J Child Fam Stud (2010) 19:30–35
DOI 10.1007/s10826-009-9338-y
ORIGINAL PAPER
Parental Acceptance–Rejection: a Fourth Cross-Cultural
Research on Parenting and Psychological Adjustment of Children
Marwan Dwairy
Published online: 27 November 2009

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract The parental acceptance–rejection factor was
considered by Rohner as one of the major parental factors
influencing children’s mental health. The Parental Accep-
tance Rejection Questionnaire PARQ was administered to
adolescents in nine countries. The results show that parental
acceptance–rejection differs across countries. Fathers were
more rejecting and less accepting than mothers, and male
adolescents were more likely to be rejected and less likely to
be accepted than female adolescents. Parental rejection was
more prevalent among parents with little education and a
low family socio-economic level. Parental rejection was
associated with adolescent psychological disorders and
parental acceptance was associated, to a lesser extent, with
better psychological adjustment. Congruently with our
hypothesis, downright parental rejection is less harming to
adolescents’ mental health than the inconsistent combina-
tion of rejection and acceptance.
Keywords Acceptance
Rejection
Warmth

Parenting
Culture
Introduction
The essence of Carl Rogers’ (1961) theory is that acceptance
and unconditional positive regard is the basis for mental
health and that rejection is the basis for psychological dis-
turbances. Coleman (1956) pointed out the association
between rejection and children’s psychopathology. Rejec-
tion may not only hurt the self-concept and undermine
children’s feelings of relatedness to their parents, but also
M. Dwairy (&)
P.O. Box 14710, Ora St. 3b, 17000 Nazareth Elit, Israel
e-mail: psy@marwandwairy.com
123
result in a sense of alienation from the child’s authentic self.
Children learn that some parts of their selves are rejected
and need to be repressed and erased from their conscious-
ness (Winnicott 1965).
Rohner (1960) carried out cross-cultural research and
found that in various cultures rejected children were more
aggressive and had a more negative worldview than non-
rejected children. Furthermore, parental rejection had con-
sistently negative effects on personality development of
children and adults across races, ethnicities and cultures
(Rohner 1975, 1986). Parental rejection implies the absence
or significant withdrawal of parental warmth, affection,
care, comfort, concern, nurturance, support or love, and the
presence of a variety of physically and psychologically
hurtful behaviors and effects. Rejecting parents can be
experienced by any combination of four principal mani-
festations: (1) cold and unaffectionate, (2) hostile and
aggressive, (3) indifferent and neglecting, and (4) undif-
ferentiated rejecting, perceived as such by the children, even
though there might not be any clear behavioral indicators of
parental rejection (Rohner 2006; Rohner and Khaleque
2005).
A meta-analysis of 43 studies found that rejection had
consistently negative effects on the psychological adjust-
ment and behavioral functioning of both children and
adults worldwide (Khaleque and Rohner 2002; Rohner
and Khaleque 2005). Khaleque (2007) postulated that the
association between parental rejection and psychological
adjustment of children is universal ‘‘across all ethnic groups,
races, cultures, languages, gender, and geographic bound-
aries of the world… No population has yet been found where
the theoretically expected relations fail to emerge’’ (p. 3). In
addition, Khaleque (2007) indicated that approximately
20% of the children in every society might constitute an
apparent exception to the parental acceptance–rejection
J Child Fam Stud (2010) 19:30–35
theory. Few of these exceptional children are able to cope
well and remain relatively well psychologically adjusted
despite parental rejection, while the majority, labeled as
‘‘troubled,’’ suffers from poor psychological adjustment
despite coming from loving families. It appears that
Khaleque (2007) exaggerated in his assessment of the
impact of rejection. Kim et al. (2006) reported that a higher
level of parental rejection explained approximately 27–46%
of the variance in the adolescents’ reports about psycho-
logical adjustment. In line with his rejection theory, Rohner
(2006) assumes that people who have psychological prob-
lems with no parental rejection may have these problems
because of a variety of non-parental rejections such as
rejection by peers, teachers, or their spouse, or any rejection
in other attachment relationships throughout their lifespan.
Parental rejection is not unconnected to parental control,
assumed to undermine the feeling of acceptance among
children and possibly fostering the feeling of rejection.
Correlations between parental acceptance and control
range from -.36 to -.77 (with a mean of 0.56). This
correlation was replicated across cultures in Africa, Asia,
US, and Europe (see Soenens 2007). Because parental
rejection and control overlap, it is important to study their
joint contribution to psychological maladjustment.
We hypothesized that cultural differences will be found
in parental rejection, and rejection will be associated with
the parent’s and adolescent’s gender. Rejection will be
associated with psychological maladjustment of adoles-
cents, and this association will differ across cultures.
Moreover, inconsistent parenting that mingles rejection and
acceptance is more harmful to adolescents’ mental health
than parental rejection.
Method
Participants and Instruments
The participants were 2,884 Arab, Indian, French, Polish,
and Argentinian adolescents.
The following questionnaire was administered to the
adolescents:
Parental Acceptance Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ).
The shortened form of PARQ includes 29 items, each
referring to father and mother acceptance or rejection
(Rohner and Khaleque 2003, 2005). The subjects respond
to items on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from
4 = almost always true to 1 = almost never true. Sample
items on the version about mothers include ‘‘my mother
says nice things about me’’ (Acceptance), and ‘‘My mother
sees me as a big nuisance’’ (Rejection). A principal factor
analysis was conducted on the 29 items concerning the
father and on the 29 items concerning the mother, with
31
varimax rotation, a priori two factors solution, and a .20
loading criterion. The two factors regarding the items
related to fathers and mothers explained 38.3% and 40.6%
of the variance, respectively (Table 1). Three items (7, 20,
and 25) in both the versions loaded low in one or more
factors therefore it was decided to exclude them from the
scale. The scale ended in 16 rejection and 10 acceptance
items.
The mean of each group of items was considered as
indicating rejection or acceptance by the father or the
mother. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the father and
mother PARQ was .75 and .77, respectively.
In order to validate the PARQ across cultures two sep-
arate factor analyses were conducted on the western and
eastern samples with varimax rotation, a priori two factors
solution, and a .20 loading criterion. The two factors
solution regarding the 26 items related to fathers in the
west and east explained 42.59% and 40.13% of the vari-
ance, respectively. As for the items related to mothers in
the west and east the two factors solution explained 43.70%
and 43.52% of the variance, respectively. All items were
loaded either in the acceptance or rejection factor. Cron-
bach’s alpha coefficient of the father and mother PARQ in
the west was .70 and .71, respectively, and in the east .75
and .79, respectively indicating the internal validity of the
scale across cultures.
Results
Parental Rejection and Connectedness across Countries
Parental rejection was associated with adolescents-parents
connectedness. Connectedness was positively correlated
with father and mother acceptance (r = .283, r = 204,
respectively) and negatively correlated with father and
mother rejection (r = .179, r = 136, respectively). Father
and mother rejection and father acceptance differed in
western (more individualistic) and eastern (more collec-
tive) countries. Adolescents in western countries reported
that their fathers were less rejecting and more accepting
than as reported by adolescents in eastern countries [F(1,
2882) = 51.33, p \ .000, g2 = .020; F(2880) = 52.68,
p \ .000, g2 = .020, respectively), and reported less
rejecting mothers than adolescents in eastern countries
[F(1, 2880) = 105.63, p \ .000, g2 = .040]. No significant
differences were found between west and east in maternal
acceptance. When father and mother rejection and accep-
tance were analyzed across countries, there was low
homogeneity within western and within eastern countries
(Fig. 1), indicating that the west-east differences were
contributed by a few specific countries: Parents of the
Bedouins in Israel and Jordan were the most rejecting to
123
32 J Child Fam Stud (2010) 19:30–35

Table 1 Principal component analysis of PARQ

Father Mother
Acceptance Rejection Acceptance Rejection

1. Says nice things about me .61 -.21 .55

2. Pays no attention to me -.27 .48 .64
3. Sees to it that I know exactly what I may or may not do .51 .53
4. Makes it easy for me to tell him things that are important to me .57 .60
5. Hits me, even when I do not deserve it .67 .67
6. Sees me as a big nuisance .61 .70
7. Is always telling me how I should behave .35 .32 .30 .29
8. Punishes me severely when he is angry .64 .56
9. Is too busy to answer my questions .55 .61
10. Seems to dislike me -.23 .68 .68
11. Is really interested in what I do .67 -.21 .67 -.25
12. Says many unkind things to me .69 .70
13. Pays no attention when I ask for help -.22 .61 .66
14. Insists that I must do exactly as I am told .45 .46
15. Makes me feel wanted and needed .62 .65
16. Pays a lot of attention to me .71 .70 -.22
17. Goes out of his way to hurt my feelings .69 .72
18. Forgets important things I think he should remember .52 .57
19. Makes me feel not loved any more if I misbehave .68 .71
20. Lets me do anything I want to do .29 .37
21. Makes me feel what I do is important .66 .67
22. Frightens or threatens me when I do something wrong .60 .64
23. Cares about what I think, and likes me to talk about it .70 .67
24. Feels other children are better than I am no matter what I do .64 -.22 .66
25. Lets me know I am not wanted .37 .31
26. Wants to control whatever I do .55 .53
27. Lets me know he loves me .69 -.23 .68 -.27
28. Pays no attention to me as long as I do nothing to bother him -.20 .56 .62
29. Treats me gently and with kindness .64 -.29 .67 -.27
Eigenvalue 6.29 4.80 7.01 4.76

their children. The Jordanian parents were the least the family economic level (r = .16, p \ .0001 and r = .12,
accepting parents. Polish fathers were the least accepting p \ .0001, respectively). Father and mother acceptance
parents. The rejection and acceptance of mothers and fathers were positively associated with the family economic level
in the other western and eastern countries were similar. (r = .10, p \ .0001 and r = .07, p \ .0001, respectively).

Parental Acceptance–Rejection and Socio-Economic
Situation
The correlation coefficients of fathers’ and mothers’ rejec-
tion and the years of education of each were negative
(r = .06, p \ .01 and r = .11, p \ .0001, respectively).
The correlation coefficients of fathers’ and mothers’
acceptance and the years of education of each were positive
(r = .17, p \ .0001 and r = .17, p \ .0001, respectively).
Father and mother rejection were negatively associated with
Father and Mother Rejection and Adolescents’ Gender
Fathers were more rejecting [F(1, 2881) = 12.25, p \ .000,
g2 = .005] and less accepting [F(1, 2881) = 233.78,
p \ .0001, g2 = .090] than mothers. Male adolescents were
more rejected [F(1, 2880) = 47.25, p \ .0001, g2 = .020]
and less accepted [F(1, 2880) = 27.41, p \ .0001,
g2 = .010] than female adolescents. No significant inter-
action was found between parents’ sex and adolescents’ sex
(Fig. 2).

123
J Child Fam Stud (2010) 19:30–35 33

Fig. 1 Father (square) and 1 2 3 4

mother (circle) rejection (line)
and acceptance (dots) across
3.5
countries

3.0

Acceptance and rejection

2.5

2.0

1.5

France Poland Argentina Kuwait Algeria Saudia Bedouins Jordan India

Country

on the one hand, and psychological disorders of adoles-

3.20 sex cents on the other. Father and mother rejection were
Female positively related to psychological disorders (b = .21,
3.00
male b = .13, respectively) and father and mother acceptance
were negatively related to psychological disorders
2.80 (b = .08, b = .05, respectively). When the coefficients
were calculated for each country, they became higher in
2.60
some countries and not significant in others (see Table 2).
2.40
The association between parental acceptance or rejection
and adolescents’ psychological disorders differed across
2.20 countries.

2.00
Predicting Mental Health
1.80
To find out the percentage of adolescents whose mental
FRej MRej FAcc MAcc health is congruent with Rohner’s theory, we created two
Father and Mother Acceptance and Rejection
categories of psychological states according to the psy-
Fig. 2 Father and mother rejection and acceptance to male (line) and chological disorder scores: high and low psychological
female (dots) adolescents disorders (HPD and LPD). We conducted a chi-square
test and found significant differences in the distribution of
the psychological states [Chi-square (1,2878) = 23.13,
Father and Mother Rejection and Acceptance p \ .0001]. Among 679 adolescents who were rejected by
and Psychological Disorders both fathers and mothers we found only 274 (40.35%)
adolescents that had a psychological disorders score below
A linear multiple regression was conducted to test the the average (LPD). Among 1,126 adolescents who were not
association between father and mother acceptance and rejected by any one of their parents, we found only 362
rejection. Significant standardized correlation coefficients (32.15%) adolescents whose score in this respect was
(b) were found between parental rejection and acceptance above the average (HPD).

123
34 J Child Fam Stud (2010) 19:30–35

Table 2 Standardized coefficients (b) with psychological disorders rejection and psychological disorders in the Bedouin
Country Rejection Acceptance
sample, with the highest scores in adolescents-family
connectedness and in parental control may indicate that
Father Mother Father Mother psychological rejection within such tightly-knit and col-
France .59*** n.s n.s n.s lective culture is very dangerous. The negative impact of
Poland .46*** n.s n.s n.s parental rejection in such authoritarian and close families
Argentina .27** n.s n.s n.s seems unavoidable.
Kuwait n.s .23** n.s -.18** These findings provide strong support to Rohner’s claim
Algeria n.s .16* -.20* n.s that parental rejection, rather than authoritarianism or
Saudi Arabia .10* .12* -.17** -.23*** parental control, constitute a very dangerous factor
Bedouins .60*** n.s n.s n.s affecting people’s mental health in all cultures, countries
Jordan .38** n.s n.s -.36**
and races (Khaleque 2007). We found 40.35% adolescents
India n.s .33** -.32** n.s
labeled by Rohner as ‘copers’, because they maintained
their mental health despite the parental rejection (Rohner
All countries .21*** .13*** -.08** -.05*
and Khaleque 2005), and 32.15%, labeled as ‘troubled’,
* Significant at .01 whose mental health is supposed to be influenced by other
** Significant at .001 social and genetic factors. These percentages of adoles-
*** Significant at .000 cents, whose psychological states were not congruent with
Rohner’s theory, were higher than those claimed (20%) by
Discussion Khaleque (2007).
A huge body of research has been conducted about
Parental acceptance was associated with adolescents-fam- parental acceptance and rejection and children’s mental
ily connectedness. Adolescents in more connected families health. The uniqueness of our research lies in that accep-
feel more accepted and less rejected than adolescents who tance and rejection were studied together with other
live in less connected families and vice versa. Unlike the parental factors and with family connectedness. This inte-
clear-cut difference between western and eastern cultures grative and systemic research is important because of
in adolescents-parents connectedness and in parental con- the high correlations between these parental factors and
trol, rejection and acceptance by fathers and mothers did the correlation with family connectedness. Therefore, the
not differ between west and east, but rather between associations between each parental factor and children’s
countries. With the exception of Bedouins in Israel and psychological disorders may be different when all the
Jordan, parental rejection was similar and lower in all the factors are examined together than they were found to be
countries. The Jordanian parents and Polish fathers were until now.
the least accepting parents, whereas the parents’ accep-
tance in the other countries was similar and relatively high. Acknowledgments I thank my colleague Mustafa Achoui who
This similarity across west and east indicates that parental administered the scales and encoded the data in Saudi Arabia,
Algeria, and Kuwait, and Anna Filus (Poland), Neharika Vohra
rejection is less culturally bound as compared to family
(India), Martina Casullo (Argentina), Parissa Rezvan Nia (France),
connectedness and to parental control. Huda Nijm (Jordan, and Lana Shhadi (Bedouins in Israel),for their
Parental rejection and acceptance was connected to the help in translating and administering the questionnaires and encoding
parent’s and child’s sex and to socio-economic factors. the data of their countries.
Fathers were more rejecting and less accepting than
mothers, and male adolescents were more rejected and less
accepted than female adolescents. Parents’ rejection was References
higher among parents with little education and low family
Coleman, J. C. (1956). Abnormal psychology and modern life. New
economic level. York: Scott Foresman.
In line with the theories of Carl Rogers and Ronald Khaleque, A. (2007). Parental acceptance–rejection theory: Beyond
Rohner, parental rejection emerged as a significant factor parent–child relationship. International Society for Interpersonal
Acceptance and Rejection, 1(1), 2–4.
in adolescents’ mental health. Parental rejection was
Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (2002). Perceived parental accep-
associated with adolescents’ psychological disorders and tance–rejection and psychological adjustment: A meta-analysis
parental acceptance was associated, to a lesser extent, with of cross-cultural and intracultural studies. Journal of Marriage
better psychological adjustment. These associations were and Family, 64, 54–64.
Kim, E., Cain, K., & McCubbin, M. (2006). Maternal and paternal
more salient within each country than across countries due
parenting, acculturation, and young adolescents’ psychological
to the differences between countries in parental rejection adjustment in Korean American families. Journal of Child and
and acceptance. The extremely high correlation between Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 19, 112–129.

123
J Child Fam Stud (2010) 19:30–35
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Rohner, R. P. (1960). Child acceptance–rejection and modal
personality in three Pacific societies. Unpublished Masters
Thesis, Stanford University.
Rohner, R. P. (1975). They love me, they love me not: A worldwide
study of the effects of parental acceptance and rejection. New
Haven, CT: HRAF Press.
Rohner, R. P. (1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of
parental acceptance–rejection theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
Rohner, R. P. (2006). Introduction to PARTheory studies of intimate
partner relationships. Paper presented at First International
Congress on Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection, Istanbul,
Turkey, June 22–24, 2006.
35
Rohner, R. P., & Khaleque, A. (2003). Reliability and validity of
parental control scale: A meta-analysis of cross-cultural and
intercultural studies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
34(6), 643–649.
Rohner, R. P., & Khaleque, A. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of parental
acceptance and rejection (4th ed.). Storrs, CT: Rohner Research
Publications.
Soenens, B. (2007). ‘‘I will love you if you do as I say’’ How
psychological controlling parenting undermines parent–child
acceptance. International Society for Interpersonal Acceptance
and Rejection, 1(3), 1–3.
Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The maturational processes and the
facilitating environment: Studies in the theory of emotional
development. New York: International Universities Press.
123