PARENTING: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

October–December 2006 Volume 6 Number 4 Pages 321–342

Meta-Parenting: An Initial
Investigation into a New Parental
Social Cognition Construct
Carol Kozak Hawk and George W. Holden

SYNOPSIS

Objective. This article introduces the construct of meta-parenting, provides pre-

liminary reliability information for a new instrument designed to measure the
construct, and presents results from an initial empirical investigation. Design.
One hundred and sixteen U.S. mothers participated. Maternal, child, and con-
textual characteristics were investigated as likely predictors of meta-parenting.
In addition, meta-parenting was examined as a predictor of 3 parenting behav-
iors. Results. Five factors were extracted from the Meta-Parenting Profile Ques-
tionnaire with adequate internal consistency and test – retest reliability.
Mothers reported that meta-parenting is a frequent occurrence in their daily
lives. Mothers of younger children reported more assessing and anticipating
and had higher total meta-parenting scores. Mothers of fewer children reported
engaging in more problem solving. Mothers of boys anticipated more than
mothers of girls. Higher levels of life stress were associated with more reflec-
tion. Mothers who engaged in more problem solving reported lower levels of
overreactivity and laxness, but mothers who reported higher levels of reflecting
were also high on overreactivity. Conclusions. Mothers commonly engage in
multiple components of meta-parenting that are influenced by maternal, child,
and contextual factors and are related to reported childrearing behaviors.

INTRODUCTION

The centrality of parental social cognitions to childrearing behavior and

parent – child relationships has been recognized for more than 70 years
(Stogdill, 1934). Discrete elements of parental thought have been com-
monly studied under such labels as attributions (Bugental & Happaney,
2002), attitudes and values (Holden & Buck, 2002), beliefs (Sigel & McGil-
licuddy-DeLisi, 2002), and expectations and knowledge (Goodnow, 2002).
These parental social cognitions serve multiple purposes: filtering experi-
ences, influencing interpretation of behaviors, setting the stage for actions,
and prompting change in behavior.
322 HAWK AND HOLDEN

An important distinction made in social cognition is whether thoughts

are automatic, operating with little awareness, or effortful and event-de-
pendent (e.g., Bargh & Chartrand, 1999; Bugental & Johnston, 2000). To
date, much of the attention devoted to parental social cognition has been
directed at the more implicit and schematic processes that operate with
little or no parental awareness (e.g., Bugental & Goodnow, 1998;
Papoušek & Papoušek, 2002). Investigations into the more deliberate
effortful parental cognitions that operate at higher levels of awareness
have focused on attributions (e.g., Bugental & Happaney, 2002) and goals
(e.g., Dix & Branca, 2003; Hastings & Grusec, 1998). Here we introduce a
new construct with which to investigate deliberate forms of thought,
which we label meta-parenting.
Meta-parenting refers to the thoughts parents have about their children
or childrearing. On the basis of a review of the extant parental social cogni-
tion literature, Holden and Hawk (2003) created a superordinate category
of effortful cognitions, including anticipating, assessing, problem solving,
and reflecting. These thoughts typically occur before or after interactions
with children. The meta prefix, common in the psychological lexicon, has
been used to indicate greater awareness and a more deliberate approach to
thinking (e.g., meta-logic, meta-memory). In this case, it highlights the de-
liberate nature of these child-related thoughts. Each component will be
briefly described.
Anticipating refers to parents’ intentional consideration of something
that has yet to occur in the childrearing domain, such as childproofing a
home before a child can crawl (Morrongiello & Kiriakou, 2004). Through
anticipation, short-term and long-term parental goals can be organized
and activated. The essence of assessing, the second component, involves
parental evaluations of the child, self, and context. For example, a parent
may think about her child’s emotional development or monitor peer inter-
actions and influences (e.g., Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984). Re-
flecting, the third component, involves parents’ reassessment of their own
behaviors, their child’s behaviors, or past parent – child interactions. Re-
flecting on past experiences affords parents the opportunity to evaluate
factors in the childrearing domain in a reasoned way (e.g., Fonagy, Steele,
Steele, Moran, & Higgit, 1991; Heath, 2000). The final component, problem
solving, involves multiple aspects of parental thought, including iden-
tifying a problem, planning a solution, implementing the solution, and
evaluating the result (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1994). Through these processes
(anticipating, assessing, reflecting, and problem solving) a myriad of child-
rearing issues can be dealt with effectively, whether it be a universal
childrearing problem, such as diagnosing why an infant is crying (Holden,
1988), or an issue specific to parents of special needs children, such as se-
 META-PARENTING: AN INITIAL INVESTIGATION 323

vere communication impairment in children with developmental disabili-

ties (Bristol, Gallagher, & Schopler, 1988).
As indicated, each of the components theorized to compose meta-
parenting has been studied previously. However, relations among these
deliberate forms of parenting thought are unknown. The construct of
meta-parenting affords a synthesis of the individual meta-parenting com-
ponents and provides a single construct with which to investigate individ-
ual differences in parents’ deliberate thought regarding parenting and its
correlates.
We believe that effective parents engage in each of these cognition types.
Meta-parenting can occur when a newly wedded couple considers which
neighborhood to move into based on the qualities of the schools (anticipat-
ing), when a father tries to determine if his son’s aggressiveness is indeed a
problem or is normal for a 10-year-old boy (assessing), when a mother re-
members her own mother’s childrearing practices and decides to parent
her children differently (reflecting), or when a mother recognizes her
child’s dyslexia and acts on the need (problem solving). In each instance a
parent has engaged in a deliberate cognition involving considerations
about the child outside of an ongoing parent – child interaction. Along
these lines of reasoning, it could be expected that parents who meta-parent
more often will be less likely to engage in parenting practices that are
maladaptive or extreme (Arnold, O’Leary, Wolff, & Acker, 1993). For exam-
ple, if parents using overreactive discipline assess the effectiveness of their
behavior, it should prompt an adjustment in future responses.
There were two major goals of this project. The primary goal was to ex-
plicate parents’ deliberate thought processes by investigating meta-par-
enting as a construct. This goal involved three tasks: (1) providing an initial
description of the nature of meta-parenting, (2) investigating likely predic-
tors of meta-parenting, and (3) testing relations between meta-parenting
and parent-reported behaviors. Because no existing measure was avail-
able to simultaneously assess the proposed meta-parenting components, a
self-report measure was developed. Therefore, the second goal of the pro-
ject was to test the reliability of this new questionnaire of parental social
cognition. Toward that end, a principal components analysis was per-
formed, internal consistency of the extracted scales was analyzed, and test
– retest reliability was measured.
As with other parental social cognitions, meta-parenting thoughts are
likely triggered by characteristics of the parent, the child, and the environ-
ment (e.g., Bandura, 2000; Belsky, 1984; Bornstein et al., 2003; Bugental &
Johnston, 2000). Six parental characteristics were included in this initial in-
vestigation: mother’s age, education, preference for different levels of cog-
nitive complexity (i.e., “need for cognition”), intelligence, parity, and so-
324 HAWK AND HOLDEN

cial desirability. A mother’s age and formal education were the most likely
predictors. Maternal age has already been associated with more thoughtful
parenting (e.g., Philliber & Graham, 1981; Reis, Baerbera-Stein, & Bennett,
1986). To date, years in school have not been shown to be associated with
parent cognition, however, it is likely that formal education promotes
more deliberate thought, a common goal of parent education programs
(e.g., Fine, 1989). Older mothers were expected to have higher meta-
parenting scores as were mothers with more formal education. Need for
cognition, an individual difference variable that captures some people’s
preference for engaging in cognitive activity (Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao,
1984); intelligence; parity; and social desirability were included to evaluate
their possible role in meta-parenting or meta-parenting reports, but no pre-
dictions were made. With regard to child characteristics, a likely influence
is child age. Young children provide frequent challenges to parents (e.g.,
Edwards & Liu, 2002), and the mother of a young child has had less time to
learn about her child’s unique constellation of characteristics and needs
than the mother of an older child. For these two reasons we predicted that
mothers of young children would engage in more meta-parenting than
mothers of older children. Child gender was also included but was not ex-
pected to affect meta-parenting. In addition, stress and support were in-
cluded as contextual variables. Parents who are stressed due to economic
or personal reasons are unlikely to be able to devote time and energy to
meta-parenting. However, if the stressor is due to the parent – child rela-
tionship, it is likely that the situation would elicit more meta-parenting
(e.g., Lee & Bates, 1985). Parenting-related stress was expected to trigger
meta-parenting, in contrast to life stress, which was expected to inhibit it.
We also included social support, but no specific prediction was made.
In addition to predictors of meta-parenting, three childrearing variables
were assessed: laxness, overreactivity, and coercive responses to child mis-
behavior. We expected that meta-parenting would serve, perhaps most di-
rectly through the processes of assessing and reflecting, to normalize these
responses.

METHODS

Participants
A total of 116 mothers (26 to 47 years old) with children between the
ages of 1.8 and 12.9 years, M = 5.91, SD = 2.20, participated. Participants
were comprised primarily of European American (87%) college-educated
(77.6%) mothers recruited from a mailing list based on newspaper birth an-
nouncements augmented with community recruitment. Fifty percent of
 META-PARENTING: AN INITIAL INVESTIGATION 325

the mothers reported an annual family income over $80,000, and another
28.4% indicated income between $50,000 and $79,999. Maternal age aver-
aged 38 years, SD = 4.49, and all mothers were married and had from 1 to 4
children (see Table 1).

Measures
Eight questionnaires and the vocabulary test from the revised Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale (Wechsler, 1981) were used. Besides the newly de-
veloped Meta-Parenting Profile Questionnaire (MPQ), five instruments
were used to assess possible predictors of meta-parenting, and two ques-
tionnaires concerned childrearing practices. In addition, a 15-item demo-
graphic survey (DEM) was given.
The MPQ is a 24-item self-report instrument designed to measure the
four hypothesized components of meta-parenting: Anticipating (5 items),
Assessing (6 items), Reflecting (6 items), and Problem Solving (7 items).
The particular items forming each subscale can be found in the Appendix.
Mothers were instructed to respond on a 5-point Likert scale with a focal
child in mind and indicate that child’s age and gender. Some questions fo-
cused on the frequency of meta-parenting, and others addressed the extent
to which the parent engaged in that type of thinking. Response options
ranged from 1 (never/rarely) to 5 (constantly) for the “frequency” questions
and from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely) for the “extent” questions.

TABLE 1
Source Measures for Meta-Parenting Predictors

Source
Predictors N Measure M SD Range

Mother’s age (years) 116 DEM 37.71 4.49 26–47

Mother’s educationa 116 DEM 5.05 .77 2–6
Mother’s need for cognition 115 NCS 3.27 .59 1.61–4.61
Parity (number of children) 116 DEM 2.18 .85 1–4
Social desirability 107 MC 6.07 1.53 3–10
Scaled vocabulary 49 WAIS-R 11.98 2.24 8–19
Child’s age (years) 112 MPQ 5.91 2.19 1.83–12.92
Child’s gender (58 girls, 58 boys) 116 MPQ
Parenting stress 107 PSI 3.96 .44 2.75–4.83
Life stress 116 PSI-2 1.34 1.22 0–5
Social support 108 IPE 3.29 .56 1–4.61

Note. DEM = demographic survey; NCS = Need for Cognition Short Form; MC =
Marlowe – Crowne Social Desirability Scale; WAIS-R = Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale –
Revised; MPQ - Meta-Parenting Profile Questionnaire; PSI = Parenting Stress Index Short
Form; IPE = Inventory of Parent’s Experiences.
aEducation (highest level completed): 1 = 1–8 grade; 5 = college graduate; 6 = graduate

school.
326 HAWK AND HOLDEN

The Need for Cognition Short Form (NCS; Cacioppo et al., 1984), an
18-item questionnaire, was included to assess an individual’s tendency to
engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive endeavors. Examples of items in-
cluded “I would prefer complex to simple problems” and “I like tasks that
require little thought once I’ve learned them.” Items were rated on a 5-point
characteristic Likert scale. Cronbach’s (1951) α for this sample was .89.
The Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI; Abidin, 1995), a 36-item
questionnaire, was used to measure stresses related to parenting issues, in-
cluding children’s behavioral characteristics, parental personality charac-
teristics, and stresses within the family environment. Items were based on
a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 3 (not sure) to 5
(strongly disagree). Cronbach’s α was .90 for this sample. The supplemental
19-item Life Stress scale was also administered to assess common stressors
over the past year (e.g., moving, change in job, death in family).
The Inventory of Parent’s Experiences (IPE; Crnic, Greenberg, Ragozin,
Robinson, & Bahsam, 1983) is a 54-item questionnaire designed to measure
parental satisfaction with the parenting role, parenting, and social support
available to parents. For the purpose of this study, only the 26 social sup-
port items were considered. A total score for parent satisfaction with social
support was constructed by averaging scores for the Community, Friend-
ship, and Family Satisfaction subscales. The α for the total score was .77 in
this sample.
The Marlowe – Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS; Strahan &
Gerbasi, 1972) was a 10-item true/false questionnaire designed to assess
an individual’s susceptibility to demand characteristics for social desir-
ability. The K-R 20 reliability coefficient was .66 studying this sample.
The vocabulary test from the Verbal subscale of the Wechsler Adult In-
telligence Scale – Revised (WAIS-R; Wechsler, 1981), which correlates high-
ly with scores from the overall battery of tests, was also included. The test
involves asking participants for definitions of words presented orally and
in writing. Answers were scored as 2 (acceptable response), 1 (acceptable, but
weak response), or 0 (unacceptable response). For data analyses, raw scores
were converted to scaled scores.
The last two measures were included to determine whether meta-
parenting was associated with parent-reported behaviors. The Parenting
Scale (PS; Arnold et al., 1993), a 30-item questionnaire, was designed to
measure dysfunctional parental disciplinary styles. The complete ques-
tionnaire included three subscales (Laxness, Overreactivity, and Verbos-
ity). Only the Laxness and Overreactivity subscales (totaling 21 items)
were included. One item stated, “When my child doesn’t do what I ask…,”
and respondents then indicated which of two responses was most similar
to their parenting. The response options for this example item were “I often
 META-PARENTING: AN INITIAL INVESTIGATION 327

let it go or end up doing it myself” and “I take some other action.” The αs
for this sample were .84 for laxness and .82 for overreactivity.
Parental Responses to Child Misbehaviors (PRCM; Holden, Coleman, &
Schmidt, 1995) is a 12-item questionnaire that measured the frequency of
various disciplinary strategies used by parents with their children in an av-
erage week over the past month. Parental behaviors assessed included
noncoercive responses (i.e., reasoning, diverting, negotiating, use of time-
out, ignoring, and withdrawal of privileges) and coercive responses (i.e.,
threatening, spanking, slapping, and yelling in anger). The behaviors were
rated on a 7-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (never) to 7 (nine or more
times a week). Test – retest reliability over a 3-week period was reported to
average .64 (Touliatos, Perlmutter, & Holden, 2001). In a novel use of the
instrument we created a ratio of coercive responses to total responses to
child misbehaviors. The αs with this sample were .77 for coercive re-
sponses and .63 for noncoercive responses.

Procedure
Participants were recruited by telephone in two waves. In the first wave,
approximately 160 mothers of 4- to 6-year-old children were contacted,
and 109 agreed to participate. Fifty-five mothers came to a university labo-
ratory, and another 54 consented to participate from home. Mothers who
came to the laboratory for the 30-min visit first signed the informed con-
sent and then completed the vocabulary test. Afterward, they were given a
packet of questionnaires (and a postage-paid envelope) to be filled out at
home. Eighty-nine percent (n = 49) of the mothers returned the packets.
Mothers who agreed to participate from home were mailed a packet with
the consent form and the questionnaires. About half of the mothers (n = 27)
returned the completed packets.
To expand the age range of focal children from just 4 to 6 years of age, a sec-
ond recruitment wave was conducted. Mothers with children aged 20
months to almost 13 years were recruited. These mothers only participated
from their homes. Approximately 150 mothers were contacted, and 57
agreed to participate. Mothers were mailed the same packet used in the first
wave. Seventy percent (n = 40) of the mothers returned their questionnaires.
To assess the test – retest reliability of the MPQ, the survey was mailed
to the first 76 participants approximately 1 month after the first packet was
received. Fifty-two mothers (68%) returned the survey.

RESULTS

Results begin with an assessment of the MPQ. This includes the factor
structure, the intercorrelations, and the subscale reliability. Scores on re-
328 HAWK AND HOLDEN

tained items were standardized and summed to create a total

meta-parenting score and five factors. Cronbach’s αs and Pearson correla-
tion coefficients were calculated on the factors. Next, analyses testing the
hypotheses are reported. Six multiple regressions were computed to exam-
ine potential predictors of the five meta-parenting subscales and a
meta-parenting total score. Three additional multiple regressions are then
presented concerning meta-parenting components as predictors of par-
ent-reported behaviors.

Reliability of the MPQ

To assess the factor structure of the MPQ, a principal components analy-
sis using Varimax rotation was performed. On the basis of the latent root
criterion, scree test examination, and interpretability criteria (Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2001), five factors were identified that accounted for 57.61% of the
variance. These factors were labeled problem solving (22.20% of the vari-
ance explained), assessing child (12.82%), assessing external influences
(8.67%), reflecting (7.84%), and anticipating (6.08%). According to the Kai-
ser – Meyer – Olkin measure of sampling adequacy, the factor structure
was acceptable, KMO = .72. See Table 2 for factor loadings of all retained
items.
The reliability of the subscales was assessed in two ways: internal con-
sistency and test – retest reliability. Cronbach’s αs for the subscales ranged
from a low of .64 to a high of .77 (see Table 2). The test – retest correlations
ranged from good to acceptable, assessing external influences, r = .80; re-
flecting, r = .70; problem solving, r = .68; assessing child, r = .62; and antici-
pating, r = .61, ps < .001; ns = 46–51.
To examine the association among factors, Pearson correlation coeffi-
cients were calculated. Most of the associations (70%) were statistically sig-
nificant, although the strength of association was only weak to moderate
(see Table 3). Both anticipating and assessing child were associated with
each of the other factors. Mothers who reported more assessing child also
reported more assessing external influences, anticipating, and reflecting.
Similarly, mothers who indicated they engaged in frequent problem solv-
ing reported more reflecting and assessing external influence than other
mothers.

Reports of Meta-Parenting
This new meta-parenting questionnaire revealed that all mothers re-
ported that they commonly anticipated, assessed, reflected, and problem
solved. Assessing child received the highest average score, M = 4.05, SD =
 TABLE 2
Varimax Rotated Five-Factor Structure of the Meta-Parenting Profiel Questionnaire Items with Subscale Alphas

Factor Loadings

Items 1 2 3 4 5

Factor 1: Problem solving, α = .71

21. When you’re having a problem with your child, how often do you develop a strategy to deal 78 .00 .09 .26 .06
with the problem?
23. How often do you think your problem solving strategies are effective? .73 .00 .01 –.20 .19
24. How often have you modified a problem solving strategy to make it more effective when it .72 .11 .22 .04 –.03
wasn’t working well?
22. How often do you stick with a problem solving strategy you planned? .70 .01 –.07 –.36 .36
11. To what extent do you think about activities that will happen the next day? .41 –.10 .07 .01 35
Factor 2: Assessing child, α = .70
1. In general, how often do you consider, or think about what is occurring with you and your child? .01 .85 .06 .06 .00
6. How often do you think about how well your parenting meets your child’s needs? .01 .74 .32 .24 .07
2. Some parents always know exactly where their child is and what the child is doing. Other –.10 .62 .14 –.05 .13
parents monitor less. To what extent do you monitor your child?
8. How often do you think about your child’s safety when you and your child are away from .26 .50 .11 .12 .43
home in a public place (e.g., at a store or mall)?
(continued)
329
330

TABLE 2 (Continued)

Factor Loadings

Items 1 2 3 4 5

Factor 3: Assessing external influences, α = .64

4. How often do you consider the extent to which activities away from home influence your child .12 .21 .84 –.03 .01
(activities at school, in the neighborhood, at church, etc.)?
3. How often do you consider whether your child’s friends may be a positive or negative influence? .11 .16 .79 –.14 .07
9. When you were thinking about moving to your current home (or when you prepare to move to .12 –.08 .50 .36 .34
your next home), to what extent did you (or will you) consider child related issues (e.g., safety,
quality of schools, parks, children in the neighborhood)?
5. How often do you think about how your child is developing compared with her/his peers? –.03 .13 .50 .15 .15
Factor 4: Reflecting, α = .77
13. How often do you have concerns about why your child behaves the way s/he does? –.11 .04 .03 .81 .10
14. How often do you have concerns about your parenting behaviors, or the decisions you’ve .03 .17 –.03 .79 .02
made as a parent?
Factor 5: Anticipating, α = .66
10. To what extent do you plan ahead for situations in which your child might get bored (for –.01 .14 .14 .10 .85
example, bring toys or books for use in the car while you’re running errands)?
7. In general, how often do you think ahead about things related to your child or your parenting? .22 .49 .12 .01 .59

Note. Items 16, 17, 18, and 20 were excluded due to low item sampling adequacy KMO (Kaiser – Meyer – Olkin measure or sampling ade-
quacy) < .50; Item 12 failed to load heavily on any factor; Item 15 had > 10% missing data; and item 19 had an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 but was
not interpretable. Items 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 were dropped from further analyses.
 META-PARENTING: AN INITIAL INVESTIGATION 331

TABLE 3
Intercorrelations of Meta-Parenting Components

Component M SD Range 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Meta-parenting 3.65 .40 2.71–4.65 — .63*** .71*** .68*** .36*** .64***

total
2. Problem solving 3.42 .58 2.20–4.60 — .18 .23* .00 .26**
3. Assessing child 4.05 .58 2.25–5.00 — .45*** .30** .42***
4. Assessing external 3.89 .59 2.25–5.00 — .18 .32***
influences
5. Reflecting 2.78 .96 1.00–5.00 — .20*
6. Anticipating 3.82 .72 1.50–5.00 —

Note. Descriptive statistics were derived from scale scores, and correlations were de-
rived from standardized scores. The ns = 97–115.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

.58, followed by assessing external influences, M = 3.89, SD = .59. Mothers

also reported anticipating “often,” M = 3.82, SD = .72. Problem solving was
the fourth most frequently reported component, M = 3.42, SD = .58, and re-
flecting the least often, M = 2.78, SD = .96. Reports of reflecting received the
greatest variability, Ms = 1.00–5.00, in contrast to problem solving, which
had the least variability, Ms = 2.40–4.60. To determine whether mothers
were consistently high or low across factors, we identified mothers’ rank-
ings on each component. Across the five components, only three mothers
consistently ranked in the bottom third, and only one mother was consis-
tently in the top third.

Tests of the Hypotheses

To test hypotheses regarding predictors of meta-parenting, the meta-
parenting total score and each of the five extracted meta-parenting sub-
scales were entered as the dependent variables in stepwise multiple regres-
sions. For each regression, five maternal variables (age, education, need for
cognition, parity, social desirability), two child characteristics (age, gen-
der), and three contextual variables (parenting-related stress, life stress, so-
cial support) were included. In addition, two participant group compari-
son variables (laboratory visit, recruitment wave) were included in the
regressions. The laboratory visit status variable was formed to indicate
whether a participant came to the laboratory or participated only by mail.
The recruitment wave variable was created to indicate whether the partici-
pant was enrolled during the first or second wave of recruitment.
The first hypothesis concerned maternal characteristics: Older mothers
were expected to have higher meta-parenting scores, as were mothers with
332 HAWK AND HOLDEN

more formal education. Contrary to our expectations, maternal age and

formal education were not predictive. However, parity was a significant
predictor, R2 = .10: Mothers with fewer children reported more problem
solving (see Table 4). Because only 49 participants who came to the labora-
tory completed the vocabulary test, there was insufficient representation
to include this assessment in the regression analyses. Pearson correlation
coefficients were calculated on the scaled vocabulary scores and the
meta-parenting factors. Intelligence was not significantly correlated with
the meta-parenting total or subscales.
The second hypothesis, concerning child characteristics, was that moth-
ers of young children would engage in more meta-parenting than mothers
of older children. The regression analyses for the meta-parenting total
score was significant, R2 = .18, and revealed that child’s age was negatively
related to the total score. As predicted, mothers with younger children had
higher total scores. Child age was also a significant predictor for two of the
five individual subscales: Anticipating, R2 = .11, and Assessing Child, R2 =
.11. Mothers of younger children reported more assessing child and antici-
pating. The other significant predictor of anticipating scores was child gen-
der, R2 = .05: Mothers of boys anticipated more than mothers of girls.
Our third hypothesis concerned the roles of stress and support. Par-
enting-related stress was expected to trigger meta-parenting, whereas life
stress was predicted to inhibit it. Contrary to our hypothesis, parenting-re-
lated stress was not a significant predictor. Life stress, R2 = .05, was signifi-
cant. Unexpectedly, mothers with higher levels of life stress reflected more
often.

TABLE 4
Regression Models for Meta-Parenting Predictors

Predictor F R2 B SE B β t

Meta-parenting total (1,90) 19.88*** .18

Child’s age –.54 .12 –.43 –4.46***
Problem solving (1,80) 9.33 .10
Parity –1.24 .40 –.32 –3.05**
Assessing child (1,89) 11.46 .11
Child’s age –.46 .14 –.34 –3.39**
Assessing external influences (ns)
Reflecting (1,90) 5.18 .05
Life stress .34 .15 .23 2.28*
Anticipating (2,88) 7.94 .15
Child’s age –.28 .08 –.33 –3.34**
Child’s gender –.76 .35 –.21 –2.16*

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

 META-PARENTING: AN INITIAL INVESTIGATION 333

To test hypotheses regarding meta-parenting and parent-reported be-

haviors, three additional regression analyses were conducted (see Table 5).
For these analyses the meta-parenting subscales, recruitment wave, labo-
ratory status, and social desirability were regressed on three measures
of reported parental behavior: overreactivity, laxness, and coercive re-
sponses to child misbehavior. A negative relation was hypothesized be-
tween meta-parenting and three parenting behaviors. As predicted, prob-
lem solving significantly predicted overreactivity, R2 = .10, and laxness, R2
= .13: Mothers who reported higher levels of problem solving reported less
of these two negative childrearing patterns. The final significant meta-
parenting predictor of reported parental behavior was reflecting, R2 = .08.
Contrary to our prediction, reflecting was positively related to overre-
activity. Social desirability also predicted overreactivity. None of the vari-
ables significantly predicted the proportion of coercive responses to child
misbehavior.

DISCUSSION

Every one of the 116 mothers reported that they engaged in frequent
meta-parenting. Mothers indicated that anticipating, assessing, reflecting,
and problem solving were typical occurrences in their daily lives. Only re-
flecting was reported as occurring less than “often.” Not surprisingly,
there was considerable variability among the mothers in terms of how fre-
quently they reported engaging in these types of thought. This finding that
meta-parenting is a common occurrence provides ample justification for
interest in the phenomena, but several other findings are also noteworthy.
These reports came from the newly created MPQ. The factor structure,
subscale alphas, and test – retest reliability for the measure were accept-

TABLE 5
Regression Models for Meta-Parenting Influence on Parenting Behaviors

Predictor F R2 B SE B β t

Overreactivity (3,85) 10.60 .27

Reflecting .13 .04 .29 3.14*
Problem solving –.08 .02 –.33 –3.56*
Social desirability .14 .05 .28 2.98*
Laxness (1,87) 12.50 .13
Problem solving –.08 .02 –.35 –3.54*
Coercive responses (ns)

*p < .01.
334 HAWK AND HOLDEN

able for this initial empirical trial. The subscales derived from the princi-
pal components analysis closely matched the hypothesized
meta-parenting components with one exception. Two forms of assess-
ments were revealed: one focusing on the child and one on external in-
fluences. These separate evaluations may allow parents to use limited
cognitive resources in appropriate ways (Baumeister, Bratslavsky,
Muraven, & Tice, 1998). For example, in this particular sample, there was
little difference between reports of these two factors. However, in other
samples (e.g., mothers in dangerous environments), we would expect
higher levels of assessing external influences (Furstenberg, Cook, Eccles,
Elder, & Sameroff, 1999).
In addition to confirming the common occurrence of meta-parenting, a
central focus of this study was to identify why some mothers engaged in
meta-parenting more than others. Four of the 10 variables tested signifi-
cantly predicted one or more indexes of meta-parenting. Only one of
the five maternal variables, parity, proved to be a significant predictor.
Mothers with fewer children reported more problem solving. There are
two competing explanations for this result. Reduced problem solving with
more children could be due to time constraints. Multiparous mothers typi-
cally have less time for problem solving. Alternatively, more parenting ex-
perience may lead to problem-solving proficiency (Holden, 1988). As
mothers become more expert problem solvers, the process becomes more
automatic and less accessible for self-report (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999).
Neither need for cognition nor intelligence was associated with these pa-
rental social cognitions. This indicates that meta-parenting is not simply a
proxy for these two cognitive attributes. Unexpectedly, maternal age and
education were not associated with meta-parenting. The likely explana-
tion is the restricted ranges of these two variables in this sample. The aver-
age age of the mothers was nearly 40 years (the youngest mother was 26),
and 70% of the participants were college graduates. A more diverse sample
is needed to adequately evaluate these hypotheses.
Both of the child characteristics assessed were associated with meta-
parenting. As hypothesized, child age predicted higher levels of overall
meta-parenting, anticipating, and assessing child. This may be due to the
fact that younger children lack verbal and self-regulatory skills (Berk,
2003) and are, therefore, more challenging. Another explanation is mater-
nal experience. A mother of a younger child has less experience parenting
that child than a mother of an older child, independent of experience with
other children. These factors (added difficulty of younger children and
fewer years of experience) may independently or jointly trigger meta-
parenting. The other child characteristic that was a significant predictor
was gender. Mothers reported more anticipating with boys. Although we
 META-PARENTING: AN INITIAL INVESTIGATION 335

had no specific prediction regarding child gender, the finding is in line

with some research that indicates gender differences in activity level (e.g.,
Eaton & Enns, 1986). By anticipating more with sons, mothers may be re-
warded with fewer disciplinary incidents (e.g., Holden, 1983).
One of the three contextual variables predicted meta-parenting: life
stress. Contrary to expectations, mothers who reported more stressful inci-
dents in the last 12 months also reported higher levels of reflecting. In this
affluent, educated sample of mothers, 94% indicated only three or fewer
“stressful events” in the past year. It is likely that the life stressors experi-
enced by these mothers did not reach a level adequate to impede deliberate
childrearing cognitions.
Evidence was found indicating that meta-parenting was related to re-
ported childrearing behaviors. As hypothesized, problem solving was
negatively related to lax and overreactive responses to child misbehavior.
This might be expected as problem solving is an important skill for effec-
tive parents (e.g., Grusec & Ungerer, 2003). Perhaps those parents who reg-
ulate child-related issues by problem solving also self-regulate to maintain
disciplinary responses between lax and overreactive thresholds. Over-
reactivity was also predicted by reflecting. Contrary to our prediction, re-
flecting was positively related to overreactive responses, such as yelling or
cursing. This may indicate that reflecting, as was the case with assessing, is
more finely nuanced than originally expected. Perhaps some parents re-
flect on past events and behaviors, identify a problem, and generate effec-
tive new behaviors in anticipation of future interactions, and others rumi-
nate with no benefit. Notably, this is the only analysis in which social
desirability was a significant predictor, perhaps indicating the undesirable
nature of overreactive parenting. This finding could also be due, in part, to
shared source variance. Reports of parenting behaviors (DV) and meta-
parenting reports (IVs) were provided by the mother; therefore, some cor-
relation is expected. Even so, these findings regarding meta-parenting and
parenting behaviors are evocative because they hint at possible links be-
tween meta-parenting and other parenting behaviors.
Although this initial project provides empirical evidence for the occur-
rence of meta-parenting and its relation to reported predictors and par-
enting behaviors, several limitations need to be recognized. The MPQ will
be a stronger instrument when additional items are added to provide a
richer assessment of the reflecting and anticipating factors. Validity testing
is also needed. In terms of the methodology, sampling, procedural, and an-
alytic changes will benefit future research. New studies should include a
more diverse sample. Mothers as well as fathers from different ethnicities,
socioeconomic levels, and cultures are needed to examine the occurrence
and nature of meta-parenting. Observation of actual parenting behaviors,
336 HAWK AND HOLDEN

as they relate to the construct, is also needed. For example, future research
could assess parental proactive behaviors as a manifestation of anticipa-
tion or information search behavior as a manifestation of assessing or
problem solving. Furthermore, a more extensive and systematic investiga-
tion into child age is needed to help clarify the relation between a child’s
developmental stage and meta-parenting. Future analyses of subsets of
parents (e.g., high or low on meta-parenting components) and analyses of
possible patterns of meta-parenting will do much to improve our under-
standing of parents’ deliberate thought. Perhaps the most exciting future
research direction is the association of meta-parenting with childrearing
behaviors and subsequent child outcomes. This study and the creation of
the MePQ set the stage for these and other investigations.

AFFILIATIONS AND ADDRESSES

Carol Kozak Hawk, University of Texas at Austin, Department of Psychol-

ogy. 1 University Station, A8000, Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: chawk@mail.
utexas.edu. George W. Holden is also at The University of Texas at Austin.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported, in part, by a grant to the second author from
NIH R03HD044674–01A1. We are grateful to the mothers who gener-
ously donated their time, to Greg Hixon for assistance with data analysis,
to our reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions, and to
the following undergraduate research assistants: Randa Embry, Maureen
Leong-Kee, Tessa Mattson, Rachelle Moore, Rebecca Stelter, and Maggie
Wise.

REFERENCES

Abidin, R. R. (1995). Parenting Stress Index (3rd ed.): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psycho-
logical Assessment Resources.
Arnold, D. S., O’Leary, S. G., Wolff, L. S., & Acker, M. M. (1993). The Parenting Scale: A
measure of dysfunctional parenting in discipline situations. Psychological Assessment, 5,
137–144.
Bandura, A. (2000). Social-cognitive theory. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology:
Vol. 7 (pp. 329–332). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psy-
chologist, 54, 462–479.
 META-PARENTING: AN INITIAL INVESTIGATION 337

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the ac-
tive self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55,
83–96.
Berk, L. E. (2003). Child development (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Bornstein, M. H., Hendricks, C., Hahn, C., Haynes, M., Painter, K. M., & Tamis-LeMonda, C.
S. (2003). Contributors to self-perceived competence, satisfaction, investment, and role
balance in maternal parenting: A multivariate ecological analysis. Parenting: Science and
Practice, 3, 285–326.
Bristol, M. M., Gallagher, J. J., & Schopler, E. (1988). Mothers and fathers of young develop-
mentally disabled and nondisabled boys: Adaptation and spousal support. Developmental
Psychology, 24, 441–451.
Bugental, D. B., & Goodnow, J. J. (1998). Socialization processes. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) &
N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality
development (5th ed., pp. 389–462). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bugental, D. B., & Happaney, K. (2002). Parental attributions. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Hand-
book of parenting: Vol. 3. Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bugental, D. B., & Johnston, C. (2000). Parental and child cognitions in the context of the fam-
ily. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 315–344.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information process-
ing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101.
Crnic, K. A., Greenberg, M. T., Ragozin, A. S., Robinson, N. M., & Basham, R. B. (1983). Effects
of stress and social support on mothers and preterm and full-term infants. Child Develop-
ment, 54, 209–217.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16,
297–334.
Dix, T., & Branca, S. H. (2003). Parenting as a goal-regulation process. In L. Kuczynski (Ed.),
Handbook of dynamics in parent-child relations (pp. 167–187). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eaton, W. O., & Enns, L. R. (1986). Sex differences in human motor activity level. Psychological
Bulletin, 100, 19–28.
Edwards, C. P., & Liu, W. (2002). Parenting toddlers. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of
parenting: Vol. 1. Children and parenting (2nd ed., pp. 45–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Fine, M. J. (1989). The second handbook on parent education. New York: Academic.
Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., Moran, G. S., & Higgit, A. C. (1991). The capacity for under-
standing mental states: The reflective self in parent and child and its significance for secu-
rity of attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 12, 201–218.
Furstenberg, F. F., Cook, T. D., Eccles, J., Elder, G. H., & Sameroff, A. (1999). Managing to make
it: Urban families and adolescent success. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Goodnow, J. J. (2002). Parents’ knowledge and expectations: Using what we know. In M. H.
Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp.
439–460). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Grusec, J. E., & Ungerer, J. (2003). Effective socialization as problem solving and the role of
parenting cognitions. In L. Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in parent-child relations
(pp. 211–228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hastings, P. D., & Grusec, J. E. (1998). Parenting goals as organizers of responses to par-
ent-child disagreement. Developmental Psychology, 34, 465–479.
338 HAWK AND HOLDEN

Heath, H. (2000). Using your values to raise your child to be an adult you admire. Seattle, WA: Par-
enting Press.
Holden, G. W. (1983). Avoiding conflict: Mothers as tacticians in the supermarket. Child Devel-
opment, 54, 233–240.
Holden, G. W. (1988). Adults’ thinking about a child-rearing problem: Effects of experience,
parental status, and gender. Child Development, 59, 1623–1632.
Holden, G. W., & Buck, M. J. (2002). Parental attitudes toward childrearing. In M. H. Bornstein
(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 537–562).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Holden, G. W., Coleman, S., & Schmidt, K. (1995). Why 3-year-old children get spanked: Par-
ent and child determinants as reported by college-educated mothers. Merrill-Palmer Quar-
terly, 41, 431–452.
Holden, G. W., & Hawk, C. K. (2003). Meta-parenting in the journey of child-rearing: A cogni-
tive mechanism for change. In L. Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in parent-child rela-
tions (pp. 189–210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lee, C. L., & Bates, J. E. (1985). Mother-child interaction at age two years and perceived diffi-
cult temperament. Child Development, 56, 1314–1325.
Morrongiello, B. A., & Kiriaku, S. (2004). Mothers’ home-safety practices for preventing six
types of childhood injuries: What do they do, and why? Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 29,
285–297.
Papoušek, H., & Papoušek, M. (2002). Intuitive parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook
of parenting: Vol. 2. Biology and ecology of parenting (2nd ed., pp. 183–203). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Patterson, G. R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family management
practices and delinquency. Child Development, 55, 1299–1307.
Philliber, S. G., & Graham, E. H. (1981). The impact of age of mother on mother-child interac-
tion patterns. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 43, 109–115.
Reis, J., Baerbera-Stein, L., & Bennett, S. (1986). Ecological determinants of parenting. Family
Relations, 35, 547–554.
Sigel, I. E., & McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. V. (2002). Parent beliefs are cognitions: The dynamic
belief systems model. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Being and be-
coming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 485–508). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Stogdill, R. M. (1934). Attitudes of parents toward parental behavior. Journal of Abnormal & So-
cial Psychology, 29, 293–297.
Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne So-
cial Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191–193.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Touliatos, J., Perlmutter, B. F., & Holden, G. W. (2001). Handbook of family measurement tech-
niques: Vol. 2. Abstracts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. New York: Psychological Corpo-
ration.
 META-PARENTING: AN INITIAL INVESTIGATION 339

APPENDIX
The Meta-Parenting Questionnaire

This survey is designed to get information about the extent to which you
think about your child when you are not with her or him. Some items refer
to time spent with your child. If you have more than one child, please an-
swer the questions with one “focal” child in mind. If you have more than
one child, pick the child who you find to be the most challenging.
Please answer all of the following questions.
Focal child’s age and gender: ____years ____months; ___Female ___Male

Assessing items:
1. In general, how often do you consider, or think about what, is occurring
with you and your child? (Examples include considering how or what your
child is doing, how you’re feeling as it relates to parenting, the quality of your in-
teractions with your child, or how the surroundings might affect your child).
Never/Rarely Sometimes Usually Often Constantly
2. Some parents always know exactly where their child is and what the
child is doing. Other parents monitor less. To what extent do you monitor
your child?
Never/Rarely Sometimes Usually Often Constantly
3. How often do you consider whether your child’s friends may be a posi-
tive or negative influence?
Never/Rarely Sometimes Usually Often Constantly
4. How often do you consider the extent to which activities away from
home influence your child (activities at school, in the neighborhood, at
church, etc.)?
Never/Rarely Sometimes Usually Often Constantly
5. How often do you think about how your child is developing compared
with her/his peers?
Never/Rarely Sometimes Usually Often Constantly
6. How often do you think about how well your parenting meets your
child’s needs?
Never/Rarely Sometimes Usually Often Constantly
340 HAWK AND HOLDEN

Anticipating items:
7. In general, how often do you think ahead about things related to your
child or your parenting? (Examples include planning ahead for when you take
your child to a difficult event or talking with your child about the consequences of
future behavior.)
Never/Rarely Sometimes Usually Often Constantly
8. How often do you think about your child’s safety when you and your
child are away from home in a public place (e.g., at a store or mall)?
Never/Rarely Sometimes Usually Often Constantly
9. When you were thinking about moving to your current home (or when
you prepare to move to your next home), to what extent did you (or will
you) consider child-related issues (e.g., safety, quality of schools, parks,
children in the neighborhood)?
Not at all A little Some Quite a lot Completely
10. To what extent do you plan ahead for situations in which your child
might get bored (for example, bring toys or books for use in the car while
you’re running errands)?
Not at all A little Some Quite a lot Completely
11. To what extent do you think about activities that will happen the next
day?
Not at all A little Some Quite a lot Completely

Reflecting items:
12. In general, how often do you have concerns, worry, or think about
things that have already happened with your child? (Examples include
thinking about a problem that occurred [our trip to the grocery store was a night-
mare], or thinking about an event that went well [s/he really liked playing at the
park], or thinking about your parenting decisions [I don’t think that disciplinary
response worked very well].)
Never/Rarely Sometimes Usually Often Constantly
13. How often do you have concerns about why your child behaves the
way they do?
Never/Rarely Sometimes Usually Often Constantly
 META-PARENTING: AN INITIAL INVESTIGATION 341

14. How often do you have concerns about your parenting behaviors or
the decisions you’ve made as a parent?
Never/Rarely Sometimes Usually Often Constantly
15. To what extent are you a different parent than you thought you’d be?
Never thought about it ____ (check here OR choose from below)
Not at all A little Quite different
different different different different different
16. To what extent is your parenting similar to how you were parented?
Never thought about it ____ (check here OR choose from below)
Not at all A little Quite Comletely
similar similar similar similar similar
17. How often have you changed your mind about a parenting decision af-
ter thinking about it for a while?
Never/Rarely Sometimes Usually Often Constantly

Problem-solving items:
18. In general, how often have you identified and attempted to solve a
problem you’re having with your child or with your parenting? (Examples
include making a plan or strategy to better handle a problem that occurred or ask-
ing someone else how they deal with a specific issue.)
Never/Rarely Sometimes Usually Often Constantly
19. How often do you talk with your spouse/partner about things that are
happening with your child? (If no partner, how often do you talk with a
particular close friend about your child?)
Less than Several times Several times Several times Many times
once a month a month a week a day a day
20. How often do you talk with your friends about things that are happen-
ing with your child?
Less than Several times Several times Several times Many times
once a month a month a week a day a day
21. When you’re having a problem with your child, how often do you de-
velop a strategy to deal with the problem? Check here if no problems ____ .
Never/Rarely Sometimes Usually Often Always
342 HAWK AND HOLDEN

22. How often do you stick with a problem-solving strategy you planned?
Check here if no problems ___ .
Never/Rarely Sometimes Usually Often Always
23. How often do you think your problem-solving strategies are effective?
Check here if no problems ___ .
Never/Rarely Sometimes Usually Often Always
24. How often have you modified a problem-solving strategy to make it
more effective when it wasn’t working well? Check here if no problems ___ .
Never/Rarely Sometimes Usually Often Constantly

Note. Please contact the second author for current versions of this mea-
sure.