Content uploaded by Wendy Grolnick
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wendy Grolnick on Jul 27, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Issues and Challenges in Studying Parental Control:
Toward a New Conceptualization
Wendy S. Grolnick
1
and Eva M. Pomerantz
2
1
Clark University and
2
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
ABSTRACT—Although investigators have long considered
parents’ exertion of control overchildrenasacentralpart
of the socialization process, the study of control has been
marked by conceptual and empirical confusion. This arti-
cle outlines some of the history of the construct of control
in the context of parenting, delineating the development
of the contemporary approach that distinguishes among
multiple forms of control. It proposes a refinement of this
approach such that only parenting characterized by pres-
sure, intrusion, and domination should be considered con-
trol, whereas parenting frequently labeled control but
characterized mainly by guidance should be considered
structure. This article highlights the benefits of distinguish-
ing between these two dimensions of parenting rather than
multiple forms of control.
KEYWORDS—parenting; control; structure
For as long as scholars have studied parenting, they have consid-
ered parents’ exertion of control over children to be a central
dimension of parenting (for reviews, see Maccoby & Martin,
1983; Steinberg, 1990). It is thus not surprising that more than a
thousand scholarly works have been written on the topic.
1
The
proliferation of theory and research on parental control has
yielded a myriad of conceptualizations and operationalizations.
Rollins and Thomas (1979) identified over 15 labels used to
describe parental control in more than 220 studies. Although the
most common label was the simple one of control sometimes
accompanied by the term hostile, also common were authorit-
arian,discipline,demanding,dominance,protective,punishment,
and restrictive. Other terms included authoritative,coercion,
power assertion,possessiveness,pressure,andstrictness. Notably,
the list did not even include some labels that frequently appear
in contemporary work, such as behavioral control (e.g., Barber,
1996; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989), psychological control
(e.g., Barber, 1996; Steinberg et al., 1989), firm versus lax control
(e.g., Fauber, Forehand, Thomas, & Wierson, 1990; Rowe,
1981), intrusiveness (e.g., Ispa et al., 2004; Martin, Maccoby, &
Jacklin, 1981), and forceful control (e.g., Kochanska, Aksan,
Knaack, & Rhines, 2004). The plethora of terms has created
confusion in the conclusions one can draw about the role of
parental control in children’s development.
THE MULTIPLE-FORMS APPROACH TO CONTROL
Scholars have always deemed control to be fundamental in the
parenting context, but its characterization has changed over
time. Early scholars defined control in terms of pressure,
intrusiveness, and domination, viewing it as detrimental to
children. At the same time, however, they acknowledged that
it was also maladaptive for parents to allow children free
rein, as children require some guidance (e.g., Baldwin, 1955;
Symonds, 1939). In contrast, contemporary work has focused
on multiple forms of control (e.g., Barber, 1996; Steinberg
et al., 1989), some of which are characterized not by pressure,
intrusiveness, or domination, but rather by guidance as well
This writing of this article was supported in part by National Insti-
tute of Mental Health Grant R01 MH57505 to E.M.P. and a grant
from the William T. Grant Foundation to W.S.G. We appreciate the
constructive comments on an earlier version of this article provided
by Richard Ryan, Karen Rudolph, and members of the Center for
Parent–Child Studies at the University of Illinois and the Motivation
Lab at Clark University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Wendy S. Grolnick, Department of Psychology, Clark University,
Worcester, MA 01610-1477; e-mail: wgrolnick@clarku.edu, or Eva
M. Pomerantz, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois,
603 E. Daniel Street, Champaign, IL 61820; e-mail: pomerntz@
uiuc.edu.
ª2009, Copyright the Author(s)
Journal Compilation ª2009, Society for Research in Child Development
1
Based on a literature search using PsycINFO in July 2008. In addition to the
term parent, we used the terms that Rollins and Thomas (1979) used to identify
relevant work.
Volume 3, Number 3, Pages 165–170
CHILD DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES
as other characteristics. We refer to this framework as the
multiple-forms approach.
Schaefer (1965a, 1965b) was one of the first to identify more
than one form of parental control. His circumplex model
included psychological control versus autonomy as well as what
he labeled firm versus lax control. He defined a continuum of
psychological control versus autonomy; psychological control
included the presence of parental dominance, aggression, rejec-
tion, and capricious discipline, whereas autonomy was defined
as the absence of such characteristics. Firm versus lax control
included the absence versus presence of permitting extreme
independence (e.g., allowing childrentogoanyplacetheylike
without asking) and lax discipline (e.g., letting children get away
without doing the work they have been told to do). Although the
dimension of firm versus lax control may have appeared to be
new, it was present in earlier depictions of parenting, albeit not
as a distinct dimension of control. For example, Symonds (1939)
advocated that parents avoid being excessively submissive to
children, and Baldwin (1955) argued that a key aspect of the
democratic parenting style was providing children with rules and
regulations for their protection.
Continuing the trend of distinguishing among multiple forms
of control, Baumrind (1966, 1971) delineated a variety of forms
of control (see also Baumrind & Black, 1967). Echoing
Schaefer’s psychological control versus autonomy, Baumrind
characterized authoritarianism as including, among other things,
parents not sharing decision-making power with children, assum-
ing a stance of personal infallibility, and becoming inaccessible
when displeased. Similar to Schaefer’s firm versus lax control,
firm enforcement involved such practices as requiring children
to pay attention, not being coerced by children, and enforcing
compliance after initial noncompliance. Baumrind also focused
on parents’ encouragement of independence and individuality.
Her work suggested that authoritative parenting, characterized
by high firm enforcement, high encouragement of independence
and individuality, and low hostility, was beneficial for children.
In contrast, authoritarian (high firm enforcement, low encourage-
ment of independence and individuality, and high hostility) and
permissive (low firm enforcement, high encouragement of inde-
pendence and individuality, and low hostility) parenting
appeared to be detrimental.
In more contemporary work, Steinberg and colleagues (e.g.,
Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Steinberg, 1990) used the term psycho-
logical autonomy granting to denote the extent to which parents
employ noncoercive democratic discipline and encourage chil-
dren to express their individuality—akin to Baumrind’s encour-
agement of independence and individuality. Drawing from this
work as well as Schaefer’s, Barber (1996; see also Barber, Olsen,
& Shagle, 1994) defined psychological control as parents’
‘‘attempts to intrude on the psychological and emotional develop-
ment of the child (e.g., thinking processes, self-expression, and
attachment to the parent)’’ (p. 3296). Scholars frequently define
such control as parents’ love withdrawal and guilt induction
when children disobey. Psychological control predicts height-
ened internalizing symptoms and other psychological problems
among children (e.g., Barber, 1996; Gray & Steinberg, 1999;
Wang,Pomerantz,&Chen,2007).
In their work on parenting, Steinberg and colleagues (e.g.,
Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991) described
another form of control that included monitoring of and setting
limits on children’s behavior, which these investigators termed
strictness-supervision. Barber (1996; see also Barber et al., 1994)
labeled such parenting behavioral control, which he described
as parents’ ‘‘attempt to manage or control children’s behavior’’
(p. 3296). Barber, as well as others (e.g., Fletcher, Steinberg, &
Williams-Wheeler, 2004; Gray & Steinberg, 1999), operational-
ized behavioral control as parents’ monitoring of children’s behav-
ior outside of the home (e.g., how much parents try to know where
their children are after school); scholars have also operationalized
such control as parents’ involvement in making decisions for
children (e.g., Fletcher et al., 2004; Steinberg et al., 1989).
2
Behavioral control predicts decreased externalizing symptoms
and increased achievement among children (e.g., Fletcher et al.,
2004; Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Wang et al., 2007).
EVALUATING THE MULTIPLE-FORMS APPROACH TO
CONTROL
The multiple-forms approach used in contemporary theory and
research on parental control has some important strengths. Most
notably, it captures the complexity of parents’ role in socializing
children. On the one hand, it is necessary for children to form
their own interests, skills, and identities. The multiple-forms
approach acknowledges that parental pressure, intrusiveness,
and domination assault children’ individuality; there is thus a
strong rationale for believing that when parents are coercive,
they undermine children’s psychological development. On the
other hand, as developing members of society, children also need
to acquire behaviors that are appropriate and acceptable in their
cultural contexts, and they require guidance toward such ends.
Because parenting that includes firm enforcement, supervision,
and behavioral control is likely to provide children with
guidance, it is important to children’s development. The
multiple-forms approach makes explicit what was implicit in
early writings: Parents cannot allow children to go unrestricted,
even while fostering their initiation and considering their input.
Clearly, distinguishing between these two dimensions of par-
enting is imperative. However, the current manner of doing so
has several significant drawbacks. First, because scholars apply
the label of parental control to such a wide variety of parenting,
the multiple-forms approach creates ambiguity in terms of the
conclusions drawn. In fact, some investigators have described
2
Much research operationalizes parents’ behavioral control as parents’ knowl-
edge of children’s lives (e.g., Barber, 1996; Brown, Mounts, Lamborn, & Steinberg,
1993). However, such knowledge is not actually driven by parents’ control but
rather by children’s disclosure (Kerr & Stattin, 2000).
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 3, Number 3, Pages 165–170
166 Wendy S. Grolnick and Eva M. Pomerantz
the body of research on parental control as yielding inconsistent
findings (e.g., Chao, 2001; Ispa et al., 2004) when this is not the
case. Second, the multiple-forms approach conflates dimensions
of parenting with the target (e.g., children’s thoughts vs. behav-
ior) of parenting. When parenting dimensions have nonequiva-
lent targets, important realms of children’s experience at which
parenting is directed are excluded. In addition, examining differ-
ent dimensions with regard to different targets makes it difficult
to examine interactions between dimensions. Third, because it is
not tied to broader theories of development, the multiple-forms
approach lacks a link to the basic mechanisms by which parents
shape children’s development. Because of these drawbacks,
although much is known about the effects of parents’ control on
children, little is known about the processes that underlie such
effects or how children may contribute to them.
REFINING THE MULTIPLE-FORMS APPROACH TO
CONTROL: TOWARD A NEW GENERATION OF
THEORY AND RESEARCH
Given these issues, it is necessary to refine the multiple-forms
approach to parental control. To this end, we suggest conceptual-
izing parental control as only those kinds of parenting character-
ized by parents’ pressure, intrusiveness, and dominance. Thus,
parental control involves attempts at forcing children to meet
demands, solving problems for children, and taking a parental
rather than child perspective (e.g., Grolnick, 2003; Grolnick,
Deci, & Ryan, 1997). In contrast, parents can support children’s
autonomy by encouraging them to take initiative, allowing them
to solve problems on their own, and taking the child’s perspec-
tive. With such a conceptualization, parenting labeled psycho-
logical control and authoritarianism as well as other types of
intrusive parenting—whether it be styles or practices—such as
power assertive discipline (Hoffman, 1960) would continue to
fall under the rubric of control, whereas parenting labeled psy-
chological autonomy and encouragement of independence would
fall at the other end of the dimension under the rubric of auton-
omy support. In this conceptualization, parental control is a
broader and more inclusive dimension of parenting than has
been permitted by considering such forms as psychological con-
trol because it includes parents’ pressure, intrusiveness, and
dominance in relation to children’s feelings and thoughts as well
as their behavior.
We suggest considering other forms of what is currently con-
sidered parental control as a relatively orthogonal dimension of
parenting: structure. In the context of self-determination theory
(e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985), Grolnick et al. (e.g., 1997) defined
structure in the parenting context as parents’ organization of chil-
dren’s environment to facilitate children’s competence. When
parents are structuring, they highlight the relations between
actions and outcomes through clear and consistent guidelines,
expectations, and rules for children; they also provide children
with predictable consequences for and clear feedback about
their actions (Farkas & Grolnick, 2008). In contrast to creating a
structured environment, parents can create a chaotic one in
which they fail to provide children with such organization
(Skinner, Johnson, & Snyder, 2005). Conceptualized as such,
parental structure includes parenting styles and practices
labeled behavioral control,firm enforcement,firm (vs. lax) control,
and strictness-supervision. Indeed, Rothbaum and Weisz (1994)
used a definition of guidance that was similar to our definition of
structure, identifying several such forms of parenting as reflect-
ing guidance. Notably, structure can be targeted at not only chil-
dren’s behavior but also their thoughts and feelings, given that
parents may use structure to facilitate children’s internalization
of key values. The structure construct intersects with theory and
research on parental discipline that focuses on parents’
responses to children’s transgressions. Most notably, in Grusec
and Goodnow’s (1994) model of discipline, the clear and consis-
tent messages and rules predicted to facilitate internalization fall
under the rubric of structure.
The distinction between parental control and structure
addresses the three drawbacks of the multiple-forms approach
we outlined earlier by (a) facilitating clear conclusions about the
effects of parental control, as well as other forms of parenting
such as structure; (b) separating dimensions of parenting from
targets of parenting; and (c) linking parenting dimensions to
basic mechanisms of children’s development, thereby more fully
elucidating the process by which socialization occurs. As a con-
sequence, the approach we have proposed has the potential to
move the field forward so that it can take into account multiple
characteristics of the socialization process—an endeavor Grusec
and Goodnow (1994) argued is important in their landmark anal-
ysis of parental discipline.
Clear Conclusions About Parenting
Perhaps most basically, the refinement we have suggested
reduces the ambiguity in the conclusions drawn about the effects
of parental control. For example, on the basis of their assessment
of parental control as the extent to which key decisions were
made by children themselves versus their parents, Fletcher et al.
(2004) concluded that ‘‘parental control and monitoring are . . .
effective deterrents against adolescent misbehavior’’ (p. 795).
One might take away the incorrect message that parental control
in general, including forms characterized by pressure, intrusion,
and dominance, is good for children, but these investigators did
not examine such forms of control. The use of the term structure,
rather than control, would clearly convey the nature of the find-
ings without creating confusion. This is important given that, as
we noted earlier, some investigators have incorrectly described
the body of research on parental control as yielding inconsistent
findings.
A distinction between control and structure would also be
useful in clarifying theory and research concerned with more
specific issues regarding the effects of parental control. For
example, several investigators have concluded that parental
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 3, Number 3, Pages 165–170
Parental Control 167
control is beneficial to children in dangerous environments (e.g.,
Coley & Hoffman, 1996). These investigators often cite a study
by Baldwin, Baldwin, and Cole (1990) in which parents’
restrictiveness (i.e., how numerous and circumscribed the rules
are) was associated with positive psychological functioning
among children at high risk but not at low risk. However, par-
ents’ democracy (i.e., children have a say in the rules vs. rules
are imposed on children) was associated with positive psycholog-
ical functioning regardless of children’s risk. Baldwin and col-
leagues concluded that ‘‘restrictive authoritarian’’ family patterns
are successful in high-risk situations. This conclusion is mislead-
ing because although the number of rules had more positive
effects when risk was high, the extent to which these rules were
characterized by parents’ domination of children (the opposite of
democracy) had negative effects regardless of risk. In fact, a
close examination reveals that much of the research leading
investigators to conclude that the effects of parental control are
moderated by children’s neighborhoods has focused on parenting
that is structuring rather than controlling (e.g., Coley & Hoffman,
1996; McCarthy, Lord, & Eccles, 1993).
Separating Dimensions of Parenting From Targets of
Parenting
The distinction between parental control and structure has the
potential to facilitate appropriate empirical evaluation of the full
range of children’s experience at which parenting is directed.
The multiple-forms approach often conflates dimensions of par-
enting with the target of parenting. For example, psychological
control involves the pressuring, intrusive, and dominating dimen-
sion of parenting in regard to what children think and feel,
whereas behavioral control involves the guiding dimen-
sion—what we have described as structure—of parenting in
regard to children’s activities. Such a framework does not allow
researchers to examine parental control in terms of children’s
behavior or parental guidance (i.e., structure) in terms of chil-
dren’s thoughts and feelings. In contrast, as we noted earlier, the
distinction between control and structure is not tied to the target
of parenting, thereby making it ispossibletoexaminethefull
range of children’s experience with respect to both dimensions of
parenting. For example, investigators can measure structure as
the extent to which parents enforce rules and control as the
extent to which rules are enforced in a parent-oriented manner
(e.g., parents do not consider children’s input).
In addition to dealing with the exclusion of key areas of chil-
dren’s experience, differentiating control and structure facilitates
the examination of the idea that several investigators have put
forth (e.g., Gray & Steinberg, 1999) that there are interactive
effects of different dimensions of parenting. Despite the viability
of such effects, there is little empirical evidence for them.
Although this may be due in part to the compounded unreliabil-
ity of interactions between continuous measures (see Busemeyer
& Jones, 1983), it may also be due to a focus on different dimen-
sions of parenting in regard to different targets—for example,
how parents’ control of children’s thoughts and feeling interacts
with their structuring of children’s behavior as manifest in par-
ents’ monitoring of children’s after-school activities. As a conse-
quence of such a focus, research may not capture the interaction
of different dimensions of parenting in parents’ interactions with
children. Separating parenting dimensions from their targets as
we have done in distinguishing parental control and structure
makes this possible. For example, investigators can examine
whether the effects of parents’ monitoring of children’s after-
school activities depend on whether such structure is controlling,
as manifest in parents’ use of threats of love withdrawal to obtain
information from children.
Situating Parenting in the Broader Context of Child
Development
Distinguishing between control and structure, rather than different
forms of control, has a third benefit: It moves toward the creation
of a model of parenting that is linked to broader theories of chil-
dren’s development. In doing so, it leads to a more integrative
understanding of children’s development, allowing for the identifi-
cation of the mechanisms by which parenting shapes children.
In the context of self-determination theory, Grolnick et al. (e.g.,
1997) made the case that control and structure are two important
dimensions of parenting because they tie into two basic human
needs whose fulfillment is essential for children’s positive psycho-
logical functioning. Although the multiple-forms approach was
not originally based on such a framework, investigators have
begun to focus on how different forms of what has been considered
control may ‘‘meet the basic requirements for healthy develop-
ment’’ (Barber & Olsen, 1997, p. 288). In this vein, similar to
investigators working in the framework of self-determination the-
ory, Barber and colleagues (e.g., Barber, Stolz, & Olsen, 2005; see
also Eccles, Early, Frasier, Belansky, & McCarthy, 1997) argued
that children require, among other things, psychological auton-
omy, the need for which is met when children are permitted to
experience, value, and express their own thoughts and emotions.
Barber and colleagues also stress that children require regula-
tion, which parents provide by setting consistent limits on chil-
dren’s behavior. This suggests that children have a need to be
‘‘controlled,’’ which at least appears at odds with the generally
recognized need for autonomy. An alternative manner of thinking
about this issue is that children have a need not for regulation
but for competence, which is critical to their healthy psycho-
logical development as postulated in self-determination theory
(Deci & Ryan, 1985) as well as other theories (Elliot, McGregor,
& Thrash, 2002; White, 1959). Competence is ‘‘a pattern of
effective performance in the environment’’ (Masten et al., 1995,
p. 2) as well as the abilities that provide the potential for such a
pattern (e.g., Elliot et al., 2002; White, 1959). Parental structure
facilitates the development of competence among children as
it not only conveys to children the standards for competence
but provides them with feedback about their progress in meet-
ing such standards; in contrast, when parents create a chaotic
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 3, Number 3, Pages 165–170
168 Wendy S. Grolnick and Eva M. Pomerantz
environment, they undermine children’s competence by failing
to provide such support (Skinner et al., 2005).
Situating parenting in a broader theory of children’s develop-
ment is critical to moving the understanding of the role of
parents in children’s psychological functioning forward along two
lines. First, it has the potential to identify the mechanisms by
which parenting shapes children’s development, an issue that
investigators studying discipline have addressed (see Grusec &
Goodnow, 1994) but that has received less attention (see Stein-
berg, 1990) from investigators studying other realms of parenting
outside the context of self-determination theory. To the extent
that controlling parenting hinders healthy psychological develop-
ment in children, it should do so in part by disrupting feelings of
autonomy. Evidence from initial investigations of the mecha-
nisms underlying the role of controlling parenting in children’s
psychological functioning is consistent with this notion (e.g.,
Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991; Kenney-Benson & Pomerantz,
2005). Children’s development of competence may underlie the
effects of parental structure. Indeed, parental structure is associ-
ated with children’s actual, as well as perceived, competence in
the academic domain (e.g., Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Skinner et al.,
2005), which may be why it has positive effects on children’s
development. Of course, parental control may also undermine the
development of children’s competence—for example, by not pro-
viding them with the opportunity to solve problems on their own
(see Pomerantz, Wang, & Ng, 2005). Our argument is not that
parental structure (vs. control) uniquely affects children’s compe-
tence but that this is one mechanism by which it does so.
Second, understanding the underlying mechanisms provides a
useful framework for elucidating how children contribute to the
socialization process. In this vein, Pomerantz et al. (2005) have
argued that for a variety of reasons, children come to their inter-
actions with parents varying in the extent to which they experi-
ence themselves as competent (e.g., as possessing the ability to
do well in school). The less children experience themselves as
competent, according to these investigators, the more they may
need their parents to provide such experiences (such as by pro-
viding structured assistance with homework). Consequently, par-
enting matters more for such children because parenting that
may undermine children’s competence has heightened negative
effects on them, whereas parenting that may facilitate it has
heightened positive effects (for a review, see Pomerantz et al.,
2005). Just as parental control and structure may be key dimen-
sions of parenting that shape children through their provision of
autonomy and competence, children’s autonomy and competence
may be key characteristics that contribute to the socialization
process by shaping the effects of such dimensions of parenting
on children’s subsequent psychological development.
CONCLUSIONS
The delineation of different forms of control has been an impor-
tant advance in theory and research on parenting. At the same
time, however, distinguishing among multiple forms of control
has its drawbacks. The distinction we have introduced between
parental control and structure is one way to move the field for-
ward to more advanced theory and research that can potentially
yield a clearer set of conclusions to not only investigators but
also the public. This is a particularly important endeavor as
scholars attempt to understand the role of parents in the sociali-
zation process among families of diverse cultural backgrounds
for whom parenting may not only take different forms than among
families of European backgrounds but also be experienced dif-
ferently by children. The aim of this article is to encourage con-
struction of a parsimonious approach to conceptualizing and
operationalizing parenting along the two dimensions at the arti-
cle’s center. Such innovation will serve to significantly organize
the field, thereby setting important directions for future theory
and research and allowing sound applications of the findings.
REFERENCES
Baldwin, A. L. (1955). Behavior and development in childhood.New
York: Dryden.
Baldwin, A. L., Baldwin, C., & Cole, R. E. (1990). Stress-resistant
families and stress-resistant children. In J. E. Rolf, A. S. Masten,
D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and
protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 257–
280). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a
neglected construct. Child Development,67, 3296–3319.
Barber,B.K.,&Olsen,J.E.(1997). Socialization in context:
Connection, regulation, and autonomy in the family, school, and
neighborhood, and with peers. JournalofAdolescentResearch,12,
287–315.
Barber,B.K.,Olsen,J.E.,&Shagle,S.C.(1994).Associationsbetween
parental psychological and behavioral control and youth
internalized and externalized behaviors. Child Development,65,
1120–1136.
Barber, B. K., Stolz, H. E., & Olsen, J. A. (2005). Parental support,
psychological control, and behavioral control: Assessing relevance
across time, culture, and method. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development,70(Serial No. 282).
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative control on child behavior.
Child Development,37, 887–907.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority.
Developmental Psychology Monograph,1(4 Pt. 2).
Baumrind, D., & Black, A. E. (1967). Socialization practices associated
with dimensions of competence in preschool boys and girls. Child
Development,38, 291–327.
Brown,B.B.,Mounts,N.,Lamborn,S.D.,&Steinberg,L.(1993).
Parenting practices and peer group affiliation in adolescence. Child
Development,63, 391–400.
Busemeyer, J. R., & Jones, L. E. (1983). Analysis of multiplicative
combination rules when the causal variables are measured with
error. Psychological Bulletin,93, 549–562.
Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of
parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans.
Child Development,72, 1832–1843.
Coley,R.L.,&Hoffman,L.W.(1996).Relations of parental supervision
and monitoring to children’s functioning in various contexts:
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 3, Number 3, Pages 165–170
Parental Control 169
Moderating effects of families and neighborhoods. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology,17, 51–68.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in human behavior.NewYork:Plenum.
Eccles, J. S., Early, D., Frasier, K., Belansky, E., & McCarthy, K.
(1997). The relation of connection, regulation, and support for
autonomy to adolescents’ functioning. Journal of Adolescent
Research,12, 263–289.
Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). The need for
competence. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-
determination research (pp. 361–387). Rochester, NY: University of
Rochester Press.
Farkas, M., & Grolnick, W. S. (2008, March). Conceptualizing parental
provision of structure as a major dimension of parenting: Links to
parental control and children’s competence. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
York.
Fauber,R.,Forehand,R.,Thomas,A.M.,&Wierson,M.(1990).A
mediational model of the impact of marital conflict on adolescent
adjustment in intact and divorced families: The role of disrupted
parenting. Child Development,61, 1112–1123.
Fletcher, A. C., Steinberg, L., & Williams-Wheeler, M. (2004). Parental
influences on adolescent problem behavior: Revisiting Stattin and
Kerr. Child Development,75, 781–796.
Gray, M., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting:
Reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage
and the Family,61, 574–587.
Grolnick,W.S.(2003).The psychology of parental control: How well-
meant parenting backfires. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grolnick,W.S.,Deci,E.L.,&Ryan,R.M.(1997).Internalization
within the family: The self-determination theory perspective. In J.
Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s
internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp.
135–161). New York: Wiley.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with
children’s self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of
Educational Psychology,81, 143–154.
Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for
school achievement: Motivational mediators of children’s
perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology,
83, 508–517.
Grusec,J.E.,&Goodnow,J.J.(1994). Impact of parental discipline
methods on the child’s internalization of values: Reconceptual-
ization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology,30,4–
19.
Hoffman, M. L. (1960). Power assertion by the parent and its impact on
the child. Child Development,31, 129–143.
Ispa,J.M.,Fine,M.A.,Halgunseth,L.C.,Harper,S.,Robinson,
J., Boyce, L., et al. (2004). Maternal intrusiveness, maternal
warmth, and mother-toddler relationship outcomes: Variations
across low-income ethnic and acculturation groups. Child
Development,75, 1613–1631.
Kenney-Benson, G. A., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2005). The role of mothers’
use of control in children’s perfectionism: Implications for the
development of children’s depressive symptoms. Journal of
Personality,73, 23–46.
Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it,
and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a
reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology,36,366–
380.
Kochanska, G., Aksan, N., Knaack, A., & Rhines, H. M. (2004).
Maternal parenting and children’s conscience: Early security as a
moderator. Child Development,75, 1229–1242.
Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991).
Patterns of competence and adjustment from authoritative,
authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child
Development,62, 1049–1065.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the
family: Parent child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality,
and social development (4th ed., pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley.
Martin, J. A., Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1981). Mothers’
responsiveness to interactive bidding and nonbidding in boys and
girls. Child Development,52, 1064–1067.
Masten, A. S., Coatsworth, D., Neeman, J., Gest, S. D., Tellegen, A., &
Garmezy, N. (1995). The structure and coherence of competence
from childhood through adolescence. Child Development,66,
1635–1659.
McCarthy, K. A., Lord, S. E., & Eccles, J. S. (1993, April). Contextual
factors related to family management strategies in high risk
environments. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the
Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA.
Pomerantz,E.M.,Wang,Q.,&Ng,F.F.(2005).Theroleofchildren’s
competence experiences in the socialization process: A dynamic
process framework for the academic arena. In R. Kail (Ed.),
Advances in Child Development and Behavior (Vol. 33, pp. 193–
227). San Diego: Academic Press.
Rollins, B. C., & Thomas, D. L. (1979). Parental support, power, and
control techniques in the socialization of children. In W. R. Burr,
R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about
the family (pp. 317–364). New York: Free Press.
Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J. (1994). Parental caregiving and child
externalizing behavior in nonclinical samples: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin,116, 55–74.
Rowe, D. C. (1981). Environmental and genetic influences on
dimensions of perceived parenting: A twin study. Developmental
Psychology,17, 203–208.
Schaefer, E. S. (1965a). Children’s reports of parental behavior: An
inventory. Child Development,36, 413–424.
Schaefer, E. S. (1965b). A configurational analysis of children’s reports
of parent behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology,16, 54–61.
Skinner, E., Johnson, S., & Snyder, T. (2005). Six dimensions of
parenting: A motivational model. Parenting: Science and Practice,
5, 175–235.
Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family
relationship. In S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold:
The developing adolescent (pp. 255–277). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative
parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success among
adolescents. Child Development,60, 1424–1436.
Symonds, P. M. (1939). The dynamics of parent-child relationship.New
York: Appleton-Century.
Wang,Q.,Pomerantz,E.M.,&Chen,H.(2007).Theroleofparents’
control in early adolescents’ psychological functioning: A
longitudinal investigation in the United States and China. Child
Development,78, 1592–1610.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of
competence. Psychological Review,66, 297–333.
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 3, Number 3, Pages 165–170
170 Wendy S. Grolnick and Eva M. Pomerantz