Z., Li, D., Zhang, W., and Wang, Y. (2015). School climate and delinquency among chinese adolescents: analyses of effortful control as a moderator and deviant peer affiliation as a mediator. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 43, 81–93. doi: 10.1007/s10802-014-9903-8

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: revisiting a neglected construct. Child Dev. 67, 3296–3319. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01915.x

Barron, K. E., and Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: testing multiple goal models. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80, 706–722. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.80.5.706

Boon, H. J. (2007). Low- and high-achieving Australian secondary school students: their parenting, motivations and academic achievement. Aust. Psychol. 42, 212–225. doi: 10.1080/00050060701405584

Chen, E., and Paterson, L. Q. (2006). Neighborhood, family, and subjective socioeconomic status: how do they relate to adolescent health? Health Psychol. 25, 704–714. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.25.6.704

Cheung, C. S.-S., and Pomerantz, E. M. (2011). Parents’ involvement in children’s learning in the United States and China: implications for children’s academic and emotional adjustment. Child Dev. 82, 932–950. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01582.x

Chiang, Y.-T., Yeh, Y.-C., Lin, S. S. J., and Hwang, F.-M. (2011). Factor structure and predictive utility of the 2 x 2 achievement goal model in a sample of Taiwan students. Learn. Individ. Differ. 21, 432–437. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.02.011

Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., and Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: a self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 97–110. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.97

Cury, F., Elliot, A. J., Da Fonseca, D., and Moller, A. C. (2006). The social-cognitive model of achievement motivation and the 2x2 achievement goal framework. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90, 666–679. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.666

Diaconu-Gherasim, L. R., and Măirean, C. (2016). Perception of parenting styles and academic achievement: the mediating role of goal orientations. Learn. Individ. Differ. 49, 378–385. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.06.026

Dinger, F. C., Dickhaeuser, O., Spinath, B., and Steinmayr, R. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of students’ achievement goals: a mediation analysis. Learn. Individ. Differ. 28, 90–101. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.09.005

Duchesne, S., and Ratelle, C. (2010). Parental behaviors and adolescents’ achievement goals at the beginning of middle school: emotional problems as potential mediators. J. Educ. Psychol. 102, 497–507. doi: 10.1037/a0019320

Dweck, C. S., and Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychol. Rev. 95, 256–273. doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.95.2.256

Elliot, A. J. (2005). “A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct,” in Handbook of Competence and Motivation , eds A. J. Elliot and C. S. Dweck (New Nork, NY: The Guilford Press), 52–72.

Google Scholar

Elliot, A. J., and Covington, M. V. (2001). Approach and avoidance motivation. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 13, 73–92. doi: 10.1023/a:1009009018235

Elliot, A. J., and McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80, 501–519. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.80.3.501

Elliot, A. J., and Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: critique, illustration, and application. J. Educ. Psychol. 100, 613–628. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.613

Elliot, A. J., Sheldon, K. M., and Church, M. A. (1997). Avoidance personal goals and subjective well-being. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B 23, 915–927. doi: 10.1177/0146167297239001

Friedel, J. M., Cortina, K. S., Turner, J. C., and Midgley, C. (2007). Achievement goals, efficacy beliefs and coping strategies in mathematics: the roles of perceived parent and teacher goal emphases. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 32, 434–458. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.10.009

Gong, X., Paulson, S. E., and Wang, C. (2016). Exploring family origins of perfectionism: the impact of interparental conflict and parenting behaviors. Pers. Individ. Dif. 100, 43–48. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.010

Gonida, E. N., Voulala, K., and Kiosseoglou, G. (2009). Students’ achievement goal orientations and their behavioral and emotional engagement: co-examining the role of perceived school goal structures and parent goals during adolescence. Learn. Individ. Dif. 19, 53–60. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.002

Gonzalez, A. R., Holbein, M. F. D., and Quilter, S. (2002). High school students’ goal orientations and their relationship to perceived parenting styles. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 27, 450–470. doi: 10.1006/ceps.2001.1104

Grolnick, W. S., and Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation and competence in school. J. Educ. Psychol. 81, 143–154. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.81.2.143

Gurland, S. T., and Grolnick, W. S. (2005). Perceived threat, controlling parenting, and children’s achievement orientations. Motiv. Emot. 29, 103–121. doi: 10.1007/s11031-005-7956-2

Hu, L. T., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

Kelloway, E. K. (2014). Using Mplus for Structural Equation Modeling: A Researcher’s Guide , 2nd Edn. California: SAGE publications, Inc.

Kim, J.-I., Schallert, D. L., and Kim, M. (2010). An integrative cultural view of achievement motivation: parental and classroom predictors of children’s goal orientations when learning mathematics in Korea. J. Educ. Psychol. 102, 418–437. doi: 10.1037/a0018676

Lau, S., and Nie, Y. (2008). Interplay between personal goals and classroom goal structures in predicting student outcomes: a multilevel analysis of person-context interactions. J. Educ. Psychol. 100, 15–29. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.15

Levesque, C., Zuehlke, A. N., Stanek, L. R., and Ryan, R. M. (2004). Autonomy and competence in German and American university students: a comparative study based on self-determination theory. J. Educ. Psychol. 96, 68–84. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.68

Liem, A. D., Lau, S., and Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and achievement outcome. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 33, 486–512. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.08.001

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., and Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: exploring the question, weighing the merits. Struct. Equ. Model. 9, 151–173. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem0902_1

Liu, Y., Bi, Y., and Wang, H. (2010). The effects of emotions and task frames on risk preferences in self-decision making and anticipating others’ decisions. Acta Psychol. Sin. Acta Psychol. Sin. 42, 317–324. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2010.00317

Luo, W., Aye, K. M., Hogan, D., Kaur, B., and Chan, M. C. Y. (2013). Parenting behaviors and learning of Singapore students: the mediational role of achievement goals. Motiv. Emot. 37, 274–285. doi: 10.1007/s11031-012-9303-8

Luo, W., Paris, S. G., Hogan, D., and Luo, Z. (2011). Do performance goals promote learning? A pattern analysis of Singapore students’ achievement goals. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 36, 165–176. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.02.003

Luo, Y., Zhao, M., and Wang, Z. H. (2014). Effect of perceived teacher’s autonomy support on junior middle school students’ academic burnout: the mediating role of basic psychological needs and autonomous motivation. Psychol. Dev. Educ. 30, 312–321. doi: 10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2014.03.010

CrossRef Full Text

McPartland, J. M., and Epstein, J. L. (1977). Open schools and achievement: extended tests of a finding of no relationship. Sociol. Educ. 50, 133–144. doi: 10.2307/2112375

Niemiec, C. P., Lynch, M. F., Vansteenkiste, M., Bernstein, J., Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2006). The antecedents and consequences of autonomous self-regulation for college: a self-determination theory perspective on socialization. J. Adolesc. 29, 761–775. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.11.009

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 92–104. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1017

Putwain, D. W., Sander, P., and Larkin, D. (2013). Using the 2 x 2 framework of achievement goals to predict achievement emotions and academic performance. Learn. Individ. Dif. 25, 80–84. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.006

Robbins, R. J. (1994). An Assessment of Perceptions of Parental Autonomy Support and Control: Child and Parent Correlates . Doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.

Roth, G., Assor, A., Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. A., and Deci, E. L. (2009). The emotional and academic consequences of parental conditional regard: Comparing conditional positive regard, conditional negative regard, and autonomy support as parenting practices. Dev. Psychol. 45, 1119–1142. doi: 10.1037/a0015272

Ryan, R. M., and Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining reasons for acting in 2 domains. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57, 749–761. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749

Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 54–67. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

September, S. J., Rich, E. G., and Roman, N. V. (2016). The role of parenting styles and socio-economic status in parents’ knowledge of child development. Early Child Dev. Care 186, 1060–1078. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2015.1076399

Shoemaker, A. L. (1980). Construct-validity of area specific self-esteem: the hare Self-esteem scale. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 40, 495–501. doi: 10.1177/001316448004000231

Silk, J. S., Morris, A. S., Kanaya, T., and Steinberg, L. (2003). Psychological control and autonomy granting: opposite ends of a continuum or distinct constructs? J. Res. Adolesc. 13, 113–128. doi: 10.1111/1532-7795.1301004

Soenens, B., and Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Antecedents and outcomes of self-determination in 3 life domains: the role of parents’ and teachers’ autonomy support. J. Youth Adolesc. 34, 589–604. doi: 10.1007/s10964-005-8948-y

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., and Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Dev. 63, 1266–1281. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01694.x

Terry, T., and Huebner, E. S. (1995). The relationship between self-concept and life satisfaction in children. Soc. Indic. Res. 35, 39–52. doi: 10.1007/bf01079237

Tian, L., Yu, T., and Huebner, E. S. (2017). Achievement goal orientations and adolescents’ subjective well-being in school: the mediating roles of academic social comparison directions. Front. Psychol. 8:37. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00037

Van Ryzin, M. J., Gravely, A. A., and Roseth, C. J. (2009). Autonomy, belongingness, and engagement in school as contributors to adolescent psychological well-being. J. Youth Adolesc. 38, 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s10964-007-9257-4

Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Van Petegem, S., and Duriez, B. (2014). Longitudinal associations between adolescent perceived degree and style of parental prohibition and internalization and defiance. Dev. Psychol. 50, 229–236. doi: 10.1037/a0032972

Vansteenkiste, M., Zhou, M. M., Lens, W., and Soenens, B. (2005). Experiences of autonomy and control among Chinese learners: vitalizing or immobilizing? J. Educ. Psychol. 97, 468–483. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.468

Wang, J., Li, D., and Zhang, W. (2010). Adolescence’s family financial difficulty and social adaptation: coping efficacy of compensatory, mediation, and moderation effects. J. Beijing Normal Univ. 4, 22–32.

Wang, Q., Pomerantz, E. M., and Chen, H. (2007). The role of parents’ control in early adolescents’ psychological functioning: a longitudinal investigation in the United States and China. Child Dev. 78, 1592–1610. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01085.x

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., and Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54, 1063–1070. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Yeo, G., Loft, S., Xiao, T., and Kiewitz, C. (2009). Goal orientations and performance: Differential relationships across levels of analysis and as a function of task demands. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 710–726. doi: 10.1037/a0015044

Zhang, J., Liu, G., Shi, W., and Fu, X. (2011). On the relationship between motivating style and elementary students creative thinking: the mediating role of autonomous motivation. Acta Psychol. Sin. 43, 1138–1150. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2011.01138

Zhou, M., Ma, W. J., and Deci, E. L. (2009). The importance of autonomy for rural Chinese children’s motivation for learning. Learn. Individ. Dif. 19, 492–498. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.05.003

Keywords : autonomy support, psychological control, achievement goals, school adjustment, adolescent

Citation: Xiang S, Liu Y and Bai L (2017) Parenting Styles and Adolescents’ School Adjustment: Investigating the Mediating Role of Achievement Goals within the 2 × 2 Framework. Front. Psychol. 8:1809. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01809

Received: 07 June 2017; Accepted: 29 September 2017; Published: 16 October 2017.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2017 Xiang, Liu and Bai. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Yan Liu, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

The Impact of Children's Social Adjustment on Academic Outcomes

Melissa e. derosier.

3-C Institute for Social Development, Cary, North Carolina, USA

Stacey W. Lloyd

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

This study tested whether social adjustment added to the prediction of academic outcomes above and beyond prior academic functioning. School records and peer-, teacher-, and self-report measures were collected for 1,255 third grade children in the fall and spring of the school year. Social acceptance by and aggression with peers were included as measures of social adjustment. Academic outcomes included math and reading GPA, classroom behavior, academic self-esteem, and absenteeism. As expected, support for the causal model was found where both forms of social adjustment contributed independently to the prediction of each area of academic adjustment. Gender differences in the patterns of results were present, particularly for the impact of aggression on academic adjustment. Discussion focuses on the implications for social-emotional literacy programs to prevent negative academic outcomes.

From the time children enter school, peers take on an increasingly meaningful and influential role becoming key providers of support, companionship, advice, and affirmation ( Furman & Buhrmester, 1992 ). A large body of literature supports the link between the quality of children's peer relations at school and their academic, behavioral, and emotional adjustment (see reviews Kupersmidt & DeRosier, 2004 ; Parker, Rubin, Price & DeRosier, 1995 ). While most of this research has focused on behavioral and emotional outcomes, the connection between social and academic adjustment has been repeatedly demonstrated (see review Zins, Weissberg, Wang, & Walberg, 2004 ). Children with positive peer relations tend to perform higher academically whereas children with peer problems tend to experience a wide range of academic difficulties, including low school engagement (e.g., Kuperminc, Leadbeater, & Blatt, 2000), poor academic achievement (e.g., Guay et. al., 1999 ), high absenteeism (e.g., DeRosier, Kupersmidt, & Patterson, 1994 ), and dropping out of school (e.g., Cairns, Cairns, & Neckerman, 1999).

While substantial evidence links children's social and academic functioning, most studies to date have been cross-sectional or correlational indicating that problems in one area tend to co-occur with problems in the other area. Relatively little longitudinal research has been conducted to examine how these areas of school-based adjustment impact one another over time. Further, currently available longitudinal research linking social and academic adjustment has focused primarily on adolescence (see O'Neil, 1997 for review). Though extreme negative academic outcomes, such as academic failure and drop-out, tend to manifest themselves in adolescence, the roots of these problems begin in childhood and develop over time ( Carter & Wilson, 1991 ; Greene, 2003 ; Kupersmidt & DeRosier, 2004 ; USDE, 2006 ). Middle childhood is a time when both peer and academic challenges intensify, providing fertile ground for difficulties in adjustment ( Coie, 1990 ; Greenberg, Domitrovich, Bumbarger, 2001 ). As a result of the dearth of longitudinal research with elementary school children, little is known about the degree to which social problems contribute to the development of academic problems during middle childhood (see Kupersmidt & DeRosier, 2004 and Parker, Rubin, Erath, Wojslawosicz, & Buskirk, 2006 for reviews). The primary purpose of this study was increase our understanding of how children's social adjustment is predictive of their academic adjustment over the course of the third grade school year.

We focused our investigation on two areas of social adjustment that have been repeatedly linked with children's academic performance. First, a great deal of research on children's peer relations has focused on social acceptance or the degree to which a child is liked by their same-grade peers at school as opposed to disliked or rejected by them (Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1984). Over the past several decades, research has consistently supported the construct and predictive validity of social acceptance ( Cillessen & Bukowski, 2000 ; Kupersmidt & Dodge, 2004 ; Parker et. al., 2006 ). Children with high social acceptance tend to experience positive academic, social, and behavioral adjustment both concurrently and in the future. Conversely, children with low social acceptance (e.g., peer rejected) tend to experience concurrent problems across these domains and are at substantial risk for a myriad of later negative outcomes, including suicide (e.g., Carney, 2000 ), drug abuse (e.g., Spooner, 1999 ), educational underachievement (e.g., Woodward & Fergusson, 2000 ), delinquency and antisocial behavior (e.g., Brendgen, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 1998 ), and depression (e.g., Boivin & Hymel, 1997 ).

Low social acceptance contributes to academic difficulties in a number of ways. Experiencing peer rejection can produce heightened anxiety (e.g., worry over being teased or left out) which interferes with concentration in the classroom and impedes children's acquisition and retention of information ( Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton, & Scheidt, 2001 ; Sharp, 1995 ). Children who lack friends in the classroom tend to have lower academic self-esteem and depend upon teachers to a greater extent for academic assistance (i.e., seek help from teachers more frequently) compared to socially accepted children ( Flook, Repetti, eg. al., 2005 ; Mercer & DeRosier, in press ). When children have few friends or fear being bullied or teased (a frequent experience of rejected children; see Boivin, Hymel, & Hodges, 2001 for review), they tend to avoid school resulting in more frequent absences and, thus, fewer opportunities to learn academic skills in the classroom ( DeRosier, et. al., 1994 ; Eaton, Kann, Kinchen, et. al., 2007 ).

Our second measure of social adjustment for this study was aggressive behavior with peers. Aggression and social acceptance are related to one another in that aggressive children are more likely to be rejected by their peers (Haselager, Cillessen, Van Lieshout, Riksen-Walraven, & Hartup, 2002). However, aggression represents an independent risk factor that has been found to add to the prediction of negative outcomes beyond social acceptance (see Coie & Dodge, 1998 for review). When physical and verbal aggression persists at a high level compared to developmental norms (e.g., significantly decline as children enter middle childhood), aggressive children are particularly likely to experience concomitant and future academic, social, and behavioral problems (see Parker et. al., 2006 for review).

Aggressive children tend to demonstrate lower achievement compared with non-aggressive peers ( Hinshaw, 1992 ). While aggression correlates at a negligible or modest degree with IQ and general cognitive ability, aggression is highly related to underachievement, including lower GPA and school failure (e.g., Feshbach & Price, 2004; Risi, Gerhardstein, & Kistner, 2003 ). The poor academic performance of aggressive children may, in part, be due to heightened levels of conflict with teachers and school officials. Aggressive, externalizing behavior problems create classroom disruption which often results in disciplinary actions, including suspension and expulsion ( Coie & Dodge, 1998 ). Further, aggressive children tend to see school discipline as overly harsh and unfairly applied ( Brand, Felner, Shim, Seitsinger, & Dumas, 2003 ; Kuperminc et. al., 2000). Because the school environment is seen as negative and unsupportive, aggressive children may disengage, resulting in heightened risk of truancy and school drop-out ( Graham, Bellmore, & Mize, 2006 ; Kupersmidt and Coie, 1990 ; Rigby & Slee, 1992).

Different theoretical models have been posed to help us understand the link between academic and social difficulties. The incidental model suggests that problems in early childhood peer relations are an artifact of other underlying disorders or deviancies, such that peer problems are merely incidental to other causal processes ( Parker & Asher, 1987 ). According to the incidental model, social and academic problems may occur together in a correlational fashion, but social problems do not independently predict academic problems. Conversely, the causal model suggests that academic problems are causally related to earlier disruption in socialization processes, such that peer problems contribute independently to the prediction of later academic difficulties ( DeRosier et. al., 1994 ; Kupersmidt & DeRosier 2004 ; Parker & Asher, 1987 ).

In this study, we examined the degree to which social acceptance and aggression contributed to the prediction of a broad spectrum of academic outcomes at the end of third grade. As reviewed above, our selection of academic outcomes was based on past research linking each area with social adjustment (social acceptance and/or aggression), including: grade point average (GPA) for reading and math, school absenteeism, classroom disruptive behavior, help-seeking behavior for academic problems, and academic self-esteem. Given the high degree of stability in academic functioning, the predictive strength of social adjustment for academic outcomes in the spring was investigated after controlling for academic functioning in the fall. We expected to find support for the causal model where social adjustment would significantly add to the prediction of academic adjustment above and beyond the prediction due to prior academic adjustment.

While social adjustment was expected to contribute independently to academic outcomes, gender differences in the pattern of results were also expected. Prior research indicates significant gender differences in the social and academic areas of adjustment included in this study. Socially, there is considerable gender segregation in children's play groups during middle childhood ( Zarbatany, Hartmann, & Rankin, 1990 ). Female play groups tend to be smaller, involving more intimacy and verbal sharing, compared to those of males which tend to be bigger, involving more active, competitive activities ( Maccoby, 1998 ). The behaviors and social skills associated with social acceptance vs. rejection also differ for males and females ( LaGreca, 1981 ). In particular, males are more likely to display aggressive behaviors than are females and aggression is seen as more normative for males than females at this age ( Cook, 1992 ; Eagly & Steffen, 1986 ).

Gender differences for specific academic skills have been extensively studied (see Nowell & Hedges, 1998 for review). In general, findings indicate females perform higher in areas of verbal ability and males perform higher in areas of mathematical ability. Males tend to report higher academic self-esteem than females, though there is considerable variation depending on age and academic area assessed (see Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2004 for review). In addition, the link between academic and social areas of adjustment appears to vary by gender. For example, the relation between aggression and school drop-out is more pronounced for males than females ( French, 1988 ; Graham et. al., 2006 ). Also, social acceptance influences academic self-esteem and subsequent risk for academic difficulties to a greater extent for females than males ( Lopez and DuBois, 2005 ). Approximately equal numbers of males and females were included in this study. We expected to find gender differences in the pattern of results, particularly with regard to the impact of aggression on academic adjustment.

In sum, this study was designed to test whether social adjustment, in the forms of social acceptance and aggression, significantly and independently predicted academic achievement, absenteeism, academic self-esteem, classroom disruptive behavior, and academic help-seeking behavior. We hypothesized that each form of social adjustment would add to the prediction of each academic outcome above and beyond the prediction due to prior level of that outcome. Thus, support for the causal model was expected. We also hypothesized that gender differences would be present across the patterns of results such that social adjustment, particularly aggression, would impact later academic adjustment differently for males versus females.

Participants

Eleven public elementary schools from the Wake County Public School System (WCPSS) in North Carolina participated in the study. In September, parent information letters describing the research project, including data collection procedures, were mailed to the home of each third grade student attending regular education classrooms within the 11 schools. Parents returned the consent form to their child's classroom teacher. Of the total pool of 1374 third grade students, parental consent for data collection was obtained for 1255 students (91%). The sample was evenly distributed across genders (50.9 % female, 49.1 % male) with a mean age of 8.6 years (range = 7.8 to 10.9). The approximate racial distribution was 73% White (5% of Hispanic origin), 20% African-American, 4% Asian, and 3% mixed race. The communities from which the sample was drawn included families with socioeconomic status from lower to upper-middle class.

As part of a larger longitudinal project, pencil-and-paper questionnaires were group administered to children in their classroom by trained staff members. Identical measures were collected at two time-points, six months apart, in October (Time 1) and April (Time 2). Using a standardized data collection script, children completed peer nomination sociometric items followed by self-report questionnaires. Teachers were individually interviewed by a trained staff member in a separate room while their students completed questionnaires. School records provided information regarding gender, race, absenteeism, and grades from report cards (GPA).

In the assessment of children's adjustment, teacher-, peer-, and self-report can vary widely ( Achenbach et. al., 1987 ; Cillessen, Terry, Coie, & Lochman, 1992 ; Olson & Brodfeld, 1991 ). Child self-report tends to be the most accurate indicator of internal processes, such as self-esteem, whereas outsiders' reports (e.g., teachers, peers) are generally better sources of information about externally visible behaviors, such as disruptiveness ( Loeber, Green, & Lahey, 1990 ); Routh, 1990 ). Due to differing opportunities to observe social interactions and differing expectations for behavior, teachers and peers provide somewhat different views of children's social adjustment ( Cillessen et. al., 1992 ; Olson & Brodfeld, 1991 ). In the proposed study, composite scores across multiple informants and/or measures were used in an effort to obtain a reliable and thorough assessment of children's functioning as well as to reduce bias associated with single instrument measurement error in statistical analyses ( Coffman & MacCallum, 2005 ).

Social Adjustment

Children's social adjustment was assessed in two areas: social acceptance and aggressive behavior with peers.

Social acceptance

The social acceptance construct was created by combining peer- and teacher-report of peer liking and disliking for each child. Peer nominations were group-administered in the classroom setting using traditional sociometric methodology ( Coie, Dodge & Coppotelli, 1982 ). Using unlimited nominations, children were asked to nominate all the peers in their grade who they (1) like the most and (2) like the least. Unlimited nominations have been shown to decrease error variance and improve stability and reliability in the measurement of children's peer relations ( Terry, 1994 ). The number of nominations a child received for each sociometric item was summed and standardized within nominating group (i.e., across grade at school). Social acceptance was calculated by subtracting peer disliking from peer liking and standardizing this difference within nominating group (Coie et. al.). Support has been provided for the predictive and concurrent validity of sociometric methodology as well as its stability over time and across settings (see Cillessen, Bukowski, & Haselager, 2000 ).

Teachers provided parallel assessment of children's social acceptance during an interview about the students in their class. Teachers rated how much each child was liked or disliked by other children in his/her grade at school (Terry, Underwood, & Coie, 1994). Ratings were made on a 7-point scale from (1) Never True to (7) Almost Always True . As with the peer-report, teacher-rated social acceptance was calculated by subtracting peer disliking from peer liking and standardizing this difference within nominating group (i.e., across classroom within school). Teacher- and peer-reports of social acceptance were correlated (at Time 1: r = .54, p < .0001) with one another, but not redundant, and each showed significant stability over the school year (r = .58 for teacher-report, p < .0001; r = .78 for peer-report, p < .0001). The composite social acceptance score was created by averaging across the teacher and peer social acceptance scores.

Children's aggressive behavior with peers was also assessed through combined peer- and teacher-report. Using unlimited peer nominations, children were asked to nominate all the peers in their grade who are often physically (hit, kick, punch others) or verbally (say mean things) aggressive with peers ( Coie et. al., 1982 ). The number of nominations a child received was summed and standardized across grade within school. This sociometric item has considerable support as a valid, reliable measure of children's aggressive behavior with peers (see Coie & Dodge, 1998 for review).

As part of the teacher interview, using the same scale as that described above, teachers rated how aggressive each child in their class was with other children in five areas: starts physical or verbal fights, says mean things, overreacts with anger, bullies others, and uses physical force to get his/her way. Excellent internal consistency was found across these five items (Cronbach's α = .86, p <.0001) which were averaged to form the teacher-report aggression scale.

Teacher- and peer-reports of aggression were positively correlated (at Time 1: r = .63, p < .0001) with one another and each showed significant stability over the school year (r = .75 for teacher-report, p < .0001; r = .82 for peer-report, p < .0001). The composite aggressive behavior score was created by averaging across the teacher and peer aggression scores.

Classroom Conduct

Teachers rated the degree to which students engaged in disruptive classroom behavior across five areas: bothers others when they are trying to work, acts silly or immature, makes off-task comments, behaves inappropriately, and makes odd noises. For each behavioral description, teachers rated the degree to which that description was true of each child in his/her classroom. Ratings were made on a 7-point scale ranging from (1) Never True of this child to (7) Almost Always True of this child . High internal consistency was present across these five items (at Time 1: Cronbach's α = .90). Conduct grades from report cards were also attained for students which correlated significantly and negatively with teacher ratings of classroom disruptiveness (at Time 1: r = -.47, p < .0001). The composite classroom conduct score was created by averaging across the teacher ratings and conduct grade point average (GPA) scores with higher scores indicating better classroom conduct.

Academic Performance

Teachers were asked to rate the degree to which students perform poorly in reading and math (separately) on the same 7-point scale. Students' GPA in reading and math were also attained through school records of report card grades. Teacher ratings were significantly negatively correlated with GPA in the corresponding area (at Time 1: r = -.69 for reading, p < .0001; r = -.70 for math, p < .0001). Composite academic performance scores for reading and math were calculated separately by averaging the corresponding GPA and teacher rating so that higher scores indicated higher academic performance.

Academic Help-seeking

Teachers provided a global rating of the degree to which each child required help from teachers for academic problems on a 5-point scale ranging from (1) Almost Never to (5) Very Often ( Mercer & DeRosier, in press ). Help could be either directly requested by the child or in the form of the teacher needing to intervene in order to assist the child with an academic task. This item showed excellent stability over the school year (fall to spring r = .75, p < .0001).

Academic Self-concept

Two self-report measures were used to assess children's academic self-concept. First, the Self Perception Profile for Children ( Harter, 1985 ) includes six items that contrast satisfaction (e.g., “Some kids are feel that they are very good at their school work”) versus dissatisfaction (e.g., “Other kids worry about whether they can do the school work assigned to them”) with one's academic performance. Children rate each item on a 4-point bipolar scale indicating which descriptor is more true for them and to what extent (“Very True” versus “Sort of True”). Scores are averaged to form a scale with higher scores indicating higher academic self-esteem. This measure is widely used with considerable psychometric data supporting its reliability and validity (see Harter, 1985 ; Harter, 1990).

Second, academic motivation was assessed using the Areas of Motivation Scale (DeRosier, 1997). This scale includes four items on which children rate the degree to which it is important for them to achieve well academically (on school work, grades, in classes, on tests) on a 6-point scale ranging from (1) Not At All to (6) Very, Very Important . High internal consistency was present across these four items (at Time 1: Cronbach's α = .76) and prior research has demonstrated good test-retest reliability (ICC = .71 over a one week period, p < .0001) for this scale (DeRosier, 1997). Academic self-esteem and motivation were significantly correlated (at Time 1: r = .27, p < .0001). The composite academic self-concept score was created by averaging across these two scales with higher scores indicating higher academic self-concept.

Absenteeism

As part of the teacher interview, teachers rated the degree to which students were frequently absent from school on the 7-point scale ranging from (1) Never True of this child to (7) Almost Always True of this child . Number of days absent and present at school were also collected from school records. Absenteeism was calculated as the number of days absent divided by the total number of days in the school year to date (i.e., a percentage of the total). The teacher rating and school records of absenteeism were significantly correlated (at Time 1: r = .44, p < .0001). The composite absenteeism score was created by averaging across these scores with higher scores indicating higher levels of absenteeism.

The results are divided into four sections. First, sample attrition was examined to test for differences between children who remained in the sample throughout the school year versus those who left the sample prior to spring data collection. In the second section, the inter-relations among academic outcomes at the two time points were examined as well as the stability in children's academic adjustment over the school year. Third, correlations between children's social and academic adjustment at each time point was examined. In the fourth section, analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were conducted to test the degree to which social adjustment predicted academic outcomes in the spring, controlling for fall levels of these outcomes. Gender differences in the predictive patterns were also examined.

Attrition analyses were conducted in order to test for differences between children who were stable versus transient between the fall and spring of third grade. Of the total sample at Time 1 (n=1255), 62 children were not present at Time 2, resulting in 95% stability across time points. Chi-square analyses revealed that there were no significant gender or racial group differences in the children who remained in the sample versus those who left prior to the spring data collection. However, a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) across Time 1 academic and social adjustment areas revealed significant selective attrition ( F (7, 1146) = 17.77, p<.0001). Univariate and post hoc analyses showed that children who left the sample prior to spring data collection were significantly more disruptive in the classroom ( F (1, 1152) = 58.06, p<.0001), more help-seeking with teachers ( F (1, 1152) = 6.32, p<.05), and more frequently absent from school ( F (1, 1152) = 5.73, p<.05) in the fall compared to children who remained in the sample. n addition, children who remained in the sample were more socially accepted ( F (1, 1152) = 5.01, p<.05) than children who left school prior to spring data collection. Given that selective sample attrition was found, regression analyses were conducted to generate residual scores controlling for the impact of attrition on Time 1 social and academic adjustment scores. These residual scores were used for all subsequent analyses involving Time 1 adjustment measures.

Relations Among Academic Outcomes

In order to examine the inter-relations among the six academic outcomes, correlations were computed at each time point. Table 1 displays these correlations as well as stability coefficients (along the diagonal) across the two time points for each academic outcome. As Table 1 shows, the patterns of inter-correlations were highly similar across each of the two time points. Absenteeism was negatively correlated with academic achievement in math and reading as well as academic self-esteem. More frequent absenteeism was also associated with more disruptive classroom behavior and more help-seeking for academic problems. Math and reading achievement were highly positively correlated with one another and each was positively correlated with academic self-esteem. Higher math and reading achievement levels were also associated with lower classroom disruptiveness and lower help-seeking for academic problems. Classroom disruption and help-seeking behavior were positively correlated with one another and each of these areas was negatively correlated with academic self-esteem.

Correlations among areas of academic adjustment in the fall and spring.

Note. Stability coefficients are displayed along the diagonal in shaded boxes. Correlations among academic outcomes at Time 1 appear above the diagonal. Correlations among academic outcomes at Time 2 appear below the diagonal.

All academic outcomes included in this study showed a high degree of stability over the school year. Math and reading GPA, classroom disruptive behavior, and help-seeking behavior were highly stable constructs. While absenteeism and academic self-esteem showed relatively lower stability, the stability of these outcomes was highly significant across the school year.

Inter-relations Between Social and Academic Adjustment

As Table 2 shows, correlational analyses were conducted to examine the relations between social adjustment and each area of academic adjustment. Social acceptance was positively correlated with achievement in reading and math as well as academic self-esteem. Higher social acceptance was associated with lower classroom disruptive behavior and less help-seeking behavior for academic problems. The relation between higher social acceptance and lower absenteeism was significant in the fall, but dropped out in the spring.

Correlations between social and academic adjustment in the fall and spring.

The pattern of inter-relations between aggression and academic adjustment was very similar to that of social acceptance, but in the opposite direction. Math and reading GPA and academic self-esteem were each negatively correlated with aggressive behavior. Higher levels of aggression were associated with more help-seeking from teachers and greater classroom disruptive behavior. Aggression was also positively associated with more frequent absenteeism.

Impact of Social Adjustment on Later Academic Adjustment

In order to investigate the degree to which social adjustment predicted later academic adjustment, a series of Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVAs) were conducted. Variables were entered into the ANCOVA model in a hierarchical fashion. For each Time 2 (spring) academic outcome, the corresponding Time 1 (fall) academic score was entered into the model first (i.e., partialled out) prior to examination of social adjustment indices. In this way, the impact of social adjustment on later academic adjustment was investigated above and beyond the prediction due to prior academic functioning. A variable representing the child's school was then included as a covariate in the model to control for differences in academic adjustment across the eleven schools included in this study. Then, the main effects for social acceptance at Time 1 and Time 2 and their two-way interaction were entered into the model. Last, the main effects for aggression at Time 1 and Time 2 and their two-way interaction were entered.

Given the hypothesis that predictive patterns would differ by gender, preliminary ANCOVAs were conducted to test this hypothesis. Following inclusion of covariates, gender was included in the model as a main effect as well as in interaction with social acceptance and aggression at each time point. Gender was found to be a significant main effect in the prediction of math GPA ( F (1, 1121) = 15.12, p <.0001) and disruptive behavior ( F (1,1121) = 6.88, p <.01). Males ( M = 4.35, std = 1.08) demonstrated significantly higher math GPA at Time 2 than did females ( M = 4.13, SD = 1.22). Males ( M = 2.01, SD = 1.03) also exhibited significantly greater classroom disruptive behavior at Time 2 than did females ( M = 1.52, SD = 0.75). In addition, each academic outcome demonstrated at least one significant interaction effect between gender and social adjustment though the specific interaction effect varied (e.g., with aggression vs. with social acceptance) depending on the outcome of interest. Therefore, based on evidence that the relation between social and academic adjustment was moderated by gender for each academic outcome, the ANCOVAs for each academic outcome were conducted separately by gender.

Table 3 displays the significant effects for social adjustment separately for males and females, including F-values, beta weights, and percent variance explained (R 2 ) for each academic outcome. Given the high degree of stability in academic adjustment over the school year, the covariates accounted for the majority of variance for each outcome. However, as expected, social adjustment was found to significantly add to the prediction of each academic adjustment, above and beyond the prediction due to prior academic functioning, for both males and females. All significant effects for social adjustment were main effects, except one interaction for disruptive behavior for females. The following summarizes the significant findings by gender.

Significant ANCOVA effects for social adjustment predicting academic adjustment by gender

Predictive Patterns for Males

For absenteeism, there was a significant effect for aggression at Time 2 with higher levels of aggressive behavior predicting higher levels of absenteeism. For math GPA, social acceptance at each time point contributed to the prediction as did aggression at Time 2. Males with higher social acceptance across the school year showed greater math achievement in the spring whereas males who were concurrently more aggressive in the spring showed lower math achievement. For reading GPA, aggression at each time point contributed to the prediction as did social acceptance at Time 2. Males who were more aggressive across the school year showed lower reading achievement in the spring whereas males with higher social acceptance in the spring demonstrated higher concurrent reading achievement.

Classroom disruptive behavior was predicted by social acceptance at each time point as well as aggression at Time 2. Lower social acceptance across the school year and higher concurrent levels of aggressive behavior each increased males' disruptive classroom behavior in the spring. In the prediction of help-seeking behavior for academic problems, social acceptance at each time point and aggression at each time point contributed significantly. Males with higher social acceptance sought academic help from teachers less often whereas males with higher aggressive behavior sought academic help from teachers more often. In the prediction of academic self-esteem, social acceptance at each time point was significant where males with higher social acceptance across the school year had higher academic self-esteem in the spring.

Predictive Patterns for Females

For absenteeism, there were significant effects for social acceptance at Time 1 and aggression at Time 2. Females with higher social acceptance in the fall were less frequently absent in the spring whereas females with higher levels of aggressive behavior in the spring showed greater concurrent levels of absenteeism. For math GPA, social acceptance at each time point and aggression at each time point contributed significantly. Females with higher social acceptance across the school year and females with lower aggressive behavior across the school year demonstrated greater math achievement in the spring. For reading GPA, social acceptance at each time point contributed to the prediction as did aggression at Time 1. Females who were more socially accepted across the school year demonstrated higher reading achievement in the spring whereas females who were more aggressive in the fall demonstrated lower reading achievement in the spring.

Classroom disruptive behavior was predicted by social acceptance at each time point and aggression at Time 2. With regard to the main effects, lower social acceptance across the school year and higher concurrent levels of aggressive behavior each increased females' disruptive classroom behavior in the spring. In addition, there was a significant two-way interaction between aggression at Time 1 by aggression at Time 2 for females. In order to clarify this interaction, females were sub-grouped according to their level of aggression at Time 1 (i.e., Non=less than 1 std below the mean, Low=between the mean and 1 std below the mean, Medium=between the mean and 1 std above the mean, or High=greater than 1 std above the mean). Then, beta weights for aggression at Time 2 predicting classroom disruptive behavior at Time 2 were calculated for each sub-group. Figure 1 displays these trajectories. The relation between aggression and disruptive behavior in the spring was greatest for females who were non-aggressive in the fall. If females were highly aggressive in the fall, aggression in the spring did not significantly add to the prediction of their disruptive behavior problems in the spring.

In the prediction of help-seeking behavior for academic problems, social acceptance at each time point contributed significantly. Females with higher social acceptance across the school year sought academic help from teachers less often in the spring. In the prediction of academic self-esteem, social acceptance at Time 1 and aggression at Time 1 were significant where higher social acceptance and lower aggression in the fall were each predictive of higher academic self-esteem for females in the spring.

Consistent with many other studies (see Kupersmidt & DeRosier, 2004 ; Parker et. al., 2006 ; and Zins et. al., 2004 for reviews), the correlational analyses from this study indicate that academic adjustment and our social indices of peer acceptance and aggression were concurrently related to one another at each time point. The magnitude and direction of these correlations were consistent with the literature showing that positive social and academic adjustment tend to co-occur. More importantly, beyond these correlational associations, this study provided clear support for the causal model linking social and academic functioning. As expected, each form of social adjustment added significantly to the prediction of each academic outcome above and beyond the prediction due to prior academic functioning. Thus, as the causal model stipulates, peer problems were found to contribute independently to the prediction of later academic difficulties, rather than simply co-occurring with them.

This finding is particularly remarkable given the high degree of stability in this study for academic outcomes across the third grade school year, especially GPA and classroom behaviors. In effect, such high stability leaves very little variance to explain in spring academic functioning beyond the variance explained by fall academic functioning. The fact that social adjustment added significantly to the prediction of each outcome underscores the relevance of the quality of children's peer relations for impacting academic adjustment during this age period. Middle childhood is a time of escalating social and academic demands and stressors ( Parker et. al., 2006 ; Zins et. al., 2004 ). Helping children navigate their social environment during elementary school is a key to improving their academic functioning both concurrently and into the future. Clearly, further longitudinal research across the elementary school years is warranted to advance our understanding of the social roots of later negative academic outcomes, including academic failure and school drop-out ( USDE, 2006 ; O'Neil, 1997 ).

For both males and females, social acceptance and aggression were each found to contribute to academic adjustment in the spring. While there were more consistencies than differences across the patterns of results, gender differences were evident with regard to the relative importance of social acceptance versus aggression for particular outcomes. The following briefly summarizes the results for each outcome across genders. For absenteeism, concurrent aggression increased absenteeism for both males and females, but social acceptance contributed to absenteeism only for females. Social acceptance at both time points impacted math GPA for both genders as did concurrent aggression, but prior aggression contributed to lower math GPA for females only. With regard to reading GPA, social acceptance played a larger role for females whereas aggression played a larger role for males. Social acceptance across the school year impacted classroom disruptive behavior for both genders as did concurrent aggression. However, an interaction effect qualified this finding for females. When females showed a highly non-normative pattern of escalating aggression across the school year, aggression in the spring was most likely to increase classroom disruptive behavior. Higher social acceptance across the school year decreased help-seeking behavior for males and females, but aggression also contributed to higher help-seeking behavior only for males. For academic self-esteem, both social acceptance and aggression were predictive for females, but only social acceptance contributed to the prediction for males.

Overall, findings provide support for the broad hypothesis that social adjustment impacts later academic adjustment differently for males versus females. Sometimes this difference was one of magnitude, such as stronger relations between social acceptance and GPA for females. Other times, an area of social adjustment was predictive for one gender, but not the other, such as aggression adding to the prediction of academic help-seeking for males only. As expected, it was aggression that most frequently showed gender differences which likely reflects the impact of gender-specific norms for aggressive behavior on teachers' and peers' views of children at this age ( Cook, 1992 ; Eagly & Steffen, 1986 ). However, more than the differences, this study indicates that both social acceptance and aggression are important social constructs to consider when examining academic outcomes for both genders.

This study should be considered in light of several limitations. First, though significant findings for social adjustment were found, the variance explained was generally small. The outcome measures used in this study were highly stable across the school year, such that relatively little variance was left to explain through predictive modeling. This limitation was particularly evident for outcomes that were based solely on teacher-report. Combining teacher-report with other sources of information, such as standardized tests or observations, would significantly increase the sensitivity of measurement for academic achievement and classroom behavior as well as decrease the impact of any teacher biases for these outcomes. Second, while support for the causal model was found, our study spanned only two time points. It is highly likely that the relation between social and academic adjustment over time does not adhere to a simple uni-directional model. Rather, as has been supported for behavioral and emotional outcomes, the relation between social and academic adjustment is most likely transactional in nature where each area influences the other area in a reciprocal manner over time ( Parker et. al., 1995 , 2006 ). For example, poor social acceptance may increase classroom disruptive behavior which, in turn, decreases social acceptance. To test the presence of the transactional model, future longitudinal studies should examine these inter-relations across multiple time points. Third, this study included only third grade so we were unable to examine whether results varied across different elementary school years. Future longitudinal research including multiple grade levels would be extremely useful for determining whether developmental shifts in these inter-relations occur across childhood.

In conclusion, the findings from this study have important implications for the prevention of negative academic outcomes, such as school failure and drop-out. Though these negative outcomes may actually occur during adolescence, the developmental processes by which children move down this negative path begin much earlier. This study underscores the impact of peer relations during the elementary school years on children's school engagement, academic self-esteem, classroom behavior, and academic achievement. Children's peer problems do not simply co-occur with academic problems, but rather contribute in a substantive way to academic failure versus success. Unfortunately, in the United States, the elementary school culture focuses teaching and learning almost exclusively on core academic subjects without attending to how more social and behavioral issues may contribute to children's academic progress. Further research is needed to fully understand how social and academic adjustment influence one another over the elementary school years. However, the findings from this study clearly indicate that our goal of fostering academic success for our children would be furthered by considering children's social adjustment needs.

We know that as peer problems become more chronic or severe, children's risk for later negative outcomes, including academic failure, significantly increases ( DeRosier et. al., 1994 ; Parker et. al., 2006 ; Zins et. al., 2004 ). However, this cycle can be ameliorated, if not broken, with the application of targeted, structured social-emotional literacy (SEL) interventions ( Greenberg et. al., 2001 ). SEL programs focus on building children's social skills and positive peer relations while decreasing negative social behavior, such as aggression. A number of evidence-based SEL programs have been supported in the research literature. SEL interventions can be effectively applied in the elementary school setting via indicated programs, such as small group social skills training programs for children experiencing social problems (e.g., DeRosier, 2007), as well as universal classroom-based programs where all students participate equally (e.g., DeRosier & Mercer, 2007).

Given the evidence that social adjustment contributes independently in the prediction of academic adjustment (not simply in an incidental or correlational fashion), SEL intervention programs should be considered directly relevant to enhancing the academic performance and school adjustment of elementary-aged children. Schools should consider several factors when selecting an SEL program (see Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005 and Graczyk, Domitrovich, & Zins, in press , for reviews). First, it is critical the SEL program has a solid research-base demonstrating that use of this program results in significant benefits for children. Supporting research data should be rigorous (i.e., randomized control group trial) and published in a refereed journal. Replication of findings, particularly by researchers apart from the intervention developer, is a strong indicator of a program's evidence-base.

Second, the SEL program must be feasible for implementation in the school setting. Requiring excessive time or effort by school staff will undermine effective implementation. Interventions that provide school personnel with training opportunities, easy access to program materials, and on-going implementation assistance are much more likely to be used effectively and maintained by schools over time. In addition, SEL programs that are aligned with Standard Course of Study requirements for academic subjects, such as language arts, are much more easily integrated into everyday classroom use.

Third, it is important to consider the organizational climate within which the SEL program will be used. The degree to which school administrators promote, support, and reward (i.e., “buy-in”) use of an SEL intervention either fosters or impedes adoption and effective use of the program by school personnel. Findings such as those provided through this study will hopefully contribute to the body of evidence needed to increase school organizational “buy-in” for SEL interventions and support use of SEL programs by schools to not only improve the social and behavioral adjustment of children experiencing peer problems, but also enhance the academic development of all children.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported, in part, by a grant to the first author from the National Institute for Mental Health (SR29MH054227). We wish to thank the staff and students of the Wake County Public School System for their cooperation and support in the implementation of this research project.

Contributor Information

Melissa E. DeRosier, 3-C Institute for Social Development, Cary, North Carolina, USA.

Stacey W. Lloyd, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

• Achenbach TM, McConaughy SH, Howell CT. Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin. 1987; 101 (2):213–232. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boivin M, Hymel S. Peer experiences and social self-perceptions: A sequential model. Developmental Psychology. 1997; 33 (1):135–145. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boivin M, Hymel S, Hodges EVE, Juvonen J, Graham S. Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized. NY: Guilford Press; 2001. Toward a process view of peer rejection and harassment; pp. 265–289. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brand S, Felner R, Shim M, Seitsinger A, Dumas T. Middle school improvement and reform: Development and validation of a school-level assessment of climate, cultural pluralism, and school safety. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2003; 95 (3):570–588. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brendgen M, Vitaro F, Bukowski WM. Affiliation with delinquent friends: Contributions of parents, self-esteem, delinquent behavior, and rejection by peers. Journal of Early Adolescence. 1998; 18 (3):244–265. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carney JV. Bullied to Death: Perceptions of peer abuse and suicidal behavior during adolescence. School Psychology International. 2000; 21 (2):213–223. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cairns RB, Cairns BD, Neckerman HJ. Early school drop out – configurations and determinants. Child Development. 1989; 60 (6):1437–1452. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter DJ, Wilson R. Minorities in Higher Education. Ninth Annual Report 1991 [ Google Scholar ]
• Cillessen AHN, Terry RA, Coie JD, Lochman JE. Accuracy of teacher identification of children's sociometric status positions. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Development; Atlanta, GA. 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cillessen AHN, Bukowski WM, Haselager GJT. Recent advances in the measurement of acceptance and rejection in the peer system. CA: Jossey-Bass; 2000. Stability of sociometric categories; pp. 75–93. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coie JD, Dodge KA, Coppotelli H. Dimensions and types of social status: A cross age perspective. Developmental Psychology. 1982; 18 :557–570. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coffman DL, MacCallum RC. Using parcels to convert path analysis models into latent variable models. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2005; 40 (2):235–259. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coie J. Toward a theory of peer rejection. In: Asher SR, Coie J, editors. Peer Rejection in Childhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coie JD, Dodge KA. Aggression and antisocial behavior. Handbook of child psychology. 1998; 3 :779–862. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook HBK. Matrifocality and Female Aggression in Margariteno Society. Of Mice and Women: Aspects of Female Aggression 1992 [ Google Scholar ]
• DeRosier M, Kupersmidt JB, Patterson CJ. Children's academic and behavioral adjustment as a function of the chronicity and proximity of peer rejection. Child Development. 1994; 65 (6):1799–1813. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly AH, Steffen VJ. Gender and aggressive-behavior – meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin. 1986; 100 (3):309–330. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eaton DK, Kann L, Kinchen S, et al. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 4. Vol. 57. Center for Disease Control; Washington, DC: 2007. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance in the United States. Surveillance Summaries. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feshbach S, Price J. Cognitive competencies and aggressive behavior: A developmental study. Aggressive Behavior. 1984; 10 (3):185–200. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fixsen DL, Naoom SF, Blase KA, Friedman RM, Wallace F. Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network; 2005. FMHI Publication #231. [ Google Scholar ]
• French DC. Heterogeneity of peer-rejected boys: Aggressive and nonaggressive subtypes. Child Development. 1988; 59 (4):976–985. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flook L, Repetti RL, Ullman JB. Classroom social experiences as predictors of academic performance. Developmental Psychology. 2005; 41 (2):319–327. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Furman W, Buhrmester D. Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of social relationships. Child Development. 1992; 63 :103–115. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham S, Bellmore AD, Mize J. Peer victimization, aggression, and their co occurrence in middle school: pathways to adjustment problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2006; 34 (3):363–378. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graczyk PA, Domitrovich CE, Zins JE. Facilitation the implementation of evidence-based prevention and mental health promotion efforts in schools. In: Weist M, Evans S, Tashman N, editors. School Mental Health Handbook, a volume in the series Issues In Clinical Child Psychology (M Roberts, Ed) In press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenberg MT, Domitrovich C, Bumbarger B. The prevention of mental disorders in school-aged children: Current state of the field. Prevention & Treatment. 2001; 4 (1) [ Google Scholar ]
• Greene MB. High school students are also adversely affected by bullying. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2003; 157 (11):1134–1134. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guay F, Boivin M, Hodges EVE. Predicting Change in Academic Achievement: A Model of Peer Experiences and Self-System Processes. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1999; 91 :105–115. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harter S. The Self-Perception Profile for Children. Denver, CO: University of Denver; 1985. Unpublished document. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinshaw SP. Externalizing behavior problems and academic underachievement in childhood and adolescence: Causal relationships and underlying mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin. 1992; 111 (1):127–155. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuperminc GP, Leadbeater BJ, Blatt SJ. School social climate and individual differences in vulnerability to psychopathology among middle school students. Journal of School Psychology. 2001; 39 (2):141–159. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kupersmidt JB, Coie JD. Preadolescent peer status, aggression, and school adjustment as predictors of externalizing problems in adolescence. Child Development. 1990; 61 (5):1350–1362. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kupersmidt JB, DeRosier ME. How peer problems lead to negative outcomes: An integrative mediational model. In: Dodge KA, Kupersmidt JB, editors. Children's peer relations: From development to intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2004. pp. 119–138. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kupersmidt J, Dodge KA, editors. Children's Peer Relations: From Development to Intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• LaGreca AM. Peer acceptance-correspondence between children's sociometric scores and ratings of peer interactions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1981; 9 (2):167–178. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loeber R, Green SM, Lahey BB. Mental health professionals' perception of the utility of children, mothers, and teachers as informants on childhood psychopathology. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 1990; 19 (2):136–143. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopez C, DuBois DL. Peer Victimization and Rejection: Investigation of an Integrative Model of Effects on Emotional, Behavioral, and Academic Adjustment in Early Adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2005; 34 (1):25–36. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maccoby EE. The Two Sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mercer SH, DeRosier ME. Teacher preference, peer rejection, and student aggression: A prospective study of transactional influence and independent contributions to emotional adjustment and grades. Journal of School Psychology in press. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nansel TR, Overpeck M, Pilla RS, Ruan WJ, Simons-Morton B, Scheidt P. Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association. 2001; 285 (16):2094–2100. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nowell A, Hedges LV. Trends in Gender Differences in Academic Achievement from 1960 to 1994: An Analysis of Differences in Mean, Variance, and Extreme Scores. Sex Roles. 1998; 39 (1):21–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Neil R, Welsh M, Parke RD, Wang S, Strand C. A longitudinal assessment of the academic correlates of early peer acceptance and rejection. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 1997; 26 (3):290–303. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olson SL, Brodfeld PL. Assessment of peer rejection and externalizing behavior problems in preschool boys = a short term longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1991; 19 (4):493–503. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parker JG, Asher SR. Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin. 1987; 102 (3):357–389. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parker JG, Rubin KH, Earth SA, Wojslawowics JC, Buskirk AA. Peer Relationships, Child Development, and Adjustment: A Developmental Psychopathology Persepctive. In: Cicchetti D, Cohen DJ, editors. Developmental Psychopathology. NY: Wiley; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parker JG, Rubin KH, Price JM, DeRosier ME. Peer relationships, child development, and adjustment: A developmental psychopathology perspective. In: Cicchetti D, Cohen DJ, editors. Developmental psychopathology, Vol 2: Risk, disorder, and adaptation. Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons; 1995. pp. 96–161. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rigby K, Slee PT. Dimensions of interpersonal relation among Australian children: implications for psychological well-being. Journal of Social Psychology. 1993; 133 (1):33–42. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Risi S, Gerhardstein R, Kistner J. Children's Classroom Peer Relationships and Subsequent Educational Outcomes. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2003; 32 (3):351–361. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Routh DK. Taxonomy in developmental psychology: Consider the source. Handbook of Developmental Psychopathology. 1990:15–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharp S. How much does bullying really hurt? Education Child Psychology. 1995; 12 :81–88. [ Google Scholar ]
• Skaalvik S, Skaalvik EM. Gender differences in Math and verbal self-concept, performance expectations, and motivation. Sex Roles. 2004; 50 (3-4):241–252. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spooner C. Causes and correlates of adolescent drug abuse and implications for treatment. Drug and Alcohol Review. 1999; 18 (4):453–475. [ Google Scholar ]
• Terry R. A latent-trait model of social judgement: Implications for sociometric assessment. Durham, NC: Duke University; 1994. Unpublished manuscript. [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of Education (NCES 2006-071) Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Woodward LJ, Fergusson DM. Childhood peer relationship problems and later risks of educational under-achievement and unemployment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2000; 41 (2):191–201. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zarbatany L, Hartmann DP, Rankin DB. The psychological functions of preadolescent peer activities. Child Development. 1990; 61 (4):1067–1080. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zins JE, Weissberg RP, Wang MC, Walberg HJ. Building school success through social and emotional learning. NY: Teachers College Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]

State budget should include tax credit to address school bus driver shortage

Transportation companies are finding it difficult to recruit and retain school bus drivers. Credit: Howard Schnapp

As the owner of a third-generation family-owned private transportation company providing essential school bus and transit services to Nassau and Suffolk counties, I am acutely aware of the labor challenges facing employers in our state. For our company, recruiting and retaining school bus drivers is of particular concern. The ongoing labor shortage, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has made it increasingly difficult for businesses of all kinds to fill essential positions and meet the demands of our economy. That is why I am urging Gov. Kathy Hochul to support the $500 Work Opportunity Tax Credit included in the State Senate and Assembly's budget proposals.

The Work Opportunity Tax Credit is a valuable tool that will provide much-needed relief to employers like us as we navigate the complexities of the current job market. This tax credit, which mirrors the highly successful federal credit of the same name, offers financial incentives to businesses that hire individuals from targeted groups facing significant barriers to employment including veterans, individuals with disabilities, and those receiving government assistance. By offering a financial incentive to employers, the credit encourages businesses to hire from these underrepresented demographics, thereby expanding opportunities for all New Yorkers to participate in the workforce.

For our company, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit represents an opportunity to invest in our community while addressing our workforce needs. As a school transportation provider, we rely on skilled drivers, drivers assistants, mechanics and many other workers who help keep the yellow school bus the safest way to get to and from school each day. However, like many businesses across the state, we have faced challenges in recruiting and retaining qualified workers, particularly in specialized roles such as school bus drivers and mechanics.

This credit would enable us to attract new talent and invest in the training and development of our workforce, ensuring that we can continue to meet the needs of our school district customers and uphold our commitment to safety and efficiency. By providing financial support to offset the costs of recruitment and training, the tax credit would make it easier for us to compete for skilled workers in a competitive job market, ultimately strengthening our business and growing New York’s economy.

Moreover, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit has the potential to make a meaningful impact on targeted employee demographics, including veterans and individuals wanting to get off public assistance, who may face additional barriers to employment. By offering financial incentives to employers who hire from these groups, the credit encourages businesses to prioritize diversity and inclusion in their hiring practices, creating opportunities for individuals who may otherwise struggle to find meaningful employment.

From our Editorial Board, get inside the local, city and state political scenes.

By clicking Sign up, you agree to our privacy policy .

At its core, this tax credit is not just about supporting businesses; it is about supporting individuals and families across New York State. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit enables individuals to better support themselves and their families, improving their financial stability and quality of life. Additionally, by expanding access to employment opportunities, it contributes to New York's economic recovery, driving growth and prosperity for all.

As this year's budget session nears its conclusion, I respectfully urge Hochul, the Senate and Assembly to make sure the $500 Work Opportunity Tax Credit is included in the 2024-25 state budget. Together, we can build a stronger, more inclusive workforce and drive New York's economic recovery forward.

This guest essay reflects the views of John Corr, owner of Educational Bus Transportation in West Babylon.