Exploration of the developmental value in parsing psychological control in associations with children’s maladjustment: A meta-analysis

• In Event: Lost in conceptualization? Seeking new insights by examining the function and context of parenting practices

Abstract

Meta-analyses have demonstrated consistent links between parental psychological control and children’s internalizing and externalizing problems (e.g., Pinquart, 2017a, 2017b). However, the conceptual and empirical distinction between interrelated dimensions remains unclear (Beato et al., 2015; Bush & Peterson, 2013). Whereas some researchers argue that psychological control reflects a higher-order construct of interrelated dimensions (e.g., overprotection, overcontrol, and emotional manipulation) that each operate to achieve the same underlying function, others propose that the interrelated dimensions are distinct despite some overlap (Barber & Harmon, 2002; Holmbeck et al., 2002; Schaefer, 1965). Drawing on a domain-specific approach may aid in distinguishing between dimensions of psychological control (Grusec & Davidov, 2010). More specifically, dimensions of psychological control may operate in different domains of parent-child interactions and serve different underlying functions that, in turn, each give rise to individual differences in children’s socialization and developmental outcomes. For instance, emotional manipulation may reflect a mismatch in the control domain whereby parental control strategies begin to threaten children’s autonomy and individuation rather than modify their compliance with societal and cultural norms. In contrast, overprotection may reflect a mismatch in the protection domain when parents are unnecessarily engaging in protection and comforting behaviors that are not in response to children’s distress. Although research has yet to quantitatively synthesize the developmental value of parsing psychological control, the modest links between psychological control and children’s adjustment may suggest considerable heterogeneity among distinct subdimensions of psychological control (Kuppens et al., 2013; McLeod et al., 2007). Thus, a remaining question for researchers is whether parsing interrelated dimensions of psychological control aids in more precisely identifying variability in links between psychological control and children’s adjustment. To address this gap, we quantitatively synthesized and compared the relative strength of the association between three dimensions of parental psychological control (i.e., overprotection, overcontrol, emotional manipulation) and children’s adjustment (i.e., internalizing and externalizing problems).

Literature searches were conducted using five databases. We conducted a three-level meta-analysis using the metafor package in R. The data set includes 2,356 effect sizes drawn from 380 records (see Figure 1). Model 1 examined the specificity of associations among dimensions of psychological control and children’s externalizing problems. Although the overall association between psychological control and children’s externalizing problems was significant and modest in magnitude, r=.19, p<.0001, an omnibus moderation test revealed that this association significantly differed across dimensions of psychological control, F(3,1250)=15.78, p=.0013. Emotional manipulation and children’s externalizing problems were more strongly linked than overprotection, b=.10, p=.002, and overcontrol, b=.07, p=.003. Model 2 examined the specificity of associations among dimensions of psychological control and children’s internalizing problems. Likewise, the overall association between psychological control and children’s internalizing problems was significant and modest in magnitude, r=.21, p<.0001, but an omnibus moderation test revealed that the association differed significantly across dimensions of psychological control, F(3,975)=15.73, p=.0013. Again, emotional manipulation was more strongly linked to internalizing problems than overprotection, b=.05, p=.03, and overcontrol, b=.07, p=.001. Effect sizes are presented in Table 1. Interpretations focus on understanding why emotional manipulation may be more detrimental to children’s functioning.

Authors

• Morgan J Thompson, Auburn University
  Presenting Author

• Cory Platts, University of Rochester

• Carson R. Schmitz

• Patrick Davies, University of Rochester