Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2026 Aug 19;61(5):e70261. doi: 10.1002/ijop.70261

Perceived Parental Comparison, Authenticity and School Adjustment in Adolescence: A Cross‐Lagged Panel Network Analysis

Wei Wu 1, Yanshu Zhu 1, Yan Wang 1,✉
PMCID: PMC13490291  PMID: 42618890

ABSTRACT

In increasingly competitive educational contexts, parents often evaluate and compare their children's performance, which may shape adolescents' self‐related experiences and adjustment. Little is known about how different forms of perceived parental comparison are dynamically associated with adolescents' psychological functioning and school adjustment. Using a cross‐lagged panel network approach, this study examined the dynamic associations among perceived parental comparison, authenticity and school adjustment. Four hundred forty‐nine adolescents in China (M age = 15.81 ± 0.61; 51.9% female) participated at two time points. Results showed that parental upward social comparison emerged as the most structurally influential node, exhibiting the highest out‐expected and bridge expected influence. Self‐alienation, parental temporal comparison of decline and peer relationship problems also occupied prominent structural positions, whereas parental downward comparison showed the highest in‐expected influence. In addition, upward and downward social comparisons were linked to peer relationship problems in opposite directions, and school adjustment was associated with subsequent changes in decline‐focused parental comparisons. Progress‐focused comparison was associated with lower self‐alienation, and authenticity showed modest but meaningful links with school adjustment. Overall, the findings suggest that parental comparison, authenticity and school adjustment are embedded within a dynamic and reciprocal system during adolescence, with distinct comparison forms playing differentiated structural roles.

Keywords: adolescence, authenticity, network analysis, parental comparison, school adjustment

1. Introduction

School adjustment refers to the adaptive outcomes arising from students' engagement with the school environment and educational activities. In Chinese high schools, academic functioning and peer relationships are particularly salient due to the centrality of high‐stakes examinations and increasing peer influence in competitive educational contexts. As academic competition intensifies, parents tend to monitor, evaluate and compare their children's school performance more closely (Xing et al. 2023). Such evaluative practices may shape how adolescents perceive expectations, regulate behaviour and navigate academic and social challenges during a developmental period marked by identity exploration and increasing autonomy.

Parental comparison can be understood as adolescents' perceived evaluative experiences in which parents appraise their performance or characteristics relative to certain reference standards. Classic comparison theories suggest that parental comparison may take multiple forms, each conveying different evaluative meanings with potential implications for adolescents' adjustment. Social comparison theory distinguishes upward and downward comparisons (Festinger 1954; Wills 1981). In parenting contexts, upward social comparisons may highlight perceived shortcomings by referencing higher‐performing peers, whereas downward comparisons may convey reassurance or relative adequacy. Empirical studies focusing on parental social comparison, particularly upward comparison, have linked such practices to lower self‐esteem, heightened performance pressure and poorer academic or behavioural adjustment among adolescents (Lee et al. 2020; Liu et al. 2025). These evaluative experiences may increase adolescents' sensitivity to social evaluation and perceived deficiencies, with implications for academic engagement and peer functioning (Xing et al. 2023). However, most existing studies treat parental comparison as a unidimensional construct and rely on cross‐sectional designs, limiting insight into how different comparison directions operate over time.

Beyond social comparison with others, parents may also rely on temporal reference frames when evaluating their children, comparing current performance with past functioning. Temporal comparison theory suggests that such self‐referential information is often more accessible and personally relevant than information about others (Albert 1977; Wilson and Ross 2000). In parenting contexts, temporal comparisons may therefore serve as a common evaluative strategy, particularly when information about peers is limited or ambiguous. Importantly, temporal comparisons may also convey different messages depending on their direction: progress‐focused comparisons (reflecting downward temporal reference) may signal improvement and encouragement, whereas decline‐focused comparisons (reflecting upward temporal reference) may highlight concern or perceived inadequacy. Despite their potential relevance, parental temporal comparisons have received little empirical attention in studies of adolescent development.

Research on self‐evaluation suggests that upward comparisons, whether social or temporal, are often associated with self‐threat and negative self‐evaluations, whereas downward comparisons tend to be linked with more positive subjective experiences (Collins 1996; Wills 1981; Wilson and Ross 2000). Similar processes may operate in parental evaluative contexts, shaping how adolescents experience and respond to different forms of parental comparison.

Moreover, parental comparison experiences may not unidirectionally influence adolescent development. Parents often view their children as extensions of themselves (Thai et al. 2019), which may make children's performance psychologically self‐relevant. In this context, adolescents' academic or peer difficulties may influence parental evaluative practices and, in turn, adolescents' perceived comparison experiences. Despite these theoretical considerations, few studies have systematically examined how different forms of parental comparison are dynamically linked with adolescents' academic and peer‐related school adjustment over time.

Authenticity refers to the extent to which individuals experience coherence between their internal values and everyday behaviour (Kernis and Goldman 2006). From a developmental perspective, authenticity reflects not only self‐coherence but also the extent to which individuals rely on internal standards to guide behaviour (Rivera et al. 2019). During adolescence, authenticity may support psychological stability and adaptive functioning as adolescents navigate increasing social and academic demands. Prior research has linked higher authenticity to more positive peer relationships and lower school loneliness (Peets and Hodges 2018; Theran 2010), whereas lower authenticity has been associated with school alienation, increased risk of dropout and reduced academic well‐being (Gueta and Berkovich 2022; Luthar et al. 2021; Tarahi and Jafarzadeh 2022). At the same time, adolescents' school experiences may also shape the development of authenticity, as autonomy support from teachers (Núñez and León 2016) and acceptance from peers (Verschueren et al. 2012) have been shown to facilitate the integration and expression of the self.

The development of authenticity is also influenced by parenting practices. According to the Self‐Determination Theory (Ryan and Ryan 2019), parenting practices that emphasise conditional evaluation or constrain autonomy may undermine adolescents' sense of self‐consistency, whereas supportive feedback may facilitate self‐integration. In this context, parental comparison behaviours may play a role in shaping authenticity, particularly when evaluations emphasise relative standing or decline. Conversely, adolescents' authenticity may be related to how parents interpret and respond to their child's behaviour. Accordingly, authenticity may function as a psychological process that supports self‐regulation and coherence, even if it may not operate as a primary driver within the broader adjustment system.

Network analysis offers a system‐oriented approach for examining complex relations among multidimensional constructs by modelling individual dimensions as interacting components (Epskamp et al. 2018). The cross‐lagged panel network (CLPN) approach extends this framework to longitudinal data by estimating temporal associations among nodes while accounting for autoregressive effects (Funkhouser et al. 2021). Rather than testing a limited set of predefined paths between global constructs, CLPN models make it possible to identify specific components that occupy prominent structural positions or link multiple processes over time. This approach is well suited to the present study. Perceived parental comparison, authenticity and school adjustment each consist of multiple dimensions and existing research offers limited information regarding which specific dimensions are most influential or how they are interconnected over time. In addition, existing theory does not specify clear directional pathways among different forms of parental comparison and adolescents' self‐related and adjustment processes. As a result, the CLPN approach allows for an exploratory but theoretically grounded examination of dynamic relations at the dimensional level.

The present study employed a two‐wave CLPN analysis to examine the dynamic associations among adolescents' perceived parental comparison experiences, dimensions of authenticity and key aspects of school adjustment (academic functioning and peer relationships). Specifically, the study aimed to identify (a) reciprocal associations over time among these adolescent‐reported experiences and adjustment‐related processes, and (b) structurally influential bridge components that connect different aspects of adolescents' evaluative experiences, self‐related processes and school adjustment within the network.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedure

This study was conducted at a public senior high school in Jiangsu Province, China, using a two‐wave longitudinal survey design. A total of 612 adolescents participated in the first wave (T1), with informed consent obtained from both students and their parents. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (Anonymized). All questionnaires were administered online through the Wenjuanxing platform. The two waves of data collection were spaced 6 months apart. In the second wave (T2), 480 students participated. Based on response time and attention check items, invalid responses were excluded. A final sample of 449 participants with valid data at both time points was retained for analysis (233 females, 51.9%; age range = 15–17 years, M age = 15.81, SD = 0.613).

To assess whether sample attrition occurred completely at random, Little's MCAR test was performed based on T1 data. The results indicated that the data were missing completely at random (χ 2(127) = 148.66, p = 0.092). A chi‐squared test showed a significant gender difference between participants who completed T2 and those who dropped out (χ 2(1) = 10.03, p = 0.002), with a higher dropout rate among boys. Independent samples t‐tests revealed significant differences between the retained and attrited participants on four T1 variables: mother downward comparison (p = 0.013), father upward comparison (p = 0.037), father downward comparison (p = 0.026) and authentic living (p = 0.013). The retained group scored higher than the dropout group on the three parental comparison variables and lower on the authentic living dimension.

2.2. Measurements

2.2.1. Perceived Parental Comparison

Perceived parental comparison was assessed using a set of self‐developed items. Drawing on social comparison theory (Festinger 1954) and temporal comparison theory (Wilson and Ross 2000), the present study conceptualised parental comparison as involving two reference frames (social vs. temporal), each with distinct directional forms (upward vs. downward; progress vs. decline). Initial items were generated to capture the four theoretically derived comparison forms and were subsequently refined through discussions with researchers and graduate students in related reseearch field. To reflect common areas of parental evaluation during adolescence, items were developed across three domains: academic performance (e.g., learning attitudes, study habits and efficiency, or academic achievement), personal qualities (e.g., responsibility, conscientiousness, caring for others) and daily habits (e.g., sleep schedules, eating habits, exercise frequency). These domains were chosen to reflect achievement‐related, interpersonal and behavioural aspects of adolescent functioning and are broadly consistent with prior research suggesting that parental comparison extends beyond academic performance to multiple developmental domains (Zhang and Yan 2024). Each comparison form was measured separately for the father and the mother, with three items per parent for each form (yielding a total of 24 items). Adolescents were asked to report how frequently their father or mother engaged in the corresponding type of comparison during the past 6 months. For example, upward social comparison referred to parents mentioning peers who performed better and encouraging adolescents to learn from them, whereas downward social comparison referred to comparisons with peers who performed worse. Progress‐focused temporal comparison referred to parents emphasising improvement relative to the adolescent's past self, whereas decline‐focused temporal comparison referred to highlighting deterioration relative to previous performance. The full item structure and instruction stems for all comparison forms are provided in Table S1. Within each comparison form, adolescents rated parental comparison across all three domains. All items were rated on a five‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always), with higher scores indicating more frequent parental comparison in that domain. Given substantial correlations between mother and father scores across comparison forms at both time‐points (r s  = 0.58 ˜ 0.84) and the focus on overall parental influence, scores were averaged to represent general parental comparison. Specifically, the mean score for the father and the mother was first calculated separately, followed by computing the average of these two means to obtain an integrated parental comparison score.

The items showed good internal consistency. Cronbach's α s ranged from 0.782 to 0.922 for the mother scales at T1, and from 0.848 to 0.935 for the father scales at T1. At T2, the values ranged from 0.848 to 0.939 for the mother scales and from 0.886 to 0.952 for the father scales. Confirmatory factor analyses conducted separately at T1 and T2 supported the hypothesised four‐factor structure for both parental sources, with model fit indices indicating good fit across waves (see Table S2). Measurement invariance across parental sources (mother vs. father) and across time (T1 vs. T2) was supported, with ΔCFI ≤ 0.010 and ΔRMSEA ≤ 0.015 across configural, weak and strong invariance models (Cheung and Rensvold 2002; see Table S3).

2.2.2. Authenticity

Adolescent authenticity was assessed using the Authenticity Scale, developed by Wood et al. (2008). The scale includes 12 items encompassing three dimensions: self‐alienation (e.g., ‘I don't feel I know myself very well’), authentic living (e.g., ‘I always stand by what I believe in’) and accepting external influence (e.g., ‘I am strongly influenced by the opinions of others’). Participants rated each item on a seven‐point scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (completely true). Higher scores on self‐alienation and accepting external influence indicate lower authenticity, whereas higher scores on authentic living indicate higher authenticity. Prior research has demonstrated good reliability and validity for this scale among Chinese adolescents (Li et al. 2023). In the present study, Cronbach's α for the total scale was 0.866 at T1 (with subscale values ranging from 0.882 to 0.943) and 0.842 at T2 (ranging from 0.894 to 0.934). The scale also showed good structural validity (see Table S2). Furthermore, measurement invariance across time was supported (see Table S3).

2.2.3. School Adjustment

The academic adjustment and peer relationship subscales from the School Adjustment Scale developed by Cui (2008) were used. The academic adjustment subscale consists of five items, including both negatively worded (e.g., ‘I am often absent‐minded when studying’) and positively worded items (e.g., ‘I actively plan my study schedule and manage my time’). The peer relationship subscale consists of six items (e.g., ‘Many classmates have conflicts with me’). All items were rated on a five‐point scale (1 = not at all true, 5 = completely true).

Cronbach's α values for the peer relationship subscale were 0.937 at T1 and 0.949 at T2, indicating excellent internal consistency. In contrast, the academic adjustment subscale showed notably lower reliability (T1: α = 0.687; T2: α = 0.465). Examination of inter‐item correlations revealed a consistent pattern of weak associations between positively and negatively worded items across both waves (see Table S4), suggesting that the subscale may not represent a unidimensional construct and that item wording direction may contribute to systematic variance. Because this pattern was particularly pronounced at T2, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted to examine the underlying structure of the academic adjustment subscale. The results supported a two‐factor solution consisting of Motivated Learning Behaviour (three positively worded items) and Disengaged Learning Disposition (two negatively worded items), accounting for 35.5% and 30.3% of the variance, respectively (see Table S5). These factors were conceptually interpretable and reflected distinct aspects of academic adjustment. Internal consistency estimates for the resulting subscales were modest, which may partly reflect the small number of items (Motivated Learning Behaviour: T1 α = 0.632, T2 α = 0.641; Disengaged Learning Disposition: T1 α = 0.658, T2 α = 0.673). Nevertheless, correlations among items within each factor were generally in the expected direction and magnitude (see Table S4), providing support for their internal coherence. Accordingly, the two factors were retained as separate constructs in subsequent analyses.

A confirmatory factor analysis based on the three‐factor model (Motivated Learning Behaviour, Disengaged Learning Disposition and Peer Relationship Adjustment) showed good structural validity (see Table S2) and demonstrated measurement invariance across time (see Table S3).

2.3. Analysis Plan

Analyses were based on adolescents who completed both survey waves; as all items were mandatory in the online system, no missing data occurred. All statistical analyses were conducted in R 4.4.2. To examine the longitudinal structure among perceived parental comparison, authenticity and school adjustment, a cross‐lagged panel network (CLPN) was estimated following Rhemtulla et al. (2021). Each variable at Time 2 was regressed on all variables at Time 1 using LASSO regression, with regularisation parameters selected through tenfold cross‐validation to balance model fit and parsimony. Within the CLPN, out‐expected influence (out‐EI) and in‐expected influence (in‐EI) were used to characterise nodes' longitudinal predictive roles and receptivity to influence. In addition, one‐step bridge expected influence (Bridge EI) was calculated based on theory‐driven community structures (parental comparison, authenticity and school maladjustment) to identify nodes linking these domains across time (Jones et al. 2021). Precision and stability were evaluated using nonparametric and case‐drop bootstrap procedures (2000 iterations), with correlation stability (CS) coefficients above 0.25 indicating acceptable stability and values above 0.50 indicating high stability (Epskamp et al. 2018).

3. Results

3.1. Accuracy and Stability of the Longitudinal Network Parameters

Bootstrap confidence intervals indicated that the stronger edges were estimated with relatively high precision, and bootstrap means closely matched the sample estimates, suggesting little bias (see Figure S1). Case‐drop bootstrap analysis further showed acceptable stability for out‐EI and in‐EI (CS = 0.32) and high stability for bridge EI (CS = 0.75).

3.2. The CLPN Inference

Figure 1 presents the CLPN, illustrating temporal associations among perceived parental comparison, adolescent authenticity and school adjustment (see Table S6 for edge weights).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Cross‐lagged panel network of perceived parental comparison, adolescent authenticity and school adjustment from T1 to T2. Green edges indicate positive associations, and red edges indicate negative associations. Edge thickness reflects the magnitude of the association. C1 = Parental upward social comparison, C2 = Parental downward social comparison, C3 = Parental temporal comparison of progress, C4 = Parental temporal comparison of decline, A1 = Self‐alienation, A2 = Authentic living, A3 = External influence, S1 = Peer relationship problems, S2 = Motivated learning behaviour, S3 = Disengaged learning disposition. To make the cross‐lagged edges more visually interpretable, autoregressive edges and cross‐lagged edges in the same cluster were excluded.

Across centrality and bridge indices, a small set of nodes consistently occupied relatively prominent structural positions (see Figures 2 and 3). Parental upward comparison (C1) ranked highest in both out‐expected influence and bridge expected influence, followed by self‐alienation (A1), parental temporal comparison of decline (C4) and peer relationship problems (S1), which also demonstrated relatively high values on both indices. In contrast, parental downward comparison (C2) showed the highest in‐expected influence.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Out/in‐expected influence centrality indices of the cross‐lagged panel network. C1 = Parental upward social comparison, C2 = Parental downward social comparison, C3 = Parental temporal comparison of progress, C4 = Parental temporal comparison of decline, A1 = Self‐alienation, A2 = Authentic living, A3 = External influence, S1 = Peer relationship problems, S2 = Motivated learning behaviour, S3 = Disengaged learning disposition.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Bridge expected influence centrality indices of the cross‐lagged panel network. C1 = Parental upward social comparison, C2 = Parental downward social comparison, C3 = Parental temporal comparison of progress, C4 = Parental temporal comparison of decline, A1 = Self‐alienation, A2 = Authentic living, A3 = External influence, S1 = Peer relationship problems, S2 = Motivated learning behaviour, S3 = Disengaged learning disposition.

Table S7 displays the Top 17 cross‐cluster edges, among which several theoretically meaningful pathways emerged. Focusing on the most salient cross‐domain pathways, upward and downward social comparisons showed temporal associations with peer relationship problems in opposite directions (r s  = 0.12 and −0.11, respectively). Conversely, school adjustment variables were also associated with subsequent changes in perceived parental comparison. Specifically, peer problems were associated with higher levels of parental temporal comparison of decline (r = 0.18), whereas disengaged learning disposition (r = −0.16) and motivated learning behaviour (r = −0.13) were associated with lower levels of this comparison form. These findings suggest reciprocal associations between adolescents' school functioning and their perceptions of parental comparisons. In parallel, parental temporal comparison of progress was associated with lower subsequent self‐alienation (r = −0.15), whereas authenticity showed modest but meaningful associations with school adjustment.

3.3. Robustness Analysis

To assess the robustness of the findings, a CLPN model was estimated with paternal and maternal comparison dimensions separated. The results revealed a largely similar network structure and highly comparable centrality and bridge centrality patterns, indicating that the core findings were not affected by whether maternal and paternal comparisons were distinguished (see Figures S2 and S4).

4. Discussion

Although parental comparison has been increasingly recognised as a salient evaluative experience during adolescence, it remains unclear how different forms of perceived parental comparison are embedded in adolescents' self‐related experiences and school adjustment over time. Using a CLPN approach, the present study examined the dynamic associations among perceived parental comparison, authenticity and school adjustment, and identified differentiated structural roles of these constructs within adolescents' adjustment‐related processes. Overall, the findings suggest that adolescents' perceived parental comparison experiences, authenticity and school adjustment are interconnected in a dynamic and reciprocal structure that may not be fully captured by traditional variable‐centred approaches.

Across centrality and bridge indices, a small set of nodes consistently occupied relatively prominent structural positions. Parental upward comparison, self‐alienation, temporal comparison of decline and peer relationship problems ranked high in both out‐expected influence and bridge expected influence, suggesting that they occupied bridging positions within the network. In contrast, parental downward comparison primarily functioned as a receptive node, absorbing influence from other comparison types and adjustment‐related processes. This pattern underscores the importance of upward and decline‐focused comparisons in structuring adolescents' perceptions of evaluative experiences, while also highlighting peer relationship problems as a salient adjustment domain embedded in these processes. These findings should also be interpreted within the Chinese educational context. In high school settings characterised by intense academic competition and high‐stakes examinations, parents often place substantial emphasis on adolescents' performance and educational attainment (Xing et al. 2023). Within such contexts, evaluative messages that emphasise outperforming others or avoiding decline may carry particular salience for adolescents.

Examination of cross‐domain pathways further revealed reciprocal associations between perceived parental comparison experiences and adolescents' school functioning. Upward and downward social comparisons were associated with peer relationship problems in opposite directions, consistent with prior research suggesting that upward comparisons may be associated with heightened evaluative pressure (Lee et al. 2020; Liu et al. 2025), whereas downward comparisons may reflect less threatening evaluative climates (Zheng et al. 2015). At the same time, school adjustment variables were associated with subsequent changes in perceived parental comparison. Peer relationship problems were associated with increased temporal comparison of decline, whereas motivated learning behaviour and disengaged learning disposition were associated with reduced decline‐focused comparisons. These findings suggest that adolescents' social difficulties may be accompanied by increased perceptions of decline‐focused parental evaluation, potentially reflecting how social problems are interpreted as broader adjustment concerns beyond academic performance. Furthermore, cultural norms emphasising educational achievement and parental responsibility for children's success (Wu et al. 2023) may increase adolescents' sensitivity to parental evaluations, potentially contributing to the associations observed between perceived parental comparison experiences and adjustment‐related processes.

In terms of authenticity, parental temporal comparison of progress was associated with lower self‐alienation. This finding aligns with self‐determination theory, which emphasises the role of feedback that supports autonomy and self‐coherence (Deci and Ryan 2000) and extends temporal comparison theory (Albert 1977; Wilson and Ross 2000) by suggesting that progress‐focused evaluations may foster adolescents' sense of self‐integration. Authenticity also showed modest but meaningful associations with school adjustment, suggesting that adolescents' sense of self‐integration is linked to adjustment‐related processes, even if it does not function as a globally central node within the network.

Overall, the findings suggest that perceived parental comparison, authenticity and school adjustment form a dynamically interconnected system during adolescence. Different forms of perceived parental comparison occupied distinct structural roles, with upward and decline‐focused comparisons emerging as influential connectors, whereas downward comparisons primarily reflected associations with other adjustment‐related processes. Authenticity did not occupy a structurally central position but was embedded within key pathways linking adolescents' evaluative experiences and school adjustment.

4.1. Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations should be noted. First, the short‐term longitudinal design, spanning 6 months, limits conclusions about longer‐term developmental patterns. Future studies could employ longer follow‐up periods to examine the stability and evolution of network structures over time. Second, the sample was drawn from a single high school in eastern China, which may limit generalizability to other cultural or educational contexts. In addition, although Little's MCAR test was nonsignificant, retained and attrited participants differed on gender and several baseline variables. As a result, the final analytic sample may not fully represent the original cohort, which should be considered when interpreting the generalizability of the findings. Third, the reliance on adolescents' self‐reports may have introduced shared method variance; incorporating parent or teacher reports would provide a more comprehensive view of family and school processes. Finally, school adjustment was operationalised using academic and peer domains, excluding other potentially relevant dimensions such as teacher–student relationships or rule compliance. Broader assessments of school functioning are needed to better reflect the complexity of school experiences. In addition, the reliability of the Motivated Learning Behaviour and Disengaged Learning Disposition subscales was modest, which may have introduced additional measurement error into estimates involving these dimensions. Findings related to these variables should therefore be interpreted with caution.

4.2. Implications

Despite these limitations, the study offers several theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, it advances research on parental comparison by conceptualising it as a multidimensional construct that varies by reference frame (social vs. temporal) and direction (upward vs. downward). By demonstrating that different comparison forms occupy distinct structural positions within a longitudinal network, the findings highlight the functional heterogeneity of parental comparison rather than treating it as a unitary construct. More broadly, the study highlights the value of a network‐based longitudinal perspective for understanding adolescent development as a set of interrelated processes spanning adolescents' evaluative experiences, self‐related functioning and school adjustment.

From a practical standpoint, the findings suggest that parental comparison should not be viewed as a uniform evaluative practice. Different comparison forms may convey different meanings for adolescents, with some forms more closely linked to adjustment difficulties than others. The prominence of peer relationship problems and self‐alienation within the network further suggests that difficulties in these areas may signal broader adjustment risks that are not limited to school‐related experiences. These patterns may help parents and educators better interpret adolescents' adjustment difficulties within the broader context of family evaluative practices.

Author Contributions

Wei Wu: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, visualization, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Yanshu Zhu: investigation, data curation. Yan Wang: conceptualization, funding acquisition, project administration, supervision.

Funding

This study was supported by a project funded by the Asian Research Center of Fudan University.

Ethics Statement

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Review Board of Fudan University (approval number FDU‐SSDPP‐IRB‐2025‐1‐126) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent

Informed consent was obtained from both students and their parents before completing the measures.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Table S1: Item structure of the perceived parental comparison measure.

Table S2: Confirmatory factor analysis results.

Table S3: Measurement invariance results.

Table S4: Inter‐items correlations of the academic subscale.

Table S5: Exploratory factor analysis results of the academic subscale (Based on T2 data).

Table S6: Partial correlation coefficients of directed edges in cross‐lagged panel network.

Table S7: The Top 17 cross‐cluster edges.

Figure S1: Accuracy of the edge estimates in cross‐lagged panel network.

Figure S2: Cross‐lagged panel network with separated maternal and paternal comparisons.

Figure S3: Out‐ and in‐expected influence centrality indices from the robustness analysis.

Figure S4: Bridge expected influence centrality indices from the robustness analysis.

IJOP-61-e70261-s001.docx (159.2KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the adolescents who participated in our study and the people who assisted in data collection. During the preparation of this work, the authors used ChatGPT for language editing to improve clarity and avoid grammatical mistakes. After using this service, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Albert, S. 1977. “Temporal Comparison Theory.” Psychological Review 84, no. 6: 485–503. 10.1037/0033-295X.84.6.485. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cheung, G. W. , and Rensvold R. B.. 2002. “Evaluating Goodness–Of–Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 9, no. 2: 233–255. 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Collins, R. L. 1996. “For Better or Worse: The Impact of Upward Social Comparison on Self‐Evaluations.” Psychological Bulletin 119, no. 1: 51–69. 10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.51. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cui, N. 2008. “A Study on the Relationship of School Adaptation and Self‐Conception Among Junior School Students.” Master's thesis, Southwest University, Chongqing.
  5. Deci, E. L. , and Ryan R. M.. 2000. “The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self‐Determination of Behavior.” Psychological Inquiry 11, no. 4: 227–268. 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Epskamp, S. , Borsboom D., and Fried E. I.. 2018. “Estimating Psychological Networks and Their Accuracy: A Tutorial Paper.” Behavior Research Methods 50, no. 1: 195–212. 10.3758/s13428-017-0862-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Festinger, L. 1954. “A Theory of Social Comparison Processes.” Human Relations 7: 117–140. 10.1177/001872675400700202. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Funkhouser, C. J. , Chacko A. A., Correa K. A., Kaiser A. J., and Shankman S. A.. 2021. “Unique Longitudinal Relationships Between Symptoms of Psychopathology in Youth: A Cross‐Lagged Panel Network Analysis in the ABCD Study.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines 62, no. 2: 184–194. 10.1111/jcpp.13256. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gueta, B. , and Berkovich I.. 2022. “The Effect of Autonomy‐Supportive Climate in a Second Chance Programme for At‐Risk Youth on Dropout Risk: The Mediating Role of Adolescents' Sense of Authenticity.” European Journal of Psychology of Education 37, no. 1: 85–100. 10.1007/s10212-021-00542-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Jones, P. J. , Ma R., and McNally R. J.. 2021. “Bridge Centrality: A Network Approach to Understanding Comorbidity.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 56, no. 2: 353–367. 10.1080/00273171.2019.1614898. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kernis, M. H. , and Goldman B. M.. 2006. “A Multicomponent Conceptualization of Authenticity: Theory and Research.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 38: 283–357. 10.1016/s0065-2601(06)38006-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Lee, Y. , Ha J. H., and Jue J.. 2020. “Structural Equation Modeling and the Effect of Perceived Academic Inferiority, Socially Prescribed Perfectionism, and Parents' Forced Social Comparison on Adolescents' Depression and Aggression.” Children and Youth Services Review 108: 104649. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104649. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Li, Q. , Ren X., Zhou Z., and Wang J.. 2023. “Reciprocal Relationships Between Self‐Control and Self‐Authenticity: A Two‐Wave Study.” Frontiers in Psychology 14: 1207230. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1207230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Liu, H. , Kvintova J., and Vachova L.. 2025. “Parents' Social Comparisons and Adolescent Self‐Esteem: The Mediating Effect of Upward Social Comparison and the Moderating Influence of Optimism.” Frontiers in Psychology 16: 1473318. 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1473318. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Luthar, S. S. , Ebbert A. M., and Kumar N. L.. 2021. “Risk and Resilience Among Asian American Youth: Ramifications of Discrimination and Low Authenticity in Self‐Presentations.” American Psychologist 76, no. 4: 643–657. 10.1037/amp0000764. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Núñez, J. L. , and León J.. 2016. “The Mediating Effect of Intrinsic Motivation to Learn on the Relationship Between Student s Autonomy Support and Vitality and Deep Learning.” Spanish Journal of Psychology 19: E42. 10.1017/sjp.2016.43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Peets, K. , and Hodges E. V. E.. 2018. “Authenticity in Friendships and Well‐Being in Adolescence.” Social Development 27, no. 1: 140–153. 10.1111/sode.12254. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Rhemtulla, M. , van Bork R., Cramer A. O. J., Chelini C., and Waldorp L. J.. 2021. “Cross‐Lagged Network Models.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 56, no. 2: 264–284. 10.1080/00273171.2020.1727408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Rivera, G. N. , Christy A. G., Kim J., Vess M., Hicks J. A., and Schlegel R. J.. 2019. “Understanding the Relationship Between Perceived Authenticity and Well‐Being.” Review of General Psychology 23, no. 1: 113–126. 10.1037/gpr0000161. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ryan, W. S. , and Ryan R. M.. 2019. “Toward a Social Psychology of Authenticity: Exploring Within‐Person Variation in Autonomy, Congruence, and Genuineness Using Self‐Determination Theory.” Review of General Psychology 23, no. 1: 99–112. 10.1037/gpr0000162. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Tarahi, R. , and Jafarzadeh M. R.. 2022. “The Mediating Role of Authenticity Personality Dimensions in the Relationship Between Perceptions of School Climate and Academic Well‐Being.” Educational Psychology 17, no. 62: 31–54. 10.22054/jep.2022.65571.3544. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Thai, S. , Lockwood P., Zhu R., Li Y., and He J. C.. 2019. “The Family Ties That Protect: Expanded‐Self Comparisons in Parent–Child Relationships.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36, no. 3: 1041–1066. 10.1177/0265407518754363. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Theran, S. A. 2010. “Authenticity With Authority Figures and Peers: Girls' Friendships, Self‐Esteem, and Depressive Symptomatology.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27, no. 4: 519–534. 10.1177/0265407510363429. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Verschueren, K. , Doumen S., and Buyse E.. 2012. “Relationships With Mother, Teacher, and Peers: Unique and Joint Effects on Young Children's Self‐Concept.” Attachment & Human Development 14, no. 3: 233–248. 10.1080/14616734.2012.672263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Wills, T. A. 1981. “Downward Comparison Principles in Social Psychology.” Psychological Bulletin 90, no. 2: 245–271. 10.1037/0033-2909.90.2.245. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Wilson, A. E. , and Ross M.. 2000. “The Frequency of Temporal‐Self and Social Comparisons in People's Personal Appraisals.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78, no. 5: 928–942. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Wood, A. M. , Linley P. A., Maltby J., Baliousis M., and Joseph S.. 2008. “The Authentic Personality: A Theoretical and Empirical Conceptualization and the Development of the Authenticity Scale.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 55, no. 3: 385–399. 10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Wu, W. , Zhang Y., and Wang Y.. 2023. “Associations Between Profiles of Helicopter Parenting and Decisional Procrastination Among Chinese Adolescents.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 52, no. 6: 1219–1234. 10.1007/s10964-023-01764-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Xing, H. , Yao M., Zhu W., Li J., and Liu H.. 2023. “The Role of Perceived Parent Social Comparisons in Adolescent Academic Social Comparison, Self‐Efficacy, and Self‐Handicapping: A Person‐Centered Approach.” Current Psychology 42, no. 18: 15600–15615. 10.1007/s12144-022-02850-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Zhang, Y. , and Yan N.. 2024. “Comparing Upward: How Parental Social Comparisons Shape Children's Self‐Concept and Mastery Motivation in China.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 247: 106048. 10.1016/j.jecp.2024.106048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Zheng, X. , Peng S., and Peng L.. 2015. “Feeling Better and Becoming More Benevolent: Impact of Social Comparison on Prosocial Behavior.” Acta Psychologica Sinica 47: 243–250. 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00243. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Table S1: Item structure of the perceived parental comparison measure.

Table S2: Confirmatory factor analysis results.

Table S3: Measurement invariance results.

Table S4: Inter‐items correlations of the academic subscale.

Table S5: Exploratory factor analysis results of the academic subscale (Based on T2 data).

Table S6: Partial correlation coefficients of directed edges in cross‐lagged panel network.

Table S7: The Top 17 cross‐cluster edges.

Figure S1: Accuracy of the edge estimates in cross‐lagged panel network.

Figure S2: Cross‐lagged panel network with separated maternal and paternal comparisons.

Figure S3: Out‐ and in‐expected influence centrality indices from the robustness analysis.

Figure S4: Bridge expected influence centrality indices from the robustness analysis.

IJOP-61-e70261-s001.docx (159.2KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from International Journal of Psychology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES