University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Reframing parental psychological control: the role of insecure attachment

(USC Thesis Other)

Reframing parental psychological control: the role of insecure attachment

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE
ATTCHMENT

1

Reframing parental psychological control: The role of insecure attachment

So Young Choe

FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
Doctor of Philosophy (PSYCHOLOGY)
University of Southern California
August 2018

PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

2
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 3
Current study ................................................................................................................ 17
Method ......................................................................................................................... 17
Participants ............................................................................................................... 17
Measures ................................................................................................................... 18
Data analyses ............................................................................................................ 25
Analytic plan ............................................................................................................. 27
Results .......................................................................................................................... 28
Descriptive statistics.................................................................................................. 28
Correlation ................................................................................................................ 29
Mediation .................................................................................................................. 32
Discussion .................................................................................................................... 38
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 43
References .................................................................................................................... 45

PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

3
Abstract
Parental psychological control (PPC) has been argued to influence children’s emotions and
behavior through its impact on children’s feelings of autonomy (or lack of autonomy). But I
propose that PPC should be viewed in terms of its impact on the child’s relationship with the
parents, especially its impact on insecure attachment. I tested this mechanism in terms of
different types of externalizing behaviors: relationship aggression toward romantic partners,
delinquency, and aggression in general. Data were drawn from the Child Development Project
(Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1990) longitudinal data. My results show that perceived PPC at age 16
predicts insecure attachment at age 18, measured by anxiety, avoidance, and jealousy, which
then predicts externalizing behaviors at age 24. The path models with anxiety are consistently
significant while ones with avoidance and jealousy are not. Further, gender differences in the
adolescents’ responses are rarely found, and both maternal and paternal psychological control
(reported by adolescents) predict their later insecure attachment, which then predicts
externalizing behaviors during emerging adulthood. The results suggest that framing PPC in
terms of its impact on insecure attachment can benefit research and practice rather than framing
it only in terms of autonomy. My findings can shed light on the mechanisms through which PPC
impairs children’s personality and emotional development.
Keywords: parental psychological control; insecure attachment; externalizing; relationship
aggression; delinquency

PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

4
Parental psychological control (PPC) refers to a set of intrusive parenting techniques that
emotionally manipulate children to obey parents (Choe & Read, in press). PPC was
conceptualized as control that interferes with children’s psychological world (Barber, 1996), and
PPC techniques entail instilling guilt and shaming, withdrawing love, invalidating feelings,
constraining verbal expressions, and attacking personally (Olsen et al., 2002). PPC has been
associated with diverse negative developmental outcomes: externalizing (more than 70 papers,
see a review paper Choe & Read, in preparation), internalizing (more than 30 papers, e. g. Baron
& MacGillivray, 1989; Gargurevich & Soenens, 2016), perfectionism (Craddock, Church, &
Sands, 2009; Gong, Paulson, & Wang, 2016; Reilly, Stey, & Lapsley, 2016; Smith et al., 2017;
Soenens, Elliot, et al., 2005; Soenens, Luyckx, et al., 2008; Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Duriez, &
Goossens, 2006; Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Luyten, Duriez, & Goossens, 2005), eating and weight
related issues and disorders (Abaied, Wagner, Breslend, & Flynn, 2016; Berge et al., 2014;
Dring, 2015; Gale, Cluett, & Laver-Bradbury, 2013; Gerards, Hummel, Dagnelie, de Vries, &
Kremers, 2013; Goethals et al., 2017; Liang et al., 2016; Murashima, Hoerr, Hughes,
Kattelmann, & Phillips, 2012; Pinquart, 2014; Rodenburg, Kremers, Oenema, & van de Mheen,
2011; Rodenburg, Oenema, Kremers, & van de Mheen, 2012; Scharf & Levy, 2015; Snoek,
Engels, Janssens, & van Strien, 2007; Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Vandereycken, et al., 2008),
somatic complaints and diseases (Costa, Hausenblas, Oliva, Cuzzocrea, & Larcan, 2015;
Luyckx, Goossens, Missotten, & Moons, 2011; Rodenburg, Meijer, Deković, & Aldenkamp,
2005; Tiwari & Verma, 2012), hopelessness (Li, Li, Wang, & Bao, 2016; Shek, 2006; Shek,
2005, 2007), suicidal ideation (Li et al., 2016; Shpigel, Diamond, & Diamond, 2012), hostile
intent attribution (Nelson & Coyne, 2009), poor cognitive functioning (Bean, Bush, McKenry, &
Wilson, 2003; Berman, Wheaton, & Abramowitz, 2013; Brown & Iyengar, 2008; El-Sheikh, Tu,
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

5
Erath, & Buckhalt, 2014; Kim & Dembo, 2000; Pallock & Lamborn, 2006; Pinquart, 2016; Tam,
2009; Vansteenkiste, Zhou, Lens, & Soenens, 2005) etc. Therefore, attention to PPC is
desperately needed to shed light on the mechanisms through which PPC impairs children’s
personality and emotional development and to build an intervention/prevention specifically for
PPC.
The previous research on the mechanisms through which PPC influences children’s
development has focused almost exclusively on parental autonomy granting and autonomy
support (or their lack). For example, PPC and autonomy were paired as a dimension from the
beginning of PPC research and its scale development – Children's Reports of Parental Behavior
Inventory (CRPBI) – (Schaefer, 1965b). The pairing of PPC and autonomy had been adopted in
the following studies using CRPBI (Armentrout & Burger, 1972a, 1972b; Burger & Armentrout,
1971; Cross, 1969; Fristad & Karpowitz, 1988; Graybill & Gabel, 1978; Imperio & Chabot,
1980; Raskin, Boothe, Reatig, Schulterbrandt, & Odle, 1971; Schaefer, 1965a; Schludermann &
Schludermann, 1983; Schwarz, Barton-Henry, & Pruzinsky, 1985). PPC was also mentioned as
autonomy-relevant parenting (Lansford, Laird, Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 2014). Further, the
relation between PPC and autonomy support was investigated regarding their support on
volitional functioning (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Sierens, 2009) and their cross-cultural
significance (Soenens & Beyers, 2012). PPC has been contrasted with autonomy in multifarious
studies mentioned above, and autonomy restriction has been suggested as a possible mechanism
underlying PPC and autonomy granting as a solution in the studies.
However, some work has suggested that PPC is not just the opposite of autonomy
granting. For example, PPC and autonomy granting were shown to be distinct parenting
constructs rather than opposite ends of a parental control continuum (Silk, Morris, Kanaya, &
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

6
Steinberg, 2003). In addition, a two factor model with PPC and autonomy granting fit better than
a one factor model with both PPC and autonomy granting (Hauser Kunz & Grych, 2013). This
suggests that autonomy granting may not capture every aspect of PPC.
Moreover, examining the typical strategies that parents adopt to control their children
suggests that PPC may have an impact on the relational needs of the child rather than solely on
their need for autonomy. Most PPC techniques threaten the child’s relationship with the parent:
such as withdrawing love, attacking personally, instilling guilt and shame, and invalidating
feelings. Children require caregivers, as their close relationship to their caregivers provides a
strong sense of felt security (Bowlby, 1969). Yet this felt security and the parent-child
relationship may be undermined by PPC strategies. This suggests that the previous research may
have neglected to investigate the impact of the relationship component while focusing mainly on
autonomy restriction. There can be many ways to control children, but many of the strategies for
PPC (e.g. instilling guilt and shame, invalidating feelings, and withholding love) seem to
facilitate insecure attachment to obtain the outcome of children’s obedience. This suggests that
the impact of PPC on the child may best be understood in terms of factors that promote insecure
attachment of the child. Hence, I propose that the impact of PPC should be framed in terms of
insecure attachment – via the threat PPC imposes on relationships – and not solely in terms of
the target outcome of PPC that has been typically studied: restricting autonomy.
I test insecure attachment as a mechanism of how PPC deters children’s healthy
personality and emotional development. My first test of this mechanism focuses on externalizing
behaviors. Externalizing behaviors refer to undercontrolled behaviors that manifest as
aggression, disruptiveness, defiance, hyperactivity, and impulsivity (Achenbach & Edelbrock,
1978), and those have been associated with PPC in childhood, adolescence, and emerging
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

7
adulthood (see a review paper, Choe & Read, in preparation). Yet little is known about the
mechanism.
The specific types of externalizing behaviors that I focus on are psychological aggression
toward romantic partners and delinquency in general, for they allow us to examine externalizing
behaviors toward both: romantic partners and in general. Behavior toward romantic partners
should be a particularly appropriate measure of the impact of insecure attachment, although
violation of felt security should also influence more general externalizing behaviors, as I discuss
below. Although not focal outcomes, I also investigate physical assault and sexual coercion
toward romantic partners and aggression in general as well, to check if interesting patterns
emerge based on different types of externalizing behaviors. Moreover, I inspect a critical
developmental junction point – from age 16 to 24 (adolescence to emerging adulthood) – as I
describe below.

Attachment theory
Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969) affirms that human beings have a hard-wired
predisposition to be close to their primary caregivers. Attachment refers to an affectional tie to a
specific individual (Ainsworth, 1969). Infants instinctively search for, track visually, and follow
their attachment figures (Rholes & Simpson, 2004). Capable caregivers to whom infants develop
secure attachments tend to read the infants’ cues of distress and effectively comfort them, and
they also remain physically and emotionally available to the infants when the infants are not
distressed (Rholes & Simpson, 2004). Secure attachment does not necessarily entail the child
clinging to the mother as an object; rather the child maintains the desired distance from the
mother that produces felt security under the circumstances (Bowlby, 1969).
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

8
This physical proximity of the infant to the primary caregiver provides evolutionary
benefits to the infant (Bowlby, 1969). This proximity to their stronger and wiser caregivers
protects the vulnerable infants and children from outside dangers, hence it increases the chance
of the child’s survival and later reproduction (Rholes & Simpson, 2004). Attachment theory
claimed that infants who were securely attached to their caregivers were naturally selected for,
given the greater protection from danger and predation in ancestral environments (Rholes &
Simpson, 2004). Moreover, the exploratory attachment behavioral system that becomes active
when the child is secure provides survival advantages to the child: caregiver as a "secure base
from which to explore" (Ainsworth, 1969).
Three attachment patterns were identified by observing one-year olds’ attachment
behavior in “the strange situation” (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). In this laboratory
paradigm, when the primary caregiver (typically the mother) left the room, left the baby alone
and returned later, the baby’s responses were observed. If the baby welcomed the caregiver upon
her return and was easily comforted, they were classified as secure. If ambivalent responses and
inability to be comforted were shown, an anxious-resistant pattern was identified. If the baby
avoided the caregiver or interactions with the caregiver, this is categorized as an avoidant
attachment style.
The infant attachment process was adapted to conceptualize adult romantic love as an
attachment process, as adult romantic love was argued to bear many similarities to the infant
attachment process (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Just as infants attach to their parents, adults attach
to their romantic partners and exhibit attachment styles that are similar to the three attachment
styles identified from infant attachment research: secure, anxious, and avoidant. Securely
attached adults feel comfortable with being close to someone and trust that their romantic partner
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

9
will respond to their needs. Anxiously attached adults are concerned that their romantic partner
will not respond to their needs and support them, ergo they encounter love as preoccupying,
struggling to fuse themselves with their romantic partner. Avoidant adults tend to not feel
comfortable with being close to someone else, ergo they avoid close relationships to avoid
further rejection.
These attachment styles for adult attachment are measured with two dimensions: anxiety
and avoidance (Collins & Read, 1990). Attachment anxiety refers to the extent to which people
feel secure about the availability and responsiveness of their significant other (e.g. if I trust that
my romantic partner will get back to me). Attachment avoidance describes the extent to which
people feel comfortable being close to or depending on others (e.g. whether I enjoy being around
my romantic partner).

PPC and insecure attachment
PPC may facilitate insecure attachment by increasing anxiety about the child’s
relationship with the parent. When parents induce guilt, shame children, withhold love from
them, invalidate feelings, and ignore children until they obey (essentially what psychologically
controlling parents do), children would become sensitive to threats to secure attachment. Threats
to secure attachment mean that children may not have a secure base to which to return or the
protection they require for survival. Children’s uncertainty of their caregivers’ protection would
make them anxious.
Moreover, PPC may also contribute to insecure attachment by increasing avoidance.
Parents’ repeated attempts to change and control children – what to do and even how to feel –
would make children uncomfortable with being around their parents. Psychologically controlling
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

10
parents would disapprove of children’s actions and invalidate their feelings for the parents’
benefit. These threats to their identity and self would motivate children to run away from their
parents. Additionally, because psychologically controlling parents gave conditional attention to
their children in exchange for children’s obedience, children may wonder about people’s ulterior
motives when anyone tries to build a relationship with them. Hence children of psychologically
controlling parents may try to avoid relationships in general to avoid further rejection and
manipulation. PPC can foster high avoidance in children.
Empirically, there are a few studies on the relationship of PPC and attachment. Maternal
psychological control (mPC) and paternal psychological control (pPC) perceived by adolescents
were positively correlated with attachment anxiety in Belgium and Turkey, and pPC was
positively correlated with attachment avoidance in Belgium (Güngör & Bornstein, 2010). In
addition, PPC perceived by adolescents predicted more attachment anxiety, avoidance, and
increased the degree to which they care about what other people think about their romantic
relationship (Pittman, Kerpelman, Soto, & Adler-Baeder, 2012). Moreover PPC perceived by
adolescents predicted insecure attachment in Denmark (Breinholst, Esbjørn, & Reinholdt-Dunne,
2015) and China, which in turn predicted insecure peer attachment (Cai, Hardy, Olsen, Nelson,
& Yamawaki, 2013).

Attachment anxiety and externalizing
The high anxiety from insecure attachment that resulted from PPC may facilitate
relationship aggression. Anxious people do not have the felt security that secure attachment
provides, ergo their needs for secure attachment have not been met. When people’s goals are
blocked, they may get frustrated. This frustration may come out as aggression, as the Frustration-
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

11
Aggression hypothesis (Berkowitz, 1989; Dollard, Miller, Doob, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939; Miller,
1941) suggests. Empirically, previous work showed people endorsed aggressive actions when
achieving their goals was obstructed (Choe & Min, 2011).
In addition, aggression can arise when people are threatened with losing something
valuable to them. When adolescents are sensitive to a threat to secure attachment and are already
anxious as a result of PPC, adolescents may construe their romantic partner’s behavior as a threat
to their relationship and react to an even slight threat to their attachment.
Moreover, unsuccessful attempts to regulate their anxiety and gain secure attachment
may lead to outbursts. Consistent with this, relationship anxiety predicted psychological
aggression: lowering partner’s self-esteem and making them closer to them (McDermott, Cheng,
Lopez, McKelvey, & Bateman, 2017).
Previous results buttress this hypothesis about insecure attachment and relationship
aggression. Attachment anxiety predicted psychological and physical aggression in women,
among couples who had been living together more than 12 months in Canada (Lafontaine &
Lussier, 2005). Attachment anxiety was positively correlated with psychological and physical
violence as measured by the revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS, Straus, Hamby, Boney-
McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) in couples in long term romantic relationships – 7 years on average
(Godbout, Dutton, Lussier, & Sabourin, 2009). Attachment anxiety was positively correlated
with psychological aggression from the CTS, and attachment anxiety was positively correlated
with violence perpetration and victimization as measured by the Physical Violence subscale from
CTS in veterans seeking treatment in either the Posttraumatic Stress Program (PTSP) or
Substance Use Disorders Program (SUDP) (Owens et al., 2014). Yet no study has been done to
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

12
examine whether insecure attachment might be a possible underlying mechanism that connects
PPC to relationship aggression.

Attachment avoidance and externalizing
High avoidance due to PPC may predict psychological aggression toward romantic
partners. Psychologically controlled children are uncomfortable being around their parents. By
extension, they may experience discomfort around their romantic partners, significant attachment
figures during emerging adulthood. Then they may try to control closeness and create distance
between their romantic partners and themselves by exhibiting aggression (Gormley, 2005).
Empirically, attachment avoidance was reported to be associated with a hostile and aggressive
interpersonal style (Cummings-Robeau, Lopez, & Rice, 2009). A few studies buttress this
hypothesis of the relationship between attachment avoidance and psychological aggression.
Attachment avoidance predicted psychological aggression in men in couples who had been living
together more than 12 months in Canada (Lafontaine & Lussier, 2005). Attachment avoidance
was positively correlated with psychological and physical violence as measured by the revised
CTS in couples in long term romantic relationships – 7 years on average (Godbout et al., 2009).
Attachment avoidance was positively correlated with psychological aggression as measured by
the CTS in veterans seeking treatment in either the Posttraumatic Stress Program (PTSP) or
Substance Use Disorders Program (SUDP) (Owens et al., 2014). A recent study showed that
avoidance predicted psychological aggression: pushing their partner away (McDermott et al.,
2017).
High avoidance resulting from PPC may lead to externalizing behaviors other than
aggression, such as delinquency. Avoidant people may have given up felt security from their
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

13
caregivers and stopped seeking felt security. They may disengage from their caregivers and
engage in delinquent behaviors. In addition, people with high avoidance may not care about
other people’s opinion or norms and engage in deviant behaviors: skip school, steal, smoke, have
(unprotected) sex, and use drugs.

Insecure attachment and delinquency
Previous work discussed how insecure attachment (without differentiating anxiety and
avoidance) predicts delinquency. One rationale is based on Social Control theory (Hirschi,
1969), which conceptualizes attachment as internalizing conventional norms of society. If
juveniles are not strongly attached to their attachment figures, they do not care about norms and
expectations from their attachment figures and are likely to succumb to delinquent impulses
(Hirschi, 1969). Moreover, inability to show affection to others and delinquency were reported
when infant attachment was disturbed (Bowlby, 1944). Since infant attachment is closely
associated with adult attachment (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), disturbed adult attachment may
predict their delinquency.
Previous research showed a relation between insecure attachment and externalizing
behaviors, although the anxiety and avoidance dimensions were not separately examined. A
meta-analysis found a significant link between attachment to parents and delinquency (Hoeve et
al., 2012). Insecure attachment predicted delinquency: the number of times adolescents engaged
in illegal behaviors that they reported to interviewers (Allen et al., 2002). A link between
insecure attachment and delinquency was reported in a review paper (Savage, 2014). Moreover a
theoretical article used insecure attachment to caregivers to explain delinquency in adolescence
(Terrion, 2015). Insecure attachment measured by adolescents’ trust in the availability and
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

14
sensitivity of the attachment figure, the quality of communication, and the extent of anger and
alienation in the relationship with the attachment figure predicted more delinquency: the sum of
adolescents participating in various delinquent acts such as property damage, property and theft,
violent acts, weapon possession, drugs possession and dealing, and cybercrime (de Vries, Hoeve,
Stams, & Asscher, 2016).

Jealousy and externalizing
Insecure attachment, indicated by high anxiety and avoidance, is not the only outcome of
PPC. Lack of secure attachment with their parents can lead to jealousy, for jealousy is about
wanting what one does not have. Jealousy was defined as the negative emotion resulting from
actual or threatened loss of love to a rival (Mathes & Severa, 1981). If adolescents were worried
about losing secure attachment with their parents, they may feel inclined to guard their romantic
relationship by being jealous and possessive in order to not lose secure attachment again. This
jealousy can result in relationship aggression. To prevent their romantic partner from leaving
them and also to express their dissatisfaction toward their romantic partner’s behaviors for not
being securely attached to them, people may exert aggression: breaking romantic partner’s
belongings and threatening to leave them. Jealousy due to PPC and insecure attachment may
foster relationship aggression.
Study results support this hypothesized link between jealousy and aggression. Jealousy
reported by husbands predicted physical abuse on the CTS by husband and wife (Russell &
Wells, 2000). Jealousy was positively correlated with verbal and physical aggression on the CTS
in emerging adults (Wigman, Graham-Kevan, & Archer, 2008).
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

15
Lastly, this jealousy from PPC may predict later delinquency as well. Jealousy reflects
one’s sense of lacking something that matters to them. In this case, adolescents lost secure
attachment from their parents. When one’s internal need is thwarted, one may adopt extrinsic
goals to fulfill their need from outside (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Everyone has a need for secure
attachment and felt security, and if it is not met, adolescents may endeavor to compensate for
their loss by lying to get something they want, stealing, and vandalizing. Because of the close
relationship between jealousy and anxiety, I expect the same kind of relationships of jealousy
with externalizing behaviors that I have reviewed above for anxiety and externalizing.

The most consistent mediator
Among anxiety, avoidance, and jealousy, I test which mediator most consistently
mediates the relationship between PPC and externalizing. Previous research presented two
different arguments. One line of research showed that anxiety predicted aggression more
strongly than avoidance (Dutton & White, 2012; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). However, other
researchers reported that avoidance more strongly predicted negative developmental outcomes
(Lawson & Malnar, 2011). I will inspect whether anxiety or avoidance has stronger effects in
externalizing or whether jealousy has more consistent or strong impacts than anxiety or
avoidance in externalizing.

Gender differences
When adolescents notice PPC from their parents, it is possible that boys and girls respond
to PPC differently. Based on previous studies showing that men are more avoidant than women
(Schmitt, 2003) and women are more anxious than men (Turner, 1991), it may be the case that
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

16
boys become more avoidant than girls and girls more anxious than boys responding to PPC.
However, it is also possible that gender differences do not take place if PPC interferes with
children’s personality and emotional development regardless of their gender. I will examine if
gender differences based on the gender of the adolescent exists in the association among PPC,
insecure attachment, and externalizing.
In addition, an effect by the gender of the parent may exist. Mothers and fathers may
contribute to children’s development differently. It is possible that PPC by mothers, but not
fathers, facilitates insecure attachment, which then predicts externalizing behaviors.
Alternatively, both maternal psychological control (mPC) and paternal psychological control
(pPC) may hamper children’s personality and emotional development. Yet fathering has been
neglected in the previous research literature (Cabrera, Volling, & Barr, 2018); only a few studies
investigated pPC in personality and emotional development. Therefore, I will investigate if the
gender of the parent impacts this association among PPC, insecure attachment, and externalizing.

Developmental frame: From adolescence to emerging adulthood
I examine perceived PPC at age 16, attachment at age 18, and externalizing at age 24. I
reason that parent-adolescent relationships may influence the nature of romantic relationships in
emerging adulthood. Parent-adolescent conflict has been consistently shown in mid and late
adolescence around ages 15 and 16 in a meta-analysis in all four types of dyads – mother-son,
mother-daughter, father-son, and father-daughter (Laursen, Coy, & Collins, 1998), underscoring
the importance of quality of parent-adolescent relationship.
Further, emerging adults – from age 18 to age 25 – explore love in more intimate and
serious ways than during adolescence (Arnett, 2000). Dating in emerging adulthood tends to be
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

17
more exclusive than adolescence, and emerging adulthood is a developmentally vulnerable
period for romantic relationships (Arnett, 2000). Therefore, examining how parent-child
relationship quality during adolescence (age 16) might influence romantic relationships in the
beginning of emerging adulthood (age 18) and later (age 24) can shed light on how people may
transfer their bond from their parents to their romantic partners.

Current Study
The current longitudinal study examined associations between PPC and externalizing
behavior problems. Specifically, I hypothesized that insecure attachment – relationship anxiety
and relationship avoidance – and jealousy at age 18 mediates the relation between perceived PPC
at age 16 and externalizing behaviors at age 24 – psychological aggression toward romantic
partners and delinquency in general. In addition, I inspected which mediator among anxiety,
avoidance, and jealousy had the most consistent and strongest effect in these mediation models.
Finally, I evaluated whether the hypothesized mediated paths differ by either parent’s gender or
the participants’ own gender.

Method
Participants
Data were drawn from the Child Development Project (CDP), a longitudinal study
focusing on children’s social development and adjustment (Dodge et al., 1990). CDP has
multiple study sites including Auburn University, Indiana University, and Duke University. The
study has followed 585 children from two cohorts recruited in consecutive years, 1987 and 1988,
from Nashville, TN; Knoxville, TN; and Bloomington, IN. At age 5, 176 children were recruited
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

18
from Bloomington, 199 from Knoxville, and 200 from Nashville, and the site information about
10 children is missing. There were no differences among the three sites on the measures I used.
The children were recruited the year before they entered kindergarten, and annual data
were obtained. At age 5, 302 children were recruited as cohort 1, and 273 children as cohort 2,
and the cohort information about 10 children is missing. Originally, 281 female and 304 male
participants were recruited at age 5. The sample was predominantly White: 477 White, 97 Black,
and 11 other races. Most parents were married: either parent of 406 children married, 150 single
parent, and 26 other. In addition, socio-economic status (SES) was measured by taking the
parents’ years of education and occupation (Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994), and calculating a
composite measure that possibly ranged from 8 to 66. For this sample, the SES measure varies:
M=39.53 and SD=14.01.

Measures
Independent variable: parental psychological control at age 16.
Psychological and Behavioral Control at age 16 was used for perceived PPC. Original
items for this measure were adopted from different scales: parental monitoring items were taken
from Brown, Mounts, Lamborn, & Steinberg (1993) and Dishion, Patterson, Stoolmiller, &
Skinner (1991) and psychological control items from Barber (1996). Because CDP’s
Psychological and Behavioral Control entails parental monitoring and knowledge as well as
PPC, items specifically for PPC were chosen for further analyses.
To select items for PPC, first, items were checked if each item taps into PPC
conceptually. Then exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and reliability analyses were
performed. The results from conceptually examining items and factor analyses were identical;
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

19
the items that conceptually tap into PPC loaded on the same factor. Based on factor and
reliability analyses, 11 items were chosen for PPC. All items were identical for mother and father
as adolescents answered the same questions about their mother and father separately, and items
were reported on a 3-point scale: 1= not at all like him/her, 2= somewhat like him/her, and 3= a
lot like him/her. Table 1 shows items for perceived PPC at age 16. Cronbach’s alphas are .856
for mother and .833 for father.

Table 1. Psychological control items when adolescents reported perceived PPC at age 16
Items: Your mother (father) is a person who…
brings up past mistakes when s/he criticizes you
tries to change how you think and feel about things
is always trying to change how you feel or think about things
changes the subject whenever you have something to say
blames you for other family members' problems
finishes your sentences when you talk
goes back and forth between being warm and critical towards you
often changes her/his moods when with you
likes to be able to tell you how to think or feel all the time
is less friendly with you when you don't see things his/her way
often interrupts you

Mediators: attachment and jealousy at age 18.
Attachment: shortened relationships style questionnaire at age 18.
CDP researchers developed items assessing attachment anxiety and avoidance. The
measure comprises 18 items: 11 items for anxiety and seven items for avoidance. 13 items
concern romantic relationships and five any relationships people have. Three categories emerged
after checking the face validity of the items: avoidance about romantic relationships with seven
items (e.g. I find it difficult to depend on other people), anxiety about romantic relationships with
six items (e.g. I often worry that romantic partners don’t really love me), and anxiety about
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

20
general relationships with five items (e.g. I worry a great deal about being left alone and having
to take care of myself). This scale was answered on a 5-point scale: not at all like me as 1,
somewhat like me as 3, and very much like me as 5. Anxiety items were composited together
regardless of romantic relationships or general relationships; they are similar conceptually and
highly correlated with each other (r = .908, p < .0001), and they did not show any differences in
predicting the outcome measures. Items and categories are reported in Table 2. Cronbach’s
alphas are 0.868 for anxiety and 0.695 for avoidance.

Table 2. Attachment items reported at age 18
Categories Items
Avoidance
I find it difficult to depend on other people.
I am comfortable without close emotional relationships.
I am not sure that I can always depend on others to be there when I need them.
I find it difficult to trust others completely.
I want emotionally close relationships.
I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others.
I prefer not to depend on others.
Anxiety
(romantic)
I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others.
I often worry that romantic partners don’t really love me.
I worry that others don’t value me as much as I value them.
People are never there when I need them.
I often worry that romantic partners won’t want to stay with me.
I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like.
Anxiety
(general)
I worry a great deal about being left alone and having to take care of myself.
I’ll do something desperate to prevent a person I love from abandoning me.
Being alone, without the help of someone close to depend on, really frightens
me.
I feel that most people think poorly of me.
I seem to create situations with others in which I get hurt or feel rejected.

PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

21
Jealousy: shortened Interpersonal Jealousy Scale at age 18.
The original Interpersonal Jealousy Scale (Mathes & Severa, 1981) consists of 28 items.
Seven items of the original scale were used for CDP, and items were answered on a 9-point
scale: 1 = absolutely false; disagree completely, 2 = definitely false, 3 = false, 4 = slightly false, 5
= neither true or false, 6 = slightly true, 7 = true, 8 = definitely true, and 9 = absolutely true;
agree completely. A sample item is “If my partner were to help someone of the opposite sex with
work or homework, I would feel suspicious.” The seven items are reported in Table 3.
Cronbach’s alpha is 0.837.

Table 3. Jealousy items reported at age 18
Items
If my partner were to help someone of the opposite sex with work or
homework, I would feel suspicious.
If my partner and I went to a party and I lost sight of him/her, I would
become jealous.
If my partner were to become very close to someone of the opposite
sex, I would feel very unhappy and/or angry.
It would bother me if my partner flirted with someone of the opposite
sex.
If someone of the opposite sex were to pay attention to my partner, I
would become possessive of my him/her.
I like to find fault with my partner’s old dates.
I feel possessive toward my partner.

Dependent variables: relationship aggression and general externalizing behaviors at
age 24.
Relationship aggression: Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) at age 24.
The revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus et al, 1996; Straus, 1979) was administered at
age 24. The CTS entails six categories: psychological aggression, physical assault, sexual
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

22
coercion, injury, reasoning, and negotiation. Psychological aggression, physical assault, and
sexual coercion entail different types of relationship aggression, injury measured how much they
are injured by their romantic partners, and reasoning and negotiation show how well they
manage their relationships (e.g. talked about issues calmly). Since my interest is how much
relationship aggression psychologically controlled children exert toward their romantic partners,
the three types of relationship outcome measures were used for further analyses: psychological
aggression, physical assault, and sexual coercion.
Psychological aggression in the revised CTS includes items from verbal aggression in the
original CTS (e.g. “I yelled or insulted or swore”) and new items for the revised CTS (e.g. “I
threatened to hit or throw something,” “I destroyed something belonging to my partner.”).
Physical assault (revised CTS) includes some of the items for violence from the original CTS
such as “I pushed or shoved my partner” and new items such as “I threw something that could
hurt.” Sexual coercion was added to the revised CTS. An example item is “I used force to make
my partner have sex with me.” The instruction says “If you don’t have a boyfriend/girlfriend
currently, please skip this questionnaire and proceed to the next questionnaire.” The question
was asked on top: How often did this happen? Then each behavior was listed as items (reported
in Table 7). Answer options were: 1 = Once in the past year, 2 = Twice in the past year, 4 = 3-5
times in the past year, 8 = 6-10 times in the past year, 15 = 11-20 times in the past year, 20+ =
More than 20 times in the past year, P = Not in the past year, but it did happen before, and 0 =
This has never happened. Cronbach’s alphas are 0.772. for psychological aggression, 0.824 for
physical assault, and -.005 for sexual coercion. Cronbach’s alpha for sexual coercion is
problematic, and it seems to be related to having too few items (only three items), mostly zeros,
and a lot of missing data. One item has only zeros; no one answered that they used threats to
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

23
make their partners have sex. Tetrachoric correlation between the other two items is 0.34. I
performed mediation analyses for sexual coercion as well to show all results and in case an
interesting pattern emerges, but sexual coercion is not my focal outcome. Items are shown in
Table 4.

Table 4. Relationship aggression items reported at age 24
sub-scales
Items
Psychological aggression
I destroyed something that belongs to my partner
I did something to spite my partner
I insulted or swore
I shouted or yelled
I stomped out of the room
I threatened to hit or throw something
I put down my partner's appearance or abilities
Physical assault
I beat up my partner
I choked my partner
I grabbed partner
I kicked partner
I punched or hit partner with something
I pushed or shoved my partner
I slammed my partner against a wall
I slapped partner
I threw something that could hurt
I twisted partner's arm or pulled hair
I used a knife or gun on my partner
Sexual coercion
I insisted my partner have sex when my partner
did not want to
I used force to make my partner have sex with
me
I used threats to make my partner have sex

PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

24
Externalizing in general (Delinquency and aggression): Young Adults Behavior
Questionnaire.
CDP researchers wrote the items of the Young Adult Behavior questionnaire.
Delinquency and aggression survey items were chosen based on the conceptualization of
CBCL’s delinquency (e.g. lying, stealing, and vandalizing) and aggression (e.g. being cruel to
people and animals) items. Items asked participants (the child) about their behavior during the
past 12 months. Questions typically asked the frequency of a certain externalizing behavior.
Cronbach’s alpha is 0.686 for aggression. Since Delinquency is an index, Cronbach’s alpha is
not reported for it. Items are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Externalizing in general (delinquency and aggression) items reported at age 24
sub-scales During the past 12 months, how many times have you … ?
delinquency
lied to get something that you wanted or to avoid doing
something that you did not want to do
deliberately set fire to a house, building, car or other
property with the purpose of causing serious damage
deliberately damaged or destroyed property that did not
belong to you (other than fire setting)
avoided paying for things such as movies, bus, food, or
computer services by sneaking in or cheating or stealing
broken into someone else’s house, building, or car
stolen while confronting someone, like in a mugging, purse
snatching, or extortion
stolen items secretly, such as through shoplifting or forgery
gone joyriding, that is, taken a motor vehicle, such as a car
or motorcycle, for a ride or drive without the owner’s
permission
aggression
bullied, threatened, or intimidated someone else
physically cruel to someone else (causing harm)
physically cruel to an animal (causing harm)
started a physical fight with someone else, where you hurt
that person
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

25
gotten into a fight or hit someone
threatened anyone with a weapon or with the idea of
seriously hurting or killing them
used a weapon that can cause serious physical harm to others
(like a bat, brick, broken bottle, knife, or gun)
used a weapon, force, or strong-arm methods in order to get
money or things from people
involved in a gang fight
currently in gang (yes or no)
forced someone into sexual activity with you

Data Analyses
Scoring measurements.
Means across the items were calculated for perceived PPC (separately for mother and
father), anxiety, avoidance, and jealousy. Continuous anxiety and avoidance scores were used for
further analyses to predict externalizing behaviors.
Means of the outcomes – psychological aggression, physical assault, and sexual coercion
toward romantic partners and delinquency and aggression in general – are highly positively
skewed; they need to be fit to the negative binomial distribution. I first tried to dichotomize the
composite means for the outcomes: one if the means are bigger than zero and zero if the means
are zero. However, this loses too much information and does not reflect the relationship
aggression I want to capture; participants who yelled at their romantic partner only one time are
coded as one (psychologically aggressive) and the others zero (not psychologically aggressive).
Therefore I dichotomized each item – one for frequencies more than zero and zero for zero, and
then I summed the dichotomized items. For all five categories of externalizing behaviors, I
calculated the number of individual behaviors within that category that were reported at least
once. I used na.rm=FALSE option in R to mark the participants who did not answer any item as
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

26
missing; hence those who did not answer any item for an outcome measure became missing for
the outcome measure.

Analytic Sample.
Since measures of relationship aggression toward romantic partners – psychological
aggression, physical assault, and sexual coercion – require romantic partners to answer the items,
only the participants who had romantic partners at age 24 could answer the relationship
aggression measures. Because I need to analyze the perceived PPC and attachment measures
from only the people who answered about relationship aggression measures at age 24, the
participants who answered the relationship aggression measures about their romantic partners at
age 24 were chosen and entered into further analyses. However, externalizing in general –
delinquency and aggression – at age 24 did not require having a romantic partner to be able to
answer the items. Hence all participants were entered into the analyses for delinquency and
aggression.
In addition, to examine fathers’ roles in this association among PPC, insecure attachment,
and externalizing, I want to compare mPC models with pPC models. Ergo the participants who
answered about both their mother and father at age 16 were chosen for further analyses. Taken
together, 221 participants were chosen for relationship aggression measures and 364 participants
for externalizing in general (delinquency and aggression).

PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

27
Analytic plan
Basic analyses.
R (Gentleman & Ihaka, 1997) software was used for cleaning the data and choosing the
participants who meet the criteria, and the package psych (Revelle, 2005) in R was used for
descriptive statistics and correlation analyses. The corrplot package (Wei & Simko, 2016) was
used for a correlation plot. The CTT package (Willse, 2014) was used for reliability analysis.

Mediation and path analyses.
Mediation analyses with path models were implemented in MPlus (Version 7.4) (Muthén
& Muthén, 1988-2017). The outcome measures were fit to the negative binomial distribution.
Gender differences were examined with multiple group analyses (Jöreskog, 1971); parameters
were constrained to be the same between female and male subjects, and allowed to be freely
estimated, and then the two models were tested for their possible significant differences. Missing
data was dealt with using the Full Information Maximum Likelihood method, and the Bootstrap
method was adopted with 1,000 iterations. Fit measures were not generated due to completely
saturated models.
The main model contains: perceived PPC at age 16 (mPC and pPC separately) –
attachment anxiety or avoidance or jealousy at age 18 (respectively as a mediator) –
psychological aggression toward romantic partners or delinquency in general at age 24
(respectively). First, each individual mediator was entered respectively with perceived PPC and
the main outcomes to inspect whether each mediator significantly mediates the relationship
between perceived PPC and the main outcomes: psychological aggression and delinquency. Then
all three mediators were entered together in one mediation model to investigate possible relative
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

28
importance of the three mediators. After running models for the main outcomes (psychological
aggression and delinquency), physical assault and sexual coercion toward romantic partners and
aggression in general were inspected as well. Gender differences were examined first by running
separate models for men and women. When significant gender differences were not found, men
and women were entered into the same model. Figure 1 shows diagrams for the mediation
analyses with path models.

Figure 1. Mediation diagrams (models done for mPC and pPC separately and each of the subscales of relationship
aggression – psychological aggression, physical assault, and sexual coercion – and externalizing – delinquency and
aggression).

Results
Descriptive statistics
Tables 6 and 7 show descriptive statistics for the two samples: relationship aggression
and externalizing in general. Predictors and outcomes are positively skewed while mediators
seem normally distributed.
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

29

Table 6. Descriptive statistics of the relationship aggression sample
N mean SD median min max range skew kurtosis SE
perceived mPC 16 221 1.467 0.439 1.364 1 3 2 1.289 1.180 0.030
perceived pPC 16 221 1.401 0.365 1.273 1 2.727 1.727 1.139 0.953 0.025
Attachment Anxiety 18 207 1.727 0.636 1.545 1 3.818 2.818 1.122 0.910 0.044
Attachment Avoidance
18
207 2.483 0.723 2.429 1 5 4 0.708 0.601 0.05
Jealousy 18 185 3.928 1.544 3.857 1 9 8 0.193 -0.417 0.114
Psychological
Aggression 24*
221 2.362 1.704 2 0 7 7 0.383 -0.472 0.115
Physical Assault 24* 220 0.482 1.226 0 0 7 7 3.072 9.953 0.083
Sexual Coercion 24* 221 0.036 0.187 0 0 1 1 4.932 22.431 0.013
Note. 1. *: sum of dichotomized items

Table 7. Descriptive statistics of the externalizing in general sample
N mean SD median min max range skew kurtosis SE
perceived mPC 16 364 1.441 0.416 1.364 1 3 2 1.310 1.364 0.022
perceived pPC 16 364 1.391 0.365 1.273 1 2.818 1.818 1.188 1.192 0.019
Attachment Anxiety 18 332 1.788 0.682 1.636 1 4.545 3.545 1.167 1.393 0.037
Attachment Avoidance
18
332 2.544 0.769 2.429 1 5 4 0.629 0.265 0.042
Jealousy 18 294 3.882 1.532 3.714 1 9 8 0.339 -0.245 0.089
Delinquency 24* 321 0.567 0.713 0 0 3 3 1.258 1.554 0.04
Aggression 24* 325 0.302 0.759 0 0 4 4 3.034 9.603 0.042
Note. 2. *: sum of dichotomized items

Correlation
Relationship aggression toward romantic partners.
Everything was positively correlated except for sexual coercion.

PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

30

Figure 2. Correlation of the relationship aggression sample
Note. 3. MPC=maternal psychological control (perceived), PPC=paternal psychological control (perceived), Anx=Anxiety,
Av=Avoidance, J=Jealousy, PA=Psychological aggression, PhA=Physical assault, and SC=Sexual coercion

Table 8. Correlation coefficients with significant values of the relationship aggression sample

perceived
mPC 16
perceived
pPC 16
Anxiety 18
Avoidance
18
Jealousy
18
Psychological
Aggression
24*
Physical
Assault 24*
Sexual
Coercion 24*
perceived mPC 16 1

perceived pPC 16 0.399**** 1

Anxiety 18 0.26*** 0.273**** 1

Avoidance 18 0.316**** 0.159* 0.477**** 1

Jealousy 18 0.059 0.201** 0.319**** 0.087 1

Psychological
Aggression 24
0.088 0.038 0.178** 0.154* 0.158* 1

Physical Assault 24 0.058 0.075 0.111 0.074 0.174* 0.548**** 1

Sexual Coercion 24 -0.026 -0.038 -0.116 0.07 0.105 0.158* -0.036 1
p: **** .0001 *** .001 ** .01 * .05
1 0.4
1
0.26
0.27
1
0.32
0.16
0.48
1
0.06
0.2
0.32
0.09
1
0.09
0.04
0.18
0.15
0.16
1
0.06
0.07
0.11
0.07
0.17
0.55
1
-0.03
-0.04
-0.12
0.07
0.1
0.16
-0.04
1
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
MPC16
PPC16
Anx18
Av18
J18
PA24
PhA24
SC24
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

31
Externalizing in general.
All measures are positively correlated.

Figure 3. Correlation of the externalizing in general sample
Note. 4. MPC=maternal psychological control (perceived), PPC=paternal psychological control (perceived), Anx=Anxiety,
Av=Avoidance, J=Jealousy, D=Delinquency in general, and A=Aggression in general
Table 9. Correlation coefficients with significant values of externalizing in general sample

perceived
mPC 16
perceived
pPC 16
Anxiety
18
Avoidance
18
Jealousy
18
Delinquency
24*
Aggression
24*
perceived mPC 16 1

perceived pPC 16 0.439**** 1

Anxiety 18 0.242**** 0.193*** 1

Avoidance 18 0.269**** 0.130* 0.538**** 1

Jealousy 18 0.123 0.166** 0.34**** 0.142* 1

Delinquency 24 -0.007 0.056 0.23**** 0.186*** 0.152* 1

1 0.44
1
0.24
0.19
1
0.27
0.13
0.54
1
0.12
0.17
0.34
0.14
1
-0.01
0.06
0.23
0.19
0.15
1
0.14
0.19
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.22
1
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
MPC16
PPC16
Anx18
Av18
J18
D24
A24
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

32
Aggression 24 0.143* 0.186*** 0.077 0.080 0.105 0.221**** 1
p: **** .0001 *** .001 ** .01 * .05

Mediation
I report the results in the following order: models with all subjects, the most consistent
mediator, gender differences by the gender of the adolescent, and gender differences by the
gender of the parent. When p-values and CI did not agree with each other, 95% CIs from the
Bootstrap method were used to check the significance of each path; the CIs came from the
Bootstrap with 1,000 iterations.

Relationship aggression toward romantic partners.
The path models with perceived mPC at age 16, anxiety at age 18, and psychological
aggression at age 24 are significant. The path models between perceived pPC at age 16 and
psychological aggression at age 24, anxiety, avoidance, and jealousy at age 18 all are significant
when they are entered in the models separately. When all three mediators were entered in one
mediation model, no mediator remains significant.
For physical assault, no model about perceived mPC was significant. However, the path
model with perceived pPC at age 16, jealousy at age 18, and physical assault at age 24 is
significant. When adolescents at age 16 noticed that their father is emotionally manipulative and
intrusive, they are jealous at age 18 about their romantic partners, and then they hit and slap their
romantic partners at age 24.
For sexual coercion at age 24, the path models with perceived PPC (both mPC and pPC)
at age 16, anxiety at age 18 are significant. But the direction was negative; when adolescents at
age 16 thought their parents were psychologically controlling, they became anxious at age 18,
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

33
and they did not force their romantic partner to have sex with them at age 24. Table 10 shows the
results.

Externalizing in general.
When analyzed separately, the path models with anxiety, avoidance, and jealousy at age
18 are significant with perceived PPC (both mPC and pPC) and delinquency. When all three
were entered together, only anxiety at age 18 remains significant, with mPC at age 16 as the
predictor and delinquency at age 24 as an outcome.
No path model is significant in the models with aggression in general as the outcome and
anxiety, avoidance, and jealousy at age 18 as mediators. However, the c path between perceived
PPC and aggression in general was significant, which shows that perceived PPC at age 16
directly predicts aggression in general at age 24. The results are presented in the Table 11.

PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

34
Table 10. Mediation results from relationship aggression models
Models Predictors βa
Bootstrap
[95% CI] of
βa
Mediators βb
Bootstrap [95%
CI] of βb
βab
Bootstrap
[95% CI] of
βab
Outcomes βc
Bootstrap
[95% CI] of
βc
individual
mediator
models
Perceived
mPC
at age 16
0.373** [.152 .585] Anxiety at age 18 0.188* [.035 .328] 0.070* [.016 .152]
Psychological
aggression
at age 24
0.071 [-.119 .250]
0.524**** [.267 .782]
Avoidance at age
18
0.133 [-.013 .293] 0.070 [-.002 .178] 0.071 [-.110 .266]
0.165 [-.371 .694] Jealousy at age 18 0.067* [.008 .126] 0.011 [-.019 .067] 0.130 [-.024 .301]
3
mediators
altogether
0.373** [.152 .585] Anxiety at age 18 0.109 [-.082 .274]
NA NA 0.045 [-.144 .232]
0.522**** [.265 .769]
Avoidance at age
18
0.086 [-.084 .257]
0.201 [-.335 .750] Jealousy at age 18 0.051 [-.015 .110]
individual
mediator
models
Perceived
pPC
at age 16
0.471**** [.224 .723] Anxiety at age 18 0.201** [.042 .343] 0.095* [.023 .189] -.0.026 [-.264 .229]
0.297* [.011 .561]
Avoidance at age
18
0.145* [.008 .288] 0.043 [.004 .126] 0.033 [-.216 .278]
0.844*
[.272
1.536]
Jealousy at age 18 0.066* [.003 .129] 0.056 [.007 .147] 0.015 [-.227 .252]
3
mediators
altogether
0.470**** [.226 .722] Anxiety at age 18 0.117 [-.079 .285]
NA NA -0.059 [-.303 203]
0.298* [.011 .559]
Avoidance at age
18
0.096 [-.070 .265]
0.863***
[.293
1.552]
Jealousy at age 18 0.052 [-.015 .113]
individual
mediator
models
Perceived
mPC
at age 16
0.376** [.154 .587] Anxiety at age 18 0.396 [-.186 .963] 0.149 [-.051 .462]
Physical assault
at age 24
0.305 [-.484 1.185]
0.526**** [.266 .773]
Avoidance at age
18
0.340 [-.117 .889] 0.178 [-.057 .512] 0.329 [-.469 1.185]
0.168 [-.370 .696] Jealousy at age 18 0.414**** [.201 .640] 0.070 [-.162 .362] 0.534 [-.220 1.386]
3
mediators
altogether
0.374** [.148 .582] Anxiety at age 18 0.237 [-.574 .927]
NA NA 0.461 [-.453 1.397]
0.524**** [.264 .767]
Avoidance at age
18
0.157 [-.471 .724]
0.206 [-.343 .754] Jealousy at age 18 0.398** [.142 .650]
individual
mediator
models
Perceived
pPC
at age 16
0.475**** [.230 .728] Anxiety at age 18 0.352 [-.313 .925] 0.167 [-.097 .534] 0.439 [-.633 1.586]
0.301* [.012 .561]
Avoidance at age
18
0.344 [-.086 .844] 0.104 [-.023 .367] 0.568 [-.367 1.694]
0.858*
[.279
1.546]
Jealousy at age 18 0.383** [.153 .620] 0.329* [.083 .762] 0.525 [-.443 1.620]
3
mediators
altogether
0.474**** [.229 .726] Anxiety at age 18 0.206 [-.704 .867]
NA NA 0.416 [-.671 1.580]
0.303* [.011 .561]
Avoidance at age
18
0.195 [-.406 .750]
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

35
0.878***
[.305
1.570]
Jealousy at age 18 0.368*** [.114 .633]
individual
mediator
models
Perceived
mPC
at age 16
0.379** [.156 .590] Anxiety at age 18 -1.798 [-4.037 -.474] -0.681
[-1.818
-.137]
Sexual coercion
at age 24
0.148
[-2.526
1.696]
0.527**** [.268 .786]
Avoidance at age
18
0.532 [-.772 1.771] 0.281
[-.415
1.123]
-0.661
[-.4.132
1.316]
0.169 [-.377 .701] Jealousy at age 18 0.355 [-.514 1.258] 0.060 [-.122 .628] -0.401
[-3.322
1.061]
3
mediators
altogether
0.378** [.155 .585] Anxiety at age 18 -3.710
[-10.339 -
1.507]
NA NA -0.653
[-5.947
1.243] 0.526**** [.264 .770]
Avoidance at age
18
1.822 [-.104 4.923]
0.212 [-.329 .764] Jealousy at age 18 0.563 [-.604 1.256]
individual
mediator
models
Perceived
pPC
at age 16
0.475**** [.228 .726] Anxiety at age 18 -1.666* [-4.061 -.386] -0.791
[-2.215
-.160]
-0.135
[-3.665
1.773]
0.305* [.015 .562]
Avoidance at age
18
0.474 [-.642 1.481] 0.145 [-.127 .743] -0.783
[-4.650
1.233]
0.847*
[.272
1.526]
Jealousy at age 18 0.394 [-.466 1.323] 0.334
[-.250
1.187]
-0.912 [-3.990 .860]
3
mediators
altogether
0.477**** [.234 .728] Anxiety at age 18 -3.791
[-11.423 -
1.545]
NA NA -0.781
[-11.329
1.188]
0.306* [.017 .562]
Avoidance at age
18
1.774 [-.008 4.932]
0.870***
[.290
1.549]
Jealousy at age 18 0.544 [-.657 1.161]
p: **** .0001 *** .001 ** .01 * .05

Table 11. Mediation results from externalizing in general models
Models Predictors βa
Bootstrap
[95% CI] of
βa
Mediators βb
Bootstrap [95%
CI] of βb
βab
Bootstrap
[95% CI] of
βab
Outcomes βc
Bootstrap
[95% CI] of
βc
individual
mediator
models
Perceived
mPC
at age 16
0.394**** [.215 .560]
Anxiety at age
18
0.387**** [.219 .558] 0.153*** [.071 .264]
Delinquency at
age 24
-0.187 [-.516 .100]
0.496**** [.287 .715]
Avoidance at age
18
0.311** [.109 .496] 0.154** [.061 .291] -0.182 [-.521 .114]
0.414 [.039 .876]
Jealousy at age
18
0.114* [.025 .203] 0.047 [.003 .138] -0.065 [-.399 .229]
0.394**** [.213 .560]
Anxiety at age
18
0.235* [.003 .479] NA NA -0.261 [-.594 .024]
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

36
3
mediators
altogether
0.497**** [.291 .718]
Avoidance at age
18
0.185 [-.070 .416]
0.438* [.013 .847]
Jealousy at age
18
0.075 [-.019 .167]
individual
mediator
models
Perceived
pPC
at age 16
0.360** [.143 .575]
Anxiety at age
18
0.360**** [.185 .534] 0.130* [.051 .254] 0.063 [-.313 .421]
0.272* [.058 .510]
Avoidance at age
18
0.276** [.083 .451] 0.075 [.013 .181] 0.125 [-.257 .476]
0.708** [.237 1.278]
Jealousy at age
18
0.109* [.014 .199] 0.077 [.017 .195] 0.122 [-.278 .458]
3
mediators
altogether
0.361** [.142 .574]
Anxiety at age
18
0.225 [-.018 .458]
NA NA 0.009 [-.364 .378] 0.274* [.062 .516]
Avoidance at age
18
0.151 [-.105 377]
0.697* [.223 1.273]
Jealousy at age
18
0.069 [-.033 .159]
individual
mediator
models
Perceived
mPC
at age 16
0.396**** [.221 .570]
Anxiety at age
18
0.101 [-.322 .487] 0.040 [-.128 .215]
Aggression at
age 24
0.654* [.176 1.190]
0.496**** [.287 .712]
Avoidance at age
18
0.096 [-.313 .478] 0.047 [-.151 .259] 0.647* [.140 1.158]
0.422 [-.003 .898]
Jealousy at age
18
0.152 [-.023 .312] 0.008 [-.001 .215] 0637* [.069 1.188]
3
mediators
altogether
0.242**** [.216 .560]
Anxiety at age
18
0.525* [-.540 .419]
NA NA -.358 [.075 1.092] 0.270**** [.291 .714]
Avoidance at age
18
0.467 [-.316 .514]
0.120* [.024 .851]
Jealousy at age
18
0.378 [-.031 .335]
individual
mediator
models
Perceived
pPC
at age 16
0.361** [.144 .576]
Anxiety at age
18
0.124 [-.311 .549] 0.045 [-.104 .253] 1.106**** [.475 1.685]
0.270* [.056 .505]
Avoidance at age
18
0.157 [-.223 .551] 0.042 [-.044 .207] 1.103**** [.636 1.630]
0.701*** [.226 1.246]
Jealousy at age
18
0.127 [-.039 .302] 0.089 [-.005 .286] 1.059** [.473 1.659]
3
mediators
altogether
0.361** [.143 .577]
Anxiety at age
18
-0.062 [-.593 .425]
NA NA 1.108** [.363 1.591] 0.273* [.063 .520]
Avoidance at age
18
0.163 [-.226 .549]
0.694* [.221 1.266]
Jealousy at age
18
0.123 [-.056 .290]
p: **** .0001 *** .001 ** .01 * .05

PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

37
The most consistent mediator.
Among anxiety, avoidance, and jealousy, the path models with anxiety are most
consistently significant when testing the relationship between perceived PPC and externalizing.
Most path models with anxiety as a mediator – psychological aggression and sexual coercion
toward romantic partner and delinquency in general – are significant even when the other
mediators are not significant. For the outcome of sexual coercion, the anxiety model was the
only significant path model, not avoidance or jealousy.

Gender differences: The gender of the adolescent.
Each path was tested for gender differences for all models: total 160 paths. As shown in
Table 12, the paths between perceived pPC to avoidance with relationship aggression outcomes
and jealousy to delinquency with perceived pPC are significant; males are more avoidant at age
18 than female subjects when they reported their pPC at age 16 in models with relationship
aggression outcomes, and women engaged in more delinquent behaviors than men at age 24
when they were jealous at age 18 (only when they noticed pPC, not mPC).

Table 12. Significant gender differences in mediation models
Model Predictor
Wald test:
value
Path Outcome
individual mediator
Perceived
pPC
4.313*
Perceived pPC-
Avoidance
Psychological
aggression
3 mediators
altogether
4.581*
individual mediator 4.276*
Physical assault
3 mediators
altogether
4.581*
individual mediator 4.276*
Sexual coercion
(SC)
3 mediators
altogether
4.581*
3 mediators
altogether
Perceived
mPC
5.060* Avoidance-SC
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

38
3 mediators
altogether
5.507*
Jealousy-SC
individual mediator
Perceived
pPC
589855.137
****
3 mediators
altogether
3.937* Jealousy-D
Delinquency
(D)
p: **** .0001 *** .001 ** .01 * .05

Gender differences: The gender of the parent.
Both mPC and pPC models are significant. My findings suggest that both mPC and pPC
perceived by adolescents at age 16 predicts insecure attachment at age 18, which then predicts
externalizing behaviors at age 24. It can be construed that both perceived mPC and pPC have
negative developmental outcomes, not just PPC from one parent.
Further, more models with pPC than mPC are significant. Models with only pPC, not
mPC, are significant with avoidance and jealousy as mediators and the outcome of psychological
aggression. Moreover, models with only pPC are significant with jealousy and physical assault
while mPC models with the outcome of physical assault were not significant. More significant
models with pPC were observed only with relationship aggression outcomes: psychological
aggression and physical assault. There are no differences based on the gender of the parent in the
models with the outcomes of externalizing in general – delinquency and aggression – and sexual
coercion toward romantic partners.

Discussion
The path models with anxiety, avoidance, and jealousy at age 18 are significant between
perceived PPC at age 16 and psychological aggression toward romantic partners and delinquency
in general at age 24. The three forms of insecure attachment – anxiety, avoidance, and jealousy –
all show significant path models for the main outcomes: psychological aggression and
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

39
delinquency. When adolescents at age 16 noticed that their parents were psychologically
controlling, they reported at age 18 that they were anxious that people would not respond to their
need, avoidant that they were not comfortable to be around romantic partners, and jealous that
their partners would give their affection and resources to another person. The degree of insecure
attachment at age 18 predicted the number of externalizing behaviors they reported at age 24:
that they yelled at their romantic partners, stomped out of the room, insulted them, and broke
things that belonged to their romantic partners and also that they lied to get something they
wanted, stole things, and vandalized. Not only did psychologically controlled children report
relationship aggression outcomes, but also they reported general externalizing problems.
My results support my proposal that PPC should be reframed, at least partially, in terms
of the role of insecure attachment. Restricting autonomy is the outcome of PPC, yet the
mechanism through which parents achieve the goal is withholding love and facilitating insecure
attachment. When adolescents perceived PPC at age 16, they reported more anxiety, avoidance,
and jealousy two years later. Then eight years later, they exhibited higher levels of psychological
aggression and delinquency.
Recent work has shown that relatedness – how connected I feel to the others around us
(Ryan & Deci, 2000) – more consistently and strongly predicts PPC’s indirect effects on
aggression than autonomy does (Choe & Read, in press). When emerging adults perceived PPC
from their primary caregivers, they also reported that their needs for autonomy, competence, and
relatedness (the three needs from the Self-determination theory, Ryan & Deci, 2000) were
thwarted, and this frustration of the three needs predicted their trait aggression as measured by
Buss and Perry (1992). However, relatedness frustration predicted all aggression subscales while
autonomy frustration did not (Choe & Read, in press). Taken together, the results suggest that
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

40
perhaps many of the negative developmental outcomes are from the insecure attachment that
PPC facilitates. To the best of my knowledge, this is one of the first papers (along with Choe and
Read, in press) to suggest that the impact of PPC on aggression and externalizing behaviors
should be thought of in terms of insecure attachment rather than autonomy granting and to
present the results buttressing the proposal.
My results do not support the Social learning theory of aggression (Bandura, 1978) in
explaining relationship aggression outcomes even though Social learning theory (Bandura, 1978)
has been cited most often as an explanation of why PPC predicts aggression. In all models with
relationship aggression toward romantic partners, perceived PPC at age 16 did not directly
predict relationship aggression; rather, the path models from perceived PPC to insecure
attachment and from insecure attachment to relationship aggression are found. My results
suggest that perceived PPC at age 16 facilitates insecure attachment at age 18, which then
promotes relationship aggression toward their romantic partners.
However, perceived PPC at age 16 directly predicts aggression in general at age 24 –
being cruel to people and animals in general (not toward their romantic partners) – and no
hypothesized path models with insecure attachment are statistically significant. This suggests
that cruelty to people and animals in general does not originate from insecure attachment. This
also suggests it is possible that adolescents notice PPC as aggression even though PPC is subtle
emotional manipulation without any physical aggression. My results suggest that relationship
aggression and aggression in general may be better explained if they were separately tested.
Also, more research is needed to examine how adolescents perceive PPC – if they really
perceived PPC as aggression or something else – and what other mediators/moderators explain
the link between PPC and aggression in general.
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

41
Among anxiety, avoidance, and jealousy, the path models with anxiety at age 18 are most
consistently significant. Most models with anxiety at age 18 were significant while ones with
avoidance and jealousy are not. This result is consistent with previous research that has shown
that anxiety predicted aggression more strongly than avoidance (Dutton & White, 2012;
Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007) rather than other researchers who reported that avoidance more
strongly predicted negative developmental outcomes (Lawson & Malnar, 2011). Hence, my
results add to the previous literature that anxiety predicts negative developmental outcomes more
than avoidance. It may be related to predictability and uncertainty that anxiety and avoidance
promote differently. Anxiety entails lack of predictability and high uncertainty while avoidance
is related to certainty. Anxious people do not know if or when their romantic partner will
respond to their needs. This uncertainty may facilitate aggression by acting out abruptly.
However, avoidant people may experience less uncertainty; they themselves are not comfortable
around their romantic partners, and they do not need to wait for their romantic partners’ actions
unlike anxious people. Therefore, avoidant people may less often act impulsively and less often
present undercontrolled behaviors (externalizing behaviors) than anxious people.
Differences due to the gender of the adolescent were rarely found. Only 10 paths out of
160 paths showed significant gender differences: more avoidance for boys than girls in perceived
pPC with the three relationship aggression outcomes in both individual path models and overall
path models (but not externalizing outcomes in general) and more jealousy for girls than boys to
delinquency with perceived pPC in the three mediator model. The negligible gender differences
suggest that PPC is detrimental to any adolescent regardless of their gender.
The finding of a stronger path from jealousy to delinquency for girls than for boys is
rather a new finding. When girls at age 18 reported that they were possessive toward their
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

42
romantic partners and insecure about their relationship, their jealousy at age 18 predicts their
later delinquent behaviors at age 24 – lying, stealing, and vandalizing – much more than boys. It
is possible that the course of actions may differ when girls and boys feel jealous; girls may try to
obtain something else instead by lying and stealing, and boys may engage in activities other than
lying and stealing (e.g. trying to win their romantic partners’ affection). It is noteworthy that this
gender difference in the link between jealousy and delinquency is found only with perceived
pPC, not perceived mPC; gender differences in the association between PPC and avoidance are
observed only with perceived pPC, not perceived mPC as well.
Some differences between fathering and mothering can be illuminated by my results.
Only for the association between perceived pPC (but not perceived mPC) and physical assault
toward romantic partners at age 24, is the path model with jealousy at age 18 significant. In
addition, only for the relationship between perceived pPC (but not perceived mPC) and
psychological aggression toward romantic partners at age 24, the path models with avoidance
and jealousy at age 18 are significant. Taken together, my results suggest that when adolescents
at age 16 notice that their fathers are emotionally manipulative and intrusive, they become
avoidant and jealous at age 18, and then their jealousy facilitates physical assault and their
avoidance and jealousy promote psychological aggression. But this did not happen when they
noticed that their mothers are psychologically controlling. This may be associated with warmth
that adolescents perceive from mother, but not father. It was shown that if mothers are warm, it
reduced the strength of the association between mPC and negative outcomes (Akcinar & Baydar,
2014). But if adolescents experience fathers as psychologically controlling and not warm, there
is no buffer for pPC’s detrimental effects. In addition, my results are consistent with an emerging
body of literature highlighting the importance of fathers in shaping developmental outcomes
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

43
among their offspring (Cabrera et al., 2018). My current work is one of the few papers that
reported pPC’s association with adolescent personality and emotional development.
While physical assault, sexual coercion, and aggression in general are not my focal
outcomes, they bring out noteworthy points. Only anxiety at age 18 mediates the relationship
between perceived PPC (both mPC and pPC separately) at age 16 and less sexual coercion at age
24. It seems reasonable that anxious people do not force their romantic partners to have sex with
them or insist on having sex with their partners. Additionally, physical assault at age 24 was
predicted only by jealousy at age 18 with only pPC, illuminating the role of fathering as
mentioned above. Further, there were no significant effects in any path models with the outcome
of aggression in general, suggesting the Social learning theory of aggression (Bandura, 1969)
may explain cruelty to people and animals, but not relationship aggression, as discussed above.
Future research can focus on insecure attachment rather than solely autonomy to examine
how and why PPC deters children’s personality and emotional development. Given the unique
contribution of perceived pPC, fathering, especially pPC should be researched more. My results
also suggest that relationship aggression and aggression in general may be better understood if
they are researched separately.

Conclusion
I argue that the impact of PPC should be reframed in terms of the role of insecure
attachment rather than viewing it solely in terms of autonomy granting. Anxiety, avoidance, and
jealousy all separately explain the link between perceived PPC and externalizing behaviors
toward romantic partners and in general. More negative developmental outcomes of PPC other
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

44
than externalizing may be better accounted for if PPC is examined in terms of its impact on
insecure attachment.
My findings can contribute to science, the practice of parenting, and policy making.
Parents can focus on facilitating secure attachment rather than adopting PPC to control their
children’s minds and behaviors. Once adolescents experienced PPC and exhibit externalizing
behaviors, practitioners can help them repair insecure attachment and satisfy their needs for felt
security in relationships. Moreover, interventions for PPC can focus on the insecure attachment
that PPC promotes, and policy makers can support research and public services to foster secure
attachment in families to reduce externalizing behaviors and prevent delinquency and crime in
adolescence and emerging adulthood.

PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

45
References
Abaied, J. L., Wagner, C., Breslend, N. L., & Flynn, M. (2016). Respiratory sinus arrhythmia as
a predictor of eating disorder symptoms in college students: Moderation by responses to
stress and parent psychological control. Eating Behaviors, 21, 109–115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2016.01.006
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1978). The classification of child psychopathology: A
review and analysis of empirical efforts. Psychological Bulletin, 85(6), 1275–1301.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.85.6.1275
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1969). Object relations, dependency, and attachment: a theoretical review
of the infant-mother relationship. Child Development, 40(4), 969.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1127008
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the strange situation. Hills-dale. NJ Eribaum.
Akcinar, B., & Baydar, N. (2014). Parental control is not unconditionally detrimental for
externalizing behaviors in early childhood. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 38(2), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025413513701
Allen, J. P., Marsh, P., McFarland, C., McElhaney, K. B., Land, D. J., Jodl, K. M., & Peck, S.
(2002). Attachment and autonomy as predictors of the development of social skills and
delinquency during midadolescence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
70(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.70.1.56
Armentrout, J. A., & Burger, G. K. (1972a). Children’s reports of parental child-rearing behavior
at five grade levels. Developmental Psychology, 7(1), 44–48.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032701
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

46
Armentrout, J. A., & Burger, G. K. (1972b). Factor analyses of college students’ recall of
parental child-rearing behaviors. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 121(1), 155–161.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1972.10533138
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through
the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.55.5.469
Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28(3), 12–
29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01621.x
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child
Development, 67(6), 3296–3319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01915.x
Baron, P., & MacGillivray, R. G. (1989). Depressive symptoms in adolescents as a function of
perceived parental behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research, 4(1), 50–62.
https://doi.org/10.1177/074355488941004
Bates, J. E. (1994). Youth Characteristics Questionnaire (YCQ) (Short Form) scoring and
psychometric information. Unpublished Manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Bean, R. A., Bush, K. R., McKenry, P. C., & Wilson, S. M. (2003). The impact of parental
support, behavioral control, and psychological control on the academic achievement and
self-esteem of African American and European American adolescents. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 18(5), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558403255070
Berge, J. M., Wall, M., Larson, N., Eisenberg, M. E., Loth, K. A., & Neumark-Sztainer, D.
(2014). The unique and additive associations of family functioning and parenting
practices with disordered eating behaviors in diverse adolescents. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 37(2), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-012-9478-1
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

47
Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation.
Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.59
Berman, N. C., Wheaton, M. G., & Abramowitz, J. S. (2013). Rigid rules of conduct and duty:
prediction of thought–action fusion. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 27(2), 83–95.
https://doi.org/10.1891/0889-8391.27.2.83
Bowlby, J. (1944). Forty-fMy juvenile thieves: Their characters and home life. The International
Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 25, 107–127.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment. V. Basic Books.
Breinholst, S., Esbjørn, B. H., & Reinholdt-Dunne, M. L. (2015). Effects of attachment and
rearing behavior on anxiety in normal developing youth: A mediational study.
Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 155–161.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.022
Brown, B. B., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S. D., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and peer
group affiliation in adolescence. Child Development, 64(2), 467–482.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02922.x
Brown, L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). Parenting styles: The impact on student achievement. Marriage
& Family Review, 43(1–2), 14–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494920802010140
Burger, G. K., & Armentrout, J. A. (1971). A factor analysis of fifth and sixth graders’ reports of
parental child-rearing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 4(3), 483–483.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030981
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 63(3), 452–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

48
Cabrera, N. J., Volling, B. L., & Barr, R. (2018). Fathers are parents, too! Widening the lens on
parenting for children’s development. Child Development Perspectives.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12275
Cai, M., Hardy, S. A., Olsen, J. A., Nelson, D. A., & Yamawaki, N. (2013). Adolescent–parent
attachment as a mediator of relations between parenting and adolescent social behavior
and wellbeing in China. International Journal of Psychology, 48(6), 1185–1190.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2013.774091
Choe, S. Y., & Min, K.-H. (2011). Who makes utilitarian judgments? The influences of emotions
on utilitarian judgments. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 580–592.
Choe, S. Y., & Read, S. J. (in preparation). Parental psychological control and externalizing
behaviors of children, adolescents, and emerging adults: A systemic review.
Developmental Review.
Choe, S. Y., & Read, S. J. (in press). Perceived parental psychological control has indirect
effects on aggression via need satisfaction and motivation for revenge. Journal Social
and Personal Relationships.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality
in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 644–663.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.644
Costa, S., Hausenblas, H. A., Oliva, P., Cuzzocrea, F., & Larcan, R. (2015). Perceived parental
psychological control and exercise dependence symptoms in competitive athletes.
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 13(1), 59–72.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-014-9512-3
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

49
Craddock, A. E., Church, W., & Sands, A. (2009). Family of origin characteristics as predictors
of perfectionism. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61(3), 136–144.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530802239326
Cross, H. J. (1969). College students’ memories of their parents: A factor analysis of the CRPBI.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 275–278.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027589
Cummings-Robeau, T. L., Lopez, F. G., & Rice, K. G. (2009). Attachment-related predictors of
college students’ problems with interpersonal sensitivity and aggression. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 28(3), 364–391.
https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2009.28.3.364
de Vries, S. L. A., Hoeve, M., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Asscher, J. J. (2016). Adolescent-parent
attachment and externalizing behavior: The mediating role of Individual and social
factors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(2), 283–294.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-9999-5
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human
motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne,
49(3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801
Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., Stoolmiller, M., & Skinner, M. L. (1991). Family, school, and
behavioral antecedents to early adolescent involvement with antisocial peers.
Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.1.172
Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Socialization mediators of the relation between
socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. Child Development, 65(2), 649–665.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00774.x
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

50
Dodge, K., Bates, J., & Pettit, G. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science,
250(4988), 1678–1683. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2270481
Dollard, J., Miller, N. E., Doob, L. W., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and
aggression. New Haven, CT, US: Yale University Press. Retrieved from
http://content.apa.org/books/10022-000
Dring, G. (2015). Anorexia runs in families: Is this due to genes or the family environment?
Journal of Family Therapy, 37(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12048
Dutton, D. G., & White, K. R. (2012). Attachment insecurity and intimate partner violence.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(5), 475–481.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.07.003
El-Sheikh, M., Tu, K. M., Erath, S. A., & Buckhalt, J. A. (2014). Family stress and adolescents’
cognitive functioning: Sleep as a protective factor. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(6),
887–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000031
Fristad, M. A., & Karpowitz, D. H. (1988). Norms for the children’s report of parental behavior
inventory - modified form. Psychological Reports, 62(2), 665–666.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1988.62.2.665
Gale, C. J., Cluett, E. R., & Laver-Bradbury, C. (2013). A review of the father-child relationship
in the development and maintenance of adolescent anorexia and bulimia nervosa. Issues
in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 36(1–2), 48–69.
https://doi.org/10.3109/01460862.2013.779764
Gargurevich, R., & Soenens, B. (2016). Psychologically controlling parenting and personality
vulnerability to depression: A study in Peruvian late adolescents. Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 25(3), 911–921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0265-9
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

51
Gentleman, R., & Ihaka, R. (1997). R.
Gerards, S. M., Hummel, K., Dagnelie, P. C., de Vries, N. K., & Kremers, S. P. (2013). Parental
self-efficacy in childhood overweight: Validation of the Lifestyle Behavior Checklist in
the Netherlands. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity,
10(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-7
Godbout, N., Dutton, D. G., Lussier, Y., & Sabourin, S. (2009). Early exposure to violence,
domestic violence, attachment representations, and marital adjustment. Personal
Relationships, 16(3), 365–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01228.x
Goethals, E. R., Oris, L., Soenens, B., Berg, C. A., Prikken, S., Van Broeck, N., … Luyckx, K.
(2017). Parenting and treatment adherence in type 1 diabetes throughout adolescence and
emerging adulthood. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 42(9), 922–932.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsx053
Gong, X., Paulson, S. E., & Wang, C. (2016). Exploring family origins of perfectionism: The
impact of interparental conflict and parenting behaviors. Personality and Individual
Differences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.010
Gormley, B. (2005). An adult attachment theoretical perspective of gender symmetry in intimate
partner violence. Sex Roles, 52(11–12), 785–795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-
4199-3
Graybill, D., & Gabel, H. (1978). Factor analysis of the children’s reports of parental behavior
inventory: A replication for preadolescents. Psychological Reports, 42(3), 953–954.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1978.42.3.953
Güngör, D., & Bornstein, M. H. (2010). Culture-general and -specific associations of attachment
avoidance and anxiety with perceived parental warmth and psychological control among
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

52
Turk and Belgian adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 33(5), 593–602.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.12.005
Hauser Kunz, J., & Grych, J. H. (2013). Parental psychological control and autonomy granting:
distinctions and associations with child and family functioning. Parenting, 13(2), 77–94.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2012.709147
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.52.3.511
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of deliquency. Berkeley: University of California.
Hoeve, M., Stams, G. J. J. M., van der Put, C. E., Dubas, J. S., van der Laan, P. H., & Gerris, J.
R. M. (2012). A meta-analysis of attachment to parents and delinquency. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(5), 771–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-011-9608-1
Imperio, A. M., & Chabot, D. R. (1980). Male delinquents’ perceptions of their parents: A factor
analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51(3), 829–830.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1980.51.3.829
Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika,
36(4), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291366
Kim, C. W., & Dembo, M. H. (2000). Social-cognitive factors influencing success on college
entrance exams in South Korea. Social Psychology of Education, 4(2), 95–115.
Lafontaine, M.-F., & Lussier, Y. (2005). Does anger towards the partner mediate and moderate
the link between romantic attachment and intimate violence? Journal of Family Violence,
20(6), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-7797-5
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

53
Lansford, J. E., Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2014). Mothers’ and
fathers’ autonomy-relevant parenting: Longitudinal links with adolescents’ externalizing
and internalizing behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(11), 1877–1889.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0079-2
Laursen, B., Coy, K. C., & Collins, W. A. (1998). Reconsidering changes in parent-child conflict
across adolescence: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 69(3), 817–832.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06245.x
Lawson, D. M., & Malnar, S. G. (2011). Interpersonal problems as a mediator between
attachment and intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 26(6), 421–430.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-011-9376-2
Li, D., Li, X., Wang, Y., & Bao, Z. (2016). Parenting and Chinese adolescent suicidal ideation
and suicide attempts: The mediating role of hopelessness. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 25(5), 1397–1407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0334-0
Liang, J., Matheson, B. E., Rhee, K. E., Peterson, C. B., Rydell, S., & Boutelle, K. N. (2016).
Parental control and overconsumption of snack foods in overweight and obese children.
Appetite, 100, 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.02.030
Luyckx, K., Goossens, E., Missotten, L., & Moons, P. (2011). Adolescents with congenital heart
disease: The importance of perceived parenting for psychosocial and health outcomes.
Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 32(9), 651–659.
https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e3182331e99
Mathes, E. W., & Severa, N. (1981). Jealousy, romantic love, and liking: Theoretical
considerations and preliminary scale development. Psychological Reports, 49(1), 23–31.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1981.49.1.23
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

54
McDermott, R. C., Cheng, H.-L., Lopez, F. G., McKelvey, D., & Bateman, L. S. (2017).
Dominance orientations and psychological aggression in college student relationships: A
test of an attachment theory-guided model. Psychology of Violence, 7(4), 508–520.
https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000061
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and
change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Miller, N. E. (1941). I. The frustration-aggression hypothesis. Psychological Review, 48(4), 337–
342. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055861
Murashima, M., Hoerr, S. L., Hughes, S. O., Kattelmann, K. K., & Phillips, B. W. (2012).
Maternal parenting behaviors during childhood relate to weight status and fruit and
vegetable intake of college students. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 44(6),
556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2011.05.008
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1988). Mplus User’s Guide (Version 8th edition). Los Angeles,
California.
Nelson, D. A., & Coyne, S. M. (2009). Children’s intent attributions and feelings of distress:
Associations with maternal and paternal parenting practices. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 37(2), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-008-9271-3
Olsen, S. F., Yang, C., Hart, C. H., Robinson, C. C., Wu, P., Nelson, D. A., … Wo, J. (2002).
Maternal psychological control and preschool children’s behavioral outcomes in China,
Russia, and the United States. In Intrusive Parenting: How psychological control affects
children and adolescents (pp. 235–262). American Psychological Association.
Owens, G. P., Held, P., Blackburn, L., Auerbach, J. S., Clark, A. A., Herrera, C. J., … Stuart, G.
L. (2014). Differences in relationship conflict, attachment, and depression in treatment-
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

55
seeking veterans with hazardous substance use, PTSD, or PTSD and hazardous substance
use. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(7), 1318–1337.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513506274
Pallock, L. L., & Lamborn, S. D. (2006). Beyond parenting practices: Extended kinship support
and the academic adjustment of African-American and European-American teens.
Journal of Adolescence, 29(5), 813–828.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.12.003
Pinquart, M. (2014). Associations of general parenting and parent-child relationship with
pediatric obesity: A meta-analysis. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39(4), 381–393.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jst144
Pinquart, M. (2016). Associations of parenting styles and dimensions with academic
achievement in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology
Review, 28(3), 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9338-y
Pittman, J. F., Kerpelman, J. L., Soto, J. B., & Adler-Baeder, F. M. (2012). Identity exploration
in the dating domain: The role of attachment dimensions and parenting practices. Journal
of Adolescence, 35(6), 1485–1499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.04.006
Raskin, A., Boothe, H. H., Reatig, N. A., Schulterbrandt, J. G., & Odle, D. (1971). Factor
analyses of normal and depressed patients’ memories of parental behavior. Psychological
Reports, 29(3), 871–879. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1971.29.3.871
Reilly, E. E., Stey, P., & Lapsley, D. K. (2016). A new look at the links between perceived
parenting, socially-prescribed perfectionism, and disordered eating. Personality and
Individual Differences, 88, 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.038
Revelle, W. (2005). The psych package in R.
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

56
Rholes, W., & Simpson, J. A. (2004). Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical
implications. Guilford Publications.
Rodenburg, G., Kremers, S. P. J., Oenema, A., & van de Mheen, D. (2011). Psychological
control by parents is associated with a higher child weight. International Journal of
Pediatric Obesity, 6(5–6), 442–449. https://doi.org/10.3109/17477166.2011.590203
Rodenburg, G., Oenema, A., Kremers, S. P. J., & van de Mheen, D. (2012). Parental and child
fruit consumption in the context of general parenting, parental education and ethnic
background. Appetite, 58(1), 364–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.11.001
Rodenburg, R., Meijer, A. M., Deković, M., & Aldenkamp, A. P. (2005). Family factors and
psychopathology in children with epilepsy: A literature review. Epilepsy & Behavior,
6(4), 488–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2005.03.006
Russell, R. J. ., & Wells, P. A. (2000). Predicting marital violence from the Marriage and
Relationship Questionnaire: Using LISREL to solve an incomplete data problem.
Personality and Individual Differences, 29(3), 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-
8869(99)00203-2
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Savage, J. (2014). The association between attachment, parental bonds and physically aggressive
and violent behavior: A comprehensive review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(2),
164–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.02.004
Schaefer, E. S. (1965a). A configurational analysis of children’s reports of parent behavior.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29(6), 552–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022702
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

57
Schaefer, E. S. (1965b). Children’s reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child
Development, 36(2), 413. https://doi.org/10.2307/1126465
Scharf, M., & Levy, M. (2015). The contribution of familial characteristics and idolization to
children’s body and eating attitudes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(7), 1943–
1954. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-9994-4
Schludermann, S. M., & Schludermann, E. H. (1983). Sociocultural change and adolescents’
perceptions of parent behavior. Developmental Psychology, 19(5), 674–685.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.19.5.674
Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Are men universally more dismissing than women? Gender differences in
romantic attachment across 62 cultural regions. Personal Relationships, 10(3), 307–331.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00052
Schwarz, J. C., Barton-Henry, M. L., & Pruzinsky, T. (1985). Assessing child-rearing behaviors:
a comparison of ratings made by mother, father, child, and sibling on the CRPBI. Child
Development, 56(2), 462. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129734
Shek, D. T. L. (2006). Assessment of perceived parental psychological control in Chinese
adolescents in Hong Kong. Research on Social Work Practice, 16(4), 382–391.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731506286231
Shek, Daniel T. L. (2005). Perceived parental control processes, parent—Child relational
qualities, and psychological well-being in Chinese adolescents with and without
economic disadvantage. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166(2), 171–188.
https://doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.166.2.171-188
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

58
Shek, Daniel T. L. (2007). A longitudinal study of perceived differences in parental control and
parent-child relational qualities in Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 22(2), 156–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558406297509
Shpigel, M. S., Diamond, G. M., & Diamond, G. S. (2012). Changes in parenting behaviors,
attachment, depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation in attachment-based family
therapy for depressive and suicidal adolescents. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
38, 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00295.x
Silk, J. S., Morris, A. S., Kanaya, T., & Steinberg, L. (2003). Psychological control and
autonomy granting: Opposite ends of a continuum or distinct constructs? Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 13(1), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.1301004
Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., Gautreau, C. M., Mushquash, A. R., Saklofske, D. H., & Snow, S.
L. (2017). The intergenerational transmission of perfectionism: Fathers’ other-oriented
perfectionism and daughters’ perceived psychological control uniquely predict daughters’
self-critical and personal standards perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences,
119, 242–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.07.030
Snoek, H. M., Engels, R. C. M. E., Janssens, J. M. A. M., & van Strien, T. (2007). Parental
behaviMy and adolescents’ emotional eating. Appetite, 49(1), 223–230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.02.004
Soenens, B., & Beyers, W. (2012). The cross-cultural significance of control and autonomy in
parent–adolescent relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 35(2), 243–248.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.02.007
Soenens, B., Elliot, A. J., Goossens, L., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyten, P., & Duriez, B. (2005). The
intergenerational transmission of perfectionism: Parents’ psychological control as an
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

59
intervening variable. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(3), 358–366.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.3.358
Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyten, P., Duriez, B., & Goossens, L. (2008).
Maladaptive perfectionism as an intervening variable between psychological control and
adolescent depressive symptoms: A three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Family
Psychology, 22(3), 465–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.465
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Duriez, B., & Goossens, L. (2006). In search of the sources of
psychologically controlling parenting: The role of parental separation anxiety and
parental maladaptive perfectionism. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(4), 539–
559. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00507.x
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyten, P., Duriez, B., & Goossens, L. (2005). Maladaptive
perfectionistic self-representations: The mediational link between psychological control
and adjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(2), 487–498.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.008
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Sierens, E. (2009). How are parental psychological control
and autonomy-support related? A cluster-analytic approach. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 71(1), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00589.x
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Vandereycken, W., Luyten, P., Sierens, E., & Goossens, L.
(2008). Perceived parental psychological control and eating-disordered symptoms:
Maladaptive perfectionism as a possible intervening variable. The Journal of Nervous
and Mental Disease, 196(2), 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e318162aabf
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

60
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict
Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of
Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251396017003001
Straus, Murray A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics
(CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41(1), 75–88.
https://doi.org/10.2307/351733
Tam, V. C. W. (2009). A comparison of fathers’ and mothers’ contributions in the prediction of
academic performance of school-age children in Hong Kong. International Journal of
Psychology, 44(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590801910242
Terrion, J. L. (2015). A communication model of relational pathways into and out of adolescent
substance use disorder. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 24(1), 54–65.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1067828X.2012.761168
Tiwari, V., & Verma, S. (2012). General health of adolescents in relation to perceived parental
psychological control. Social Science International; New Delhi, 28(1), 59–73.
Turner, P. J. (1991). Relations between attachment, gender, and behavior with peers in
preschool. Child Development, 62(6), 1475–1488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.1991.tb01619.x
Vansteenkiste, M., Zhou, M., Lens, W., & Soenens, B. (2005). Experiences of autonomy and
control among Chinese learners: Vitalizing or immobilizing? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 97(3), 468–483.
Wei, T., & Simko, V. (2016). The corrplot package in R.
PARENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT

61
Wigman, S. A., Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2008). Investigating sub-groups of harassers:
the roles of attachment, dependency, jealousy and aggression. Journal of Family
Violence, 23(7), 557–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-008-9171-x
Willse, J. T. (2014). The CTT package in R.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

How parental psychological control is related to adolescent anger and aggression

PDF

Emotion regulation as a mechanism linking parents’ marital aggression to adolescent behavioral problems: a longitudinal analysis

PDF

Parents' attunement: relation to adolescent problem behavior and the moderating role of marital conflict

PDF

Examining the longitudinal relationships between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior among a sample of maltreated and non-maltreated adolescents

PDF

The motivated affective behavior system: a dynamic account of the attachment behavioral system

PDF

Prenatal predictors of parental sensitivity in first-time mothers and fathers

PDF

Intergenerational transmission of values and behaviors over the family life course

PDF

Powerful guts: how power limits the role of disgust in moral judgment

PDF

The role of good habits in facilitating long-term goals

PDF

Examining the associations of respiratory problems with psychological functioning and the moderating role of engagement in pleasurable activities during late adolescence

PDF

An investigation of the factors associated with electronic aggression among college students

PDF

Examining the impact of prenatal maternal internalizing symptoms and socioeconomic status on children’s frontal alpha asymmetry and psychopathology

PDF

The influence of child day care on cognitive and psychosocial functioning in adolescence

PDF

Pregnancy in the time of COVID-19: effects on perinatal mental health, birth, and infant development

PDF

Examining parent responsiveness to sensory reactivity and regulation cues of infants with developmental risk factors

PDF

Healing parent application for parents who have experienced trauma

PDF

Three essays on the evaluation of long-term care insurance policies

PDF

Towards health-conscious spaces: building for human well-being and performance

Asset Metadata

Creator Choe, SoYoung (author)

Core Title Reframing parental psychological control: the role of insecure attachment

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 08/03/2018

Defense Date 05/02/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag delinquency,externalizing,insecure attachment,OAI-PMH Harvest,parental psychological control,relationship aggression

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Read, Stephen John (committee chair), John, Richard (committee member), Lee, Jungeun Olivia (committee member), Manis, Frank (committee member), Schwarz, Norbert (committee member)

Creator Email soyoung.choe@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-49618

Unique identifier UC11671374

Identifier etd-ChoeSoYoun-6630.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-49618 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ChoeSoYoun-6630.pdf

Dmrecord 49618

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Choe, SoYoung

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA