Parental Social Comparison and Idealized Child Standards: A Transactional Framework of Conditional Regard and Adolescent Self Worth

Abstract

Parents may use other children’s achievements to interpret development, communicate expectations, and evaluate their competence as parents. Grouping these activities as parental social comparison obscures differences between information seeking and communication that makes acceptance contingent on relative performance. This conceptual article proposes a transactional framework linking parental comparison, idealized child standards, and adolescent self-worth. Integrating social comparison theory, self-discrepancy theory, and self-determination theory, it distinguishes private parental comparisons, communicated comparisons, and adolescent appraisals. Idealization involves constructing an inadequately contextualized standard from selected attributes of comparison targets. Its consequences are hypothesized to depend on perceived attainability, domain relevance, autonomy support, and conditional regard. Behavioral genetic research informs individual differences and reciprocal family processes without specifying developmental ceilings. Direct evidence concerning parental comparison remains limited; adjacent findings support candidate mechanisms rather than validate the complete framework. Six propositions address construct distinctiveness, appraisal, reciprocal influence, and intervention mechanisms. The framework guides investigation of when comparative information supports learning and when it threatens belonging and self-worth.

Keywords: parental social comparison; conditional regard; self-discrepancy; adolescent self-worth; psychological control; transactional development

Introduction

A parent who notices a classmate’s academic success may seek information about an effective study strategy. Another parent may invoke the same classmate to communicate disappointment in their child’s worth. The comparison target and performance difference can be identical while the relational meaning differs. Explaining that difference requires separating the acquisition of comparative information from its communication and interpretation within a family.

Social comparison theory explains why other people provide standards for evaluation, particularly under uncertainty (Festinger, 1954). Subsequent research shows that responses depend on how comparison targets and their relationship to the self are construed (Suls et al., 2002). Applying these ideas to parenting introduces an additional person: a parent evaluates one child relative to another, and the child may subsequently interpret the parent’s evaluation. The parent’s intended message, expressed behavior, and the adolescent’s experience need not coincide.

The developmental question is therefore more specific than whether parents compare children. It concerns the conditions under which parents convert selected information about peers into standards that communicate conditional acceptance. Research on parental psychological control and conditional regard offers a foundation for this question (Assor et al., 2004; Barber, 1996; Haines & Schutte, 2023). These constructs, however, do not by themselves identify how parents select comparison targets, combine information across targets, or represent the attainability of the resulting standard.

We propose that idealized child standards can connect these processes. The phrase refers to expectations assembled from selectively favorable information about other children while insufficiently considering developmental timing, opportunity, domain trade-offs, and the focal child’s goals. The expression “illusion of idealized offspring” captures the originating concern but should not be mistaken for an established psychological construct. The present account treats idealization as a measurable candidate process whose explanatory value must be demonstrated.

The framework makes three contributions. It separates private parental comparison, communicated comparison, and adolescent appraisal. It identifies the construction and updating of comparison standards as a possible source of variance beyond general psychological control. It specifies reciprocal processes and competing explanations that future research must distinguish. Adolescence is the focal developmental period; generalization to early childhood or adult offspring requires separate evidence.

Scope and Basis of the Synthesis

This article is a conceptual synthesis and theory proposal, not a systematic review or meta-analysis. Its evidentiary basis combines directly relevant research on parental comparison with selected theoretical, empirical, and meta-analytic work on social comparison, parental expectations, conditional regard, autonomy support, and genetically informed family processes. Sources were identified through targeted web searches and consultation of publisher, journal, PubMed, and institutional records during manuscript development in October 2026. The selection was guided by their relevance to the proposed mechanisms and their ability to qualify or challenge the argument; no exhaustive database search, independent screening procedure, or formal risk-of-bias assessment was conducted.

The synthesis distinguishes three evidentiary roles. Direct studies address parental comparison itself. Adjacent studies examine related parenting behaviors or developmental processes. Theoretical and methodological work supports definitions, integration, and the design of future tests. Evidence from one role is not sufficient to establish claims in another: an association between conditional regard and depressive symptoms does not estimate the effect of parental comparison, and a finding about adult social comparison does not establish an adolescent family mechanism.

Defining the Comparison Process

Private Comparison and Communicated Comparison

Private parental comparison occurs when a parent evaluates their child relative to another child, a group, or an imagined social standard. Its functions may include reducing uncertainty, identifying support needs, or assessing family status. Communicated comparison occurs when a parent expresses such an evaluation to the child, explicitly or indirectly. An adolescent can also infer comparison from parental behavior without an explicit statement. These possibilities require separate measures rather than a single frequency score.

Comparison direction concerns whether the target is judged better, worse, or similar on a specified dimension. It does not specify the message’s function or emotional consequences. General comparison research documents variation in target selection and reactions, making the claim that upward comparison is uniformly harmful untenable (Gerber et al., 2018). In the proposed framework, upward comparison can provide actionable information when the standard is relevant and attainable. It becomes potentially threatening when it implies global inferiority or jeopardized acceptance.

Communications also differ in specificity. “Your classmate uses practice questions; would that help you?” concerns a potentially learnable strategy. “Why can’t you be like your classmate?” invites a broader judgment about the child. These illustrative statements are not validated assessment items. Their purpose is to distinguish informational content, global evaluation, and relational pressure, which should be coded independently in future observational studies.

Idealized Standards and Related Constructs

An idealized child standard differs from a demanding goal. A demanding goal can be coherent, feasible, and endorsed by the adolescent. Idealization concerns the construction and maintenance of the standard: selective attention to favorable attributes, aggregation across different targets, insufficient contextual adjustment, and resistance to disconfirming information. For example, combining one peer’s examination results with another’s athletic performance and a third’s social confidence may create a benchmark that no single observed child meets. This composite-standard hypothesis remains to be tested directly.

Parental aspirations express desired outcomes, whereas expectations concern anticipated outcomes. Their divergence matters. Pinquart and Ebeling (2020) found positive associations between educational expectations and achievement, providing an essential counterweight to accounts that characterize ambitious parenting as inherently damaging. Murayama et al. (2016) distinguished aspirations from overaspiration in longitudinal research on mathematics achievement. These findings motivate attention to calibration, but neither demonstrates that composite peer standards explain parental overaspiration.

Idealization must also be distinguished from overvaluation, the belief that one’s child is unusually special or entitled. Longitudinal research has examined overvaluation in relation to childhood narcissism (Brummelman et al., 2015). Overvaluation can coexist with demanding expectations, but it is not equivalent to dissatisfaction with a child’s comparative standing. Nor does a comparative remark establish parental narcissism or an unconscious defense. The present model does not infer personality pathology from comparison behavior.

Table 1 summarizes the proposed distinctions.

Table 1

Processes and proposed measurement targets

Note. These are proposed analytical distinctions, not validated scales.

Mechanisms Linking Standards to Family Interaction

Parental Self Evaluation and Vicarious Discrepancy

Self-discrepancy theory distinguishes representations of actual attributes from ideal and ought standards and relates discrepancies to affective vulnerability (Higgins, 1987). We extend this logic to a parental representation of the child. A discrepancy between perceived child functioning and a parent’s idealized child standard may become personally consequential when the parent ties self-evaluation to the child’s performance. This is an extension of the theory, not a claim that its original formulation established a parenting mechanism.

Brummelman et al. (2013) provide relevant experimental evidence. In a study of 73 parents, reflection on their own unfulfilled ambitions increased the desire for their child to fulfill those ambitions among parents who experienced greater overlap between themselves and their child. The outcome concerned parents’ desires, not observed comparative criticism or adolescent adjustment. It supports a possible antecedent while leaving the proposed interpersonal sequence untested.

A parent’s disappointment may also reflect worry about educational opportunity, financial insecurity, or the child’s future independence. A process account of parenting locates parental behavior within the interaction of parental resources, child characteristics, and contextual stress and support (Belsky, 1984). Consequently, unfulfilled ambition should be examined alongside concern for the child, status threat, institutional incentives, and resource constraints rather than presumed to be the universal motive.

Attribution and Updating of Standards

Parents may explain a performance discrepancy through effort, ability, opportunity, health, or instructional quality. Attributional bias is a plausible mechanism, but direct evidence is needed to establish which biases occur in comparative parenting. An effort attribution can sometimes identify an actionable issue; a biological attribution can sometimes become inaccurate or demotivating. What matters is whether the explanation fits available evidence and supports an appropriate response.

The framework predicts that idealization persists when parents underweight contextual information or revise the benchmark whenever the child improves. This moving-standard process should be measured prospectively. Researchers could observe whether parents acknowledge improved performance, update expectations when opportunity changes, and select new targets after an earlier discrepancy closes. Demonstrating such behavior would be more informative than labeling criticism as egocentric projection.

Conditional Regard and Adolescent Appraisal

Self-determination theory provides an account of how communication can influence autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Psychological control involves intrusion into the child’s emotional and psychological experience, whereas conditional regard ties approval to compliance with expectations (Assor et al., 2004; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). Comparative communication may instantiate these processes when it uses shame, guilt, or withdrawal of affection. Their presence must be assessed rather than inferred from comparison direction.

A meta-analysis of parental conditional regard found associations with more introjected regulation, contingent self-esteem, and depressive symptoms, and less relatedness (Haines & Schutte, 2023). These findings support the relevance of relational conditionality while retaining the limitations of an associative evidence base. Contingent self-worth is especially important because a child may report satisfactory average self-esteem while experiencing large fluctuations after success and failure. The theoretical distinction between level and contingency of self-worth therefore informs outcome selection (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001).

The proposed proximal mechanism is appraisal: whether the adolescent experiences the comparison as useful information, a manageable challenge, humiliation, or a threat to parental acceptance. Perceived attainability and self-endorsed interest may influence this appraisal. Parent reports can establish intended meaning, but adolescent reports and observed interaction are needed to investigate experienced meaning. Agreement among reporters is an empirical question.

Evidence Concerning Adolescent Outcomes

Liu et al. (2025) examined parental comparison, adolescents’ upward comparison, self-esteem, and optimism using a cross-sectional survey in a Chinese school context. Their analyses reported associations consistent with an indirect pathway through upward comparison. Because the variables were measured cross-sectionally, the analysis cannot establish whether parental comparison preceded changes in comparison tendencies or self-esteem. Shared reporting processes, selection, prior adjustment, and reciprocal influence remain alternative explanations. Statistical mediation under these conditions should be interpreted as a pattern of associations rather than an identified developmental mechanism (Maxwell & Cole, 2007).

Adjacent evidence supports examining motivation and relationship quality, but does not justify assigning their effects to parental comparison. Meta-analytic work links autonomy-supportive parenting with academic and psychosocial functioning (Vasquez et al., 2016). Research on parental control in the United States and China also illustrates the value of examining parenting and adjustment across settings rather than assuming a single cultural meaning (Wang et al., 2007). These studies inform moderators and competing pathways within the proposed account.

Outcomes should remain distinct. Domain-specific competence, global self-esteem, shame, autonomous motivation, and symptoms of anxiety or depression are not interchangeable indicators of harm. A comparison could increase immediate effort while increasing shame, or reduce confidence in one domain without changing global self-worth. The framework therefore predicts configurations of outcomes rather than a universal deterioration in adjustment. Evidence for lasting clinical effects specifically attributable to comparison requires prospective and intervention research.

Genetic and Environmental Influences in a Transactional Account

Behavioral genetic research establishes that genetic variation contributes to individual differences across many human traits (Polderman et al., 2015). This observation does not establish a child’s attainable performance, the proportion of an individual trait caused by genes, or the futility of educational support. Heritability concerns variation in a defined population under particular conditions; it can change with measurement and environment (Visscher et al., 2008). Assigning a generic heritability range to intelligence, conscientiousness, and executive functioning conceals differences among traits and study designs.

The relevant implication is developmental heterogeneity. Children differ in learning history, temperament, health, opportunities, and responses to instruction. Genetic resemblance between parents and children neither licenses assumptions about a particular child’s abilities nor shows that parental disappointment originates in ignorance of inheritance. Adoptive parents and other caregivers also compare children; the relational mechanism does not require biological relatedness. A bioecological perspective instead directs attention to how developmental processes operate within particular contexts (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994).

Gene–environment correlation further complicates interpretations of family association. Parents can contribute correlated genetic and environmental influences; children’s characteristics can evoke responses; and children increasingly select environments consistent with their dispositions (Scarr & McCartney, 1983). A behavioral genetic meta-analysis of parenting documents contributions from both parent and child influences, supporting a reciprocal rather than exclusively parent-driven perspective (Klahr & Burt, 2014). Such findings do not identify a genetic cause of comparative criticism.

For the proposed model, the principal methodological implication is that observed associations between comparison and adjustment may include inherited liabilities, contextual confounding, and child-evoked responses. Longitudinal observational data alone cannot fully separate these processes. Genetically informative designs can complement experiments and repeated observations, with each design contributing different assumptions and limitations. Heritability education is consequently a candidate intervention component requiring evaluation, not a prerequisite for effective parenting support.

A Transactional Model and Its Boundary Conditions

The proposed sequence begins when a parent encounters comparative information. The parent selects or constructs a standard, appraises the discrepancy, and communicates a response. The adolescent interprets that response and may change effort, disclosure, affect, or avoidance. Those changes subsequently affect the information available to the parent and the parent’s behavior. For example, avoidance may elicit more scrutiny, while reduced disclosure may make the parent more dependent on external benchmarks. These feedback processes are hypotheses rather than established consequences of comparison.

The sequence should be embedded within family emotional processes. Modeling, parenting practices, and the emotional climate are established components of a conceptual account of emotion-regulation development (Morris et al., 2007). In the present model, these conditions can alter the salience and meaning of comparison without making comparison itself the explanation for the entire family climate.

Developmental stage may change the process. Younger children may require more concrete explanations of standards, while adolescents may challenge parental authority and endorse goals that differ from their parents’ goals. Culture may shape the interpretation of achievement, obligation, and encouragement; socioeconomic conditions shape both the opportunities compared and the consequences of educational outcomes. Research on expectations in sociocultural context supports attending to this variation (Yamamoto & Holloway, 2010). Nationality alone is an inadequate measure of cultural meaning.

Disability, chronic illness, and neurodevelopmental differences also affect the appropriateness of standards and access to support. The model predicts that an inadequately contextualized comparison will be more threatening when it dismisses an adolescent’s support needs or personally valued goals. This extension requires inclusive measurement and direct investigation. It should not be used to infer low potential from diagnostic categories.

Six Testable Propositions

Proposition 1 Distinctiveness of Idealized Standards

Selective aggregation and poor contextual calibration should explain variation in communicated comparison beyond aspirations, perfectionistic expectations, overvaluation, and psychological control. This prediction requires independent measures and incremental prediction in held-out data. If idealization measures largely reproduce established constructs and add no explanatory value, a separate construct would be unnecessary.

Proposition 2 Conditionality and Appraisal

For equivalent comparison content, communicated conditional regard should be associated with greater perceived acceptance threat and stronger fluctuations in self-worth. A factorial experiment could vary comparison content and relational framing independently while holding performance information constant. Failure to distinguish the effects would weaken the proposed separation between comparative information and relational meaning.

Proposition 3 Attainability and Informational Value

Comparative feedback should be more likely to support engagement when adolescents perceive an attainable, specific strategy and endorse the domain. An unattainable or irrelevant standard should predict more threat and disengagement. Tests must measure perceived attainability rather than infer it from the size of a performance gap. Equally negative responses across these conditions would challenge this boundary condition.

Proposition 4 Updating and Moving Standards

Parents who construct more idealized standards should be less likely to revise expectations in response to contextual constraints and more likely to replace a target after a child improves. Repeated standardized scenarios and naturalistic observations can test these predictions. Consistent, context-sensitive updating among highly idealizing parents would count against this mechanism.

Proposition 5 Reciprocal Influence

Within families, periods of increased comparative criticism should precede changes in perceived conditionality or avoidance, while changes in child functioning should also precede changes in criticism. At least three waves, supplemented by intensive repeated observations, can distinguish stable family differences from temporal fluctuations. Random-intercept panel models address one important limitation of conventional cross-lagged models but do not remove time-varying confounding (Hamaker et al., 2015). Evidence confined to stable between-family differences would not establish the proposed feedback cycle.

Proposition 6 Intervention Mechanisms

An intervention targeting comparison should improve adolescent outcomes to the extent that it changes threatening appraisals or conditional regard, beyond any change attributable to general parenting support. An active-control trial should measure comparison content, observed communication, and proposed mediators before assessing later outcomes. Benefits without changes in these mechanisms would favor alternative explanations, including improved warmth or reduced general family stress.

Measurement and Research Design

Initial measurement work should establish whether parents, adolescents, and observers can reliably distinguish private comparison, standard construction, communication, and appraisal. Cognitive interviews can identify culturally variable meanings before factor analysis. Measures should separately assess frequency, target, domain, specificity, attainability, emotional tone, and conditionality. Items that define comparison through an outcome, such as “My parents’ comparisons make me feel worthless,” should not serve as predictors of self-esteem without addressing their conceptual overlap.

Dyadic diary designs can connect particular interactions with immediate appraisals and subsequent behavior. Parents could report their intended function and selected target; adolescents could report perceived meaning; observers could code discussions of schoolwork or activities. Objective performance and opportunity indicators would help assess calibration. Reporter disagreement should be modeled as potentially substantive information rather than automatically averaged away.

Longitudinal tests should prespecify lag intervals consistent with the proposed process. Momentary shame and changes in global self-esteem plausibly unfold at different timescales. Analyses should address clustering, missingness, measurement invariance, and the distinction between within-person and between-person effects. Sample-size planning should use simulations based on the proposed interaction or indirect effect rather than a generic rule for structural equation models.

Experiments should begin with brief, low-intensity messages or hypothetical scenarios, followed by trials of supportive parenting communication. Manipulation checks must determine whether participants perceive the intended distinction between comparison and conditional approval. Preregistration should identify primary outcomes, alternative models, and exclusion rules. Observational, experimental, and genetically informed findings should be evaluated together; convergence across designs would provide stronger grounds for causal interpretation than any single fitted mediation model.

Implications for Parenting Support

The framework suggests assessing specific interactions before prescribing a response. Practitioners can ask which situations trigger comparison, what parents hope to communicate, and how adolescents interpret the message. Such assessment can reveal whether the principal concern is unclear expectations, humiliating communication, academic difficulty, parental distress, or unmet support needs. The same comparative statement may require different responses across these circumstances.

Candidate changes include replacing global judgments with specific information, agreeing on feasible goals, acknowledging contextual barriers, and communicating affection independently of rank. Reference to the adolescent’s earlier performance can help describe progress, but temporal comparison is not automatically supportive. It can also communicate disappointment during illness, disability-related fluctuation, or normal setbacks. Its value depends on accuracy, meaning, and the support available.

Experimental research on intelligence praise illustrates that apparently positive evaluation can have unintended motivational consequences (Mueller & Dweck, 1998). It does not establish that effort praise or temporal comparison is universally beneficial. Feedback should connect effective strategies and available resources to achievable next steps, while allowing adolescents to express their own priorities.

Mindful parenting offers a conceptual approach to attention, emotional awareness, and reduced reactivity (Duncan et al., 2009). A systematic review and meta-analysis found promising changes following mindfulness interventions for parents, alongside serious methodological limitations that prevented firm conclusions about effectiveness (Burgdorf et al., 2019). These programs have not thereby been shown to interrupt the specific comparison mechanism proposed here. Intervention claims should remain tied to the population, component, and outcome actually evaluated.

Limitations and Theoretical Contribution

The framework integrates literatures with different populations, measures, and inferential strengths. Direct research on parental comparison cannot yet support the complete pathway from parental self-discrepancy through idealized standards to later adolescent adjustment. Several proposed mechanisms could instead reflect broader psychological control, parental perfectionism, family stress, or adolescent vulnerability. The selective nature of this synthesis also precludes conclusions about the prevalence of harmful comparison or the balance of all available findings.

The potential contribution is the specification of standard construction and updating before communication, coupled with separate measurement of adolescent appraisal afterward. Existing conditional-regard theory already explains why contingent approval may undermine adjustment. The present account adds value only if target selection, aggregation, and calibration explain when such communication arises or how it affects adolescents beyond established constructs. That requirement keeps the model open to simplification as well as confirmation.

Conclusion

Parental comparison becomes a developmental concern when the standards and messages surrounding it make relative performance consequential for belonging and self-worth. The proposed transactional framework distinguishes how parents construct standards, how they communicate discrepancies, and how adolescents interpret and respond to those messages. Genetic and environmental research clarifies developmental variation and limits causal inference without fixing individual potential. Testing the distinctiveness of idealized standards, the role of conditional regard, and reciprocal family processes can determine whether this integration offers explanatory value and useful intervention targets.

References

Assor, A., Roth, G., & Deci, E. L. (2004). The emotional costs of parents’ conditional regard: A self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Personality, 72(1), 47–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00256.x

Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67(6), 3296–3319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01915.x

Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1984.tb00275.x

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568

Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Slagt, M., Overbeek, G., Orobio de Castro, B., & Bushman, B. J. (2013). My child redeems my broken dreams: On parents transferring their unfulfilled ambitions onto their child. PLOS ONE, 8(6), e65360. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065360

Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Nelemans, S. A., Orobio de Castro, B., Overbeek, G., & Bushman, B. J. (2015). Origins of narcissism in children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(12), 3659–3662. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1420870112

Burgdorf, V., Szabó, M., & Abbott, M. J. (2019). The effect of mindfulness interventions for parents on parenting stress and youth psychological outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1336. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01336

Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108(3), 593–623. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.593

Duncan, L. G., Coatsworth, J. D., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). A model of mindful parenting: Implications for parent–child relationships and prevention research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 12(3), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-009-0046-3

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

Gerber, J. P., Wheeler, L., & Suls, J. (2018). A social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+ years on. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000127

Haines, J. E., & Schutte, N. S. (2023). Parental conditional regard: A meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 95(2), 195–223. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12111

Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319

Klahr, A. M., & Burt, S. A. (2014). Elucidating the etiology of individual differences in parenting: A meta-analysis of behavioral genetic research. Psychological Bulletin, 140(2), 544–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034205

Liu, H., Kvintova, J., & Vachova, L. (2025). Parents’ social comparisons and adolescent self-esteem: The mediating effect of upward social comparison and the moderating influence of optimism. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1473318. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1473318

Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23

Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16(2), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x

Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.33

Murayama, K., Pekrun, R., Suzuki, M., Marsh, H. W., & Lichtenfeld, S. (2016). Don’t aim too high for your kids: Parental overaspiration undermines students’ learning in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(5), 766–779. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000079

Pinquart, M., & Ebeling, M. (2020). Parental educational expectations and academic achievement in children and adolescents—a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32(2), 463–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09506-z

Polderman, T. J. C., Benyamin, B., de Leeuw, C. A., Sullivan, P. F., van Bochoven, A., Visscher, P. M., & Posthuma, D. (2015). Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nature Genetics, 47(7), 702–709. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3285

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype → environment effects. Child Development, 54(2), 424–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1983.tb03884.x

Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. Developmental Review, 30(1), 74–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.11.001

Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2002). Social comparison: Why, with whom, and with what effect? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00191

Vasquez, A. C., Patall, E. A., Fong, C. J., Corrigan, A. S., & Pine, L. (2016). Parent autonomy support, academic achievement, and psychosocial functioning: A meta-analysis of research. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 605–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9329-z

Visscher, P. M., Hill, W. G., & Wray, N. R. (2008). Heritability in the genomics era—concepts and misconceptions. Nature Reviews Genetics, 9(4), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2322

Wang, Q., Pomerantz, E. M., & Chen, H. (2007). The role of parents’ control in early adolescents’ psychological functioning: A longitudinal investigation in the United States and China. Child Development, 78(5), 1592–1610. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01085.x

Yamamoto, Y., & Holloway, S. D. (2010). Parental expectations and children’s academic performance in sociocultural context. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9121-z