Parental Warmth and Parent Involvement: Their Relationships to Academic Achievement and Behavior Problems in School and Related Gender Effects

Abstract

Parent involvement and parental warmth have been extensively studied in the global literature. However, limited research has been conducted on parent involvement and parental warmth in India. This study examined parental warmth and parent involvement as predictors of academic achievement and behavior problems. Because behavior problems scores differed gender, gender differences om these relationships were explored. Study questions were framed in terms of Epstein’s theory of school, family, and community partnerships and Rohner’s parental acceptance-rejection theory. A sample of Indian seventh through tenth graders gave ratings of parental warmth and parent involvement. Their teachers gave ratings of academic achievement and behavior problems. Results showed that parental warmth and parent involvement were significant predictors of academic achievement and behavior problems for boys. Parental warmth was a significant predictor of academic achievement and behavior problems for girls. The results regarding parental warmth supported parental acceptance-rejection theory. Results suggested the need to increase the awareness of the importance of parent involvement for children in India and to continue to support parents in maintaining warm and accepting relationships with their children.

1. Introduction

The impact of parenting behaviors on children’s academic achievement and behavioral problems is widely demonstrated in parenting literature [1,2]. One body of literature addresses such variables as parenting style, such as parental warmth, and parenting characteristics [3]. Parental warmth can be defined as accepting, caring, and supportive parenting [4]. Positive associations have been found between parental warmth and academic achievement [2,5,6]. Additionally, parental warmth is predictive of fewer internalizing and externalizing behavior problems [7,8,9]. Other literature explores parent involvement in the child’s education. Parent involvement can be defined as a parent’s participation in a child’s educational process both at school and at home. Fan (2001) [10] noted that the term parent involvement has been operationally defined to encompass a range of parental behaviors, including involvement at home and at school. Forms of parent involvement that directly involve schools include parent-teacher conferences, volunteering in the classroom, and participation in parent-teacher organizations [11]. Parent involvement at home refers to engaging in homework activities with the child and providing a place in the home where the child can pursue learning activities [11]. Research studies such as meta-analyses have found a positive relationship between parent involvement and academic achievement [10]. Additionally, increased parental involvement has been related to fewer child behavior problems in school [12,13]. However, whether parent involvement or parental warmth is a more significant predictor of both academic achievement and behavior problems has rarely been explored in previous literature. The one study that compared the two variables directly in predicting academic achievement only showed that both fathers’ warmth and fathers’ parent involvement were significant predictors of academic achievement [2]. No research has specifically explored the effects of these variables with mothers on academic achievement. Additionally, no previous literature has compared the strength of parent involvement and parental warmth in predicting behavior problems. The purpose of this study is to determine the relative strengths of parent involvement and parental warmth as predictors of academic achievement and behavior problems in an Indian sample.

This study’s definition of academic achievement can be measured based on either grades or intellectual aptitude test scores [14]. Both of these metrics are used throughout the parent involvement and parental warmth literatures.

This study’s definition of behavior problems refers to the two main types of behavior problems. Behavior problems can be divided into two groups: externalizing and internalizing behavior problems [4]. Internalizing problems are characterized by depression, anxiety, and social withdrawal, while externalizing problems are characterized by aggression, noncompliance, rule-breaking, and impulsivity [7]. Relevant literature has examined the associations of both parent involvement and parental warmth with externalizing and internalizing behavior problems.

This study obtained data from India. The study was located in India to study a previously understudied population. Only one previous study has explored the issue of parent involvement with an Indian population, which examined homework assignments [15]. The country of India is currently modernizing and has a large amount of diversity in parenting styles across different levels of urbanicity, modernization, socioeconomic status, and education levels [16]. Accordingly, a study of parenting style and parent involvement in education in India is both timely and able to shed light on questions regarding cross-cultural parenting. India is a highly gender-differentiated society, with males having higher status and being given more opportunities than girls [17,18]. Boys are socialized in Indian society to be the main breadwinner and provider for the family [17]. Parental gender norms are strictly divided between a stern, emotionally distant father and a kind, emotionally involved mother [17]. Therefore, a study of the effects of parenting in India on academic achievement and behavior problems should account for child gender.

Previous research has supported a role for gender in the relationships parent involvement and parental warmth have with academic achievement and behavior problems. Parent involvement in the form of educational expectations has been associated with greater academic achievement for boys [19]. In the form of talking about school, it was associated with greater academic achievement for girls [19]. Parental warmth has been associated with fewer emotional problems and higher academic achievement for girls [20,21]. Thus, the exploration of the relationships between these variables should include gender.

2. Background

Epstein et al. (2019) [11] described school, family, and community partnerships as a better phrase than parental involvement to be used to describe the parent involvement field. They took this position because they asserted that “partnership” recognizes that parents, teachers, and community members all work together to provide learning experiences for students. The term “partnership” encompasses the concepts of involvement, engagement, participation, collaboration, and other terms that recognize that individuals at home, at school, and in the community collaborate to ensure student success. Epstein et al. [11] stressed that a program of family, school, and community partnerships is essential for the success of all schools and school improvement. Epstein et al. noted that families are engaged in partnerships in multiple ways, such as through involvement directly in schools with volunteering, through involvement at home with homework, and generally through parenting while creating spaces at home for learning. They also highlighted that strong partnerships engage all families such that academic achievement is facilitated and behavior problems are reduced.

Parental acceptance-rejection theory is a theory of socialization that aims to predict and explain major correlates, causes, and consequences of parental acceptance and rejection across the world [14]. Rohner et al. (2003) [22] noted that it attempts to explain universal effects of acceptance and rejection. Parental acceptance and rejection are the basis for the warmth dimension of parenting in this theory. All persons can be placed on this dimension because everyone experienced some degree of love from caregivers during their childhood. Rohner et al. (2003) [22] stated that, “the warmth dimension has to do with the quality of the affectional bond between parents and their children, and with the physical and verbal behavior parents use to express these feelings” (p. 87). At one end of the continuum is parental acceptance, which is characterized by warmth, affection, care, comfort, concern, nurturance, support, and love towards children. At the other end of the continuum is parental rejection, which encompasses the absence or withdrawal of those feelings and the presence of one of four types of behaviors: (a) cold and unaffectionate; (b) hostile and aggressive; (c) indifferent and neglecting: and (d) undifferentiated rejecting. The effects of lack of parental acceptance and the experience of parental rejection include the child’s hostility, aggression, passive aggression, psychological problems, emotional unresponsiveness, immature dependence or defensive independence, impaired self-esteem, impaired self-adequacy, emotional instability, and a negative worldview. Parental acceptance-rejection theory also postulates the sociocultural systems subtheory, which asserts that the likelihood of parents displaying acceptance or rejection is shaped by the “maintenance systems” of their society, which include family structure, household organization, economic organization, political organization, system of defense, and other organizations that affect the culture’s survival [22]. However, parental acceptance-rejection theory provides evidence for a “universal” tendency for children to respond with behavior problems to rejection vs. to develop in a healthy way with acceptance and warmth [22].

3. The Importance of Parent Involvement

Researchers defining parent involvement have dichotomized parent involvement into two major areas: involvement at home and involvement at school [23]. Traditionally, direct contact between school staff and parents’ participation in school events such as bake sales, fundraisers, back to school nights, open houses, school trips, workshops, PTA/PTO meetings, and attendance at academic conferences were considered or defined as parent involvement. This definition has expanded to include involvement at home in such activities as helping with homework and discussing future academic plans with the child [24].

Even a cursory look at the subject of parental involvement and academic achievement reveals just how intrinsically important this relationship is believed to be. Much of the literature in the past two decades, qualitative as well as quantitative, supports this claim [10,25]. Educators, psychologists and developmental psychologists have asserted that parent involvement improves children’s achievement in schools [26,27]. Fan (2001)’s [10] meta-analysis supported a moderate relationship between parent involvement and academic achievement across all grades. Jeynes (2007) [25] found a positive relationship between urban high school students’ parents’ involvement and these students’ academic achievement.

Parent involvement is also related to children’s behavior in school. As parent involvement increases in the first, third, and fifth grades, children receive higher social skills ratings and show fewer problem behaviors [12]. However, parent involvement in the areas of homework assistance, home-school-communication, and participation in home-school conferences may increase when children are experiencing behavioral difficulties at school [28,29]. In middle school, parent academic involvement in seventh grade was negatively associated with eighth grade behavioral problems [13]. Over the course of middle and high school, provision of home structure and linking school material to the student’s future were related to improving youths’ problem behaviors [30]. Academic socialization was found to have the strongest negative relationship with depression in high school students [31].

Parental involvement and its effects on achievement and behavior problems vary by gender. Ogg and Anthony (2019) [32] found differences in levels of parent involvement for boys and girls over time. Both boys and girls decreased in home-based involvement from kindergarten to first grade, but only girls continued to decrease from first to third grade. For school-based involvement, both genders increased from kindergarten to first grade, while boys increased from first to third grade and then decreased from third to fifth grade.

Muller (1998) [19] found several interactions between gender and types of parent involvement in their effects on academic achievement. The negative association between parental intervention at school and test scores in Grade 8 was larger for boys. Educational expectations were associated more strongly with gains in boys’ test scores. Talking about school was negatively related to boys’ test scores and unrelated to girls’ test scores. Parents’ attendance at school events was negatively associated with boys’ but not girls’ achievement. Talking about school was positively associated with girls’ gains in test scores from grades 10 to 12 but not boys’ gains. Talking about college was negatively associated with girls’ but not boys’ gains in test scores from grades 10 to 12. Parents’ attendance at school meetings was positively associated with gains in boys’ but not girls’ test scores from grades 10 to 12. Parents’ attendance at school events was positively associated with girls’ gains in test scores between grades 10 to 12 but negatively associated with boys’ gains. Parents’ intervention at school was negatively associated only with boys’ gains during that time. In general, it appeared that gains in girls’ learning from grades 10 to 12 were more associated with verbal interaction and support, while boys’ gains were more associated with control and guidance. This complex pattern of results suggested that gender plays an important role in how parent involvement impacts academic achievement.

Other studies of parent involvement and gender supported gender differences in parent involvement and academic achievement. Graves (2010) [33] found that parents of African American males were more likely in kindergarten to be involved with their children in home-based parental involvement; however, parents were more likely to be involved at home with girls in first grade. By third grade, parents had higher academic expectations for African American females. Parent expectations were a significant predictor of third grade achievement for females but not males. Moon and Hofferth (2016) [34] found that boys were more dependent than girls on parent involvement at home for academic achievement from kindergarten through the fifth grade, improving their reading and math skills when parents involve them in conversations at home. Parent involvement had no effect on girls’ academic achievement in immigrant families.

4. The Importance of Parental Warmth

Parental warmth can be defined as parents’ acceptance, caring, and positive support of children [4]. As noted in the section above on Parental Acceptance-Rejection theory, there is a parental warmth dimension of parenting. Rohner et al. (2003) [22] described this dimension as incorporating affection, care, comfort, concern, nurturance, support, and love towards children.

Several studies have linked parental warmth with academic achievement. Uddin (2011) [31] found that parental warmth was positively associated with academic achievement in a sample of 7th to 9th grade children in Bangladesh. Ogg and Anthony (2020) [5] found an interaction between parental warmth and socioeconomic status in predicting science achievement from kindergarten to fourth grade. At higher levels of socioeconomic status, lower levels of parental warmth predicted more total science growth, while at lower levels of socioeconomic status, higher levels of parental warmth predicted more total science growth. Kim and Rohner (2002) [2] found positive correlations between both maternal and paternal warmth and Korean adolescents’ grade point averages.

Several studies have linked parental warmth with both child externalizing and internalizing behavior problems. Santesteban-Echarri et al. (2017) [8] found that parental warmth was associated with lower odds of major depressive disorder, ADHD, disruptive behavior disorder, and anxiety in a Puerto Rican sample of children ages 5 to 13. In a cross-cultural sample from China, Kenya, Sweden, and Thailand, maternal warmth was predictive of less externalizing behavior in 15-year-old adolescents [33]. Lee et al. (2018) [35] found that maternal warmth was negatively associated with externalizing symptoms in a low-income sample of 36-month-olds. Pinquart (2017) [7] conducted a meta-analysis that demonstrated that parental warmth was negatively related to externalizing disorders both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Khaleque (2013) [9] conducted a meta-analysis that showed negative effect sizes for the relationships between both maternal and paternal warmth and hostility/aggression, including in India. Rothenberg et al. (2020) [4] reported that parental warmth buffered against the emergence of or growth in externalizing and internalizing problems across multiple cultures during adolescence. Lansford et al. (2018) [36] found that parental warmth in middle childhood predicted less externalizing and internalizing behavior a year later in multiple cultures. Rothenberg et al. (2020) [37] found that across high, medium, and low parental warmth cultures, paternal warmth at age 9 was predictive of less externalizing behavior at age 10 and maternal warmth at age 12 was predictive of less externalizing behavior at age 13.

Parental warmth and its relationships with academic achievement and behavior vary by gender. Chen and Liu (2012) [38] found that boys reported more parental warmth than girls in a sample of rural Chinese 9–13-year-olds. However, in a sample of primary and secondary level students in Hong Kong, girls reported higher perceived maternal and paternal warmth than boys [39]. Operario et al. (2006) [20] found that adolescent females who reported low parental warmth and high support from peers showed the greatest emotional distress, while females who reported high parental warmth did not have different levels of emotional distress across different levels of peer support. For males, higher parental warmth and low peer support were associated with low emotional distress. Bully et al. (2019) [21] found that in male students ages 12 to 16, less paternal warmth resulted in greater emotional symptoms, which led to poorer school adjustment, which led to poorer academic performance. For female students, higher maternal warmth led to better school adjustment, which led to better academic performance. Thus, parental warmth affected each gender somewhat differently. Ling et al. (2020) [39] reported that paternal warmth ranked higher as a predictor of boys’ than girls’ self-esteem in sample of Hong Kong primary and secondary level students.

5. Existing Research Related to Comparing Parental Warmth and Parent Involvement

Limited literature has explored the relative influence of parenting styles and parent involvement in the child’s education to child outcomes. For example, Steinberg et al. (1992) [40] found that authoritative parenting, which involves parental warmth, moderated the effect of parent involvement in education on adolescent academic achievement. Nonauthoritative parenting as moderated by with parent involvement led to lower levels of achievement than authoritative parenting as moderated by parent involvement. Pinquart (2016) [41] compared the effect size of parental involvement in school activities on academic achievement from previous studies with the effect size of parental warmth on academic achievement he obtained in his meta-analyses. He found that the effect size for parent involvement in school activities was larger. Ogg and Anthony (2020) [5] examined parental warmth as a moderator of the effect of parental home-based involvement on reading achievement. They found that at high levels of parental warmth, initially there was a small positive effect of parental home-based involvement that decreased substantially over time between kindergarten and fourth grade. At low levels of parental warmth, parental home-based involvement had larger effects that initially increased across grades. Kim and Rohner (2002) [2] found that both paternal involvement in school and paternal warmth were significant independent predictors of Korean adolescents’ grade point averages in a multiple regression. This study is the only study that compares these two variables as predictors, as is done in the current study.

6. Indian Cultural Background

6.1. Characteristics of Indian Parenting

There is not a characteristic set of Indian parenting practices. Practices vary as function of age, gender of child, socioeconomic status, urban vs. rural location, and level of religiosity [16]. However, Indian gender norms are commonly associated with Indian parenting. There are archetypes of the “strict father” and the “kind mother” [17]. According to Roopnarine and Hossain (1992) [17], the Indian mother is the primary caregiver and nurturer. She is indulgent, soothing, and emotionally invested towards her children, while the father is dominant, distant, and stern.

India’s modernization has impacted Indian parenting. Raval and Martini (2009) [42] found that in a sample of suburban and old town residents in the same town, suburban parents valued Western ideals of educational and occupational success, while old town parents emphasized traditional ideals of collective living and socially harmonious conduct. Patel-Amin and Power (2002) [43] found that in a sample of Gujarati Indian families, parental modernity (reflected in political attitudes, gender role conceptions, living preferences, attitudes towards authority, familialism, religious attitudes, attitudes about science, and pace of life) was associated with individualistic parenting values and practices.

Indian parenting characteristics potentially impact academic achievement and behavior problems.

6.2. Parent Involvement in India

Thirumurthy (2014) [15] conducted the only study to date of Indian parent involvement. In a small-scale qualitative study, she explored different types of Indian families’ engagement in their children’s homework. She found three types of family engagement in homework: (a) intensive and complex involvement, which was characterized by parents finding ways to incorporate homework into daily life; (b) intense involvement, in which parents emphasize memorization and regurgitation of information; and (c) involved but dissociated, which occurred in families that did not have the technical skills or confidence in their knowledge to participate in homework. Although more educated parents were more directly involved in homework, all parents stressed the importance of education. More research is needed to determine the impact of parent involvement on Indian boys and girls that addresses such topics as differences in parent involvement by child gender and the role of demographic variables such as socioeconomic status.

7. Present Study

The purpose of this study is to determine the relative effects of parenting style and parent involvement in education on academic achievement and behavioral problems by child gender in India. This study provided an exploration of effects of Indian parenting on child outcomes. It aimed to determine if characteristic Indian parenting traits as well as parent involvement in education affected academic achievement and behavior problems differently. Due to the existence of parenting norms that favor sons in India, effects were separated by child gender. Its two major research questions were:

Research Question 1: What are the effects of parent involvement and parental warmth on academic achievement?

Research Question 2: What are the effects of parent involvement and parental warmth on child behavior problems?

Evidence supported that parent involvement was positively correlated with academic achievement [10,25]. Research also demonstrated that parent involvement was negatively correlated with behavior problems [12]. Further research supported that parental warmth was positively correlated with academic achievement [2,6]. Moreover, evidence showed that parental warmth was negatively correlated with behavior problems [8]. These findings led to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

Parent involvement will significantly positively predict academic achievement.

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

Parent involvement will significantly negatively predict behavior problems.

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

Parental warmth will significantly positively predict academic achievement.

Hypothesis 4 (H4).

Parental warmth will significantly negatively predict behavior problems.

8. Data and Methods

8.1. Background Information

Demographic information was collected for the sample. See

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of sample.

	Mean	SD
Child’s Age	14.36	0.92
	Employed	Unemployed
	63%	37%
	Hindu	Punjabi
	58.8%	41.2%
	Males	Females
	49%	51%

for demographic information about the sample.

The sample for this study was drawn from schools in North India. The sample was a convenience sample of children in four grades that were accessible to the researcher. These schools are government schools, which cater to the needs of central government employees who travel or are stationed/posted throughout India as part of their job requirements. Students were initially contacted through personal contacts in their classrooms and the objective of the research was explained. All children in four grades (7th through 10th grade) were given letter of invitation to participate. If they agreed to participate, they had to bring signed agreement form to participate back to their school. The final data included total of 216 (86%) schoolchildren (7th through 10th grades) and 8 teachers. Some children did not bring back the questionnaires or did not complete all the questionnaires. Therefore, they were not included in the final sample. The participants did not have a previous relationship or personal contact with the researcher. The researcher was a professor who worked in the United States and came to India to collect data. Therefore, any potential relationship with the researcher should not have influenced the data collected.

Data was collected in 2010 over the course of two months. This data is still relevant despite being collected in 2010 because the variables it explores (parent involvement, parental warmth, academic achievement, behavior problems) do not change in definition or measure over time. The issues addressed in this research can be explored in the context of current Indian society in several ways. First, Gundemeda (2020) [44] presented evidence that at a leading Indian university, more students endorsed the view that India has not eliminated the caste system than the view that India has eliminated it. However, the article did see society as changing in that 36% of students did view India as having eliminated the caste system. An exploration of how the caste system affects how the findings of this study may vary by caste in modern Indian society, where lower castes are excluded from educational opportunities [44]. This situation could potentially affect the parent involvement findings of the study in current Indian society. With society changing and castes being viewed as less prominent, how long this effect will last is a question worth exploring.

Another issue to explore in modern Indian society that potentially is related to these findings is the son preference commonly found in India. Mishra (2019) [45] found that in families of 14–15-year-old adolescents, male adolescents had a significantly better family climate than girls. Kohli (2018) [46] found that urban middle-class women in North India defined their existence in relation to the men in their families. They accepted a subordinate status to receive privileges among their social networks. Socially constructed gender inequality was normal in this area, and people put pressure on women to have a son. However, society was changing in that women in this area were becoming more educated and daughters were increasingly seen as more valuable. Son preference is affected by caste, religion, mass media exposure, educational level of women, wealth index, place of residence, and geographical region [47]. Son preference may play a role in the results that parent involvement predicted academic achievement and behavior problems for boys but not girls in this sample and may continue to do so in modern society. Parent involvement may be stressed more and be more beneficial to boys because they are favored by Indian families to be the breadwinners and caretakers of their families. They are viewed as the ones who should attain the most education to pursue advanced careers. How long this trend will last with society changing to embrace daughters more is an interesting topic for future study.

Another issue to explore that is related to son preference is the gender norms of specific geographical areas of India. Chatterjee and Pillai (2018) [48] described how the Northern region of India has strong patriarchal institutions with a kinship system in favor of son preference, while the Deccan region supports women’s autonomy. Thus, it would be interesting to see if the findings that parent involvement only predicted academic achievement and behavior problems for boys would be found in just the Northern region of India currently or would they extend to the Deccan region where there is less favoritism towards boys’ education. Additionally, the relationships found in this study have implications for current practice that can be applied in a current context.

All the children who completed and returned all the questionnaires were included in the sample (N = 216). Questionnaires were kept in a locked filed cabinet and the datasets were kept on password protected computers to ensure confidentiality. Anonymity was ensured, as no questionnaires were shared between participants. Questionnaires took at most half an hour to fill out. Sample characteristics represent children’s characteristics in North Indian children under the age of 16 years old. There were 49% males (N = 106) and 51% females (N = 110) in the sample. The study took place during the school year; in the typical week the questionnaires were picked up for data collection on children’s self-report of their own characteristics, their perception about parent involvement and parental warmth. There were no major tests or any special activities during the period when children were participating in the research during that week. This was done with intention to keep out any stress that children may experience due to tests or special activities that they participate during school year. This study conformed to the ethical requirements of the Pennsylvania State University. There were no conflicts of interest for either author.

8.2. Parent Involvement

Children were measured on self-reported perceptions of parent involvement. The scale was created by the first author of this paper. Children reported how involved their parents were with their school and life in general. The coefficient alpha for the scale was 0.617.

An exploratory factor analysis of the scale was conducted to determine its factor structure. The factor analysis yielded two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 that captured 61.44% of the variance. One factor had four items and one factor had two items. A two-item factor was too small to use in the study; therefore, the scale was retained as one factor.

Some of the questions that were included were, “My parents are very involved in my life,” “My parents want to know what I am doing,” and “My parents motivate me to do well.” They were given a 10-point scale from 0 (not applicable to me) to 10 (a lot applicable to me). Items were summed to create a total score for the scale.

8.3. Parental Warmth

Children were measured on self-reported Children’s’ Perception of Parental Warmth (CPPW). The CPPW questionnaire was used to measure how children perceived their parents’ warmth. The scale was created by the first author of this paper. The coefficient alpha for the scale was 0.635.

An exploratory factor analysis of the scale was conducted to determine its factor structure. The factor analysis yielded two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 that captured 59.35% of the variance. One factor had four items and one factor had two items. A two-item factor was too small to use in the study; therefore, the scale was retained as one factor.

The questions that were asked included statements like, “My parents are available to me when I need them.” “My parents understand me well.” “I feel I am very attached with my parents.” They were given a 10-point scale from 0 (not applicable to me) to 10 (a lot applicable to me). Items were summed to create a total score for the scale.

8.4. Academic Achievement and Behavior Problems

The target child’s class teacher (Homeroom teacher) reported academic achievement and behavior problems. Teachers were asked to collect all the questionnaires and were asked to give children’s academic standing in the class, with scores ranging from one through four. The student was rated 1 if the child was in first 25% in the class and 4 if the child was in the lowest 25% of the class. Similarly, teachers gave 1 through 4 scores for behavior problems of the children for the week the data was collected. The teachers were asked to use their own judgment along with reported misbehavior of children in the last six months (1 = no problems, 2 = somewhat problematic, 3 = problematic, 4 = very problematic). This scale was created by the first author of this paper.

A demographic questionnaire was filled out that collected information on the child’s and parents’ age, income, family size, employment status, and religion.

9. Data Analysis

Power analyses were calculated to determine the number of participants needed for each regression at 0.80 power. For a regression with two predictors, 68 participants were needed. For a regression with four predictors, 85 subjects were needed. For a regression with six predictors, 98 subjects were needed. For a regression with eight predictors, 109 subjects were needed. All sample sizes needed were exceeded for all analyses. There was no missing data in the sample. Exploratory factor analyses were conducted for the two predictor measures using principal component analysis to determine their factor structure.

There were statistically significant differences between behavior problems for boys and girls (see below). Therefore, the effects of gender on the regression equations predicting academic achievement and behavior problems were explored in two ways. First, analyses were run separately for boys and girls. Second, analyses were run in which gender was a moderator in a second step of a hierarchical regression for both parent involvement and parental warmth after both predictors were entered in a first step in the regression. To test the effects of demographic variables, additional regressions were run both without and with moderators that included father’s age, mother’s age, child’s age, and income. These analyses were not run with separate genders. Correlations were also computed between all study variables.

10. Results

10.1. Child Characteristics

Means for boys (M = 2.57, SD = 1.07) and girls (M = 2.58, SD = 1.01) for academic achievement were not significantly different, t(214) = −0.11, p = 0.911. The means for behavior problems for boys (M = 1.78, SD = 1.29) and girls (M = 1.33, SD = 1.13) were significantly different, t(214) = 2.77, p = 0.006. Boys scored significantly higher than girls on behavior problems. Therefore, we decided to conduct analyses separately for boys and girls.

There were statistically significant differences between boys and girls on both parental warmth and parent involvement. Girls scored significantly higher on both variables. For parental warmth, girls (M = 20.98, SD = 1.45) scored significantly higher than boys (M = 20.04, SD = 2.44), t(214) = −3.47, p = 0.001. For parent involvement, girls (M = 47.72, SD = 2.53) scored significantly higher than boys (M = 46.29, SD = 3.92), t(214) = −3.19, p < 0.001.

10.2. Parent Involvement and Parental Warmth

10.2.1. Results for Boys

For boys, correlations between all variables were statistically significant and in the predicted directions. Correlations ranged from r = −0.70 to r = 0.51 (see

Table 2. Simple Correlations between Variables for Boys and Girls.

Variables	1	2	3	4
1. Parent Involvement	-	0.31	0.22	−0.23
2. Parental Warmth	0.55	-	0.45	−0.37
3. Academic Achievement	0.39	0.38	-	−0.69
4. Behavior Problems	−0.38	−0.39	−0.73	-

Note: Correlations for boys are below the diagonal. Correlations for girls are above the diagonal. All correlations significant at the p < 0.01 level.

).

The overall regression for academic achievement was significant and explained 19% of the variance in academic achievement (see

Table 3. Regression for boys—achievement.

	B	SE B	β
Parent Involvement	0.069	0.029	0.251 *
Parental Warmth	0.107	0.046	0.244 *
Note: R2 = 0.19 ***

* p < 0.05 *** p < 0.001.

), R² = 0.19, F(2, 103) = 12.08, p < 0.001. Parental warmth was a significant predictor of academic achievement, B = 0.107 [0.015, 0.199], β = 0.24 p = 0.023. Parent involvement was also a significant predictor of academic achievement, B = 0.069 [0.011, 0.126], β = 0.25, p = 0.02.

The overall regression for behavior problems was significant and explained 19% of the variance in behavior problems (see

Table 4. Regression for boys—behavior problems.

	B	SE B	β
Parent Involvement	−0.078	0.035	−0.236 *
Parental Warmth	−0.136	0.056	−0.259 *
Note: R2 = 0.19 ***

* p < 0.05 *** p < 0.001.

), R² = 0.19, F(2, 103) = 12.05, p < 0.001. Parental warmth was a significant predictor of behavior problems, B = −0.136 [−0.247, −0.025], β = −0.26, p = 0.017. Parent involvement was also a significant predictor of behavior problems, B = −0.078 [−0.147, −0.008], β = −0.24, p = 0.028.

10.2.2. Results for Girls

For girls, correlations between all variables were statistically significant and in the predicted direction. Correlations ranged from r = −0.69 to r = 0.45 (see Table 1).

The overall regression for academic achievement was significant and explained 21.1% of the variance in academic achievement (see

Table 5. Regression for girls—achievement.

	B	SE B	β
Parent Involvement	0.034	0.036	0.086
Parental Warmth	0.295	0.063	0.425 ***
Note: R2 = 0.21 ***

*** p < 0.001.

), R² = 0.21, F(2, 107) = 14.32, p < 0.001. Parental warmth was a significant predictor of academic achievement, B = 0.295 [0.171, 0.419], β = 0.43, p < 0.001. Parent involvement was not a significant predictor of academic achievement, B = 0.034 [−0.037, 0.106], β = 0.09, p = 0.341.

The overall regression for behavior problems was significant and explained 15.2% of the variance in behavior problems (see

Table 6. Regression for girls—behavior problems.

	B	SE B	β
Parent Involvement	−0.053	0.042	−0.120
Parental Warmth	−0.259	0.073	−0.335 **
Note: R2 = 0.15 ***

** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001.

), R² = 0.15, F(2, 107) = 9.55, p < 0.001. Parental warmth was a significant predictor of behavior problems, B = −0.259 [−0.403, −0.115], β = −0.34, p = 0.001. Parent involvement was not a significant predictor of behavior problems, B = −0.053 [−0.136, 0.029], β = −0.12, p = 0.203.

10.2.3. Results for Moderation Analyses

To determine the effect of gender by using gender as a moderator, analyses were rerun with parent involvement and parental warmth as predictors in a hierarchical multiple regression followed by the interaction effect of gender with parent involvement and gender with parental warmth in a separate block of the regression.

For academic achievement, the model with simply the predictors was statistically significant and explained 16.8% of the variance in academic achievement (see

Table 7. Regression with moderators—academic achievement.

	B	SE B	β
Parent Involvement	0.047	0.022	0.152 *
Parental Warmth	0.158	0.037	0.312 ***
Note: R2 = 0.16
Parent Involvement	0.008	0.029	0.025
Parental Warmth	0.267	0.060	0.529 ***
Gender × Parent Involvement	0.073	0.032	1.637 *
Gender × Parental Warmth	−0.156	0.074	−1.532 *
Note: R2 = 0.20

* p < 0.05 *** p < 0.001.

), R² = 0.168, F(2, 213) = 21.58, p < 0.001. Parent involvement was a significant predictor of academic achievement, B = 0.047 [0.003, 0.091], β = 0.152, p = 0.037. Parental warmth was also a significant predictor of academic achievement, B = 0.158 [0.085, 0.230], β = 0.31, p < 0.001.

When adding the two interaction effects, the variance explained increased to 19.5%. The overall model was statistically significant, R² = 0.195, F(4, 211) = 12.79, p < 0.001. Parent involvement as a predictor was no longer significant in this model, B = 0.008 [−0.050, 0.065], β = 0.025, p = 0.793. Parental warmth was significant, B = 0.267 [0.148, 0.387], β = 0.529, p < 0.001. The interaction between parent involvement and gender was significant and favored boys, B = 0.073 [0.009, 0.137], β = 1.637, p = 0.026. The interaction between parental warmth and gender was significant and favored girls, B = −0.156 [−0.302, −0.010], β = −1.532, p = 0.036.

For behavior problems, the model with simply the predictors was statistically significant and explained 18.9% of the variance behavior problems (see

Table 8. Regression with moderators—behavior problems.

	B	SE B	β
Parent Involvement	−0.069	0.026	−0.190 **
Parental Warmth	−0.183	0.043	−0.307 ***
Note: R2 = 0.19
Parent Involvement	−0.040	0.035	−0.111
Parental Warmth	−0.246	0.071	−0.411 ***
Gender × Parent Involvement	−0.043	0.038	−0.815
Gender × Parental Warmth	0.107	0.087	0.892
Note: R2 = 0.20

** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001.

), R² = 0.189, F(2, 213) = 24.79, p < 0.001. Parent involvement was a statistically significant predictor of behavior problems, B = −0.069 [−0.121, −0.018], β = −0.19, p = 0.009. Parental warmth was also a statistically significant predictor of behavior problems, B = −0.183 [−0.268, −0.099], β = −0.31, p < 0.001.

When adding the two interaction effects, the variance explained increased to 20.1%. The overall model was statistically significant, R² = 0.201, F(2, 211) = 13.24, p < 0.001. Parental warmth was the only statistically significant predictor in this regression, B = −0.246 [−0.387, −0.105], β = −0.411, p < 0.011. Neither parent involvement nor the two interaction effects were significant.

10.2.4. Demographic Variables

To determine the effect of demographic variables on the regressions, the regressions were rerun, controlling for income, mother’s age, father’s age, and child’s age. The full sample was used for these analyses, as demographic variables apply to the entire family context. The bivariate correlations for these variables are presented in

Table 9. Correlations for demographic variables.

	Age	Mom Age	Dad Age	Income	PI	PCR	Ach.	BP
Age	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Mom Age	0.18	-	-	--	-	-	-	-
Dad Age	0.11	0.72 ***	-	-	-	-	-	-
Income	−0.41 ***	−0.02	0.19	-	-	-	-	-
PI	−0.23 *	0.31 **	0.60 ***	0.57 ***	-	-	-	-
PCR	−0.19 *	0.31 **	0.47 ***	0.40 ***	0.55 ***	-	-	-
Ach.	−0.14	0.11	0.32 **	0.23 *	0.39 ***	0.38 ***	-	-
BP	0.22 *	−0.03	−0.26 **	−0.32 **	−0.38 ***	−0.39 ***	−0.73 ***	-

* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001. Note: Age = child’s age, PI = parent involvement, PCR = parental warmth, Ach. = achievement, BP = behavior problems.

. For achievement, the overall regression was significant (see

Table 10. Regression including demographic predictors—achievement.

	B	SE B	β
Parent Involvement	0.044	0.026	0.143
Parental Warmth	0.149	0.038	0.295 ***
Child’s Age	−0.136	0.078	−0.121
Mother’s Age	−0.026	0.027	−0.102
Father’s Age	0.027	0.028	0.112
Income	−0.069	0.071	−0.071
Note: R2 = 0.19 ***

*** p < 0.001.

), R² = 0.19, p < 0.001. Parent involvement showed a trend toward being a significant predictor of achievement, B = 0.044 [−0.007, 0.095], β = 0.14, p = 0.091. Parental warmth was a statistically significant predictor of achievement, B = 0.149 [0.075, 0.224], β = 0.30, p < 0.001. Child’s age showed a trend toward being a statistically significant predictor of achievement, B = −0.136 [−0.290, 0.017], β = −0.12, p = 0.081. Mother’s age, father’s age, and income were not significant predictors of achievement. For behavior problems, the overall regression was significant (see

Table 11. Regression including demographic predictors—behavior problems.

	B	SE B	β
Parent Involvement	−0.039	0.030	−0.106
Parental Warmth	−0.173	0.043	−0.289 ***
Child’s Age	0.235	0.089	0.177 **
Mother’s Age	0.065	0.031	0.214 *
Father’s Age	−0.062	0.032	−0.218 *
Income	−0.033	0.081	−0.028
Note: R2 = 0.24 ***

* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001.

), R² = 0.24, p < 0.001. Parent involvement was not a significant predictor of behavior problems, B = −0.039 [−0.098, 0.020], β = −0.11, p = 0.193. Parental warmth was a significant predictor of behavior problems, B = −0.173 [−0.258, −0.088], β = −0.29, p < 0.001. Child’s age was a significant predictor of behavior problems, B = 0.235 [0.059, 0.410], β = 0.18, p = 0.009. Mother’s age was a significant predictor of behavior problems, B = 0.065 [0.005, 0.126], β = 0.21, p = 0.033. Father’s age was a significant predictor of behavior problems, B = −0.062 [−0.125, 0.000] β = −0.22, p = 0.049. Income was not a significant predictor of behavior problems, B = −0.033 [−0.192, 0.127], β = −0.03, p = 0.688.

A regression equation was run adding the two interaction effects to the regression for academic achievement (see

Table 12. Regression with moderators and demographic predictors—academic achievement.

	B	SE B	β
Parent Involvement	0.044	0.026	0.143
Parental Warmth	0.149	0.038	0.295 ***
Mother’s Age	−0.026	0.027	−0.102
Father’s Age	0.027	0.028	0.112
Child’s Age	−0.136	0.078	−0.121
Income	−0.068	0.071	−0.071
Note: R2 = 0.19
Parent Involvement	0.006	0.033	0.018
Parental Warmth	0.253	0.063	0.501 ***
Mother’s Age	−0.028	0.027	−0.109
Father’s Age	0.026	0.027	0.109
Child’s Age	−0.117	0.077	−0.104
Income	−0.043	0.071	−0.044
Gender × Parent Involvement	0.067	0.033	1.513 *
Gender × Parental Warmth	−0.143	0.076	−1.409
Note: R2 = 0. 21

* p < 0.05 *** p < 0.001.

). Adding the moderators resulted in a statistically significant regression that explained 20.9% of the variance in academic achievement, R² = 0.209, F(8, 207) = 6.83, p < 0.001. Parental warmth was statistically significant in this regression, B = 0.253 [0.129, 0.377], β = 0.501, p < 0.001. The interaction term with gender and parent involvement was significant and favored boys, B = 0.067 [0.002, 0.133], β = 1.513, p = 0.044. The interaction term with gender and parental warmth showed a trend toward significance and favored girls, B = −0.143 [−0.292, 0.006], β = −1.409, p = 0.059.

A regression equation was also run adding the two interaction effects to the regression for behavior problems (see

Table 13. Regression with moderators and demographic predictors—behavior problems.

	B	SE B	β
Parent Involvement	−0.039	0.030	−0.106
Parental Warmth	−0.173	0.043	−0.289 ***
Mother’s Age	0.065	0.031	0.214 *
Father’s Age	−0.062	0.032	−0.218 *
Child’s Age	0.235	0.089	0.177 **
Income	−0.033	0.081	−0.028
Note: R2 = 0.24
Parent Involvement	−0.009	0.038	−0.025
Parental Warmth	−0.237	0.073	−0.397 **
Mother’s Age	0.060	0.031	0.198 *
Father’s Age	−0.056	0.032	−0.196
Child’s Age	0.235	0.089	0.177 **
Income	−0.050	0.082	−0.043
Gender × Parent Involvement	−0.043	0.038	−0.820
Gender × Parental Warmth	0.108	0.087	0.899
Note: R2 = 0.25

* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001.

). Adding the moderators resulted in a statistically significant regression that explained 24.9% of the variance in behavior problems, R² = 0.249, F(8, 207) = 8.59, p < 0.001. The interaction terms were not significant in this equation. Parental warmth was significant in this equation, B = −0.237 [−0.380, −0.094], β = −0.40, p = 0.001. Mother’s age was significant, B = 0.060 [0.000, 0.121], β = 0.20, p = 0.049. Father’s age showed a trend towards significance, B = −0.056 [−0.119, 0.006], β = −0.20, p = 0.077. Child’s age was significant, B = 0.235 [0.059, 0.411], β = 0.18, p = 0.009.

11. Discussion

One of the main goals of the study was to find out why and how children do better in school even when parents do not get involved in school activities. For that reason, we separated parent involvement and parental warmth. Empirical research has connected parental involvement with a variety of optimistic outcomes for students above and beyond the attainment of better grades. For instance, some data suggests that parental involvement can help decrease dropout rates, increase school attendance, and improve overall motivation as well as relationships between students and their teachers [49]. The findings that parent involvement predicted both academic achievement and behavior problems for boys supports previous literature linking these variables [10,12].

The results for boys confirm Hasumi et al.’s (2012)’s [50] finding that greater parental involvement in school was linked with stronger mental health in a sample of Indian adolescents. This finding provides partial support for Hypothesis 2, as parent involvement was negatively associated with behavior problems for boys only. It is interesting to note that in the moderation analysis for academic achievement, the moderation term for parent involvement favored the boys, supporting the analyses done separately by gender. Results are consistent with the work of Marcon (1999) [51] that showed a stronger effect of parent involvement on educational outcomes for boys than girls. It also supported the work of Moon and Hofferth (2016) [34], who found that home-based parental involvement impacted immigrant boys’ but not girls’ academic achievement. These results support Epstein et al. (2019)’s [11] theory of school, family, and community partnerships because they showed how parents could collaborate with their children’s schools to produce positive outcomes of student achievement for their children. They also supported Epstein et al.’s theory in that parent involvement was negatively associated with behavior problems for boys. Epstein et al.’s theory was also supported in that the measure of parent involvement used in this study that produced significant results for boys assessed different types of parent involvement, such as parenting and parent involvement in the home. These types were reflective of the different types mentioned as needed for a successful partnership and to produce successful outcomes such as academic achievement in the theory. These results provide partial support for Hypothesis 1, as parental involvement was positively associated with academic achievement for boys only.

The results confirmed Rohner and colleagues’ large body of research supporting a relationship between parental warmth and psychological maladjustment for both boys and girls. This finding is consistent with previous research showing that stronger parent–child interpersonal relationships related to fewer behavior problems in a sample of Indian adolescents [52]. They supported Hypothesis 4 that there would be a negative relationship between parental warmth and behavior problems. They provide support for Parental Acceptance-Rejection Theory in that parental warmth was negatively associated with behavior problems. Rohner et al. (2003) [22] associated aggression, psychological problems, and hostility with parental rejection, which is on the opposite end of the continuum of the warmth dimension of parental acceptance. Thus, this theory would predict that parental warmth would be negatively associated with behavior problems. This research added support for the universality of the links between parental acceptance-rejection and academic achievement and behavior problems that the theory postulates by supporting the link in Indian 9–14-year-olds. Regarding the sociocultural systems subtheory, these results provide evidence that in a country with gender norms of the strict father and kind mother as part of the family structure, parental warmth is associated with academic achievement and behavior problems in the same way as in countries with more equal gender norms for parents.

Both boys and girls showed better educational outcomes when they rated their parents as being warmer and more supportive. These findings replicate previous findings showing that this relationship is present globally across different cultures [3]. They also provide support for Hypothesis 3 that parental warmth would be positively associated with academic achievement. This warmth and supportiveness when accompanied by appropriate strictness and discipline constitute the authoritative parenting style.

The authoritative parenting style has been correlated with Indian parents’ valuing of socioemotional development [16] but was not linked to academic achievement in a sample of East Indian Canadian immigrants [53]. This study contrasts the work of Garg et al. [53] by demonstrating an association between parental warmth and academic achievement. It is possible that there are differences between the effects of native Indian parenting and Indian immigrant parenting. For girls, these findings supported those of Kim and Rohner (2002) [2], who found parental warmth to be a more significant predictor of GPA than parent involvement for Korean adolescents.

It is notable that stronger parental warmth impacted girls’ educational outcomes. Indian girls may rely on parental warmth to encourage them to succeed in a society where parents do not stress their success in school. Results showed that girls received more parental warmth than boys, which may provide a greater source of encouragement for both appropriate behavior and academic achievement than boys experience. These findings extend the work of Mandara et al. (2012) [54] and Ling et al. (2020) [39], who demonstrated that girls receive more warmth than boys. Moderation analyses for academic achievement also showed that the interaction term for parental warmth favored the girls; thus, parental warmth impacted the girls more positively to achieve academically. Complicated gender interactions with parental warmth have been observed in previous studies [38,39].

The results for demographic predictors suggested that younger children showed higher achievement. It is possible that as school curriculum becomes more difficult with more advanced grade levels, achievement lowers. Older children showed higher levels of behavior problems in the school context. These findings suggest it is harder for older adolescents to behave when at school. Further research should be conducted to find out what factors in the Indian school system contribute to this association. Interestingly, children’s behavior problems increased as mothers got older, yet decreased as fathers got older. Mothers may experience parenting fatigue as their children age, leading children to escalate in negative behaviors, yet fathers may be perceived as more authoritative and worthy of respect as they age, leading children to show greater compliance.

11.1. Limitations

There are several limitations of this study. Generalizability of the study is limited. Indian culture is not representative of Western culture. Additionally, the sample size of 216 subjects is small, which limits the generalizability of the study both within and beyond its Indian sample. However, the power analyses suggested that the quantitative analyses that were employed had sufficient sample sizes. Moreover, the study was conducted in a more progressive and wealthy area of India (North India). The Indian landscape currently is a blend of urban, suburban, and rural areas that differ in cultural values, language, resources, and parenting styles. Thus, findings obtained in North India may not generalize to all of India. However, it is important to note that the relationships parent involvement showed in this study with academic achievement and behavior problems, and parental warmth demonstrated with academic achievement and behavior problems, have been found globally in previous literature. The study also solely included children’s perspectives on predictor variables and teacher ratings of outcome variables, rather than including multiple informants for each variable (i.e., parent, teacher, and child). Measures of academic achievement and behavior problems could be biased because they are solely based on teachers’ ratings. In addition, research has shown differences in parental acceptance and rejection by parent gender [2], which was not explored in this study. The data is more than ten years old for this study. Thus, it may not apply exactly to the current landscape of India. We do not know if the study applies to the current situation with Indian castes or the role of son preference or geographic differences in gender norms and how those variables would affect how this study’s results would turn out if the study was done in India today.

11.2. Future Directions

Future directions include repeating this study cross-culturally to see if findings are generalizable. Additionally, this study should be repeated with different student participants (both of the same grade and different grades) and teachers to see if the results generalize to other students in other classrooms or classroom types. Additionally, parental acceptance-rejection theory encompasses both parental warmth and control. Exploration of the predictive effect of parental control in comparison with parental warmth and parent involvement would shed new light on their relative importance to academic achievement and behavior problems. Assessments of how predictor variables affect outcomes differently by parent gender would also be beneficial towards greater understanding of study relationships.

11.3. Implications

This study has implications for Indian schools. It suggests that schools should encourage Indian parents to involve themselves in both in- and out-of-school activities to bolster their children’s academic achievement. Because Indians view teachers as authority figures who should not be questioned, teachers may need to reach out to parents to solicit involvement and feedback on their child’s educational experience. Teachers should emphasize the potential benefits of parent involvement for girls so that girls may excel academically in addition to boys. Finally, the quality of education for older Indian children should be assessed and improved so that their achievement does not decrease as they age through school.

This study also has implications for prevention and interventions. In order to prevent behavior problems and intervene to produce higher academic achievement in children in this study’s age range, parent training should be offered to families in India through local schools or community groups that teaches parents how to support, comfort, and show affection to their children to facilitate parental warmth. Additionally, to prevent behavior problems and to intervene as a method to improve children’s academic achievement, Indian schools should implement programs of parent involvement in which parents are encouraged to volunteer at the school, participate in parent-teacher conferences, communicate frequently with the school, be involved in advocacy efforts at the school, and be involved in their children’s homework.

12. Conclusions

Racial and cultural differences are large across the world. Around the world communities and countries are becoming global. People immigrate to countries for personal, social, and economic reasons along with their children/families. Therefore, governments and policy makers must work together to understand these cultural differences to integrate people within their own beliefs and practices. Because parent- child relationship showed stronger relationships with academic achievement and behavior problems than parent involvement for girls, the findings of this study suggest that the effectiveness of specific parent involvement practices may differ due to cultural beliefs and practices. In cultures such as India where parents see their role as educators at home only [55,56] rather than partners in education at school, parents are less likely to participate fully in school activities. However, showing greater warmth than rejecting behavior towards a child greatly influences children’s academic achievement, as well. Lack of direct participation may be offset by parental warmth. Educators need to educate parents about the practices and expectations of the schools that the children are attending. This knowledge will bridge the gap and help parents to understand why it is important for parents to be involved in school activities. They also need to be consistent in their overall acceptance of their children to foster academic success. These results add to parental acceptance-rejection theory by supporting Rohner [14]’s claims to universality of his theory that parental acceptance leads to fewer behavior problems. It also adds to his sociocultural systems subtheory by showing how Indian family structure of the strict father and kind mother results in the same relationships between parental warmth and academic achievement and behavior problems as that found in other cultures with different gender norms. They supported Epstein’s theory of school, family, and community partnerships in an Indian context by demonstrating the importance of parent-school partnerships in predicting academic achievement and behavior problems for Indian boys. The study also demonstrated by use of different types of parent involvement in its measure of parent involvement how multiple types of parent involvement can predict academic achievement and behavior problems for Indian boys, as is claimed by Epstein et al.’s theory.