Essay: The relationship of differential treatment to children’s social and emotional development

Chapter I
Introduction
Parents act differently with different children, being more positive with one child and more negative with another (Rauer & Brendal, 2007). These behavior have negatively affects not only the child who receives more negative feedback but also affected other siblings as well. The child who receives negative treatment develops negative portray about themselves like they thought they were rejected by their parents all the time that develops the sensitivity towards rejection from other significant relationships as they age. On the other hand, some parents show favoritism and there is only a one child who always get rejection. These children always fear to speak in front of their parents and share their thoughts with peers and teachers (Juffer, Marian & Kranenburg, 2012).Afterwards these children develop many psychological disturbances such as low self-esteem (Hart & Rollins, 2011) feeling of loneliness ( Thies & Travers, 2001) low confidence (Wise & Silva , 2007) poor patterns of communication (Mitchel & Ziegler, 2013). So, the present research aims at investigating the relationship between differential parenting and rejection sensitivity in adolescence.
1.1 Differential Parenting
Differential parenting refers to the extent of difference in parental behavior to different children in the family (Brownell & Kopp, 2010). The difficulty parent’s face in trying to be fair is understandable, particularly when a one child demands so much more in terms of attention, time and resources, but parent couldn’t have time or resource to fulfill the child needs and demands. (Rutter et al, 2011). Differential parenting also mean within family difference in parenting experienced by siblings (Stoneman, 2005). However it has been predicted that differential parenting increased hostility from both more and less favored siblings. Favored children’s experience of raised parental support may be more and reduced support from the less favored siblings. The differences in parent’s differential parenting in warmth, support and conflict and negativity has a unique impact on adolescence adjustment over and above the effect of level of parenting directed toward each child separately. The most neglected child is unable to achieve the goal and develops inferiority complex, day dreaming, frustration, self-rejection attitude etc (Lerner & Steinberg, 2009). Parents who show favoritism towards their child may cause increased tension between the child and their siblings. The child may feel shame or nervous and try to take away attention from their siblings (Yahav, 2006).
According to Yahav (2006) Parental favoritism may be defined as displaying more interest in one child over his or her siblings. The parents show warmth, intimacy, admiration, and great interest toward the favorite child. The parents usually pick their favorite child who had certain talent or interest that conspiracies the parent. The child usually feels exceptional and magnificence, however, he or she also feels shame or guilty for taking away the attention from his or her siblings. The siblings feel inferior complex and unfriendly towards the favorite child and may become against with the favorite child. Sometimes the favored child may experience high levels of anxiety from parent’s expectations and guilt of taking away from his or her siblings. The other siblings often suffer emotional insecurity due to feeling been rejected and unappreciated by their parents (Yahav, 2006).
Scholte, Engels, Kemp, Harakeh and Overbank (2007) conducted the differential parental treatment have usually not differentiated between older and younger siblings. Birth order may be an important factor with respect to the effects of differential parental treatment on adolescent adjustment. Nevertheless, the birth order differences in reaction to differential parental treatment is not consistent, which may be due to the different adjustment domains or the different age groups that were studied. Differential parental treatment was linked to older siblings externalizing behavior in adolescence that in childhood younger siblings were more vulnerable to differential parental treatment and reported lower levels of well-being which being disfavored.
According to Sheehan and Noller (2002) explain that the parental differential treatment is associated with children’s behavior problems, so it is the trend in Asian countries. Children who had receive more parental discipline and less parental warmth as compare to their siblings may have more adjustment problems compared to children in other family system. It cannot be assume that parental differential treatment always causes children’s problem, because children who are disrupting often provoke negative parental behavior.
Further studies that developmental psychologist have explained that parents treat different children with a family differently (Banmrind, 1980). Some research shows that parents expend different levels of investment in the form of time, attention, money and emotional investment, on their individual children (Lerner & Steinbery, 2009).
However, parents may also differ in response to their child in the form of attention. Well behaved children typical receive more attention from their parents because they make their parents look good in regards to the surrounding public. These children will be praised for their good behaviors reinforcing the positive behavior to continue. Children who have negative emotions are likely to receive less attention because the caregiver are likely to be impatient. When the parent or child fails to live up to the other’s expectations is when arguments between the parent and child commence. Parents who yell or physically punish their children are sending two harsh messages. First, they relay that the child is so powerful that the parents can lose control the second message is if you are angry, it is acceptable to verbally or physically harm someone. Warm parenting is positively reinforcing the child’s lifelong psychological development. The ideal parenting characteristics include expressing friendly, maintain trust, showing affections, giving proper time, attention and acknowledging goodness to their talents (Mc Clowry, 2003).
According to Yahav (2006) parent rejection is when parents lack parental warmth and affection, instead expressing overt hostility and angry, or not given attention or been neglected, toward the child. Children who feel rejected by their parents exhibit increased levels of hostility and aggression. These children also are more dependent, emotionally unstable, and have low level of self-worth. One explanation is that parental rejection the child attachment and destroys the child’s will to accept parental values and beliefs.
According to Feinberg, Mark Hetherington and Mavis (2001) investigated whether differential parental negativity or warmth is linked to adolescent adjustment apart from the effect of the level of parenting toward each child separately. After accounting for level of parental treatment to the adolescent, the researcher found that differential parenting to the siblings contributed unique variance in maladjustment. The significant relations was found between level of parenting and differential parenting. In each case, differential parenting was more strongly linked to adjustment when the level of parenting was low in warmth, or high in negativity. These results are indirect evidence that differential parenting can be considered a within family influence on sibling adjustment and as direct evidence that nonshared environment factors may systematically vary in strength between families.
According to Luster and Okagaki, (2006) differential positivity refers to a particular child receiving more warmth and affection compared to other siblings, whereas the differential negativity refers to a particular child experiences is more parental hostility and negative affectivity compared to other siblings. Although some aspects of differential parenting are begin the imitating, for instance, age differences between children or expected differential treatment of a sibling some of it appears to be damaging.
Differential parenting for disfavored children has been shown to predict increased psychopathology over time and to have a negative impact on sibling relationships Such findings suggest that it is an important family positive parenting behaviors were associated with higher levels of child capability in areas such as cognitive functioning and behavioral regulation (Lemonda, Briggs & Mcclowry, 2009). Equally, negative parenting behaviors were usually associated with emotional and behavioral problems. Many important facets of children’s development e.g., emotional and behavioral functioning, intellectual achievement, social competence were associated directly with parenting behaviors (Danforth Barkley, & Stokes, 1991).
According to Adler, (1956) has focused on an individual’s position relative to others. Adler examined children’s relationships to their siblings as a predictor of psychosocial outcomes. Alfred adler explains that parents’ differential treatment of siblings resulted in jealousy and rivalry in the sibling relationship; these characteristics affected later life choices and personality development. A more recent view of the origin of differential parenting came from the family systems perspective. This theory posited that differential treatment of siblings in the same family stemmed from individual child characteristics e.g., age, gender, temperament that differed across siblings. Family systems theory further suggested that conflicts within the family e.g., divorce, illness created associations between parents and children, thereby affecting parents’ relationship with their other children and resulting in differential treatment.
While considering the individual child characteristics that were related to differential treatment of siblings it was the most widely studied child characteristic was gender. For example, Dunn, Bretherton, and Munn, (1987) found that the mothers express her feelings more frequently with their 18-month old girls than with their 18-month old boys. Further, Cervantes and Callanan, (1998) observed that mothers were likely to use emotional explanations e.g., ‘he feels sad because he hurt himself ‘with their preschool sons but only emotional labels e.g., ‘he feels sad’ with their preschool daughters. The other of research indicated that parents, particularly fathers, spent more time with same-sex children (Crouter, Manke, & McHale, 1995; Tucker, McHale, & Crouter, 2003). This increased time could lead to differential treatment.
Some studies shows that preferential treatment is associated with poorer individual adjustment as well as poor relationships between siblings. The least favored child is more likely to exhibit to have lower feeling of self-esteem and self-worth, these children have depression, have more aggression and problems in behavior. The perceptions of differential parenting not always negative (Vangelistic, 2012).The siblings might recognize their parental differences, their see such treatment is fair and reasonable rather than preferential. The age of school children perceptions of about differential treatment is fairness between themselves and with adolescent siblings is more predicted to their own adjustment and their relationship with their siblings than the perception of differential treatment (Mc Clowry, 2003).Differential parenting can and often is appropriate parenting which parents are responsive to individual differences in children and siblings may be aware of this treatment. Differential parenting practices may be predicted different factors other than the child as well. The levels of martial satisfaction appears associated with differential treatment of siblings. The favoritism has been found that parents having marital problems or when they are experiences more stress (Jenkin, Rashbash and Conner, 2003).
Over the period of time, the continuously experiences of differential parenting will have poorly affect in disfavored child’s attachment orientation, with the disfavored child developing more negative expectations about the sensitivity of others than the favored sibling (Mc Clowry, 2003).The disfavored child’s insecure attachment orientation will, in turn, influence this sibling to anxiety and to negative misperceptions or distortions in his or her image of own self-worth and in the way he or she interpret the relations with others. It has been studied in early research that within family comparisons of differential parenting treatment focused on mother’s interaction with their two young children. Some investigators studied that mother and father have similar amount of differential parenting. Some parents shows favor of their same sex to teach better about sex behavior to socialize (Rohner, 1986).
Social cultural context in Pakistan about differential parenting girls get more protective environment and parental attention. The parenting with girls are expected to stay at home and spend more time with their family members. The adolescences usually at this stage develop interpersonal relationships (Kausar, & Kazmi, 2011). In Pakistan, boys are allowed to socialize and spend more time at outside their friends, whereas girls are not accepted to be socialize. Too much over protectiveness towards girls effect the social adjustment in girls which cause harm and couldn’t explore. The boys, usually socialize to get freedom which may have negative and positive implication. It allows them to develop their interpersonal and social skills, but at the same time their might take risk and can explore themselves. In other Asian countries their have similar amount of differential parenting within family (Saqiq, Munaf & Seema, 2012).
However, the parenting control and sensitivity of maternal also depends on education. Education strongly relates to incomes and it is most stable predictors of social economic class. The maternal education may relate to parenting because stressful living conditions, which often occur poverty and lower education usually lead to over controlling style to interact with their children.. Both mothers’ and fathers’ educational attainment is associated with sensitive parenting in early childhood (Lemonda, Briggs & Mcclowry, 2009). The middle class african american parents have been describe about the parenting less control than their lower-class. In some studies it shows that working class and middle income african american mothers are more educated and there are likely to engage in child discipline may challenging the view that african american parents are usually have authoritarian style.
According to Rauer and Brendal (2007) african american parents with less education are reportedly more fearful that their children will engage in antisocial behavior which in turn may lead parents to engage in more authoritarian parenting. Further in studies mothers with less than a high school education are less likely to show their child warmth than are parents with higher levels of educational attainment. For example, as it has been seen 75 percent of mothers with less than a high school education show hug or physical affection to their child at least once a day, compared to those 87 percent of mothers with a high school diploma was 91 percent of mothers with same college and 94 percent of mothers with college degrees. Similarly, more college educated father’s 77 percent report about hugging their child daily than do fathers with less than a high school education 68 percent or fathers with a high school diploma 70 percent, however, educational attainment of fathers was not associated with the other two measures of warmth and affection
According to researchers Danforth Barkley, & Stokes, (1991) it has been studied that those fathers are engage with their children in education activities have a better grades than those fathers who spend less time with their children’s. The adolescences whose fathers spend more time in leisure in home picnics parties, watch movies, playing games, share meals with them help in their homework, reading and totally engaged with them in their activities shows better grade in school or average than those adolescences whose fathers spent less time with their children’s.. Similarly, overall the conclusion shows that those adolescence whose fathers are in engaged with activities with their children and spend time in home and go for outdoor, talk to them shows better grades in academic than those who spend less time with their children’s.
Gender differences in children’s behavior might be explained in part by the differential treatment of boys versus girls by mothers. Mothers of boys might engage in more controlling behaviors due to their expectations about their boys’ potential to engage in problem behaviors or high levels of risk taking, or in response to actual differences in boys’ aggression, arousal, and activity levels. In particular, African American mothers of boys might be more controlling and less sensitive out of concern about the risks faced by African American boys (Knight, Guthrie, Page, & Fabes, 2002).
The effect of differential parenting become more reflective if one sibling is treated with less warmth and affection or with more punishment that individual is more likely to behave in an aggressive, rivalries and unaffectionate manner towards his or her siblings. Younger are less likely to respond negatively if they perceive that the differential treatment was justified (Kowal & Kramer, 1997).
1.2 Theoretical perspective
The theoretical framework of this research was constructed after a thorough review of pervious researches. The current study demonstrated that parents treated their children in a different way and that differential treatment was related to children’s social and emotional development (Brownell & Kopp, 2010). Social learning theory and attachment theory is mainly concentration on these models.

1.2.1 Social Learning theory
According to Miller and Dollar’s (1941) original theory of social learning was explained by Bandura (1977) the conceptualization of social learning theory represents within it four fundamental premises that includes differential association, differential reinforcement and imitation and definition. Bandura (1977) have been research and explain about the erosion of the sibling relationship as a result of differential parenting, as in each different child’s outcomes. According social learning theory, an individual obtains new behaviors and cognitive attitudes through observation and reinforcement of others behavior. Parents and older siblings are most likely to be imitated if they are perceived as powerful and competent (Bandura, 1977). Consistent with this theory, perhaps part of the erosion of the sibling relationship quality that is associated with differential parenting reflects children imitating maladaptive interactions that their parents model. A child, who consistently witnesses his or her parent directing high levels of control and aggression toward his or her sibling, might repeat the harsh behavior pattern while interacting with their sibling.
1.2.2 Parental acceptance- rejection theory
According to Rohner (1986) parental acceptance rejection theory is an evidence based theory of lifespan development that predict the consequences of parental acceptance and rejection. Affection bond between parents and children, which have physical, symbolic and verbal behaviors mostly parents use to express these feelings. The other side is clear by the parental rejection, which refers to the lack or significant withdrawal of those feelings and behaviors, and by the presence of a variation of physically and psychologically hurtful behaviors and affects. Parental acceptance rejection theory exposes that parental rejection can experienced by any combination of four principal expressions: (1) the cold and unaffectionate of the being warm and to the affectionate, (2) hostile and aggressive, (3) Uncaring and neglecting, and (4) the same rejecting. The same rejection refers to individuals’ beliefs that their parents do not really care about them or love them, even though there might not be clear behavioral indicators that the parents are continuously neglecting their child, not showing affection to and been aggressive toward them.
1.2.3Attachment theory
According to Bowlby (1969) proposed attachment theory that children develop mental models of themselves and the relationships, the models which influence their relationships of the future. At the core of these models are expectations about whether significant others will satisfy their needs or be rejecting. When caretakers tend to meet children’s need sensitively and consistently, children develop secure relationship with them that models that unite the expectation that others will accept and support them. When caretakers are rejecting or behaving different to children’s need they develop insecure working models incorporating doubts and anxieties about others acceptance and support.
1.3 Rejection Sensitivity
Rejection sensitivity defined as the feeling to anxiety more over expectation of angry, readily perceive and exaggerate to rejection when faced with potential rejection by important others and that aggressive children’s inclination to perceive intentional hostility in the behavior of their peers towards them results from forgoing expectations of rejection (Downey, lebolt, Rincon & Freitas, 1998).Parental rejection is conveyed to adolescence through abuse, cruelty, hostility and physical and emotional neglect and abuse all of which carry a message of rejection. These experience are expected into an inheritance of rejection experience that will impact the person’s functioning in interpersonal relationship. When the inherited of rejection is assumed, it leads individual to expect rejection and to be concerned with its occurrence. Those individuals come to anxiety expect the rejection. As the expectation of rejection and their concern about what is lies at the core of the rejection sensitivity dynamic. Adolescence who has developed defensive expectations of rejection as a result of having experience rejection, in the beginning from parents and subsequently from peers, will be more sensitive to rejection from society (Sperry, 2008).
However, downey and her colleagues’ has explore the rejection sensitivity as a defensively motivated system that assess the past rejection of expectation. They described the rejection sensitivity as a biological mechanism that may design to defend self from rejection and to maintain healthy social connection with people. The rejection sensitivity is present to may sure to help the individual by triggering a quick way to response when a social threats may existed, furthermore this system becomes mal adaptive once it have been activated indiscriminately. The rejection sensitivity has been concluded that to have a uniqueness of individual differences that may not measure of introversion, self-esteem, confidences, attachment, depression, avoidance, anxiety in social. However those elements may cases high level of dissatisfaction individual rejection sensitivity (Downey and Feldman, 1996).
According to Jenkin, Rashbash and Conner (2003) rejection sensitivity is a psychological condition that causes a person to feel oversensitive to rejection or perceived rejection in relationships and social environment. The individual with rejection sensitivity may perceive an unintentional snub or even being made to wait as deliberate rejection and they feel severe, extreme painful anxiety and possibly the anger as a result.
The effect appearance-based rejection sensitivity may contribute to eating disorders. Moreover, found that in people with severe bipolar depression, increased pain sensations, particularly headaches and chest pain, may occurred a lot more often in depressed patients who were also experiencing high levels of rejection sensitivity as part of their depressive episode. When someone is depressed, a common symptom is perceiving that other people don’t like them or they feel neglected. Based on the study, it seems that specific pathways in the brain relate to depression and to these distorted perceptions about other people. Furthermore, when these paths are interrupted they overlap into pain, that triggering physical discomfort, and these common symptom of depression (Brownnell & Kopp, 2010).
When the parents are cold hostile and uncooperative, child and the those adolescent feelings of security and views of self may suffer which in turn may increase weakness to internalizing difficulties (Nolan et al, 2003). Rejection sensitivity appears to be particularly relevant in the development of internalizing problems at other points in the lifespan that are not characterized by such prevalent change. Children and adults high in rejection sensitivity are more likely to experience a variety of internalizing problems (e.g. social anxiety, withdrawal, loneliness and depressive symptoms) potentially due to maladaptive coping responses which impair social relationships; and a lack of perceived control in preventing social rejection which trigger negative cognitions and affective responses (Downey, et al., 1998).
Downey and Feldman (1996) examined how an individual’s level of rejection sensitivity might affect their intimate relationships. First study was conducted to explore the relation between rejection sensitivity and the tendency to interpret insensitive behavior by their close partner as a careful desire to be hurtful. They evaluated that students of rejection sensitivity earlier to beginning a romantic relationship. After their began a new relationship, the scenarios that could be considered insensitive for themselves but could have happened for a number of reasons were posed to them such as “If your boyfriend or girlfriend was being calm and cool, you would feel he or she was being intentionally hurtful.” That was found to be the high levels of rejection sensitivity predicted the likelihood that the student would interpret their new partner’s insensitive behavior as having hurtful committed.
In a related study Downey and Feldman (1996) has been explained about the engaged couples in a committed and those no marital relationship to complete questionnaires designed to examine how this trend to negatively to take indifferent behavior would impact the relationship. They was found to be the significant correspondence relationship between rejection sensitivity and relationship safety, relationship gratification, and behaviors that jeopardize the relationship.
According to Downey and Feldman (1996) furthered found that there is a relationship between rejection sensitivity and self-esteem as well as between rejection sensitivity and social anxiety expectation and the personality characteristic of introversion, they did not find that this relationship explained the connection between rejection sensitivity and poor intimate relationships. In other words, the individual have low or high social anxiety and introvert, but there have perception of been rejected that may be accurate and they may not been but over-react to rejection. So, over all the problem that have more tendency to expect neglected in intimate relationships, perceive rejection when it may not be present, and to see rejection in an particularly negative manner.
Rejection sensitivity has been shown to have negative consequences over and above the impact of actual rejection experiences including impacting on loneliness, highly aggression, depression that might have a breakdown to relationships. Research on social experience that may give rise to individual difference in rejection sensitivity or may protect against it, however has protected behind research on negative mental health and social relational outcomes of sensitivity (Mclachan, et al & 2010).
People who are particularly sensitive to rejection are more likely to interpret others responses to them as hostile and other that the person doesn’t like or respect them. They become either angry or anxious and may spend time ruminating about what has happened. Children who experience more peer rejection over time come to expect rejection and may see it even when it is not there. This create a vicious cycle that perpetuates a child’s rejection by potential friends. (Levine, & Munsch, 2010).In one study children who became more accepted by their peers reduced their rejection sensitivity over time. Finally rejection sensitive children who were able to control the expression of their emotions had better long term outcomes in adulthood (Ayduk et al, 2000). It appears that children who act aggressively or in a highly anxious and withdrawn manner may drive peers further away, but if the child can control these responses, they are less likely to do so (Levine, & Munsch, 2010).
According to Downey and Feldom (1996) relationships with parents or friends to protect rejection-sensitive adolescents from developing depression or social anxiety. Rejection sensitive adolescents are inattentive with feelings of rejection, but those rejection sensitive adolescents who feel supported and loved by parents or friends may show better psychological wellbeing than their counterparts who do not perceive their relationships are not to be supportive. However, those rejection sensitive cognitive biases may develop from numerous and lasting experiences with rejection. Therefore, we also tested two way interactions between differential parenting and rejection sensitivity.

Rejection sensitive individuals are defined by nervous expectations of rejection (Downey & Feldom, 1996). Rejection from caretakers is one important source of these anxiety expectations. The parental rejection is convey to children through abuse, unkindness, aggression, physical and emotional neglect and abuse, all of which carry a message of rejection. These experiences are internalized into a legacy of rejection experiences that will impact the person’s functioning in interpersonal relationship. When inheritance of rejection is internalized it lead the individual to expect rejection and to be concerned with its existence. Thus, individuals come to anxiously expect rejection. It is the expectation of rejection and the concern with it what lies at th core of rejection dynamic (William, Forgas & Hippel, 2013).
According to Leary and Hoyle (2013) investigate that the individual who are rejection sensitive often see rejection often from others as a statement shows that there are intolerable people. They judge rejection about their worth as a person. As it has been seen that having rejection sensitivity can mean a self-fulfilling prophecy. To being in a relationships needs acceptance of the other person’s mistakes. As for someone with rejection sensitivity, mistakes of the other person are likely to be seen as lack of caring or decisions.
During middle childhood, caring and friendship rises with peers, and children increasingly rely on peer’s for a sense of be appropriate. (Laursen, 1996). At the time of life, peer relationship difficulties such as rejection and exclusion have been associated with inner problems such as loneliness and the depression (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). The young people formatted about the relationships and their increasing interpretations and responses to others have been proposed as some of the mechanisms accounting for associations between such negative social experiences and personal adjustment. For example, when rejection occurs within valued relationships with others, such as by parents or among peers at school, this can affect individuals’ conceptions of relationships and their expectations of others, especially during childhood. Some of these conceptions have been referred to as rejection sensitivity, which is usually defined as anxious expectations of rejection and the tendency to willingly to perceive and overreact to rejection sensitivity. (Downey & Feldman, 1996).
Most research on rejection sensitivity has studied that they have been a negative correlates of being extremely sensitive to rejection in late adolescence such as depressive and aggression. Rejection sensitivity has been shown to have negative consequences and the impact of actual rejection experiences (Sandstrom, Cillessen & Eisenhower, 2003), including impacting on loneliness, the aggression, extremely depression dating violence, and relationship breakdown (Downey & Feldman, 1996). The most important aspect of rejection sensitivity theory suggests that acute and/or prolonged rejection experiences initiate rejection sensitivity (Downey, Bonica, & Rincon, 1999). Research on social experiences that may give rise to individual differences in rejection sensitivity or may protect against it, however, has protected behind research on the negative mental health and social relational outcomes of sensitivity.
According to Feldman and Downey (1994) investigated that the beginnings of anxiety expectation of rejection lie in experiences of rejection from their parents. They research that the participant who have been exposed frequently and have suffer family violence in childhood anxiety expected to have rejection in current relationships. In a study of longitudinal design downey and her colleagues explore the rejection experiences of fifth, sixth, and seventh graders through the Children Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (CRSQ), a children’s version of the RSQ. The children who have their primary caregiver respond to the questionnaire that measure his or her use of hostile and rejecting behavior toward the child and then a year later, the children have completed the CRSQ questionnaire again. It was found out that primary caregiver reports the harsh parenting predicts an increase of the child’s defensive expectation of rejection sensitivity. That support the relationship between exposure to parenting styles that communicate rejection and the increase of rejection sensitivity.
According to a research, repeated rejection and a child who have been neglect throughout his childhood cause a huge effect on the future life of the child and the early life of a children understanding and approach to future relationships may effect a lot. These early relationship with their caregivers form the internal working model which directs information encoded and interpreted and how an individual interact with their environment. When the caregiver is consistently and respond to the requirement and the need of the child in a positive way and supportive which develops a secure relationship between the caregiver and the child. Such child comes to start expectation and support from others. Those caregiver who respond their child in a negative way to rejection and neglect them than in result the child don’t feel secure and that insecurity lead to may problems.
These children become highly sensitivity and their interpersonal rejection often develop exaggerated and maladaptive. For example they might force and coerce other into meeting their need through aggressive acts and respond strongly to even the midst evidence of rejection. These kind of children become highly sensitive to interpersonal rejection and often develop exaggerated and maladaptive interpersonal strategies. In result these children may threaten to harm themselves and try to capture attention from others. Studies have confirmed that parental emotional neglect and exposure to family violence during childhood and in childhood increase of defensive expectations of rejection in adolescences.

1.3.1 Theoretical perspectives
According to Downey and Feldom (1996) RS (rejection sensitivity) model provides account of how anxious expectations of rejection lead to attribution biases and then to maladjustment through specific physiological, perceptual, behavioral and cognitive mechanisms. The main concentration of the model focus on the psychological defensive motivational approach.
1.3.2 Defensive Motivational Approach
Rejection sensitivity as a defensive motivational approach a physiologically based mechanism that is triggered in response to threat from the environment. Rejection sensitivity is conceptualized that the individuals who have the tendency to expect the rejection from others and behave overreact to possible rejection experiences in different environment. (Downey & Feldom, 1996).The empirically supported rejection sensitivity model states that experiences with rejection, from parents and peer that may inform the child and adolescents to readily expect and identify rejection in a situations where in rejection can be possible. The hypothesized to get activated specially in response to acceptance- rejection cues and to function to that may provide a rapid and actual response. According to conceptualization of rejection sensitivity in situation where rejection is a possibility e.g. meeting a potential dating partner, asking one friend to do a favor. People who are high in rejection sensitivity have undefined about whether they will be accepted or rejected. Those individual with high rejection sensitivity, when they are not given an alternative explanation for a negative interpersonal outcome (such as time constraints limiting a social interaction were more likely to construe outcome as personally motivated and intentionally rejecting (Downey & Feldom, 1996).
Chapter II
Literature Review
Following is the review of literature on differential parenting and rejection sensitivity in adolescence.
Feinberg, Neiderhiser, Simmens, Reiss and Hetherington (2000) conducted a research to investigate the Gender, self-esteem and emotionality as mediators of parenting adjustment association The study was conducted on a sample of two child families by examining whether gender, self-esteem and emotionally which have been found in previous research to moderate social comparison, also moderate siblings. Parenting toward one child being linked with opposite results on the child’s sibling as on the target child was found in a limited number of cases and interpreted as reflecting a sibling comparison process. Moreover, results was the older siblings increased sensitivity to parenting as well as the report of differential parenting reflecting the child’s level of comfort and compassionate understanding of differential parenting.
Sheehan and Noller (2002) conducted a research on adolescent twins attachment style mediates the association between their perceptions of differential parental treatment and their reported adjustment. The data was conducted by survey from adolescent twins are used to assess the links between twins reports of differential parental affection and differential parental control , their attachment style and their reported personal self-esteem, social self-esteem and anxiety. The result of the study was twin’s reports of having been disfavored in comparison with co twin were associated with attachment insecurity, anxiety and lower personal self-esteem and the conclusion was the strongest evidence for mediation was found for twins reports of differential maternal affection in predicting adolescent twin’s anxiety.
Varner and Mandara (2013) conducted a research on aims to examine an explanation for the achievement differences between African American males and females. The sample was African American adolescents from (Maryland Adolescent Development in Context Study) MADICS study. The result was girls were found to have much higher GPAs and test scores compared with boys. The conclusion was reported that girls receiving more monitoring, communication and rule enforcement, but less autonomy in decision making than later born boys. Mothers also reported higher expectations for girls than boys. A significant percent of the GPA and test score gap was accounted for by the parenting difference in both married and single mother ‘ headed households and reducing differential parenting could help narrow gender differences in achievement among African American adolescents.
Mcdonald, Bowker, Rubin, Laursen & Duchene (2009) conducted a research the supportive parent child relationships and friendships moderate relations that link angry and anxious rejection sensitivity to depression and social anxiety during middle adolescence in an culturally various sample of 277 youth. The results was angry rejection sensitivity was related to depressive symptoms, but only for adolescents reporting low support from parents and friends. The friends who support weakened the association between the angry rejection sensitivity and social anxiety and anxious rejection sensitivity and depressive symptoms. The adolescents report low support from friends, support from parents was positively related to social anxiety. The conclusion was the importance of considering relationships in studies of rejection sensitivity and adjustment during adolescence.
Brown, Meunier, Christophe and Jenkins (2012) conducted a research to investigate the relationship between parental personality and differential parenting .The result of the study was maternal and paternal agreeableness were inversely related to reports of differential positivity. Agreeableness predicted observed differential negativity, and the relationship was curvilinear (at both high and low levels of agreeableness, differential negativity was higher). Finally, mothers with the most openness to experience exhibited the highest levels of reported differential negativity. The conclusion was that parental personality is a modest yet important influence to consider when conceptualizing the sources of differential parenting.
According to Masten, Telze, Fulligni, Lieberman and Eisenberger (2012) investigated a research on the involvement with friends brings many benefits for adolescents, including the protection from the negative effects of being neglected by peers. As it been little known about the mechanisms concluded which friendships may serve their caring role at this age, or the potential benefit of these friendships as adolescents change to adulthood. The investigation was the friend involvement during adolescence related to less neural sensitivity to social threats during young adulthood. Twenty-one adolescents was selected and reported the amount of time they spent with friends outside of school using a daily diary. After two years later they, during which they were apparently omitted from an online ball-tossing game by two same age. That results shows that from area of interest and whole brain analyses revealed that spending more time with friends during adolescence related to less activity in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and anterior insula regions before linked with negative affect and pain processing during an experience of peer rejection after two years later. The conclusion was consistent with the notion that positive relationships during adolescence may relate to individuals being less sensitive to negative social experiences.
Rauer and Brendal (2007) conducted a research to investigate from a survey of assessed whether the early non shared environment, specifically parental differential treatment, was associated with romantic relationship distress through its effects on sibling jealousy, attachment styles, and self-esteem. The results highlighted that the individuals who received equal affection from their parents in comparison to their sibling reported equal jealousy between themselves and their sibling, had higher self-esteem, more secure attachment styles, and less romantic relationship distress. Moreover, receiving differential parental affection, regardless of whether the participant or their sibling was favored, was associated with more negative models of self and others, which in turn were associated with greater romantic relationship distress. Furthermore within-family experiences may be particularly relevant for later healthy romantic relationship functioning.
Man, Wong and Patrick (2003) conducted a research to investigate the relationship between perceived parental favoritism in terms of affection and control, and suicidal ideation in Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. The participant were Chinese adolescents from Hong Kong .The results showed that adolescents who believed that children in their families were treated differently in terms of affection and control by their mothers and fathers reported greater suicidal ideation, however , whether they personally were the favored or nonfavored children made no difference. Moreover, results identified perceived differential maternal affection as the best predictor of suicidal ideation.
Goraya and Sabah (2013) conducted a research on the aim of this research was to investigate the relationship between parenting, children’s social information processing, and their behavioral problems. It was hypothesized that negative parenting will positively predict children’s behavioral problems, positive parenting will negatively predict children’s behavioral problems, and finally children’s hostile social information processing will positively predict their behavioral problems over and above parenting. The results of the study provided support for the hypotheses.
Downey, Lebolt, Rincon and Freitas (2008) conducted a research to investigate children respond to social rejection in ways to that undermine their relationships, where as other respond with more calmness. The data were taken from urban, fifth to seventh graders. The conclusion of the first study describe the development of a measure of rejection sensitivity for children. Second study finding provides experimental evidence that children who angrily expected rejection showed heightened distress following an ambiguously intentioned rejection by a peer. Third study finding showed that rejection sensitive children behaved more aggressively and experienced increased interpersonal difficulties and declines in academic functioning over time.
Jabeen and Haque (2013) examined the role of maternal and paternal parenting styles on the prediction of emotional regulation among adolescents. The Sample was consisted of adolescents belonging to 7th, 8th, and 9th classes. The results indicated that maternal authoritative parenting style had significant positive effect on emotion regulation. Maternal permissive parenting style had significant negative effect on emotion regulation. Similarly authoritative paternal parenting style had significant positive effect on emotional regulation whereas paternal permissive parenting style had significant negative effect on emotion regulation. The conclusion was maternal and paternal authoritarian parenting style were non-significant.
Mclachlan, Anne, Gembeck, Gregor and Marie (2010) conducted to examine how relationship experience are directly and interactively associated with their rejection sensitivity. The results revealed that here was an association of rejection by parents and by peers with rejection sensitivity with a stronger association between peer rejection and sensitivity than between parent rejection and sensitivity. Moreover, regarding interactive effects, peer rejection was found to have a strong association with rejection sensitivity among participants with low or high parent acceptance, and among those with high friendship satisfaction. There was evidence of a stronger association between peer rejection and rejection sensitivity among those with low parent acceptance or high friendship quality. This was because rejection sensitivity was highest when peer rejection was high and parent acceptance was low, and sensitivity was lowest when peer rejection was low and friendship quality was high.
Dwairy (2011) conducted a research on perceived family and school rejection and adolescents their association with the psychological states experienced by them. A sample 10th grade students. The results show that all perceived acceptance-rejection circuits are associated with and merged in three major factors of rejection: family, teachers, and classmates. All the factors were associated with psychological states experienced by the adolescents with a cross-gender effect. Experienced psychological states of male adolescents were associated with perceived acceptance-rejection circuits at home and at school, in particular when related to female figures, while psychological states of female adolescents were associated with male and female figures at home.
Kowal and Kramer (2006) conducted a research on perceptions of parental differential treatment and sibling’s relationship quality. Sixty-one children were selected and their aged 11 to 13 years, and their siblings were interviewed separately about parental differential treatment. The children did not perceive parental differential treatment in two-thirds of the instances they reported about, and 75 percent of the children who have acknowledged about differential treatment was occurring in their homes did not find this to be unfair. The children identifying ways of differential parental behaviors and their sibling differ from one another, that is, in terms of differences in their age, personal attributes, needs, relationship with parents, or strategic behaviors. The children who supposed their parents’ differential behavior to be justified generally experienced more positive appraisals about their sibling relationship. The results shows that reinforce the importance of examining how the children construct their experiences in their families.
Kimberly (2011) investigated a research on the experiences of differential parenting in sister relationship. The purpose of the study was to understand the parental favoritism by conducting a qualitative research and to know the experiences of individual who felt less favored by their parents relative to their siblings and examined about what are the characterized are experiences to them. The semi structure interview was conducted from 10 participants who felt less favored sibling in a sister relationship. The unfair differeneces treatment impact in an individual core was self-esteem, and their experiences can lead to feelings of isolation and alienation. The results shows that differential parenting experiences hurts a lot and still maintain a strong desire to improve familial relationships and forgive past misdeeds. The differential parenting is not just present in childhood but had a impacts to individual throughout the duration of their life.
According to Trentacosta and Shaw (2009) conducted a research to examine the relationship with emotional self-regulation, peer rejection, and antisocial behavior. The sample was 122 boys from low-income families who has been participated in a summer camp and it was a longitudinally study from early childhood to early adolescence. The emotional self-regulation strategies were noted in early childhood from a waiting task, measures of peer rejection were collected from the middle childhood at the summer camp, and reports of antisocial behavior were obtained during early adolescence. The structural equivalence modeling was applied to examine longitudinal relations among these concepts, with results supportive a negative association between use of active interruption and peer rejection and their positive association between peer rejection and antisocial behavior. Furthermore, it was secondary effect of active interruption on antisocial behavior was found through peer rejection. The adaptive self-regulation strategy use in early childhood established direct longitudinal relations with peer rejection and an indirect association with antisocial behavior in early adolescence. The results shows that the early anticipation and intervention efforts to foster adaptive self-regulation of emotion and reduce risk for later social problems and misbehavior.
Hale, Valk, Engels and Meeus (2005) investigated a research on association of perceived parental rejection with adolescent depression and aggression on dutch junior high and high. The result should that perceived parental rejection, mediated through adolescent depression, explain aggressive behavior of adolescent was tested by mediation model. These effect were also somewhat dependent on the gender and the age of the adolescence. The conclusion of the study was perceived parental rejection should receive the same attention in the research of the development of both adolescent depression and aggression has been the case for adolescent peer rejection.
Kausar and Kazmi (2011) conducted a research relationship between parental acceptance rejection and self-efficacy of pakistani adolescents. Sample was recruited from different public sector schools of Lahore, Pakistan. The finding of this research was majority of the adolescents rated their parents as warm and less rejecting. Significant positive relationship between mother and father’s warmth and general self-efficacy of adolescents was found. There was significant negative relationship of mother and father’s hostility, neglect and undifferentiated rejection with self-efficacy of adolescents. Other findings revealed no gender differences in perceived mother warmth, hostility, indifference, undifferentiated rejection and self-efficacy. The conclusion was the fathers were perceived as significantly more rejecting by sons as compared to daughters.
Arzeen, Riaz and Hassan (2012) explored the differences between emotionally empathic and non-empathic adolescents’perception of parental acceptance and rejection. All the participants were taken from private, government and semi-government schools of Wah Cantt. The results indicated that emotionally empathic adolescents significantly differed from non-empathic adolescents .Other than that non-empathic adolescents perceived their fathers more neglecting as compared to their mothers.
Khurshid, Butt and Hafeez (2012) conducted a research in three dimensions of acceptance and rejection including parental, siblings and peer group. The study was carious out of the university students with the demographic variables including gender, age, birth order, and family income level on determining the level of acceptance and rejection. The results were male students experience higher parental and siblings rejection than females. Students from higher income families experience higher rejection compared to students from low income families. The conclusion differential demographic variables contribute significantly in determining the perceived level of acceptance and rejection.
Naz and Kausar (2013) investigated examine parental rejection effect on personality maladjustment and depressive symptoms in female adolescents in Pakistan. Results revealed that parental rejection had significant positive correlation with personality maladjustment and depressive symptoms. Significant positive relationship was found between parental rejection, personality maladjustment and depressive symptoms in adolescents. Personality Maladjustment and parental rejection emerged as significant predictors of depressive symptoms in adolescents.
Qureshi (20013) examined the relationship of Parental Acceptance and Rejection with Self-Esteem in adolescents. Moreover, the parental acceptance will absolutely, and rejection will negatively disturb the child self-esteem. The age of participants ranged from 14 to 17 years with minimum 10 years of education. The results showed positive correlation between parental acceptance-rejection and confidence. The parentally acceptances the adolescents had positive self-esteem and parental rejection found to be associated with negative self-esteem
Malik (2010) investigated a research on child abuse and neglect in relation to parental patterns of acceptance rejection towards their children and the influence of demographic variables in Pakistani social cultural context. Parental acceptance rejection questionnaire for father and mother and child abuse scale were used for assessment. The study was carried out with a randomly selected sample of children age from five cities of punjab. The results indicated that in comparison to mildly abused children, severely abused children perceived their parents more rejecting. The results shows that mother’s education and family size are significant determinate of child abuse as compare to the social economic status and father’s education which are non-significant.
In the conclusion, above indicated differential parenting in adolescents results in heightened distress (Schechter, Berde & Yaster, 2003) hatred (Wise , 2000) and those adolescents behaved more aggressively (Mclachan, et al & 2010) and experienced increased interpersonal difficulties (Dwairy , 2011) and decline in academic functioning over time. Other researches revealed that children in families were treated differentially in term of affection and control by mother and father reported greater in suicidal ideation. Mostly the child who have rejection experience have less self-esteem (Plummer, 2014), depressive (Downey & Feldom (1996), social withdrawal (Rotenberg & Hymel, 1999) and physical disturbance (Jabeen & Haque, 2013).

2.2 Rationale of the study
Differential parenting in children usually create differences in sibling relationship. There always a one child who receive rejection from family. The rejection from the family is expected as well as from outside like peers, relatives etc. Child usually avoid to share his feelings with anyone. They may have interpersonal difficulties to cope their problems. Many of them attempt suicide or use drugs. Especially in our population parents show favoritism. The child had a complex of inferiority from his siblings. We should guide our parents to treat every child equally, make a friendly relationship with them. So, that child would stop feeling neglected and have an interaction with their family members and others, participate in different activities without any hesitation. However, the association between differential parenting and rejection sensitivity is not studied. This study will fill the gap in adolescent’s literature on the effects of differential parenting.
2.3 Objective of the study
‘ To find out the relationship between differential parenting and rejection sensitivity in adolescence.
2.4 Hypotheses
‘ Differential parenting will likely to predict rejection sensitivity in adolescence.
‘ There will be gender differences on differential parenting and rejection sensitivity in adolescences.

Chapter III
Method
3.1 Research Design
Co-relational research design were used to find out relationship between differential parenting and rejection sensitivity in adolescence.
3.2 Sample
The sample was consisted of (N = 200) adolescence with (n = 95, 46.1%) males and (n=105, 51.0%) females within the age range of 12-16 years Purposive sampling technique was used for the selection of classes from private sector schools. The criteria selection of adolescence students was based on predefined inclusion criteria and the data of those students who were giving incomplete information or having single parent were excluded from the analysis and those questionnaire were also excluded either due to incomplete. A total of 219 questionnaires were distributed out of which 200 were selected for the study.
3.2.1Inclusion Criteria
‘ Adolescence living with their parents was included.
‘ Adolescence selected from classes (8, 25.7%), (9, 25.7%) to (10, 45.6%).
3.2.2 Exclusion Criteria
‘ Adolescence who had any physical and mental disabilities.
‘ Adolescence living with single parents with the guardian and without parents.

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Sample (N = 200)
Characteristics f % M (SD)
Age (12-16) – – 14.2050 1.10866
Gender
Male 95 46.1 – –
Female 105 51.0 – –
Family system
Nuclear 130 63.1 – –
Joint 67 32.1 – –
Class
8 53 25.7 – –
9 53 25.7 – –
10 94 45.6 – –
Performances in class
Above average 44 21.4 – –
Average 154 74.8 – –
Below average 2 1.0
Number of best friends 12 5.8 – –
Number of siblings 4 1.9 – –
Birth order 3 1.5 – –
Guardian
Mother 6 2.9
Father 1 .5 – –
Both 195 94.7 – –
Other
Any physical/ mental disability
Yes 1 .5 – –
No 195 94.7 – –

3.3 Assessment Protocol
In the present research following tools were used
‘ Sibling Inventory for Differential Experience (SIDE).
‘ Adolescence Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire ( ARSQ)
‘ Demographic Information Questionnaire.
3.3.1 Sibling Inventory of Differential Experience
Differential Parenting was assessed by using differential parenting treatment subscale of Sibling Inventory of differential experience developed by Daniels and Plomin, (1985). According to Daniels and Plomin (1985) differential parenting refers as any environmental experience that differs for children growing up in the same family or being treated differently by parents and one’s own siblings. The Differential parenting treatment includes nine items on differential parental treatment, answered separately for mothers and fathers, which assess two main factors: affection and control. For each of these participant of two dimensions, siblings could report that they are treated equally, a bit differently, or very differently on a 5-point Likert scale, with lower scores (Daniels & Plomin, 1985). Cronbach alfa = .77 and the reliability of the scale used in the current study were .71.
3.3.2 Children Rejection Sensitivity Scale
Rejection sensitivity was be assessed by Children Rejection Sensitivity scale developed by (Downey & Feldom, 1996). According to Downey and Feldom (1996) refers rejection sensitivity has been defined as the dispositional tendency to defensively expect, perceive and overreact to reject. It was used to measure anxious and angry expectation of rejection. The Children rejection scale questionnaire which consists of 5 domains involving peers and teachers. The each domain, which the child will respond to three questions their affect and rejection expectation. The first two question were assessed the anxious and angry response by asking how nervous and how mad you are if feel the situation. Responses to the items ranged 1 (not at all) to 5 (yes/ extremely) the third question, child reported the likelihood of an accepting versus a rejection response. Scoring of the Children rejection sensitivity the scores of each domain are calculated by reversing the response to the expectation item before multiplying this response by children response regarding anxiety and anger. Response are then summed both the vignettes of anxiety and anger. Finally, scores across the five vignettes are averaged to provide a total rejection sensitivity score. Higher scores indicated higher rejection sensitivity Cronbach alfa = .83 and the reliability of the scale in current study was .80.
3.4 Demographic Information Questionnaire.
The demographic information questionnaire includes questions about age, gender,
education, number of siblings, family system, father/Guardian, class performances, any physically/ mental disability and number of best friends.
3.5 Procedure
First of all the study the researcher selected the topic with the help of supervisor then the researcher obtained authority letter from the Department of Applied Psychology, University of the Punjab .The Letter approved the researcher’s identity and the topic of the research was issued from the department. The tools which were used in the research was Siblings Inventory of Differential Experiences (SIDE) and Children Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (CRSQ) was given by the permission from the author. According to the characteristics of the sample, sampling strategy and the research design were selected .The researcher visit different schools and after few schools were selected. The authority letter were sign by their principles to conduct the research after that researcher give the instruction and information about the research and informing about the ethical consideration which their can withdraw any time. After that questionnaire were distributed among the participants. The participants were cooperating and excited after receiving the questionnaire back, the researcher were thanked for being cooperative and develop the trust that confidentiality of the data will maintained. Then researcher interprets the assessment measure and concluded the result about differential parenting and rejection sensitivity. At the end study, the researcher concluded their finding and give implication and limitation about the research.
3.6 Ethical Considerations
Ethical principles of scientific publication are designed to ensure the integrity of scientific knowledge and to protect the intellectual property rights of others.
‘ No pressure on students was be imposed to participate or to fill the questionnaire.
‘ Anonymity and confidentiality was be maintained for the participants.
‘ Individual autonomy was respected in the study i.e. after signing the consent form if someone wanted to withdraw from it. They were facilitated and provided with the surety that their data is being removed.

Chapter IV
Results
The current research was aimed to investigate the relationship between differential parenting and rejection sensitivity in adolescences. The total sample of 200 respondents were taken. The analysis involved in the following steps performing: (i) reliability analysis for all the scales, (ii) descriptive analysis for all the demographic variables (ii) Product Moment Person Correlation was conducted to find out the relationship between differential parenting and rejection sensitivity (iii) Hierarchical regression analysis were carryout for the effects of demographic variables of differential parenting and rejection sensitivity in adolescences (iv) Independent sample t test was carried out to find differences in gender of differential parenting and rejection sensitivity in adolescence.
4.1 Reliability Analysis
The reliability analysis was carried out for differential parenting and rejection sensitivity scale using Cornbach Alpha. The reliability values of the scales were enough to carry out further analysis according to the hypotheses of the present study, the value were reported in table 4.1 below.

Table 4.2
Mean, Standard Deviation and Reliability Coefficients for the Study Variables (N = 200)
Variable k M SD Range of scores Cronbach’s ??
Mini Maxi
Differential parenting
Maternal affection 06 3.05 .61 1.40 5.40 .56
Maternal control 06 3.05 .63 1.00 5.25 .53
Paternal affection 06 3.13 .53 1.20 4.60 .61
Paternal control
06 3.09 .60 1.50 5.25 .61
Rejection Sensitivity
Anxious expectation
06 30.69 9.43 11.99 55.00 .75
Angry expectation 06 33.06 8.70 12.00 56.00 .79

4.3 Main Analysis
It was hypothesized that there is likely to be a positive relationship between differential parenting and rejection sensitivity. Pearson Product Moment Correlation was used to test this relationship that are given below in table 4.4.

Results of Pearson product moment correlation analysis revealed differential parenting was positively correlated with the differential parenting. The results shows indicate that age has significant correlated with class, paternal affection and angry expectation. The gender has significant correlation with family system, class, physical/ maternal, maternal affection, anxious expectation and angry expectation. The gender has negative correlation with maternal affection.. Family system has significant correlation with class, anxious expectations and angry expectations. There is a negative correlation with angry expectations. The class has significant correlation with class performances. Class performances has positively correlation with number of best friends and number of siblings. Number of best friends has negative correlation with number of siblings. Number of siblings was significant correlation with birth order and guardian. Birth order was correlated with guardian and angry expectation. Guardian has significant correlation with physical/ mental disability. No relationship was found on physical/mental disability. Maternal affection has significant correlation with maternal control, paternal affection, paternal control, anxious expectation and angry expectation. Paternal affection has significant correlation with paternal control and anxious expectation. Paternal control has significant correlation with anxious expectation. Anxious expectation has significant correlation with angry expectation. No significant correlation was found in angry expectation. Overall the results indicate there is a significant correlation with age, gender, birth order, class, class performance, guardian, maternal affection, maternal control, paternal affection, paternal control, anxious expectation and angry expectation. And negative correlation with maternal affection, no of siblings, anxious expectation and angry expectations. The correlation is significant with all variables.
It was hypothesized that differential parenting is likely to significant predict controlling effects of demographic variables in rejection sensitivity. Hierarchical Regression Analysis was used to test this hypothesis. Results are given below.
Table 4.5
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Anxious Expectation (N =200)
RS (Anxious Expectation)
Predictor ‘R2 ??
Step 1 .17 –
Age – .12
/Gender – -.33* ‘|
Family System – -.08
Birth Order – -.08

Step 2 .02
Mother –
Maternal Affection – .13
Maternal Control -.00
Step 3 .01
Father
Paternal Affection – .07
Paternal Control – .06
Total R2 .01 –
Note.*p<.01 Results revealed overall model explained 1% variance in anxious expectation with F ( 8,191,199) =6.511, p= .000 was significant .When demographic variables i.e., age, gender, family system and birth order were added in the block 1, the model explained 17 % variance in anxious expectation with F = ( 4,195) = 10.39,p =000 was significant. When maternal affection and maternal control were added in Block 2, the model explained 2% variance in anxious expectation with F = (2,193) =, p =.032 was non-significant. When paternal affection and paternal control were added, the model explained 1% variance in anxious expectation with F = (2,191) =.010, p=.312 was non-significant. The results predict that demographics of independent differential parenting is a significant predictor of anxious expectation. Table 4.6 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Rejection Sensitivity with Angry Expectation (N =200) RS (Angry Expectation) Predictor 'R2 ?? Step 1 .09 - Age - .11 Gender - -.13 Family System - -.11 Birth Order - -.17 Step 2 .02 Mother Maternal Affection - .10 Maternal Control .02 Step 3 .004 Father Paternal Affection .06 Paternal Control .01 Total R2 .004 - Note.*p<.01 Results revealed overall model explained 0% variance in angry expectation with F (8,191,199) =3.212, p=.002 was significant. When demographic variables i.e., age, gender, family system and birth order were added in the block 1, the model explained 9 % variance in angry expectation with F = (4,195) =5.130 ,p =.001 was significant. When maternal affection and maternal control were added in Block 2, the model explained 2% variance in anxious expectation with F = (2,193) =, 2.158 p =.118. was non-significant. When paternal affection and paternal control were added, the model explained 0% variance in angry expectation with F = (2,191) =.387, p =.680 was non-significant. The results predicts demographics of independent differential parenting is a significant predictor of angry expectation. Table 4.7 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Rejection Sensitivity (N =200) RS (Angry Expectation) Predictor 'R2 ?? Step 1 .14 - Age - .12 Gender - -25* Family System - -.10 Birth Order - -.13 Step 2 .02 Mother - Maternal Affection - .13 Maternal Control .00 Step 3 .00 Father Paternal Affection - .07 Paternal Control - .04 Total R2 .00. - Note.*p<.01 Results revealed overall model explained 0 % variance in rejection sensitivity with F (8,191,199) =5.237, p=000 was significant. When demographic variables i.e., age, gender, family system and birth order were added in the block 1, the model explained 2% variance in rejection sensitivity with F = (4,195) = 8.282 ,p =.000 was significant. When maternal affection and maternal control were added in Block 2, the model explained 2% variance in anxious expectation with F = (2,193) =0.28, p =.042 was non-significant. When paternal affection and paternal control were added, the model explained 0% variance in anxious expectation with F = (2, 191,) =.821, p =.442 was non- significant. It was hypothesized that there is a gender differences in differential parenting and rejection sensitivity in adolescence. Independent sample t-test was carried out to check the gender differences. Table 4.8 Independent Sample t- Test Showing Gender Differences in Differential Parenting and Rejection Sensitivity among Adolescence (N =200) Boys (n=95) Girls (n=105) Interval 95%CI Variable M SD M SD t (df) p LL UL Cohn d MA 3.16 .67 2.95 .54 2.37 .01 .03 .38 0.33 MC 3.13 .72 2.98 .53 1.71 .08 -02 .33 0.24 PA 3.19 .55 3.07 .50 1.55 .12 -.03 .26 0.22 PC 3.20 .71 2.99 .47 2.51 .01 .04 .38 1.16 AE 96.61 36.73 66.33 37.18 -.67 .00 -3.19 1.56 0.81 ARE 92.60 31.74 78.39 36.29 4.80 .00 3.53 8.45 0.41 Note = MA = Maternal affection, MC = Maternal Control, PA = Paternal Affection, PC = Paternal control, AE = Anxiety expectations, ARE, Angry Expectation, df = 198 , *p <.05, **p <.01 The above table results revealed that maternal affection has significant gender differences in differential parenting and rejection sensitivity in adolescences. The maternal control has non-significant gender differences. Paternal affection has non-significant in gender differences. Paternal control has significant differences in gender. Anxious expectation has significant gender differences. Angry expectations has significant differences in gender. Over all the results revealed that there is a statistically significant difference in gender of differential parenting and rejection sensitivity .As finding indicated that boys tend to have more rejection sensitivity as compared to girls. 4.3 Summary of the Findings ' Cronbach's alpha reliability of the scales differential parenting over all (7.1) subscales are maternal affection (.56), maternal control (.53), paternal affection (.61) and paternal control (.61), rejection sensitivity over all (.80) subscales anxious expectation (.75) and angry expectation (.79). ' The finding show that there is a significant positive correlation between differential parenting and rejection sensitivity. ' There was also a significant correlation with age, gender, birth order, class, class performance, guardian, maternal affection, maternal control, paternal affection, paternal control, anxious expectation and angry expectation. And negative correlation with maternal affection, no of siblings, anxious expectation and angry expectations. The adolescent who feel rejected from parents perceive less rejection sensitivity especially from their father. ' There was a significant impact of maternal affection, maternal control, paternal affection and paternal control on anxious expectation. ' There was a significant impact of maternal affection, maternal control, paternal affection and paternal control on angry expectation ' There was a significant impact of maternal affection, maternal control, paternal affection and paternal control on rejection sensitivity. ' There was significant differences found in the gender of differential parenting and rejection sensitivity in adolescences. It also shows that boys tend to have more rejection sensitivity as compared to girls. Chapter V Discussion References Adler, A. (1956). The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler. (2nd ed). New York: Harper Torchbooks. Akers, R. L. & C. S. Sellers. (2004). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (4th ed). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing. Arzeen, S., Riaz, M. N., & Hassan, B. (2012). Perception of parental acceptance and rejection in emotionally empathic and non empathic adolescents. Pakistan Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10 (2), 60-60. Ayduk, O., Mendoza-Denton, R., Mischel, W., Downey, G., Peake, P. K., & Rodriguez, M. (2000).Regulating the interpersonal self: Strategic self-regulation for coping with rejection sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 5, 776'792. Baumrind, D. (1980). New directions in socialization research. Psychological Bulletin, 5(35), 639-652. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books Brown, D.T., Meunier, Christophe, J., & Jenkins, T.G. (2012). The role of parental personality traits in differential parenting. American Psychological Association, 26 (4): 542-553. Browne., Dillon , T., Christophe , J., Connor, O ., Thomas , G ., Jenkins., & Jennifer, M. (2012). The role of parental personality traits in differential parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 543-553. Brownnell, C. A., & Kopp, C. B. (2011). Socioemotional development in the toddler years: Transitions and transformations. New Your: Guildford Press. Cardak, M., Sricam, H., & Onur, M. (2012). Perceived parenting styles and rejection sensitivity in university student. The online journal of counselling and education.3 (1).160-172. Cervantes, C. A., & Callanan, M. A. (1998). Labels and explanations in mother-child emotion talk: Age and gender differentiation. Developmental Psychology, 34(1), 88-98. Crouter, A. C., Manke, B., & McHale, S. M. (1995). The family context of gender intensification in early adolescence. Child Development, 66(2), 317'329. Danforth J. S., Barkley, R. A., & Stokes, T. F. (1991). Observations of parent-child interactions with hyperactive children: Research and clinical implications. Clinical Psychology Review. 11(6), 703'727. Downey, G., & Feldman, S.I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1327'1343. Downey, G., Lebolt, A., Rincon, C., & Freitas, A.L. (2008). Rejection sensitivity and children interpersonal difficulties. Child Development, 69(4), 1074-1091. Dunn, J., Bretherton, L., & Munn, P. (1987). Conversations about feeling states between mothers and their young children. Developmental Psychology, 23(1), 132-139. Dwairy, M. (2011). Perceived family and school rejection and adolescents psychological states. Social Science & Humanities, 2 (6), 535-541. Feinberg, M. E., Neiderhiser, Simmens, S., Reiss, D., & Hetherington, M.E. (2000). Sibling comparison of differential parental treatment in adolescence: Gender, self-esteem and emotionality as mediators of the parenting adjustment association. Child Development, 71 (6), 1611- 1628. Feinberg., Mark., Hetherington., & Mavis, E. (2001). Differential parenting as a within family variable. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(1), 22-37. Goraya, F., & Sabah, S.S. (2013). Parenting, children's behavioral problems and the social information processing among children. National Institution of Psychology, 28 (1).107- 124. Hale, W.W., Valk, I.V. D., Engels, R., & Meeus, W. (2004). Does perceived parental rejection make adolescent sad and mad? The association of perceived parental rejection with adolescent depression and aggression. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36 (6), 466'474. Hart, R., & Rollins, J. (2011). Therapeutic activities for children and teens coping with health issues. Canada: John Wiley & Sons. Jabeen, F., & Haque, A. M. (2013). Parenting styles as predictors of emotion regulation among adolescents. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 28 (1), 85-105. Jenkins, J. M., Rasbash, J., & Conner, T. G. (2003). The role of the shared family context in differential parenting. National Institutes of Health, 39 (1), 99-113. Juffer, F., Marian., & Kranenburg, B. (2012).Promoting positive parenting: An attachment based Intervention. Taylor & Francis group. USA: Yale University Press. Kausar, R., & Kazmi, S. R. (2011). Perceived parental acceptance rejection and self-efficacy of pakistani adolescents. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 37 (2), 224-232. Khurshid, F., Butt, Z., & Hafeez, A. (2012). University student's perception of acceptance and rejection. Global Journal of Human Social Science, 12 (6), 2249- 460. Kimberly, B. A. (2011).The experience of differential parenting in sister relationships. Individual & Family Studies, 11 (73), 164-165. Knight, G. P., Guthrie, I. K., Page, M. C., & Fabes, RA. (2012).Emotional arousal and gender differences in aggression: A meta-analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 28(5), 366'393. Kourkoutas, E., & Erkman, F. (2011). Interpersonal acceptance and rejection: Social, emotional and education contexts. USA: Universal-Publishers. Kowal, A., & Kramer, L. (1997). Children's understanding of parenting differential treatment. Child Development, 68(1), 113-126. Leary, M. R., & Hoyle, R. H. (2013). Handbook of individual differences in social behavior. USA. Guilford Publications. Lemonda, C. S., Briggs, R. D., & Mcclowry, S. G. (2009). Maternal control and sensitivity, child gender and maternal education in relation to children's behavioral outcomes in african american families, HHS Public Access, 30(3), 321-331. Lerner, R. M & Steinberg, L. (2009). Handbook of adolescent psychology, contextual influence on adolescent development. (3rd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Levine, L. E., & Munsch, J. (2010). Child development: An active learning approach. Canada: Sage. Luster, T., & Okagaki, L. (2006). Parenting: An ecological perspective. (2nd ed). UK: Routledge. Lynn, N. W., Mofrad, S., & Uba, L. (2014). Effect of birth order on the differential parental treatment of children. Canadian Center of Science and Education, 10 (14), 142-152. Malik, F. (2010). Determinants of child abuse in Pakistani families: Parental acceptance rejection and demographic variables. International Journal of Business and Social science, 1 (1), 221-342. Man, A.D., Wong, I., & Patrick, L. (2003). Perceived parental favoritism and suicidal ideation in Hong Kong adolescents. Social behavior and personality. 31 (3), Masten, C. L., Andrew, T. J., Matthew, D. L., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2012). Time spent with friends in adolesences relates to less neural sensitivity to later peer rejection. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(1), 106-114. Mc donald, K. L., Bowker, J.C., & Duchene, M. S. (2010). Interaction between rejection sensitivity and supportive relationship in the prediction of adolescents internalizing difficulties. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 39 (5), 583 ' 574. McClowry, S. G. (2003). Your child's unique temperament: Insights and strategies for development. Uk. : John, Wiley & Sons. Mcdonald, K. L., Bowker, J. C., Rubin, R. H., Laursen, B. (2009). Interactions between rejection sensitivity and supportive relationships in the prediction of adolescent's internalizing difficult. Youth adolescence, 39, 563-574. Mclanchlan, Anne, J., Gembeck, Z., Mcgregor., & Marie, L. (2010). Rejection sensitivity in childhood and early adolescence: Peer rejection and protective effects of parents and friends. Behavioral basis of health, 1(1), 31-40. Miller, & Dollard, J. (1941). Social Learning and Imitation. New Haven : John Wiley & Sons. Mitchell, P., & Ziegler, F. (2013). Fundamentals of developmental psychology. (2nded).UK. Psychology Press. Naz, F., & Kausar, R. (2013). Parental rejection, personality maladjustment and depressive symptoms in female adolescents in pakistan. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 14 (1), 56-65. Plummer, D. (2014).Helping adolescents and adults to build self-esteem.UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Qureshi, S. S. (2013). Parental acceptance and rejection in relation with self-esteem in adolescents. Journal of Contemporary research in business, 4 (11), 42-74. Rauer, A.J., & Brendal, V. (2007). Differential parenting and sibling jealousy developmental correlates of young adults romantic relationships. John Wiley & Sons, 14 (11), 495-511. Rohner, R. P. (1986). The warmth dimension: Foundation of parental acceptance- rejection theory. Newbury Park, CA: Saga Publications, Inc. Rotenberg, K. J., & Hymel, S. (1999). Loneliness in childhood and adolescence. USA: Cambridge University Press. Rutter, M. S., Bishop, D. Pine, D., Scott, S., Stevenson, J. S., Anita, T., & Thapar, A. (2011). Rutter's child and adolescent psychiatry. USA: John Wiley & Sons. Sandstrom, M.J., Cillessen, A.H.N., & Eisenhower, A. (2003). Children's appraisal of peer rejection experiences: Impact on social and emotional adjustment. Social Development, 12, 530'550. Saqiq, H., Munaf., & Seema. (2012). Gender differences in perceived childhood father rejection and psychological adjustment in adulthood. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 22(1), 100-114 Schechter, N. L., Berde, C. B., & Yaster, M. (2003). Pain in infacts, children and adolescents. (2nd ed). Maryland: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Scholte, R. H. J., Engels, R. C. M., Kemp, R. A. T., Harakeh, Z., & Overbeek , G. (2007). Differential parental treatment, sibling relationships and delinquency in adolescence. J Youth Adolescence, 36 (22), 661-671. Sheehan, G & Noller, P. (2012). Adolescent's perceptions of differential parenting links with attachment style and adolescent adjustment. Personal Relationships, 9(56), 173-190. Sperry, M. D. (2008). Rejection sensitivity and hostile attribution bias in maltreated children. United States: John Wiley & Sons. Stoneman, Z. (2001). Supporting positive sibling's relationships during childhood. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 7 (16), 134-142. Thies, K. M., & Travers, J. F. (2011).Human growth and development through the life span. (2nd ed).USA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Trentacosta , C. J., & Shaw, D. S. (2009). Emotional self-regulation, peer rejection, and antisocial behaviour: Developmental association from early childhood to early adolesences, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 356-365. Vangelistic, A. L. (2012). The routledge handbook of family communication. (2nd ed). UK: Routledge. Varner, F., & Mandara, J. (2013). Differential parenting of African America adolescents as an explanation for gender disparities in achievement. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24 (4), 667-680. Wang, J., Mcdonald, K L., Rubin, K. H., & Lauren, B. (2012). Peer rejection as a social antecedent to rejection sensitivity in youth: The role of relational valuation. Personality and Individual difference, 53 (7) ,939-942. William, K. D., Fogas, J. P., & Hippel, W. V. (2013). The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection and bullying. New York: Psychology press. Wise, S., & Silva, L. D. (2007). Differential parenting of children from diverse cultural backgrounds attending child care. (3rd ed). Austeria : Australian Institute of Family Studies. Yahav, R. (2006). The relationship between children's and adolescents' perceptions of interpersonal difficulties. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24 (15), 667-680.