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

net/publication/240280362

Assessing the Impact of Parental Expectations and Psychological Distress on

Taiwanese College Students

Article  in  The Counseling Psychologist · July 2002

DOI: 10.1177/00100002030004006

CITATIONS READS

71 5,117

2 authors:

Li-fei Wang Puncky Paul Heppner

National Taiwan Normal University University of Missouri
19 PUBLICATIONS   408 CITATIONS    184 PUBLICATIONS   9,965 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Mentoring View project

The Development and Validation of the Emotional Cultivation Scale: An East Asian Cultural Perspective View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Li-fei Wang on 21 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Counseling Psychologist
http://tcp.sagepub.com/

Assessing the Impact of Parental Expectations and Psychological Distress on Taiwanese College Students
Li-Fei Wang and P. Paul Heppner
The Counseling Psychologist 2002 30: 582
DOI: 10.1177/00100002030004006

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://tcp.sagepub.com/content/30/4/582

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Division of Counseling Psychology of the American Psychological Association

Additional services and information for The Counseling Psychologist can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://tcp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://tcp.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://tcp.sagepub.com/content/30/4/582.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jul 1, 2002

What is This?

Downloaded from tcp.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on October 15, 2013
•
THEINTERNATIONAL
Wang,
COUNSELING
Heppner / LIVING
PSYCHOLOGIST
UP TO PARENTAL
FORUM / July 2002
EXPECTATIONS

Assessing the Impact of Parental Expectations

and Psychological Distress on
Taiwanese College Students
Li-fei Wang
National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan
P. Paul Heppner
University of Missouri–Columbia

Current research seems to underscore the impact of parental expectations on college stu-
dents’psychological distress. This study examined whether parental expectations or liv-
ing up to parental expectations served as better predictors on Taiwanese college stu-
dents’ psychological distress. Study 1 developed and validated a scale for measuring
parental expectations and living up to parental expectations. Results supported the fac-
torial validity and reliability of the scale. The results of Study 2 suggested that perceiving
oneself as living up to parental expectations, rather than parental expectations per se, is
a better predictor of psychological distress. Implications of the results for counseling
interventions as well as further research are discussed.

Research in the area of parental influences has flourished with the

domains of child and adolescent psychology. Parents have been identified as
one of the most significant and differential influences over mental, emo-
tional, and social development of children and adolescents (see Belsky, 1990;
Burbach & Borduin, 1986; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Shaffer, 1996).
Although results from previous studies with child and adolescent samples
have appeared very promising in examining the relationships between paren-
tal expectations and psychological adjustment (Belsky, 1990; Burbach &
Borduin, 1986; H. Lin, 1999; McKenna, 1999), little research attention has
focused on parental expectations on young adults, especially for college
students.
For instance, reviewing most textbooks of developmental psychology
(e.g., Collins & Kuczaj, 1991; MacDonald, 1988; Shaffer, 1996), there is a

We gratefully acknowledge the help of Drs. Mei-Fen Wei and Ching-Fu Wang for their assis-
tance in collecting data, as well as the editorial assistance of Hyun-joo Park. Correspondence
concerning this article should be addressed to Li-fei Wang, Department of Educational Psychol-
ogy & Counseling, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, 106, Taiwan, R.O.C.; e-mail:
lfwang@cc.ntnu.edu.tw.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Dr. J. Manual Casas served as action editor on this manuscript.
THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST, Vol. 30 No. 4, July 2002 582-608
© 2002 by the Division of Counseling Psychology.

582
 Wang, Heppner / LIVING UP TO PARENTAL EXPECTATIONS 583

lack of discussion and explanation of how parental expectations may affect

college students. However, many annual reports of university counseling
centers have indicated that parental expectations may serve as one of the sig-
nificant personal stresses on college students’ adjustment (Anderson &
Yuenger, 1987; Archer & Lamnin, 1985; P. Chen & Liaw, 1993; Duncan &
Anderson, 1986; Liu, 1998). For example, Archer and Lamnin (1985) found
that undergraduate students ranked stress related to parental expectations and
conflicts as second only to problems in intimate relationships. Nearly one
half of the clients of a university counseling center reported family problems
on the intake questionnaire list (Duncan & Anderson, 1986). After analyzing
case files of 425 clients of a university counseling center, Anderson and
Yuenger (1987) found that the most complaints that college clients had were
about their parents. Twenty-four percent of the clients reported stresses
caused by the family as a significant area of concern. Kagan and Squires
(1984) revealed that 10% of college students were very often worried about
“trying to please their parents” and 5% were almost always worried. Thus,
parental expectations are indeed an important factor, which cannot be
ignored, in understanding the psychological distress of college students.
Parental expectations may be particularly important in Asian cultures,
such as Taiwan. The nature and structure of the Taiwanese culture is derived
from Confucian philosophy, which has not only encouraged parents to have
higher investment in and expectations for their children, children have also
been educated to obey and fulfill their parental expectations and needs
(Bond, 1986; S. Chen, 1999; Hsu, 1981; Shek & Chan, 1999; C. F. Yang,
1988). Although significant changes in traditional Taiwanese culture have
occurred, “filial piety,” the main Confucian concept, still retains at least a
moderate degree of strength (Hwang, 1999; Kwan, 2000; Shek & Chan,
1999; M. Yang, 1983; C. F. Yang, 1988). Researchers have consistently found
that the most important ideal self-concept of Taiwanese youths is still filial
piety (S. Chen, 1999; Kwan, 2000; K. Yang, 1972; K. Yang, Yeh, & Hwang,
1989). Likewise, Shek and Chan (1999) interviewed 420 Hong Kong parents
and found that their perceptions of attributes of the ideal child are closely
related to traditional values in Chinese culture, such as filial piety and good
academic performance.
In addition, several studies have supported the notion that parental expec-
tations within the context of filial piety are indeed an important influential
factor on Taiwanese over their life span. There are not only negative impacts
but also positive influences on their development. For example, many studies
have consistently revealed that Taiwanese parents, relative to Euro-American
parents, tend to be more controlling (Chao, 1994; Kelley & Tseng, 1992; H.
Lin, 1999; C. C. Lin & Fu, 1990; Liu, 1998), have higher involvement (C.
Chen & Uttal, 1988; Huntsinger, 1992; Goyette & Xie, 1999; Liu, 1998;
584 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / July 2002

Okagaki & Frensch, 1998), and have higher educational expectations (H.
Chen & Lan, 1998; Dai, 1999; Huntsinger, 1992; Goyette & Xie, 1999; H.
Lin, 1999; C. C. Lin & Fu, 1990; Liu, 1998; Okagaki & Frensch, 1998).
Therefore, Taiwanese children tend to have better academic development,
such as mathematical performance (Stevenson, Chen, & Lee, 1993;
Stevenson, Lee, & Stigler, 1986). However, their gender identity and career
development may also be significantly influenced by their parents (M. Yang,
1983). Moreover, there is some evidence that parental expectations affect
Taiwanese college students’ decisions. P. Chen and Liaw (1993) evaluated
individual counseling services in a university counseling center in Taiwan.
They reported that parental expectations were the most considered and
important factor as college students were making their career and dating
decisions. P. Chen (1995) conducted a qualitative study on Taiwanese college
students’ psychological separation-individuation change in counseling. She
found that the process of separation-individuation of Taiwanese college stu-
dents was quite different from the process of what Western theories
described, such as Bowen (1978) and Hoffman (1984). Taiwanese college
students preferred to be in mutually dependent relationships rather than in
independent relationships with their parents. The major themes relating to
separation-individuation conflict included the need for receiving emotional
support from parents, the need to please and obey parents, and the need to
take care of family. Moreover, McKenna (1999) also found that there is a con-
sistent relationship between adults’ depression and parenting style for Chi-
nese Americans. Thus, parental expectations do play a very important role in
mental, emotional, and social development of Taiwanese college students;
but the dynamics between parental expectations and psychological distress
have not been explicated.
It may be that parental expectations per se may be the cause of psychologi-
cal distress, but it might also be that the discrepancies between perceived
parental expectations and actual self-performance are a better predictor of
psychological distress. Several theorists have postulated that the discrepan-
cies between one’s actual self and ideal self developed from countless inter-
actions with parents produce emotional difficulties (e.g., Freud, 1923/1961;
Horney, 1942; Rogers, 1961). For example, Horney (1942, 1950) illustrated
that the neurotic personality was developed from interaction with parents. A
child developed an so-called ideal self to solve the conflict between feelings
of basic anxiety and hostility. Likewise, Higgins (1987, 1989) proposed a
self-discrepancy model and suggested that discrepancies between ideal self
and actual self were related to emotional vulnerability. Thus, it seems as
though it might be useful to not only examine the role of parental expecta-
tions but the discrepancy between parental expectations and one’s perfor-
mance on psychological distress.
 Wang, Heppner / LIVING UP TO PARENTAL EXPECTATIONS 585

The purpose of this investigation was twofold. Previous research has not
examined whether parental expectations or living up to parental expectations
affected college students’ psychological distress, perhaps in part due to the
lack of inventories to assess this type of discrepancy. Thus, the first goal of
this study was to conceptually and empirically develop a multidimensional
parental expectation instrument that not only assessed a range of parental
expectations within the context of filial piety but also, more important,
assessed living up to parental expectations. The second goal of this study was
to examine whether parental expectations per se or living up to parental
expectations served as a better predictor of Taiwanese college students’ psy-
chological distress. Thus, the study tested the central tenet of discrepancy
models put forth by Higgins (1987, 1989) and other theorists but, in this case,
specifically related to parental expectations. A more complete understanding
of the role of parental expectations on Taiwanese psychological adjustment
might not only inform relevant intervention strategies for Taiwanese college
students but also have implications for Asian Americans or other populations
in the United States.

STUDY 1: SCALE DEVELOPMENT

The main purpose of the first study was to develop and refine, through
item-analytic and factor-analytic procedures, the Living up to Parental
Expectation Inventory (LPEI). Three scales of the LPEI, the Perceived Paren-
tal Expectation (PPE), the Perceived Self-Performance (PSP), and the Living
up to Parental Expectation (LPE) were developed in Study 1. Although focus
groups, the literature, and our experiences guided the initial construction of
the items, we choose to conduct empirically derived factors to assess discrep-
ancies with parental expectations to develop psychometrically sound esti-
mates of the construct.

METHOD

Participants

Three hundred ninety-two undergraduate students (55.2% males, 44.8%

females) from three different universities in mid-Taiwan areas were recruited
and asked to respond to a 62-item questionnaire (described below). Spe-
cifically, to represent college student populations in mid-Taiwan, college stu-
dents from three different types of college/university setting in mid-Taiwan
were recruited. There were 30.4% participants from a medical college/
586 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / July 2002

university, 26.8% from a teacher college/university, and 42.9% from a gen-

eral university. The data from 30 students were omitted because they failed to
answer two validity-check items correctly (“Please answer ‘6’ here”), which
raised questions about the validity of their answers. The mean age of the
group was 20.7 and the majority of the participants were freshmen and soph-
omore students (85.6%). Students received course credits for participating in
the study.

Procedure
The development of the items consisted of at least three different activi-
ties, all of which resulted in deletions of, additions to, and refinements of the
items: (a) identification of domains and initial items, (b) a back translation to
test the face validity of the items in relationship to the domains, and (c) an
intensive pilot procedure to assess item performance and specific wording.

Initial item development. To sample a broad range of items related to

parental expectations, topics and items were generated through a review of
the literature (e.g., Chao, 1994; C. Chen & Uttal, 1988; Hsu, 1981; K. Yang,
1972) and interviews with three focused groups (one male group, one female
group, and one mixed group) of Taiwanese college students. The focus
groups were conducted by the first author and conducted in a similar manner;
participants were asked to discuss their experiences of parental expectations,
what types of expectations they experienced, and how those experiences have
influenced various aspects of their life, such as their career choices, dating,
personal manner, and decision making in general. Specifically, five domains
of parental expectations were identified for further examination. The
domains are listed along with sample items dating/marriage (“Parents expect
me to select my dates with his/her family background in mind”), character
training (“Parents expect me to control/change my bad temper”), academic
achievement (“Parents expect me to have excellent academic performance”),
responsibility for parents (“Parents expect me not to embarrass them, i.e.,
‘lose face’”), and responsibility for family (“Parents expect me to honor my
parents and family’s ancestors”). Subsequently, 75 items were generated and
randomly ordered, to assess the five domains, with a 6-point Likert-type scale
(15 items for each domain). Two rating scales were chosen: (a) “How strong
do you currently perceive this expectation from your parents?” (PPE; 1 = not
at all expected, 6 = very strongly expected); (b) “To what extent do you cur-
rently perform this manner?” (PSP; 1 = not at all expected, 6 = very strongly
expected). To measure the LPE, a discrepancy score for each item was
obtained by subtracting the PPE from the PSP rating. Higher LPE scores indi-
cate higher levels of living up to parental expectations. In addition, the initial
 Wang, Heppner / LIVING UP TO PARENTAL EXPECTATIONS 587

75 items were tested with 8 Taiwanese undergraduate students who not only
responded to each item but also provided feedback indicating whether each
item was related to their personal experience and whether there was any con-
fusion in the wording.

Face validity check. To assess whether the items adequately represented

the identified performance domain, a face validity check (Smith & Kendall,
1963) was conducted to determine if others would place the same items in the
same domains. Three raters raised in Taiwanese culture and who were not
aware of the purpose of the study were chosen; one was a male, non–psychology
doctoral student and two were females with master’s degrees in counseling
and social work. They were asked to place each item into one of the five cate-
gories (dating/marriage concerns, character training, academic performance,
responsibility for parents, and responsibility for family). Each rater
misclassified less than 3 of the total 75 items suggesting that the five domain
items were perceived as intended.

Pilot study. One hundred ten undergraduate students from a general uni-
versity (48.2% male; 51.8% female) in Taiwan participated in this pilot study.
First, participants were asked to write three of the most frequently perceived
parental expectations (these items were used to check the adequacy of our
domain sampling; additional domains were not found in these items). Sec-
ond, participants were asked to complete the pilot inventory. Coefficient
alphas indicated very good internal consistency for the three scales (PPE,
alpha = .94; PSP, alpha = .93; LPE, alpha = .93). In addition, the means of the
items were examined to identify items that received very skewed responses
that did not differentiate the respondents. To create items that were more con-
ceptually similar, even though a factor analysis was not conducted yet (Meir
& Gati, 1981), items were omitted if any of the following three conditions
were met: (a) if their means were extreme (more than 5.0 or less than 2.0); (b)
if the item-total correlation was less than .20, or (c) if their omission caused
alpha to increase. Subsequently, 62 items were selected to be included in the
LPEI.

Data collection procedure. College students in Taiwan were recruited to

complete the 62-item LPEI. The personal information solicited on the
instruction sheet included gender, age, years in the college, and type of col-
lege. Consistent with cultural norms regarding research participation, the
instructor read a brief introduction of the research procedure, discussed the
confidential nature of the data, stressed the voluntary nature of the study, and
verbally requested students’ consent to be in the study on parental expecta-
tions. It took about 30-45 minutes for the participants to complete the
588 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / July 2002

questionnaire. When all participants finished the questionnaire, they were

informed as to the purpose of the study, invited to ask questions, and given
credits toward fulfilling their course requirement.

RESULTS

Factor Structure

To empirically assess the underlying factor structure of the LPEI to

develop a construct that fits the data, an exploratory factor analysis was con-
ducted. The factor structure was explored through a maximum likelihood
method analysis. Both the Kaiser criterion and the Scree test (Cattell, 1966)
were examined to determine the appropriate number of factors for PPE, PSP,
and LPE. The Kaiser criterion yielded a total of 14 factors with eigenvalues
more than 1.0 across the PPE, PSP, and LPE, whereas a scree plot indicated
three factors across the three separate scales. Although these constructs were
conceptualized as being interrelated in nature, both three-factor orthogonal
and oblique rotations were examined to provide a thorough examination of
the factor structure. Results from the oblique rotation were selected because
the three-factor oblique rotation yielded the most interpretable solution. The
eigenvalues for each scale (after a three-factor oblique rotation) were as fol-
lows: PPE—42.96, 7.55, and 4.46, respectively; PSP—29.33, 5.30, and 4.40,
respectively; and LPE—31.02, 5.06, and 4.34, respectively.
To examine the items’loading, it was conservatively decided that as a gen-
eral guideline we would retain only items not just on one scale but across
three scales that had factor loadings greater than .30 on the PPE, PSP, and
LPE (Hair, Anderson, & Tatham, 1987). In addition, to create identical scales
(i.e., the same items on the PPE, PSP, and LPE scales), we were able to meet
the conservative .30 cutoff criterion in all cases except for four items on the
PSP whose factor loadings dropped to .27. Although all three scales of LPEI
were viewed as important, the major interests were the PPE (parental expec-
tations) and LPE (living up to parental expectations) scales, which reduced
our concerns about lowering the criteria on the four PSP items and yet still
having a sufficient number of items per scale. Thus, 30 items were dropped
from the original 62 items. The remaining 32 items comprised three factors
with the same items common to all three scales; their corresponding factor
loadings are presented in Table 1.
The first factor, consisting of 16 items, was titled “Personal Maturity
(PM)” and had factor loadings ranging from .30 to .85. Items that loaded high
on this factor were “Parents expect me to control/change my bad temper,”
“Parents expect me not to offend them verbally/vocally,” and “Parents expect
 TABLE 1: A Summary of Items and Their Factor Loadings for Each Factor on the PPE, PSP, and LPE Scales of the LPEI

Factor Loading Factor Loading Factor Loading

Factor and Item for PPE for PSP for LPE

Personal Maturity
30. Parents expect me not to offend them verbally/vocally .80 .57 .68
27. Parents expect me not to do the kind of things that may disappoint them .73 .61 .53
32. Parents expect me to speak carefully and not to offend people .68 .63 .70
29. Parents expect me to control/change my bad temper .85 .65 .76
23. Parents expect me not to make trouble for the family .54 .61 .53
26. Parents expect me to behave maturely .77 .59 .65
6. Parents expect me to be modest and polite .52 .56 .45
7. Parents expect me not to embarrass them (“lose face”) .47 .51 .40
22. Parents expect me to talk and to behave cautiously when away from home .72 .64 .56
8. Parents expect me to respect my older siblings/cousins and to take care of my younger siblings/cousins .54 .49 .59
24. Parents expect me to be responsible .77 .58 .56
3. Parents expect me to avoid conflict with siblings/cousins .49 .41 .57
28. Parents expect me to maintain my academic performance when falling in love .52 .45 .30
9. Parents expect me to spend money wisely .46 .42 .41
2. Parents expect me to take care of my physical health .35 .37 .37
12. Parents expect me not to waste money on unnecessary things .53 .38 .39
Academic Achievement
4. Parents expect my academic performance to make them proud .58 .83 .74
1. Parents expect me to have excellent academic performance .60 .79 .69
13. Parents expect me to study hard to get a high-paying job in the future .37 .27 .47
18. Parents expect me to perform better than others academically .67 .66 .69
21. Parents expect me to honor my parents and family’s ancestors .62 .36 .57
25. Parents expect me to study at their ideal college/university .67 .47 .65
589

(continued)
590

TABLE 1: Continued

20. Parents expect me to pursue their ideal careers (doctors, teachers,...) .66 .35 .56
16. Parents expect me to share the financial burden of the family .42 .27 .37
17. Parents expect me to study their ideal program/major .65 .28 .48
Dating Concerns
15. Parents expect me to find someone who has a good financial status when dating .73 .80 .60
19. Parents expect me to find someone with advanced degree when dating .68 .67 .63
31. Parents expect me to select my dates with his/her family background in mind .75 .62 .60
14. Parents expect me to find someone who can get along with my family when dating .53 .41 .51
11. Parents expect me to ask for their approval before starting a dating relationship .62 .40 .40
10. Parents expect me to date someone who is tall and good-looking .48 .43 .38
5. Parents expect me not to seriously date someone they don’t like .63 .28 .44

NOTE: PPE = Perceived Parental Expectation; PSP = Perceived Self-Performance; LPE = Living up to Parental Expectation; LPEI = Living up to Parental Expec-
tations Inventory.
 Wang, Heppner / LIVING UP TO PARENTAL EXPECTATIONS 591

me to behave maturely.” This factor was defined as expectations related to

how appropriate an individual’s manners were in Taiwanese culture, such as
exercising self-control, politeness, responsibility, maturity, and obedience.
The second factor, labeled “Academic Achievement (AA),” was composed of
9 items with factor loadings ranging from .27 to .83. Items that loaded high on
this factor were “Parents expect my academic performance to make them
proud,” “Parents expect me to have excellent academic performance,” and
“Parents expect me to perform better than others academically.” This factor
was defined as expectations related to an individual’s success in pursuing a
career and academic performance. The third factor, titled “Dating Concerns
(DC),” consisted of 7 items with factor loadings ranging from .28 to .80.
Items that loaded high on this factor were “Parents expect me to find someone
who has a good financial status when dating,” “Parents expect me to find
someone with an advanced degree when dating,” and “Parents expect me to
select my dates with his/her family background in mind.” This factor was
defined as expectations related to one’s dates and potential significant other
or marital partner.
An intercorrelation matrix of the factor scores indicated moderate
intercorrelations among the three factors across the three scales (the range of
correlations was between .37 and .55, all ps < .001). Thus, the moderate cor-
relations suggested that the factors were interrelated but still represent dis-
tinct factors.

Estimates of Internal Consistency

Estimates of internal consistency were conducted for each of three factors
across the three scales. Specifically, the alpha coefficients for the three fac-
tors for each of the three scales were as follows: PPE—.91, .85, and .85,
respectively; PSP—.87, .81, and .76, respectively; and LPE—.89, .84, and
.74, respectively. These initial estimates of reliability suggest that the levels
of internal consistency vary from acceptable to excellent.

Normative and Descriptive Information

The means and standard deviations for each of the three factors are pre-
sented in Table 2. Higher scores on the PPE factors indicated higher levels of
perceived parental expectations. The means for all three scales indicated that
students endorsed items substantially above the midpoint of 3.5: PM (M =
76.78, average per item = 4.80); AA (M = 37.09, average per item = 4.12); and
DC scores (M = 27.17, average per item = 3.88).
Higher scores on the PSP factors reflect higher levels of perceived
self-performance. The means on the PSP suggested that student-endorsed
592 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / July 2002

TABLE 2: Means and Standard Deviations for the PPE, PSP, and LPE Scales of the
LPEI, Along With the MCSDS-C, STAI-C, STAXI-C, and BDI-C of Study 1
and Study 2

Study 2
Study 1 First Administration Second Administration
Scale N M SD N M SD N M SD

PPE
PM 390 76.78 9.31 104 72.24 10.06 105 71.66 9.90
AA 392 37.09 7.29 104 34.45 7.22 105 35.17 6.43
DC 392 27.17 6.40 104 24.07 7.62 105 24.45 7.38
PSP
PM 388 68.09 8.89 103 66.32 10.16 103 65.85 10.07
AA 389 30.98 6.81 104 30.32 6.40 103 30.57 6.73
DC 382 25.88 5.54 103 23.50 5.86 103 24.11 5.93
LPE
PM 387 8.69 11.61 103 5.99 11.67 103 5.72 11.75
AA 389 6.10 8.47 104 4.22 8.08 103 4.65 9.06
DC 382 1.36 6.10 103 0.41 6.70 103 0.38 6.90
MCSDS-C 101 15.24 6.49
STAI-C 105 47.48 8.24
STAXI-C 104 32.48 7.15
BDI-C 106 10.39 6.94

NOTE: PM = Personal Maturity; AA = Academic Achievement; DC = Dating Concerns; PPE =

Perceived Parental Expectation; PSP = Perceived Self-Performance; LPE = Living up to Paren-
tal Expectation; LPEI = Living up to Parental Expectations Inventory; MCSDS-C = Social
Desirability Scale–Chinese version; STAI-C = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory–Chinese version;
STAXI-C = State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory–Chinese version; BDI-C = Beck Depres-
sion Inventory–Chinese version.

items on the PM (M = 68.09, average per item = 4.26) were substantially

above the midpoint of 3.5. Conversely, items on the AA (M = 30.98, average
per item = 3.45) and the DC (M = 25.88, average per item = 3.70) had means
close to the midpoint on a 6-point Likert-type scale.
Higher scores on the LPE factors indicated higher levels of living up to
parental expectation. The means on the LPE suggested that, on the average,
student-endorsed items were close to the midpoint of the 11-point (from –5 to
+5) Likert-type scale: PM (M = –8.69, average per item = –0.54), the AA
(M = –6.10, average per item = –0.68), and the DC (M = –1.37, average per
item = –0.20). The t tests revealed that students rated the perceived parental
expectations higher than their self-performance across all three scales (ts =
3.6 to 10.94, ps < .01).
A MANOVA was conducted on the three factors by participant sex.
Because of the danger with alpha inflation across the MANOVAs and
 Wang, Heppner / LIVING UP TO PARENTAL EXPECTATIONS 593

ANOVAs, conservative steps were taken by establishing alpha at .001. The

results of the MANOVA on the PPE revealed a statistically significant differ-
ence across the three factors, F(2, 379) = 17.74, p < .001. Further inspection
of the univariate statistics revealed a statistically significant difference on the
DC, F(1, 381) = 20.33, p < .001; the means indicated that male students (M =
25.84, SD = 6.48) scored lower than female students (M = 28.72, SD = 6.02).
Statistically significant differences were not found on PM (F(1, 382) = 1.47,
p > .20) and AA (F(1, 382) = 3.92, p > .08).
The results of the MANOVA on the PSP also revealed a statistically signif-
icant difference across the three factors, F(2, 370) = 9.45, p < .001. Further
inspection of the univariate statistics again revealed a statistically significant
difference on the DC, F(1, 372) = 25.04, p < .001; the means indicated that
male students (M = 24.58, SD = 5.83) again scored lower than female stu-
dents (M = 27.42, SD = 4.80). Statistically significant differences were not
found on PM (F(1, 374) = 0.17, p > .70) and AA (F(1, 374) = 0.91, p > .15).
The results of the MANOVA on the LPE revealed no statistically signifi-
cant difference across the three factors, F(2, 369) = 3.08, p > .02. In short,
these results suggested that females perceived slightly higher parental expec-
tations and self-performance on the DC than males; no other sex differences
were found. In addition, all nine factors appeared to be normally distributed
with the range of skewness scores ranging from –.10 to –.71.

DISCUSSION

The results of Study 1 provide a number of psychometric estimates that

suggest the LPEI may have promise as a measure of not only assessing stu-
dents’ perceptions of their parents’ expectations of them but also their perfor-
mance relative to their parents’ expectations and thus the extent they are liv-
ing up to their parents’ expectations. It is important to note that the LPEI
could be measuring a construct associated with the real parental expecta-
tions, expectations internalized by the college students, or some combination
of the two. The exploratory factor analysis suggested the presence of three
consistent factors across parental expectations, students’ performance rela-
tive to these expectations, and living up to parental expectations. The initial
estimates suggest that the factors appear to be moderately interrelated and
have very good levels of internal consistency. The distributions suggest a nor-
mal distribution of scores for all three factors; the measures of central ten-
dency suggested a wide range of scores across individuals. Analyses of gen-
der differences revealed two differences between male and female college
students across nine tests, thus indicating few differences across the partici-
pants’ sex (with the exception being for DC).
594 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / July 2002

The factor analysis also provided construct validity for the existence of a
multidimensional assessment of parental expectations. However, rather than
five factors (Responsibility for Parents, Responsibility for Family, Character
Training, Academic Performance, and Dating/Marriage Concerns), the
results of the factor analyses suggested the presence of three factors (PM,
AA, and DC). Moreover, these factors were found across three scales—PPE,
PSP, and LPE. The PM factor assesses expectations through an individual’s
good manners such as exercising self-control, politeness, responsibility,
maturity, and obedience. The AA factor assesses expectations related to pur-
suing excellent academic performance and an ideal career. The DC factor
assesses expectations related to selecting one’s dates and potential life part-
ner. Moreover, analyzing the pattern of loadings revealed that the PM factor
had items not only from Character Training but also from both the Responsi-
bility for Parents as well as Responsibility for Family; a similar pattern
applied to the AA factor. These findings seem to suggest that Taiwanese’s
expectations and performance not only include their own ideas but also those
of their parents and families in a broader perspective. These results also sup-
port the findings of Shek and Chan (1999) that indicate that not only parents
expect their offspring to behave well at filial piety and academic perfor-
mance, even adult offspring also expect themselves to behave well. These
results are consistent with the notion that Taiwanese are relational beings
(Hsu, 1981; Sue & Sue, 1990).

STUDY 2: ADDITIONAL RELIABILITY AND

VALIDITY TESTS OF THE LPEI

Study 2 sought to examine the reliability of the instrument over time as

well as to obtain additional validity estimates of the LPEI. On the basis of past
research and theories (e.g., Higgins, 1989; Horney, 1942), it was suggested
that the degree to which one lives up to parental expectations might serve as a
better predictor of psychological distress (e.g., depression, anxiety, and
anger) than perceived parental expectations alone. Specifically, Higgins
(1989) has suggested that those individuals who do not live up to parental
expectations may be more depressed. Consequently, the main purpose of
Study 2 is to assess how students’ perceptions of living up to parental expec-
tations were related to psychological distress in Taiwan. For comparison, this
study also examined whether PPE, PSP, or LPE would serve as better predic-
tors of various indices of psychological distress. More specifically, estimates
of construct validity were obtained by correlating the PPE, PSP, and LPE
scales with measures of anxiety, anger, and depression. The instruments for
 Wang, Heppner / LIVING UP TO PARENTAL EXPECTATIONS 595

construct validity estimates included (a) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory–

Chinese form (STAI-C) (Chien, 1989; Spielberger, 1983), (b) State-Trait
Anger Expression Inventory–Chinese form (STAXI-C) (Chien, 1989;
Spielberger, 1986), and (c) Beck Depression Inventory–Chinese version
(BDI-C) (Beck, 1967; Huang, 1983). It was hypothesized that the STAI-C
(anxiety), STAXI-C (anger), and BDI-C (depression) would have higher cor-
relations with the LPE than with the PPE.
For discriminant validity estimates, the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desir-
ability Scale–Chinese version (MCSDS-C) (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960;
Hwang & Yang, 1972) was utilized to assess social desirability. It was
hypothesized that there would not be a significant correlation between the
MCSDS-C and the three scales (PPE, PSP, and LPE).
Moreover, Study 2 assessed the predictive function of the LPEI inventory
over 4 weeks to predict STAI-C, STAXI-C, and BDI-C. It was hypothesized
that the LPE scale would serve as a better predictor of the STAI-C, the
STAXI-C, and the BDI-C than the PPE scale over a 4-week period.

METHOD

Participants
Ninety-nine undergraduates (N = 99; 56 males, 43 females; first adminis-
tration N = 106; second administration N = 107) were collected from two
other general universities in mid-Taiwan. They were recruited to respond to
the two sets of inventories on two occasions over a 4-week period. The stu-
dents were primarily sophomores (99%) with a mean age of 21.1.

Measures
The STAI-C was used to measure trait anxiety. The STAI-C for Taiwan
college student populations, translated (Chien, 1989) from the STAI
(Spielberger, 1983), consists of 20 four-point Likert-type items that assess
“relatively stable individual differences in anxiety proneness” (Spielberger,
1983, p. 3). Participants indicate how often they generally feel about anxiety
(1 = almost never, 4 = almost always). The STAI-C scores range from 20 to
80; higher scores reflect greater trait anxiety. Based on responses from Tai-
wanese college students, alpha coefficients ranged from .86 to .88 (Chien,
1989). Estimates of test-retest reliability ranged from .76 to .78 over a 1-week
period (Chien, 1989).
596 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / July 2002

The STAXI-C was used to assess trait anger. The STAXI-C for Taiwan
college student populations, translated (Chien, 1989) from the STAXI
(Spielberger, 1986), consists of 15 items designed to assess individual differ-
ences in the disposition to experience anger. Each item is presented on a
4-point Likert-type scale ranging from not at all (1) to extremely (4). The
STAXI-C score ranges from 15 to 60. Individuals with higher scores on the
STAXI-C indicate higher levels of anger. Based on responses from Taiwan-
ese college students, the STAXI-C has been shown to exhibit an acceptable
level of internal consistency (from .87 to .89) and test-retest reliability (.86)
over a 1-week period (Chien, 1989).
The BDI-C was used to measure depression. This instrument has 21 items
that deal with sense of failure, guilt, self-hatred, crying, social withdrawal,
indecisiveness, and loss of sleep, appetite, and weight. The scale was trans-
lated (Huang, 1983) from the BDI (Beck, 1967), which was developed in a
clinical setting to assess characteristics, symptoms, and attitudes of
depressed patients. The majority of the items on the BDI-C for Taiwanese
college student populations focus on cognition, whereas the remaining items
assess affect, overt behavior, interpersonal symptoms, and somatic symp-
toms. Each item consists of a symptom of depression, and the participant
rates each item on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 to 3 on the basis of the sever-
ity of his or her present state. A participant’s total score is simply the sum of
all items; the possible range of scores is 0-63, with higher scores indicating
greater severity of depression. Based on responses from Taiwanese college
students, the BDI-C has been shown to have high internal consistency (from
.82 to .91), split-half reliability for the total score (.99), and test-retest reli-
ability (.88) over a 4-week period. Estimates of concurrent validity were
established through significant correlations with related constructs, such as
Zung’s Depression Scale (r = .73, p < .01) and Ko’s Depression Scale (r = .70,
p < .01) (Huang, 1983).
The MCSDS-C was used to assess the culturally approved behaviors with
a low probability of occurrence. The MCSDS-C for Taiwanese college stu-
dent populations, translated (Hwang & Yang, 1972) from the MCSDS
(Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), consists of 35 true-false items (0 = false and 1 =
true; thirty-two items were translated from the original English version and 3
items were added by translators). The MCSDS-C has a possible range of
0-35. A high score on the MCSDS-C indicates a high tendency to provide
socially desirable responses. Based on responses from Taiwanese college
students, estimates of internal consistency (alpha coefficients) range from
.75 to .84 (Hwang & Yang, 1972). The validity of the scale was supported by
negative correlations between the MCSDS-C and the Traditionality-
Modernity scale that measures the degree of modernization for any individ-
ual Taiwan college students (Hwang & Yang, 1972).
 Wang, Heppner / LIVING UP TO PARENTAL EXPECTATIONS 597

Procedures

Taiwanese college students in a medical college taking an introductory

psychology course were recruited and asked to respond to two sets of inven-
tories over a 4-week period. The first administration consisted of the follow-
ing inventories: LPEI and MCSDS-C. The personal information solicited on
the instruction sheet included gender, age, and years in the college. Similar to
Study 1, the instructor read a brief introduction outlining the procedures,
stressed the voluntary nature of the study, and verbally asked for students’
consent to participate in the study. After 4 weeks, a second administration
was conducted with the second set of inventories consisting of the LPEI,
STAI-C, STAXI-C, and BDI-C. The instructor followed the same procedure
as with the first administration. After completing both administrations, a
debriefing form was provided. Students were told more details about the pur-
pose of the study, given the opportunity to ask questions, and provided credit
toward fulfilling their course requirement.

RESULTS

Preliminary Analysis
Means and standard deviations for the PPE, PSP, and LPE scales, along
with the MCSDS-C, STAI-C, STAXI-C, and BDI-C are presented in Table 2.
The means and standard deviations of the MCSDS-C, STAI-C, STAXI-C,
and BDI-C are roughly similar to those revealed by other studies of college
students in Taiwan. For example, the means of the BDI-C (M = 10.39, SD =
6.94) are compatible with the results reported by Huang (1983). Likewise,
the means and standard deviations for the PPE, PSP, and LPE scales of the
LPEI are similar to those obtained in Study 1. Similarly, the moderate corre-
lations across the three factors for each scale on the LPEI are roughly similar
to those obtained in Study 1.
However, a MANOVA conducted on the three LPEI scales by sex revealed
different results from Study 1 on the LPEI. Neither the first nor the second
administration of Study 2 revealed any significant differences across the
three LPEI scales, except PM on the PPE for both the first administration
(F(1, 102) = 8.23, p < .001) and the second administration of (F(1, 103) =
13.40, p < .001); males (M = 74.58, 74.61, SD = 8.13, 8.58, respectively)
scored slightly higher than females (M = 67.87, 69.05, SD = 11.56, 10.28,
respectively). Whereas sex differences were found in Study 1 on the DC fac-
tor of the PPE, sex differences in Study 2 were found only on both administra-
tions of the PM factor of the LPE.
598 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / July 2002

Estimates of Internal Consistency

Estimates of internal consistency for the first administration on each of the

three LPEI scales (PM, AA, DC) were similar to those obtained in Study 1.
The internal consistency estimates were as follows: PPE—.91, .85, and .90,
respectively; PSP—.90, .81, and .74, respectively; and LPE—.87, .83, and
.74, respectively. Again, the results suggest acceptable to excellent levels of
internal consistency for all three factors.

Estimates of Test-Retest Reliability

To examine the stability of the instrument, estimates of test-retest reliabil-

ity for the PPE, PSP, and LPE scales were obtained across a 4-week time
interval. The reliability estimates were as follows: PPE—.78, .74, and .77,
respectively; PSP—.85, .74, and .69, respectively; and LPE—.80, .74, and
.61, respectively. In short, the results indicated that estimates of test-retest
reliability for the three scales indicated a moderate level of stability in a
4-week period, ranging from .61 (DC on the LPE) to .85 (PM on the PSP).
This suggests that the LPEI scales are reliable measures with a considerable
amount of temporal stability over a 4-week period.

Estimates of Discriminant Validity

In terms of discriminant validity, a series of correlations between LPEI
factors and MCSDS-C were examined (see Table 3). Again, to control for
alpha inflation, only the correlations that were statistically significant at p <
.001 or beyond were examined. For the PPE factors, there were no significant
correlations with the MCSDS-C (rs = .08 to –.09, ps > .01). Similarly, for the
LPE factors, there were no significant correlations with the MCSDS-C (rs =
.16 to .28, ps > .01). This suggests that the PPE and LPE scores are not
strongly influenced by social desirability. For the PSP factors, PM was mod-
erately associated (r = .42, p < .001) with the MCSDS-C, accounting for 16%
variance in the scores. In contrast, no significant correlations were found
between the MCSDS-C and both the AA and the DC (rs = .22 and .05, respec-
tively, ps > .01). In short, the estimates of discriminant validity for the three
scales (PPE, PSP, and LPE) indicated a lack of significant associations with
the MCSDS-C, except for the PM on the PSP scale.

Estimates of Construct Validity

Table 3 presents a matrix depicting the zero-order correlation between the
LPEI scales and the three indices of construct validity (STAI-C, STAXI-C,
 Wang, Heppner / LIVING UP TO PARENTAL EXPECTATIONS 599

TABLE 3: Estimates of Zero-Order Correlations of the LPEI Factors With STAI-C,

STAXI-C, BDI-C, and MCSDS-C

Discriminant
Criterion-Related Validity Validity Predictive Validity
Scale STAI-C STAXI-C BDI-C MCSDS-C STAI-C STAXI-C BDI-C

PPE
PM .19 .11 .16 .08 .00 .13 .10
AA .28 .21 .23 .01 .17 .14 .20
DC .18 .20 .28 –.09 .12 .13 .22
PSP
PM –.32*** –.27 –.38*** .42*** –.36*** –.22 –.38***
AA –.17 –.12 –.30 .22 –.09 –.16 –.14
DC –.08 –.03 –.08 .05 –.11 –.09 –.04
LPE
PM –.44*** –.33*** –.46*** –.28 –.31 –.29 –.41***
AA –.33*** –.26 –.40*** –.16 –.21 –.24 –.29
DC –.27 –.27 –.38*** –.17 –.19 –.24 –.24

NOTE: PM = Personal Maturity; AA = Academic Achievement; DC = Dating Concerns; PPE =

Perceived Parental Expectation; PSP = Perceived Self-Performance; LPE = Living up to Paren-
tal Expectation; LPEI = Living up to Parental Expectations Inventory; STAI-C = State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory–Chinese version; STAXI-C = State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory–
Chinese version; BDI-C = Beck Depression Inventory–Chinese version.
***p < .001.

and BDI-C). Again, only the correlations that attained the significance level
of .001 or beyond were examined. As shown in Table 3, the three factors of
the LPE were significantly associated with the three criterion variables. More
specifically, the PM factor of the LPE was moderately associated (rs = –.33 to
–.46, ps < .001) with all three indices of psychological distress (STAI-C,
STAXI-C, and BDI-C) such that lower PM scores were associated with
higher levels of depression, trait anxiety, and trait anger scores. Thus, the
findings suggest that when an individual acknowledges lower levels of living
up to parental expectations on personal maturing, he or she reports higher
depression, trait anxiety, and trait anger scores. The AA of the LPE was sig-
nificantly correlated with both the STAI-C and BDI-C (rs = –.33 and –.40,
respectively, ps < .001) but not with STAXI-C (r = –.26, p > .001). The results
suggest that when an individual acknowledges lower levels of living up to
parental expectations on his or her academic achievement, he or she reports
higher depression and trait anxiety scores but not higher trait anger scores.
There were not, however, significant correlations between scores on DC of
the LPE and both the STAI-C and STAXI-C (rs = –.27 and –.27, respectively,
ps > .001); only DC was significantly correlated (r = –.38, p < .001) with the
600 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / July 2002

BDI-C. This suggests that an individual who reports experiencing less fulfill-
ing of one’s parental expectations on his or her dating concerns is also likely
to report higher depression scores.
In contrast, the three factors on the PPE were not associated (rs = .11 to
.28, ps > .001) with any of the three indices of emotional distress (STAI-C,
STAXI-C, and BDI-C). In addition, on the PSP only the PM factor was asso-
ciated with two of the criterion variables, specifically the BDI-C (r = –.38, p <
.001) and STAI-C (r = –.32, p < .001). In short, as hypothesized, the LPE fac-
tors seem to serve as better predictors of psychological distress than either the
PPE or PSP factors.
We conducted two other tests to further examine the relationship between
parental expectation and psychological distress. First, partial correlations
were examined in an effort to determine the unique contributions of PM on
the PSP and on the LPE. Results revealed that the relations between PM on
the PSP and the BDI-C and STAI-C were no longer significant when the PM
of the LPE was removed (rs = –.13 and –.07, respectively, ps > .01). Con-
versely, significant correlations still existed between PM of the LPE and both
BDI-C and STAI-C (rs = –.29 and –.31, respectively, ps < .01) when the PM
of the PSP was removed.
Second, we examined possible confounds due to social desirability.
Because the three estimates of psychological stress (BDI-C, STAI-C, and
STAXI-C) were moderately correlated with the MCSDS-C (–.30, –.49,
–.57), and PM on the PSP was significantly correlated with the MCSDS-C
(–.4), it is possible that the significant correlations between the LPEI and psy-
chological distress are confounded with social desirability. Table 4 presents a
matrix depicting the first-order partial correlations between the LPEI factors
and three estimates of construct validity after MCSDS-C (social desirability)
scores were partialed out. Although the results changed slightly, the basic
pattern of results remained similar to those reported above. For example, four
of the six significant correlations between the LPE and three measures of psy-
chological distress were still statistically significant even after the social
desirability was removed. Moreover, all three LPE factors were still signifi-
cantly correlated (rs = –.37 to –.45, ps < .001) with the BDI-C, and the size of
the correlations was similar to the findings of zero-order correlations.
As before, there was not a pattern of significant correlations between the
PPE factors (after social desirability was removed) and three indices of emo-
tional distress, except for the correlation between the AA and the STAI-C (r =
.35, p < .001). Likewise, the correlations for the PSP factors, after social
desirability was removed, were similar to the zero-order correlations in Table
3 (except that the PM was no longer significantly correlated with STAI-C in
Table 4). Thus, these results provide additional support for the construct
 Wang, Heppner / LIVING UP TO PARENTAL EXPECTATIONS 601

TABLE 4: Estimates of First-Order Partial Correlation of the LPEI Factors With

STAI-C, STAXI-C, and BDI-C

Criterion-Related Validity Predictive Validity

Scale STAI-C STAXI-C BDI-C STAI-C STAXI-C BDI-C

PPE
PM .22 .19 .22 .08 .23 .16
AA .35*** .23 .26 .20 .20 .21
DC .13 .10 .26 .09 .08 .20
PSP
PM –.17 –.02 –.33*** –.18 .03 –.30
AA –.01 .10 –.23 .06 .00 –.07
DC –.14 –.10 –.14 –.11 –.11 –.05
LPE
PM –.33*** –.19 –.45*** –.21 –.18 –.37***
AA –.27 –.15 –.37*** –.14 –.18 –.24
DC –.26 –.24 –.41*** –.14 –.19 –.21

NOTE: PM = Personal Maturity; AA = Academic Achievement; DC = Dating Concerns; PPE =

Perceived Parental Expectation; PSP = Perceived Self-Performance; LPE = Living up to Paren-
tal Expectation; LPEI = Living up to Parental Expectations Inventory; MCSDS-C = Social
Desirability Scale–Chinese version; STAI-C = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory–Chinese version;
STAXI-C = State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory–Chinese version; BDI-C = Beck Depres-
sion Inventory–Chinese version.
***p < .001.

validity of the LPE factors and support the hypotheses that the LPE factors
serve as better predictors than the PPE and PSP factors even after the
MCSDS-C is removed.

Estimates of Predictive Validity

A matrix depicting the zero-order correlations between the LPEI scores
and three indices of emotional distress over time is also presented in Table 3.
In addition, Table 4 presents a matrix depicting the first-order partial correla-
tions between the LPEI scores and three indices of emotional distress over
time after the MCSDS-C scores were partialed out. Overall, no significant
correlations (rs = .00 to .23, ps > .001) between the PPE factors and three
indices of emotional distress existed over a 4-week period for both the
zero-order and first-order correlations. Similarly, there were no significant
correlations (rs = .00 to –.30, ps > .001) between the PSP factors and the three
indices of emotional distress, except that the PM was associated with the
STAI-C and BDI-C (rs = –.36 and –.38, respectively, ps < .001) over time for
602 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / July 2002

the zero-order correlations. These relations, however, were no longer signifi-

cant when social desirability was removed (rs = –.18 and –.30, respectively,
ps > .001). On the LPE for both the zero-order and first-order partial correla-
tion, only PM of the LPE was associated (rs = –.41 for zero-order and –.37 for
partial correlation, ps < .001) with the BDI-C scores over a 4-week period,
which accounted for from 14% to 17% of the variance. Thus, these results
indicate that only PM on the PSP and LPE were predictive of future depres-
sion and only PM of the LPE seems to be a useful predictor of depression over
time after social desirability is removed. Thus, these results provide partial
evidence for the estimates of predictive validity of the LPE.

DISCUSSION

In short, Study 2 provides evidence for good internal consistency of the

three factors across the three scales, and moderate test-retest correlations
over a 4-week period, indicating that the LPEI scales appear to be relatively
stable over time. In addition, the concurrent and predictive correlations
among the BDI-C, STAI-C, STAXI-C, and LPEI not only provide evidence
for construct validity of each of the three LPE factors but also provide some
support for predictive validity of PM on the LPE scale. More important, as
hypothesized, the LPE factors serve as a better predictor of psychological
distress than the PPE factors do. In fact, the PPE scale in of itself does not
seem to have much predictive utility of psychological distress, at least in this
study. In addition, the LPE factors, especially PM, were moderately corre-
lated with both concurrent and later reports of depression. Moreover, both
zero-order and first-order partial correlations between the LPE factors and
BDI-C are from –.37 to –.46, which suggests that a significant amount of
variance exists in predicting depression. In addition, it should be noted that
the PM factor rather than the AA factor on the LPE was consistently corre-
lated with the BDI-C (rs = –.46 for zero-order and –.45 for partial correlation,
ps < .001). These findings suggest that the living up to parental expectations
about personal maturity were linked to depression. Specifically, the results
suggest that the more a person reports not living up to one’s parental expecta-
tions (larger discrepancies between perceived parental expectation and his or
her own performance), particularly regarding the area of personal maturity,
the more he or she may experience more depression, both currently and over
time. Finally, in terms of discriminant validity, only the PM of PSP was asso-
ciated with a social desirability response set. Conversely, the assessment of
possible response bias in the LPE factors indicated no significant correlations
with the social desirability.
 Wang, Heppner / LIVING UP TO PARENTAL EXPECTATIONS 603

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Although most developmental theories of children and adolescents have

recognized that parental expectations are one of the most significant influ-
ences on psychological and personality development (see Burbach &
Borduin, 1986; Maccoby & Martin, 1983), there has been a lack of attention
to how parental expectations might affect college students’ psychological
distress. Even though the Taiwanese family has been characterized as having
close parent-child bonds (Hsu, 1981; C. C. Lin & Fu, 1990; Kelley & Tseng,
1992), very few studies were found that assessed the impact of parental
expectations on college students’ psychological distress. In addition,
although previous theorists have emphasized how discrepancies between
actual self and ideal self developed through interaction with parents were
related to psychological distress (e.g., Higgins, 1987, 1989), there is a lack of
empirical research to examine this relationship specifically between the liv-
ing up to parental expectations and psychological distress. The dearth of
research on this topic may be related to a lack of awareness of the influences
of living up to parental expectations upon college students’ psychological
distress, or a lack of effective assessment inventories to measure living up to
parental expectations.
The goal of this study was to develop and examine the usefulness of a
parental expectations scale that assessed not only perceived parental expecta-
tions but also the extent of living up to those expectations in Taiwanese col-
lege students. The results of the factor analysis suggested three common fac-
tors across three scales (PPE, PSP, and LPE). The PM factor not only
emphasized personal control and maturity but also obedience. The AA factor
emphasized academic and career performance. DC emphasized economic
considerations, interpersonal harmony, and parental approval. Together,
these factors suggest a broad range of parental expectations related to the tra-
ditional Asian value of filial piety such as educational and occupational
achievement, maintenance of interpersonal harmony, self-control and
restraint, collectivism, and the importance of the family (see Kim, Atkinson,
& Umemoto, in press). These results underscore the notion of filial piety
(Kwan, 2000) and that Taiwanese are relational beings (Hsu, 1981; Sue &
Sue, 1990).
Beyond the structure of parental expectations, the results of Study 2 pro-
vide important information about how parental expectations of Taiwanese
college students are related to psychological distress. The results indicate
that it is not simply perceived parental expectations that affect adult off-
springs’ psychological adjustment; perceived parental expectations were not
substantially correlated with adult offsprings’ psychological adjustment
604 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / July 2002

(only 1 of 18 correlations was statistically significant). Moreover, the results

suggested that it is not simply perceived self-performance that affects adult
offsprings’ psychological distress (only 3 out of 18 correlations were statisti-
cally significant). Rather, it is living up to the parental expectations that are
most strongly associated with adult offspring psychological distress (10 out
of 18 correlations were statistically significant). As hypothesized, these
results are consistent with Higgins (1987, 1989) self-discrepancy model,
who theorized that it is the discrepancies between the ideal and actual self that
create emotional vulnerability. The results of this study suggest that this type
of self-discrepancy model applies to parental expectations in a Taiwanese
culture; specifically, the discrepancy between perceived parental expecta-
tions and one’s performance (i.e., living up to parental expectations) is indeed
associated with emotional vulnerability such as depression and anxiety. This
finding is important in that it not only underscores the role of parental expec-
tations in adult offspring psychological distress but that it is also more com-
plex than a simple association between perceived parental expectations or
perceived self-performance. The lack of significant relationship between
parental expectations and psychological distress may explain why there has
been an absence of published research on this topic.
Specifically, in terms of living up to parental expectations, the results sug-
gested that the PM factor on the LPE scale was related to all three indices of
psychological distress (although not with anger after social desirability was
removed). AA was correlated with depression and anxiety (the latter was no
longer significant after social desirability was removed), and DC was corre-
lated with depression. Thus, all three factors were consistently associated
with depression, which accounted for 14% to 21% of the variance in the
depression scores. Even after social desirability was removed, the LPE fac-
tors were still significantly correlated with depression. These findings pro-
vide new information about depression in Taiwanese adults and suggest that
it is living up to parental expectations rather than parental expectations that
contribute most significantly to depression of adult offspring.
These results also indicated that the PM factor always contributed the
most variance in predicting psychological distress across the three factors in
the investigation. The DC factor contributed almost the same amount of vari-
ance as the AA factor in predicting anxiety and depression. These results sug-
gested that studies of parental expectations should not only focus on AA,
which has been emphasized in the past (e.g., H. Chen & Lan, 1998; Dai,
1999; Goyette & Xie, 1999; H. Lin, 1999) but also need to identify at least
two more dimensions, PM and DC. Thus, the effect of parental expectations
goes beyond academic achievement and calls attention to one’s personal
maturity and dating concerns, especially personal manners, such as self-
control, politeness, responsibility, and maturity.
 Wang, Heppner / LIVING UP TO PARENTAL EXPECTATIONS 605

Although the initial psychometric data on the LPEI is encouraging and

promising, additional psychometric research is needed. As with the develop-
ment of a new instrument in which exploratory factor analysis is used, the
need for a confirmatory factor analysis with different samples is needed to
cross-validate the factorial structure. Replication of these findings in a con-
firmatory procedure and additional estimates of reliability and validity (e.g.,
guilt and fear) will provide further validity estimates for the inventory. More-
over, it may be useful to examine the possibility of positive relationships
between perceived parental expectations and other variables, such as prob-
lem solving or coping strategies as well as resilience or ego adaptability, and
more complex relationships among these variables to predict psychological
distress. Although sex differences were found in Study 1 on the DC of PPE
and in Study 2 on the PM of the LPE, the means suggest only slight differ-
ences and are perhaps due to sample variation; more research is needed to
examine sex, age, and clinical/nonclinical differences on the instrument. It is
also important to note that this investigation is based on data collected from
Taiwan college students; generalizations about the results must be restricted
to college students in Taiwan at this time. Research is needed to extend nor-
mative information as well as reliability and validity estimates with other
populations in Taiwan and across different cultures, including Asian Ameri-
cans in the United States or other populations for whom filial piety is an
important value. In addition, the instrument relied on self-report that may or
may not reflect the participant’s actual behaviors nor actual parental expecta-
tions. Future researchers may need to use other measures, or actual parental
expectations, such as behavioral measures, to examine these relationships.
Nonetheless, it is important to note that college students’ perceptions about
living up to parental expectations were significantly associated with psycho-
logical distress.
In conclusion, the present investigation extended knowledge about the
impact of parental expectations in Taiwanese college students and introduced
the concept of living up to parental expectations. More specifically, this
investigation found that living up to parental expectations rather than per-
ceived parental expectations served as a better predictor of Taiwanese college
students’ psychological distress. Also, the investigation did not only reach
the same conclusions as previous literature about the impact of the factor AA
on psychological distress but also suggested that new factors such as PM and
DC can serve as good predictors of psychological distress as well. Moreover,
past studies found that Taiwanese/Chinese suffered from depression and had
low utilization of the counseling services and high rates of premature termi-
nation (J.C.H. Lin, 1994; Ying, 1988). This investigation suggested that the
depression that Taiwanese college students experience might be related to
their beliefs that their manners are inconsistent with parental expectations.
606 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / July 2002

These results have implications for helping counselors to better understand

their Taiwanese clients and psychological distress and to subsequently
develop effective therapeutic interventions.
In short, this investigation represents a beginning in the development of an
inventory to measure how discrepancies between PPE and PSP relate to psy-
chological distress in one Asian culture. For the first time, the results of the
present investigation provide initial empirical support for the utility of a mul-
tidimensional instrument that examines both the PPE and the LPE. The initial
psychometric information suggests that the LPEI seems to be a reliable and
valid measure for Taiwanese college students. Although the initial
psychometric properties look promising, additional psychometric investiga-
tions are needed. Nonetheless, these results of the current investigation not
only provide a promising instrument for use in research and practice but also
provide a theoretical framework that could be helpful in working with college
students, especially Asian populations and perhaps other populations for
whom filial piety is important.

REFERENCES

Anderson, W., & Yuenger, C. (1987). Parents as a source of stress for college students. College
Student Journal, 21, 317-323.
Archer, J., & Lamnin, A. (1985). An investigation of personal and academic stressors on college
campuses. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26, 210-215.
Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects. New York:
Harper & Row.
Belsky, J. (1990). Parental and nonparental child care and children’s socio-emotional develop-
ment: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 885-903.
Bond, M. H. (Ed.). (1986). The psychology of the Chinese people. Hong Kong: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson.
Burbach, D. J., & Borduin, C. M. (1986). Parent-child relations and the etiology of depression: A
review of methods and findings. Clinical Psychology Review, 6, 133-153.
Cattell, R. B. (Ed.). (1966). Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding
Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65,
1111-1119.
Chen, C., & Uttal, D. H. (1988). Cultural values, parents’ beliefs, and children’s achievement in
the United States and China. Human Development, 31, 351-358.
Chen, H., & Lan, W. (1998). Adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ academic expectations:
Comparison of American, Chinese-American, and Chinese high school students. Adoles-
cence, 33, 385-390.
Chen, P. (1995). A study on college student’s psychological separation-individuation change in
counseling. Chinese Journal of Educational Psychology, 28, 145-176.
 Wang, Heppner / LIVING UP TO PARENTAL EXPECTATIONS 607

Chen, P., & Liaw, F. (1993). Evaluation of individual counseling service for university counsel-
ing center: National Normal University Counseling Center. Guidance & Counseling, 1,
57-78.
Chen, S. (1999). Benevolence and propriety: The family values and attitudes toward work in Tai-
wan. Research in Applied Psychology, 4, 205-227.
Chien, C. (1989). Investigation and experimental study of trait anxiety and trait anger for Tai-
wanese junior college students. Self-published manuscript.
Collins, W. A., & Kuczaj, S. A. (1991). Developmental Psychology: Childhood and adoles-
cence. New York: Macmillan.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
Dai, Y. (1999). Relationships among parenting styles, parental expectations and attitudes, and
adolescents’ school functioning: A cross-cultural study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Purdue University.
Duncan, D. C., & Anderson, W. P. (1986). A comparison of journalism and non-journalism stu-
dents receiving counseling at the counseling center. Counseling Services Report, 1, 38.
(Available from University of Missouri–Columbia)
Freud, S. (1961). The ego and the id. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the
complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 19, pp. 3-66). London: Hogarth Press.
(Original work published 1923)
Goyette, K., & Xie, Y. (1999). Educational expectations of Asian American youths: Determi-
nants and ethnic differences. Sociology of Education, 72, 22-36.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review,
94, 319-340.
Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self beliefs cause people to suf-
fer? Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 93-136.
Hoffman, J. A. (1984). Psychological separation of late adolescents from their parents. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 31, 2, 170-178.
Horney, K. (1942). Self analysis. New York: Norton.
Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth: The struggle toward self-realization. New
York: Norton.
Hsu, F.L.K. (1981). Americans and Chinese: Passages to differences. Honolulu: University
Press of Hawaii.
Huang, F. (1983). Life stress, attribution styles, and social support: Depression for college stu-
dents. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 1, 31-47.
Huntsinger, C. S. (1992). Mathematics achievement among Chinese-American and Cauca-
sian-American fifth and sixth-grade girls. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Loyola Uni-
versity of Chicago.
Hwang, K. (1999). Filial piety and loyalty: The types of social identification in Confucianism.
Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 129-149.
Hwang, K., & Yang, K. (1972). The investigation of modernality-traditionality tendency. Annual
Report of National Research Institute Ethnology, 32, 245-278.
Kagan, D. M., & Squires, R. L. (1984). Compulsive eating, dieting, stress, and hostility among
college students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 213-220.
Kelley, M. L., & Tseng, H. (1992). Cultural differences in child rearing: A comparison of immi-
grant Chinese and Caucasian American mothers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23,
444-455.
Kim, B.S.K., Atkinson, D. R., & Umemoto, D. (in press). Asian cultural values and counseling
process: Current knowledge and directions for future research. The Counseling
Psychologist.
 608 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / July 2002

Kwan, K.-L.K. (2000). Counseling Chinese peoples: Perspectives of filial piety. Asian Journal
of Counseling, 7, 23-42.
Lin, C. C., & Fu, V. R. (1990). A comparison of child-rearing practices among Chinese, immi-
grant Chinese, and Caucasian-American parents. Child Development, 61, 429-433.
Lin, H. (1999). Mothers’ beliefs, goals, and child-rearing behaviors (I): An analysis of the
themes. Research in Applied Psychology, 2, 143-180.
Lin, J.C.H. (1994). How long do Chinese Americans stay in psychotherapy? Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 41, 288-291.
Liu, R. W. (1998). Educational and career expectations of Chinese-American college students.
Journal of College Student Development, 39, 577-588.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the content of the family. In P. H. Mussen &
E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personal-
ity, and social development (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley.
MacDonald, K. B. (1988). Social and personality development. New York: Plenum.
McKenna, E. R. (1999). The relationship between parenting style, level of culture change and
depression in Chinese living in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pacific
Graduate School of Psychology.
Meir, E., & Gati, I. (1981). Guideline for item selection in inventories yielding score profiles.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 1011-1016.
Okagaki, L., & Frensch, P. A. (1998). Parenting and children’s school achievement: A multieth-
nic perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 123-144.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Shaffer, D. R. (1996). Developmental psychology: Childhood and adolescence (4th Ed.). Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Shek, D.T.L., & Chan, L. K. (1999). Hong Kong Chinese parents perceptions of the ideal child.
Journal of Psychology, 133, 291-302.
Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the con-
struction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47,
149-155.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Con-
sulting Psychologists Press.
Spielberger, C. D. (1986). The Anger Expression (AX) Scale. Tampa, FL: Center for Research in
Behavioral Medicine and Community Psychology.
Stevenson, H. W., Chen, C., & Lee, S. Y. (1993). Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japa-
nese, and American children: Ten years later. Science, 259, 53-58.
Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S. Y., & Stigler, J. W. (1986). Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japa-
nese, and American children. Science, 231, 693-699.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally different. New York: John Wiley.
Yang, C. F. (1988). Familism and development: An examination of the role of family in contem-
porary China Mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwan. In D. Sinha & S. R. Kao (Eds.), Social val-
ues and development: Asian perspectives. New Delhi: Sage.
Yang, M. (1983). Teachers’ expectation, parental expectation, and self-expectation. Unpub-
lished master’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taiwan.
Yang, K. (1972). Self-concept development of Taiwanese children and adolescents. In K. Yang
& S. Cheng (Eds.), The development of Chinese behavior. Taipei: YE.
Yang, K., Yeh, K., & Hwang, L. (1989). Social attitude and manners of Filial Piety: Measure and
theoretical development. Annual Report of National Research Institute Ethnology, 65,
171-227.
Ying, Y. (1988). Depressive symptomatology among Chinese-Americans as measured by the
CED-D. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 739-746.

View publication stats