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

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURES

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 self- regulation and the risk factors associated with the lack (or low levels) of self- regulation 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 self- regulation. 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 control of cognitive systems, such as the ability to 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 self- regulation across theoretical perspectives encompasses the control of emotions and behaviors as well as cognitive processing and ability to engage in prosocial behavior appropriate to a given age (Bronson, 2000).

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 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 self- regulation. 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-control. Those with high ego-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 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 self- regulation, 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).

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-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-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).

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.

Consequences of Self-Regulation Success and Failure

Past studies have examined the potential benefits and the costs of self- regulation processes. In an extensive study by Tangney, Baumeister, and Boone (2004), participants who scored low in self-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 controlled their behavior better. Specifically, people with high self-control (self-regulation ability) had better grades, as compared with people low in self-control. People with high self-control have also been found to show fewer impulse control problems, such as binge eating and alcohol use (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). It is also found that people with high self-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-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-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.

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 self- regulation 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 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-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 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-control and self- regulation and claims that self-control precedes self-regulation by emphasizing on the contingency rules. She stated that:

Self-regulation in contrast to self-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 self- 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 self- regulation carry an important role. Therefore, the current study aims to investigate the self-regulatory abilities during early adolescences.

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).

Parental Control

The term parental 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 “control”. The concept of control may be attributed to the often equated notions of parents “being in control”, normally related to positive developmental effects on children, and “being controlling” usually associated with negative developmental effects on children.

A parent who is “in 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 control is most often referred to as behavioral control in the literature (Barber, 1996). A parent who is “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 control usually is referred the term psychological control. Various numbers of dimensions of this type of 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 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 control on child or adolescent development. The effects of 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 control have been focused on the two main areas psychological and behavioral control. These two types of control will be reviewed in the following section

Psychological Control

Interest in studies on parental psychological 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 control, and psychological 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 control can be defined as an intrusive and manipulative form of 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 controlled context prevents child from the development a healthy awareness and perception of self for several reasons. First of all, psychologically 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 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 control and externalized problems (Barber, 1996; Gray & Steinberg, 1999).

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 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 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 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 Control

As mentioned in the previous sections, Grolnick’s (2003) conceptualization of “being in control” versus “being controlling” mirrors distinct control constructs; behavioral versus psychological control. Behavioral control refers to attempting to control or manage child behavior. Contrary to psychological control, there is a plenty of findings indicating the positive impacts of parental behavioral control on child functioning. Specific dimensions of behavioral 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 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 control and externalizing behaviors can be explained in two plausible ways: (1) parental behavioral control facilitates self-regulation abilities of children and their engagement in socially approved behaviors; (2) children experiencing inadequate behavioral 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 control, but positively influenced by behavioral control. He also noted that insufficient behavioral control deprives the need for guidance and supervision of adolescent and therefore causes a risk for developmental difficulties.

Parental Control and Adolescent Adjustment

Whereas some studies on parental 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 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 control is typically viewed as uniformly negative, whereas behavioral control is assessed as uniformly positive. According to the coercive theory of Patterson and Loeber (1984), too much psychological and/or behavioral control interferes with a younger child’s ability to form appropriate prosocial behaviors, whereas low behavioral control implicated in association with peer problem in adolescence. In other words, while too much control inhibits the development of autonomy, which is necessary for the development of self-control, too little 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 control positively influence the well- being of adolescents. Contrary to this “moderate control is the best” hypothesis, some researchers have reported steep increases in adolescents’ psychological competence at the upper levels of 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 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.

Interparental Context

In addition to the effects of parental 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 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 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 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.

Psychological and Behavioral Control, Marital Conflict and Self- Regulation in Adolescence

Parental control, especially psychological control, seems to hinder the healthy development of children’s self-regulation. Grolnick, Ryan, and Deci (1997) asserted that over-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, controlling parents tend to present age-inappropriate strategies that are too simple or too complex to adopt and apply for children. Compared to psychologically 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) 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 self- regulation, whereas, adolescents with authoritarian parents had the worst self- reliance. Adolescents with neglectful parents didn’t differ from adolescents with authoritarian parents with respect to their self-reliance. Similarly, Deci and Ryan (1985) 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 control (e.g., psychological and behavioral control) promote or prevent self-regulatory abilities are still unexplored. Psychologically 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 (2005) 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 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 control and self-regulation of adolescents. Behavioral 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 control their own behavior by internalized parental directives or by imposition of external behavioral control. Children internalize these parental and social values for their behavioral 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 control dimensions, marital conflict and self- regulation 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 undercontrolled 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-control.

In addition, high levels of parental psychological 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 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 control and child externalizing problems of delinquency, peer problems among African American youth. Indeed, the mixed findings on the link between parental psychological control and outcome variables may be associated with cultural differences on the implications of psychological control. Considering Barnes and Farrell’s (1992) and Bean, Barber, and Crane’s (2006) studies, different dimensions of psychological control may be perceived differently by children from various cultures.

Contrary to the mixed findings concerning the parental psychological control, the findings about the impacts of parental behavioral control are less varied and complex. Low levels of parental behavioral 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 control were tied with delinquency (Bean, Barber, & Crane, 2006). These results are consistent with the previous works in which adequate parental behavioral 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, 1993). 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 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 self- regulation 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-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 control, specifically with emotional problems in adolescence years (Barber, 1994; 1996). Whereas psychological control is one of the stronger predictors of adolescents’ internalizing problems, behavioral control is negatively associated with internalizing problem behaviors (Barber, 1994; Galambos, Barker, & Almedia, 2003).

In addition to self-regulation and parental 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 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 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 non- academic 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 self- concept 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 (1986) reported substantial associations between academic self-concept and different domains of achievement at school among 11th and 12th grade students. Similarly, Marsh (1987a) showed that the correlation between GPA and academic self-concept was about .50. Consequently, past studies suggest that academic self- concept was a better predictor of the academic achievement than the global self- concept (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 self- concepts. Eccle, Early, Fraser, Belansky, and McCarthy (1997) also found a significant relationship between autonomy support and adolescents’ school motivation/achievement.