Associations between Parental Psychological

and Behavioral Control and Youth Internalized

and Externalized Behaviors

Brian K. Barber and Joseph E. Olsen

Brigham Young University

Shohha C. Shagle
Northwestern University

BARBER, BWAN K.; OLSEN, JOSEPH E.; and SHAGLE, SHOBHA C . Associations between Parental
Psychological and Behavioral Control and Youth Internalized and Externalized Behaviors.
CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1994, 65, 1120-1136. In this study, psychological control of children was
conceptually and empirically distinguished trom behavioral control. Further, it was demon-
strated as hypothesized that psychological control was more predictive of adolescent internalized
problems, and that behavioral control was more predictive of extemalized problems. Subjects
were 473 fifth-, eighth-, and tenth-grade males and females from a Southem suburb. Control was
measured by the Child Report of Parent Behavior Inventory and the Colorado Self-Report of
Family Functioning Inventory. Problem behaviors were measured with the Child Behavior
Checklist. First- and second-order factor analyses discriminated psychological and behavioral
control, and structural equation analyses demonstrated the differential prediction of internalized
and externalized problems. These last analyses were conducted using youth-reported data and
validated using a subsample of 227 mother-youth pairs.

Types and patterns of parental control- the construct. It is therefore not surprising
ling behavior and their effects on children's that the empirical evidence for the effects of
development have been the focus of con- parental control on children has often been
siderable research over the past several inconsistent or equivocal (Barber, 1992;
decades. Although specific labels vary, Rollins & Thomas, 1979). There have been
researchers have consistently identified some attempts to integrate and synthesize
control in their conceptualizations of salient the various conceptualizations of control in
parental behaviors. Some examples include order to bring clarity to the construct and
restrictiveness (Baldwin, 1955; Baumrind & its effects on children's development. These
Black, 1967; Becker, 1964); firm control and include Rollins and Thomas's (1979) differ-
psychological control (Burger & Armentrout, entiation between coercive, inductive, and
1971; Schaefer, 1965); demandingness (Roe unspecified control attempts, and Maccoby
& Siegelman, 1963; Siegelman, 1965); au- and Martin's (1983) twofold classification
thoritative, authoritarian, and permissive scheme of responsiveness and demanding-
control (Baumrind, 1967, 1971); directive/ ness that built heavily on Baumrind's work,
conventional, assertive, and supportive con- .^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ .^ ^.^ ^ ^ j ^ ^^.
trol Baumnnd, 1991a, 1991b); overprotec- ^^^.^^^ ^^^ approach to
tion (Parker, Tuphng, & Brown, 1979); etc. -r • i l i_ l J -^ a: i. u
/c r> II- s T-u nn-rm r i ..• specifymg parental control and its effects by
(See Rollins & Thomas [19791 for a listing ^^^^^.^ ^^^^ difference between psycho-
"^''°"' conceptualizations of logical and behavioral control. The evolu-
tion of research on parental control has not
The several ways in which parental con- included careful attention to the locus of pa-
trol of children has been conceptualized and rental control attempts, that is, whether the
operationalized testifies to the complexity of particular parental behavior tries to exercise
The data for this project were collected in collaboration with the Section on Social and
Emotional Development, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. We thank
Samuel E. Bratton, Jr., Coordinator, Research and Evaluation, Knox County Department of Pub-
lic Instruction; the numerous principals and teachers; and the many families from Knoxville,
Tennessee, for participating in the study. Reprint requests should be sent to Brian K. Barber,
Brigham Young University, Center for Studies ofthe Family, 930 SWKT, Provo, UT 84602.
[Child Development, 1994,65,1120-1136. © 1994 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/94/6504-0002$01.00]
 Barber, Olsen, and Shagle 1121
control over the child's psychological world logical control is defined as patterns of fam-
or is an attempt to regulate the child's be- ily interaction that intrude upon or impede
havior. This distinction between parental the child's individuation process, or the rela-
psychological and behavioral control has tive degree of psychological distance a child
been implicit in some work (e.g., Schaefer's experiences from his or her parents and fam-
[1965] psychological control vs. firm con- ily (Sabatelli & Mazor, 1985). Individuation
trol). Also, Steinberg (1990) has recently em- is a common term in developmental theories
phasized the importance of the distinction of personality, particularly for adolescents
and noted that findings from the child devel- (e.g.. Bios, 1979), and it has been viewed as
opment literature can be interpreted to sup- an important correlate of identity formation,
port it. However, systematic attempts to the- a central task of adolescence (Cooper, Gro-
oretically justify the distinction and track tevant, & Condon, 1982, 1983; Erickson,
the effects of the two types of control are 1968). Despite the fact that it is parents and
lacking. family from which adolescents are con-
ceived to separate or individuate, the role of
Two fundamental presuppositions family interaction in the individuation pro-
about human development justify the dis- cess has received relatively little theoretical
tinction between psychological control and or empirical attention (Sabatelli & Mazor,
behavioral control. They are that developing 1985). These authors note the conceptual
children require; (1) an adequate degree of similarity between individuation as a per-
psychological autonomy, that is, that they sonal process and differentiation as a family
learn through their social interactions that systems process, and suggest that the two are
they are effective, competent individuals integrally connected. In poorly differenti-
with a clear sense of personal identity; and ated families, distances are regulated to ob-
(2) sufficient regulation of behavior to en- struct psychological separation and au-
able them to learn that social interaction is tonomy experienced by family members,
governed by rules and structures that must whereas in well-differentiated families, in-
be recognized and adhered to in order to be dividual members experience adequate con-
a competent member of society. nectedness while at the same time main-
taining their individuality.
Developmental theories and empirical
findings converge in highlighting autonomy Researchers using clinical samples have
and regulation as particularly critical issues observed that some parents in disturbed
in development. Autonomy has been a cen- families resist their adolescents' differentia-
tral construct in classic theories of develop- tion through binding or constraining interac-
ment (e.g., Erikson, 1968), with concepts of tions that interfere with the autonomous
separation (A. Freud, 1958), individuation functioning of the adolescents (Hauser,
(Bios, 1979), and identity (Erikson, 1968; 1991; Hauser et al., 1984; Stierlin, 1974).
Marcia, 1980) assuming principal impor- Similarly, children who consistently per-
tance during adolescence. At the same time, ceive that their parents are always trying to
it is evident that healthy development re- change them, or who experience parental
quires adequate structure. Social learning manipulative behavior that threatens a dis-
theory has long identified the importance of ruption or discontinuance of the emotional
discipline in socializing dependency and bond between parent and child (e.g., love
conformity (Bandura, 1964; Bandura & Wal- withdrawal), will likely have difficulty rec-
ters, 1959). Social psychological theories, ognizing their own uniqueness or adequacy
such as Lewin's (1935) field theory, have or will be unwilling to trust their own ideas
also argued for structure and guidance to en- or individuality for fear of losing key connec-
hance favorable personality development. tions with caregivers.
As Maccoby and Martin (1983) note, chil-
dren must learn to both inhibit disruptive In contrast to psychological control,
behavior and to engage in socially approved where the presence of control poses risk for
behavior, and adult caregivers are looked to adolescent development, we focus on the
to provide the stmcture and the predictable absence of sufficient behavioral control as
contingencies for self-regulatory mecha- defining risk. For the purposes of this study,
nisms to develop. Particularly during adoles- we define behavioral control as family inter-
cence, parental management practices are action that is disengaged and provides insuf-
critical in fostering socially competent be- ficient parental regulation of the child's be-
havior among youth (Patterson, 1982). havior, as in excessive behavioral autonomy,
lack of rules and restrictions, and/or lack of
For the purposes of this study, psycho- knowledge of a child's day-to-day behavior.
1122 Child Development
As was the case with psychological control,
dyadic interactions indicative of insufficient
behavioral control refiect more general fam-
ily system properties. Families in which par-
ents are permissive and employ inadequate
management strategies appear to be charac-
terized at the system level by relationships
that are disengaged (i.e., low levels of emo-
tional bonding between family members
[Olson et al., 1983; Patterson 1976, 1982;
Pulkinnen, 1982]).
The relevance of distinguishing be-
tween psychological and behavioral control
extends beyond just a conceptual clarifica-
tion. A fundamental purpose of this study is
to demonstrate also that deficiencies in these
two areas of socialization lead to different
outcomes in children. Specifically, we pro-
pose that children experiencing psycho-
logical control are at risk for internalized
problems, whereas children experiencing
inadequate behavioral regulation are at
greater risk for the development of external-
ized problems. The link between psycholog-
ically controlling environments and inter-
nalized chairacteristics in children can be
understood through the crippling effect such
control has on the development of psycho-
logical autonomy. Such parenting is unre-
sponsive to the psychological needs of chil-
dren (Maccoby & Martin, 1983), who are
likely to exhibit passive, inhibited, and over-
controlled characteristics (Beavers, 1982).
Children do so partly because they fail to
learn to be aware of or to express personal
initiative or self-reliance (White, 1989), and
partly because they have learned that they
have little power or control in their interac-
tions with others, particularly parents (e.g.,
learned helplessness [Seligman & Peterson,
1986]). Children who are thus unequipped
with awareness or confidence in their own
worth and identity or who have learned that
the expression of psychological autonomy is
fruitless or unacceptable are likely to turn
inward or withdraw to fend for themselves
psychologically as they encounter the
stresses and pressures of social interaction.
These predictions are consistent with Baum-
rind's (1991b) correlational findings that pa-
rental officious behavior (i.e., intrusive,
meddling, overcontrolling) is associated sig-
nificantly with young adolescents' inter-
nalizing problems.
Inadequate behavioral control, on the
other hand, appears to be associated with the
development of externalized problems in
adolescents. Although it is also possible that
adolescents engage in delinquent behavior
in rebellion against excessive behavioral re-
strictions, our concern is with insufficient
regulation (lack of demandingness, in Mac-
coby & Martin's terms), because ofthe theo-
retical points described above, and because
of the weight of empirical evidence docu-
menting an association between low behav-
ioral control and extemalized problems,
such as impulsivity, aggression, delin-
quency, drug use, and sexual precocity
(Baumrind, 1971, 1991a; Dishion & Loeber,
1985; Dombusch et al., 1985; Loeber & Dis-
hion, 1984; Maccoby & Martin, 1983;
McCord, 1979, 1990; Miller, McCoy, Olson,
& Wallace, 1986; Olweus, 1980; Patterson,
Capaldi, & Bank, 1989; Patterson & Stout-
hamer-Loeber, 1985; Pulkinnen, 1982; Volk,
Edwards, Lewis, & Sprenkle, 1989). The
risk for the development of extemalized
problems among adolescents from femilies
exhibiting inadequate behavioral control ap-
pears to be substantial. Theoretical explana-
tions for this association include the failure
of such an environment to socialize self-
regulation, conformity, and/or dependency
favorable to personality development. Poor
supervision and monitoring also appear to
encourage association with deviant peers
and expose adolescents to risks and tempta-
tions without resources to resist. It is also
possible that adolescents act out in order to
determine the limits of acceptable behavior
or to find meaningful relationships lacking
in their disengaged families.
Three final points are important. The
first is that because one of the control con-
structs we are positing represents excessive
control (psychological control) and the other
insufficient control (behavioral control), it is
tempting to simply consider them at oppo-
site ends of a single control continuum. Our
interest, however, is in demonstrating that
the domain over which control is exercised,
not the magnitude of control, is pivotal in
specifying the effects of control. We view
control over psychological processes and be-
havior to be different phenomena that have
contrasting effects on children. Psychologi-
cal control and behavioral control, as we de-
fine them, are linear constructs ranging firom
zero-points to increasingly higher levels of
psychological and behavioral control. The
constructs are conceptually orthogonal in
that the level of one is not necessarily a func-
tion ofthe level ofthe other. The association
between psychological and behavioral con-
trol may vary substantially between families.
There may be families that impose high lev-
els of both psychological and behavioral

control, but there may also be families
whose intrusion into the psychological au-
tonomy of the child may not extend to strict
rules and regulations on behavior, and who
are, in fact, disengaged or quite permissive
behaviorally.
The second point relates to the role of
supportive relationships within the family.
Historically, as often as control has been
identified as an important socialization be-
havior, so has a dimension of nurturant rela-
tionships between parents and children
(Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Rollins &
Thomas, 1979). Family or parental support
has not occupied a central role in our theo-
rizing in this article because our purpose is
to specify meaningful dimensions of control.
Also, because of its consistent association
with both internalized and externalized be-
haviors (Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Rohner,
1986; Rollins & Thomas, 1979), parental
supportive behavior does not appear to be
useful in discriminating types of youth prob-
lems, another purpose of the present study.
Although efforts to document an interaction
between support and control in predicting
child outcomes have generally not been suc-
cessful (Rollins & Thomas, 1979; Thomas,
Cecas, Weigert, & Rooney, 1974), we
thought it important to assure that the ob-
tained effects between our dimensions of
control and adolescent difficulty are not in-
fiuenced by any associations between con-
trol and support, especially because some
theorists have conceptualized enmeshed
family relationships (high psychological
control) to be a component of cohesive or
supporting family relationships (e.g., Olson
et al., 1983). Therefore, our analyses will in-
clude a test of the model that incorporates a
measure of parental supportive behavior.
The third point relates to the develop-
mental implications of the model. There is
ample theory to defend the importance of
autonomy and regulation as critical elements
of development at virtually any phase of the
life course from childhood through adult-
hood. However, it is likely that the proposed
pattems of control and problem behaviors
will be most evident during adolescence.
This is so because of the substantial devel-
opmental changes that occur during adoles-
cence that relate directly to the psychologi-
cal and behavioral processes at issue in the
model. The individuation process, though
evident throughout the life course, has ac-
celerated prominence during adolescence
(Josselson, 1980; Sabatelli & Mazor, 1985).
Children who have not yet begun to separate
Barber, Olsen, and Shagle 1123
emotionally and psychologically from par-
ents may not be able to distinguish control
behaviors that intmde on their psychological
autonomy from more behaviorally oriented
control. Also, the increased freedom and as-
sociation with people outside ofthe family
that occurs at adolescence makes supervi-
sion and monitoring particularly salient at
this time period. Thus, it may not be until
children begin to make these moves toward
psychological autonomy and more behav-
ioral freedom that the distinctions between
psychological and behavioral control and
their effects become evident. Because our
data set includes some preadolescents (fifth
grade), we will be able to test the viability
of the model at this age relative to the ado-
lescent subjects (eighth and tenth grade).
Method
Sample.—Data for this study come from
the Tennessee Adolescents in Families Proj-
ect (TAIFS), a school-based survey study of
pre-, early-, and middle-adolescent students
from the Knox County, Tennessee, school
system. The data were collected in the
Spring of 1990. Extensive surveys were ad-
ministered to participating students in class-
room or larger groups. The assessment took
approximately IV2 hours, after which stu-
dents were treated to a pizza party. Students
carried home assessment packets to parents
containing survey instruments on the family
environment and child behavior and person-
ality. These took approximately 45 min to
complete. The packet included instruments
for both mother and father with separate
business reply envelopes for their return di-
rectly to the principal investigator. A check
for $5 was sent to each parent who mailed
back a completed questionnaire. Funds
were not available to follow-up nonrespon-
dents. Approximately 50% of mothers and
25% of fathers responded.
Findings reported in this article come
from analyses of the suburban subsample,
the largest subset of the data. The entire en-
rollment ofthe fifth, eighth, and tenth grades
of a typical suburban community served as
the sampling frame. Students carried home
letters describing the study and requesting
signed parental consent for their children's
participation. An average of 65% of the par-
ents across the three grades consented. All
children who received parental consent par-
ticipated in the project, resulting in a sample
of 524 students. Because this sample had so
few non-white and low-income families, we
have limited these initial analyses to a sub-
1124 Child Development
sample of white and middle-income families nalizing items depict specific behaviors
(defined as students receiving no lunch sub- related to misconduct.
sidy). The resulting sample size was 473, Because of the theoretical convergence
made up of 45% males, 55% females, and between the social-psychological and family
broken down by grade as follows: fifth grade systems conceptualizations of family control,
N = 123, eighth grade N = 188, tenth grade our interest was to measure the family con-
N = 162. The average age for the sample structs at both the dyadic (parent-child) and
was 13.7. Sixty-nine percent ofthe students the system levels. Accordingly, we selected
of this subsample reported living with both the latest revision (Schludermann & Schlud-
parents and had fathers (88%) and mothers ermann, personal communication, 1988) of
(56%) who worked full time. Schaefer's (1965) Child Report of Parent Be-
Measures.—Youth problem behaviors havior Inventory (CRPBI) to measure family
were measured with the Child Behavior control at the dyadic level. This is a 30-item
Checklist—Youth Self Report (Achenbach &c version which, like its precedent versions,
Edelbrock, 1987). The main analytical pro- measures three dimensions of parenting,
cedure used to test the theoretical model two of which are control variables: psycho-
was structural equation analysis, which calls logical control versus psychological au-
for the use of observed variables as indica- tonomy and firm versus lax control. The
tors of hypothesized latent constructs. Colorado Self-Report of Family Functioning
Therefore, we did not use scale scores from Inventory (CSRFFI) was employed to mea-
the CBC, but instead employed selected raw sure control at the family level (Bloom,
items measuring internalized and external- 1985). This is a 60-item instrument that re-
ized problem behaviors. The selection of sulted from a series of factor analyses of four
these items was based on a series of factor commonly used family functioning invento-
analyses of the Depressed and Delinquent ries. It includes dimensions relevant to this
subscales of the CBC, conducted separately study such as enmeshment, disengagement,
by sex and grade of respondent. Our intent etc. '
was to derive subsets of items that were ap-
plicable to both males and females across Results
the age range represented by the sample.
The selected items clustered together con- The first analyses focused on the youth-
sistently in all analyses. reported information because these were the
most complete data and large samples sizes
The three items measuring internalized were necessary to test the measurement
problems were: "I feel lonely," "I feel con- model. Next, analyses were conducted using
fused or in a fog," and "I am unhappy, sad, both youth and mother data.
or depressed" (Cronbach's alpha = .78). The The first task was to select items from
three items representing externalized prob- the two family instruments to measure the
lems were: "I use alcohol or drugs for non- control constructs. Both instruments were
medical purposes," "I cut classes or skip examined, and specific items were selected
school," and "I swear or use dirty language" based on face validity in measuring the fam-
(Cronbach's alpha = .64). The reliabilities ily control constructs as they have been the-
for these measures are typical for scales with orized. This process resulted in the a priori
as few as three items. Each of the selected selection of 20 items to measure psychologi-
items have been commonly used in past re- cal control. These included the 10 items
search to measure internalized and external- from the CRPBI psychological control scale,
ized problems (Cicchetti & Toth, 1991), but which indexes control of psychological au-
it should be noted that they represent rela- tonomy and love withdrawal. Ten additional
tively mild levels of problem behaviors. items were selected from various scales of
This results from the constraint that the the CSRFFI describing family properties
items be equally valid for males and fe- that appear to inhibit individuation.
males, and for preadolescents as well as mid-
adolescents. We caution against generaliz- Ten items were selected from the two
ing results to more severe forms of problem instruments to measure behavioral control.
behavior. Of most importance to this study Four of these came from the firm control
was to identify variables that were distin- scale ofthe CRPBI, which indexes excessive
guished in terms of their internalizing and behavioral autonomy. Six were selected
externalizing characteristics. The internaliz- from various scales of the CSRFFI that ap-
ing items describe feelings of isolation, con- peared to measure disengaged family rela-
fusion, and low affect. In contrast, the exter- tionships. In addition, we included five
 Barber, Olsen, and Shagle 1125
TABLE 1
ITEMS SELECTED TO MEASURE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL

CSRFFI
YA37 It is difficult for family members to take time away from the family.
YA61 Family members feel guilty if they want to spend some time alone.
YA25 Family members find it hard to get away from each other.
YA49 Family members feel pressured to spend most free time together.
YA69 The children in our family have little influence on anything of real
importance.
YA46 In our family, parents do not check with the children before making
important decisions.
YA21 In our family, we know where all family members are at all times.
YA24 Parents make all the important decisions in our family.
YA36 There is strict punishment for breaking rules in our family.
YA72 It seems like there is never any place to be alone in our house.
(1 = very untrue for my family, 2 = fairly untrue for my family,
3 = fairly true for my family, 4 = very true for my family)

CRPBI
YB56 My mother insists that I must do exactly as I am told.
YB58 My mother is always telling me how I should behave.
YB55 My mother says, if I really cared for her, I would not do things that
cause her to worry.
YB59 My mother is very strict with me.
YB64 My mother wants to control whatever I do.
YB67 My mother is always trying to change me.
YB76 My mother will avoid looking at me when I have disappointed her.
YB79 My mother, if I have hurt her feelings, stops talking to me until I
please her.
YB73 My mother is less fnendly with me if I do not see things her way.
YB61 My mother would like to be able to tell me what to do all the time.
(1 = not like her, 2 = somewhat like her, 3 = a lot like her)

items to measure parental monitoring taken
from the work of Dombusch and Steinberg
(as in Dombusch, Ritter, Liederman, Rob-
erts, & Fraleigh, 1987). The two sets of items
with corresponding response scales are
listed in Tables 1 and 2.
Two questions were important in test-
ing the theoretical model: (1) Can the theo-
rized concepts of psychological and behav-
ioral control be adequately discriminated as
independent constructs? and (2) Do the con-
cepts distinguish between internalized and
extemalized problem behaviors?
Distinguishing psychological and be-
havioral control.—A series of exploratory
and confirmatory factor analyses were con-
ducted to distinguish the two control con-
structs. First, factor analyses with oblimin
rotation were conducted on the entire set of
35 items chosen to measure both constructs.
Four of the items were eventually removed
because they had high secondary loadings.
Analysis ofthe remaining 31 items revealed
a seven-factor solution explaining 54.5% of
the variance (Table 3). With the exception of
the factor labeled MIX, which had loadings
from both psychological and behavioral
items, the other six factors had theoretical
integrity in that each was comprised entirely
of either psychological or behavioral control
items. Items measuring psychological con-
trol loaded on three separate factors: PSY-
DYADl, PSYDYAD2, PSYFAM; items
chosen to measure behavioral control also
loaded on three separate factors: BEHD-
YAD, MONITOR, BEHFAM. This analysis
provided initial evidence for the distinction
between psychological control and behav-
ioral control. If these constructs were simply
opposite ends of the same continuum, we
would have expected items measuring each
to load together with opposite valences. This
did not occur. These analyses were also con-
ducted separately on boys and girls, and no
significant differences in factor structure
were noted.
Items loading on the PSYDYADl factor
came from the psychological control scale of
the CRPBI. We labeled this factor Authori-
tarianlIntrusive because the items appear to
represent extreme levels of parental control
that intrude on individual development.
1126 Child Developnient
TABLE 2
ITEMS SELECTED TO MEASURE BEHAVIORAL CONTROL

CSRFFI
YA35 Family members are not punished or reprimanded when they do some-
thing wrong.
YA60 There are very few rules in our family.
YA23 Members of our family can get away with almost anything.
YA45 Each family member does as he or she wishes without concern about
the others.
YA62 Family members seem to avoid contact with each other when at home.
Members of our family generally go their own way.
(1 = very untrue, 2 = fairly untrue for my family; 3 = fairly true for
my family; 4 = very true for my family)

CRPBI
YB71 My mother gives me as much freedom as I want.
YB80 My mother lets me do anything I like to do.
YB77 My mother lets me go out any evening I want.
YB74 My mother lets me go any place I please without asking.
(1 = not like her, 2 = somewhat like her, 3 = a lot like her)

Monitoring
YB172 How much do your
YB175 How much do your
noons after school?
YB173 How much do your
YB174 How much do your
time?
YB171 How much do your
(1 = don't know, 2
parents really know where you go at night?
parents really know where you are most after-
parents really know how you spend your money?
parents really know what you do with your free
parents really know who your friends are?
= know a little, 3 = know a lot)

This labeling is consistent with Baumrind's
(1991a, 1991b) recent work in which she
conceptualized the presence of intru-
siveness to distinguish importantly between
types of directive parenting. PSYDYAD2
was also comprised of items from the psy-
chological control scale of the CRPBI and
has been labeled Love Withdrawal. Three
of the four items describe parental behavior
that manipulates the affectional bond be-
tween parent and child by making parental
acceptance contingent on the child pleasing
the parent. This type of behavior has high
affective intensity and appears to be power-
ful in generating anxiety in children (Mac-
coby & Martin, 1983). The PSYFAM factor
contains items from the CSRFFI that repre-
sent Enmeshed family relationships. These
relationships are characterized by over-
identification, where loyalty and consensus
among family members prevent individua-
tion (Minuchin, 1974; Olson et al., 1983).
The BEHDYAD factor refiects what we
have labeled Unrestricted Autonomy Grant-
ing from parents to adolescents. This ap-
pears to be an extreme form of laxness (items
originated in the firm vs. lax control scale
of the CRPBI) that differs perhaps only in
degree from the permissiveness in the fam-
ily in general that is exhibited in the BEH-
FAM factor. This factor was labeled Laissez-
faire to be consistent with the CSRFFI
subscale from which two of the items origi-
nated. Both factors were independent of the
Monitoring factor, which indexes parental
awareness of children's activities.
The fact that there were multiple di-
mensions of each construct is not surprising
since the items came from existing instru-
ments with demonstrated reliabilities. Also,
because these instruments have different re-
sponse patterns, it is possible that the ob-
tained factor structure was infiuenced by
method variance. It was therefore necessary
to conduct a series of second-order factor
analyses to determine whether there was an
overarching two-dimensional factor struc-
ture, that is, that the three dimensions of
psychological control were actually subdi-
mensions of the more general construct of
psychological control, and the same for be-
havioral control. Structural equation analysis
(LISREL VII; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1989)
was used to conduct these analyses.
Figure 1 depicts the second-order
 Barber, Olsen, and Shagle 1127
TABLE 3
FACTOR ANALYSIS (Oblimin Rotation) OF ITEMS SELECTED A PRIORI TO MEASURE
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND BEHAVIORAL CONTROL

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7

PSYDYADl (Authoritarian/Intmsive):
YB56 J4 .04 .11 .01 -.02 .07 .15
YB58 Jl .05 .02 .03 -.04 -.02 .01
YB55 M --17 -.01 -.10 -.04 -.07 -.10
YB59 33 .08 -.04 .11 .02 -.11 27
YB64 ^ .08 -.14 .05 -.10 -.31 -.13
YB67 M .08 -.18 .07 -.13 -.31 -.05
BEHDYAD (Unrestricted Autonomy Granting);
YB71 05 -M 06 .05 .09 .16 .08
YB80 -.01 -J2 -.04 -.06 -.04 .00 -.12
YB77 01 -71 -.03 -.04 .01 -.12 -.14
YB74 -.11 -M -16 .09 -.09 -.22 -.00
MONITOR (Monitoring):
YB172 02 .07 M .06 -.00 .04 .05
YB175 06 .17 79 .06 .00 .08 -.06
YB173 -.02 -.04 79 .02 .02 -.10 .10
YB174 -.01 -.09 78 -.02 -.01 -.08 -.04
YB171 -.00 .00 .68 -.15 -.06 -.01 -.18
MIX:
YA69 -.03 -.03 .06 .79 -.05 .03 .13
YA46 -.04 .04 .04 -.05 -.10 .07
YA62 -.01 .08 -.11 M -.10 .04 -.02
YA68 16 -.04 -.03 .58 .26 .10 -.32
YA45 02 -.16 -.08 ^ -.01 -.03 -.20
PSYFAM (Enmeshed):
YA37 20 -.13 .08 -.04 -M .29 .11
YA61 -.22 .06 .04 .03 -35 -.27 .04
YA25 10 .06 -.07 .03 -32 .12 -.10
YA49 05 -.01 .03 .15 -=52 -.15 -.11
PSYDAD2 (Love Withdrawal):
YB76 05 -.08 .01 -.06 -.02 -77 -.00
YB79 12 -.22 .07 .07 -.00 -M .21
YB73 17 .14 -.02 .09 .03 -.57 -.08
YB61 43 .13 -.08 .07 .04 -A5 -.13
BEHFAM (Laissez-faire):
YA35 01 .02 .04 -.04 -.06 .05 -Jl
YA60 -.10 -.15 .11 .02 .06 .01 -J6
YA23 -.06 -.11 -.12 .17 -.10 -.08 -50
Eigenvalues 5.20 3.58 2.44 1.88 1.48 1.20 1.15
Cum% Var 16.8 28.3 36.2 42.3 47.0 50.9 54.5
NOTE.—N = 524.

model that best represents the theory. Two
second-order latent constructs, psychologi-
cal control and behavioral control, are indi-
cated by each of the three latent constructs
representing the factors revealed in the ex-
ploratory factor analysis discussed above.
Each of these six variables is, in turn, indi-
cated by its respective raw items. Since the
MIX factor was made up of items measuring
both general constructs, this variable, with
its respective raw items, was allowed to indi-
cate both of the second-order constructs.
The fit of this model was then compared to
the fit of an altemate model with a single
second-order factor. This second model did
not differentiate between psychological and
behavioral control but hypothesized instead
a single global dimension of undifferenti-
ated control with the seven primary factors
as subdimensions.
The chi-square for the first model
(933.21, df = 425) was significantly lower
than that for the second model (1031.68, df
= 427; x^ difference = 98.47, p < .001), in-
dicating that the model positing the exis-
1128 Child Development
FIG. 1.—Second-order factor model of Psychological Control and Behavioral Control
tence of two second-order factors fit the data
better than the model that considers all
seven factors as subdimensions of a general,
unspecified control factor. These results pro-
vided further empirical support for the inde-
pendence of the psychological control and
behavioral control constructs. Further, they
demonstrated that the dyadic and system
measures are compatible in defining these
constructs. It is not often that both levels of
family functioning are addressed in a given
study, and it is encouraging to see that the
theorized constructs can be discerned both
in specific interactions between family
members as well as in the systemic proper-
ties ofthe family.
Discriminating between problem be-
haviors.—Having provided evidence for the
empirical independence of the two control
variables, the next step was to test the con-
struct validity of the variables by relating
them to the outcome variables. A central part
of the theory was that children from psycho-
logically controlling environments would be
at greater risk for internalized problem be-
haviors, and that children exposed to behav-
iorally undercontrolling family environ-
ments would have a greater likelihood for
involvement in externalized problem behav-
iors. The theory was tested using structural
equation models (LISREL VII; Joreskog &
Sorbom, 1989) in which the two parental
control variables were used simultaneously
to predict measures of internalized problems
and externalized problems.
In order to reduce the number of param-
eter estimates in the model, and thereby en-
hance the reliability ofthe coefficients, only
a subset of items was used to measure the
family control constructs. The dyadic mea-
sure of psychological control (10 items from
the CRPBI) was used to measure psycholog-
ical control, and the monitoring variables
were used to measure behavioral control.
These factors were selected because they
appeared to be the strongest measures of
their respective constructs in the second-
order factor analysis. The dependent vari-
ables were measured as described above.
Figure 2 presents the results of this
analysis. The theory was supported with re-
gard to the role of the parental control vari-
ables in discriminating between the depen-
dent variables. Psychological control was
significantly related to internalized prob-

FIG. 2.—Family control and adolescent problem behaviors using all youth-reported data
lems (.20) but not to externalized problems
(.01). Monitoring (behavioral control) also
had a significant association with internal-
ized problems (-.16), but it had a much
larger relationship with externalized prob-
lems ( — .50), as predicted. The fit of this
model was improved by allowing some of
the error terms to be correlated for each of
the control constructs.
The model was also validated separately
by sex and grade of child. Models were run
separately for male and female youth, and
there was no significant difference in the
functioning of the model by sex (x^ differ-
ence = 1.19, df = 4). Models were also run
separately by grade. There was no differ-
ence between the eighth- and tenth-grade
models (x^ difference = 3.43, df = 4). The
fifth-grade model did differ from the other
grades in that the control constructs did not
differentiate between internalized and ex-
ternalized problems. This difference will
have to be validated on a larger sample (the
fifth-grade sample was the smallest subsam-
ple of the data), but to the extent that this
finding is meaningful, it highlights the de-
velopmental implications of the theory. For
preadolescents, the individuation process
characteristic of the adolescent transition
Barber, Olsen, and Shagle 1129
N=422 •p<.05
-233.31 *'p<.01
p=.003 *"p<.001
AdiGF -.94
has not typically begun. Therefore, the in-
trusive and inhibiting effects of psychologi-
cal control may not be apparent at this ear-
lier age.
Replication with multiple data sources.—
Recently, concern has arisen regarding
structural equation modeling of single-
source data (Bank, Dishion, Skinner, & Pat-
terson, 1990; Lorenz, Conger, Simons, &
Whitbeck, 1991), as was done in the analyses
just described. The concern is essentially
that when a single source of data is used,
structural parameters become systematically
infiated because of shared method variance.
This is an important issue and is addressed
in the next analysis, but it should be noted
that the focus of the previous analysis was
not on the absolute magnitude of path coef-
ficients, but on the relative strength of the
theorized paths. It was of concern to see if
the family control variables distinguished
between internalized and externalized prob-
lems. The analyses showed that both types
of family control had significantly different
predictive power for the two outcomes.
The next step in the analysis tested the
model using multiple sources of informa-
tion. Not enough fathers responded to per-
1130 Child Development
mit the use of both parents' data, so these
analyses were conducted using youth and
mother responses. The use of multiple
sources of data has important implications
for two types of validity. First, it strengthens
construct validity because constructs are de-
fined by converging measures reported by
different agents. This minimizes the likeli-
hood that a measured construct merely re-
fiects the particular perspective of a single
informant. In the present case, if the distinc-
tion between psychological control and be-
havioral control holds when measuring each
construct from both youth and mothers, then
there is more reason for confidence that
these constructs are actually different and
represent a shared reality in the family
rather than just the child's viewpoint. This
multi-agent modeling also provides a more
accurate picture of predictive validity by
reducing the problem of infiated correla-
tions between constructs due to informant-
specific method variance shared by the con-
structs. In this way, more confidence is
gained in both the absolute and relative
magnitude ofthe path coefficients.
For this analysis we selected items from
the original a priori list of psychological and
behavioral control items that had adequate
correspondence between mother and child
reports. We used only two items (each item
measured from mother and youth reports)
because ofthe smaller sample size available
where both mother and youth data are pres-
ent. Psychological control was measured by
mother and youth responses to two ques-
tions from the CRPBI:
1. I am a person who is always trying to
change my child./My mother is a person who is
always trying to change me.
2. I am a person who says, if my child really
cared for me, s/he would not do things that cause
me to worry./My mother is a person who says, if
I really cared for her, I would not do things that
cause her to worry.
Behavioral control was measured by mother
and youth responses to two items from the
CSRFFI measuring disengagement:
1. Members of our family generally go their
own way.
2. Each family member does as he or she
wishes without concern about the others.
In essence these items represent shared per-
ceptions of control of psychological auton-
omy and love withdrawal as psychological
control, and disengagement as behavioral
control. Youth-reported data were used for
the outcome variables because it can be ar-
gued theoretically that a child is the best in-
formant of his or her own feelings and be-
havior away from home.
The results of this analysis (Fig. 3) are
very similar to the previous analysis that
used only youth-reported data. Once again,
psychological control was predictive of in-
ternalized problems (.29) but not external-
ized problems (.07), and behavioral control
was more strongly associated with external-
ized problems ( - .39) than with internalized
problems ( — .23). The major difference be-
tween the two models was a substantial in-
crease in the variance accounted for in inter-
nalized problems (.08 to .20) when both
youth and mother data were used to measure
family control. This was largely attributable
to a stronger association between psycholog-
ical control and internalized problems in the
mother-youth model. There was also a less
dramatic decrease in the variance accounted
for in externalized problems (.25 to .18), due
to a somewhat weaker relationship with the
measure of behavioral control used in this
model.
With the exception of the first psycho-
logical control item, the factor loadings
(lambdas) for the control constructs in the
mother-youth model were very similar, indi-
cating that mother and youth data contrib-
uted relatively equally to these constructs.
This implies that the relations obtained
were not an artifact of who was answering
the questions. It should also be noted that
this analysis allowed the error terms for the
pairs of mother and child indicators to co-
vary, as suggested by Bank et al. (1990), to
control for informant variance.
The nonsigni^cant association between
internalized and externalized problems in
both analyses is not consistent with prior ev-
idence of comorbidity between these types
of problems. Much of the evidence for co-
morbidity, however, has come from studies
that have utilized clinical samples that could
suffer from sampling errors associated with
selecting extreme cases (i.e., those seeking
or referred to treatment). Garber, Quiggle,
Panak, and Dodge (1991) used a community
sample similar to ours and found substantial
comorbidity (.42) between depression and
aggression using the CBC. This is not sur-
prising, though, given that they used total
scaie scores from the CBC which are highly
correlated and which may contain items that

Pressure to Change
(youth) .55
Pressure to Change
(mother)
Love Withdrawal
(youth)
Love Withdrawal
(mother)
Family Members
Go Their Own Way
(youth)
Family Members
Go Their Own Way
(mother)
Family Members
Do As They Wish
(youth)
Family Members
Do As They Wish
(mother)
FIG. 3.—Fainily control and adolescent problem behaviors using combined mother and youth
reports for family variables.
are not conceptually distinct. Our analyses
which used raw items from the CBC appear
to have identified sets of internalized and
externalized items that in these data are not
predictably interrelated.
The negative relationship between
psychological and behavioral control in
these data indicate that parents that exert
high levels of psychological control have a
tendency to be uncontroUing behaviorally.
This finding would be counterintuitive if
one maintains an undiSerentiated conceptu-
alization of control and its effects; that is, if
parents are controlling in one area they
would be likely to be controlling in other
areas. Our attempt has been, however, to
demonstrate that control of psychological
and behavioral processes are different phe-
nomena with different effects. The negative
association between psychological control
and behavioral control actually reinforces
the distinction by indicating that parents
who intrude on the psychological develop-
ment of their children do not necessarily re-
strict their behavior. In fact, they appear to
be predictably less restrictive. After replica-
tion, thisfindingmerits further study. It may
be that psychologically controlling parents
are less concerned about what their child is
doing as long as they feel they have a psy-
Barber, Olsen, and Shagle 1131
Loneiy
Confused
Depressed
Drugs
Truant
Swear
Adj QFi =.92 • p < .01
standardized soiution
chological and emotional hold over the
child.
Finally, we conducted three specific
analyses to assure that the model would re-
main viable when considering the potential
role of parental supportive behavior. We
used the 10-item acceptance scale from the
CRPBI as a measure of parental support.
This is a commonly used scale for parental
nurturance and consists of items such as:
"makes me feel better afler talking over my
worries with her," "smiles at me very often,"
"enjoys doing things with me," "believes in
showing her love for me," etc. First, we con-
ducted a factor analysis ofthe 10 acceptance
items, the 10 psychological control items,
and the 5 monitoring items in order to deter-
mine the independence of the acceptance
items from the two control scales. Oblimin
rotation revealed a four-factor solution: Fac-
tor 1 contained the 10 acceptance items. Fac-
tor 2 contained 7 ofthe psychological control
items, and Factor 3 contained the 5 monitor-
ing items. There were no meaningful sec-
ondary loadings for any of the items from
these factors. The three love withdrawal
items from the psychological control scale
loaded independently on Factor 4, indicat-
ing some empirical and conceptual distinc-
tion among the psychological control items.
1132 Child Development
However, there was no evidence that either The theorized effects were evident not
ofthe control scales overlapped with the ac- only according to the adolescents' construc-
ceptance scale. tion of their family interaction, but when
perceptions of both mothers and youth were
Second, we incorporated a latent vari- combined. It was also noteworthy that each
able for parental acceptance indicated by the control construct could be measured at both
10 acceptance items from the CRPBI into the dyadic and systems level. This was evi-
the LISREL analysis using the youth-only dent in the second-order factor analysis
model because ofthe larger sample size. Ac- where factors representing both levels of
ceptance was significantly related to both measurement clustered together as indica-
psychological (-.36, p < .001) and behav- tors of psychological and behavioral control.
ioral contiol (.41, p < .001), indicating that It was also refiected in the equivalent func-
parents who are more accepting tend to ex- tioning of the behavioral control construct
hibit less psychological control and more from the youth-only analysis, which used
awareness of their adolescents activities. Ac- a dyadic measure of monitoring, to the
ceptance had no significant direct associa- mother-youth analysis, which used a system-
tion with internalized problems, but was level measure of disengagement. These
mildly predictive of externalized problems findings have implications for the potential
( — .17, p < .05). Most importantly, the pres- utility of collaborative work between clini-
ence of the acceptance variable did not sub- cally oriented family researchers who focus
stantially alter the key theoretical paths of on the family system and developmental
the model. psychologists and social psychologists who
Further, in order to test for possible in- focus more on interacting dyads in the
teractions between acceptance and control, family.
we conducted a median split on the accep-
tance variable and tested the model sepa- The fact that these control processes can
rately on families with high versus low ac- be measured at multiple levels within the
ceptance. The chi-square test for invariance family strengthens the validity of these con-
indicated that the model functioned the structs as markers of salient family processes
same in both groups (x^ difference = 3.23, affecting individual development. The va-
df = 4). The results of these three analyses lidity is also reinforced because the findings
demonstrated that the theorized pattern of are consistent with other studies that employ
associations between control and adolescent very different methodologies. Most relevant
difficulty exists independent of the levels of in this regard is the recent work of Baumrind
supportive relationships between parents (1991a, 1991b). Her intensive observation of
and their adolescents. They also demon- parents and children and her focus on devel-
strated that the control variables served as oping parenting typologies contrast dramati-
key mediators of parental acceptance in pre- cally with our self-reported survey method-
dicting adolescent difficulty. ology and our focus on discrete parental
constructs. Nevertheless, both methodolo-
Discussion gies have furnished quite similar results in
demonstrating associations between psycho-
This study had two central purposes: logically intrusive family experience and
first, to distinguish parental psychological internalized adolescent difficulties, and
control and behavioral control, and, second, between behaviorally undercontrolled fam-
to validate this difference by demonstrating ily patterns and adolescent externalized
that the two types of control have contrasting problems.
associations with internalized and external-
ized problem behaviors in youth. It was the- These findings provide encouraging ev-
orized that pattems of family interaction that idence for the usefulness of greater specifi-
inhibit or intrude on the psychological de- cation in the study of family and adolescent
velopment of youth pose particular risk for development. In particular, it is evident that
internalized problems, whereas insufficient patterns of control need to be studied not
structure or regulation of youth behavior only in terms of absolute frequency or quan-
would be more strongly associated with ex- tity of control, but in terms of different types
ternalized problems. Results provided sup- of control. In so doing it is critical to con-
port for the theory, in that psychological con- sider carefully the specific domains of child
trol and behavioral control were empirically development likely to be affected by the dis-
independent dimensions of family inter- tinct varieties of control. It is apparent from
action that evidenced the predicted con- these findings that control-related disrup-
trasting effects on youth characteristics. tions in the development of psychological

autonomy and the failure to provide ade-
quate behavioral regulation have quite dif-
ferent effects on youth characteristics.
We recognize that this is only an initial
test of the theory, and that these findings
must be replicated on other samples. The
response rate from mothers in our study, for
example, is a limitation that needs to be cor-
rected in future tests. But we are encouraged
at the prospects of more precisely under-
standing the match between specific social-
ization environments and discrete develop-
mental outcomes. Future efforts should also
test this model utilizing other types of out-
comes and conceive of other ways in which
socialization can be understood to have ef-
fects on specific outcomes. Costanzo and
Woody's (1985) work on parental expecta-
tions and values as they relate to specific do-
mains of behavior such as children's obesity
is an excellent example of the type of speci-
ficity that is warranted in socialization re-
search. Such efforts appear to have consider-
able potential payoff for the refinement of
theory as well as for prevention and inter-
vention.
We acknowledge other limitations to
this study. First, the direction of the theo-
rized effects of family interaction on psycho-
logical and behavioral characteristics of
youth cannot be confirmed due to the cross-
sectional nature of the data. It is possible
that the direction is actually reverse, that is, This is consistent with much of the theory
that parents adopt control styles as a function
of their children's characteristics. Thus, par-
ents who perceive their children to be so-
cially isolated or withdrawn may increase
their attempts to shape the personality of
their child through psychological controls.
Also, some parents whose adolescents are
acting out may determine that their children
are beyond their control and therefore be-
come quite lax in their supervision. Baum-
rind's (1991a) finding that externalizing ado-
lescents came from historically unstructured
and disorganized homes, however, provides
some evidence of causal precedence of fam-
ily experience. It is most likely that recipro-
cal and cyclical associations exist between
family interaction and youth behavior (e.g.,
Patterson, 1982). A more precise under-
standing of these effects await longitudinal
data. The study is also characteristically
limited by a white, middle-class sample. We
caution against generalizing to other sam- References
ples with different ethnic, cultural, and so- Achenbach, T. M. (1985). Assessment and taxon-
cial compositions due to the possibility that
both control and deviance may have differ-
Barber, Oben, and Shagle 1133
ent meanings and associations in these set-
tings (Spencer & Dornbusch, 1990).
This study had a relatively narrow focus.
Our measurement of family processes was
intentionally restricted to two specific types
of control. Clearly, adolescent experience in
families is more complex than this. Already,
the model has been shown to remain valid
when tested in the context of other institu-
tions of socialization (peers, school, and reli-
gion) (Barber & Shagle, 1992). Future work
will progressively incorporate other aspects
of family and individual experience to more
comprehensively understand the develop-
ment of youth difficulty. We suspect, for ex-
ample, that non-normative stress, such as
negative life events, will exacerbate the neg-
ative effects of both psychological and be-
havioral control (Barber, 1992). It will also
be important to test the functioning of the
model across key normative transitions
known to have an impact on family and ado-
lescent development, such as puberty,
school changes, and increased interaction
with peers (Brown, 1990; Simmons, Burge-
son, Carlton-Ford, & Blyth, 1987; Steinberg,
1988). In this regard, our preliminary finding
that the model worked as expected for ado-
lescents (eighth and tenth graders), but not
for preadolescents (fifth grade), suggests that
these family control patterns are particularly
salient for youth who are experiencing fun-
damental changes in personality and social
development coincident with adolescence.
that generated the model regarding the inhi-
bition of psychological autonomy which
emerges strongly through the adolescent in-
dividuation process, and the need for behav-
ioral regulation and supervision as adoles-
cents increase their behavioral freedom.
Longitudinal work is needed to better spec-
ify the age at which these effects begin to
take hold. Finally, the model needs to be
tested using more severe forms of problem
behaviors. The theorized patterns were evi-
dent with our relatively mild forms of inter-
nalized and externalized problems, but the
question remains open whether these forms
of family control are as useful in understand-
ing youth with more chronic and severe
problems, or whether these more extreme
forms of difBcvilty have more complex or dif-
ferent etiological patterns.
omy of child and adolescent psychopathol-
ogy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
1134 Child Development
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. (1987). Man-
ual for the youth self-report and profile. Burl-
ington: University of Vermont, Department of
Psychiatry.
Baldwin, A. L. (1955). Behavior and development
in childhood. New York: Dreyden.
Bandura, A. (1964). The stormy decade: Fact or
fiction? Psychology in the Schools, 1, 224-
231.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1959). Adolescent
aggression. New York: Ronald.
Bank, L., Dishion, T., Skinner, M., & Patterson,
C. R. (1990). Method variance in structural
equation modeling: Living with "glop." In
C. R. Patterson (Ed.), Depression and aggres-
sion in family interaction (pp. 247-279).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barber, B. K. (1992). Family, personality, and ado-
lescent problem behaviors, journal of Mar-
riage and the Family, 54, 69-79.
Barber, B. K., & Shagle, S. C. (1992). Adolescent
problem behaviors: A social-ecological analy-
sis. Family Perspective, 26, 493-515.
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices ante-
ceding three patterns of preschool behavior.
Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43-88.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental
authority. Developmental Psychology Mono-
graphs, 4, 1-102.
Baumrind, D. (1991a). The influence of parenting
style on adolescent competence and sub-
stance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11,
56-95.
Baumrind, D. (1991b). Effective parenting during
the early adolescent transition. In P. A.
Cowan & M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family
transitions (pp. 111-163). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Baumrind, D., & Black, A. E. (1967). Socialization
practices associated with dimensions of com-
petence in preschool boys and girls. Child
Development, 38, 291-327.
Beavers, W. R. (1982). Healthy, midrange, and se-
verely dysfunctional families. In F. Walsh
(Ed.), Normal family processes. New York:
Guilford.
Becker, W. C. (1964). Consequences of different
kinds of parental discipline. In M. L. Hoffhian
& W. W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of child de-
velopment research (Vol. 1, pp. 169-208).
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bloom, B. L. (1985). A factor analysis of self-report
measures of family functioning. Family Pro-
cess, 24, 225-239.
Bios, P. (1979). The adolescent passage: Develop-
mental issues. New York: International Uni-
versities Press.
Brown, B. B. (1990). Peer groups and peer cul-
tures. In S. S. Feidman & C. R. Elliot (Eds.),
At the threshold: The developing adolescent
(pp. 171-198). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Burger, G. R., & Armentrout, J. A. (1971). A factor
analysis of 5th and 6th graders' reports of pa-
rental child-rearing behavior. Developmental
Psychology, 4, 483.
Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (Eds.). (1991). Inter-
nalizing arid externalizing expressions of dys-
function: Rochester Sym.posium on Develop-
mental Psychopathology (Vol. 2). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Cooper, C. R., Grotevant, H. D., & Condon, S. M.
(1982). Methodological challenges of selectiv-
ity in family interaction: Addressing temporal
patterns of individuation. JoumaZ of Marriage
and the Family, 44, 749-754.
Cooper, C. R., Grotevant, H. D., & Condon, S. M.
(1983). Individuality and connectedness in
the family as a context for adolescent identity
formation and role-taking skill. In H. D. Gro-
tevant & C. R. Cooper (Eds.), New directions
for child development: Vol. 22. Adolescent
development in the family (pp. 43-59). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Costanzo, R. P., & Woody, E. Z. (1985). Domain-
specific parenting styles and their impact on
the child's development of particular devi-
ance: The example of obesity proneness.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 3,
425-445.
Dishion, T. J., & Loeber, R. (1985). Adolescent
marijuana and alcohol use: The role of par-
ents and peers revisited. American Journal of
Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 11, 11-25.
Dombusch, S. M., Carlsmith, J., Bushwall, S., Rit-
ter, P., Liederman, P., Hastorf, A., & Gross, R.
(1985). Single parents, extended households,
and the control of adolescents. Child Devel-
opment, 56, 326-341.
Dombusch, S. M., Ritter, P., Liederman, P., Rob-
erts, D., & Fraleigh, M. (1987). The relation
of parenting style to adolescent school perfor-
mance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.
Erikson, E. E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis.
New York: Norton.
Freud, A. (1958). Adolescence. Psychoanalytic
Study of the Child, 13, 255-278.
Garber, J., Quiggle, N. L., Panak, W., & Dodge,
K. A. (1991). Aggression and depression in
children: Comorbidity, specificity, and social
cognitive processing. In D. Gicchetti & S. L.
Toth (Eds.), Internalizing and externalizing
expressions of dysfunction: Rochester Sym-
posium on Developmental Psychopathology
(Vol. 2, pp. 225-264). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hauser, S. (1991). Families and their adolescents.
New York: Free Press.
Hauser, S., Powers, S. L, Noam, G., Jacobson, A.,

Weiss, B., & Follansbee, D. (1984). Familial
contexts of adolescent ego development.
Child Development, 55, 195-213.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL
VII: A guide to the program and applications
(2d ed.). Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personal-
ity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Josselson, R. L. (1980). Ego development in ado-
lescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of
adolescent psychology. New York: Wiley.
Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1984). Boys who fight
at home and school: Family conditions influ-
encing cross-setting consistency. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52,
759-768.
Lorenz, F. O., Conger, R. D., Simons, R. L., &
Whitbeck, L. (1991). Economic pressure and
marital quality: An illustration of the method
variance problem in the causal modeling of
family processes, youma/ of Marriage and the
Family, 53, 375-388.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socializa-
tion in the context of the family: Parent-child
interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.),
P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personal-
ity, and social development (pp. 1-101). New
York: Wiley.
Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J.
Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psy-
chology. New York: Wiley.
McCord, J. (1979). Some child-rearing anteced-
ents of criminal behavior in adult men. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
1477-1486.
McCord, J. (1990). Problem behaviors. In S. S.
Feidman & G. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold:
The developing adolescent (pp. 414-430).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Miller, B. C , McCoy, J. K., Olson, T. D., & Wal-
lace, C. M. (1986). Parental control attempts
and adolescent sexual behavior. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 48, 503-512.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H. L.,
Larsen, A. S., Muxen, M. J., & Wilson, M. A.
(1983). Families: What makes them work.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Olweus, D. (1980). Familial and temperamental
detenninants of aggression behavior in ado-
lescents—a causal analysis. Developmental
Psychology, 16, 644-660.
Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A
parental bonding instrument. British Journal
of Medical Psychology, 52, 1-10.
Patterson, G. R. (1976). The aggressive child: Vic-
tim and architect of a coercive system. In
Barher, Olsen, and Shagle 1135
E. J. Mash, L. A. Hamerlynck, & L. C. Handy
(Eds.), Behavior modification and families: I.
Theory and research (pp. 267-316). New
York: Brunner-Mazel.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family processes.
Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Patterson, G. R., Capaldi, D., & Bank, L. (1989).
An early starter model for predicting delin-
quency. In D. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.),
The development and treatment of childhood
aggression (pp. 139-168). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Patterson, G. R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984).
The correlation of family management prac-
tices and delinquency. Child Development,
55, 1299-1307.
Pulkinnen, L. (1982). Self-control and continuity
from childhood to adolescence. In P. B. Baltes
& O. G. Brim (Eds.), Life-span development
and behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 63-105). New York:
Academic Press.
Roe, A., & Siegelman, M. (1963). A parent-child
questionnaire. Child Development, 34, 355-
369.
Rohner, R. P. (1986). The warmth dimension:
Foundations of parental acceptance-
rejection theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
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.), Contem-
porary theories about the family: Vol. 1. Re-
search based theories (pp. 317-364). New
York: Free Press.
Sabatelli, R. M., & Mazor, A. (1985). Differentia-
tion, individuation, and identity formation:
The integration of family system and individ-
ual developmental perspectives. Adoles-
cence, 20, 619-633.
Schaefer, E. (1965). Children's reports of parental
behavior: An inventory. Child Development,
36, 413-424.
Seligman, M. E., & Peterson, C. (1986). A learned
helplessness perspective on childhood de-
pression: Theory and research. In M. Rutter,
C. E. Izard, & P. B. Read (Eds.), Depression
in young people (pp. 223-249). New York:
Guilford.
Siegelman, M. (1965). College student personality
correlates of early parent-child relationships.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29, 558-
564.
Simmons, R. G., Burgeson, R., Carlton-Ford, S., &
Blyth, D. A. (1987). The impact of cumulative
change in early adolescence. Child Develop-
ment, 58, 1220-.-1234.
Spencer, M. B., & Dombusch, S. M. (1990). Chal-
lenges in studying minority youth. In S. S.
Feidman & G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the thresh-
1136 Child Development
old: The developing adolescent (pp. 123-
146). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Steinberg, L. (1988). Reciprocal relations between
parent-child distance and pubertal matura-
tion. Developmental Psychology, 24, 122-
128.
Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and har-
mony in the family relationship. In S. S. Feid-
man & G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold:
The developing adolescent (pp. 255-276).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stierlin, H. (1974). Separating parents and ado-
lescents. New York: Quadrangle.
Thomas, D. L., Gecas, V., Weigert, A., & Rooney,
E. (1974). Family socialization and the ado-
lescent. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Volk, R. J., Edwards, D. W., Lewis, R. A., & Spren-
kle, D. H. (1989). The assessment of adapt-
ability and cohesion in families of adolescent
drug abusers and non-abusers. Family Rela-
tions, 38, 266-272.
White, J. L. (1989). The troubled adolescent. New
York: Pergamon.