Relationships Between Parental Psychological Control, Rejection Sensitivity and Prosocial/Aggressive...

Yasemin Abayhan, Deniz Sahin, Orhan Aydın, Gonca Ciffiliz, Hayal Yavuz, Savas Ceylan, Alp Giray

Kaya

Relationships Between Parental Psychological Control, Rejection Sensitivity and

Prosocial/Aggressive Behaviors in Younger Adolescents

Literature ReviewRecent research suggests that some parenting behaviors such as support and control are related to adolescent’s positive and negative developmental outcomes (Baen, Barber and Crane, 2006; Kerr and Statin, 2000).

Parental support includes parental behaviors representing a well-established positive dimension of parenting.

Parental controlling can be conceptualized as covering both negative and positive parenting dimensions.

Literature Review Types of parent’s control attempts such as to control the child’s behavior versus to control the child’s self might have positive and negative consequences.

Barber (1996) argues:“Parental control” has to be separated by two control types such as

“Psychological Control” and “Behavioral Control”

Literature ReviewBehavioral Control

Parental behaviors of monitoring and regulating adolescents’ behavior.

Providing structure on their functioning (Steinberg, 2005).

Literature ReviewPsychological Control

Intrusive parental practices to the adolescents’ autonomy.

Manipulating their psychological and emotional worlds.

Utilizing emotional strategies to control adolescents’ behaviors.

Hindering their self expressions.Parents control the adolescent’s inner state (Steinberg, 2005).

Literature ReviewParents’ use of psychological control are most strongly related to negative developmental outcomes such as;

Low self-esteemLow self-confidenceLow academic achievementIdentity development (Barber and Buehler, 1996; Barber and Harmon, 2002).

Literature ReviewAs Steinberg (1990) stated, healthy adolescent development is associated with higher levels of behavioral control but lower levels of pscyhological control.

In pscyhological control parents are using emotional strategies in order to control adolescents’ behaviors.

Therefore, they can induct the feeling of guilt or they can ignore and minimize the warmth and compassion behaviors which can be associated with the term of “rejection sensitivity”.

Literature ReviewWhat is Rejection Sensitivity?

People have a tendency to avoid rejection in daily life.

Some people interpret the ambiguous negative cues as a rejection and start anxiously expect rejection and overreact to rejection (Downey et al, 2004; Romero-Canyas & Downey, 2005; Pietrzak, Downey & Ayduk, 2005).

Literature ReviewRejection Sensitivity—> “cognitive-affective processing dynamic or disposition to anxiously expect, readily perceive and react in an exaggerated manner to cues of rejection in the behavior of others” (Downey & Feldman, 1996).

Expectations of rejection facilitate subjective perceptions of rejection, which cause behaviors that evoke objective rejections, reinforcing expectations of rejection.

Literature ReviewRS stems from early experiences of both

parental and peer rejection (Downey & Feldman, 1996; Pietrzak, Downey & Ayduk, 2005).

Early parental rejections which include cruelty, hostility, physical and emotional neglect and abuse are internalized by children as a legacy of rejection (Feldman &Downey, 1994).

Literature ReviewPsychological control could be perceived as associated with parental rejection it may be related with rejection sensitivity.

Socially excluded people either act prosocially in order to gain acceptance or act aggressively regain control. As a negative developmental outcomes of pscyhological control, adolescents’ can use aggression and/or prosocial behavior as a cooping strategies of both rejection sensitiviy and psychological control.

The Aim of the Current StudyTherefore, the current study aims to answer three questions;1- Does psychological control predicts rejection sensitivity?

2- Does psychological control and rejection sensitivity predict both aggressive and prosocial behaviors of adolescents?

3- Does pscyhological control and rejection sensitivity predict both aggressive and prosocial behaviors of adolescents according to their sex?

Method

Participants were 297( 147F, 150M) students from 6th (96=58F, 38M) 7th (73=31F, 42M) and 8th(128=58F, 70M) grades from a state junior high school.

MethodInstrumentsParental Psychological Control Scales Maternal and paternal 8-item psychological control scales with a 4-point response rate, developed by Barber (1996) and adapted to Turkish by Sayıl and Kındap (2010) were used. Cronbach Alpha coefficients for the Turkish version of the mother form is .89 and the father form is .79.

MethodInstruments

Children’s Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (CRSQ):

CRSQ developed by Downey, Lebolt, Rincon and Freitas (1998) and adapted to Turkish by Abayhan, Sahin,Yavuz, Aydın and Giray (2008) was used. It is a 12 item scale with a 6-point response rate. Cronbach Alpha coefficients for the anxiety expectation and anger expectation dimensions of the Turkish version are .89 and .79 respectively.

MethodInstruments

Aggressive and Prosocial Behavior Questionnaire developed by Boxer, Tisak, Goldstein (2004) and adapted to Turkish by Bayraktar, Kındap, Kumru, Sayıl (under revision) was used. It is 25 item scale with a 4-point response rate. Aggressive behavior dimension consists of 10 items. Prosocial behavior is consisted of altruistic, proactive and reactive prosocial behavior dimensions. Cronbach Alpha’s of the Turkish version are .90 for the aggressive behavior, .75 for the altruistic, .84 for the proactive and .78 for the reactive prosocial behavior dimensions.

MethodProcedure

-Participants filled out the questionnaires during class time.

-Average administration lasted for 30 minutes.

ResultsA series of hierarchic analyses were performed to explore the predictive abilities of the parental psychological control variable and the anxiety expectation and anger expectation dimensions of the rejection sensitivity variable on aggressive and prosocial behaviors of younger adolescents

Research Questions- 1Does pscyhological control predicts rejection sensitivity?

Predicted Variables: Anger expectations and anxiety expectations

Predictor: Maternal and paternal psychological control

Predicted Variable: Anxiety Expectation

Anxiety expectation dimension scores of the rejection sensitivity were first regressed on

maternal psychological control scores

and then on the paternal psychological control scores


Multiple R was found to be significant in the first model [R=.152, R(sqchange)=.023, F(1, 295) =6.932, p<.009].

The increment in the second model was also found to be significant [R=.201, R(sqchange)=.018, F(1, 294)=5.365, p<.021).


Examination of the β’s indicated that both maternal and paternal psychological controls were significant predictors of anxiety expectation (β=.152, p<.009 and β=.169, p<.021 respectively )

Predicted Variable: Anger Expectation

Anger expectation dimension scores of the rejection sensitivity were first regressed on

maternal psychological control scores

and then on the paternal psychological control scores


Examination of the β’s indicated that both maternal and paternal psychological controls were significant predictors of anger expectation (β=.174, p<.0093 and β=.221, p<.030 respectively )

Prediction of Rejection Sensitivity Dimensions in Girls

Neither maternal nor paternal control predicted none of the rejection sensitivity dimensions in girls.

Prediction of Anxiety Expectation in Boys

Maternal control had a significant predictive power [R=.231, R(sqchange)=.053, F(1, 148) =8.38, p<.004; β=.231,p<.004 ].

Paternal control also had a significant predictive power (R=.287, R(sqchange)=.029, F(1, 148) =4.607, p<.033; β=.219,p<.033 ].

Prediction of Anger Expectation in Boys

Maternal control had a significant predictive power [R=.220, R(sqchange)=.048, F(1, 148) =7.521, p<.007; β=.220,p<.007 ].

Paternal control also had a significant predictive power (R=.287, R(sqchange)=.029, F(1, 148) =4.607, p<.033; β=.216,p<.037 ].

Research Questions- 2 and 3Does psychological control and rejection sensitivity predict both aggressive and prosocial behaviors of adolescents?

Does pscyhological control and rejection sensitivity predict both aggressive ann prosocial behaviors of adolescents according to their sex?

Predicted Variables: Agression and Prosocial BehaviorsPredictors: Maternal and paternal psychological control; rejection sensitivity (anger expectations and anxiety expectations)

Predicted Variable: Aggression

In those analyses aggression was first regressed on

maternal and paternal psychological control scores

and then on the anxiety and anger expectations dimensions of rejection sensitivity scores.


Examination of the β’s indicated that while maternal psychological control was a significant predictor of aggression (β=.178,p<.015) paternal psychological control was not.

Anger expectation dimension of the rejection sensitivity was a significant predictor of aggression with a higher β (.273, <.005) where as anxiety expectation did not.

Predicted Variable: Aggression in Girls


The increment in the second model was also found to be significant [R=.383, R(sqchange)=.097 F(2, 142)=8.038, p<.000).

Predicted Variable: Aggression in Girls

Examination of the β’s indicated that neither maternal nor paternal psychological control was a significant predictor of aggression (β=.178,p<.015).

Anger expectation dimension of the rejection sensitivity was a significant predictor of aggression with a high β (.426, <.001).

Predicted Variable: Aggression in Boys

Multiple R was found to be significant in the first model [R=.239, R(sq)=.057, F(2, 147) =4.455, p<.013].

But the increment in the second model was not significant.

Examination of the β’s revealed that maternal psychological control predicted aggression in boys (β=.248, p<.018).

Predicted Variable: Prosocial Behavior

Prosocial behavior scores were first regressed on

maternal and paternal psychological control scores

and then on the anxiety and anger expectations dimensions of rejection sensitivity scores.


Multiple R was not significant in the first model; hence paternal psychological control had no significant predictive power on prosocial behavior.

The second model, had a significant predictive power on prosocial behavior (R= .239, R(sqchange)=.057 F(2,292)=.001).


Both dimensions of rejection sensitivity predicted significantly:

while anxiety expectation (β=.32,p<.001) predicted positively;

anger expectation predicted negatively (β= -.377,p<.001).

Predicted Variable Prosocial Behavior in Girls

Multiple R was significant only on the second model(R=.306, R(sqchange)=.081, F(2,142)=6.36, p<.002).

Predicted Variable: Prosocial Behavior in Girls

While anxiety expectation (β=.433,p<.001) predicted prosocial behavior positively;

anger expectation predicted negatively (β= -.434,p<.001).

Predicted Variable: Prosocial Behavior in Boys

Neither parental psychological control nor rejection of sensitivity had predictive power on the prosocial behavior of the boys.

DiscussionResults indicated that both maternal and paternal psychological controls predicted both anger and anxiety expectations.

These results shows us that psychological control predicts both dimensions of rejection sensitivity in general.

But renewing of the analysis according to sex differences showed that neither maternal nor paternal control predicted none of the rejection sensitivity dimensions in girl. On the other hand, both paternal and maternal control predicted boy’s anger and anxiety expectations. The perception differences between boys and girls can be one of the explanations for these interesting results. Also Sayıl and Kındap (2010) found that boys are much more sensitive to paternal psychological control than girls.

DiscussionResults also indicated that maternal psychological control and anger expectations of adolescents predicted aggressive behaviors in general.

According to sex differences, anger expectations was only significant predictor for girls’ aggressive behaviors.

On the other hand, boys’ aggressive behaviors was predicted by their mothers psychological control but none of the predictors predicted their prosocial behavior. We can assume that, mothers are using psychological control as a preventive strategies for their sons.

DiscussionInterestingly, prosocial behaviors were only predicted by anxiety and anger expectations of adolescents.

However, anxiety expectations of adolescents predicted prosocial behavior positively; whereas anxiety expectations of adolescents predicted prosocial behavior negatively. These result are consistent with research which are summarized that socially excluded people act prosocially in order to gain acceptance (Maner, DeWall, Baumeister, Schaller, 2007).

ReferencesBarber, B.K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296-3319.

Barber, B.K., & Buehler, C. (1996). Family cohesion and enmeshment: Different constructs different effects. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 259-280.

Barber, B.K.,, & Harmon, E.L. (2002). Violating the self: Parental psychological control of early adolescents and adolescents. In B.K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting; How psychological control affects children and adolescent (15-22). Washington, DC: American Pscyhological Association Press.

Bean, R.A., Barber, B.K.& Crane, D.R. (2006). Parental support, behavioral control, and psychological control amonf African-American youth: The relationships to academic grades, delinquency and depression. Journal of Family, 27 (10), 1335-1355.

Downey, G., & Feldman, S.I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327-1343.

Feldman, S., & Downey, G. (1994). Rejection sensitivity as a mediator of the impact of childhood exposure to family violence on adult attachment behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 231-247.

Downey, G., Mougios, V., Ayduk, O., London, B.E.,& Shoda, Y. (2004). Rejection sensitivity and the defensive motivational system. Psychological Science, 15(10), 668- 673.

Kerr, M.,& Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for reinterpetation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36, (3), 366-380.

Maner, J.K., DeWall, N., Baumeister, R.F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine problem”. Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes, 92 (1), 42-55.

Romero-Canyas, R., & Downey, G. (2005). Rejection Sensitivity as a predictor of affective and behavioral responses to interpersonal stress. In K. D. Williams, J. Forgas & W.V.Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection and bullying (pp. 131-155). New York: Psychology Press.

Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship. In S. Feldman and G. Elliot (Eds.). At the threshold: The developing adolescent. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Steinberg, L. (2005). Psychological control: Style or Substance? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development (108), 71-78.

Pietrzak, J., Downey, G.,& Ayduk, O. (2005). Rejection Sensitivity as an interpersonal vulnerability. In M.W. Baldwin (Ed.) Interpersonal cognition (pp. 62-84). New York: The Guilford Press.

Relationships Between Parental Psychological Control, Rejection Sensitivity and Prosocial/Aggressive...

Documents

Transcript of Relationships Between Parental Psychological Control, Rejection Sensitivity and Prosocial/Aggressive...