PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND

MONITORING IN EARLY
ADOLESCENCE: THE ROLE OF
PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT AND
EARLIER CHILD ADJUSTMENT
GREGORY S. PETTIT AND ROBERT D. LAIRD

In this chapter we consider how parents’ use of psychological control

and parents’ monitoring of their children’s whereabouts and activities may
be shaped, and their effects altered, by characteristics of the parent-child
relationship. In line with Belsky’s (1984) determinants of parenting model,
we trace the roots of psychological control and monitoring in earlier parent-
ing and child adjustment characteristics. In a departure from our earlier
treatment of this issue (Pettit, Laird, Dodge, Bates, & Criss, 2001)’ and in
contrast to the approach undertaken in some of the chapters in this volume,
we consider not only main and additive effects but also moderators of
parental psychological control and monitoring (see also chapter 5, this
volume). The general thrust of our arguments and data presentation is that
continuities in parenting behavior and the putative effects of parenting on
child outcomes may be conditional in the sense that they may depend on
certain child and parent-child relationship characteristics. That is, parents’
use of a given control or regulatory strategy may hinge on whether the child
is perceived negatively (e.g., as being difficult to manage) or positively, and
whether the parent is positively involved in the child’s social and academic
life or disengaged from these spheres of the child’s experience. Likewise,
the extent to which parents’ use of a given regulatory strategy predicts a

Preparation of this chapter and the research reported herein were supported by grants from the
National Institute of Mental Health (MH 42498, MH 57095) and the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development (HD 30572) to G. S. Pettit, K. A. Dodge, and J. E. Bates.
Appreciation is extended to Michael Criss for assistance in various phases of this undertaking.

97
given adjustment outcome in adolescence may depend on these same child
and parenting factors.
The notion that the effects of specific parenting behaviors and styles
are conditional has received a good bit of recent research attention (see
Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bomstein, 2000). This re-
search has, for the most part, focused on the extent to which differing
parenting attributes may alter the effects of one another, or the extent to
which child characteristics (e.g., temperament) may alter the impact of
parenting behaviors in the prediction of child outcomes. Much less attention
has been devoted to the ways in which parenting behaviors and attributes
may moderate the effects of one another, or the ways in which parenting
and child characteristics may moderate the effects of one another, in the
prediction of subsequent parenting orientations. Moreover, little of the re-
search examining interactions among parenting and child characteristics
has been longitudinal. The reliance on cross-sectional data means that the
actual processes giving rise to the moderated “effects” may be difficult to
discern. That is, even if it is shown that the presence of high versus low
levels of a given child behavior or characteristic alters the relationship
between parental behavior and child outcomes, it remains unclear as to
whether the “effect” is attributable to enduring individual differences in the
child or to changes in parenting behavior, or to some combination. Such
processes might be better understood through the use of longitudinal data.
Of course, longitudinal data are necessary to examine whether the presence
of high versus low levels of a child characteristic (e.g., externalizing behavior
problems) or high versus low levels of a parenting behavior (e.g., involve-
ment) alters the stability seen over time in other parenting behaviors (e.g.,
psychological control and monitoring).
Although there are numerous studies of relations among child adjust-
ment and parenting behavior over time (e.g., Jang & Smith, 1997), typically
only main effects are examined (e.g., whether parental supervision predicts
change in child adjustment, or whether child adjustment predicts change
in level of parental supervision). It would seem useful at this juncture to
augment these main-effects models by considering moderated effects. In this
manner it may be possible to ask not only whether early parenting predicts
later child adjustment, controlling for early child characteristics, or whether
early child characteristics predict later parenting, controlling for earlier
parenting, but whether parenting and child characteristics moderate the
effects of one another in the prediction of either later parenting or later
child adjustment. Moreover, from a process-oriented perspective, it is of
interest to ask whether moderated effects, either with respect to parenting
characteristics or to parenting and child characteristics, are themselves
associated with changes in parenting. If, for example, it were found that
parents’ use of psychological control with their children predicted adolescent

98 INTRUSlVE PARENTING
anxiety more strongly for those adolescents who earlier had been relatively
high in anxiety, questions arise about whether this effect is attributable to
a vulnerability in the high-anxiety adolescents to the effects of psychological
control or to an increase in parents’ subsequent use of psychological control.
Along these lines, if it were found that monitoring interacts with child
characteristics observed earlier in predicting later adjustment outcomes such
that monitoring is more “effective” when the adolescent previously was
showing relatively low levels of behavioral maladjustment, then questions
may be asked about whether this enhanced effectiveness is attributable to
the susceptibility of the better-behaved adolescents to their parents’ efforts
at regulating and supervising their behavior or to a concomitant change
(i.e., increase in effectiveness) in parents’ monitoring and supervision.
Psychological control and monitoring are of particular interest in this
context because each describes an important facet of parental control of
adolescents. Although in the past the two forms of control often were
combined in parenting-style typologies (e.g., Baumrind, 1966), more recent
theoretical accounts and supporting empirical data (e.g., Barber, Olsen, &
Shagle, 1994; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989) have highlighted their
distinctiveness, both in terms of their socialization focus and in terms of
their association with differing aspects of child and adolescent adjustment.
By contrasting the two, we thought it possible to evaluate the generality
of the interactive-effects formulation across two theoretically orthogonal
yet empirically related parental control strategies.
In the following sections, we first briefly summarize research that has
taken a “main effects’’ approach in examining the impact of psychological
control and monitoring on adolescent adjustment and in considering the
antecedents of psychological control and monitoring in earlier parenting
and child adjustment. We then turn our attention to literature bearing on
interaction effects (parenting x parenting or parenting x child characteris-
tics), with special reference to evidence of such interactions in studies of
psychological control and monitoring and related parenting constructs. To
illustrate the operation of additive, main effects and interaction effects, we
present data from our own ongoing longitudinal study.

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND MONITORING

AS DISTINCT CONSTRUCTS

For many contemporary socialization researchers, the case for the dis-
tinctiveness of psychological control and monitoring was made most compel-
lingly by Steinberg (1990; Steinberg et al., 1989) and Barber (1996; Barber
et al., 1994). Although it is possible to trace the psychological control
construct back to earlier writing on parenting dimensions, most notably by

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN EARLIER ADJUSTMENT 99

Schaefer (e.g., Schaefer, 1965), Steinberg and then Barber provide the most
detailed description of the operation of psychological control and how it
differs, both conceptually and empirically, from other forms of parental
control. At the heart of this distinction is the notion that monitoring reflects
parents’ efforts to adapt and regulate children’s behavior through guidance
and supervision, whereas psychological control emanates from parents’ moti-
vations to inhibit the child’s developing psychological autonomy, to keep
the child dependent on the parent, and to help retain power in the relation-
ship. Barber (chapter 1, this volume) and Barber and Harmon (chapter 2,
this volume) focus on this distinction, review a large body of studies that
have linked psychological control with anxious, internalizing problems, as
well as externalizing problems.
Additional support for the distinctiveness of psychological control
and monitoring would derive from studies of their broader correlates and
antecedents. Data on the antecedents of psychological control and monitor-
ing are scarce, and those studies that have attempted to identify such
antecedents typically have taken a main-effects approach (e.g., Barber, 1996;
Bogenschneider, Small, & Tsay, 1997). One main-effects conclusion is that
monitoring and psychological control are anteceded by the very behavioral
and psychological adjustment variables that they in turn predict-for exam-
ple, high levels of anxiety-depression and delinquency antecede subsequent
psychological control, and low levels of delinquency and externalizing prob-
lems antecede subsequent monitoring (Barber, 1996).T o date, when earlier
child adjustment characteristics, or parenting characteristics, have been
examined as precursors (of parenting in general, or of psychological control
and monitoring in particular), their possible interaction has not been con-
sidered.

PARENTING x PARENTING INTERACTIONS IN THE

PREDICTION OF CHILD OUTCOMES

Two theoretical accounts of how aspects of parenting might moderate

the impact of other aspects of parenting were published in 1993. Darling
and Steinberg (1993) sought to distinguish between parenting practices,
which were conceived as strategic behaviors used in the service of specific
socialization goals, and parenting styles, which were viewed as more general
indicators of the emotional climate of the family. Parenting style was thought
to moderate the impact of parenting practices, such that practices would
be effective in terms of achieving the desired outcome only if they were
undergirded by a positive and supportive parent-child relationship. Evidence
consistent with this premise was reported by Steinberg et al. (1989).These

100 INTRUSIVE PARENTING

researchers were interested in the connection between parents’ involvement
in their children’s school activities (e.g., ensuring that homework assign-
ments were completed) and children’s school performance. At first glance,
parents’ school-related involvement would seem to be desirable and generally
promoting of positive school outcomes. However, such parental activities
were positively correlated with children’s school outcomes only in the con-
text of an authoritative style. When parents’ style was authoritarian, parents’
involvement in school-related activities was associated with poorer academic
performance. Thus, the meaning of a particular parenting behavior-
involvement in school activities-appeared to change (or at least the direc-
tion of its relation with school performance changed) as a function of the
general parenting style. Similar kinds of findings (i.e., in which parent-child
relationship style or values moderated other parenting attributes) have been
reported by Bogenschneider, Wu, Raffaelli, and Tsay (1998) and Mounts
(1999).
Pettit and Mize (1993) also addressed the conceptual issue of how
differing parenting characteristics might moderate the effects of one another,
with special reference to young children’s development of social skills and
competencies. The distinction was drawn between parenting style, akin to
the Darling and Steinberg (1993) construal, and the substance of parental
teaching about social themes and issues. Pettit and Mize (1993) articulated
a compensatory model, in which responsive parenting was conceived as
providing a buffer against possible negative effects of deficiencies in social
teaching, and where constructive social teaching was viewed as a possible
buffer for those children whose parents were comparatively nonresponsive.
These propositions were explored in a subsequent study (Mize & Pettit,
1997) in which independent assessments were made of mothers’ positive
relationship style and mothers’ social coaching and used to predict preschool
children’s social competence. Relationship style and social coaching incre-
mentally predicted peer competence; their interaction also made a significant
predictive contribution. Further inspection of the interaction effect revealed
that social coaching was associated with children’s social competence only
when relationship quality was comparatively low. Likewise, positive relation-
ship style predicted competence only when social coaching was low in terms
of rated effectiveness. In other words, one parenting attribute (e.g., positive
style), if it occurred at a high level, compensated for the other parenting
attribute (e.g., social coaching), if it occurred at a low level.
Regarding psychological control and monitoring, extant data are incon-
sistent with respect to whether their effects on child and adolescent adjust-
ment are moderated by other forms of parenting. As pointed out by Barber
(chapter 9, this volume), several studies have sought to identify such patterns
for psychological control (e.g., Barber et al., 1994; Herman, Dornbusch,
Herron, & Herting, 1997), but only one thus far has provided evidence

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN EARLIER ADJUSTMENT 101

that fits with an interactive-effects model. Gray and Steinberg (1999) found
psychological control to interact with parental acceptance-involvement in
predicting psychosocial development, internal distress, and academic compe-
tence. Specifically, autonomy-granting (i.e., lack of psychological control)
predicted self-reliance and academic competence more strongly at low levels
of parental acceptance-involvement. Thus, greater autonomy-granting ap-
peared to compensate for low levels of parental acceptance.
Moderators of monitoring have not been studied in great detail, but
at least one study has found evidence that its effects on child adjustment
are moderated by other parenting factors. Bogenschneider et al. (1998)
reported that parental monitoring was associated with lower levels of adoles-
cent substance use, but that this effect was strongest among those adolescents
whose fathers had values that were most disapproving of even casual sub-
stance use (mothers’ values with respect to substance use did not moderate
mothers’ monitoring). This finding, though interesting, is difficult to evaluate
in terms of parenting behavior as a moderator of monitoring. However, if
one assumes that fathers who disapproved of substance use created a family
climate consistent with their values, then the evidence fits with the Darling
and Steinberg (1993) notion of style moderating the effects of specific
parenting behaviors, the specific behaviors in this case reflecting monitoring
and supervision.

CHILD CHARACTERISTICS x PARENTING INTERACTIONS

IN THE PREDICTION OF CHILD OUTCOMES

Considerably more literature bears on the general issue of child charac-

teristics-especially temperament and early adjustment characteristics-as
moderators of parenting effects (Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Bates, Pettit,
Dodge, and Ridge (1998) conducted one of the very few separate-sample
replications of a conditional (moderating) effect of child characteristics on
parenting. The question of interest was whether temperamental resistance
to control in infancy, as perceived by mothers, interacted with observed
restrictive control in early childhood in the prediction of children’s schoolage
externalizing problems. Although the main research focus was on whether
parental control moderated the impact of early temperament (and findings
revealed consistent evidence of this), it also was found that temperament
moderated the impact of later control. Specifically, high levels of restrictive
control were associated more strongly with later externalizing problems for
children low in temperamental resistance to control than for children high
in temperamental resistance to control. This finding runs counter to the
presumption guiding much of the thinking about child temperament and

102 1NTRUSIVE PARENTlNG

parenting: that difficult-to-manage youngsters elicit harsher treatment, ex-
acerbating their difficultness (Patterson, 1982). Instead, the pattern seems
to suggest that high levels of control are unneeded and indeed inappropriate
for children who are relatively easy to manage.
The work of Kochanska (1995) also has been important in documenting
ways in which children’s temperamental dispositions alter the impact of
parental behavior. In this research, the outcome of interest is children’s
internalization of parental standards (i.e., “conscience”). Kochanska ( 1995)
has shown that gentle discipline and reasoning are the most effective ap-
proaches to promoting conscience development among relatively fearful,
anxious children. In contrast, manifestations of conscience development in
relatively fearless children were predicted by parental responsiveness and a
closer emotional bond with the child. These findings are consistent with
models postulating interactions among parenting and child characteristics
in the prediction of subsequent child outcomes.
A few studies have focused on child characteristics as moderators
of monitoring and related parenting-behavior constructs. Wootton, Frick,
Shelton, and Silverthorn ( 1997) examined whether a callous, unemotional
(CU) child personality characteristic interacted with ineffective parenting
(indexed in part as lack of supervision and monitoring) in the prediction
of child conduct problems. It was found that ineffective parenting predicted
conduct problems only for those children who were low in the CU trait;
for those high in CU, ineffective parenting and conduct problems were
unrelated, presumably because high CU children are less responsive to
environmental events, including parenting. In contrast, low CU children
are thought to be more sensitive to their parents’ socializing efforts, and
when parents are ineffective in this role, low-CU children show elevated
levels of conduct problems. These findings fit with Belsky’s (1997) notion
that children differ in their susceptibility to parental influence.
Colder, Lochman, and Wells (1997) were interested in the extent to
which schoolage children’s fearfulness and activity levels interacted with
poor monitoring and supervision in the prediction of aggression and depres-
sion. As expected, lack of monitoring was associated with higher levels of
teacher-rated aggression only for those children who were rated by their
parents as high in activity level. This finding suggests that preadolescent
children who are highly active may be more likely to engage in risky activities
that require adult supervision and monitoring (Pettit, Bates, Dodge, &
Meece, 1999). In the absence of such monitoring, highly active children
may become more aggressive. For similar reasons, it also was expected that
children low in self-rated fearfulness would be at greater risk for aggressive
behavior when monitoring was low, but this expectation did not receive
empirical support.

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN EARLIER ADJUSTMENT 103

 INTERACTION EFFECTS IN THE PREDICTION OF PARENTING

We were unable to identify any literature pertaining specifically to

interaction effects-whether in the form of one aspect of parenting interact-
ing with another or in the form of parenting interacting with child character-
istics-in the prediction of parenting. This is surprising given the long-
standing interest in accounting for continuity and change in parenting
behavior more generally (e.g., Pettit & Bates, 1984).Moreover, transactional
processes involving interactions among child characteristics and parenting
behavior have been posited to play key roles in the evolution of family
relationship patterns, including coercive family systems (e.g., Patterson,
1982).Nonetheless, current accounts of the interplay of child characteristics
and parenting behavior in the prediction of later parenting tend to stress
their cumulative, additive effects rather than their moderating effects.

ANTECEDENTS AND CONDITIONAL EFFECTS OF

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL AND MONITORING:
ILLUSTRATIONS FROM THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

We now turn our attention to an empirical demonstration of some of

the additive and interactive models discussed in the preceding sections.
Specifically, we use data collected as part of the ongoing Child Development
Project (see Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 1997) to document (a) antecedents of
parental psychological control and monitoring in adolescence, both in terms
of early childhood parenting and child characteristics and in terms of adjust-
ment characteristics, (b) stability of psychological control and monitoring
over one to two years and the extent to which such stability is moderated
by adjustment or parental involvement, and (c) differential links between
psychological control and monitoring and adolescent anxiety and delinquent
behavior problems and the extent to which such links are moderated by
earlier adjustment characteristics or parental involvement.

Participants and Background

The Child Development Project was initiated in 1987 as a longitudinal

study of children’s adaptation in a community sample selected at three
geographical sites (Knoxville and Nashville, TN, and Bloomington, IN).
Children and their families were recruited at spring registration for kindergar-
ten and in-home assessments were conducted the summer before kindergar-
ten. As part of these assessments, parents were interviewed and completed
questionnaires, and children were administered a social-cognitive test bat-
tery. Subsequent yearly family follow-ups were made through questionnaire

104 lNTRUSlVE PARENTlNG

mail-outs and phone contacts. The children were followed through the
elementary school years, with annual collection of teacher ratings. Home
visits were conducted the summer before grade 6 (only mothers were inter-
viewed at this time) and in grade 7 (only child participants were interviewed
at this time). Both mothers and teenagers were interviewed in the home
(and completed questionnaires) in the summer following grade 7 and again
in the summer following grade 8.
At the initial assessment when the children were 5 years of age, 585
families participated, representing a range of family backgrounds (30% were
single-parent families) and ethnicity (80% European American, 18% Afri-
can American, 2% other ethnicity), with an almost equal split between
boys and girls. Attrition has been relatively modest for such an assessment-
intensive longitudinal study, with approximately 80% of the original sample
(N = 456) still participating at the time of the most recent wave of data
collection (1998 to 1999). Detailed analyses of attrited families compared
to ongoing families has revealed little evidence of systematic attrition (see
Pettit et al., 1997;Pettit et al., 1999), with the exception that lower socioeco-
nomic status families have been somewhat more likely to drop out of the
study compared to higher socioeconomic families.

Procedure and Measures

Data to be reported in this chapter are listed in Table 4-1 and come
from the sources and years (child age) listed. For the sake of brevity, only
abbreviated summaries are provided for measures that have been described
in detail in published research reports.

1. Early childhood antecedents (age 5 years): Mothers’ use of harsh

discipline (i.e., extent to which mothers were severe, strict,
and physical in their discipline) and mothers’ proactive teach-
ing and involvement (i.e., extent to which mothers espoused
a planful, prevention-oriented approach to child misbehavior)
were indexed with home interviewers’ ratings (see Pettit et
al., 1997).Mothers’ perceptions of child behavioral adjustment
were assessed with the externalizing problems scale of the
Achenbach (1991) Child Behavior Checklist (CBC). Exter-
nalizing scores were dichotomized at the sample mean. Infor-
mation on family socioeconomic and marital status also were
collected during the home interview (Pettit et al., 1997).
2. Behavioral and psychological adjustment in childhood (ages 8, 9,
and 10) was assessed with the Achenbach (1991) Teacher
Report Form (TRF). As part of annual follow-ups, children’s
classroom teachers completed the TRF, a widely used behavior-

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN EARLIER ADJUSTMENT 105

 TABLE 4-1
Summary of Measures and Constructs
Category Informant Age Construct
1. Early childhood antecedents Mother 5 Harsh discipline
Mother 5 Proactive teaching
Mother 5 Externalizing behavior
2. Behavioral and psychological Teacher 8 to 10 Delinquent behavior
adjustment in childhood Teacher 8 to 10 Anxiety
3. Parental involvement Mother 13 Parental involvement
Adolescent 12 Parental involvement
4. Psychological control and Adolescent 12 Psychological control
monitoring
Mother 13 Psychological control
Adolescent 13 Psychological control
Mother 11 Monitoring
Adolescent 12 Monitoring
Mother 13 Monitoring
Adolescent 13 Monitoring
5. Adolescent adjustment outcomes Teacher 14 Delinquent behavior
Mother 14 Delinquent behavior
Adolescent 14 Delinquent behavior
Teacher 14 Anxiety
Mother 14 Anxiety
Adolescent 14 Anxiety

problem inventory. Cross-year childhood composite scores

were created for the anxiety/depression subscale (within-year
as = .80 to .86; cross-year composite a = .88) and the delin-
quent behavior subscale (within-year as = .71 to .74; cross-
year composite a = .83). Conceptually, psychological control
has been implicated as undermining autonomy and self-confi-
dence and as contributing to feelings of personal distress and
inadequacy (Barber, 1996; Steinberg, 1990). It therefore
seemed appropriate to focus specifically on measures tapping
anxiety and depression. Delinquency was of interest because
of consistent findings linking monitoring with delinquency
and related antisocial behaviors. Most models of monitoring
stress its role in preventing young adolescents’ “drift” toward
antisocial peers and the concomitant increase in risk of delin-
quency (e.g., Dishion, Patterson, Stoolmiller, & Skinner,
1991).
3. Adolescent parental involvement (age 12 and 13) was assessed
via home interviews with adolescents and mothers. As part
of an extensive interview and questionnaire session at age 12,
adolescents were asked to report how much time (in hours)
they spent with their parents on a typical weekday and how

106 lNTRUSIVE PARENTING

 much time they spent with their parents on a typical weekend
day (r = .38, p < .001, a = .49). Mothers were asked to provide
similar information approximately 16 months later (age 13).
As part of an interview session mothers were asked to report
(in hours) how much time they spent per week talking with
their adolescent, and how much time per week they spent
doing things with their adolescents that the adolescent enjoys
(excluding watching TV and eating meals together; r = .41,
p < ,001, a = 53). The adolescent and parent reports of
parental involvement were not correlated with one another
( r = .04, n.s.).
4. Parental psychological control and monitoring (ages 11, 12, and
13) were indexed through items administered during separate
mother and child interviews over the course of a three-year
span. A t age 11, mothers only were interviewed and responded
to a series of items designed to tap parents’ awareness of their
children’s activities and companions and parents’ judgments
of the extent to which other adults would be available to
provide supervision when their children were away at friends’
homes (see Pettit et al., 1999).A 9-item monitoring composite
scale was selected for use (a= .73).
In the following school year (approximately age 12), adoles-
cents only were interviewed and were asked to respond to a
series of five items describing their parents’ knowledge of their
whereabouts and activities (e.g., “How much do your parents
really know about who you spend time with in the after-school
hours?”) and six items describing the existence of family rules
(e.g., “Does your family have rules about telling your parents
where you are at all times?”). The knowledge items were
adapted from items described by Brown, Mounts, Lamborn,
and Steinberg (1993) and the family rules items were adapted
from items described by Dishion et al. (1991). Because the
two sets of items were scored on slightly different scales, the
age 12 monitoring score was computed as the mean of the 11
standardized items (a= .64). The adolescents also rated their
parents’ use of psychologically controlling behaviors using
eight items adapted from Barber (1996; Barber et al., 1994;
e.g., “DO your parents blame you for other family members’
problems?”). The age 12 psychological control score is the
mean of the eight items (a= .71).
At age 13, mothers and their adolescents were interviewed
in their homes. Embedded in the interviews were several ques-
tions pertaining to monitoring and psychological control (see

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN EARLIER ADJUSTMENT 107

 Pettit et al., 2001). Construct scores were computed as the
mean of the respective items. The same five parent knowledge
items (“HOWmuch do your parents really know. . . . ”) used
in the previous year were again used in the age 13 adolescent
interview to index parental monitoring (a= .65). In the
mother interview, monitoring was assessed through mothers’
ratings of eight items (e.g., “If your child played with children
who get in trouble, how often would you know it?”; a =
.67). The 10 psychological control items embedded into the
adolescent interview were adapted directly from Barber (1996;
e.g., “My mother is always trying to change how I feel or think
about things”; a =.76). Mothers were asked the same ten
items, reworded slightly ( a =.63).
5. Adolescent adjustment outcomes. Behavioral and psychological
adjustment at age 14 was assessed through mother, teacher,
and adolescent report. Mothers’ completed the Achenbach
(1991) CBC, teachers (nominated by school personnel as most
familiar with the child) completed the Achenbach (1991)
TRF, and the adolescents themselves completed the
Achenbach (1991) Youth Self Report. Scale scores were de-
rived from each instrument to index anxiety/depression (all
as > .84) and delinquent behavior problems (all as > .73).

ANALYTIC APPROACH

Correlational techniques were used to assess both main effects and

interactions. Based on the recommendations of Jaccard, Turisi, and Wan
(1990) and Cohen and Cohen (1983), predictor variables were centered
(i.e., the grand mean was subtracted from each participants’ score) before
creating multiplicative interaction terms. The dependent variable was then
regressed on the centered predictors and the interaction term. Each interac-
tion term was tested in a separate regression analysis. For all interactions
involving continuous moderator variables, significant interactions were de-
composed by computing the standardized beta (p) of the predictor variable
at high (+1 SD) and low (-1 SD) values of the moderator.

Results and Discussion

Early Childhood Antecedents of Psychological Control and Monitoring

Main Effects Analyses. The first analysis focused on main-effect, early
childhood antecedents of the age 13 indexes of psychological control and

108 INTRUSIVE PARENTlNG

monitoring. These analyses are described more fully in Pettit et al. (2001).
Each parenting measure served as a dependent variable in a series of regres-
sion analyses. Independent variables were measures representing family back-
ground (socioeconomic status, single-parent status), parenting (mothers’
harsh discipline and proactive involvement), and perceived child adjustment
(age 5 externalizing score). We controlled for the alternate parenting mea-
sure (e.g., in the prediction of mother-reported psychological control,
mother-reported monitoring is the “alternate” measure and was entered first)
because the constructs are known to overlap (Barber, 1996). There were 414
participants contributing complete data for the analyses with the mother-
reported parenting variables and 413 for the analyses with the adolescent-
reported parenting variables.
Both mother-reported and adolescent-reported indexes of psychologi-
cal control were significantly predicted by earlier parenting (R2 = .02 and
.01, respectively). It is interesting to note, however, that adolescents’ reports
were associated only with early harsh discipline, whereas mothers’ reports
were significantly predicted by proactive parenting. Mothers’ reports also
were predicted by mothers’ earlier ratings of their children’s externalizing
problems.
These findings suggest rather different antecedents for mother and
adolescent reports. From the adolescent’s point of view, mothers who are
harsh and coercive in disciplinary encounters in early childhood come to
be viewed years later as psychologically intrusive and manipulative, suggest-
ing that in some families there is an enduring undercurrent of hostility and
lack of respect for autonomy. With respect to mothers’ reports, the connec-
tion between earlier proactive parenting and later psychological control
may stem in part from some mothers’ tendencies to control and manipulate
their children in indirect, and perhaps nonobvious, ways. This tendency
appears to co-occur with mothers’ judgments that their children were difficult
to control, as manifested in mothers’ reports of heightened levels of early
externalizing problems.
In contrast, mother-reported and adolescent-reported monitoring ap-
pear to have similar antecedents. Significant (p < .05) incremental predic-
tions were found for the family background variables (R2 = .08 and .02,
respectively) and for the parenting variables (R2 = .02 and .01). Both
mother- and adolescent-reported monitoring was predicted by early proactive
parenting. Mother-reported monitoring also was forecast by earlier family
socioeconomic status, by childgender, and by marital status. These results
likely indicate the comparative ease of monitoring in higher socioeconomic,
intact families, compared to lower socioeconomic, single-parent families
(Dishion & McMahon, 1998). The fact that preventive parenting in the
early childhood years forecasts higher levels of parental monitoring in early
adolescence may reflect a pervasive, prevention-oriented child-rearing

PARENTAL 1NVOLVEMENT IN EARLIER ADJUSTMENT 109

philosophy in some mothers that expresses itself in developmentally relevant
ways at different ages.
Moderator Analyses : Parenting x Child CharacteristicsInteractions. Given
that proactive parenting predicted both later psychological control and later
monitoring, and that early mother-rated adjustment problems predicted later
psychological control (as reported by mothers), we thought it possible that
the impact of early proactive parenting on later psychological control and
monitoring might be moderated by mothers’ judgments about their children’s
early adjustment and manageability. We therefore conducted an additional
set of regressions, focusing only on mothers’ reports of psychological control
and monitoring. Of interest was whether proactive involvement interacted
with mothers’ ratings of age 5 externalizing problems in the prediction of
later psychological control and monitoring. As in the main-effects analyses,
the alternate form of parenting was controlled first. Proactive parenting and
age 5 externalizing were entered next followed by the proactive parenting
x age 5 externalizing interaction term.
The interaction was significant in the prediction of both psychological
control, R2 = .01, p < .001, and monitoring, R2 = .01, p < .001. At low
levels of child adjustment difficulty, early proactive involvement predicted
later psychological control (p = .21) but not later monitoring (p = .03).
At high levels of child adjustment problems, proactive parenting predicted
later monitoring (p = .25) but not later psychological control (p = -.03).
Thus, the presence or absence of mother-perceived child adjustment prob-
lems appears to alter the meaning of early proactive involvement. Proactive
parenting when the child is seen as fairly well-adjusted may indicate an
unneeded level of maternal planning and anticipating, and may translate
into an inappropriate and intrusive form of later maternal involvement-
or psychological control. On the other hand, proactive parenting with a
hard-to-manage youngster may suggest an appropriate and necessary form
of maternal anticipatory guidance, which may then be manifested in an
age-appropriate version of proactive parenting in adolescence: namely, moni-
toring and distal supervision.
These interaction-effect findings help to make sense out of what might
appear on the surface to be an anomaly: Namely, an early proactive parenting
style predicts both later monitoring and later psychological control, as re-
ported by mothers. These divergent pathways appear to be engendered by
the match (or mismatch) between preschoolaged children’s apparent need
for close supervision (as indexed by their levels of behavior problems) and
mothers’ use of an anticipatory, prevention-oriented parenting approach.
When the child and parent behavior were “matched” (i.e., with mothers
reporting the use of proactive parenting with their difficult-to-manage young-
sters) the mothers were more likely years later to engage in higher amounts
of monitoring and supervision. When there was a “mismatch” between

110 INTRUSIVE PARENTING

mothers’ proactive parenting (high) and child behavior problems (low),
mothers subsequently were more likely to use psychologically controlling
behaviors with their adolescents.

Stability of Psychological Control and Monitoring

Main EffectsAnalyses. The second set of analysesfocused on the stability
of psychological control and monitoring during early adolescence and ex-
plored whether parental involvement or adolescents’history of behavior prob-
lems moderated this stability. Adolescent-reported psychological control at
age 12 was significantly correlated with adolescent-reported psychological
control at age 13 (r = S O , p < .001) and with parent-reported psychological
control at age 13 (r = .11, p < .05). Adolescent-reported monitoring at age
12 was significantly correlated with adolescent-reported monitoring at age 13
(r = .37, p < .001) and parent-reported monitoring at age 11 was significantly
correlated with parent-reported monitoring at age 13 (r = .53, p < .001).
These results provide evidence of modest stability in parenting over a period
of one to two years. Analyses were undertaken to determine whether this
stability was influenced by the adolescents’ history of adjustment problems
or by patterns of parental involvement.
Moderator Analyses: Parenting x Parenting and Parenting x Child Chrac-
teristics Interactions. Given the modest stability in parenting, we thought it
possible that parenting patterns may be more inconsistent when children
have a history of behavior problems, perhaps because parents of problem
children may be actively seeking effective parenting strategies or because
parents find it easier to be consistent when children are less demanding
(Pettit &. Lollis, 1997). To test for this we conducted a series of regression
analyses, with the age 13 parenting variables serving as dependent variables.
The analogous age 11 or 12 parenting variables (e.g., for mother-reported
monitoring at age 13, the analogous variable was mother-reported monitor-
ing at age 11) were entered along with teacher-reported delinquent behavior
and anxiety-depression in middle childhood. Interactions between earlier
parenting and teacher-reported adjustment were entered last. There were
397 participants contributing complete data (for age 13 mother-reported
parenting) and 387 (for age 13 adolescent-reported parenting). None of
the interactions were significant, indicating that stability in psychological
control or monitoring in early adolescence is not moderated by previous
child adjustment history.
It also was of interest to determine whether stability in parenting was
moderated by parental involvement. We reasoned that parents who are
highly involved may be more consistent in their parenting behaviors than
parents who are less involved. First, we tested whether adolescent- or parent-
reported parental involvement interacted with adolescent-reported psycho-

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN EARLlER ADJUSTMENT 111

logical control at age 12 to predicting adolescent-reported psychological con-
trol at age 13 (controlling for main effects). The interaction between adoles-
cent-reported involvement and age 12 psychological control was significant
(R2= .01, p < .05). There was greater stability in adolescent-reported psycho-
logical control at low levels than at high levels of parental involvement (ps =
.54 and .40, respectively). A similar pattern was found when age 13 parent-
reported psychological control was considered (R2= .01, p < .05),with greater
stability in psychological control at low levels than at high levels of parental
involvement (ps =.23and .02, respectively). Collectively, these resultssuggest
that parents who are relatively uninvolved in their children’s lives are more
consistent in their use of psychological control.
The extent to which stability in monitoring was moderated by parental
involvement was tested in a similar fashion. First, we tested whether adoles-
cent- or parent-reported parental involvement interacted with age 12 adoles-
cent-reported monitoring to predict age 13 adolescent-reported monitoring
(controlling for main effects). The interaction term for parent-reported
involvement x age 12 monitoring was significant ( R 2 = .01, p < .05). In
contrast to the results for psychological control, there was greater stability
in monitoring when parent involvement was high (p =.47) than when
parent involvement was low (p =.27). An analogous set of analyses were
conducted to determine whether involvement interacted with age 11 parent-
reported monitoring to predict age 13 parent-reported monitoring. The term
for the adolescent-reported involvement x age 11 monitoring interaction
was marginally significant (R2 = .01, p < .lo). Again, there was somewhat
greater stability in monitoring when parent involvement was high (p = .59)
than when parent involvement was low (p = .48). From these results it
appears that parents who are relatively involved in their adolescents’ lives
are more consistent in their use of monitoring.
T o summarize thus far, an anticipatory parenting style appears to ante-
cede both psychological control and monitoring, with the later manifestation
determined by the parents’ ability to adjust their practices to the behavior
of their children. Moreover, it appears that parental reliance on psychological
control is more stable when parents are relatively uninvolved in their chil-
dren’s lives. In contrast, monitoring is more stable when parents are highly
involved. These findings suggest that parental insensitivity to children’s
needs underlies the use of psychological control whereas involvement and
sensitivity underlie the use of monitoring.

Psychological Control and Monitoring as Predictors of Subsequent

Anxiety-Depression and Delinquent Behavior
Main Effects Analyses. The third set of analyses examined age 13
psychological control and monitoring as predictors of age 14 anxiety-

112 INTRUSlVE PARENTING

depression and delinquent behavior. Bivariate correlations between age 13
psychological control and monitoring and the age 14 indexes of anxiety
and delinquent behavior are shown in Table 4-2. This table also presents
partial correlations controlling for the alternate parenting variable and the
alternative adolescent adjustment variable. At the bivariate correlation
level, little discriminative prediction was seen: Higher levels of psychological
control, and lower levels of monitoring, tended to be associated modestly
with lower levels of anxiety and with fewer delinquent behaviors. Somewhat
more specific associations were found for the partial correlations, with psy-
chological control being associated (positively) with anxiety-depression,
and monitoring being associated somewhat more strongly (negatively) with
delinquent behavior. This pattern of prediction is consistent with most
published reports of the consequences of psychological control and monitor-
ing (see chapter 2, this volume).
Moderator Analyses: Parenting x Child Characteristics Interactions. We
next examined whether the associations between psychological control and
monitoring and later adjustment outcomes varied as a function of children’s
previous behavior problems. One might speculate, for example, that psycho-
logical control is more detrimental among anxious children, perhaps owing
to their propensity to be reserved and inward looking (Barber, 1996). Like-
wise, it might be speculated that parental monitoring would be more effective
in preventing behavior problems among relatively well-adjusted children.
T o test these possibilities, regression analyses were conducted, with the age
14 anxiety-depression and delinquent behavior scores serving as dependent
variables. The main effects of teacher-reported anxiety and delinquent be-
havior in middle childhood and of adolescent- and parent-reported parental
involvement were entered as additional predictors. The interactions of inter-
est were examined individually in a series of second steps. Complete data were
available for 334 participants for the analyses predicting teacher-reported
behavior problems and 342 participants for the analyses predicting adoles-
cent- and parent-reported behavior problems.
The first analysis considered the extent to which teacher-reported
delinquent behavior during middle childhood moderated the impact of
parental psychological control on later delinquent behavior. The childhood
delinquent behavior index interacted with adolescent-reported psychologi-
cal control in the prediction of teacher-reported delinquent behavior ( R 2 =
.02, p < .01) and with mother-reported psychological control in the predic-
tion of teacher-reported delinquent behavior ( R 2 = .01, p < .lo). Both
interactions indicate that psychological control is associated more strongly
with age 14 delinquent behavior when teachers reported lower levels of
delinquent behavior during childhood (ps =.20 and .lo, for adolescent- and
mother-reported psychological control, respectively) than when teachers
reported higher levels of delinquent behavior during childhood (ps =.01

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN EARLIER ADJUSTMENT 113

7j
5
2 TABLE 4-2
is Correlations Between Psychological Control and Monitoring at Age 13 and Behavioral Adjustment Indexes at Age 14
-3

% Delinquent Behavior Anxiety

z" Adolescent Mother Teacher Adolescent Mother Teacher
0 r Pr r Pr r Pr r Pr r Pr r Pr
5
Psychological control
Mother-reported .06 -.01 .lW** .oo .05 -.02 .06 .05 .23*" .17*** .01 -.01
Adolescent-reported .22*** .06 .17*** -.01 .18*** .08 .20*** .14** .18*** .15** .08 .02
Monitoring
Mother-reported -.20*** -.1g*** -.30*** -.26*** - .32*** -.30*** -.06 .04 -.14** .07 -.lo+ .02
Adolescent-reported -.36*** -.30*** -.24*** -.25*** -.25*** -.20'** -.13** .05 -.03 .16*** -.08 .02
Note: N = 374 to 378. Correlations are denoted as r ; partial correlations are denoted as pr; partial correlations for alternate behavior problem and parenting indexes.
+ p c .lo, ' p c .05, " p c .01, "'pc ,001
and -.02). That is, psychological control appears to be associated with an
increase in the delinquent behavior of children who were exhibiting low
levels of delinquent behavior in childhood.
The second set of interactions examined whether teacher-reported
delinquent behavior during childhood moderated the impact of monitoring
on later delinquent behavior. Teacher-reported delinquent behavior inter-
acted with parent-reported monitoring in the prediction of adolescent-
reported delinquent behavior (R2 = .01, p < .05), adolescent-reported moni-
toring in the prediction of mother-reported delinquent behavior ( R 2 = .01,
p < .05), and adolescent-reported monitoring in the prediction of adolescent-
reported delinquent behavior (R2= .01, p < .lo). For all three interactions,
higher levels of monitoring were associated more strongly with lower levels
of age 14 delinquent behavior when childhood delinquent behavior was
low (ps = e.23, -21, and -.38, for mother-reported monitoring in predicting
adolescent-reported delinquent behavior and adolescent-reported monitor-
ing in predicting mother- and adolescent-reported delinquent behavior,
respectively) than when childhood delinquent behavior was high (ps =
-.07, -.07, and -.28).
From these results it appears that monitoring is most effective when
adolescents have a history of engaging in comparatively low levels of delin-
quent behavior. However, given the association between monitoring and
proactive parenting, discussed earlier, another consistent interpretation is
that monitoring is more effective when parents have been proactive in
preventing the development of delinquent behavior problems than when
parents are reacting to the presence of behavior problems (Pettit et al., 1997).
The next set of interactions considered age 14 anxiety-depression,
and the extent to which its links with parent- or adolescent-reported psycho-
logical control or monitoring were moderated by teacher-reported anxiety
during childhood. None of the interactions were significant predictors of
anxiety at age 14. The impact of parenting on anxiety does not appear to
vary with children’s history of anxious behaviors.
Moderator Analyses: Parenting x Parenting Interactions. As described
earlier, stability in parenting is moderated by parental involvement, with
less involved parents showing more cross-time consistency in psychological
control and with highly involved parents showing more cross-time consis-
tency (relative to other parents in the sample) in monitoring. Given the
differences in levels of stability, it was of interest to determine whether the
consequences of psychological control and monitoring vary as a function
of parental involvement. Specifically, high levels of parental involvement
may exacerbate the impact of psychological control because of repeated
exposure of the child to the parents’ psychological manipulation. Parental
monitoring may be harder to maintain, but be most effective, when parents
are less involved in their children’s lives (i.e., providing less direct supervi-
sion; Pettit et al., 1999).

PARENTAL lNVOLVEMENT IN EARLIER ADJUSTMENT I15

 To test parental involvement as a moderator of relations between
psychological control and monitoring and adolescent behavior problems a
series of regression analyses were conducted with the age 14 indexes of
delinquent behavior and anxiety again serving as dependent variables. The
main effects of teacher-reported delinquent behavior and anxiety in middle
childhood and of adolescent- and parent-reported parental involvement
were retained as predictors. The interactions of interest were examined
individually in a series of second steps. Multivariate Ns were 334 for analyses
of teacher-reported behavior problems, and 342 for analyses of adolescent-
and parent-reported behavior problems.
The first set of analyses examined whether parental involvement mod-
erated the impact of psychological control on delinquent behavior or anxi-
ety-depression at age 14. One interaction was significant. Adolescent-
reported parent involvement interacted with parent-reported psychological
control to predict teacher-reported delinquent behavior (R2 = .02, p < .05).
Higher levels of psychological control were associated with more delinquent
behavior when involvement was low (p =.14) and with less delinquent
behavior when involvement was high (p = -.12). This finding replicates
the interaction reported by Gray and Steinberg (1999) but emphasizes
the autonomy-threatening dimension of psychological control. Gray and
Steinberg found that autonomy-granting predicted more positive develop-
mental outcomes when parental involvement was low, whereas our data
show that psychological control (i.e., lack of autonomy-granting) predicts
more negative developmental outcomes when parental involvement is low.
Psychological control is linked to increased delinquent behavior both among
adolescents without a history of behavior problems and among adolescents
whose parents are relatively uninvolved in their lives. Moreover, because
relatively uninvolved parents may find it easier to use psychological control,
and because the use of psychological control is most consistent among less
involved parents, exposure to psychologically controlling parenting may be
a pathway through which relatively well-adjusted children with uninvolved
parents begin to exhibit behavior problems during early adolescence.
The final set of analyses tested interactions between parental involve-
ment and monitoring in the prediction of delinquent behavior or anxiety-
depression at age 14. Parent-reported involvement interacted with adoles-
cent-reported monitoring in the prediction of delinquent behavior as
reported by both the adolescent (Rz = .01, p < .lo) and the mother ( R 2 =
.01, p < .05). Higher levels of monitoring were associated more strongly
with low levels of delinquent behavior problems when involvement was
low (ps = -.47, and -.35 for adolescent- and mother-reported delinquent
behavior, respectively) than when involvement was high (ps = -.29 and
-.I 1). Parent involvement also interacted with parent-reported monitoring

116 INTRUSIVE PARENTING

in the prediction of teacher-rated delinquent behavior (parent-reported
involvement, R2 = .02, p < .05; adolescent-reported parent involvement
R2 = .01, p < .05). Again, higher levels of monitoring predicted lower levels
of delinquent behavior more strongly when parental involvement was
low (ps = -.39, and -.40 for adolescent- and mother-reported parental
involvement, respectively) than when involvement was high (ps = -.09,
and -.24).
The interaction between monitoring and involvement in the predic-
tion of delinquent behavior appears to be evidence of a compensatory process
whereby high levels of monitoring can make up for a lack of parental
involvement. In other words, high levels of monitoring OT parental involve-
ment appears to be sufficient for parents to have the knowledge of their
early adolescents’ activities and whereabouts needed to prevent delin-
quent behavior.

CONCLUSION

In this chapter we illustrate the role of parental involvement and

earlier child adjustment as factors shaping the course and consequences of
psychological control and monitoring in adolescence. A summary of the
main findings is presented in Table 4-3. As a whole, the findings lend further
support to arguments that psychological control and monitoring represent
distinct socializing constructs (see chapter 1, this volume), and underscore
the importance of conceptualizing parenting effects in conditional (i.e.,
interactive) terms, rather than simply as main and additive effects (Collins
et al., 2000).
Although main effects were not chiefly of interest in this investigation,
and are discussed in greater detail in a related report (Pettit et al., 2001),
it is noteworthy that psychological control and monitoring appear to have
somewhat different antecedents and patterns of correlates. Monitoring is
linked most consistently with a proactive, anticipatory parenting style, which
makes sense when one considers that monitoring reflects both an outcome-
a parent’s having knowledge of the teenager’s activities and whereabouts-
and a process through which this knowledge and information is acquired.
The process itself is not well-understood (Dishion & McMahon, 1998), but
likely reflects historical factors in the parent-child relationship, such as
warmth and mutual respect, and earlier efforts on the part of the parent to
read “early warning” signs of potential problems (i.e., that the child is
gravitating toward a friendship that the parent disapproves of). The seeds
of being skilled in reading these early signs likely are sown in the childhood

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN EARLIER ADJUSTMENT 117

 TABLE 4-3
Summary of Findings

.
Early Childhood Antecedents of Psychological Control and Monitoring
More psychological control found when there is a history of harsh discipline and

. child behavior problems

More psychological control found among more proactive parents but only when

. children had no history of behavior problems

.
More monitoring found among higher socioeconomic status families, parents
with daughters, and two-parent families
More monitoring among more proactive parents but only when children had a
history of behavior problems

.
Stability of Psychological Control and Monitoring
Psychological control relatively stable from age 12 to 13, with greater stability at
low levels of parental involvement
Monitoring relatively stable from age 11-12 to age 13, with greater stability at
high levels of parental involvement

..
Psychological Control and Monitoring as Predictors of Subsequent Adjustment
Greater psychological control predicts greater anxiety
Greater psychological control predicts more delinquent behavior problems, but
only when there is no history of childhood delinquent behavior problems and

..when parental involvement is low

Greater monitoring predicts lower anxiety
Greater monitoring predicts fewer delinquent behavior problems, particularly
when there is no history of childhood delinquent behavior problems and when
parental involvement is low

years, when parents are in closer proximity to the child and have greater
opportunities for arranging and controlling the child’s environment.
The arranging and supervising of the child’s life may, however, eventu-
ate into a less healthy form of parental control, as shown by psychologically
controlling and manipulating parenting. Our data suggest that psychological
control is anteceded both by early harsh discipline (when adolescents’ reports
of psychological control are considered) and by a mix of proactive involve-
ment and perceived child behavioral problems (when mothers’ reports of
psychological control are considered). The mother who is, perhaps, overly
attentive to early signs of problems-or who responds to a nonproblem
child in a manner that might be more suitable for a demanding or hard-
to-manage child-may be setting in motion a series of events leading to
later difficulties in negotiating autonomy and personal identity issues with
her adolescent (Steinberg, 1990).
It is interesting that early proactive involvement predicted later psycho-
logical control when mothers rated their preschoolers as low in externalizing
problems but that proactive involvement predicted later monitoring when
mothers rated their preschoolers as high in externalizing problems. The
latter suggests the prevention-oriented parenting style shown by mothers

118 1NTRUSlVE PARENTING

of demanding youngsters may stem in part from characteristics of the child
(or, at least, mothers’ perceptions of those characteristics), as well as, perhaps,
from the mothers’ own prevention-oriented parenting philosophy (Pettit et
al., 2001). The finding that mothers who are proactive when their children
show comparatively few problems are more likely to be psychologically
controlling in the early adolescent years suggests a more mother-driven
pattern, perhaps stemming from personality dispositions (e.g., hostility or
depression) or from earlier experiences in the mothers’ family of origin (e.g.,
problems in individuation or conflict with parents) (see chapter 2, this
volume). It will be important for future research to examine intermediate
events between early parent-child relationship factors and later displays of
monitoring and psychological control. It may be, as some have argued, that
social learning (e.g., Dishion & McMahon, 1998) or social control (e.g.,
Jang & Smith, 1997) processes best explain the reciprocal relationships
between child characteristics and parenting orientations. To understand the
operation of such processes it will be necessary to trace the evolution of
the parent-child system across multiple time periods, with assessments of
parent-child connectedness and child behavioral adjustment, as well as age-
appropriate indexes of psychological control and monitoring.
We also sought to document the stability in psychological control and
monitoring and the extent to which this stability was moderated by parent
involvement and earlier child adjustment history. In some ways our data
set was not ideally suited for examining stability issues because we did not
always have identical measures across ages and constructs, and for some
ages we did not have parallel measures for both teenage reports and mother
reports. Nonetheless, the overall pattern of findings was strikingly consistent
in showing that psychological control was relatively more stable at lower
levels of parental involvement whereas monitoring was more stable at high
levels of parental involvement. The greater stability of monitoring when
involvement is higher seems reasonable because more involved parents have
greater opportunities to solicit information that is essential to effective
monitoring (Jang & Smith, 1997). It is less clear why psychological control
might be more stable when involvement is low, but it may be that the need
to use, or the motivation to use, psychological control increases when parent
and child spend less time together. It therefore may be that a fairly small
number of low-involved, highly controlling parents account for this stability.
We had expected that earlier adjustment history also might moderate
the stability of psychological control and monitoring (e.g., with greater
stability of monitoring when children were generally well-adjusted), but
this expectation was not supported by our data. However, we did find some
support for the expectation that earlier adjustment might moderate the
impact of psychological control and monitoring on subsequent adjustment.
These data may be used to address two related questions: Are parents’ control

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN EARLIER ADJUSTMENT 219

attempts actually associated with a reduction in the level of problem behavior
exhibited by the adolescents? Do the “effects” of these interventions vary as
a function of the level of maladjustment previously shown by the adolescents?
Both questions were, for the most part, answered in the affirmative. When
there is little history of earlier behavior problems, monitoring is more effec-
tive in “preventing” later problems. As mentioned earlier, social learning
and social control perspectives might be applied to explain this finding,
with both perspectives stressing a lessening of the parent-child relationship
bond in those families in which children exhibit higher levels of behavioral
maladjustment, with a concomitant decrease in parents’ motivations to
socialize the child (i.e., less monitoring). O n the other hand, when there
are low levels of earlier behavior problems (at least delinquent behavior
problems), psychological control is less effective in preventing later delin-
quent behavior. The term “preventing” may be a bit of a misnomer in this
instance, however, because it seems unlikely that many parents would apply
psychological control in such a strategic manner (see chapter 2, this volume).
Nonetheless, this finding may indicate that fairly well-adjusted children,
who perhaps are less likely than their poorly adjusted counterparts to seek
social connections with peers, especially deviant peers (Laird,Jordan, Dodge,
Pettit, and Bates, 2001 ), are especially susceptible to the pernicious effects
of psychological control.
When parent involvement was considered as a moderator of the impact
of psychological control and monitoring on later adolescent adjustment,
evidence was found for both conditional effects (Darling & Steinberg, 1993)
and compensatory effects (Pettit & Mize, 1993). The interaction between
psychological control and involvement fits with the conditional effects
model because the meaning of psychological control may vary as a function
of the level of parent-adolescent involvement. When involvement is low
but parents engage in high amounts of psychological control, adolescents
may interpret the parents’ behavior as intrusive and insincere. When
involvement is high, the same kinds of parenting behaviors may be viewed
differently, perhaps as manifestations of concern or interest. We can only
speculate on these processes because we did not assess children’s interpreta-
tions of their parents’ controlling behavior. Future research could benefit
from more detailed assessments of intervening social-cognitive events that
lead children to respond in different ways to parenting behavior under
differing circumstances or contexts (e.g., Smetana, 1995).
The interaction of monitoring and involvement in the prediction of
delinquent behavior is consistent with a compensatory model. Higher levels
of monitoring were associated with fewer delinquent behavior problems,
especially when parent involvement was low. Additional analyses (not pre-
sented) also suggest that monitoring moderates the impact of involvement.
Inspection of means suggests that the adolescents most at risk are those

120 INTRUSIVE PARENTING

whose parents are low in both involvement and monitoring. When either
monitoring or involvement occurs at a high rate, the level of delinquent
behavior problems is lower. Thus, hands-on involvement and supervision can
compensate for lack of overall knowledge of whereabouts and companions
(monitoring) and monitoring can, to some extent, compensate for lack of
direct supervision and involvement (Pettit et al., 1999).
In sum, we have illustrated ways in which earlier and later forms of
parental involvement and child adjustment profiles may be implicated in
shaping the continuities and effects of psychological control and monitoring.
Important parenting constructs are likely to be linked with child adjustment
outcomes in complex ways (Collins et al., 2000). This chapter has shown that
this complexity emanates from both the broader parent-child relationship
context as well as by early and continuing patterns of child adjustment.

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL14-18, YSR, and TRF
profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected con-
struct. Child Development, 67, 3296-3319.
Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. A., & Shagle, S. C. (1994). Associations between parental
psychological and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized
behaviors. Child Development, 65, 1120-1 136.
Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Ridge, B. (1998). The interaction of
temperamental resistance to control and restrictive parental discipline in the
development of externalizing problems. Developmental Psychology, 34,982-995.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior.
Child Development, 37, 887-907.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Develop-
ment, 55, 83-96.
Belsky,J. (1997). Theory testing, effect-size evaluation, and differential susceptibility
to rearing influence:The case of mothering and attachment. Child Development,
68, 598-600.
Bogenschneider,K., Small, S. A., &Tsay, J. C. (1997).Child, parent, and contextual
influences on perceived parenting competence among parents of adolescents.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 345-362.
Bogenschneider, K., Wu, M., Raffaelli, M., & Tsay, J. C. (1998). Parent influences
on adolescent peer orientation and substance use: The interface of parenting
practices and values. Child Development, 69, 1672-1688.
Brown, B. B., Mounts, N., Lambom, S. D., Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices
and peer group affiliation in adolescence. Child Development, 64, 467-482.

PARENTAL 1NVOLVEMENT IN EARLIER ADJUSTMENT 121

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/cowehtion analysis for the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Colder, C. R., Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (1997). The moderating effects of
children’s fear and activity level on relations between parenting practices and
childhood symptomatology.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25,25 1-263.
Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., 6r Bomstein, M.
(2000). Contemporary research on parenting: The case for nature and nurture.
American Psychologist, 55, 218-232.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative
model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496.
Dishion, T. J., 6 McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention
of child adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical foundation.
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, I , 61-75.
Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., Stoolmiller, M., & Skinner, M. L. (1991). Family,
school, and behavioral antecedents to early adolescent involvement with anti-
social peers. Developmental Psychology, 27, 172-180.
Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999).Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing
a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61,574-587.
Herman, M. R., Dombusch, S. M., Herron, M. C., & Herting, J. R. (1997). The
influence of family regulation, connection, and psychological autonomy on six
measures of adolescent functioning. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 34-67.
Jaccard, J., Turisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple regression.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jang, S. J., & Smith, C. A. (1997). A test of reciprocal causal relationships among
parental supervision, affective ties, and delinquency. Journal of Research in
Crime €4 Delinquency, 34, 307-336.
Kochanska, G. ( 19%). Children’s temperament, mother’s discipline, and security
of attachment: Multiple pathways to emerging internalization. Child Develop-
ment, 66, 597-615.
Laird, R. D., Jordan, K. Y., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2001). Peer
rejection in childhood, involvement with antisocial peers in early adolescence,
and the development of externalizing behavior problems. Development and
Psychopathology, 13, 337-354..
Mize, I.,& Pettit, G. S. (1997). Mothers’social coaching, mother-child relationship
style, and children’s peer competence: Is the medium the message? Child
Development, 68, 291-311.
Mounts, N. S. (1999, April). Parenting style and parental munagement ofpeers: Contri-
butions to fiend selection and udjusment. Paper presented as part of the sympo-
sium, “ ‘So, these are your friends?’ Parental management of adolescents’ peer
relationships (N.S. Mounts & K. McCoy, Chairs), at the biennial meeting of
the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family processes. Eugene, OR Castalia Press.

122 INTRUSIVE PARENTING

Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1984). Continuity of individual differences in the
mother-infant relationship from six to thirteen months. Child Development,
55, 729-739.
Pettit, G. S.,Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Supportive parenting, ecological
context, and children’s adjustment: A seven-year longitudinal study. Child
Development, 68, 908-923.
Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Meece, D. W. (1999). The impact of after-
school peer contact on early adolescent externalizing problems is moderated by
parental monitoring, perceived neighborhood safety, and prior adjustment.
Child Development, 70, 768-778.
Pettit, G. S., Laird, R. D., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Criss, M. M. (2001).
Antecedents and behavior-problem outcomes of parental monitoring and psy-
chological control. Child Development, 72, 583-598.
Pettit, G. S., & Lollis, S.P. (1997). Reciprocity and bidirectionality in parent-
child relationships: New approaches to the study of enduring issues. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 435-440.
Pettit, G. S., & Mize, J. (1993). Substance and style: Understanding the ways in
which parents teach children about social relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.),
Understanding relationship processes: Vol. 2. Learning about relationships (pp.
118-151). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon (Series Ed.)
& N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3 . Social, emo-
tional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 105-176). New York: Wiley.
Schaefer, E. S. (1965). A configurational analysis of children’s reports of parent
behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29, 552-557.
Smetana, J. G. (1995). Parenting styles and conceptions of parental authority during
adolescence. Child Development, 66, 299-3 16.
Steinberg, L. ( 1990). Interdependence in the family: Autonomy, conflict, and
harmony in the parent-adolescent relationship. In S. S. Feldman & G. R.
Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adokscent (pp. 255-276). Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting,
psychological maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Develop-
ment, 60, 1424-1436.
Wootton, J. M., Frick, P. J., Shelton, K. K., & Silverthom, P. (1997). Ineffective
parenting and childhood conduct problems: The moderating role of callous-
unemotional traits. Journal of Consulting # Clinical Psychology, 65, 292-300.

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN EARLIER ADJUSTMENT 123