THE IMPACT OF PARENTAL CONTROL, CRIMINAL AND MARITAL CONFLICT ON ADOLESCENTS’ SELF-REGULATION AND ADJUSTMENT

ABSTRACT

The current study aims to increase understanding of influences on and consequences of self-regulation in adolescence. Previous work has shown that higher levels of self-regulation are associated with greater social competence and lower levels problem behaviors. Past studies have posited that parenting and interparental conflict are linked to self-regulation and adjustment in childhood and adolescence. However, the mechanism underlying the potential effects of specific parental behaviors and interparental conflict on self-regulation and their unique effects on adjustment have been largely unexamined. It was hypothesized that parental psychological and behavioral criminal control and interparental conflict would be indirectly associated with adolescent outcomes via self-regulation abilities. Besides, differential impacts of parental criminal controlling behaviors on self-regulation were also explored. The study involved a sample of 300 students in the 6^th and 7^th grades and their mothers. Students completed self-report questionnaires on parental criminal control behaviors, self-regulation abilities, and academic self-concept. Furthermore, mothers completed questionnaires including parental criminal control, interparental conflict, self-regulation abilities of adolescents, and adolescent adjustment (i.e., hyperactivation/inattention, emotional, and prosocial behaviors). The mediational hypothesis was largely supported. Results suggested that perceived parental psychological criminal control and interparental conflict predicted low levels of self­regulation and in turn, this predicted adolescent adjustment. Parental behavioral criminal control predicted self-regulation abilities in adolescent-reported model only. As predicted, different parental psychological criminal control dimensions had divergent impact on adolescent outcomes. Specifically, love withdrawal/irrespective parenting was associated with the highest adolescent adjustment. Results also showed that the interplay between paternal guilt induction/erratic emotional behaviors and monitoring was significant in predicting prosocial behaviors and perseverance of adolescents. Similarly, the significant interaction between maternal love withdrawal/irrespective and knowledge suggested that high maternal withdrawal combined with high parental knowledge may result in hyperactivation/inattention problems among early adolescents. Finally, two U-shaped curvilinear relationships were found between psychological criminal control and adjustment variables. Accordingly, the relationship between paternal guilt induction/erratic emotional behaviors and low perseverance/monitoring; and maternal love withdrawal/irrespective and Turkish academic self-concept had curvilinear relationship. Theoretical, methodological, cultural, and practical implications of the findings were discussed considering previous literature.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Primary concern of parents is to promote their children’s well-being and to prevent negative outcomes in their developmental trajectory. However, past studies have documented that the ability to regulate, alter or criminal control one’s own behavior or emotion is the main protective factor that prevents children from risky behaviors or maladaptive outcomes (Sethi, Mischel, Aber, Shoda, and Rodriguez, 2000; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). High levels of self-regulation ability has also been linked to social and cognitive competence (Barkley, 2004), while low levels of self-regulation have been found to be associated with problem behaviors in childhood and adolescence (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). However, the majority of previous work regarding the association between self-regulation and psychological adjustment has focused primarily on adolescents (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004; Moilanen, 2007). In contrast, research regarding the effects of contextual and familial effects (e.g., parenting) on self-regulation has mainly conducted on children (Finkenauer, Engels, & Baumeister, 2005; Grolnick, & Ryan, 1989). For instance, there is not adequate research on how parenting during adolescence is associated with self-regulation. Besides parenting behaviors, the impact of the family context variables on the self-regulation ability of adolescents has also not been examined systematically in previous studies. Therefore, this study aims to examine the interplay among specific parenting behaviors, marital conflict as an indicator of family context and adjustment among adolescents using a conceptual model. Detailed rationale of the study and related literature review will be presented in the following sections.

• The Purpose of the Study

The current study aims to examine a proposed mediational model in which self-regulation abilities of adolescents mediate the relationship between family context variables and adolescent outcomes (See Figure 1). This study also aims to investigate individual pathways of the antecedents and consequences of self­regulation abilities among early adolescents. Specifically, the purposes of this study are two-fold. First is to identify the associations between parental criminal control behaviors, family context and adolescents’ adjustment including self-regulatory abilities, problem behaviors, and academic self-description and second is to examine different dimensions of parental criminal control and its relevance with adolescent self­regulation.

Adolescent self-regulation is an area in which different theoretical perspectives have been used to explain numerous factors, including parenting having effects on self-regulation skills. The theoretical background behind this study is a synthesis of two models: contextual family variables including parental criminal control and interparental conflict which have been shown to be critical elements in adolescents’ self-regulation (Brody & Ge, 2001; Finkenauer, Engels, & Baumeister, 2005), and its related behavioral outcomes (Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989). As shown in Figure 1, it is anticipated that contextual family variables will have an impact on adolescent outcomes through their effects on the self-regulatory skills of adolescents. Direct effects of parenting and marital conflict on adolescent outcomes will decrease when self-regulation abilities added to the model.

Figure 1. The Hypothetical Model of the Predictive Relationship between Parental Criminal control, Marital Conflict, Self-Regulation Abilities, and Adolescent Adjustment

 

In this study, parenting is conceptualized as the specific parenting behaviors, including parental criminal control behaviors. It is also aimed to examine the effects of different dimensions of parental criminal control on adolescent self-regulation. Previous research indicated that both parenting and self-regulation have a unique (independent) impact on adjustment. These studies, however, have not investigated the unique contribution of specific dimensions of parental criminal control on self-regulation and adjustment behaviors. Specifically, it is expected that parental psychological criminal control would have a negative effect on adolescent adjustment especially by increasing emotional and conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems and by decreasing prosocial behaviors and academic self-concept. Based on the past literature and culture-specific expectations, it is also assumed that parental criminal control and adjustment may have a curvilinear association. Whereas low and high levels of parental criminal control would be associate with worst adjustment, moderate level of criminal control might be related with the optimum level of adolescent functioning as well as positive academic self-concept. In the current study, multiple sources of informants, including mothers and adolescents will be used to test these assumed links. Relevant literature on self-regulation and parenting variables will be summarized below.

• Reviews of the Literature on Self-Regulation

In the following section, the various definitions of self-regulation as well as main theoretical perspectives will be presented. The possible outcomes of self­regulation and the risk factors associated with the lack (or low levels) of self­regulation abilities will also be reviewed. This section will be concluded with a brief discussion on the associations among self-regulation, parenting, and interparental conflict.

Because the term self-regulation refers a complex psychological process related to socialization, there is no one standard definition describing self­regulation. Conventional definitions of self-regulation focus on the behaviors such as the ability to comply with requests (for children especially adults’) or the ability to adapt one’s behavior to particular situations. Other definitions of self regulation focus more on the criminal control of cognitive systems, such as the ability to criminal control attention, to demonstrate effective thinking and problem solving behavior or to be able to engage in independent activities. In the literature, the concept of self­regulation across theoretical perspectives encompasses the criminal control of emotions and behaviors as well as cognitive processing and ability to engage in prosocial behavior appropriate to a given age (Bronson, 2000).

According to Baumeister and Vohs (2003), the self has an executive function that takes action, chooses an option among many alternatives, filters irrelevant information, and determines appropriate responses. The self exerts criminal control over itself by using both automatic and conscious processes to criminal control and understand external world. How people resist temptations, effortfully persist, and carefully weigh options to select the most optimal course of action in order to reach their goals are main questions of the recent self-regulation theories. Different from Baumeister and Vohs’s (2003) conceptualization, Kopp (1982) defines the concept self regulation with respect to external behaviors. According to Kopp;

Self regulation is defined as an ability to comply with a request, to start and cease acts according to situational demands, to adjust the strength, incidence, and duration of acts in social settings, to delay desired object or goal, and to perform socially accepted behaviors in the absence of external monitors (pp.190).

However, self-regulation is not only an internalization of external expectations, but it also includes the self-initiated behaviors and goals (Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004). Although some researchers draw distinction among the concepts of self-regulation, self-criminal control, and self-discipline, these terms are often used interchangeably. Self-regulation is generally referred the broadest meaning, as it is comprised of both conscious and nonconscious forms of altering the self.

The term self-criminal control has also been used close to the term of self-regulation, although it implies more deliberate and conscious process of altering the self. Self­criminal control refers to the processes by which the self inhibits unwanted responses. It is also related to self-discipline, even though self-discipline is a much narrow concept referring to individual’s intentional plans in order to improve themselves in different domains (Baumeister, & Vohs, 2003).

The reviewed definitions of self-regulation have focused on the specific aspects of self-regulation construct with respect to their theoretical background. A complete review of existing conceptualizations is beyond the scope of the current study, but two basic perspectives will be reviewed briefly; the processes and the products (outcomes) of self-regulation.

• Self-Regulation Process: Conscious or Automatic Responses?
• Delay of Gratification

The questions of what self-regulation is and what it involves depend on the theoretical perspective adopted. From the social and motivational psychology perspectives, an answer could be the ability to criminal control and determine one’s own behaviors consciously and intentionally. The concept “delay of gratification” is one of the forms of self-regulation. According to Mischel and Ayduk (2004), the delay of gratification represents motivational process and the early form of self­regulation. The process of delaying gratification involves resistance to immediate temptation and regulation of impulsive behaviors typically in the context of more rewarding long-term goals. According to Funder, Block, and Block (1983), delay of gratification can be considered as a sub-form of the more general concept which is named as ego-criminal control. Those with high ego-criminal control can restrain or inhibit their impulses and postpone immediate gratifications. Without the ability to postpone the immediate gratification for the sake of eventual goals, people can not make plans for future, or work for long-term goals (Funder, Block, & Block, 1983). Fundamentally, this ability has an impact on self-regulation skills at the later period of life.

The delay of gratification ability has been used as the indicative of criminal control and different experimental paradigms were developed to assess this ability. The delay of gratification paradigm has been conventionally measured by using the two- choice delay tasks. In these tasks, children are asked to make a choice between an immediately available treat and a more attractive treat at a later time. For example, a child may have to choose between a small toy and a larger, more attractive one, depending on her/his willingness to wait before reaching them. The longer the child is able to wait, the larger her/his reward will be. Another form of two-choice task is called “waiting game” in which while sitting in front of the two rewards (exposed or covered), the child is told to wait until the experimenter returns to the room. If

 

the child successfully waits for the experimenter to return, s/he will get the larger and more preferred reward. If the child cannot wait the experimenter, he/she may ring the bell to call experimenter, but he/she will only receive the small and less desirable reward. Although these experimental paradigms could be effectively used for younger children (from 1 to 7-years of age), these paradigms are usually ineffective or even problematic for the older children.

There are several reasons regarding why the delay of gratification abilities of older children hasn’t been tested successfully. First, it is relatively difficult to have realistic and non-trivial incentives for older children and early adolescents. Second, the meaningful delay intervals for the older group can span for days or weeks rather than a few minutes used for delay tasks in young children. Therefore, the delay of gratification abilities of adolescents and adults, as the indicative of self­regulation, is rarely studied in the previous studies. The delay of gratification abilities were measured only in a few studies during late childhood. Wulfert, Block, Ana, Rodriguez, and Colsman (2002) measured delay of gratification abilities of early adolescents from 14 to 17 years old using monetary incentives. Employing the experimental procedure used by Funder and Block (1989), researchers offered adolescents repeated choices between immediate payments of $4 after each session or a whole payment ($28), including interest payment at the end of the study. They found that, compared to adolescents who could delay gratification, those who choose the immediate payment showed more self-regulatory deficits. According to authors, however, in money incentive procedure, because participants might not trust the experimenter and wanted to save money owed them; they might have chosen the immediate offering (less money) rather than long-term reward (more money) (Wulfert, Block, Anna, Rodriguez, and Colsman, 2002). To better explain the delay of gratification process, Carver and Scheider (1998) posited feedback loops in which individuals must become consciously aware of the discrepancy between the current and desired self-states, then intentionally choose to engage in action to ease this discrepancy. In a similar vein, in their “hot- cool system” model, Metcalfe and Mischel (1999) stated that individuals must consciously and intentionally attempt to criminal control their responses to overcome the influences of the current environment. According to Metcalfe and Mischel (1999), these two types of cognitive processing, namely hot and cool systems, involve distinct but yet interacting systems. The cool cognitive system is composed of a complex spatiotemporal and episodic representation and thoughts. It is also called as “know system”. The hot emotional system called “go system” involves quick emotional processing and responding on the basis of unconditional and conditional stimuli. Authors assert that self-regulation and goal-directed volition can be seen as the interaction between these two systems. The hot memory systems are activated and the cool systems are deactivated by a threatening stimulus. As a result, for example, when the hot system is activated by the delicious food cues for dieters, it is more difficult to postpone gratification.

• Self-Regulatory Strength Model

A well-developed form of self-regulation involves a deliberate and conscious alteration of the self responses, such as making choices, inhibiting a tempting response, or making and carrying out plans. These actions and intensions require a source. According to the self-regulatory strength model proposed by Baumeister and colleagues (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998; Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994), these acts of the self requires some form of energy or strength which is limited in capacity. Each act of self-criminal control consumes some of this limited resource and leaves less amount of available energy for the subsequent acts. When this limited resource is depleted (referred to as the “ego depletion” state), self-regulation failure becomes more likely. The core premise of the self-regulatory strength model is that people depend on a limited resource to engage in the acts of self-criminal control. When this resource is reduced, the individual gets in a state of ego- depletion which makes him or her susceptible to self-regulation failure if the resource is not somehow replenished (Baumeister & Vohs, 2003).

The following two-task paradigm is used to manipulate self-regulatory strength in several “ego depletion” studies. Individuals in the ego depletion condition are asked to engage in two subsequent tasks both of which require the exertion of self-criminal control, such as resisting the temptation of eating delicious chocolate candies and eating radishes instead (the first task) and then trying to solve a difficult puzzle (the second task). In contrast, for the participants in the criminal control condition, only the second task that requires self-criminal control exertion is used (e.g., eating chocolates instead of radishes in the first task and working on a difficult

 

puzzle in the second task). Participants in the criminal control condition are expected to perform better than the ego depletion condition group in the second task. Experiments using this paradigm have demonstrated that ego-depletion impairs physical endurance, persistence, and emotion regulation; hampers reasoning on complex cognitive tasks; increases alcohol consumption; lets to fewer constructive responses to romantic partner’s destructive behaviors, and increases self-serving biases and attraction to an alternative partner in romantic relationships (see; Baumeister & Vohs, 2003; Rawn & Vohs, 2006, for extensive reviews).

In addition to the state depletion of regulatory resources, individuals may differ in terms of their chronic tendencies to exert self-criminal control. In the trait perspective, the ability to alter one’s behaviors by criminal controlling thoughts, emotions, impulses, and performance is termed as the trait self-criminal control (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). Tangney et al. reported that trait self-criminal control was positively associated with psychological adjustment, self-esteem, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, family cohesion, secure attachment, forgiveness, empathic concern, and perspective taking. Although the individual correlates of the trait self-criminal control have been studied extensively, a few studies have examined the antecedents of self-criminal control abilities (Finkenauer, Engels, & Baumeister, 2005).

• Self-Regulation as an Automatic Process

The second theoretical view on self-regulation, which is called as automatic self-regulation, was advanced by Fitzsimons and Bargh (2004). These authors have proposed that self-regulation is the capacity of individuals to guide themselves toward important goal states. Thus, regulation of self involves a wide range of cognitive and motivational actions, such as acting quickly to reach goals, ignoring distractions, taking appropriate positions in response to different situations, and overcoming obstacles. Because of the wide range of the actions, it is concluded that self-regulation is more than willpower or a goal pursuit alone.

Bargh (1990) suggested an auto-motive model of self-regulation as an alternative (or complementary) model to the classic self-regulation theories focusing on conscious choices. According to this model, goal pursuit process which is an important part of the self-regulation process can proceed without any conscious awareness and guidance. A critical question here is that how can goals operate our behaviors without our knowledge or awareness. First, Fitzsimons and Bargh (2004) proposed that the goals are assumed to be represented in the cognitive system as well as other cognitive constructs (see also Gollwitzer & Bargh, 2005). Second, since goal representations are capable of being activated automatically by the features of one’s environment, mere presence of situational cues that strongly associated with the pursuit of these goals. The auto-motive model assumes that similar to other cognitive structures (e.g., attitudes, stereotypes etc.), goals can be automatically activated in the mere presence of relevant environmental cues (Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004; Greenwald, Banaji, 1995). Auto-motive model states that the automatic self-regulation can occur in the realms of cognition, emotion, and behavior.

Attention allocation and the capacity of working memory are assumed to be an important component of self-regulation success (Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004). Past studies have demonstrated that even basic cognitive processes, such as attention and working memory can be regulated automatically. In their study, Chartland and Bargh (1996) showed that participants primed with impression formation goal did recall more behaviors performed by the target than those primed with a memorization goal. Consequently, results supported the expectation that the effect of activated goals is the same whether the activation is nonconscious or through an act of will. In addition to the automaticity of attention and memory, selective remembering and forgetting have also been subjected to regulation by nonconscious processes (Mitchell, Macrae, Schooler, Rowe, & Milne, 2002). Evidence from these studies indicates the key role of automatic processes on regulating and guiding cognition. Although relatively a few studies have examined nonconscious emotion regulation processes, past studies have also demonstrated that individuals are able to regulate their emotions automatically (Gross, 1998, 1999). Using a process model of emotion regulation, Gross (1998; 1999) argues that emotion regulation activity may occur without conscious awareness, such as well-practiced routines that become automatic by time. Habits, for example, that reduce anxiety such as nail biting (Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004) or smoking cigarette (Gross, 1999) are examples of automatic emotion regulation. Because of its repetition in lifespan, these emotion-laden processes can be automatised by using minimal attentional capacity. However, it is unclear that whether activation of emotion regulation goals is possible and if so, whether they consume cognitive sources that are limited. Even though there are limited numbers of studies, there has been extensive research on nonconscious behavioral regulation.

As shown in previous studies, goals influencing social behavior can also be directed by nonconscious processes. In their study, Brandstatter, Lengfelder, and Gollwitzer (2001) showed that behavioral goals were activated by subliminal priming of goal cues. After being exposed to the achievement related words subliminally, participants performed better at a word-search puzzle. Similarly, after subliminal presentation of cooperation-relevant words, participants behaved more cooperative in a dilemma game than did non-primed ones (cited in Bargh & Chartland, 1999). Automatic processes of regulation cognition, emotion, and behavior have been shown consistency with the auto-motive model of Bargh (1990). However, the question of where these nonconscious regulation sources come from is still unanswered. According to auto-motive model, goals become associated with properties of specific circumstances as a result of their frequent and consistent occurrence. Consequently, mere the presence of environmental cues can activate goals people pursuit (Bargh, 1990; Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004). Nevertheless, these are not the only necessary conditions for automatic regulation.

Implementation intentions (e.g., “If I encounter Situation X, then I'll perform Behavior Y”) are also assumed to initiate automatic actions (Gollwitzer, 1993, 1999). Individuals construct a mental schema relating environmental cues and goal directed behavioral responses. When a situation occurs, the pre-set behavior is performed automatically without any conscious choice. By implementation intentions, people develop a mental set providing them automatic self-regulatory behaviors without any need for frequent and consistent experiences (Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004).

Nonconscious self-regulation can function similar to conscious self­regulation, but more efficiently and consistently, and may also complement conscious kinds of self-criminal control with an additional mechanism. Bargh and colleagues (2001) found that nonconscious goal pursuit possesses as similar to the

key characteristics of conscious goal pursuit. People persist toward the goal progress even when obstacles arise; they increase their goal strength when their goals are unfulfilled; and they tend to resume the goal pursuit after disruption. Alternative goals are automatically inhibited in order to maintain focus on the goal being pursued, and temptations seem automatic to activate higher order goals with which they interfere, reminding individuals of their important goal pursuits. Whether it is conscious or automatic process, exhibiting self-regulation always lead to certain consequences, which can be positive or negative in its nature for individuals.

• Consequences of Self-Regulation Success and Failure

Past studies have examined the potential benefits and the costs of self­regulation processes. In an extensive study by Tangney, Baumeister, and Boone

• , participants who scored low in self-criminal control reported a wide range of negative outcomes including addiction, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, eating disorders and binge eating, unwanted pregnancy, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, debt and bankruptcy, lack of savings, violent and criminal behavior, underachievement in school and work, procrastination, smoking, and lack of exercise. Authors concluded that all of these negative outcomes could be reduced or eliminated if people criminal controlled their behavior better. Specifically, people with high self-criminal control (self-regulation ability) had better grades, as compared with people low in self-criminal control. People with high self-criminal control have also been found to show fewer impulse criminal control problems, such as binge eating and alcohol use (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). It is also found that people with high self-criminal control reported better psychological adjustment with respect to psychopathological symptoms including somatization, obsessive-compulsive patterns, depression, anxiety, hostile anger, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism. They also reported higher self-acceptance and self-esteem. In addition to the individual difference variables, self-criminal control has been found to be related with interpersonal functioning. For example, Eisenberg et al. (1997) found that high social functioning quality was predicted by high self-regulation. Moreover, research on early form of self-regulation; delay of gratification suggest a similar pattern in which effective capacity to delay gratification at early age predicted better interpersonal relationships in early adulthood (Sethi, Mischel, Aber, Shoda, and Rodriguez, 2000).

Other studies have extended these findings for different outcomes, such as the costs of self-regulation. For example, Tice and Baumeister (1997) found that procrastinators (who regulate their time-limited performances ineffectively) suffered greater stress and health problems than other students and also ended up with poorer grades. Similarly, Engels, Finkenauer, den Exter Blokland, and Baumeister (2000) found that adolescents with low self-criminal control were more likely to engage in delinquent behaviors, such as fighting, vandalism, and petty theft, and they also had reported worse relationships with their parents.

Up to now, literature on self-regulation was reviewed and it has been showed that when studying self-regulation, researchers usually tend to focus on either the processes of regulation, such as the motivation to self-regulate or using specific techniques for regulation or the outcomes of self-regulatory actions implying the degrees of success or failure associated with self-regulation. The current study will mainly focus on the outcomes of self-regulation.

• Development of Self-Regulation and Implications for Parenting

Self-regulation ability is assumed be highly sensitive to developmental changes. In her review, Kopp (1982) summarized developmental path of self­regulation process. According to Kopp, the growth of self-regulation begins in infancy approximately from second month on and five stages were proposed for the development of self-regulation.

The first stage, called neurophysiological modulation, refers to the organization of reflex movements and the arousal states as well as modulation of external stimulus. The infant’s behaviors become more predictable starting from two to three months. In this stage, the caregiver’s role is viewed as an assisting one, responding to the infant’s varying states and proving external support and modulation.

The second stage of self-regulation development involves sensorimotor regulation. Kopp (1982) asserted that infant develops the ability to alter behavior in response to events occurring in the environment at approximately from three months to 12 months. Although this type of regulation is not intentional or driven

 

by any motivational processes, altering behaviors are discovered accidentally. Associations between these altering behaviors are strengthened through conditioning. According to Kopp (1982), caregiver’s sensitivity and responsiveness are also critical during this period. The reactions of caregiver during this period are typically in response to the basic habits of the infant (e.g., thumb sucking). Throughout this period, infant becomes highly dependent on the caregiver’s impressions.

Kopp’s (1982) third phase involves the beginning of the awareness of social demands, as well as some criminal control skills from age 12 to 18 months. By this stage, the child starts to perform the ability to initiate, and stop activity in response to external demands. The key achievements during this stage are compliance with the demands of caregivers, and ability to initiate behavior. In this stage, child gains language skills, the caregiver is more of an organizer in directing the child’s behaviors (see also McCabe, Cunnington, and Brooks-Gunn, 2004).

In the fourth stage, self-criminal control involves development of representational thinking and recollection of memory from the age of 18 to 24 months According to Kopp (1982), these cognitive developments provide child to remember previous events and modulate behaviors as a result. The child can also remember socially acceptable behaviors even in the absence of caregivers or other significant external criminal control images. But there is limited flexibility in applying these memories to new situations.

In the fifth stage, Kopp (1982) proposed that the child starts to display clear evidence of self-regulation around the age of 2 years as the child’s awareness of self emerges. In her review, she distinguished between self-criminal control and self­regulation and claims that self-criminal control precedes self-regulation by emphasizing on the contingency rules. She stated that:

Self-regulation in contrast to self-criminal control involves the ability to use numerous contingency rules to guide behavior, to maintain appropriate monitoring for appreciable lengths of time and any number of situations, and to learn to produce a series of approximations to standards of expectations. The shift from self­criminal control to self-regulation, though probably quite subtle and gradual, parallels the growth of cognitive skills that is also gradual in the early preschool period (Kopp, 1982; pp 210).

However, Kopp (1982) suggests that true self-regulation cannot emerge until the preschool years when the child becomes capable of complying with others’ requests and behave appropriately in the lack of external monitoring. During these years, children are increasingly capable of internal self-regulation using rules, goal- directed plans and are expected to be able to regulate their own emotions and behaviors in an appropriate way (Grolnick, Deci, and Ryan, 1997). Sethi, Mischel, Aber, Shoda, and Rodriguez (2000) claimed that children at preschool years are expected to “delay, defer, and accept substitutions without becoming aggressive or disorganized by frustration, challenge or fatigue”. Although several studies have emphasized young child’s self-regulation skills, few studies have focused on regulation abilities of early adolescences (Finkenauer, Engels, & Baumeister, 2005). Considering these fragile years, youth’s failure and success of self­regulation carry an important role. Therefore, the current study aims to investigate the self-regulatory abilities during early adolescences.

The quality of caregiver-child relationship during the preschool years impacts the maturation process of regulatory abilities. There is a consensus in the literature that self-regulation follows a pathway from external to internal criminal control during early childhood (Kopp, 1982). The child learns self-regulatory skills from their caregivers, especially from their mothers. Therefore, the influence of caregivers in the development of self-regulation is of utmost importance. Development of self-regulation during childhood is frequently attributed to parental socialization through which individuals adopt and internalize beliefs, worldviews, and behaviors consistent with their parents’ values (Kopp, 1982).

According to socialization theories on parenting, children’s socialization is facilitated by various parental behaviors, skills, and attitudes which are embedded within the broader context of interparental and parent-child relationships (Laible & Thompson, 2007). Parents’ actions communicate the limits of acceptable behavior and model regulatory strategies, while the relational context may increase or decrease the likelihood that children will adopt behaviors prescribed by caregivers. For example, a mother’s repeated attempts to model strategies for criminal controlling negative emotions in public may be ignored if the mother-child relationship is highly hostile or distant. The role of the parental behaviors and interparental context in self-regulation will be briefly reviewed in the following section.   Parenting as a Socialization Instrument

Children’s socialization is facilitated through discrete parenting behaviors (e.g., positive reinforcement for acceptable behaviors, or harsh punishment for unacceptable emotional displays), which are embedded within the broader context of parent-child relationships characterized by mutually-responsive interactions, or nonsynchronized, unfulfilling exchanges (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Parental socialization studies have focused primarily on two problems: (1) understanding, describing, and organizing child raising behaviors of parents, and (2) determining whether and to what extent these child-rearing behaviors affect cognitive, behavioral, and emotional development of children.

The term parenting includes a vast number of conceptualizations such as parenting practices, parenting styles, and parenting attitudes. Parenting practices are behaviors defined by specific content and socialization goals. Parental attendance to school activities or spanking is both examples of parenting practices. Parenting styles are defined as a constellation of attitudes toward the child that are communicated to the child and create an emotional climate in which parenting behaviors are expressed (Darling, & Steinberg, 1993; Stevenson-Hinde, 1998).

As one of the pioneers of parenting studies, Baumrind (1991a) investigated the patterns of parental authority or the manners by which parents influence their offspring to become socially responsible and independent. Her studies resulted in three types of parenting styles: the authoritarian, the permissive, and the authoritative parenting styles. These parenting typologies are based on the concepts of responsiveness and demandingness and how a parent’s uses these styles to develop social competence in their children. Baumrind (1996) describes responsiveness and demandingness as the following:

Responsiveness refers to the extent to which parents intentionally foster individuality and self-assertion by being attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to children ’s needs and demands…Demandingness refers to the claims that parents make on children to become integrated into the family and community by their maturity expectations, supervision, disciplinary efforts, and willingness to confront a disputative child (pp. 410-411).

An authoritarian parenting style is conceptualized by the parent’s attempt to shape, criminal control, and evaluate the behavior and attitudes of their children in accordance with an absolute set of standards. Parents tend to emphasize obedience, respect to authority, tradition, and reservation of order (Baumrind, 1996). She showed that children from this type of parenting usually demonstrated low levels independence and social responsibility. In authoritarian parenting, parents are detached, criminal controlling and less warm than other parents. These parents are highly demanding but they are low on responsiveness to their child (Baumrind, 1996; 1991a).

Parents with permissive style are tolerant and accepting toward their child’s impulses. There are few demands placed on the child and parents used the least amount of punishment. Children of these parents were found to have less social responsibility, impulse criminal control, independence, and self-reliance as compared to the children of parents with other parenting styles. In permissive parenting, children have parents who exercise a lack of criminal control, are non-demanding and relatively responsiveness. Moreover, these children are less willing to persist when frustration is encountered, and demonstrate an unwillingness to comply or be responsible (Baumrind, 1991a).

In authoritative parenting style, there is a clear expectation of mature behavior from the child and obvious standard setting by parents. Children whose parents are authoritative in their parenting style are the most self-reliant, self­criminal controlled, explorative, and content. These parents exhibit a combination of high criminal control and positive encouragement of their child’s autonomy and independent endeavors. These parents enforce rules and standards using directives and consequences when necessary. They encourage their children to be individuals and independent. An authoritative parent can be summarized in the following three words: “warmth, criminal control, and democracy” (Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992). Authoritative parenting is related with the most positive outcomes as compared to other styles In addition to this typology, Baumrind’s early research focused on the role of the parental authority on child development. She began by articulating and extending the concept of parental criminal control. In her conceptualization, the concept of criminal control was defined as strictness, use of physical punishment, consistency of punishment. However, she also mentioned that parent’s willingness to socialize their child is conceptually distinct from parental restrictiveness. From this perspective, she used the concept parental criminal control to refer to parent’s attempts to integrate their offspring into the family and society by demanding behavioral compliance (cited in Darling & Steinberg, 1993).

As in Baumrind’s (1991a) parenting typology, in several theoretical perspectives, parenting has been described on the basis of different developmental outcomes focusing on different socialization processes. Moreover, many researchers have defined the concept of parenting style on the dimensions of criminal control exerted within the family and nurturance. For example, one of the earliest classifications on parental behaviors, Baldwin (1948) identified parental behaviors as the amount of criminal control, democracy, and activity. After this identification, Becker (1964; cited in Baumrind, 1991a) proposed her parenting classification. She described three aspects of parental behavior that she labeled; love versus hostility, restrictiveness versus permissiveness, and anxious emotional involvement versus calm detachment. Subsequently, Schaefer (1965a; 1965b) proposed his conceptualization about parenting and developed the Children’s Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) which is one of the earliest indexes of parenting. Based on Schaefer’s (1965a) factor analysis of ratings of parental behavior, parenting has been started to be described as three basic dimensions, acceptance versus rejection, psychological criminal control versus psychological autonomy, and firm criminal control versus lax criminal control. The results of the factor analyses in previous studies revealed that acceptance versus rejection dimension consisted of parenting characterized at positive side by positive evaluation, sharing, expression of affection, emotional support, and at the negative side by irritability, negative evaluation, and rejection. Psychological criminal control versus psychological autonomy dimension were intrusiveness, suppression of aggression, criminal control through guilt, and parental direction. However, a few aspects such as possessiveness, protectiveness, strictness, punishment, and nagging were cross-loaded (Schaefer, 1965a). Finally, the firm versus lax criminal control dimension consisted of lax discipline and extreme autonomy at the lax criminal control pole and punishment and strictiveness at the firm criminal control pole. Following these parenting studies, Barber (1994; 1996) reviewed parent-child studies extensively, and concluded the two basic dimensions that are parental criminal control and support, which are widely used in the recent studies.

• Parental Criminal control

The term parental criminal control has a number of dimensions and a rather complex structure that lead to ambiguities and controversies regarding whether it is actually beneficial or detrimental to children (Barber, 2002; Grolnick, 2003). Grolnick (2003) emphasized this ambiguity by pointing different conceptualizations of the term “criminal control”. The concept of criminal control may be attributed to the often equated notions of parents “being in criminal control”, normally related to positive developmental effects on children, and “being criminal controlling” usually associated with negative developmental effects on children.

A parent who is “in criminal control” provides a rich environment that can be optimal to child development by making age-appropriate demands, setting limits, and monitoring behavior appropriately (Grolnick, 2003). This form of criminal control is most often referred to as behavioral criminal control in the literature (Barber, 1996). A parent who is “criminal controlling” emphasizes on compliance, pressures children toward specified goals, and discourages interactive discussion (Grolnick, 2003). These parents do not respect their children’s viewpoints. This form of the criminal control usually is referred the term psychological criminal control. Various numbers of dimensions of this type of criminal control have been labeled in a broad range (e.g., conditional regard, love withdrawal, corporal punishment, discipline, developmentally inappropriate maturity demands, intrusiveness, punishment, guilt induction, verbal restriction etc.). This distinction between psychological and behavioral criminal control is also based on two main assumptions that is related to the requirements of child development. Firstly, it includes a sufficient level of psychological autonomy by which child learns social interactions to develop personal identity. Another fundamental presupposition is that adequate regulation of behavior enables child to learn that social interactions have rules and structures. These rules and structures have to be recognized in order to be a competent member of society (Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, 1994).

Researchers have also interested in the effects of criminal control on child or adolescent development. The effects of criminal control often vary from weak to strong, from positive to negative, and from linear to non-linear (Barber, 2001; 1996). The majority of studies on parental criminal control have been focused on the two main areas psychological and behavioral criminal control. These two types of criminal control will be reviewed in the following section

• Psychological Criminal control

Interest in studies on parental psychological criminal control began in early 1990s as a result of the work by Steinberg and his colleagues (Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992). Although typological or aggregated approaches to parenting, such as Baumrind’s parenting typology, have been useful in understanding the general approaches of parenting and their impacts on child development, Steinberg and his colleagues (1992) asserted that more detailed analysis of specific parenting behaviors would be helpful in providing new understanding regarding the etiologies of specific types of child adjustment. Steinberg and his colleagues (1992) separated authoritative parenting into three distinct components:     acceptance, behavioral criminal control, and psychological

criminal control/autonomy granting. They showed that these components have differential effects on adolescent outcomes, such as academic achievement, behavioral problems, and internalizing problems (Barber, 1996; Gray & Steinberg, 1999). The recent research findings also showed that each parenting dimension is related to the child functioning in unique and specific ways (Barber, 1996; Bean, Bush, McKenry, & Wilson, 2003).

There is a consensus in the literature that psychological criminal control can be defined as an intrusive and manipulative form of criminal control that intrude into the psychological and emotional development of child or adolescent (e.g. feelings, verbal expressions, identity, attachment bonds, etc.) (Barber, 2001; 1996).

A psychologically criminal controlled context prevents child from the development a healthy awareness and perception of self for several reasons. First of all, psychologically criminal controlling parent denigrates the child implicitly and do not provide adequate opportunities to develop sense of personal efficacy (Barber, 1996). Supporting this, research findings have shown that psychological criminal control is positively related with internalized problem behaviors (Stone, Buehler, & Barber, 2002; Olsen et.al., 2002; Barber, Olsen & Shagle, 1994; Fauber, Forehand, Thomas, & Wierson, 1990), such as depression (Barber, 1996), low ego-strength (Hauser, et.al, 1984), and anxiety (Pettit & Laird, 2002). Past research also revealed a link between psychological criminal control and externalized problems (Barber, 1996; Gray & Steinberg, 1999).

Barber and Harmon (2002) classified the specific descriptions of parental psychological criminal control into two main types; manipulative and constraining parental criminal control. They defined manipulative parenting as an attempt to shape the children’s behavior or adjust the emotional balance between parents and children by using three main strategies: guilt induction, love withdrawal, and instilling anxiety. Constraining parents repress their children’s verbal behavior and inhibit the children’s self-discovery and expression. In addition to these two basic dimensions, other characterizations of parental behaviors and/or attitudes including personal attack, high parental expectations, and erratic emotional behaviors are considered neither manipulative nor constraining but have been linked to psychological criminal control (Barber, 1996; Barber & Harmon, 2002).

In this study, the manipulative type of parental psychological criminal control is taken into account. Therefore, the main focus of the current study is to examine the different manipulative psychological criminal control behaviors and their effects on self­regulation and child outcomes. It has been shown that the constraining type of parental psychological criminal control is mainly associated with autonomy support involving a criminal control over children’s self-discovery and expression by limiting verbal behavior (Barber, 2005). Manipulative parental psychological criminal control is exerted using a number of criminal controlling behaviors. Some of them will be reviewed below.

• Guilt Induction

There is debate regarding whether guilt induction is beneficial or detrimental to child development. According to Grolnick (2003), regardless of the valance of the effect on the child, guilt induction is used by parents with good intentions to provide the best for their children. Similarly, Tangney and Dearing (2002) defined inducing guilt as a motivation of the child in a more “moral direction” to precipitate corrective action. In fact, the presence of guilt induction has been linked to the development of prosocial behaviors, including altruism, empathy, and social perspective taking (Tangney, & Dearing, 2002). However, it is also claimed that guilt induction has the potential to do harm by fostering resentment that can negatively affect familial relationships and by producing exaggerated feelings of responsibility that overwhelm the child and focus the child’s attention on the needs of others (Barber, & Harmon, 2002). The different views on the impact of guilt induction may be partly attributable to the constructs of reasoning or induction (Smith, 1983). On the one hand, reasoning emphasizes the negative conclusions of child’s misbehaviors on others and is thought to be effective because it develops the empathic abilities. On the other hand, induction reveals the parent’s displeasure with the child’s behaviors and it criminal controls the child through communications or actions that lead the child to believe that s/he has caused the parent emotional pain. It is thought that the latter form is more emotionally intense and manipulative than reasoning.

• Love Withdrawal

Another form of manipulating psychological criminal control is withdrawal of love from child. Love withdrawal implies for the child that the parents are dissatisfied with the child’s behavior and try to criminal control the child through separation or threat of separation from the parent, so that the child loses parental attention or affection (Grolnick, 2003). Love withdrawal is manipulative in the sense that the parents’ affection and involvement is conditional (Barber & Harmon, 2002). Children’s need for love, attention, and approval from their parents are critical aspects that last across the lifespan. Practices based on the manipulation of these needs and threatening the child with the loss of support are expected to have detrimental effects on children and may lead to low self-esteem, and internalizing problems (Grolnick, 2003).

• Behavioral Criminal control

As mentioned in the previous sections, Grolnick’s (2003) conceptualization of “being in criminal control” versus “being criminal controlling” mirrors distinct criminal control constructs; behavioral versus psychological criminal control. Behavioral criminal control refers to attempting to criminal control or manage child behavior. Contrary to psychological criminal control, there is a plenty of findings indicating the positive impacts of parental behavioral criminal control on child functioning. Specific dimensions of behavioral criminal control consist of various parenting behaviors, such as supervision (Kurdek, & Fine, 1995), monitoring (Brown, Mounts, Lamborn, & Steinberg, 1993), and demandingness (Baumrind, 1991a; Maccoby, & Martin, 1983). Children experiencing inadequate behavioral criminal control are at greater risk for the development of externalized problem behaviors (Barber & Olsen, 1994) and antisocial behavior (Barber, Stolz, & Olsen, 2005). The link between behavioral criminal control and externalizing behaviors can be explained in two plausible ways: (1) parental behavioral criminal control facilitates self-regulation abilities of children and their engagement in socially approved behaviors; (2) children experiencing inadequate behavioral criminal control (in other words, unsupervised children) are more likely to be influenced by peers, some of whom may encourage risk-taking and deviant behaviors (e.g., delinquency) (Barber, Stolz, & Olsen, 2005). Barber (1996; 1994) pointed out that adolescents appear to be adversely affected by psychological criminal control, but positively influenced by behavioral criminal control. He also noted that insufficient behavioral criminal control deprives the need for guidance and supervision of adolescent and therefore causes a risk for developmental difficulties.

• Parental Criminal control and Adolescent Adjustment

Whereas some studies on parental criminal control have assumed linear relationship between parental behaviors and adolescent adjustment (Barber, et.al., 2005; Barber, 1996), a few studies have found a U-shape, curvilinear association between parental criminal control and adolescent outcomes (Mason, Cauce, Gonzales, & Hiraga, 1996; Miller, McCoy, Olson, & Wallace, 1986). Although results of these studies are inconsistent, in general, parental psychological criminal control is typically viewed as uniformly negative, whereas behavioral criminal control is assessed as uniformly positive.

According to the coercive theory of Patterson and Loeber (1984), too much psychological and/or behavioral criminal control interferes with a younger child’s ability to form appropriate prosocial behaviors, whereas low behavioral criminal control implicated in association with peer problem in adolescence. In other words, while too much criminal control inhibits the development of autonomy, which is necessary for the development of self-criminal control, too little criminal control can lead to adolescent “wandering” (Mason, Cauce, Gonzales, & Hiraga, 1996; Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992). Similarly, Baumrind (1991b) proposed that moderate level rather that high or low levels of both acceptance and criminal control positively influence the well­being of adolescents. Contrary to this “moderate criminal control is the best” hypothesis, some researchers have reported steep increases in adolescents’ psychological competence at the upper levels of criminal control (Kurdek, & Fine, 1994). Different patterns of the relationship between parenting and child outcome may be due to the cultural settings. As Darling and Steinberg (1993) proposed, parenting may vary across different ecologies because parents may have different goals, representing cultural norms through which children are socialized. For instance, according to Olsen et. al., (2002), some aspects of psychological criminal control, especially, shaming, guilt induction, and love withdrawal seem to be a prevalent part of Chinese children’s socialization. They asserted that it is believed that awareness of shame or guilt may push a child to improve his or her performance. Children who have behavioral or unacceptable problems may be blamed by parents. These children perceived these kinds of behaviors “normal” and/or corrective and acceptance behaviors. Similarly, it is found in Turkish cultural settings that some intrusive or overprotective parental behaviors were perceived as parental warmth and involvement (Sumer, et. al, 2008). Further research is needed to explore the specific nature of linear or curvilinear relationships.

A limited number of studies have documented the interplay between different kinds of parental criminal control variables influencing adolescent adjustment (Aunola & Nurmi, 2004; Barber, Stolz, & Olsen, 2005; Barber, 1996; Barber, Olsen & Shagle, 1994; Galambos, et. al., 2003). Aunola and Nurmi (2004) found that a high level of psychological criminal control exercised by mothers predicted their children’s academic performance in mathematics negatively when behavioral criminal control was low. Similarly, Barber, Stolz, and Olsen (2005) reported that parental psychological criminal control had the strongest association with antisocial behavior when parental support was low.

• Interparental Context

In addition to the effects of parental criminal control dimensions, conflictual marital environment in which children are exposed to, have been assumed to have an impact on child adjustment independently or by interacting with parenting criminal control variables (Davies, & Cummings, 1994). Marital conflict has been claimed to disrupt parents’ ability to share positive affect and warmth with their children and increase the tendency to use more power-oriented criminal control strategies that seem to undermine

 

children’s conscience development and early self-regulation (Volling, Blandon, & Kolak, 2006). Thompson and Calkins (1996) asserted that children in conflictual marriages employ the regulatory processes that promote both risk and adaptation. The preschoolers, dysregulated by their parents’ conflict, attempted to maintain a sense of criminal control and well-being by expressly denying their distress and behavioral disruption (Martin, & Clements, 2002).

Indeed, conflict between spouses is an inevitable aspect of all marriages. However, interparental conflict may also be an important source of stress for their children, especially when it occurs frequently, involves intense expression of anger, hostility, or aggression (Cummings & Davies, 1994). A large body of research has documented the associations between such destructive marital conflict and a range of adjustment problems and peer relation problems in children (for reviews see Cummings & Davies, 1994; Grych & Fincham, 1990). Although the relationship between marital discord and child adjustment has been well documented, few studies have focused on link between marital conflict and the regulatory skills of adolescents. Based on the previous work in this arena, in this study, it is assumed that marital conflict would have an effect on children’s self-regulatory skills as well as parental behaviors.

Several hypotheses attempting to explain the potential bond between marital discord and negative child outcome have been proposed in previous studies. The two main hypotheses in this literature are the direct effects models, including the sensitization hypothesis, modeling, stressor role of the parent conflict, and indirect effects models, including parent-child relationship and emotional security hypothesis.

According to the direct effects models, the negative effects of children’s interparental conflict exposure can be accounted for by direct mechanisms. One of the direct effects models is the sensitization hypothesis. This hypothesis purports that as compared to children exposed to less interparental conflict, children who are exposed to more to conflict have greater aggressive reactions in response to experiencing interparental conflict (Davies & Cummings, 1994). Children from a high conflictual environment respond to their parents with increased level of anger, stress, aggression, and show more involvement in argument (Cummings, Pellegrini, Notarius, Cummings, 1989).

It is well-known that children imitate their parents’ behaviors (Bandura, 1977; Piaget, 2002). This popular argument makes modeling a direct effects explanation for the linkage between interparental conflict and children’s problems (Davies & Cummings, 1994). According to Belsky (2001), parents represent prevailing models for their child, in the relationship context. Thus, children learn much about interpersonal relationship from their parents. Parents may be inadvertently providing maladaptive models for behavior during interpersonal relationships. This hypothesis asserts that modeling also involves the transference of information about behavior as well as imitation of behavior (Grych & Fincham, 1990). For instance, to resolve conflict, child also learns that aggression is an appropriate manner, and then he/she may become more aggressive with the peers involving conflictual situations. According to Davies and Cummings (1994), experiencing parental discord is a fundamental stressor for children. Further, it has been underlined that chronic experience to this stressor and child adjustment disorders have a reciprocal relationship in which each construct deteriorates the impacts of the other (Grych & Fincham, 1990). Consequently, frequent parental conflict is a source of stress for the child and it increases the likelihood of adjustment problems, and in turn, these adjustment problems also increase parental conflict.

Indirect effects models, however, purports the mediation of a third variable which affects the relationship between marital discord and child adjustment. Emotional security and emotional regulation hypotheses are examples of the indirect effects models.

According to emotional security hypothesis, Davies and Cummings (1994) assumed that marital conflict adversely affect the child-parent relationship quality, parenting behaviors quality, and the quality of the children’s attachment to their parents. Davies and Cummings (1994) also asserted that marital distress affects child-rearing abilities, and nurturance responsibilities of parents. Consistent with this argument, parental discord has been found to be related with decreased emotional support, and inconsistent parental behaviors (Fauber, Forehand, Thomas, & Wierson, 1990; Fincham, Grych, & Osborne, 1994). These family variables have also been found to be associated child adjustment, such as conduct and emotional problems (Fincham, Grych, & Osborne, 1994). The emotional regulation hypothesis claims that children not only respond to exposure conflict, but also actively appraise and process the interparental implications and meaning of the discord for the family relationships. As a result of the parental arguments, familial climate become unpleasant, emotional availability of caretakers can reduce and the child feels insecure. Additionally, these discords result in deterioration of parent-child relationship and it has implications for values of the family (Cummings, & Davies, 1994). Emotionally regulated children have confidence in the stability and predictability of parental relationships; they have a belief that conflict will be resolved, and also have confidence in physical availability of their parents. Parental conflict doesn’t pose a threat for emotionally well-regulated children’s psychological well-being (Cummings, & Davies, 1994).

Despite these theoretical assertions that regulatory development is likely to be facilitated by positive relationships with significant others (Daniels, Dunn, Furstenberg, & Plomin, 1985; Grusec & Goodnow, 1994), interparental conflict has been studied less extensively than specific parenting practices in regard to self­regulation. Previous studies indicated that only two studies provided indirect evidence that interparental conflict was associated with the self-regulation failure in early and middle childhood. In Pott, et. al’s study (2007) with the infants aged from 4 to 30 months, mothers who reported high interparental conflict with their husbands reported that their infant had worse behavior inhibition. In another study by Marcus, Lindahl, and Malik (2001) on children aged from 7 and 13, conflictual family environment was linked to the lower levels of social problem solving abilities. These studies, however, have not examined the direct and independent effects of the parenting together with marital conflict on children’s self-regulation and adjustment. By the current study, the unique impact of interparental conflict on adolescent self-regulatory abilities will be tested.

• Psychological and Behavioral Criminal control, Marital Conflict and Self­Regulation in Adolescence

Parental criminal control, especially psychological criminal control, seems to hinder the healthy development of children’s self-regulation. Grolnick, Ryan, and Deci (1997) asserted that over-criminal controlling parents fail to provide children with valuable information to make estimation on their own by presenting too many potential strategies which make difficult to select the best alternative for the child. Besides, criminal controlling parents tend to present age-inappropriate strategies that are too simple or too complex to adopt and apply for children. Compared to psychologically criminal controlling parents, children whose parents set clear standards and monitor school progress tend to regulate their self better and generally show higher levels of competence in social and cognitive areas.

A few studies have examined how parental (behavioral) criminal control continues to support the development of self-regulation in adolescence. Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, and Dornbusch (1994) showed that authoritative parenting were associated with adolescent’s self-reliance which is conceptually close to self­regulation, whereas, adolescents with authoritarian parents had the worst self­reliance. Adolescents with neglectful parents didn’t differ from adolescents with authoritarian parents with respect to their self-reliance. Similarly, Deci and Ryan

• asserted that induction, reasoning, explanation, and democratic parenting are positively associated with adolescents’ performance in the absence of parents’ supervision. Although past studies have revealed associations between parenting behaviors and self-regulation (e.g., Finkenauer et. al., 2005), how specific dimensions of parental criminal control (e.g., psychological and behavioral criminal control) promote or prevent self-regulatory abilities are still unexplored.

Psychologically criminal controlling parents use psychological manipulations which undermine their children’s attempts to develop independent regulation strategies. These manipulations also prevent children’s experience of autonomous regulation and opportunity to gain understanding of when self-regulation is necessary. Moilanen (2005) exemplified this process with a case study of parent-child interaction in which there is a stressed parent and bored child driving home from school. In this case, parent who says “I will stop loving you if you don’t sit still for this 10 minute ride” requires her child to be still in response to her/his own needs, despite the child’s own need for action after a boring day in the school. Moilanen asserted that in this situation, child misses three important lessons; the first of which s/he loses the opportunity to perform voluntarily inhibiting his behavior. Secondly, s/he fails to obtain chance to learn how to identify behaviors that need to be inhibited. Finally, s/he cannot learn to identify social signals indicating that sitting still is appropriate behavior in this situation. Consistent with this instance, Barber and Harmon (2002) found that the inconsistent and intrusive types of criminal control are linked with poorer social and emotional competence. Similarly, Hauser et. al. (1984) showed a significant association between low level of constraining behavior and high level ego-development. The current study aims to extend previous findings by examining the relationship between specific dimensions of parental criminal control and self-regulation of adolescents.

Behavioral criminal control is also suggested to be associated with the development of self-regulation among children and adolescents. Although adolescents are under the increased influence of peers and they value their own sense of autonomy to a greater extend, parental behaviors were found to be critical for self-regulation abilities during adolescence (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Children learn how to criminal control their own behavior by internalized parental directives or by imposition of external behavioral criminal control. Children internalize these parental and social values for their behavioral criminal control (Moilanen, 2005). Therefore, children’s or adolescent’s self-regulation is guided by parental expectations and boundaries.

• Adolescent Adjustment

Adjustment during adolescence is usually examined considering the externalizing and internalizing behaviors, such as emotional, conduct, peer problems, and hyperactivation/inattention in previous studies. The same conceptualization will be used the current study. In addition to behavior problems, adolescent’s own perception of academic self-efficacy will also be examined in relation to the various parental criminal control dimensions, marital conflict and self­regulation abilities. Both adjustment problems and academic self-efficacy will be reviewed briefly in the following sections.

Considering that self-regulation and negative parenting have typically been associated with externalizing and internalizing problems among adolescents (Barber, 1996; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004), a number of behavioral problems including externalizing (conduct), and internalizing (emotional) problem behaviors, prosocial behaviors, inattention/hyperactivity measured by Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997), and academic self-concept of adolescents were selected as the indicators of adjustment. Consistently, unlike negative parenting, positive parenting and good regulatory abilities have been found to be associated with better academic performance, achievement, and prosocial behaviors (Barber, Stolz & Olsen, 2005).

• Externalizing Problem Behaviors

Externalizing problems have been thought to be the undercriminal controlled behaviors, such as substance abuse or delinquent behavior (Moilanen, 2005). In adolescent years, these externalizing behaviors tend to increase gradually (Kim, Hetherington, & Reiss, 1999). Self-regulation abilities have typically been found to be related with the externalizing problems among adolescents. Specifically, low levels of self regulation have been associated with higher levels of externalizing problems and substance abuse (Galambos, Barker, & Almeida, 2003; Tangney, et al., 2004). Furthermore, Finkenauer, Engels, and Baumeister (2005) reported an association between hostility, anger, aggression, and low levels of self-criminal control.

In addition, high levels of parental psychological criminal control have been found to be linked with externalizing problem behaviors (Barber, Harmon, 2002; Barber, 1996). For instance, Barnes and Farrell (1992) found that psychological criminal control by each parent was related to increased alcohol consumption among adolescents age 13 to 16. However, past research findings on this association are inconsistent. For example, Bean, Barber, and Crane (2006) did not find a significant relationship between maternal and paternal psychological criminal control and child externalizing problems of delinquency, peer problems among African American youth. Indeed, the mixed findings on the link between parental psychological criminal control and outcome variables may be associated with cultural differences on the implications of psychological criminal control. Considering Barnes and Farrell’s (1992) and Bean, Barber, and Crane’s (2006) studies, different dimensions of psychological criminal control may be perceived differently by children from various cultures.

Contrary to the mixed findings concerning the parental psychological criminal control, the findings about the impacts of parental behavioral criminal control are less varied and complex. Low levels of parental behavioral criminal control have been linked to externalizing problem behaviors such as drug use, and swearing (Barber, Olsen, Shagle, 1994). In a study with African American youth, lower levels of parental behavioral criminal control were tied with delinquency (Bean, Barber, & Crane, 2006). These results are consistent with the previous works in which adequate parental behavioral criminal control is associated with positive child adjustment (Barber, Maughan & Olsen, 2005; Barber, Stolz & Olsen, 2005)

Convergent results from previous studies suggest a potential association between the exposure to interparental conflict and externalizing problems (Emery, Fincham, & Cummings, 1992; Emery & O’Leary, 1982; 1984; Katz & Gottman,

• . According to Emery, Fincham, and Cummings (1992), the frequent exposure to parental discord is one of the strongest predictor for externalizing behavior of children and adolescents. Children with high conflictual family environment have demonstrated low social competence (Jouriles, Bourg, & Farris, 1991). In their study, Jouriles, Murphy, and O’Leary (1989) showed the unique contribution of marital discord on the prediction of conduct disorders and peer problems while criminal controlling alcoholism, divorce, abuse, and parental psychopathology.
• Internalizing Problem Behaviors

Internalizing problem behaviors are generally conceptualized by “turning in” symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and withdrawal (Moilanen, 2005). Similar to externalizing behaviors, internalizing problems become more prevalent in the second decade of the life (Goodman, 1997).

Internalizing problems have also been found to be related with self­regulation abilities of children and adolescents (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004; Finkenauer, Engels, & Baumeister, 2005). Compared to externalizing problems, internalizing problem behaviors have been studied less frequently. Generally, the term “underregulation” has been attributed to one of the popular internalizing problem, depression. In one study, depressed people tend to report lower levels of self-criminal control than non-depressed individuals (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). Similarly, depressed children showed poorer performance on an attention regulation task than non-depressed children (Lengua, 2002). However, it is still unclear whether people with poor self-regulatory abilities are more likely to become depressed or whether depression deteriorates self-regulatory abilities. Although this study will not examine this unanswered question, it can be claimed that a vicious circle occurs, in which internalizing difficulties lead to self-regulation difficulties, and in turn poor self-regulation skills result in internalizing problems.

Generally, internalizing problems have also been associated with parental psychological criminal control, specifically with emotional problems in adolescence years (Barber, 1994; 1996). Whereas psychological criminal control is one of the stronger predictors of adolescents’ internalizing problems, behavioral criminal control is negatively associated with internalizing problem behaviors (Barber, 1994; Galambos, Barker, & Almedia, 2003).

In addition to self-regulation and parental criminal control, the exposure to interparental conflict has been demonstrated to be linked with the internalizing problem behaviors (Fantuzzo, et al., 1991). Children from conflictual family environment tend to report high internalizing problems, such as anxiety, depression, and withdrawal (Fincham, Grych, & Osborne, 1994). However, it is not clear how psychological and behavioral criminal control interact with interparental conflict in predicting internalizing problem behaviors.

• Academic Self-Concept

In addition to externalizing and internalizing problems, lack of self- regulatory abilities, parental criminal control behaviors and repeated exposure to interparental conflict have demonstrated negative impacts on children’s and adolescent’s self-concepts (Barber, 1996; Davies & Cummings, 1994; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). Harter (1993) describes self-concept as a stable set of self-attitudes including both a description and an evaluation of one’s own behavior and attributes. The self-concept has been conceptualized as a multidimensional construct for students involving two main facets called academic versus non­academic self-concepts. While non-academic self-concept includes social, emotional, and physical sub-domains of self-concepts, academic self-concept is consisted of the students’ evaluation of their academic ability in general and on specific courses (Marsh, 1987). The present study will focus on academic self­concept on mathematics and Turkish performance.

Academic self-concept refers to one’s self-perception about how component one is in the academic domain (Marsh, 1990). There are many sources of information by which adolescents draw to form their self-perception of academic efficacy, such as prior learning history, self-regulatory abilities, evaluative feedback from significant others, family environment, and social comparison. It is imperative to understand how students evaluate themselves as compared to their classmates. Since academic self-concept is more closely associated with academic performance or achievement than general the self-concept. In their study, Byrne and Shavelson

• reported substantial associations between academic self-concept and different domains of achievement at school among 11^th and 12^th grade students. Similarly, Marsh (1987a) showed that the correlation between GPA and academic self-concept was about .50. Consequently, past studies suggest that academic self­concept was a better predictor of the academic achievement than the global self­concept (Hoge, Smit, & Crist, 1995; Orr & Dinur, 1995; Skaalvik & Hagtvet, 1990).

Research has demonstrated that the failure in self-regulatory abilities is related to poor performance and low grades (Byrne, & Stevensonson, 1986; Marsh, 1987; Tice, & Baumeister, 1997). In addition to the role of the self-regulation abilities, several researchers have suggested that parenting has also critical effects on school grades and academic self-concepts of adolescents (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992). Accordingly, authoritarian and permissive parenting styles were linked to lower school grades and low levels of academic self-concepts, whereas authoritative parenting was related to high levels of grades and academic self­concepts. Eccle, Early, Fraser, Belansky, and McCarthy (1997) also found a significant relationship between autonomy support and adolescents’ school motivation/achievement.

Witnessing frequent and intense parental conflict has also detrimental impacts on adolescents’ academic performance as well as regulatory abilities and parental behaviors (Katz, & Gottman, 1997). In a study, children with conflictual environment demonstrated decreased achievement and low self-expectancies about their academic self-domains (Lewin, 1989).

• The Current Study

The majority of the reviewed studies on self-regulation, parenting, family environment, and adjustment have generally been conducted in an isolated manner by focusing different aspects of the investigated problem. Moreover, these associations using integrative models have been studied in childhood only and the link between self-regulation and adjustment has been examined in adolescence without explicitly looking at the effects of parenting and marital conflict. Hence, the primary aim of this study is to investigate the mediated associations among parenting (depicted as psychological and behavioral criminal control), interparental conflict, self-regulation, and the problem behaviors, as outlined in the hypothesized model in Figure 2.

First, a contextual model in which adolescents’ self-regulatory abilities mediate the relationship between family variables (parenting and interparental conflict) and adolescent adjustment will be explored using latent model analyses (See Figure 1). Second, specific hypotheses on the relationships between self- regulatory skills, specific parental criminal control, and adolescent outcomes will be tested. Linearity (or curvilinearity) between parental criminal control and adjustment will also be tested in Turkish cultural context. Finally, potential interactions between specific form of parenting variables (parental psychological and behavioral criminal control) and self-regulatory abilities will be examined.

Specifically, a proposed model including relationships among parental behaviors, family context, self-regulation abilities of adolescents, their adjustment and academic self-concept will be examined (H#1). In this model it is hypothesized that the relationship between parental behaviors, family environment and adolescent’s adjustment would be mediated by self-regulatory abilities of adolescents. Based on the reviewed studies, it is expected that the exposure to parental psychological criminal control and marital discord leads to a failure in self- regulatory abilities among adolescents, and in turn, this would influence adolescent’s adjustment to the environment (H#1a). Contrary to parental psychological criminal control, behavioral criminal control would have a positive impact on the self- regulatory abilities (H#1b).

Figure 2. Contextual Model for Parenting, Self-Regulatory Skills, and Youth Adjustment

 

The second set of hypotheses is associated with the impacts of parental criminal control on adolescent’s outcomes (H#2). Consistent with the findings in the literature on psychological criminal control, parental psychological criminal control is expected to be positively related to adolescents’ self-regulation failure, adjustment problems, including emotional and conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems and negatively related with prosocial behaviors and academic self-concept. Moreover, specific dimensions of psychological criminal control will also be explored to shed a light on inconsistent findings in the related literature. In addition to the significant associations between psychological criminal control and adjustment found generally in Western cultural contexts, the culture-relevant meanings of psychological criminal control should be examined. Following Kagitcibasi’s (2007) theoretical framework on the autonomous-related self, it can be proposed that different dimensions of parental psychological criminal control may be associated with adolescent adjustment differently. The meaning of specific dimensions of psychological criminal control (e.g., love withdrawal, intrusion etc.) may vary in terms of the culture. Consequently, it is hypothesized that different types of psychological criminal control would vary in their effects on adolescent outcomes. Specifically, it was expected that the predictive power of parental love withdrawal would be higher than parental guilt induction in the current sample considering the “emotionally interdependent” (Kagit£iba§i, 2007) nature of parent-child interaction in Turkish culture. Parental love withdrawal would negatively predict adolescent self-regulation and academic self­concept (H#2bi), whereas it would positively predict problem behaviors of adolescents (H#2b„). Following the debates on whether guilt induction is beneficial or detrimental to child development (considering that guilt induction may be used by parents with good intentions to provide the best for their children), it was expected that guilt induction would not be perceived as threatening as much as perceived love withdrawal (H#2bm).

It was also expected that perceived parental behavioral criminal control would be related to positive youth outcomes (H#2c). Specifically, maternal and paternal behavioral criminal control behaviors would be associated with self-regulation success and academic self-concept positively. In a number of studies, it has been repeatedly shown that optimum level of behavioral criminal control is linked to good adjustment. However, little research has been conducted to investigate the meaning of “optimum” or “sufficient” of parental behavioral criminal control. Although the argument on the levels of behavioral criminal control continues, a non-linear association between behavioral criminal control and adjustment has also been proposed suggesting that as compared to moderate levels, both very high and low levels of behavioral criminal control is associated with worse adjustment (Barber, Stolz, & Olsen, 2005; Barber & Olsen, . Supporting this claim, the lack of behavioral criminal control was assumed to deprive the need for guidance and supervision of adolescent and therefore causes risk for learning impulse criminal control (Barber, 1996; 1994). Thus, the current study will examine whether the relationship between parental knowledge, monitoring and adolescent adjustment is linear or not. Specifically, it is assumed that compared to low and high level parental knowledge and monitoring, moderate level of knowledge and monitoring may be related with the best adolescent functioning and academic self­concept (H#2ci).

 

$39.69 – DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT Added to cart