Parental Psychological Control: Revisiting a

Neglected Construct

Brian K. Barber
Br*g/zom Young University

BznBzn, Bus K. Parental Psqcfiofogicnf Gontrol: Revisiting a Neglected Construct. CiimD

DE- VELOPMENT, 1996, 67, 3296—3319. This article argues for the value in socialization
research of focusing explicitly on the construct of parental psychological control of children—
control that constrains, invalidates, and manipulates children’s psychological and emotional
experience and expression. The article traces the history of the construct and distinguishes
psychological control theoretically and empirically from more behaviorally oriented control. 2
new measures of psycho- logical control are developed. Data from 3 separate studies are
presented which indicate that psychological control can be adequately measured across
demographically varied samples and mode of measurement. In both cross-sectional and
longitudinal analyses, psychological control, particularly as perceived by preadolescents and
adolescents, is consistently predictive of youth internalized problems (depression) and, in some
cases, externalized problems (delinquency). In contrast, behavioral control is related primarily
to externalized problems.

The research literature investigating the

expression, emotions, and attachment to par-
nature and effects of parental control of chil-
ents). Behavioral control, in contrast, refers
dren and adolescents is broad and complex.
to parental behaviors that attempt to control
It contains numerous different conceptual-
or manage children’s behavior. While some
izations of control, and findings are often in-
consistent or equivocal (see Barber, 1992; forms of psychological intervention by
Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, 1994; Rollins par- ents appear to be positive, as in the use
of reasoning to encourage awareness and
& Thomas, 1979, for reviews). This
sensi- tivity to consequences (see review by
literature has benefited from attempts to
Gru- sec & Goodnow, 1994), psychological
provide some conceptual organization to
con- trol as a parenting dimension has
parental control of children, such as the
almost exclusively been conceptualized as a
distinction between coercive, inductive, and
nega- tive form of control. This article
undifferentiated control attempts (Rollins maintains this position.
& Thomas, 1979) and the two-fold
classification of respon- siveness and Although psychological control was in-
demandingness (Baumrind, 1991; cluded in some of the earliest conceptualiza-
tions of parenting and continues to be im-
Maccoby & Martin, 1983).
plicit in much of the major work,
This article provides additional clarity focused attention to the construct has been
to the complex nature of parental control lacking. This article reviews the history of
by extending work that distinguishes specifi- the con- struct, argues its viability
cally between psychological control and be- theoretically, and presents findings from
havioral control. Psychological control refers three studies de- signed to (1) demonstrate
to control attempts that intrude into the psy- that the construct can be measured
chological and emotional development of accurately, (2) provide evi- dence for its
the child (e.g., thinking processes, self- salience to aspects of youth psy-

Data for Study 1 were collected in collaboration with the Section on Social and Emotional
Development, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Appreciation is
expressed to the administrators, teachers, and families of the Knox County Department of Public
Instruction for participating in the study. Study 2 was supported by grants DA 05304 and DA
07031 from the National Institute of Drug Abuse, U.S. Public Health Service (US PH S) to the
Oregon Social Learning Center. Particular appreciation is expressed to Thomas J. Dishion for
his interest in and consultation on this work and for the time, data, and resources he made
available. Appreciation is also expressed to Cheryl Buehler, D. Russell Crane, Douglas L. Free-
man, Stephen Gavazzi, Stuart T. Hauser, and LaNae Valentine for consultation on construct
formation. Study 3 was supported by grant R29-M H47067-03 from the National Institute of
Men- tal Health to Brian K. Barber. Appreciation is expressed to the administrators, teachers,
and families of the Odgen Utah County School District for participating in this study.
Appreciation is expressed to Xiaojia Ge for assistance with the longitudinal data analysis.
[Child Det:elopment, 1996, 67, 3296—3319. fi 1996 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/96/6706-0034501.00]
 Brian K. Barber 3297
chological and social functioning, and (3)
test hypotheses about its specialized associa- opment through manipulation and exploi-
tions with youth internalized problems. tation of the parent-child bond (e.g., love-
Throughout the article, behavioral control withdrawal and guilt induction), nega- tive,
and its effects are used as a point of contrast affect-laden expressions and criticisms
to illustrate the properties of psychological (e.g., disappointment and shame), and
control. exces- sive personal control (e.g.,
possessiveness, protectiveness). Yet, the
psychological con- trol construct received
History of the Psychological very little research attention in the years
Control Construct following Becker’s and Schaefer’s work,
Explicit attention to the construct of and this despite Schluder- mann and
psychological control emerged in the 1960s, Schludermann’s (1970, personal
particularly in the work of Becker (1964) and communication, 1988) successive refine-
Schaefer (1965a, l965b). Becker (1964) drew ments of the CRPBI. Several major reviews
from work by Allinsmith (1960) and MacKin- in subsequent decades (Maccoby & J. Mar-
non (1938) in defining psychological disci- tin, 1983; B. Martin, 1975; Rollins &
pline as parental behavior that, for example, Thomas, 1979) either ignored the
appeals to pride and guilt, expresses disap- psycholog- ical control construct or
pointrpept, withdraws love, isolate the child, mentioned it with- out elaboration or
and involves shaming. For these scholars, development, and the construct long was
psychological discipline was an ex- ample of neglected in empirical analyses of the
negative, love-oriented discipline; discipline socialization process. Re- cently, however,
that involved the manipulation of the love Steinberg (Steinberg, 1990; Steinberg,
relationship between the parent and the Elmen, & Mounts, 1989; Steinberg,
child as a means of controlling child behavior. Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992;
This negative, love-oriented disci- pline stood Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dorn-
in contrast to positive, love- oriented busch, 1991) has consistendy found psycho-
discipline (i.e., praise and reason- ing) and to logical control/autonomy to be distinct from
power assertive discipline techniques, such as behavioral control and parental acceptance
physical punishment, yelling, forceful (as did Schaefer, 1965b), but to this point
commands, and verbal threats. he has aggregated these into typologies.
Other researchers have begun to focus on
Schaefer’s (1959, 1965a, 1965b) factor the inde- pendent contributions of
analyses of child and parent report on his psychological con- trol to youth functioning
Child Report of Parent Behavior Inventory (Barber, 1992; Bar- ber et al., 1994; Barber
(CRPBI) revealed three replicated factors: & Shagle, 1992; Fauber, Forehand,
Acceptance versus Rejection, Firm Control Thomas, & Wierson, 1990).
versus Lax Control, and Psychological Au-
tonomy versus Psychological Control. Pa- Theoretical guidance for further re-
rental behavior scales that primarily defined search on this distinction comes from several
this latter factor were Intrusiveness, Paren- formulations of the idea that parents can in-
tal Direction, and Control through Guilt. trude upon the psychological and emotional
Other scales with significant loadings on development of their children. Diana Baum-
this factor (but also had cross-loadings on rind’s (Baumrind, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1978)
one of the other two factors) were discussions of parental control consistently
Possessiveness, Protectiveness, Nagging, endorse parental styles that encourage the
Negative Evalua- tion, Strictness, and child’s expression of opinions, verbal give
Punishment. Schaefer (1965b, p. 555) and take between parents and children, and
labeled this factor Psycholog- ical autonomous expression of children’s indi-
Autonomy vs. Psychological Control be- viduality. She also underscores the
cause “the defining scales describe covert, importance of recognizing the child’s
psychological methods of controlling the individual interests and affirming the child’s
child’s activities and behaviors that would qualities (Baumrind, 1978), and she warns
not permit the child to develop as an indi- specifically against guilt-inducing techniques
vidual apart from the parent.” and the manipulation of the love relationship
with the child (Baumrind, 1966). In her recent
These early efforts converged in the analyses of her subjects as adolescents,
view that psychological control is a rather Baumrind (1991) labeled one of the four
insidious type of control that potentially in- control scales that emerged from cluster
hibits or intrudes upon psychological devel- analyses In- trusive.
This work has not facilitated clear
prog- ress in understanding the precise
3298 Child Development
nature and
patterns that are in- trusive and inhibit
effects of psychological control, however, psychological autonomy.
because of two limitations of the
typological approach to parenting. First, the
authoritar- ian prototype has typically
included both psychologically and
nonpsychologically ori- ented forms of
control. As will be discussed later, the
effects of these types of control could be
quite different, a difference that is
undetectable if both forms of control are ag-
gregated. (This changed in the 1991 report
when high scores on the Intrusiveness vari-
able were used to distinguish authoritarian-
directive from nonauthoritarian-directive
families. Thus, psychological control was
separated from nonpsychological [assertive]
control.) Second, despite this recent disag-
gregation of psychological and nonpsycho-
logical control, the authoritarian typology
has always included elements of still other
dimensions of parenting, such as rejec-
tion (Baumrind, 1967) and responsiveness
(Baumrind, 1991). This combination also
precludes the identification of any unique
effects of the individual forms of parenting.
In a separate line of research, Hauser
has also emphasized parenting behaviors
that are very consonant with psychological
control (Hauser, 1991; Hauser et al., 1984).
For Hauser (building on Stierlin, 1974),
mo- ment-to-moment exchanges between
par- ents and children can either facilitate
(en- able) or restrict (constrain) interactions
that are critical to the child’s ego
development. Enabling interactions enhance
individuality by way of explaining,
expressing curiosity, and engaging in joint
problem solving. On the other hand,
constraining interactions that, for example,
devalue, judge, exces- sively gratify,
distract, withhold, or show in- difference,
interfere in the development of individuality
(Hauser, 1991). Such interac- tions
undermine a child’s participation in family
interactions and discourage involve- ment
with perceptions, ideas, and observa- tions
(Hauser et al., 1984).
Support for the salience of the psycho-
logical control construct is also available in
clinical literatures. Depressed persons recall
their parents to have been psychologically
controlling (e.g., overintrusive, guilt induc-
ing, negatively evaluating, etc.; Burbach &
Bourdin, 1986). Also, family members’
open- ness to the ideas of others
(permeability) and respect for maintaining
one’s own beliefs (mutuality) are central in
the work of Grote- vant and Cooper (1986).
Similarly, family therapist researchers have
long been con- cerned with relationship
 Brian K. Barber 3299
individual freedom and autonomy—and
Examples include undifferentiated and collectivism—the sub- mission to the general
fused relationships (Bowen, 1978; will of society (see Peterson, 1995, for a
Sabatelli & Mazor, 1985), enmeshed discussion). The para- dox has been equally
relationships (Minuchin, 1974), and recognized at the level of individual
closed and synchro- nous family personality and social compe- tence, with
paradigms, both of which deem- repeated distinctions between the
phasize the individuality of family psychological (e.g., psychological/emo- tional
members in favor of the group autonomy) and behavioral (e.g., con- formity
(Constantine, 1986). to rules and regulations) dimensions of a
child’s experience. Baldwin (1948, p.
This present article extends recent 131) wrote: “Socialization by definition de-
at- tempts to validate the construct of mands the development of contradictory as-
psycho- logical control and advance pects of the personality. Conformity to cul-
understanding of its role in the tural demands is not easily obtained without
socialization process (Bar- ber, 1992; robbing the child of that personal integrity
Barber & Shagle, 1992; Barber et al., which gives him a mind of his own and
1994). In theorizing about the role of which supports him in his attempts to
psy- chological control in the satisfy his curiosity and to carry out his
socialization pro- cess it is useful to ideas and phantasies in his dealing with the
focus on two related is- sues: (1) if and real world.” Similarly, Baumrind (1978, p.
how psychological control differs from 248) spoke of the “eternal contradicUons of
other types of control and (2) if and social living” when contrasting the other-
how it is related uniquely to aspects oriented/ rule-following and
of children’s development. In autonomous/agentic as- pects of
addressing the former, my approach, instrumental competence. Empiri- cally,
consistent with Steinberg’s (1990) Schaefer (1965b) made the same dis-
admonition, has been to contrast tinction by separating psychological control
psychological control with behav- ioral from firm control.
control. Historically, this distinction
has deep roots in the sociopolitical Distinguishing between psychological
experi- ence of Western civilization. and behavioral control facilitates an impor-
This is seen particularly in the conflict tant shift in understanding the nature of con-
between indi- vidualism—maximizing trol. The focus of much socialization re-
search is the quantity of control that is
exercised over a child, with specific con- ioral control) of human deivelopment—
cerns over issues such as the absolute level parallels the earlier posed distinction
of control, critical thresholds of control, and between human tendencies toward both au-
the linear versus curvilinear nature of con- tonomy and conformity. In short,
trol (e.g., Miller, McCoy, Olson, & Wallace, psycholog- ical control is different from
1986; Rollins & Thomas, 1979). Separating behavioral con- trol because in each the
psychological control from behavioral con- control is focused on different aspects of the
trol emphasizes where the control is located child’s development. Social science
or focused. Thus, the question is less one of literatures are replete with reference to the
how much control is good or bad for a child need for regulation and con- formity, both
than asking in what areas of a child’s life at the theoretical (e.g., social control
is control facilitating or inhibiting. Referring theories, Hirschi, 1969; Reckless, 1967;
specifically to this distinction between psy- Reiss, 1951) and empirical levels (e.g.,
chological and behavioral control, Steinberg Patterson, 1982; Patterson & Stouthamer-
(1990, p. 274, n. 6) wrote: “Some readers Loeber, 1984). Far less attention, however,
may find it inconsistent, or perhaps confus- has been given to the need for personal au-
ing, that the two forms of control [psycholog- tonomy and the role that control processes
ical and behavioral] appear to have opposite play in inhibiting it.
effects on the adolescent. Adolescents
appear to be adversely affected by psycho- The second issue is whether
logical control—the absence of ‘psychologi- psycholog- ical control uniquely affects
cal autonomy’—but positively influenced by aspects of child functioning. For example,
behavioral control—the presence of ‘de- are behavioral and psychological control
mandingness.’ ” differentially re- lated to existing
distinctions (Achenbach, 1985; Cicchetti
The paradox that Steinberg referred to— & Toth, 1991) between inter- nalized
that control can be both inhibitive (psy- behaviors (inhibited, overcontrolled
chological control) and facilitative (behav- problems that are manifest privately or
3300 Child Development
inter- nally) and externalized problems
(undercon- trolled problems that tend to be problems. Existing literatures imply that
more ag- gressive and socially disruptive)? psychological control should have
I have focused specifically on depression as particular effects on internalized problems
a mea-- sure of internalized problems and in children and that behavioral control
antisocial behavior (as measured by should have more prominent associations
standard delin- quency scales) as a index of with external- ized problems.
externalized Psychologically controlling processes
involve socialization pressure that is
nonresponsive to the child’s emotional and
psychological needs (Maccoby & Mar- tin,
1983), that stifles independent expres- sion
and autonomy (Baumrind, 1965, 1978;
Hauser, 1991; Hauser et al., 1984), and that
does not encourage interaction with others
(Baumrind, 1965, 1978; Hauser, 1991;
Hauser et a1., 1984). Such an environment
makes it difficult for a child to develop a
healthy awareness and perception of self for
several reasons: the implied derogation of
the child, the lack of healthy interaction
with others that is required for adequate
self- definition (Youniss & Smollar, 1985),
limited opportunities to develop a sense of
personal efficacy (Seligman & Peterson,
1986), and, particularly for adolescents,
interference with the exploration needed to
establish a stable identity (Erikson, 1968;
Marcia, 1980). Psychological control has
consistently been found to be correlated
with patterns marked by feelings of guilt,
self- responsibility, confession, and indirect
or nonexpression of aggression (see Becker,
1964), dependency (Baumrind, 1978;
Becker, 1964), alienation (Baumrind,
1968), social withdrawal (Baumrind, 1967;
Baum- rind & Black, 1967), low ego
strength (Hauser, 1991; Hauser et at., 1984;
Siegelman, 1965), inability to make con-
scious choice (Baumrind, 1966), low self-
esteem (Coopersmith, 1967), passive,
inhib- ited, and overcontrolled
characteristics (Beavers, 1982), and
depressed affect (Allen, Hauser, Eickholt,
Bell, & O’Conner, 1994; Barber et al.,
1994; Burbach ée Bourdin, 1986; Fauber et
al., 1990).
In contrast, behavioral control is more
direcdy linked to externalized problems.
Substantial research documents a consistent
relationship between insufficient behavioral
control and undercontrolled behavior prob-
lems in children of all ages. Behaviors asso-
ciated with inadequate behavioral reg-
ulation include impulsivity, aggression,
delinquency, drug use, and sexual precocity
(Baumrind, 1971, 1991; Dishion & Loeber,
1985; Dornbusch et al., 1985; Loeber & Di-
shion, 1984; Maccoby & Martin, 1983;
McCord, 1979, 1990; Miller et al., 1986;
Ol- weus, 1980; Patterson, Capaldi, &
Bank, 1989; Patterson & Stouthamer-
Loeber, 1984; Pulkinnen, 1982; Volk,
 Brian K. Barber 3301
Edwards, Lewis, &
Sprenkle, 1989). Under-controlled environ- ments do not foster self-regulation in chil-
dle-income
dren, often leaving them more impulsive, reckless, families
and more reported
willing living
to take risks with
and
both parents; 13%
violate social norms. In unregulating family environments, reported living
adolescents with mother
in particular also
only. The middle-income
would be likely to be more responsive and susceptible sample
to peer influence, whichwascould
90%
white
include negative influence toward deviant behavior. (N = 523) and 10% black (N = 58).
some unregulated adolescents inten- tionally The “misbehave”
low-income sample was to
in order 42Po (N = 93)
define for
themselves the limits of acceptable be- havior. white and 58'fo (N = 128) black. The sample
was roughly equally distributed by sex and
Initial empirical tests of these ideas grade level. Ninety percent of youth reported
have been .encouraging (Barber et a1., themselves to be Baptist. A survey on many
1994). Second-order factor analysis of aspects of family interaction and youth
several mea- sures of control—measured at behavior were administered in classrooms.
both the dy- adic, parent-child level and the
family sys- tems level—distinguished Measures.—The 10-item psychological
psychological control from behavioral control subscale from the revised Children’s
control, and the con- trasting effects of Report of Parental Behavior Inventory
these on internalized (de- pression) and (CRPBI; Schaefer, 1965b; Schludermann &
externalized (delinquency) problems among Schludermann, personal communication,
pre-, early, and mid- adolescents were 1988) was employed to measure psychologi-
confirmed. Among the lim- itations of that cal control (see Appendix A). The CRPBI
study were the concentration on middle- has been the only existing parent-child as-
income, white families and lim- ited sessment instrument that includes a specific
measures of the criterion variables. measure of psychological conbol. The scale
is typically considered single dimensional
The purpose of this article is to present indexing such components as guilt induc-
results from three separate studies involving tion, love withdrawal, and excessive pres-
a variety of samples to test the measurement sure for change. However, some of the items
properties of psychological control and to ex- appear ambiguous as to the extent to which
plore its associations (compared to behav- they measure control of psychological pro-
ioral control) with adolescent problem be- cesses per se versus control of behavior,
haviors. Particular emphasis is given to the such as “is always telling me how I should
theorized specialized association with inter- behave” and “only keeps rules when it suits
nalized problems. her/him.” Because of this conceptual ambi-
guity and because an intent of this study is to
define a measure of psychological control that
is generalizable across diverse popula- tions,
Method the subscale was submitted to factor analysis
Subjects.—Data for this study came using oblimin rotation to allow for correlation
from the Tennessee Adolescents in Families among factors.
Project (TAIFS), a 1990 school-based
survey study of 875 fifth-, eighth-, and Analyses were conducted separately for
tenth-grade students from 14 schools in the youth reports of mother and father psycho-
Knox County, Tennessee, school system. logical control on successive subsamples of
The sample included 581 middle-income Whites, Blacks, middle-income, and low-
stu- dents and 221 low-income students. income youth, in every case with separate
Income status was classified according to analyses for male and female adolescents
participa- tion in subsidized lunch programs (16 separate analyses). Criteria for item
as re- ported by school officials. For the reten- tion were that items must have a
purposes of this study, students paying for primary loading of at least .50 and that the
lunch were considered middle income and spread between a primary and secondary
students re- ceiving reduced costs for lunch loading must be at least .20. The two
or free lunch were considered low income. ambiguous items mentioned above did not
Twenty-six percent of low-income students survive this procedure. Further, two items
reported liv- ing with both parents; 469c measuring guilt induction (Items 1 arid 2,
reported living with mother only. Sixty-four Appendix A) loaded consistendy apart from
percent of mid- the others and were removed. The
remaining six items defined one factor
when the full data set was analyzed as well
as in a majority of the sub- sample
analyses. In the few cases that a dual factor
solution was achieved, it was the love
withdrawal items (Items 8—10, Appendix
3302 Child Development
A)
which loaded separately. Table 1 presents
the item text, factor loadings, Cronbach’s White youth (M = 1.59, SD = .51), and in-
alpha, means, and standard deviations for the come level, F = 29.26, p < .001, with poorer
four parent-child dyads using the full sample. youth (M = 1.80, SD = .54) reporting more
Alphas for scales computed on the control than higher-income youth (M =
subsamples ranged from .69 (fifth-grade fe- 1.55, SD = .50). Also, an interaction
males) to .81 (White males) for perceived between sex and grade was found, F —
psychological control from mothers, and 4.33, p = .013, showing fifth-grade males
from .69 (fifth-grade females) to .82 (tenth- reporting more control (M = 1.82, SD = .
gracle males) for perceived psychological 56) than fifth-grade females (M — 1.59, SD
control from fathers. The response pattern = .53). For youth reports of fathers’
for these items was a three-point Likert-type psychological control, the same main effect
scale ranging from 1, “Not like her (him),” to for income level was found, F = 6.25, p = .
3, “A lot like her (him).” Thus, higher scores 013, with poorer youth reporting more
indicated greater perceived control. control (M = 1.67, SD = .53) than higher-
income youth (M = 1.57, SD =
Behavioral control was measured with .51). In addition, an interaction between in-
a five-item monitoring scale often used in come and grade was discerned, f' = 2.74, p
family research with adolescents (e.g., = .065, where low-income fifth (M = 1.79,
Brown, Mounts, Lamborn, & Steinberg, SD — .54) and eighth graders (3f = 1.65, SD
1993). Students responded on a three-point = .54) reported more control from fathers
Likert-type scale from 1, “Doesn’t know,” than did middle-income fifth (M = 1.60, SD
to 3, “Knows a lot,” relative to how much = .48) and eighth graders (M = 1.52, SD —
their parents “really know”: (o) “Where you .52), but with middle-income tenth graders
go at night,” (b) “Where you are most (M = 1.62, SD = .52) reporting more
afternoons after school,” (c) “How you control than low-income tenth graders (M =
spend your money,” (d) “What you do with 1.50, SD = .45).
your free time,” and (e) “Who your friends
are.” As with psychological control, higher Regression.—Hierarchical regression
scores in- dicated higher levels of analyses were used to test for the associa-
behavioral control. Monitoring was used as tions between psychological and behavioral
the measure of be- havioral control because control and youth depression and delin-
it appears to be a particularly reliable and quency. So that obtained results would be
powerful index of family management and net of the effect of membership in one or
regulation (Pat- terson & Stouthamer- more of the study’s subsamples, youth
Loeber, 1984). Cron- bach’s alpha for the grade, social class, and race were included
full sample was .81 for males’ reports of as con- trol variables. Also, because of
parents and .80 for females’ reports of strong corre- lations between subscale
parents. Subsample alphas ranged from .75 scores of the CBC, the opposing problem
(Black females) to .82 (middle- income behavior type (i.e., in- ternalized and
males). Correlations between behav- ioral externalized) was used as a control variable
control and psychological control were in the regression analyses to partial out this
consistently negative, ranging from — .17 comorbidity and isolate the more purely
(modier-son dyad) to — .26 (mother- internalized and externalized aspects of
daughter dyad). each measure of problem behav- iors.
Further, the opposing form of control was
added to the list of independent vari-
The Anxious/Depressed and Delin- ables in order to determine the unique effect
quent subscales scores of the Child Behavior of the two forms of control. Thus, when de-
Checklist—Youth Self-Report (Achenbach pression was the dependent variable, grade
& Edelbrock, 1987) were used to measure (fifth, eighth, tenth), social class (low in-
internalized and externalized problem be- come, middle income), race (White, Black),
haviors, respectively. delinquency, and behavioral control were
entered first. In the next step, psychological
ResitftS control was entered to determine the extent
Analysis of ooriance.—Analysis of vari- to which it explained unique variance after ance
was used to test variations in mean lev- partialing out th- effects of behavioral con- els
of psychological control and behavioral trol and all control variables. The next model
control across the population subgroups. For entered the control variables and
psycholog- youth reports of mothers’ psychological con- ical control in the first step
and then behav- trol, main effects were found for race, F = ioral control in the second
 Brian K. Barber 3303
step to determine 10.95, p = .001, with Black youth reporting its unique contribution to
depression. The more control (M — 1.73, SD = .53) than theory postulated that
psychological control
 TABLE 1
FACTOrt LOADINGS, CRONBACH’s ALPHA, MEANS, AND STANDARD DEvinvioNs roR Six-ITEM PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL SCALE (CRPBI),
BY SEX or Yours As PARENT

Mot Mother/ Father/ —Father/

Psychological Control (Child Report of Parent Behavior her Daughte Son Daughter
Inventory) / r
So
n
1. Is always trying to change me ................ ... .. ............... . . .... .......... .... ......... .............. .79 .73 .71 .75
2. Wants to control whatever I .76 .75 .80 .73
do ................................................. ............... ..... ... ... .. ... ..
3. Would like to be able to tell me what to do all the time . ..... .............. . .. .... ............ .72 .73 .75 .73
4. Is less friendly with me if I do not see things her (his) way ............................................ .64 .66 .69 .70
5. Will avoid looking at me when I have disappointed her (him) ... . ... ..... ... ....... .65 .59 .65 .58
....
6. If I have hurt her (his) feelings, stops talking to me until I please her (him) again ..... .66 .51 .58 .59
Eigenvalue ..... .......... .. .. . ........ .................... ..... ...... ................ ....... . . ...... ................ 2.98 2.68 2.93 2.80
Percent 50 4 49 4
variance ......................................... .................................... ......................................... 5 7
Cronbach’s alpha ............... .................... ..................... ..... ...... .80 .79 .79 .77
............................
M ... ......... ........................ ............ . ...... .............................................................,............... 1.66 1.59 1.62 1.58
.
SD ........................ . ............................ ...................... ....... ................. ...... .54 .50 .53 .51
. ..
N................................................................................................................................................. 385 461 357 422
 Brian K. Barber 3303
(compared to behavioral control) would be these findings, it should be kept in mind that
the strongest predictor of depression. There- it is the relative variance explained (i.e.,
fore, it was expected that psychological con- unique variance explained by psychological
trol would explain more unique variance in control compared to unique variance ex-
depression than would behavioral control. plained by behavioral control) rather than
the absolute amount of variance explained
This procedure was then repeated with by either form of control that is most infor-
delinquency as the dependent variable. In mative. Large amounts of unique variance
the first run, depression was entered with explained were not expected because the
behavioral control and the control variables, variance explained by the alternative form
then psychological control. In the second of control, the opposing problem behavior
run, behavioral control was entered in the type, and the demographic variables had al-
second step. Since the theory postulated that ready been partialed out.
behavioral control would be the stronger
predictor of delinquency, it was expected that Both hypotheses were supported. Sig—
these analyses would show that it ex- plained nificant unique variance in depression was
more unique variance in delin- quency than in explained in all four dyads by psychological
psychological control. control (average across dyads = .033) and in
no case by behavioral control. (The higher
Table 2 reports the findings of the hier- the reported psychological control, the higher
archical multiple regression analyses for the the depression.) Further as expected,
four parent-child dyads. The table includes behavioral control explained substantially
the loivariate and standardized regression co- more unique variance in delinquency (aver-
efficients for psychological control and be- age across dyads = .085) than did psycholog-
havioral control as predictors of depression ical control, which explained significant
and delinquency, the change in R° (and the variance (.02) only for the mother-son dyad.
corre.sponding F and p values) for psycho- (The higher the reported behavioral control,
logical and behavior control when each was the lower the delinquency.)
entered last in the equation, and the overall
F, degrees of freedom, and adjusted ft’ when
all independent variables (control and pre- Study 2
dictor) were present. There are good reasons to believe that
self-reports from children may be the most
Coefficients for the control variables valid way to measure psychological control
are not Jincluded in the table for ease of since feeling controlled, devalued, manipu-
presen- tation. With depression as the lated, and criticized is very much a subjec-
criterion vari- able, neither income level tive experience. However, it is also of in-
nor grade were significant predictors for terest to determine if such controlling
any of the four par- ent-child dyads. Race behaviors can be observed. The purpose of
was consistently nega- tively related to the second study was to develop and test an
depression (higher for Blacks), but only observational coding scheme for psychologi-
reached significance for the mother- cal control.
daughter dyad (beta = — .23). Delin-
quency was significant for all dyads Method
(average beta = .25) . With delinquency as Siifijects.—Subjects were participants
the crite- rion variable, neither income level in the Adolescent Transitions Program, an
nor race was predictive in any dyad. Grade intervention program conducted by the Ore-
level (av- erage beta = .16) and depression gon Social Learning Center beginning in 1988
(average beta = .23) were positively which was designed to provide preven- tative
significant for all dyads. interventions for high-risk families with a
child facing the transition to adoles- cence
I t was hypothesized that psychological (see Dishion & Andrews, 1995). Fami- lies
control, compared to behavioral control, (N = 158) were self-referred and se- lected
would demonstrate unique predictive power based on a telephone screening for the
for internalized behavior such as depression, presence of several dimensions of child risk
and the reverse for externalized behavior (e.g., relationship with parents, emo- tional
such as delinquency. Evidence relating to adjustment, family substance abuse, stress,
these propositions is found by comparing etc.). The average age of the children (N —— 83
values in column 3 (unique variance ex- males, 75 females) was 12. Ninety- five
plained by psychological control) with val- percent of the families were European
ues in column 7 (unique variance explained American.
by behavioral control). When evaluating
 TABLE 2
HI RARCHIC R«ltFSSIONS OF 1OU"1“H Ciu IEHION Vx«1ABLES ON PSYCHOLOGICA CONTROL AND BEHAVIORAL K ONTROL, « SEX OF PxRENT AND SEX
or Youru (Controlling for Youth Delinquency, Age, Race, SES, and Religious Affiliation) (Tennessee)

Psvciiozocicw Coxrnor BLHAVIOgAL CONTROL

b
r Beta‘ AR' F" Beta‘ Aft ' b F’ df Adj fl°
YOU’I’H HOBLFM S ( 1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (‘7) (8) (9) (10) (LI)
Depression:
Mother-son ....... . . .. . . .03 13.15* —. .02 . .13 10.29* 6, 371 .13
2 19*** ** 09 0 **
3 0
Mother- . . .04 10.87* —. — .02 . .22 13.98* 6, 448 .15
daughter ....... 2 21*** ** 13 0 **
Delinquency: 5 0
Father- . .14** .02 6.62** —. .01 . .05 7.22*** 6, 344 .10
son ....... ... ..... 1 09 0
8 0
Father- . . .04 21.67* —. — .02 . .13 13.58* 6, t09 .L5
daughter ......... 2 19*** ** 14 0 **
• Standardiz.ed regression coelficient when all independent variables are present.
Change in fl’ when entered last.
’ f' for change in H’.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
** p < .001.
 Brian K. Barber 3305
TABLE 3
FxCTOR LOADINGS, RONBAcH’s MrHA, MEANS, ANn SvwDnrto DEvIATIONs rOn
PSYCHOLOGIC CONTROL ScALE—OBSERVER REPORT (PCS-OBS),
« SEX OF SOUTH AND PnRENT

Psychological Control Scale—Observer Report Mothers Father

s
f t Il .'72 .69
in astdatinebelinx .'.si‘ .s..‘.’. .. .. .. ... .78 .75
3. Personal attack .85 .80
’ :o n a “”""""”’ "“““""”“” ”’ “““””’ .68 .66
.67 .68
6: Erratic emotional behavior’ ::..... .. .: .. ".. : :. .71 .70
..
Eigenvalue . .. .... . ... .... .. ... ... ... .. . ..... .. 3.27 3.07
Percent variance 5 5
4 1
Cronbach s alpha ............ .82 .80
3f . .. . ..... .. .. . .... . ........... .. .......... .......... 1.51 1.51
SD ............................................................................... .57 .55
.
N ... .. . .... . .. . . . . 153 8
4

Meosores.—The videotaped family parents. This resulted in the formation of

proJolem-solving task (Forgatch, 1989; Robin a macro-rating scale to assess the parent’s
& Foster, 1989) was used to assess parent- be-
child interactions. Before the videotaped
interaction, parents and children identified
potential conflict topics and rated the emo-
tional valence of the topic. Topics rated by
the parent and child as the “hottest” were
selected and randomly ordered for discus-
sion in each of two 10-min problem-solving
sessions. The Family Process Code (FPC;
Dishion, Gardner, Patterson, Reid, & Thibo-
deaux, 1983) was used to code interactions.
The FPC is a micro social coding system that
records family interaction in real time and
captures the content and affective valence of
the .interaction. For the current analysis, the
existing code for Family Management was
used as the measure of behavioral control.
This is a composite variable made up of
coder impressions on monitoring, limit set-
ting, relationship quality, problem solving,
and positive reinforcement. The standard-
ized item alphas were .73 for mothers and
.73 for fathers.
It was necessary to create an observa-
tional measure of psychological control
since= none has existed to this point. This
turn›ed out to be a very valuable exercise be-
cause it demanded careful thinking about
the behavioral components of the construct.
Children can report on feeling controlled,
but it is also important to know what parents
specifically do that may fuel these percep-
tions. In developing this measure, I con-
sulted the literature and colleagues from var-
ious related disciplines as well as students
who described their experiences with their
havioral display of six theoretically relevant
identifying characteristics of psychological
control: constraining verbal expression, in-
validating feelings, personal attack, guilt in-
duction, love withdrawal, and erratic emo-
tional behavior. The measure is labeled the
Psychological Control Scale—Observer Rat-
ing (PCS-OBS). The full text of the descrip-
tions given to coders for each of the dimen-
sions is reported in Appendix B. Factor analysis
of the six identifying characteristic scores with
oblimin rotation produced a sin- gle factor
solution for mothers’ psychological control and
a two-factor solution for fathers’ psychological
control, with love withdrawal, erratic emotions,
and invalidating loading separately from attack,
constraining, and guilt induction. Nevertheless,
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were strong for
both par- ents (.83 for mothers, .81 for fathers)
when using the full set of items, and for the
sake of consistency all items were retained for
both parents. Results of the factor analysis
(forc- ing one factor for fathers) are depicted in
Ta- ble 3. Correlations between psychological
control and family management were — .42 for
mothers and — .38 for fathers.
Youth criterion variables were mea- sured 1
year following the videotaped family interaction.
Depression was measured by way of the
Depressed Mood score from the parent version of
the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children
(DISC; Fisher, Shaf- fer, Wicks, & Piacentini,
1989). Delinquency was measured with the
Delinquent subscale of the Child Behavior
Checklist (parent re- port; Achenbach &
Edelbrock, 1983).
Results
Means for observer reports of mother and
father psychological control were the
 were administered to the students in class.
3306 Child Development
same (see Table 3), and there were no
demo- graphic variables available to test
subsample variation. The regression
procedure from Study 1 was replicated
separately on each parent-child dyad.
Results are shown in Ta- ble 4. The
expected unique association be- tween
psychological control and depression was
evident in the mother-daughter dyad, but for
the other dyads, psychological con- trol was
unrelated to depression, even at the
bivariate level. Contrary to expectations,
be- havioral control had a unique
association with depression for the father-
son dyad. As for delinquency, the expected
unique asso- ciation between behavioral
control and de- linquency was evident for
the mother-son and mother-daughter dyads
but not for the father-child dyads.

Study 3
Study 3 returned to a survey methodol-
ogy. This study had several purposes: (n) to
test a newly created self-report measure of
psychological control, one that is more he-
haviorally specific than the CRPBI and com-
patible with the observer ratings in Study 2,
(b) to vary the sample and the measurement
of the criterion variables to provide a
validat- ing test for the findings of Study 1,
and (c) to test the model with longitudinal
data.
Method
Suhjecfs.—Data come from an ongoing
4-year longitudinal study of 933 families
with adolescent children from Ogden, Utah.
A stratified random sample (Hispanic eth-
nicity) was drawn of fifth- and eighth-grade
classrooms in the Ogden school district in
1994. The sample was split equally between
male and female students and grade, and
was 71% White (169c Hispanic), 849c
middle income, and 46% Morm on. Income
status was determined by student response
to the question, “Compared to other kids
your age, how well-off do you think your
family is?” Responses ranged from 1, “We
are a lot poorer than most,” to 5, “We are a
lot richer than most” (see Pearlin,
Lieberman, Men- eghan, & Mullan, 1981).
Categories 1 and 2 were collapsed to
represent low-income youth. Categories 3-5
were collapsed to rep- resent middle-
income youth. Forty-five per- cent of low-
income youth reported living with both
parents, 29% with mother only. Fifty-seven
percent of middle-income youth reported
living with both parents, 19% with mother
only. An extensive survey on family
interaction, personality, youth behavior, and
peer, school, and neighborhood experiences
 behavioral control and psychological control
were con- sistendy negative, ranging from — .
Meaftires.—Items written to tap the 17 for the mother-son dyad to — .37 for the
specific aspects of psychological control mother- daughter dyad.
are found in Appendix C. Items 1 —3 Also in contrast to Study 1, Study 3
measured Constraining Verbal used the Child Depression Inventory (CDI;
Expression; items 4—6 measured Ko- vacs, 1992) as a measure of
Invalidating Feelings; items 7-9 indexed depression. De- linquency was measured by
Personal Attack; items 10—11 were the Delinquent subscale of the CBCL-YSR
taken from the CRPBI to measure Guilt as in Study 1.
In- duction; items 12—14 were also
taken from the CRPBI to measure
Love Withdrawal; and items 15—16
indexed Erratic Emotional Behavior.
These 16 items were submitted
to factor analysis with oblimin
rotation. Separate analyses were
conducted for sex of parent, sex of
youth, income level, race, and reli-
gious affiliation (a total of 24
separate analy- ses). The same logic
and criteria for item re- tention from
Study 1 was used with the intent of
defining a single-dimensional scale
of psychological control. With this
proce- dure, eight items were
retained that formed a single factor
when utilizing the full data set and
on the majority of subsamples. As
was the case in Study 1, in a few
exceptional cases the love
withdrawal items tended to factor
separately. Item content, factor load-
ings, and Cronbach’s alpha for the
eight- item scale are reported in
Table 5. Alphas for the individual
subsampes ranged from
.72 (Hispanic females) to .85
(eighth-grade males) for reports of
psychological control from mothers,
and from .74 (low-income males) to .
86 (Hispanic males) for reports of
psychological control from fathers.
The scale retained the identifying
characteristics of in- validating
feelings (Item 1), constraining verbal
expressions (Items 2-3), personal at-
tack (Items 4—5), and love withdrawal
(Items 6—8). The scale has been
labeled the Psychological Control
Scale—Youth Self- Report (PCS-
YSR).
Behavioral control was measured
in the same manner as in Study 1
except that stu- dents reported
separately on their mothers and
fathers. Alphas ranged from .64 (His-
panic females) to .80 (eighth-grade
males) for mother’s monitoring and
from .81 (Mor- mon males) to .90
(low-income males) for fa- ther’s
monitoring. As in the previous two
studies, correlations between
 TABLE 4
HIERARCHICAL REGRESSIONS OF SOUTH CRITERION VARIABLES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND BEMAVI ORAL CONTROL,
BY SEX OF PARENT aND Sex or You I’H (Oregon)

PSYCHOLOClCAL éOwiROL BEHAVIORAL CONTROL OvE L

b b
Beta‘ AR' F‘ Beta‘ AR' F° F df Adj ft°
Yours (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (II)
PROBLEMS
Depression:
Mother- .00 — .03 .00 . —. . .00 .34 4.37** 3, 56 .15
son .................... 0 05 0
4 8
Mother- .07 . .00 . —. . .00 .00 4.84** 3, 63 .15
daughter ........... 0 0 14 0
0 0 0
Father- —. — .08 .03 1.18 —. —. .11 4. 5.80** 3, 25 .34
son ..................... 03 39 39* 87
*
Father-daughter ............ .43 .31* .07 3.67* — . .00 .00 5.25** 3, 36 .25
.23 0
1
Delinquency:
Mother- .11 . .00 . —. —. .06 4. 6.45** 3, 56 .22
son .................... 0 0 29 26* 66 *
3 5 *
Mother- .15 . .00 . —. .25* .05 4. 7.00** 3, 63 .21
daughter ........... 0 0 31 02
0 0 *
Father- —. . .00 . —. . .00 . 3.50* 3, 25 .21
son ..................... 02 0 0 19 0 18
1 0 3
Father-daughter ............ .33 . .01 . —. — .12 .01 .50 4.02* 3, 36 .19
1 3 26
0 4
' Standardized regression coelficient when all independent variables are present.
^ Ghange in R’ when entered last.
* F for change in A'.
* p < .10.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
 TABLE 5
FACTOR LOADINGS, CBONBACH’s ALPHA, MEANS, AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR E i OHT-ITEM PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL SCALE (PCS-YSR)
BY SEX OF YOUTH AND PARENT

Mot Moth Father Fathe

Psychological Control (Psychological Control Scale—Youth Self-Report) her er/ / Son r/
/ Daugh Daugh
So ter ter
n
1. Is always trying to change how I feel or think about things .... .. ... .... . ..... ... ............. .73 .74 .67 .74
2. Changes the subject whenever I have something to say ...........................,.......................... .63 .66 .65 .72
3. Often interrupts me ....... . . . . . .... . ...... .... . . .... .... ..... .. .. . . ...... ... ... ............. .64 .65 .68 .67
.
4. Blames me for other family members problems . .. . . . . .. . ...... ... .. .... .. . . . ........ .. ... .68 .67 .62 .6£
5. Brings up past mistakes when she (he) criticizes me ....... . . . . .. . ........... .. ...... .70 .64 .65 .71
......
6. Is less friendly with me if I do not see things her (his) way ........... .................................... .75 .73 .69 .68
7. Will avoid looking at me when I have disappointed her (him) ....... .............. ...... . ... . .. .59 .60 .59 .64
8. If I have hurt her (his) feelings, stops talking to me until I please her (him) again ........... .70 .70 .61 .65
Eigenvalue .. ... .... . ..... . ...... ...... . .. ...... .. ... ....... .. . ... .. .................. .. ...... . . .... ...... 3.69 3.65 3.34 3.72
Percent variance .......................................................... .............................. ................. ............... 46 4 42 4
6 7
Cronbach’s alpha ......,.........,................................................................ ........ ... .. . .. .„.. ........... .83 .83 .80 .83
M . .. ..... .. .. . .. . . . .. ... .... ... . . .... ...... ... ... . ......... .......... .. ..... .. 1.54 1.44 1.53 L46
SD ................................................................................................................................................. .49 .46 .46 .48
....
N ..... .. ........ .. . ..... . . ... .. .... . . . .. ... ... .... ..... .. . ........... .. .. ........ . .. .. ......... 451 460 424 405
 BnanK.Barber 3309
Results Grade, race, or religious affiliation were not
Anode.—Table 5 shows the means and consistently predictive. For delinquency,
standard deviations for the PCS-YSR for the the only consistent predictors were depres-
four parent-child dyads. Analysis of variance sion (average beta = .33, p < .001) and reli-
was used to test for differences by sex of gion (average beta = — . 13, p < .01). Table 6
youth, sex of parent, grade (fifth, eighth), in- presents the findings for the parental control
come (low, middle), race (White, Hispanic), variables.
and religious affiliation (non-Mormon, Mor- As was the case in Study 1, substantially
mon). For youth reports of mothers’ psycho- more unique variance in depression was ex-
logical control, main effects were found for plained by psychological control (col. 3; av-
race, F = 8.36, p = .004, and sex, F = 10.52, erage across dyads = .056) than by behav-
p = .001, with Hispanics (M = 1.60, SD = ioral control (col. 7; average across dyads =
.49) reporting more control than Whites (M .012). Also, as expected, behavioral control
= 1.46, SD = .46), and males (M = 1.54, explained unique variance in delinquency
SD = .49) reporting more control than fe- (col. 7; average across dyads = .025). How-
males (M = 1.44, SD = .46). An interaction ever, contrary to expectations, psychological
bet’ween race and sex, F = 5.63, p = .018, control also explained unique variance in
indicated that Hispanic males (M = 1.74, delinquency (col. 3; average across dyads —
SD .03). In the first analyses of the theoretical
= .54) reported more control than White model (Barber et al., 1994), it was found that
males (M = 1.49, SD = .47) with no differ- the proposed specialized effects did not ob-
ence between groups of females. Further, a tain for the fifth grade subsample of the data,
three-way interaction between grade, in- as they did for the eighth- and tenth-grade
corrie, and religion was discerned, F = 4.21, subsamples. As here, depression and delin-
p = .04, revealing that Mormon youth re- quency were relatively equally predicted by
ported less control than non-Mormon youth both forms of control for the fifth-grade sam-
overall; for the case of poorer Mormon fami- ple. We speculated that preadolescents may
lies, but not less poor Mormon families, less not be advanced enough in their develop-
control was reported by the older cohort ment of psychological autonomy to be sensi-
(eighth grade). tive to forms of control that might intrude in
For youth reports of fathers’ psychologi- this process. It was therefore logical that this
cal control, the same main effects for race, F issue be pursued in attempting to under-
= 12.72, p < .001, and sex, F = 3.92, p = stand these findings in the Utah data.
.048, were found. In addition, two three- An additional set of regression analyses
way interactions were found for grade, race, were run to test the possibility in the Utah
and sex, F — 4.41, p = .036, and income, data that psychological control was the more
race, and religion, F = 3.95, p = .047. The salient predictor of delinquency among the
first interaction revealed that in addition to fifth-grade subjects than the eighth-grade
the fact that Hispanic youth reported more subjects. Independent variables in the re-
con- trol overall than did non-Hispanic gressions (done separately for reports of
youth, they were further distinguished by a mothers’ and fathers’ psychological control)
reverse age pattern for males arid females, included depression, behavioral control,
with re- ported control by females psychological control, sex of youth, grade,
increasing from fifth to eighth grade but religious affiliation, race, and economic
decreasing for males. The second standing, all two-way interaction terms be-
interaction showed that the equivalent tween sex, grade, and psychological control,
reported control from both poor and less and the one three-way interaction term be-
poor Mormon youth was the only exception tween these variables. Independent vari-
to the pattern of higher re- ported control by ables were centered before creating the
poorer families. interaction terms in order to prevent multi-
'rhe same procedure for the regression colinearity (Jaccard, Turrisi, & Wan, 1990).
analyses from the previous studies was fol- For youth reports of mothers, the two-way
lowed. The same control variables from interaction between grade and psychologi-
Study 1 were used (grade, income, race) cal control was significant; the same interac-
with the addition of religious affiliation (non- tion was significant for youth reports of fa-
Mormon, Mormon). As for the control thers along with the three-way interaction
variables, income level was a significant between grade, sex, and psychological con-
negative predictor of depression (average trol. Separate regressions were run next to
beta = — . 13, p .01) for all dyads. Delin- determine the strength of the association
quency was a consistent positive predictor
of depression (average beta = .33, p < .001).
 TABLE G
HIERARCHICAL REPRESSIONS OF YOUTii CniTERION VARIABLES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND BEHAVIORAL CONTROL,
BY SET OF PnnENT AND SEX OF YouzH (Controlling for Youth Delinquency, Age, Race, SES, and Religious Affiliation) (Utah)

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL
BEHAVIORAL ONTROL OvkILL

B A ' B A F F df Ad
SOUTH PROBLEMS (1 et R ( (5) e R' ' (9) (10) j fl'
) a ” 4 t b ( (1
(2 (3 ) a 8 1)
(7)
) ) ‘ )
(
6
)
Depression:
Mother-son..........................45 . . 47.80** —.2 —.12* . 7.96* 28.72** 7 413 .32
31** 08 * 5 * 01 *
*
Mother-daughter.................47 . .06 39.64** —.3 —.15* . 12.67** 35.54** 7’436 .37
27** * 9 * 02 * *
*
Father-son...........................42 . .06 33.21** —.2 —.09* . 3.75* 24.03** 7’384 .29
27** * 1 01 *
*
Father-daughter................43 . . 17.87** —.2 —.11* . 6.14** 32.11** 7, 380 .36
20** 03 * 9 * 01 *
*
Delinquency:
Mother-son..........................37 . . 19.31** —.2 .09* . 4.06* 20.78** 7 413 .25
21** 03 * 2 01 *
*
Mother-daughter.................43 . . 19.01** —.4 —.21* . 24.29** 36.48** 7, 436 .36
19** 03 * 2 ** 04 * *
*
Father-son...........................36 . . 16.43** —.1 —.08 . 1.71 18.18** 7,384 .24
20** 03 * 8 00 *
*
Father-daughter...................42. . 19.06** —.2 —.09* . 4.15* 31.10** 7,380 .35
21** 03 * 8 01 *
*
• Standardized regression coefficient when all independent variables are preser y.
* Change in R' when entered last.
° F for change in fi’.
* p < .05.
’* P < .o1.
*** p < .001.
 Brian K. Barber 3311
TABLE 7
BETAS, I, x p VALUES FOn INTERACTION TERMS SUBSEQUENT
REGRESSION ANALYSES

Youth Problems Standardized Beta t

Delinquency:
Mothers:
Psychological control x grade ... — .07 —2.39 .02
Psychological control—fifth grade ........... .27 5.94 .00
Psychological control—eighth grade ....... .17 3.59 .00
Fathers:
Psychological control x grade ... ....... —.07 — 2.34 .
0
2
Psychological control x grade X sex ...... .06 1.85 .
0
6
Psychological control:
Fifth boys ................................................ .25 4.13 .
Depression:
Mothers:
Psychological control x grade ... ... .. . .06 2.18 .03
Finh......................................................... .30 6.65 .
0
0
Eighth...................................................... .34 8.25 .
0
0
Fathers:

(beta) between psychological control and

delinquency in both grades, and as ex- parison between the CRPBI and the new
pected, the beta was stronger for fifth-grade PCS. Using Study 3 data the CRPBI
subjects (see Table 7). The same analyses factored the same as in Study 1 and was
were then run using Study 1 data to see if reduced to the same six-item subset. Other
these findings could be replicated. Only par- analyses were essentially comparable with
tial replication was found, with the asso- alphas for the CRPBI across subgroups
ciation between male’s reports of mother’s marginally lower than the PCS and the
psychological control and delinquency in- predictive power of the CRPBI to the
creasing from grade 5 to grade 8 and then criterion vari- ables somewhat less as well.
sharply decreasing by grade 10. For girls,
Finally, with data from the second wave
however, the association increased steadily
from mildly negative in grade 5 to moder- just in it was possible to test the model
ately positive in grade 10. across time. Data were collected from youth
by mail in the second year. Eighty-three per-
To provide further contrast between the cent of the original sample provided data.
role of psychological control in internalized All constructs were measured with the same
versus externalized problems, the same items in both years. Structural equation anal-
analyses were run with depression as the de- ysis (LISREL VII; Jiireskog & Sorbom,
pendent variable. The two-way interaction 1989) was used to test the model over time.
between grade and psychological control Figure 1 depicts the model using Year 2 par-
was significant for both mothers and fathers. enting predicting Year 2 problem behaviors,
The opposite age effect from that from delin- controlling for Year 1 problem behaviors.
quency was found, with the association be- The model replicated the findings from the
tween psychological control and depression regression analyses with psychological con-
increasing with age (Table 7). No interac- trol significantly associated with both forms
tions were found for grade using Study l of problem behavior and behavioral control
data. predicting delinquency only. These longitu-
dinal findings contribute meaningfully to
loot presented here in detail are analy-
the understanding of the relations among pa-
ses utilizing the CRPBI as a measure of psy-
rental control and youth difhculty in two
chological control as was done in Study 1.
All analyses were repeated to provide a com- ways. First, they provide important valida-
tion for the link between parental control
 Depression
Year 2
q2_ yg

nquency
’ear 2

Fic. l.—Longitudinal analysis of parental control and youth problems

and problem behaviors. Unlike the cross- gether, these findings hint that parents of
sectional analyses, the longitudinal test con- troubled youth are more likely to increase
trolled for the stability of problem behaviors their efforts to psychologically control their
from Year 1 to Year 2 and for the effect of children while at the same time relaxing
previous problem behaviors on subsequent their behavioral control (of delinquent chil-
parenting. The fact that parental control still dren), which in this case means less aware-
evidenced a significant association with Year ness (monitoring) of their children’s social
2 problem behaviors after these controls networks and day-to-day activities. In addi-
were implemented is important confirming tion to providing indications of child effects
evidence for the salience of psychological on parenting, this portion of the model also
and behavioral control in the development supplied further evidence of the particular
of youth difficulty. The age and sex differ- associations between the types of control
ences found in the regression analyses were and problem behaviors. In these data, it ap-
no longer evident, however, when testing over pears that psychological control is
time with the multiple group test func- tion associated with (predicts and is predicted
within LISREL. by) both forms of youth difficulty, whereas
The second contribution of the longitu- behavioral control is uniquely related to
dinal findings is that they provide an indica- (predicts and is predicted by) delinquency.
tion of the reciprocal relations that may exist
among these variables. As the figure shows, General Results: Summary and
Year 2 psychological control was signifi- Discussion
cantly predicted by Year 1 depression and In refocusing attention on the psycho-
delinquency. Parents of youth who were logical control construct, this set of studies
more depressed and delinquent the previ- had three basic purposes: (1) to demonstrate
ous year employed higher levels of psycho- that psychological control could be reliably
logical control. Year 2 behavioral control was and generally measured, (2) to verify its sa-
significantly predicted by Year 1 delin- lience to aspects of youth development, and
quency, such that parents exercised less be- (3) to test the hypothesis that psychological
havioral regulation of youth who were more control would have specialized associations
delinquent the previous year. Taken to- with youth internalized problems, in con-
All three studies provide evidence that
trast to the proposed specialized associations the construct of psychological control can be
between behavioral control and externalized reliably measured. In the survey studies
problems. (Studies 1 and 3), care was taken to demon-
 strate reliability across samples, variety of
measurement, sex of parent and youth, age, on the stability of the coefficients. It should
race, social class, and religious afhliation. be noted, also, that the analyses of these
The existing CRPBI was refined in both data represented a particularly demanding
studies to a six-item measure useful for all test: observer-rated psychological control
subgroups. The eight-item PCS-YSR from pre- dicting youth depression as reported by
Study 3 improves upon the CRPBI primarily par- ents 1 year later.
because of the greater behavioral specificity
of the items, rendering it more direcdy use- There was mixed support for the hy-
ful for intervention and prevention efforts. pothesized specialized effects of psychologi-
That it is compatible with the observational cal versus behavioral control. As expected,
measure (PCS-OBS) from Study 2 is an addi- psychological control explained unique vari-
tional advantage should the PCS-OBS be ance in depression in Studies 1 and 3. Fur-
found useful in further studies. The PCS- ther evidence of its relation to internalized
YSR will be used in future work on this proj- forms of functioning is appearing in analyses
ect. As for variances in prevalence of psycho- in which psychological control has been
logical control, there was fairly consistent found to uniquely predict loneliness (Free-
evidence that greater levels of parental psy- man & Barber, 1996) and eating disorders
chological control were reported by poorer (Jensen & Barber, 1995) in adolescents. Fur-
youth, minority youth, and males. ther, in all three studies the proposed
unique association between behavioral con-
The survey studies also showed that trol and externalized problems was evident
psychological control is a significant pre- (only for the mother-child dyad in Study 2).
dictor of youth problem behaviors. These This confirms and complements much past
associations, whether with depression or work on the risks for externalized behavior
antisocial behavior (delinquency), are note- problems of inadequate behavioral regula-
worthy because they are net of the effects of tion. However, the findings were not consis-
the youth’s position in social strata, many of tent for the proposed specialized association
which themselves affect the level of prob- between psychological control and internal-
lem behavifir. More particularly, however, ized problems. Psychological control was
the associations illustrate the unique contri- uniquely related to depression in Study I,
bution of psychological conhol compared to not predictive in Study 2, and equally
behavioral control. Thus, beyond any vari- predictive of both criterion variables in
ance shared by these two forms of control, Study 3.
psychological control was consistently found
to be a salient factor in predicting problem Because there is little research specifi-
behaviors. The longitudinal analyses also cally measuring psychological control and
provided initial indications of reciprocal re- its covariates, there is little to guide an ex-
lations between psychological (and behav- planation of this inconsistency. Post hoc
ioral) control and youth problem behaviors. analyses of a developmental effect demon-
strated that the unexpected association with
The fact that psychological control was externalized problems does attenuate with
only salient for the father-daughter dyad in age. This finding, paired with the increased
the observational data of Study 2 raises ques- association between psychological control
tions about potential sex differences and/or and depression with age (Study 3), support
the eventual usefulness of observer rated the notion that psychological control has
psychological control. Perhaps psychologi- more general effects until which time that
cal control is only influential to the extent the controlled subject has achieved an iden-
that it is perceived as such by the child. Clar- tity sufficiendy well formed to be threat-
ification requires larger and more varied data ened. However, this view can serve as a
sets than the present one. Once broken down partial explanation at best because the inter-
by sex of child, the sample sizes were quite action between psychological control and
small, which may have had an effect age did not fully account for .the direct
asso- ciation between psychological control
and delinquency in Study 3. The
explanation is further limited by the failure
to find de- velopmental effects in the
longitudinal analyses.
Why psychological control predicted
delinquency in Study 3, therefore, remains
an. open question. Analyses not reported
here which used the same measures criterion variables in Study 3 that were used in
(CRPBI and CBC) for the predictor and Study 1 eliminate the possibility of difference due
to measurement variability and raise the
question of sample differences. Although chological control (at least in the PCS mea-
demographic variability was controlled in sures) index specific behaviors of parents,
the studies presented here, there is the pos- the self-reported construct would best be
sibility that the model will function differ- de- fined according to Darling and
ently among the different subgroups that Steinberg’s conceptualization as a parenting
varied across the two studies (e.g., Whites, style and not a parenting practice. This is so
Blacks, Hispanics, Baptists, Mormons). Fu- because the construct is not measured in the
ture analyses also will begin to focus on context of a specific interaction; rather, it
indi- vidual differences (e.g., child and represents the extent to which the youth
parent personality, self-esteem, etc.) and reporter per- ceives the controlling
contextual factors (e.g., levels of family behaviors to describe his or her parent
stress and con- flict) in an attempt to more generally. This contrasts substantially, for
precisely clarify the link between example, from other work interested in
psychological control and youth describing parenting behaviors that occur
characteristics, a link that is appar- endy during a specific interaction (e.g., where
more complex than that between be- one family member tries to control another,
havioral control and youth problems. as in Baumrind, 1967, 1971) or in response
to a discrete event (e.g., a child’s misdeed,
At a more general level, a contribution as in Grusec & Goodnow, 1994).
of this set of studies has been to
demonstrate the usefulness of Though Darling and Steinberg’s (1993)
disaggregating parenting typologies that conceptualization becomes somewhat un-
have so predominated in much of the clear when they credit a parenting style
parenting literature. Although typological (compared to a parenting practice) with pa-
work, particularly that of Baum- rind, has rental beliefs, values, and emotions—even
made very important contributions, merging though little work actually measures these
constructs at the analytical level loses aspects of the parent—it is still easier to in-
potentially valuable information. The fer such from a construct that is measured
analyses presented here suggest that psy- as a general representation of parenting
chological and behavioral control, common com- pared to a tactical behavior occurring
components of prevailing typologies, are in a specific context. In the end, then, the
meaningfully different. When measured in- con- cept of style is useful potentially, as it
dependently, it becomes apparent that not may set a stage on which parenting
only are they negatively related to each practices take their meaning as Darling and
other as shown in all three studies, but they Steinberg con- tend, but also because it
appear to function differendy vis-a-vis dis- signals a different direction in which
crete youth characteristics. With explanations for parental behavior are
replication, such findings may benefit sought. To the extent that psy- chological
theory building and intervention/prevention control represents a generalized pattern of
efforts. This specificity may also aid in behavior (style) that involves (en- dorses)
resolving some perplexing patterns of constraining, invalidating, and emo-
findings from past work. For example, the tionally manipulative behavior toward a
question of why some children of child, then explanations of the source of
authoritarian parents are “subdued” and such behavior lie more likely in the parent’s
others “out of control” (Mac- coby & own historical and emotional experience
Martin, 1983, p. 44) may be partly than in any specific event or interaction that
explained by variations in the may precipitate it. Thus, it would be
predominance of psychological control ofinter- est to investigate how the parent
versus behavioral control in the families of was reared, parental beliefs about child
the two sets of children. development and personal autonomy, as
well as the par- ent’s level of ego
Finally, three points are important to set integration, self-esteem, and satisfaction in
this work on psychological control in the other interpersonal rela- tionships.
broader context of current work on parent
socialization and child development. The The second point is to reinforce the
first has to do with the distinction between finding that psychological control appears
parenting styles and parenting practices re- to be a consistently negative and inhibiting
cently put forth by Darling and Steinberg ex- perience for children. The cross-
(1993). Although the items measuring psy- sectional analyses in Study 3 showing that
the associa- tions between psychological
control and problem behaviors vary as a
function of age should not be
misunderstood to mean that at some point
this form of control is neutral or
 positive. To the contrary, there appears to
be no compelling evidence for a positive in the older child might be serving the same
function of such intrusive behavior. Some negative function as the parent who con-
confusion on this point can arise when psy- strains, invalidates, or manipulates the ado-
chological control is not carefully distin- lescent’s more clearly articulated expres-
guished from other forms of psychologically sions of psychological experience.
oriented parental behavior such as induc- In sum, though there is more work to be
tion, which has been shown to enhance psy- done on psychological control, there
chological and social development (see Gru- appears to be good reason in future
sec R Goodnow, 1994; Hoffman, 1970; and socialization re- search to include specific
Rollins & Thomas, 1979, for reviews). The attention to par- enting practices that
one area that could be construed as contro- constrain, invalidate, and manipulate a
versial in this regard is love withdrawal, a child’s psychological and emotional
defining characteristic of psychological con- experience and expression. The construct
trol as measured here and previously. Yet, differs notably from more behav- iorally
although at least one study has suggested a oriented control, it is measurable across a
positive effect of love withdrawal for broad spectrum of families, and it appears,
compli- ance (Chapman & Zahn-Waxler, at least when subjectively experi- enced and
1981), it is not clear whether this is just a reported, to have consistently negative
short-term effect, and there are more studies associations with youth compe- tence.
that sug- gest negative effects (see Maccoby
& Martin, 1983). At best, perhaps, love Appen&xA
withdrawal can be viewed in discrete
interactions as a means to get a child to pay Psychological AT£to •-Y versus
attention to the message to be Psychological Control (CRPBI;
communicated through the positive Schaefer, 1965b; Schtudez
intervention of induction (Hoffman, 1994). nann & Sehludermann, personal
communication, T988)
The last point has to do with the devel- 1 = Not like her (him); 2 = Somewhat like her
opmental relevance of psychological (him); 3 = A lot like her (him)
control. This set of studies has focused on
My Mother (Father) is a person who . .
youth ap- proaching and proceeding through
adoles- cence. It seems that psychological 1. tells me of all the things she (he) had done
control is particularly relevant at this stage for me.
of the life course given the autonomy- 2. says, if I really cared for her (him), I would
not do things that cause her (him) to worry.
oriented pro- cesses occurring in the form of 3. is always telling me how I should behave.
identity de- velopment (Erikson, 1968; 4. would like to be able to tell me what to do all
Marcia, 1980) and transformations in family the time.
and peer relationships (Collins & Repinski, 5. wants to control whatever I do.
1990; Steinberg, 1990; Youniss & Smollar, 6. is always trying to change me.
1985). Thus as young people more firmly 7. only keeps rules when it suits her (him).
define themselves as connected to— yet 8. is less friendly with me, if I do not see things
separate from—their significant others, it her (his) way.
would be expected that intrusions into this 9. will avoid looking at me when I have disap-
process of self-formation would have pointed her (him).
10. if I have hurt her (his) feelings, stops talking
negative con- sequences. Yet it would be a to me until I please her (him) again.
mistake to conclude that psychological
control is only relevant to children at this Appendix B
advanced psy- chological and emotional
age. If, in order to be sensitive to age- Psychological Control
specific tasks and ca- pacities of children, Scale—Observer Report (PCS-OBS)
psychological control is conceptualized at a Use the following scale for items below:
more abstract level as intrusion into the
developing child’s self- expression— 0 = Not true; 1 = Somewhat true; 2 = True;
whatever the form of that ex- pression might 3 = Very true
be—then the construct be- comes useful 1. Constraining Verbal Expressions
across the life course. Thus, a parent who Family members prevented or interfered with an-
regularly curtails an infant’s attempts at other family member’s talking by behaviors such
motor movements, forbids the toddler’s as: changing the subject, interrupting, speaking
exploratory forays, or interferes with the for the other, lecturing, switching topics, domi-
beginning of reasoning capacities nating the conversations, asking leading ques-
communicate disinterest (e.g., looking or facing away
tions, or answering their own questions. Family from the child).
members showed disinterest in what another
fam- ily member had to say by ignoring the other’s 2. Invalidating Feelings
com- ments or by physical postures that
Family members invalidated the feelings of an-
other family member by discounting, misinter- Appendix C
preting, or assigning a value (e.g., good/bad,
right/ wrong) to the feelings that were being Psychological Control Scale—Youth
expressed. Family members engaged in mind Self-Report (PCS-YSR)
reading (e.g., say they know what the other is
thinking or feel- ing). Family members were 1 = Not like her (him); 2 — Somewhat like her
sarcastic or teasing when responding to the (him); 3 = A lot like her (him)
feelings being expressed. My Mother (Father) is a person who ...
3. Personal Attack on Child *1. changes the subject, whenever I have some-
thing to say.
Family members attacked the worth or place in
*2. finishes my sentences whenever I talk.
the family of another family member by re-
*3. often interrupts me.
minding the other of his or her responsibilities to
the family, saying the other is not a responsible *4. acts like she (he) knows what I’m thinking or
family member, or questioning the other’s feeling.
loyalty to the family. Family members brought *5. would like to be able to tell me how to feel
up an- other member’s past mistakes or or think about things all the time.
embarrassing be- haviors as evidence of the *6. is always trying to change how I feel or think
accused member’s lack of worth. Family about things.
members blamed another for the other’s own or *7. blames me for other family members’ prob-
the family’s problems. Family members spoke in lems.
a very condescending or pa- tronizing way to *8. brings up my past mistakes when she (he) crit-
another member or acted as if they were a icizes me.
therapist to the other member. 9. tells me that I am not a loyal or good member
of the family.
4. Gtiilt induction 10. tells me of all the things she (he) had done
Family members laid guilt trips on another family for me.
member by pointing out that another’s behavior 11. says, if I really cared for her (him), I would not
had a negative emotional impact on a family mem- do things that cause her (him) to worry.
ber, such as making them worry, feel sad or de- 12. is less friendly with me, if I do not see things
pressed, or lose self-esteem. Family members her (his) way.
tried to evoke sympathy from another by enumer- 13. will avoid looking at me when I have disap-
ating all of the things they have done for the other. pointed her (him).
Family members played the role of martyr or con- 14. if I have hurt her (his) feelings, stops talking
tinually blamed themselves for the other’s prob- to me until I please her (him) again.
lems. Family members said that if the other really 15. often changes his (her) moods when with me.
cared for them, she or he would do or be what the 16. goes back and forth between being warm and
family member expected. critical toward me.
5. Love Withdrau›al References
Family members threatened the withdrawal of
their love or attention if another family member Achenbach, T. M. (1985). Assessment and taxon-
did not do or become what the other expected. omy of child and adolescent psychopathol-
Family members diverted their gaze, turned ogy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
away, made a displeased facial expression, or Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. (1983). Reti-
physically left the interaction when another fam- nal for the child behavior checklist and re-
ily member expressed something contrary to their vised child behouior profiie. Burlington, VT:
expectations. University of Vermont, Department of Psy-
6. Erratic Emotional Behavior chiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. (1987). Man-
Family members showed erratic emotional behav-
ual for the youth eel f-report and profile. Bur-
ior in interaction with another family member by
vaeillating between caring and attacking expres- lington, VT: University of Vermont, Depart-
siOfls. ment of Psychiatry.
Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., Eickholt, C., Bell,
K. L., & O’Connor, T. G. (1994). Autonomy
and relatedness in family interactions as pre-
dictors of expressions of negative adolescent
affect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4,
535—552.
Allinsmith, W. (1960) Moral standards: II. The

* Items retained after factor analysis and therefore constituting the final version of the PCS-
YSR to be used in future work.
Baldwin, A. L. (1948). Socialization and the
learning of moral standards. In D. R. Miller par- ent-child relationship. Child
& G. E. Swanson (Eds.), Inner conflict and Development, 19, 127—137.
defense (pp. 141—176). New York: Holt, Barber, B. K. (1992). Family, personality, and
Rine- hart, & Winston. ado- lescent problem behaviors. /oornof of
 Mar- riage and the Family, 54, 69—79.
Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. E., éc Shagle, S. C. (1994). child relations and the etiology of depression:
Associations between parental psychological A review of methods and findings. Cfinicof
and behavioral control and youth internalized Psychology Secrete, 6, 133— 153.
and externalized behaviors. Child Develop- Chapman, M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1981). Young
ment, 65, 1120—1136. children’s compliance and noncompliance to
Barber, B. K., & Shagle, S. C. (1992). Adolescent parental discipline in a natural setting. Un-
problem behaviors: A social-ecological analy- published manuscript.
sis. Family Perspective, 26, 493—515. Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (Eds.). (1991). Eiter-
Baumrind, D. (1965). Parental control and paren- no/izing arid ex:ternalizing expressions of
tal love. C!kildren, 12, 230—234. dys-
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative pa- /unction. Rochester Symposium on Develop-
rental control on child behavior. Gkild Devel- mental Psychopathology (Vol. 2). Hillsdale,
opment, 37, 857—907. NJ: Erlbaum.
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices ante- Collins, W. A., & Repinski, D. J. (1990).
ceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Relation- ships during adolescence: Continuity
Genetic Pspchologq Monographs, 75, 43—88. and change in interpersonal perspective. In R.
Baumrind, D. (1968). Authoritarian vs. authorita- Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta
tive parental control. Adolescence, 3, 255— (Eds.), Personal relationships during adoles-
272. cence (pp. 7- 36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental Constantine, L. L. (1986). Fomif9 paradigms:
authority. Decelopirtentof Psqchologq Mono- The practice of theoy in /omiip therapy. New
graphs, 4, 1—102. York: Guilford.
Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary prac- Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of sel f-
t:ices and social competence in children. esteem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
South and Society, 9, 239—276. Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting
Baurrirind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psy-
style on adolescent competence and sub- chological Bulletin, 113, 487—496.
stance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, I I, Dishion, T. J., & Andrews, D. W. (1995). Pre-
56—95. venting escalation in problem behaviors with
Baumrind, D., & Black, A. E. (1967). Socialization high-risk young adolescents: Immediate and
practices associated with dimensions of com- 1-year outcomes. Journal of Gonsulting and
petence in preschool boys and girls. Child T! C tiniest PsqchoIogp, 63, 538—548.
enelopment, 38, 291— 327. Dishion, T. J., Gardner, K., Patterson, G. R., Reid,
Beavers, W. R. (1982). Healthy, midrange, and se- J. B., & Thibodeaux, S. (1983). The family
verely dysfunctional families. In F. Walsh process code: A multidimensional system for
(Ed.), Normal family processes (pp. 45—66). observing family interaction. Unpublished
New York: Guilford. coding manual. (Available from Oregon So-
Becker, W. C. (1964). Consequences of different cial Learning Center, 207 E. 5th Ave., Suite
kinds of parental discipline. In M. L. Hoffman 202, Eugene, OR 97401)
â W. W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of child de- Dishion, T. J., & Loeber, R. (1985). Adolescent
velopment research (Vol. 1, pp. 169—208). marijuana and alcohol use: The role of par-
New York: Russell Sage Foundation. ents and peers revisited. A mericon Journal of
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 11, 11—25.
practice. New York: Jason Aronson. Dornbusch, S. M., Carlsmith, J., Bushwall, S.,
Brown, B. B., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S. D., & Rit- ter, P., Liederman, P., Hastorf, A., &
Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and Gross, R. (1985). Single parents, extended
peer group affiliation in adolescence. Ghild households, and the control of adolescents.
Deo«fopment, 63, 391—400. CMild Devel- opment, 56, 326—341.
Burbach, D. J., & Bourdin, C. M. (1986). Parent- Erikson, E. E. (1968). Identity: South and crisis.
New York: Norton.
Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A. M., &
Wier- son, J. (1990). A mediational model of
the im- pact of marital conflict on adolescent
adjust- ment in intact and divorced families:
The role of disrupted parenting. Child
Development, 61, 11I2—1l23.
Fisher, P., Shatter, D., Wicks, J., & Piacentini, J.
(1989). DIS C for parent and child. New York:
State Psychiatric Institute.
Forgatch, M. S. (1989). Patterns and outcome in

family problem solving: The disrupting effect Freeman, D. L., & Barber, B. K. (1996, Novem- ber).
of negative emotion. Journal of Marriage and L.oneline.ss in adolescence: Implications for family
the Fomtlq, 51, 115— 124. and development. Paper pres- entated at the annual
 meeting of the National Council on Family
Relations, Kansas City, MO. tions. In H. A. Murray (Ed.), Explorations in
Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. R. (1986). Individ- personality: A cftnicof and experimental
uation in family relationships: A perspective study oJ /Jtq men oJ college nge (pp. 491—
on individual differences in the development 501). New York: Oxford University Press.
of identity and role-taking skill in adoles- Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J:
cence. H timan Development, 29, 82—100. Adelson (Ed.), Hondboo£ oJ adolescent psy-
Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of chology (pp. 159— 187). New York: Wiley.
parental discipline methods on the child’s in- Martin, B. (1975). Parent-child relations. In F. D.
ternalization of values: A reconeeptualization Horowitz (Ed.), Review of Child Develop-
of current points of view. Dece/opmeritof Psy- ment Research. Chicago: University of Chi-
chology, 30, 4— 19. cago Press.
Hauser, S. (1991). Fofnilies and their adolescents. McCord, J. (1979). Some child-rearing anteced-
New York: Free Press. ents of criminal behavior in adult men. Jour-
Hauser, S., Powers, S. I., Noam, G., Jacobson, A., nal off Personality atid Seeing Psqc6ofogy, 37,
Weiss, B., & Follansbee, D. (1984). Familial 1477—1486.
contexts of adolescent ego development. McCord, J. (1990). Problem behaviors. In S. S.
Child Deoefopmctit, 55, 195—213. Feldman & G. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold.'
Hirschi, T. (1969). Gonset of delinquency. Berke- The dscefoping adolescent (pp. 414—430).
ley: University of California Press. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hoffman, M. L. (1970). Moral development. In Miller, B. C., McCoy, J. K., Olson, T. D., & Wal-
P. H. Mussen (Ed.), C'armichael’s manual of lace, C. M. (1986). Parental control attempts
child psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Wiley. and adolescent sexual behavior. Joornof oJ
Hoffman, M. L. (1994). Discipline and internaliza- Marriage and the Family 48, 503—512.
tion. Oenelopmental Psyr/tofogy, 30, 1, 26— Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy.
28. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, D. K. (1990). Inter- Olweus, D. (1980). Familial and temperamental
action effects in multiple regression. New- determinants of aggression behavior in ado-
bury Park, CA: Sage. lescents—A causal analysis. Deceloprnentol
Jensen, B. S., & Barber, B. K. (1995, November). Psychology, 16, 644— 660.
Eating disorders among female adolescents: Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family processes.
An analysis of family predictors. Paper pre- Eugene, OR: Castalia.
sented at the annual meeting of the National Patterson, G. R., Capaldi, D., & Bank, L. (1989).
Council on Family Relations, Portland. An early starter model for predicting delin-
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1989). L.IS REV quency. In D. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.),
VII.- A guide to the program and applications The development and treatment of childhood
(2d ed.). Chicago: SPSS. aggression (pp. 139—168). Hillsdale, NJ:
Kovacs, M. (1992). Children’s depression inven- Erlhaum.
tory. Niagara Falls, NY: Multi-Health Patterson, G. R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M.
Systems. (1984). The correlation of family
Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1984). Boys who management prac- tices and delinquency.
fight at home and school: Family conditions Ghild Development, 55, 1299—1307.
influ- encing cross-setting consistency. Pearlin, L. I., Lieberman, M. A., Meneghan,
Journal of Consulting and Clinical E. G., & Mullan, J. T. (1981). The stress pro-
Psychology, 52, 759—768. cess. Journal of Health and Social Befiooior,
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). 22, 33'7—356.
Socializa- tion in the context of the family: Peterson, G. W. (1995). Autonomy and connected-
Parent-child interaction. In E. M. ness in families. In R. D. Day, K. R. Gilbert,
Hetherington (Ed.), B. H. Settles, & W. R. Burr (Eds.), Ressorc6
P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child and theory in family science (pp. 20— 41). Pa-
psychology: Vol. 4. Socioitzation, personal- cific Grove, CA: Brooks/Gole.
ity, and social development (pp. 1—101). New Pulkinnen, L. (1982). Self-control and continuity
York: Wiley. from childhood to adolescence. In P. B. Baltes
MacKinnon, D. W. (1938). Violation of prohibi- & 0. G. Brim (Eds.), L.ife-span development
and behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 63—105). New
York: Academic Press.
Reckless, W. (1967). The crime problem. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Reiss, R. (1951). Delinquency as the failure of
so- cial and personal controls. American
Socio- logical Rev'ew, 16, 196—207.
support, power, and control techniques in the
Robin, A. L., & Foster, S. L. (1989). Negoiiotitig socialization of children. In W. R. Burn, R.
parent-adolescent conflict. New York: Guil- Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.),
ford. Cotitcrri- porary theories about the /omifp:
Rollins, B. C., & Thomas, D. L. (1979). Parental
 Vof. 1. Re- search based Theories (pp. 317—
364). New York: Free Press. Siegelman, M. (1965). College student personality
Saba.tel1i, R. M., & Mazor, A. (1985). Differentia- correlates of early parent-child relationships.
tion, individuation, and identity formation: Journal of C!onsulting Psychology, 29, 558—
'rhe integration of family system and indi- 564.
vidual developmental perspectives. Adoles- Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and har-
cence, 20, 619—633. mony in the family relationship. In S. S. Feld-
Schaefer, E. S. (1959). A circumplex model for man & G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold:
ma- ternal behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Tbs developing adolescent (pp. 255—276).
So- cial Pspchofogp, 59, 226—235. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schaefer, E. S. (1965a). Children’s reports of pa- Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S.
rental behavior: An inventory, Ghifd Devel- (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial
opment, 36, 413—424. maturity, and academic success among ado-
Schaefer, E. S. (1965b). A configurational analysis lescents. Cfiitd Deceloprrient, 60, 1424—1436.
of children’s reports of parent behavior. Jour- Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M.,
nal of Gonsulting PspchoIogp, 29, 552—557. & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting
Schludermann, E., & Schludermann, S. (1970). practices on adolescent achievement: Author-
Replicability of factors in children’s report of itative parenting, school involvement, and en-
parent behavior (CRPBI). Journal of Psychol- couragement to succeed. Ghild Development,
ogy, 76, 239- 249. 63, 1266—1281.
Seligman, M. E., & Peterson, C. (1986). A Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. D., &
learned helplessness perspective on Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Authoritative par-
childhood de- pression: Theory and enting and adolescent adjustment across vari-
research. In M. Rutter, ous ecological niches. Journal of Research on
C. E. Izard, & P. B. Read (Eds.), Depression Adolescence, 1, 19—36.
in Voting peOp/e (pp. 223—249). New York: Stierlin, H. (1974). S eporating parents and ado-
£4uilford. lescents. New York: Quadrangle.
Volk, R. J., Edwards, D. W., Lewis, R. A., & Spren-
kIe, D. H. (1989). The assessment of adapt-
ability and cohesion in families of adolescent
drug abusers and non-abusers. Family Rela-
tions, 38, 266—272.
Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent rela-
tions north mothers, fathers, and friends. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given
about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published
version of the material.