Psychological Control,

Maternal Emotion and Cognition,

and Child Outcomes
in Individualist and Collectivist Groups
Duane Rudy
Linda Citlali Halgunseth

SUMMARY. This article presents data that explores the phenomenon

of psychological control in a group of mothers from individualist back-
grounds (West-European) and a group of mothers from collectivist
backgrounds (Middle Eastern and South Asian). It is argued that mea-
sures of psychological control may reflect maladaptive processes in in-
dividualist groups, but they do not necessarily reflect maladaptive

Address correspondence to: Duane Rudy, PhD, Department of Human Develop-

ment and Family Studies, 314 Gentry Hall, University of Missouri-Columbia, Colum-
bia, MO 65201 (E-mail: rudyd@missouri.edu).
The authors thank Malektaj Hejazi for her help in collecting data, M. D. Khalid for
putting them in contact with some participants in the study, Kelly McShane, Marilisa
Morea, and Jane Wong, who worked as research assistants, and the mothers and chil-
dren who participated in the study. The authors also thank Kim Leon for her valuable
comments on previous versions of this article.
Financial support was provided by a grant from the Social Science and Humanities
Research Council to Joan Grusec.
This research was conducted as part of the doctoral dissertation of Duane Rudy, and
was completed under the supervision of Joan Grusec.
[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “Psychological Control, Maternal Emotion and Cognition, and Child
Outcomes in Individualist and Collectivist Groups.” Rudy, Duane, and Linda Citlali Halgunseth. Co-pub-
lished simultaneously in Journal of Emotional Abuse (The Haworth Maltreatment & Trauma Press, an im-
print of The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 5, No. 4, 2005, pp. 237-264; and: Implications of Parent-Child
Boundary Dissolution for Developmental Psychopathology: “Who Is the Parent and Who Is the Child?” (ed:
Patricia K. Kerig) The Haworth Maltreatment & Trauma Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc., 2005,
pp. 237-264. Single or multiple copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document De-
livery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: docdelivery@haworth
press.com].

Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JEA

 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J135v05n04_04 237
238 IMPLICATIONS OF PARENT-CHILD BOUNDARY DISSOLUTION

processes in collectivist groups. In this study, the collectivist group

scored higher on psychological control than the individualist group.
However, the collectivist group did not exhibit elevated levels of
maladaptive maternal emotions and cognitions, or maladaptive child
outcomes (school grades and self-esteem). Finally, psychological con-
trol was associated with maladaptive maternal cognitions in the individ-
ualist, but not the collectivist group. [Article copies available for a fee from
The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address:
<docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2005
by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Parent-child relations, parental control, cross-cultural

differences, childrearing attitudes, child outcomes

The issue of parental psychological control and its relationship to

child outcomes has received increased attention over the past decade.
Barber and his colleagues have contributed to this trend, with the publi-
cation of a number of influential articles and a recent edited book (Bar-
ber, 1996; Barber, 2002; Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, 1994). The bulk of
research investigating psychological control has concentrated on sam-
ples comprised primarily of participants of Anglo or West-European
background. This research has tended to find that psychological control
is associated with lower levels of parental acceptance and less adaptive
child outcomes (e.g., Barber & Buehler, 1996; Garber & Flynn, 2001;
Gondoli & Silverberg, 1997; see also Bradford & Barber, this volume).
A small amount of research regarding psychological control has been
conducted in non-European groups. This research has focused on within-
group associations between psychological control and other variables
such as parental acceptance and child outcomes. Few studies have exam-
ined the main effects of culture. Regarding this issue, it is possible that
non-European groups may score significantly higher on psychological
control than European-Americans, but that non-European groups will
not, as a group, score dramatically lower in terms of accepting and loving
their children, and their children will not have more deleterious out-
comes. Parental tactics that appear to be psychologically controlling
might serve a different function in individualist and collectivist groups,
and may therefore have different effects on children.
This argument builds upon research by Rudy and Grusec (in press)
regarding collectivism and authoritarian parenting. They compared
 Duane Rudy and Linda Citlali Halgunseth 239

mothers and children from non-European countries that emphasized

collectivism to mothers and children of European origin. They found
that the non-European mothers endorsed much higher levels of authori-
tarianism than European mothers. However, the groups did not differ in
terms of maternal acceptance of children, nor did children differ in
terms of self-esteem. Furthermore, in the European group, maternal au-
thoritarianism was associated with negative attitudes toward children,
but the in non-European group there was no association between these
variables. The present study sought to extend the findings regarding au-
thoritarian practices to psychologically controlling tactics, in particular
control via guilt induction, and to examine both main effects of culture
and within-group associations among psychological control, parental
acceptance, and child outcomes.

THE QUALITIES AND EFFECTS

OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL

In a recent review, Barber and Harmon (2002) describe the various

ways that psychological control has been defined and studied. They
state that conceptually, psychological control employs psychological
methods, in contrast to simple power assertion. Specifically, children’s
thoughts and emotions are manipulated in order to influence children’s
behavior. The manipulation of children’s thoughts and emotions has
been assessed with measures of parental guilt induction, withdrawal of
love, and instilling anxiety in children. Less frequently studied strate-
gies include appeals to pride, expressions of disappointment, shaming,
isolating the child from the parent, excluding outside influences, and
deifying the parent.
Another quality of psychological control is that it is intrusive, in that it
intrudes on the child’s sense of self (see also Kerig, this volume). Exam-
ples of intruding on the child’s sense of self are the constraint of chil-
dren’s and adolescents’ verbal expressions, the avoidance of commun-
ication with children, and binding and constraining parental behaviors
that restrict verbal interactions to parental topics and show indifference to
the child. Barber and Harmon (2002) state that such tactics serve to “in-
hibit the child’s discovery and expression of self” (p. 21). In other words,
when levels of psychological control are high, children may have diffi-
culty identifying and viewing their own wants, feelings, needs, and
thoughts as legitimate. Crucial to this issue is whether children, and their
thoughts and emotions, are affirmed and accepted, versus ignored or re-
240 IMPLICATIONS OF PARENT-CHILD BOUNDARY DISSOLUTION

jected. Techniques such as control through guilt, the withdrawal of love

when children behave in ways unacceptable to the parent, and instilling
anxiety in children about misbehavior, may suggest to children that their
self-worth and/or well-being is contingent upon what they, the children,
think and feel.
Contingent affirmation is important, because it helps to establish
standards to which children must aspire. However, it is also important
that children feel accepted and loved as individuals unconditionally
(Baumrind, 1989). In this way, children can develop a sense of self as an
entity distinct from their parents and as worthy of love. Thus, Barber
(1996) states that behavioral control (i.e., that sets standards of behav-
ior, and suggests that some behaviors are not acceptable) is beneficial,
whereas psychological control (i.e., that suggests that aspects of the self
are not always acceptable) is detrimental to children. Not surprisingly,
parental psychological control is associated with more negative child
outcomes, such as higher scores on the internalizing subscale of the
Child Behavior Checklist (CBC), higher levels of depression, higher
levels of anxiety, and lower levels of self-esteem. Psychological control
has also been found to be related to higher levels of externalizing behav-
iors, although less consistently, as well as lower levels of academic
achievement (see Barber & Harmon, 2002, for a review).

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL
AND INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM

One interesting issue related to psychological control has to do with

whether it is used more frequently in some cultures than in other cul-
tures. Important in this regard is the distinction between cultural groups
emphasizing interdependence, and those emphasizing independence.
We refer to these groups as “collectivist” and “individualist,” respec-
tively. In collectivist cultures, individuals are expected to suppress the
expression of their wants and needs, and attempt to meet the wants and
needs of others in the in-group, whether the in-group in question is the
family, classmates, or colleagues at work. In return, it is expected that
others in the in-group will work to fulfill one’s own wants and needs
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991; see also Jurkovic, Kuperminc, Sarac, and
Weisshaar, this volume). In such cultures, parents may use methods that
seem psychologically controlling in an effort to encourage children to
consider the needs of others in the in-group. Indeed, cultures that score
high on measures of collectivism, such as cultures from the Middle
 Duane Rudy and Linda Citlali Halgunseth 241

East, South Asia, and East Asia, tend to utilize shame and guilt as meth-
ods of socialization. Sue (1981), for example, says that Japanese and
Chinese family members “. . . are expected to submerge behaviors and
feelings to further the welfare of the family and its reputation” (p. 121),
and that guilt, shame, and appeals to obligation are the main methods
used to control family members. Similarly, in Arab and South Asian
cultures such as India and Pakistan, honor and shame are important
motivators (Abudabbeh, 1998; Stewart et al., 2000; Viswanathan, Shah, &
Ahad, 1997). Since guilt and shame are elements of psychological con-
trol, it is possible that parents from collectivist cultures would score
higher on measures of psychological control.
It is not necessarily the case, however, that higher levels of psychologi-
cal control found in collectivist groups, as compared to individualist
groups, will be accompanied by higher levels of deleterious child out-
comes. If parents from collectivist cultures employ psychologically con-
trolling practices due to socialization concerns and cultural norms, then
the high levels of psychological control found in collectivist groups may
reflect a more benign attitude toward children than equivalently high lev-
els of psychological control in individualist groups. In individualist
groups, psychologically controlling practices may be relatively pro-
scribed by the cultural norm of independence. Thus, psychological con-
trol might reflect a concern with promoting collectivist values in more
collectivist cultures, and a concern with parental interests and a lack of
concern with the child’s well-being in more individualist cultures. These
different motivations can be expected to have different consequences. In
more individualist cultures, for example, parents who focus on their own
concerns are less likely to engage in perspective-taking, and more likely
to experience higher levels of negative affect, lower levels of warmth and
nurturance, and more negative ways of thinking about children (Dix,
1992; Hastings & Grusec, 1998). Children may interpret this rejection as
reflecting their own lack of self-worth, and may experience internalizing
disorders and behave in less competent ways, at least in part, due to their
negative conceptions of self.

RESEARCH ON PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL

AND PARENTAL ACCEPTANCE
IN COLLECTIVIST GROUPS

There is a small amount of research to support these propositions. In

samples comprised predominantly of middle-class Anglo participants,
242 IMPLICATIONS OF PARENT-CHILD BOUNDARY DISSOLUTION

psychological control has been found to be associated with lower levels

of maternal perspective-taking (Gondoli & Silverberg, 1997) and lower
levels of parental acceptance (Garber & Flynn, 2001; Schwarz,
Barton-Henry, & Pruzinsky, 1985;1 but see Larson & Gillman, 1999,
who found no association between these variables), confirming that in in-
dividualist samples, psychological control is associated with less adap-
tive parental cognition and emotion. There is little research that has
examined the cognitive and emotional correlates of psychological control
in more collectivist cultural groups.2 However, Barber (1999) found that
in a Palestinian sample, psychological control was not associated with pa-
rental acceptance for girls, and was positively associated with parental
acceptance for boys. Also, in a sample of Chinese adolescents from Hong
Kong, Yau and Smetana (1996) administered a three-item measure of
control that resembles psychological control (i.e., restrictiveness, keeping
the child in awe, and not allowing children autonomy), and found no as-
sociation between this measure and a measure of maternal warmth.
Aside from within-group correlations, the issue of the main effects of
culture is also important. Specifically, are the higher average levels of
psychological control we might expect in collectivist groups, as com-
pared to individualist groups, accompanied by lower average levels of
positive parental thoughts and emotion regarding children? There is little
work investigating the main effects of culture. However, Schludermann
and Schludermann (1983) present evidence supporting these ideas. They
examined adolescents from Canada, and two types of groups from India:
one from poorer, “traditional” areas and one from more urban, “transi-
tional” areas (i.e., areas described as moving toward modernization).
They found large effects of culture for psychological control, with tradi-
tional Indian adolescents reporting the highest levels. One would expect,
therefore, that traditional Indian adolescents would report much lower
levels of acceptance. However, Schludermann and Schludermann found
weak effects for acceptance-rejection, with transitional Indian adoles-
cents reporting the highest levels of acceptance. Thus it appears that aver-
age levels of psychological control are higher in India, but that average
levels of acceptance are not necessarily lower.

RESEARCH ON PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL

AND CHILD OUTCOMES IN COLLECTIVIST GROUPS

If, in collectivist cultures, parental psychological control is associated

with socialization concerns and is weakly associated with rejection of the
 Duane Rudy and Linda Citlali Halgunseth 243

child, it is possible that the associations between psychological control

and child outcomes will be weaker than in individualist cultures. Again,
this hypothesis applies to patterns of correlations within collectivist cul-
tural groups and also to the main effect of culture for collectivist and indi-
vidualist cultural groups. The number of studies regarding parental
psychological control and child outcomes within collectivist cultural
groups is not large, but what evidence there is tends to provide mixed sup-
port for this hypothesis. First, regarding within-group relationships, some
studies have found that in collectivist samples, psychological control is
associated with lower levels of well-being, just as in individualist groups.
For example, Barber (1999, 2001) found small but significant relation-
ships (e.g., r = .18) between psychological control and children’s depres-
sion, as well as school grades, in a Palestinian sample. Also, Kim and
Dembo (2000) found that higher levels of psychological control were
substantially associated with a fear of academic failure in South Korean
college students (e.g., r = .39), although there was no association between
psychological control and academic self-efficacy. Finally, Yau and
Smetana’s (1996) measure of control, discussed above, was related to
Chinese adolescent’s reports of conflict intensity with their parents.
Other studies have provided mixed support for a relationship be-
tween psychological control and less adaptive child outcomes in collec-
tivist groups. This is particularly true for Hispanic groups. Bronstein
(1994), for example, observed Hispanic fathers and mothers interacting
in their homes with their children, and found psychological control to be
related to higher levels of children’s passive and provocative resistance
to parents (e.g., stalling and challenging the parent, respectively). How-
ever, it was also related to higher levels of children’s assertive self-ex-
pression, a positive variable. Furthermore, observations of punitive
control were more consistently related to less adaptive child behaviors.
The results of this study must be interpreted with caution, however, as
78 dyads were observed, but the dyads came from only 19 families. In
another study, Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, and Fraleigh
(1987) obtained adolescent reports of parenting behaviors resembling
psychological control. This measure was related to lower grades for
Asian students, but it was not related to grades for Hispanic students. Fi-
nally, Walker-Barnes and Mason (2001) examined psychological con-
trol in relation to gang involvement and delinquency in Hispanic, Black,
and White ninth-grade students. For Hispanic youth, higher levels of
psychological control were related to decreases in gang involvement
over time. Across all groups (i.e., also for Hispanics), there was also a
244 IMPLICATIONS OF PARENT-CHILD BOUNDARY DISSOLUTION

marginal trend for higher levels of psychological control to be related to

increases in delinquency.
Weak associations between psychological control and child out-
comes have been found in non-Hispanic collectivist groups as well.
Hart, Nelson, Robinson, Olsen, and McNeilly-Choque (1998) assessed
overt and relational aggression in Russian children and assessed paren-
tal coercion, responsiveness, and psychological control in mothers and
fathers. Correlations between parental variables and children’s overt
and relational aggression were calculated for all possible parent-child
combinations (e.g., mother-daughter, mother-son, father-daughter, and
father-son). Thus, for each parenting variable there were eight correla-
tions between parenting measures and child outcomes, reflecting the
four possible dyads and two child outcomes. Five out of eight correla-
tions were significant for parental coercion and parental responsive-
ness, whereas only two out of eight were significant for psychological
control. The significant correlations for psychological control, more-
over, were reduced to a trend when controlling for other parenting and
demographic variables. Olsen et al. (2002) also assessed maternal re-
ports of psychological control in samples of Russian, Chinese, and
American mothers and their 3- to 7-year-old children. When child sex
was not considered, psychological control was related to externalizing
and internalizing behaviors in the American sample, to externalizing
behaviors only in the Russian sample, and was unrelated to child
outcomes in the Chinese sample.3
The above discussion concerns within-group associations, but the
main effects of culture are important to consider as well. Specifically, if
collectivist groups score higher than individualist groups on psycholog-
ical control, are child outcomes necessarily less adaptive? Few studies
have examined this issue. In one study, Lyon, Henggeler, and Hall
(1992) found that Hispanic youth reported higher levels of psychologi-
cal control than Caucasian youth, yet Caucasian youth reported higher
levels of school and home delinquency than Hispanic youth. No differ-
ences were found between the groups for aggression with peers and
social maturity.
Thus, within collectivist cultural groups, when significant associa-
tions have been discovered, they have tended to be similar to the associ-
ations found in individualist groups, with higher levels of psychological
control associated with more problematic parent-child relationships and
less adaptive child outcomes. However, in many cases there have been
non-significant relationships, and in some cases psychological control
has been associated with more adaptive child outcomes. Hence, the as-
 Duane Rudy and Linda Citlali Halgunseth 245

sociation between parental psychological control and child variables

seems to be less robust in collectivist groups than in individualist
groups. Also, evidence suggests that it is possible that higher levels of
psychological control in more collectivist groups, as compared to more
individualist groups, do not inevitably result in collectivist children, on
average, having less adaptive outcomes.

THE PRESENT STUDY

Given the above review, the present study had two main goals.
First, other than Gondoli and Silverberg (1997), few studies have ad-
dressed the relationship between psychological control and parental
cognition. We sought to examine this association. Thus, we tested the
relationship between maternal psychological control and perspec-
tive-taking. We also assessed mothers’ views of their children’s traits
generally, and their views of their children specific to when they mis-
behaved. Second, we examined psychological control in a collectivist
and an individualist group, in order to determine the main effects of
culture and differences in within-group associations between the vari-
ables of interest. Aside from psychological control and maternal cog-
nition, we were interested in maternal acceptance-rejection and
children’s outcomes of self-esteem and school grades. Following
Rudy and Grusec (in press), we had a number of hypotheses regarding
the main effects of culture and within-group associations. First, re-
garding the main effects of cultural group, we (1a) hypothesized that
our collectivist sample would score higher on measures of psychologi-
cal control. However, secondly, (1b) we thought the collectivist and
individualist groups would not differ in terms of maternal cognition
and emotion, and thus that (1c) collectivist and individualist children
would not differ in terms of their outcomes. This is because we
thought that the higher levels of psychological control we expected to
find in the collectivist group, as compared to the individualist group,
would not necessarily reflect more maladaptive maternal cognition
and emotion, and that children would not be negatively affected if this
was the case. Second, regarding within-group associations, we thought
it possible that (2a) within the collectivist, but not the individualist
group, higher levels of psychological control would be associated
with higher levels of collectivist values; (2b) within the individ-
ualist, but not the collectivist group, higher levels of psychological
control would be associated with less adaptive maternal cognitions
246 IMPLICATIONS OF PARENT-CHILD BOUNDARY DISSOLUTION

and emotion; and (2c) higher levels of psychological control would be

associated with less adaptive child outcomes within the individualist
but not the collectivist group. Again, this is because we thought that
psychological control not accompanied by maladaptive parental
cognitions and emotions might not be deleterious.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were mothers and their children between the ages of 7

and 12, from collectivist and individualist backgrounds. There were 33
mothers and children from collectivist backgrounds (21 boys and 12
girls), primarily from South Asia (13 from India and Pakistan) and the
Middle East (14 Iranian, 5 Egyptian, and 1 Iraqi). There were 32 moth-
ers and children from individualist backgrounds (15 boys and 17 girls);
families were defined as individualist if they included one parent (usu-
ally the mother) from Western European background (Canadian, Brit-
ish, German, and Swiss) and the other parent of Western or Eastern
European background. The groups were similar in terms of maternal ed-
ucation. Ten and six mothers, from the collectivist and individualist
groups respectively, had a postgraduate or professional degree; the
corresponding numbers for having a college degree were 14 and 14,
and for some college or less were 9 and 12. A Chi-square analysis re-
vealed no significant patterns for this variable. The groups also did not
differ in maternal age (40.37 years, SD = 4.58, for the collectivist
group and 41.47 years, SD = 4.79, for the individualist group). How-
ever, the groups did differ in terms of child age (10.50 years, SD = 1.39
for the collectivist group and 9.39 years, SD = 0.91 for the collectivist
group, t (62) = 3.78, p < .05; the age for one child in the collectivist
group was not reported).

Procedure

Mothers and children participated either at research space in the uni-

versity or at their own homes. Mothers and children worked in separate
spaces, with mothers filling in questionnaires while children’s re-
sponses were obtained verbally. The measures reported in this study are
a subset of a larger set of measures administered to mothers and their
children from which research has been published (Rudy & Grusec, in
 Duane Rudy and Linda Citlali Halgunseth 247

press). Participants were given the option of not answering questions

that they did not want to answer. One mother in the collectivist group
chose not to complete the parental attribution vignettes, the ratings of
Itkin’s (1952) traits, and the Davis (1980) Perspective-taking scale
(described below). Another mother did not report the child’s school
grades. Thus, some analyses had sample sizes with one or two fewer
participants.

Maternal Measures

Psychological control. We assessed psychological control by admin-

istering three items from the Child Rearing Practices Report (CRPR;
Block, 1981) that reflected guilt induction (e.g., “I let my child know
how ashamed and disappointed I am when he/she misbehaves”). Moth-
ers endorsed the items on a 10-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Dis-
agree, 10 = Strongly Agree). Alphas for this measure were .69 for the
collectivist group and .66 for the individualist group. This method of as-
sessing psychological control has been used in previous research, as
guilt induction is an important aspect of psychological control (Kernis,
Brown, & Brody, 2000; Rodgers, 1999).
Collectivism. We assessed collectivism with four scales: (a) the
Triandis (1995) measure of vertical collectivism; (b and c) the Bardis
nuclear and extended familism scales (Rao & Rao, 1979), and (d) the
Parents/Consultation and Sharing scale from Hui and Yee’s (1994) In-
dividualism-Collectivism scale. Triandis’ vertical collectivism scale
assesses collectivism that emphasizes the importance of deferring to
authority (e.g., “I would do what would please my family, even if I de-
tested that activity”). The Bardis nuclear and extended familism scales
assess the tendency of individuals to believe that family members
should consider the needs and opinions of others in the nuclear family
(e.g., “A person should always consider the needs of her family as a
whole more important than his/her own”) and extended family (e.g.,
“A person should always share his/her home with his/her uncles,
aunts, or first cousins if they are in need”). The Hui and Yee scale as-
sesses the extent to which individuals believe that children should
consult and share resources with parents (e.g., “Teenagers should lis-
ten to their parents’ advice on dating”). Mothers endorsed the items on
a 10-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 10 = Strongly Agree).
Items from these four subscales were combined into one measure.
Alphas for this measure were .89 and .84 for the collectivist and indi-
vidualist groups, respectively.
248 IMPLICATIONS OF PARENT-CHILD BOUNDARY DISSOLUTION

Maternal acceptance-rejection. We assessed acceptance and rejec-

tion with three measures. Positive emotion was assessed using items
from the Open Expression of Affect scale from the CRPR. One item that
did not reflect positive emotion was not included; the remaining items
reflect maternal warmth (e.g., “I express affection by hugging, kissing,
and holding my child”). Negative emotion was assessed using items
from the CRPR Negative Affect scale and four items from Itkin’s
(1952) measure of parental attitudes. The CRPR items assess negative
affect (e.g., “I often feel angry with my child”); mothers endorsed these
items on a 10-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 10 = Strongly
Agree). The Itkin items reflect negative affect (the frequency of parental
anger with the child and the frequency of the child getting on the parents
nerves), how well the parent and child get along (reverse scored), and
the amount of satisfaction the parent gets from the child (re-
verse-scored). Scores for this scale ranged from 1 to 5, with higher
scores reflecting greater negativity. In order to combine the items from
the three scales, each scale item was converted to a z-score, and the
items reflecting negative emotion were reverse-scored, so that positive
scores reflected higher levels of acceptance. Alphas for this measure
were .84 for the collectivist group and .78 for the individualist group.
Measures of maternal cognition. Participants were asked to respond
to the perspective-taking (PT) subscale of the Davis Interpersonal Reac-
tivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980). This scale has five items and uses a
5-point Likert format (with 0 = Does not describe me well [Not at all
like me] and 4 = Describes me very well [A lot like me]). The PT scale
measures the degree to which participants take the perspective of others
(“I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how
things look from their point of view”). Alphas for this scale were .69
and .84, for the collectivist and individualist groups, respectively.
Participants also rated their children on positive and negative person-
ality traits. These traits were taken from Itkin (1952). Three traits were
negative (e.g., selfishness), and nine were positive (e.g., helpfulness).
Participants rated the traits on a ten-point scale with lower scores re-
flecting higher levels of the trait (e.g., 1 = Very Selfish; 10 = Very Un-
selfish). Scores reflecting negative traits were reverse-scored and the
items combined so that higher scored reflected more positive evalua-
tions of the child’s traits. Alphas for this scale were .88 and .82 for the
collectivist and individualist groups, respectively.
We also assessed maternal cognition specific to when children misbe-
have, using Parental Attribution Vignettes (PAVs; Dix, Ruble, Grusec, &
Nixon, 1986). We asked mothers to read and imagine the following vi-
 Duane Rudy and Linda Citlali Halgunseth 249

gnettes: (a) their child is asked to clean up his/her room and leaves to play
with friends without cleaning the room; (b) their child is told not to use
the kitchen appliances and cooks breakfast one morning without permis-
sion; (c) their child refuses to help clean up after dinner, even though it is
his/her responsibility; and (d) their child turns the volume on the televi-
sion back up after turning it down in response to a parental request. Par-
ticipants were asked to rate, on 7-point Likert scales, the extent to which
their child knew he/she was acting badly, thought his/her behavior would
upset the parent, should have known better, and deserved blame. The four
attributional questions were averaged across scenarios, and their inter-
correlations within each group were examined. They were highly inter-
correlated within each group (rs ranged from .54 to .91).
For each vignette, participants were also asked to examine a list of
adjectives describing the child, and to pick one that best described the
child. For each vignette, two benign (e.g., forgetful) and two negative
adjectives (e.g., irresponsible) were presented. Participants received a
score of “1” each time they chose a negative adjective. Scores for the
adjectives and attributional items were converted to z-scores and com-
bined to form one measure of negative cognitions in the discipline situa-
tion. Alphas for this combined measure were .93 and .90 for the
collectivist and individualist groups, respectively.

Child Measures

Self-esteem.We assessed children’s self-esteem using the global self-

worth subscale from Harter’s Self-Perception Profile for Children (1985).
This scale has six items that describe two types of children, one description
being more positive than the other (e.g., “Some kids are often unhappy with
themselves, but other kids are pretty pleased with themselves”). Children
are asked to choose which type of child they are more like and then indicate
if they are “Really” or “Sort of” like the child they chose, resulting in a
four-point scale. Alphas for this scale were .76 and .67 for the collectivist
and individualist groups, respectively.
School grades. Mothers reported their children’s grades on a question-
naire that asked if their children were failing, below average, average, or
above average in reading/English; history/social studies; mathematics,
science; and French if applicable. A composite score was created, with
higher scores reflecting higher achievement. Alphas for this measure
were .83 and .65, for the collectivist and individualist groups, respec-
tively.
250 IMPLICATIONS OF PARENT-CHILD BOUNDARY DISSOLUTION

RESULTS

Main Effects of Culture:

Differences Between the Collectivist and Individualist Groups

Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for all measures.
A 2 ! 2 (cultural group ! sex of child) MANOVA was conducted on
those parental variables on which the groups were predicted to differ:
(a) psychological control, and (b) collectivism. There was a significant
effect of group, Wilk’s λ = .61; F(2, 60) = 19.21, p < .0001. The
univariate tests revealed that the collectivist group scored higher on the
measures of psychological control, F (1, 61) = 5.81, p < .05, and collec-
tivism within the family, F(1, 61) = 39.03, p < .0001. There were no
other significant effects. Thus, hypothesis 1a, that the collectivist group
would score higher on psychological control, was supported.
A second 2 ! 2 MANOVA was conducted on the measures of mater-
nal cognition and emotion. There were no significant group effects.
Thus, hypothesis 1b, suggesting that the groups would not differ in
terms of maternal cognition and emotion, was supported. The main
effect for sex of child, however, was significant, Wilk’s λ = .85; F(4, 57) =
2.53, p = .05. Univariate tests revealed maternal cognitions about mis-
behaving girls, as assessed by the PAVs, were more negative than
cognitions for misbehaving boys, F(1, 60) = 3.80 p = .05. The average
score on this measure was 0.18 for girls (SD = 0.60) and ".18 for boys
(SD = 0.61).
A third 2 ! 2 MANOVA was conducted on the child variables (i.e.,
the measure of self-esteem and the measure of school grades). There
were no significant effects for this analysis. Thus, hypothesis 1c, sug-
gesting that the groups would not differ in terms of children’s outcomes,
was supported. For all reported MANOVAs, the results were similar
when child age was entered as a covariate. In summary, the collectivist
group scored higher on psychological control, but the groups did not
differ in terms of maternal emotion and cognition, nor did they differ re-
garding child outcomes.

Within-Group Associations

We were concerned that a lack of association between psychological

control and the measures of emotion and cognition might have to do
with the fact that the measures of emotion and cognition were meaning-
 Duane Rudy and Linda Citlali Halgunseth 251

TABLE 1. Means and Standard Deviations for All Maternal and Child Vari-
ables.

Cultural Group
Collectivist Individualist F/Lambda
λ = 0.61**
Collectivisma 7.10 (1.25) 5.30 (0.96) F = 5.81*
Psychological Controla 8.07 (1.62) 7.19 (1.59) F = 39.03**
λ = 0.88
Acceptance-Rejectionb "0.04 (0.62) 0.08 (0.48)
Perspective-Takingc 2.65 (0.59) 2.79 (0.68)
Child’s (Positive) Personality Traitsa 7.71 (1.49) 7.33 (1.23)
b
Negative Cognitions-Misbehavior "0.19 (0.70) 0.16 (0.49)
λ = 0.95
Children’s School Gradesd 3.36 (0.48) 3.53 (0.40)
Children’s Global Self-Worthd 3.31 (0.67) 3.51 (0.47)

* p < .05
* p < .001
a Scale of 1 to 10
b z-scores
c Scale of 0 to 4
d Scale of 1 to 4

ful to mothers in the individualist, but not the collectivist group. An ex-
amination of the inter-correlations of the measures of emotion and
cognition in both groups, however, revealed significant associations
that would be expected in both groups (e.g., between acceptance-rejec-
tion and views of the child’s positive traits, rs = .63 and .39 in the
collectivist and individualist groups, respectively).
Table 2 presents the associations of psychological control with the
variables reflecting maternal emotion and cognition, and with the child
measures. In the collectivist and individualist groups, psychological
control was associated with collectivism within the family, although in
the individualist group, this was a trend. Thus, there was partial support
for hypothesis 2a; we expected psychological control to be associated
with collectivist values in the collectivist but not the individualist group.
Psychological control was not associated with any other variable in the
collectivist group. In the individualist group, higher levels of psycho-
logical control were associated with weaker endorsement of the child’s
positive traits, and more negative cognitions about misbehaving chil-
252 IMPLICATIONS OF PARENT-CHILD BOUNDARY DISSOLUTION

TABLE 2. Associations of Psychological Control with Collectivism, Measures

of Maternal Cognition and Emotion, and Child Variables

Cultural Group
Collectivist Individualist
Collectivism .48** .31†

Acceptance-Rejection ".01 .03

Perspective-Taking .18 ".09
Child's (Positive) Personality Traits .01 ".44**
Negative Cognitions–Misbehavior .11 .34*

Children's School Grades ".09 ".14

Children's Global Self-Worth .02 ".09

** p = < .01
* p = < .05
† p = < .10

dren. Psychological control was not significantly associated with accep-

tance-rejection or perspective-taking. Thus, there was some support for
hypothesis 2b; although not every association was significant, psycho-
logical control was associated with measures of maternal cognition in
the individualist group but not collectivist group. There was little sup-
port for hypothesis 2c, that psychological control would be associated
with child outcomes in the individualist but not the collectivist group. In
both groups, psychological control was not significantly associated
with school grades or children’s self-esteem.
In summary, psychological control was associated only with reports
of collectivism in the collectivist group; it was not associated with any
other variable. On the other hand, in the individualist group, higher lev-
els of psychological control were associated in the expected direction
with negative views of the child’s personality traits and negative
cognitions regarding the child’s misbehavior. Finally, there were no
significant associations between psychological control and children’s
outcomes in either group.

DISCUSSION

The findings from the present study suggest that in collectivist groups,
psychological control may carry a different meaning than in individualist
groups. In terms of the main effects of culture, the higher levels of psy-
 Duane Rudy and Linda Citlali Halgunseth 253

chological control found in the collectivist group, as compared to the in-

dividualist group, were not accompanied by higher levels of maladaptive
maternal cognition and emotion, nor were they accompanied by more
deleterious child outcomes. Also, regarding within-group associations,
psychological control had different associations with the measures of pa-
rental cognition in individualist and collectivist groups. In the following
discussion, we consider the main effects of culture and the within-group
associations. We then examine some unexpected patterns of associations
within the individualist group, consider shortcomings of the study, and
suggest directions for future research.

Differences Between the Collectivist and Individualist Groups

The findings of the present study provide support for the idea that
compared to mothers from individualist groups, mothers from collectiv-
ist groups may endorse higher levels of psychological control, but that
these higher scores do not necessarily mean the same thing as equiva-
lently high levels of psychological control in individualist groups. Bar-
ber and Harmon (2002) state that psychological control tends to be
rooted in parental cognition that is oriented more toward parental con-
cerns rather than child concerns. They state that in cases where psycho-
logical control is relied upon, “. . . we judge that parents are not acting as
neutral socializers administering control strategies for the benefit of
their children, but are behaving in ways that protect or insure their own
(parental) position in the family, and specifically their position in rela-
tionship to the child” (p. 22). Given the research conducted in Anglo
populations, we might expect that higher levels of psychological control
found in collectivist groups, as compared to individualist groups, would
be accompanied by higher average levels of maladaptive maternal cog-
nition and emotion, and less optimal child outcomes. We would expect
this pattern of main effects if higher levels of psychological control in
collectivist groups indeed reflect a concern with maintaining the paren-
tal position at the expense of the child. However, in the present study,
this was not the case; there were no differences between the individual-
ist and collectivist groups in terms of average levels of maternal per-
spective-taking, parental acceptance-rejection, or cognitions regarding
children, nor were there differences in children’s self-esteem and school
performance. The data support the idea that the higher levels of psycho-
logical control found in collectivist groups, as compared to individualist
groups, do not reflect more maladaptive parental cognition and emo-
tion, nor a preoccupation with parental concerns, but instead may reflect
254 IMPLICATIONS OF PARENT-CHILD BOUNDARY DISSOLUTION

on the importance of collectivist values, and the possibility that practices

resembling psychological control may be normative in collectivist
groups.

Within-Group Associations Between Psychological Control

and Maternal Emotion and Cognition

The within-group associations also support the idea that psychologi-

cal control has different meanings in individualist and collectivist
groups, and that within the collectivist group it is not associated with a
preoccupation with parental concerns. In the individualist group, higher
levels of psychological control were associated with more negative cog-
nition about children, perhaps reflecting an orientation toward parental
concerns rather than the child’s concerns. Individualist mothers scoring
high on psychological control described their children in less positive
and more negative terms: for example, they were more likely to de-
scribe their children as selfish, and less likely to describe their children
as considerate. Furthermore, after imagining their children misbehav-
ing, they were more likely to make negative attributions about the
misbehavior, and more likely to use negative adjectives to describe their
children.
Thus, within the individualist group, the associations are consistent
with Barber and Harmon’s (2002) assertion that psychologically con-
trolling parents are preoccupied more with their own concerns than with
their child’s concerns. Within the collectivist group, however, there was
no evidence that psychologically controlling parents have this type of
preoccupation. In this group, psychological control was associated only
with the measure of collectivist concerns, and not with any of the mea-
sures of maternal emotion and cognition. This suggests that collectivist
parents scoring high on psychological control are concerned primarily
with teaching their children to behave in ways that are consonant with
collectivist values.
An alternate explanation for the differential associations in the two
groups between psychological control and the measures of maternal
cognition is that the measures of maternal emotion and cognition were
meaningful to mothers in the individualist but not the collectivist group.
If this were the case, however, we would expect alphas for the measures
to be lower in the collectivist group. There was no evidence, however,
that this was the case. Furthermore, an examination of within-group
correlations revealed significant associations that would be expected.
For example, in the collectivist group there was a strong association be-
 Duane Rudy and Linda Citlali Halgunseth 255

tween the measure of maternal acceptance and positive descriptions of

the child’s personality traits.
The present findings regarding the relationship between psychologi-
cal control and maternal cognition contribute to the literature in that few
studies have examined these relationships in any cultural group. In par-
ticular, little research has examined the associations between psycho-
logical control and maternal attributions and views of the child’s
character.

Within-Group Associations Between Psychological Control

and Children’s Adjustment

There was little support for the hypothesis that psychological control
would be associated with less adaptive child outcomes in the individualist
but not the collectivist group. While psychological control was not asso-
ciated with children’s outcomes in the collectivist group (as expected), it
was also not associated with children’s outcomes in the individualist
group. The lack of association between psychological control and self-es-
teem may have been due to our method of assessing psychological con-
trol. Often when associations between self-esteem and psychological
control are found, children’s reports of parental psychological control are
obtained (e.g., Litovsky & Dusek, 1988; Nielsen & Metha, 1994; Teleki,
Powell, & Claypool, 1984). Perhaps if we had obtained children’s reports
of psychological control, a stronger relationship may have been obtained.
Of course, the stronger associations found by this approach may be due to
variations in how children view the world, rather than any real association
between the variables. Some children may have a more negative view of
the world, and thus report higher levels of psychological control as well
as lower levels of self worth.
The lack of association between psychological control and school
grades in the individualist sample was surprising, given that others have
found such an association (see Barber & Harmon, 2002, for a review).
One explanation for this lack of association is that our measure of psy-
chological control focused on guilt induction, and not on other aspects
of psychological control, such as suppressing the child’s expression of
his or her own point of view. While guilt induction may serve to sup-
press children’s expression of their point of view, it is possible that a
more direct assessment of suppression of the child’s point of view
would lead to stronger associations with children’s school grades in the
individualist group. This type of behavior, when combined with nega-
tive attitudes toward children, might be particularly important to aca-
256 IMPLICATIONS OF PARENT-CHILD BOUNDARY DISSOLUTION

demic achievement, especially in a culture where assertiveness is an

important aspect of achievement.

Deleterious versus Benign Psychological Control

in Individualist and Collectivist Groups

Barber and others have argued that psychological control has its ef-
fects on children because it interferes with children’s development of a
sense of self (Barber, 1996; Kernis et al., 2000). There appear to be two
interrelated aspects of this development. First, if parents utilize psycho-
logically controlling practices that constrain children’s self-expression,
it may be difficult for children to develop a sense of their own thoughts,
emotions, preferences, and inherent talents. To the extent that healthy
functioning depends upon an awareness of the self as a basis for action,
especially interpersonal interaction, individuals who do not have this
awareness may be less confident, and perhaps more anxious and de-
pressed. Second, if parents cause children to feel that certain thoughts or
feelings are not acceptable, children may feel bad about themselves,
anxious, depressed, or angry. They may also behave in less optimal
ways (e.g., lower levels of achievement and higher levels of behavioral
problems). In individualist groups, psychologically controlling parents
may behave in ways that interfere with the child developing a sense of
self and with the child feeling that the self is acceptable. If psychologi-
cally controlling parents are preoccupied with their own concerns and
do not take into account the child’s perspective, it may be more difficult
for children to develop a strong sense of self. In addition, if psychologi-
cally controlling parents hold negative attitudes toward their children,
their children may be less likely to feel that the self is acceptable.
In the case of collectivist groups, however, high levels of psychologi-
cal control might not always negatively affect the development of a
sense of self, nor might it always cause children to feel that aspects of
the self are unacceptable. In collectivist groups, it is important for indi-
viduals to inhibit the expression of their own wants and needs, and to
anticipate and meet the needs of others in the in-group (Markus &
Kitayama, 1991). Thus in collectivist groups, parents who value collec-
tivist norms may encourage children to think of the thoughts and feel-
ings of others, and to inhibit their expression of their own thoughts and
feelings. As a result, parents in collectivist groups may score higher on
measures of psychological control. Nevertheless, these parents may not
be highly preoccupied with their own perspectives and concerns. There-
fore, they may attend to their children’s thoughts and feelings, and re-
 Duane Rudy and Linda Citlali Halgunseth 257

spond to them as much as possible. To the extent that parents do discern

and try to respond to children’s thoughts, feelings, and needs, children
may develop a coherent sense of self, and feel that the self is indeed
acceptable.
This is not to say that all people who score high on psychological con-
trol in individualist cultures hold negative attitudes toward their children,
nor that all people who score high on psychological control in collectivist
cultures are necessarily benign. The cultural differences certainly are in
emphasis rather than a dichotomy. Indeed, psychological control and col-
lectivism were marginally associated in the individualist group, suggest-
ing that some individualists score high on psychological control because
they hold collectivist values important, rather than because they think
negatively about their children. Also, certain aspects of individualist con-
texts may lead to elevated levels of benign psychological control. For ex-
ample, individualist parents in high-risk environments may use psycho-
logically controlling practices because the consequences of disobedience
are very severe (e.g., Kelley, Power, & Wimbush, 1992).
Furthermore, in any context, it is easy to imagine forms of psycho-
logical control that are benign, and that serve to enhance the child’s
sense of self. Barber (1996) states that there are relatively positive types
of psychological control, such as reasoning to encourage awareness of,
and sensitivity to, the consequences of one’s behavior. A parent who
asks a young child to think about how his sister feels when he hits her,
for example, is attempting to affect the child’s behavior by influencing
how the child feels and thinks, as is a parent who explains the impor-
tance of doing homework. In this sense, these behaviors are a kind of
psychological control. It is possible to imagine a parent engaging in the
above behaviors in a manner that is sensitive to the child’s point of
view. In such a case the parent might understand that the child does not
know better, and the messages might be conveyed in a manner that is
calm, easy to comprehend, and kind. It is also possible to imagine the
same messages being conveyed in a manner that is hostile in nature,
where the child’s point of view is not considered. Similarly, mothers
who endorse items commonly used to assess psychological control may
vary greatly in terms of how unconditionally accepting they are. This
may be the case even though the items often refer to guilt and anxiety
induction, love withdrawal, and suppressing children’s expression of
their thoughts and emotion.
Thus, in both individualist and collectivist groups, some forms of
psychological control, broadly construed, may be used to help children
learn to coordinate their actions with others in ways that are socially ac-
258 IMPLICATIONS OF PARENT-CHILD BOUNDARY DISSOLUTION

ceptable. However, psychological control in any culture may be harm-

ful to the extent that the child’s viewpoint is not in some way
considered, and especially to the extent that it conveys to children the
message that they are disliked and that they have negative characteris-
tics. Furthermore, if psychological control is associated with a lack of
consideration of the child’s perspective, it is possible that the messages
that parents try to convey may be communicated in ways that are diffi-
cult for the child to understand. Thus while psychological control may
not inevitably be negative, it seems likely that psychological control
may be associated with less adaptive child outcomes when it is also
associated with less adaptive aspects of parental emotion and cognition.

Unexpected Patterns of Association in the Individualist Group

If, in the individualist group, psychologically controlling parents are

preoccupied more with their own concerns than their children’s con-
cerns, we might wonder why there was no association in this group be-
tween perspective-taking and psychological control. One possibility is
that the measure of perspective-taking used in this study asked mothers
about their habits of cognition toward people in general, rather than to-
ward the target child in particular. The measures of maternal cognition
asked questions with specific reference to the target child.
Another issue has to do with the lack of association between psycho-
logical control and acceptance-rejection in the individualist group. This
finding was surprising, given that some studies have found an associa-
tion between acceptance-rejection and psychological control in individ-
ualist groups (Garber & Flynn, 2001; Schwarz et al., 1985), and that in
the current study psychological control was associated with more nega-
tive ways of thinking about children. As with school grades (discussed
above), the lack of association between psychological control and ac-
ceptance-rejection might be due to the fact that the current measure of
psychological control only assessed guilt induction. It is possible that
other aspects of psychological control might be more strongly associ-
ated with higher levels of negative maternal emotions, and lower levels
of positive maternal emotions. On the other hand, the results are consis-
tent with Larson and Gillman (1999), who found no association be-
tween and psychological control and acceptance-rejection. It should
also be noted that the current measure of psychological control was as-
sociated with more negative and less positive descriptions of the child’s
general personality. In a sense, parents do reject their children when
they strongly agree that their children are selfish and lazy, and disagree
 Duane Rudy and Linda Citlali Halgunseth 259

that their children are considerate and helpful, even if they do not report
lower levels of positive emotions or higher levels of negative emotions.
We also discovered a main effect of child gender regarding mothers’
cognitions about their misbehaving children. Mothers of girls had more
negative cognitions about their misbehaving children than mothers of
boys. While not expected, this finding is consistent with research that
has found maternal expectations regarding social behavior to be higher
of girls than of boys (see Grusec, 1987, for example, who found mothers
to emphasize self-sacrifice in girls more than in boys). Mothers may in-
terpret the misbehavior of girls more negatively when girls do not live
up to the higher standards that mothers hold.

Shortcomings of the Study and Future Directions

The present study had a number of shortcomings that might be ad-

dressed by future research. First, it would be important to replicate this
study using one of the more commonly used measures of psychological
control (e.g., Barber, 1996), as the measure of psychological control
used in this study reflected only guilt induction and not other aspects of
psychological control. Second, we did not explicitly assess parental
goals in this study, even though our reasoning starts with parental goals.
We propose that in individualist groups, psychologically controlling
parents are preoccupied with goals relevant to their own well-being
rather than with goals relevant to their children’s well-being, whereas
within collectivist groups, this is not necessarily the case. Also, in terms
of the main effects of culture, we propose that on average, parents in
collectivist groups will score higher on measures of psychological con-
trol than parents in individualist groups. However, as compared to par-
ents in individualist groups, we believe that parents in collectivist
groups are not more preoccupied with their own concerns. Rather, we
believe that the higher levels of psychological control in the collectivist
group reflect socialization goals. It remains for these hypotheses to be
tested explicitly.
Third, we did not assess children’s perceptions of their parents. Im-
plicit in the above reasoning, however, is the assumption that if parents
are concerned with their children’s well-being, children will in fact per-
ceive this concern, even when levels of parental psychological control
are high, and that they will feel good about themselves as a result. Cer-
tainly we did measure global self-esteem, but it is important for future
research to establish a lack of association between parental psychologi-
cal control and children’s perception of parental acceptance. Fourth, the
260 IMPLICATIONS OF PARENT-CHILD BOUNDARY DISSOLUTION

present study did not assess externalizing or internalizing problems,

such as anxiety, depression, or aggression. It would be important to ex-
pand the list of variables measured in the present study to include such
problems.
Finally, the present study assessed all variables concurrently rather
than longitudinally, and while we have discussed the findings in terms
of parenting patterns influencing children’s outcomes, causal conclu-
sions cannot be made from the present study. Some longitudinal re-
search has been conducted regarding psychological control. While
these studies support the idea that earlier psychological control is re-
lated to children’s well-being at later points in time, it is also the case
that some studies have found that aspects of children’s well-being ear-
lier in time are related to later levels of parental psychological control
(Conger, Conger, & Scaramella, 1997; Petit, Laird, Dodge, Bates, &
Criss, 2001).
We acknowledge that if, in collectivist groups, psychological control
is not associated with children’s perceptions of parental acceptance, it is
possible that psychological control might have negative effects because
it makes it difficult for children to work toward ends that they them-
selves desire. It is possible that children may experience higher levels of
frustration if they cannot reach ends they desire, regardless of whether
or not they have a strong sense of self and feel that the self is accepted.
This may be especially true when children from collectivist cultures im-
migrate to more individualist cultures, and perceive their individualist
peers as being able to fulfill their desires in ways that they themselves
cannot. Research that includes an expanded list of variables, as sug-
gested above, in individualist and collectivist groups, is needed to
address this question.

NOTES
1. Schwarz et al. (1985) do not report on the racial makeup of their sample; data
from the University of Connecticut, however, indicate that in 1986, 92% of the under-
graduate population was white; T. Pruzinsky (personal communication, October 6,
2003) confirmed that this sample was predominantly Anglo.
2. In this review, we do not discuss African American samples because it is unclear
if such samples are examples of interdependent cultures. For example, in a recent
meta-analysis of the findings regarding individualism and collectivism, Oyserman,
Coon, and Kemmelmeier (2002) found that African Americans did not differ signifi-
cantly from European Americans on measures of collectivism (and scored higher on
measures of individualism); on the other hand, Asian and Latino Americans were
 Duane Rudy and Linda Citlali Halgunseth 261

found to score significantly higher than European Americans on measures of collectiv-

ism.
3. The authors also examined correlations separately for boys and girls and found
some relationships in the Chinese and Russian samples; however, the pattern of signifi-
cant and non-significant associations was somewhat unexpected. For example, psy-
chological control was associated with internalizing and externalizing behavior for
girls but not for boys in the American sample, and was associated with internalizing be-
havior for Russian boys but not girls, and for Chinese girls but not boys.

REFERENCES

Abudabbeh, N. (1998). Counseling Arab-American families. In U. P. Gielen & A. L.

Comunian (Eds.), The family and family therapy in international perspective (pp.
115-126). Trieste, Italy: Edizioni Lint Trieste.
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct.
Child Development, 67, 3296-3319.
Barber, B. K. (1999). Political violence, family relations, and Palestinian youth func-
tioning. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 206-230.
Barber, B. K. (2001). Political violence, social integration, and youth functioning: Pal-
estinian youth from the Intifada. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 259-280.
Barber, B. K. (Ed.) (2002). Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects
children and adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Barber, B. K., & Buehler, C. (1996). Family cohesion and enmeshment: Different con-
structs different effects. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 433-441.
Barber, B. K., & Harmon, E. L. (2002). Violating the self: Parental psychological con-
trol of children and adolescents. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How
psychological control affects children and adolescents (pp. 15-52). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. E., & Shagle, S. C. (1994). Associations between parental psy-
chological and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized behav-
iors. Child Development, 65, 1120-1136.
Baumrind, D. (1989). The permanence of change and the impermanence of stability.
Human Development, 32, 187-195.
Block, J. H. (1981). The child-rearing practices report (CRPR): A set of Q items for the
description of parental socialization attitudes and values. Institute of Human De-
velopment, University of California, Berkeley. Unpublished manuscript.
Bradford, K., & Barber, B. K. (2005). Interparental conflict as intrusive family process.
Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5(2/3), 145-170.
Bronstein, P. (1994). Patterns of parent-child interaction in Mexican families: A cross-cul-
tural perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17, 423-446.
Conger, K. J., Conger, R. D., & Scaramella, L. V. (1997). Parents, siblings, psychologi-
cal control, and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 113-
138.
262 IMPLICATIONS OF PARENT-CHILD BOUNDARY DISSOLUTION

Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empa-

thy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Dix, T. (1992). Parenting on behalf of the child: Empathic goals in the regulation of re-
sponsive parenting. In I. E. Sigel & A. V. McGillicuddy-DeLisi (Eds.), Parental be-
lief systems: The psychological consequences for children (2nd ed., pp. 319-346).
Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Dix, T., Ruble, D. N., Grusec, J. E., & Nixon, S. (1986). Social cognition in parents: In-
ferential and affective reactions to children of three age levels. Child Development,
57, 879-894.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J.
(1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child De-
velopment, 58, 1244-1257.
Garber, J., & Flynn, C. (2001). Predictors of depressive cognitions in young adoles-
cents. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 25, 353-376.
Gondoli, D. M., & Silverberg, S. B. (1997). Maternal emotional distress and dimin-
ished responsiveness: The mediating role of parenting efficacy and parental per-
spective taking. Developmental Psychology, 33, 861-868.
Grusec, J. E. (1987). The socialization of self-sacrifice in boys and girls. In L.
Shamgar-Handelman & R. Palomba (Eds.), Alternative patterns of family life in
modern societies (pp. 265-274). Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Recerche, Roma.
Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, S. F., & McNeilly-Choque, M. K.
(1998). Overt and relational aggression in Russian nursery-school-age children:
Parenting style and marital linkages. Developmental Psychology, 34, 687-697.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children. Denver, CO:
University of Denver.
Hastings, P. D., & Grusec, J. E. (1998). Parenting goals as organizers of responses to
parent-child disagreement. Developmental Psychology, 34, 465-479.
Hui, C. H., & Yee, C. (1994). The shortened Individualism-Collectivism Scale: Its re-
lationship to demographic and work-related variables. Journal of Research in Per-
sonality, 28, 409-424.
Itkin, W. (1952). Some relationships between intra-family attitudes and premarital atti-
tudes toward children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 80, 221-252.
Jurkovic, G. J., Kuperminc, G. P. Sarac, T., & Weisshaar, D. (2005). Role of filial re-
sponsibility in the post-war adjustment of Bosnian young adolescents. Journal of
Emotional Abuse, 5(4), 219-235.
Kelley, M. L., Power, T. G., & Wimbush, D. D. (1992). Determinants of disciplinary
practices in low-income black mothers. Child Development, 63, 573-582.
Kerig, P. K. (2005). Revisiting the construct of boundary dissolution: A multidimen-
sional perspective. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5(2/3), 5-42.
Kernis, M. H., Brown, A. C., & Brody, G. H. (2000). Fragile self-esteem in children
and its associations with perceived patterns of parent-child communication. Journal
of Personality, 68, 225-252.
Kim, C. W., & Dembo, M. H. (2000). Social-cognitive factors influencing success on
college entrance exams in South Korea. Social Psychology of Education, 4, 95-115.
Larson, R., & Gillman, S. (1999). Transmission of emotions in the daily interactions of
single-mother families. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 61, 21-37.
 Duane Rudy and Linda Citlali Halgunseth 263

Litovsky, V. G., & Dusek, J. B. (1988). Maternal employment and adolescent adjust-
ment and perceptions of child rearing. International Journal of Family Psychiatry,
9, 153-167.
Lyon, J., Henggeler, S. W., & Hall, J. A. (1992). The family relations, peer relations,
and criminal activities of Caucasian and Hispanic-American gang members. Jour-
nal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20, 439-449.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Nielsen, D. M., & Metha, A. (1994). Parental behavior and adolescent self-esteem in
clinical and non-clinical samples. Adolescence, 29, 525-542.
Olsen, S. F., Yang, C., Hart, C., Robinson, C., Wu, P., Nelson, D. et al. (2002). Mater-
nal psychological control and preschool children’s behavioral outcomes in China,
Russia, and the United States. In B. K. Barber (Ed), Intrusive parenting: How psy-
chological control affects children and adolescents (pp. 235-262). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism
and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
Pettit, G. S., Laird, R. D., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Criss, M. M. (2001). Anteced-
ents and behavior-problem outcomes of parental monitoring and psychological
control in early adolescence. Child Development, 72, 583-598.
Rao, V. P., & Rao, V. N. (1979). An evaluation of the Bardis Familism Scale in India.
Journal of Marriage & the Family, 41, 417-421.
Rodgers, K. B. (1999). Parenting processes related to sexual risk-taking behav-
iors of adolescent males and females. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 61,
99-109.
Rudy, D., & Grusec, J. E. (in press). Authoritarian parenting in individualist and collec-
tivist groups: Associations with maternal emotion and cognition and children’s
self-esteem. Journal of Family Psychology.
Schludermann, S. M., & Schludermann, E. H. (1983). Sociocultural change and ado-
lescents’ perceptions of parent behavior. Developmental Psychology, 19,
674-685.
Schwarz, J. C., Barton-Henry, M. L., & Pruzinsky, T. (1985). Assessing child-rearing
behaviors: A comparison of ratings made by mother, father, child, and sibling on the
CRPBI. Child Development, 56, 462-479.
Stewart, S. M., Bond, M. H., Ho, L. M., Zaman, R. M., Dar, R., & Anwar, M. (2000).
Perceptions of parents and adolescent outcomes in Pakistan. British Journal of De-
velopmental Psychology, 18, 335-352.
Sue, D. W. (1981). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice. John
Wiley & Sons: New York.
Teleki, J. K., Powell, J. A., & Claypool, P. L. (1984). Parental child-rearing behav-
ior perceived by parents and school-age children in divorced and school-age
children in divorced and married families. Home Economics Research Journal,
13, 41-51.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
264 IMPLICATIONS OF PARENT-CHILD BOUNDARY DISSOLUTION

Viswanathan, R., Shah, M. R., & Ahad, A. (1997). Asian-Indian Americans. In S.

Friedman (Ed), Cultural issues in the treatment of anxiety (pp. 175-195). New
York: Guilford Press.
Walker-Barnes, C. J., & Mason, C. A. (2001). Ethnic differences in the effect of
parenting on gang involvement and gang delinquency: A longitudinal, hierarchical
linear modeling perspective. Child Development, 72, 1814-1831.
Yau, J., & Smetana, J. G. (1996). Adolescent-parent conflict among Chinese adoles-
cents in Hong Kong. Child Development, 67, 1262-1275.