See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237095291

Psychological Control in Daily Parent-Child Interactions Increases Children's

Negative Emotions

Article  in  Journal of Family Psychology · June 2013

DOI: 10.1037/a0032891 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
62 2,352

4 authors:

Kaisa Aunola Asko Tolvanen

University of Jyväskylä University of Jyväskylä
157 PUBLICATIONS   6,693 CITATIONS    232 PUBLICATIONS   6,109 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jaana Viljaranta Jari-Erik Nurmi

University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu campus University of Jyväskylä
45 PUBLICATIONS   946 CITATIONS    292 PUBLICATIONS   15,583 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Diary study on parents, teachers and children's learning (LIGHT) View project

First Step study in Finland View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kaisa Aunola on 30 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Family Psychology © 2013 American Psychological Association
2013, Vol. 27, No. 3, 453– 462 0893-3200/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0032891

Psychological Control in Daily Parent–Child Interactions Increases

Children’s Negative Emotions
Kaisa Aunola, Asko Tolvanen, Jaana Viljaranta, and Jari-Erik Nurmi
University of Jyväskylä

The aim of the present study was to investigate the temporal dynamics between parental behaviors in
daily interactions with their offspring, that is, affection and psychological control, and children’s negative
emotions. The participants were 152 Finnish families with a 6- to 7-year-old child. Children’s negative
emotions and parental affection and psychological control in interactions with their child were measured
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

daily using diary questionnaires filled in by the mothers and fathers over 7 successive days. The results
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

of multilevel modeling showed that psychological control applied by mothers and fathers in daily
interactions with their child leads to an increase in negative emotions in the child. Parental affection in
daily interactions with their child was not associated with the child’s negative emotions.

Keywords: child distress, negative emotions, parenting, psychological control, diary study

A substantial amount of research has been carried out on the role
of parenting styles in child development. This research has shown
that affective and warm parenting is associated with children’s
positive social and emotional development (Hart, Newell, & Ol-
sen, 2003), whereas high psychological control is related to in-
creased anxiety, distress, and depressive symptoms among chil-
dren and adolescents (for a review, see Barber, 1996; Barber &
Harmon, 2002). However, as earlier research on the topic has
focused on the long-term impacts of parenting, our understanding
of the processes that underlie within-person variability in child
adjustment and related emotions in daily life is still limited. Con-
sequently, the present study focused on the day-to-day variability
in children’s negative emotions by examining the temporal dy-
namics between children’s negative daily emotions and their moth-
ers’ and fathers’ parenting behaviors, that is, affection and psy-
chological control applied in daily interactions with the child.
Parenting styles have been defined as parents’ behaviors and
characteristics that describe their interactions with their children
over a wide range of situations and so create the interactional
climate of their parent– child relationship (Darling & Steinberg,
1993; Mize & Pettit, 1997). Three parenting style dimensions have
been described in previous literature: Affection (warmth) or re-
sponsiveness, behavioral control or demandingness, and psycho-
logical control. Affection refers to the extent to which parents show
affective warmth, acceptance, and involvement in their parenting;
behavioral control refers to the extent to which parents show
control, maturity demands, limit setting, and supervision; and
psychological control refers to parents’ control of their child’s
Kaisa Aunola, Asko Tolvanen, Jaana Viljaranta, and Jari-Erik Nurmi,
Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.
This study was supported in part by grants from the Academy of Finland
(Grant 7119742) and the Jacobs Foundation awarded to Kaisa Aunola.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kaisa
Aunola, Department of Psychology, P.O. Box 35, 40014 University of
Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland. E-mail: kaisa.aunola@jyu.fi
emotions and behavior through psychological means, such as guilt
induction and withdrawal of love (Barber, 1996; Hart et al., 2003).
According to Barber, Olsen, and Shagle (1994), the distinction
between behavioral and psychological forms of control lies in the
focus of the attempt to control: Behavioral control is an attempt to
regulate the child’s behavior, whereas psychological control fo-
cuses on exercising control over the child’s psychological world. It
has been assumed that psychological control stems from parents’
intrapsychic need to protect their “psychological power” in the
parent– child relationship, whereas behavioral control is motivated
by parents’ attempts to socialize their children (Barber & Harmon,
2002).
When considering children’s emotional development, parents’
psychological control has been suggested to play a central role,
yielding negative affects such as shame, guilt (Assor, Roth, &
Deci, 2004), and anxiety (for a review, see Barber, 1996) in
children. In line with this, psychological control exercised by
mothers and fathers has been shown to be associated with inter-
nalizing problems, such as distress, low self-esteem, depressed
mood, and anxiety, among school-age children (Barber & Harmon,
2002; Olsen et al., 2002; Siqueland, Kendall, & Steinberg, 1996)
as well as adolescents (Barber et al., 1994; Pettit, Laird, Dodge,
Bates, & Criss, 2001; Wolfradt, Hempel, & Miles, 2003). Some
studies have also found an association between psychological
control and externalizing problem behaviors (for a review, see
Barber & Harmon, 2002). These negative impacts of psychological
control have been suggested to be due to the fact that this kind of
parental control diminishes the child’s own sense of control
(Becker, Ginsburg, Domingues, & Tei, 2010; Nanda, Kotchick, &
Grover, 2012), instills a sense of dependence (Chorpita, Brown, &
Barlow, 1998), and fosters the development of negative self-
schemas (Barber, 1996; McLeod, Weisz, & Wood, 2007).
Besides psychological control, a lack of parental affection has
also been shown to be associated with depressed mood and poor
emotion regulation among children of different ages (for a review,
see Cummings & Davies, 1994; Hart et al., 2003). There are also
longitudinal studies showing that among school-age children par-

453
 454 AUNOLA, TOLVANEN, VILJARANTA, AND NURMI
ticularly maternal warmth and affection prospectively predicts
children’s subsequent emotional adjustment (Aunola & Nurmi,
2005; Chen, Liu, & Li, 2000; Hipwell et al., 2008). These positive
impacts of parental affection on children’s emotional adjustment
have been suggested to be due to the fact that warm and responsive
parents provide social support and assistance for their child when
the child experiences emotional distress, whereas children whose
parents are unresponsive to their child’s emotions and feelings
may develop negative self-regard and feelings of insecurity, lone-
liness, and depression (Chen et al., 2000).
Although a vast majority of the previous research on the rela-
tions between parenting styles and child adjustment has focused on
the parents’ role in their child’s development, children may also
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
influence their parents’ behaviors and parenting (Bell, 1968; Har-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ris, 1995, 2000). On the one hand, children are active agents in
parent– child interactions and may actively “invite” their parents to
certain joint activities and particular parenting behavior (Hoover-
Dempsey et al., 2005; Kerr, Stattin, Biesecker, & Ferrer-Weder,
2003; Scarr & McCartney, 1983), for example, by requesting help,
initiating interaction with a parent, selecting when and how to
interact with parents, or intentionally provoking parent to behave
in certain way. On the other hand, it has been suggested that child
characteristics may also have an “evocative impact” on parenting
(Harris, 1995; Maccoby, 2000; Scarr & McCartney, 1983). In
other words, child’s characteristics activate certain kind of reac-
tions and parenting behavior from their parents. For example, in
the longitudinal study by Hipwell et al. (2008), girls’ (ages 7–12
years) depressed mood and conduct problems predicted decreases
in parental (in most cases maternal) warmth and increases in harsh
punishment over time (see also, Combs-Ronto, Olson, Lunken-
heimer, & Sameroff, 2009; Gault-Sherman, 2012; Williams &
Steinberg, 2011; Zadeh, Jenkins, & Popler, 2010). Similarly, in
studies by Soenens, Luyckx, Vansteenkiste, Duriez, and Goossens
(2008) focusing on middle and late adolescence and by Barber,
Stolz, and Olsen (2005) focusing from early to late adolescence,
adolescents’ depression predicted subsequent perceived maternal
and paternal psychological control. It should be noted, however,
that most of these studies reporting child effects on parenting are
based on child reports rather than parent reports (as an exception,
see Hipwell et al., 2008; Zadeh et al., 2010).
There are also studies that have not evidenced any child influ-
ences on mothers’ and fathers’ parenting styles (Aunola & Nurmi,
2004, 2005; Chen et al., 2000; Holden & Miller, 1999). The
findings of these studies are in accordance with theoretical argu-
ments according to which parenting styles are stable parental
characteristics and, for that reason, not prone to child influence
(Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Holden & Miller, 1999; Roberts,
Block, & Block, 1984).
Although the findings of the previous studies suggest that par-
enting styles of mothers and fathers do play a role in their chil-
dren’s social and emotional development—and according to some
studies also vice versa, there is a lack of research on these patterns
of influence in daily interactions. Although the studies focusing on
the between-person processes in parenting behaviors and chil-
dren’s socioemotional development provide important information
about the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of child ad-
justment, they do not set light on within-person variability in
children’s emotions and adjustment and the related family pro-
cesses going on in the daily life. To the best of our knowledge, thus
far only one study has examined the relationship between parents’
behaviors and their children’s emotions in daily interaction. In that
particular study, Downey, Purdie, and Schaffer-Neitz (1999) found
that the composite measure of negative maternal parenting (includ-
ing items measuring psychological control) was related to a higher
level of anger among children (age between 10 and 18) in daily
mother– child interactions, whereas positive parenting character-
ized by maternal warmth affection was not related to the level of
children’s anger: the higher the level of negative mothering at a
particular day, the higher was also the level of anger among
children on that same day. The limitation of the study by Downey
et al. (1999) was, however, that it focused on the same time
associations between variables under interest, and thus, no evi-
dence was reported concerning the direction of influence (i.e., the
temporal dynamic between parenting and child’s emotions). Con-
sequently, the extent to which the associations between parenting
and child emotions found by Downey et al. (1999) are due to the
fact that child emotions in daily interaction impact on his or her
mother’s parenting behaviors rather than vice versa is not known.
Moreover, the study focused on mothers but the role of fathers’
parenting was not examined. In order to better understand daily
parent– child interactions within families, cross-lagged research on
the temporal dynamics between parental behaviors and child out-
comes in daily mother– child and father– child interactions is
needed.
Also, the system theory framework regarding family interactions
emphasizes the importance of conducting research in settings of
daily life because parent– child interactions are dynamic and
change over time (Cox & Paley, 1997). It is well possible, for
example, that although child influences may not be evident in the
long run, they do exist in daily interactions and contribute to and
maintain the homeostasis within the family. According to the
family system theory, each family member’s behavior in real life
settings is both caused by and causes the other family members’
behaviors, thus forming a circular cycle (Cox & Paley, 1997).
Mapping the paths of transmission in such daily interchanges can
reveal information about how the family “system” functions and
may also provide insight on how repeated interactions lead to
particular long-term effects (Larson & Almeida, 1999). From a
methodological point of view, one way to examine these mutual
influences within families in daily life settings is to apply a diary
study.
Consequently, the aim of the present study was to examine the
daily dynamics between parental behaviors and children’s negative
emotions by applying diary data. Two kinds of parental behaviors
that have been suggested as being important for children’s emo-
tional development were in focus: psychological control and af-
fection.
Based on the study of Downey et al. (1999), it was hypothesized
that a high level of psychological control (negative parenting) on
a particular day would be associated with a high level of negative
emotions among children on that same day, whereas parental
affection on a particular day was not assumed to be related with
child emotions on that same day. However, because no previous
studies have been carried out on the daily dynamics (i.e., within-
person daily processes) between parental behaviors and child
emotions using lagged design, no specific hypotheses were set
concerning the direction of influence. Because studies focusing on
emotion transmission in the family have shown that negative
 CHILDREN’S NEGATIVE DAILY EMOTIONS
emotions in the family are transmitted particularly from fathers to
other family members (Almeida, Wethington, & Chandler, 1999;
Larson & Almeida, 1999), it was hypothesized that fathers’ neg-
ative parenting in terms of psychological control is also reflected
on children’s daily emotions more than that of mothers.
The present study was carried out at the beginning of the first
grade, because this transition to formal schooling has been shown
to be an important developmental period in many ways. For
example, during this period children confront various new chal-
lenges and experience a variety of changes in their lives, including
rapid changes in cognitive and social abilities and self-concepts, as
well as in social roles (Entwisle & Alexander, 1998; Entwisle,
Alexander, Pallas, & Cadigan, 1988). Children also begin to de-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
velop independence from their parents as they spend significantly
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
more time away from their parents with their teachers and peers
(Entwisle & Alexander, 1998). All these changes might be as-
sumed to be reflected on children’s emotions and emotional ex-
pression. Because the emotional and social development at the
beginning of the school career has further shown to have long-term
impacts on children’s subsequent developmental trajectories not
only in school achievement but also in more general adjustment
(for a review, see Hemmeter, Ostrosky, & Fox, 2006), first grade
of primary school can be thought to be an important period to
study children’s emotional development and related family pro-
cesses. In general, transitions have been suggested to be ideal
phases to study transactional dynamic between parents and chil-
dren because they are “points of maximum continuity or discon-
tinuity in development of social roles” and because during these
periods variability among individuals also tends to increase
(Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003; Entwisle et al., 1988).
Method
Participants
The study sample consisted of the parents of 152 first-grade
children (79 girls, 73 boys; Age from six to 7 years: M ⫽ 7.5 years,
SD ⫽ 3.61 months). Recruiting the participants for the sample was
started by contacting 334 first-grade teachers and asking them to
participate in the study. A total of 166 teachers agreed and signed
a written consent. Next, one student was randomly selected from
each classroom, and the parents were asked to participate. If the
parents did not respond or withheld their consent, then another
child from the class was selected, again at random, and his or her
parents were contacted. This procedure continued until one student
was recruited from each classroom. A total of 114 parents agreed
to participate in the first round, 33 in the second round, 15 in the
third round, and 4 in the fourth round. From this total of 166
children and their parents, 14 families were omitted from the
analyses because the children were in special education class-
rooms. Thus, the final sample comprised 152 children in normal
classrooms and their mothers and fathers. The schools participat-
ing in the study were situated in three medium-sized towns in
Finland. The reason to select only one child per classroom was that
teachers were asked to fill in diary questionnaires during the data
gathering concerning their interaction with the target children. If
there were more than one child per classroom, the workload for
teachers would be too extensive.
455
The families were fairly representative of the general Finnish
population. Fifty-two percent of the mothers, and 31% of the
fathers had completed at least a senior high school education, 47%
of the mothers and 66% of the fathers had completed at least a
junior high school education (comprehensive school), and 1% of
the mothers and 3% of the fathers had not completed a junior high
school education. Seventy-eight percent of the families were nu-
clear families (67 married, 11 cohabiting parents), 12% blended
families, and 10% single-parent families. The number of children
per family ranged from 1 to 10 (M ⫽ 2.39, SD ⫽ 1.03).
Both of the children’s parents or legal guardians were asked to
fill in a structured diary questionnaire concerning their daily in-
teractions with their child, daily parenting, and their own and their
child’s emotions over 7 successive days (diary) in the Fall semes-
ter (October or November) of their child’s first grade. The diary
was filled in separately by the mother and father once on each of
7 days before going to bed. To increase parental engagement in the
timely completion of the daily diaries, each parent was paid 50 €
($ 62.50) for participating in the study and returning all the
questionnaires in time. From the 152 mothers asked to participate
in the study, 150 (99%) returned diary questionnaires in time.
From these mothers, 15 were single mothers. From the 137 fathers
asked to participate in the study, 115 (84%) returned diary ques-
tionnaires in time. Both participating mothers and fathers re-
sponded in daily diaries, on average, on each of the 7 days
(average amount of responses for mothers 6.98 and for fathers
6.97). The major reason not to respond in the diary on a particular
day was that the parent was not at home on that day.
Measurements
Children’s daily emotions. Children’s emotions were as-
sessed according to the Daily Emotion Scale (Aunola & Nurmi,
2007), which is based on the Positive and Negative Affect Scale
(PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Each day, parents
completed a structured questionnaire measuring their child’s daily
emotions (11 items; e.g., “My child was angry today”; ”My child
was sad today”; “My child felt distressed today”). Parents rated
each item on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ⫽ not at all; 5 ⫽ very much).
To create indices for children’s daily emotions, principal-axis
factor analyses with Oblimin rotation were carried out separately
for mothers’ and fathers’ ratings. Two factors with eigenvalues
over 1 were yielded for both mothers and fathers: The eight
negative-emotion items loaded on one factor, and the three
positive-emotion items loaded on the other. Because the prelimi-
nary analyses revealed that children’s positive emotions were not
associated with parental behaviors at the daily level, in the present
study the focus was only on children’s negative emotions. The
mean scores for children’s negative daily emotions were calculated
separately for mothers’ and fathers’ reports. The Cronbach’s alpha
reliabilities for children’s negative emotions, calculated separately
at each of the 7 days, were on average .72 for mothers’ evaluations
(range, .66 to .76) and .79 for fathers’ evaluations (range, .74 to
.84). The correlation between mothers’ and fathers’ evaluations
was .45 (p ⬍ .001).
Parenting. The scales for parental affection and psychological
control were created on the basis of the Finnish version of Blocks’
Child Rearing Practices Report (Roberts et al., 1984; see also
Aunola & Nurmi, 2004, 2005) and psychological control item
 456 AUNOLA, TOLVANEN, VILJARANTA, AND NURMI
bank presented by Olsen et al. (2002, p. 246; see also, Barber,
1996) to measure parenting behaviors in daily interaction contexts.
For each of the 7 days, both mothers and fathers were asked to
respond to nine items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ⫽ not at all true;
5 ⫽ very much true) with regard to their daily parenting behaviors.
Affection, measuring the extent to which mothers and fathers
reported a positive and warm daily relationship with their child,
was measured by four items (“I showed my child how much I care
about him/her”; “I asked my child about his or her doings”; “I
joked with my child”; “I commended my child.”). Psychological
control reflecting parental behaviors expressing disappointment,
appealing to guilt, and invalidating feelings was measured by five
items (“I told things could have been done better”; “I let my child
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
know that I am disappointed in her/him”; “I reminded my child
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
how much I do and how much effort I make for her/him”; “I
showed my child how ashamed I am because of her/his behavior”;
“I tried to make my child think or feel in an another way.”). To
create indices for affection and psychological control, the means of
the aforementioned items were calculated separately for mothers
and fathers. The Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities for affection and
psychological control, calculated separately at each of the 7 days,
were on average .67 (range, .61 to .74) and .75 (range, .70 to .83)
for mothers and .71 (range, .67 to .75) and .73 (range, .67 to .82)
for fathers, respectively.
Analysis Strategy
The analyses were carried out using multilevel modeling for the
diary data. The multilevel analysis of the diary content specifies a
statistical model with two levels: A within-person level (between
days) and a between-person level (between persons) (Bolger et al.,
2003). The within-person level specifies that each person’s score
for a certain variable is composed of his or her average score plus
that score’s deviation from his or her average, whereas the
between-person level specifies that a certain score is composed of
the overall mean score across all participants and a particular
participant’s deviation from that overall mean (Bolger et al., 2003).
The analyses were conducted using the following procedure.
First, intraclass correlations (ICCs) were calculated to determine
what proportion of the variance in the observed variables is due to
the differences between individuals (between-person variation)
and what is due to differences experienced by each individual on
different days (within-person variation). Second, multilevel anal-
yses using the prospective change model (Larson & Almeida,
1999) were carried out to test, on the one hand, day-to-day pro-
spective impacts of parenting behaviors on children’s negative
emotions and, on the other hand, day-to-day prospective impacts
of children’s negative emotions on parental behaviors, after con-
trolling for the level of dependent variable at the previous day.
Separate models were carried out for parental affection and psy-
chological control as well as for mothers and fathers.
In the within-level of these models (see the following equation),
the parenting variable and children’s negative emotions from the
previous day (yt-1 and ␰t⫺1
w
, respectively) were used to predict the
parenting variable (yt) and children’s negative emotions (␰tw) for
the current day with a regression coefficient (␤). In the tested
models, both mothers’ and fathers’ reports of their child’s negative
emotions (x1, x2) were used as indicators of the latent construct (␰)
measuring the children’s negative emotions. The loadings (␭) of
these indicators on the latent factor were both fixed to 1.
This within-person model (Level 1) can be expressed as
yit ⫽ ␶yi ⫹ ␤1 ⫻ yi,t⫺1 ⫹ ␤2 ⫻ ␰i,t⫺1 ⫹ ␧yit, ␧yit ~ N(0, ␴2␧y);
x jit ⫽ ␶x jt ⫹ ␭ ⫻ ␰i,t
W
⫹ ␧x jit, j ⫽ 1, 2, ␧x jit ~ N(0, ␴2␧x );
j
␰i,t
W
⫽ ␤3 ⫻ yi,t⫺1 ⫹ ␤4 ⫻ ␰i,t⫺1
W
⫹ ␧␰it, ␧␰it ~ N(0, ␴␧2␰B);
so that the error terms ␧y,␧x1,␧x2,␧␰ are uncorrelated and cov
共␰tW,yt兲 and cov共␰t⫺1
W
,yt⫺1兲 are estimated.
In the between-level of the models, the correlation between the
parenting variable (␶y) and children’s negative emotions (␰B) was
estimated. As in the within-person level, the latent construct (␰)
measuring children’s negative emotions was specified with a fac-
tor for which the loadings were fixed to 1.
This between-person model (Level 2) can be expressed as
␶yi ⫽ ␣y ⫹ ␨yi, ␨yi ~ N(0, ␴2y );
␶x ji ⫽ ␣x j ⫹ ␭ ⫻ ␰iB ⫹ ␨x ji, ␨x ji ~ N(0, ␴2x j);
2
␰iB ~ N(0, ␴␰B);
so that the error terms ␨x1, ␨x2 are uncorrelated with each other and
also uncorrelated with the terms ␨y and ␰iB.
To be able to build the model, values of successive days (t - 1,
t) were arranged as separate variables: yt-1, x1,t-1, x2,t-1, yt, x1,t, and
x2,t.
Third, to test the possibility that the day-to-day dynamic be-
tween parental affection and psychological control and children’s
negative emotions are different depending on child’s gender, all
the models were run again separately for girls and boys groups,
and the confidence intervals (CI) of the standardized results be-
tween girls and boys were compared.
All of the statistical analyses were performed using the Mplus
statistical software program and the standard missing-at-random
approach (supposing that data are missing at random) (Muthén &
Muthén, 1998 –2010). The covariance coverage for the variables
ranged from .56 to .97. The parameters of the models were
estimated using full information maximum likelihood estimation
with standard errors that are robust to non-normality (MLR esti-
mator; Muthén & Muthén, 1998 –2010). This method allowed us to
use all of the observations in the data set to estimate the parameters
in the models.
When evaluating the model fit of the data, the following results
were assumed to indicate that the model fits the data well: Non-
significant ␹2 test value; comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker–
Lewis index (TLI) greater than .95; and root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) lower than .06 (Muthén, & Muthén,
1998 –2010).
The within-person level (seen below the diagonal) and between-
person level (seen above the diagonal) correlations and means (M)
and variances (Var) for the manifest variables are presented in
Table 1.
 CHILDREN’S NEGATIVE DAILY EMOTIONS 457

Table 1
Sample Correlation Matrix of Manifest Variables and Their Means and Variances

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 M Var

1. Neg. emotions
(mothers’
reports)t-1 1.00 .52 ⫺.17 .61 ⫺.16 .42 1.00 .48 ⫺.16 .59 ⫺.15 .39 1.41 .10
2. Neg. emotions
(fathers’
reports)t-1 .29 1.00 ⫺.16 .29 ⫺.26 .65 .49 1.00 ⫺.16 .24 ⫺.26 .63 1.37 .09
3. Maternal
affectiont-1 ⫺.14 ⫺.08 1.00 .10 .15 ⫺.16 ⫺.15 ⫺.14 1.00 .11 .18 ⫺.14 3.96 .27
4. Maternal
psychological
controlt-1 .38 .15 ⫺.04 1.00 ⫺.04 .40 .62 .28 .12 1.00 ⫺.01 .40 1.47 .16
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

5. Paternal
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

affectiont-1 ⫺.08 ⫺.12 .04 ⫺.01 1.00 ⫺.03 ⫺.17 ⫺.25 .17 ⫺.03 1.00 ⫺.01 3.54 .37
6. Paternal
psychological
controlt-1 .14 .31 ⫺.11 .19 .09 1.00 .42 .65 ⫺.15 .37 ⫺.02 1.00 1.46 .15
7. Neg. emotions
(mothers’
reports)t ⫺.00 .10 .01 .03 ⫺.02 .12 1.00 .45 ⫺.15 .60 ⫺.15 .39 1.39 .10
8. Neg. emotions
(fathers’
reports)t ⫺.08 ⫺.06 .03 ⫺.03 .05 .08 .28 1.00 ⫺.14 .22 ⫺.26 .63 1.35 .09
9. Maternal
affectiont ⫺.02 .02 ⫺.04 ⫺.04 .04 .01 ⫺.15 ⫺.04 1.00 .13 .20 ⫺.13 3.97 .29
10. Maternal
psychological
controlt ⫺.04 .00 .01 .02 .00 .06 .39 .17 ⫺.08 1.00 ⫺.00 .37 1.46 .18
11. Paternal
affectiont .04 .02 .05 ⫺.00 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 ⫺.07 ⫺.11 .03 ⫺.01 1.00 ⫺.01 3.53 .37
12. Paternal
psychological
controlt ⫺.14 ⫺.11 .05 ⫺.10 ⫺.03 ⫺.07 .17 .29 ⫺.11 .23 .11 1.00 1.44 .14
Var .15 .13 .20 .22 .55 .19 .14 .12 .19 .20 .28 .18
Note. In the table, negative emotions refer to observed variables. In the used multilevel models, a latent variable consisting of both mother and father
report of negative emotions was used as an indicator of children’s emotions and, consequently, variation in observed variables not shared by mothers and
fathers was considered as measurement error. Between-person level is shown above the diagonal, and within-person level is shown below the diagonal.
t ⫽ the current day; t⫺1 ⫽ the previous day.

Results Models for Mothers

ICCs
The ICCs of the variables of interest (the percentage of variance
between persons) indicated that 40%– 41% of the variance in the
children’s negative emotions as reported by their mothers and
fathers was due to the between-person effect, whereas 59%– 60%
was due to the variance between days. From maternal and paternal
affection 58% and 56% was due to the between-person effect,
respectively, and from maternal and paternal psychological control
42% and 43%, respectively. The differences between ICCs for
affection and psychological control were tested using the Wald
test. The test indicated that affection varied more between persons
in relation to the whole variance of the variable than did psycho-
logical control both among mothers, ␹2(1) ⫽ 7.00, p ⬍ .01, and
fathers, ␹2(1) ⫽ 4.36, p ⬍ .05, whereas psychological control
varied proportionally more between days than did affection. Over-
all, children’s negative emotions and mothers’ and fathers’ psy-
chological control varied more between days than between per-
sons, whereas mothers’ and fathers’ affection varied more between
persons than between days.
First, a multilevel model of prospective change regarding moth-
ers’ psychological control and children’s negative emotions was
constructed. The fit of the model was good: ␹2(16) ⫽ 21.15, p ⫽
.17; CFI ⫽ 1.00; TLI ⫽ 0.99; RMSEA ⫽ 0.02. The results of this
model are presented in Figure 1.
The results (see Figure 1) showed that first, at the between-
person level (variability between persons), the higher the moth-
ers’ overall level of psychological control was across the 7 days
measured, the higher was the overall level of their children’s
negative emotions during that week. Second, the results for the
within-person level (variability between days) of the data
showed that the higher the level of psychological control moth-
ers showed during a particular day, the more negative emotions
their children showed on the following day. Third, the more
negative emotions the children showed during a particular day,
the less psychological control their mothers reported the next
day. Mothers’ psychological control showed some day-to-day
stability, whereas children’s negative emotions during a given
day were negatively associated with their emotions on the
following day.
 458 AUNOLA, TOLVANEN, VILJARANTA, AND NURMI
WITHIN-PERSON LEVEL
t- 1
Mothers’
reports .56
Nega
ve -.07*
emo
ons
Fathers’ .55 -.08***
reports
.53***
.06*
Psychological
control
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
BETWEEN-PERSON LEVEL
Psychological
control
Figure 1. Multilevel prospective change model for mothers’ psychological control and children’s negative
emotions. Note. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
Next, a similar model for maternal affection and children’s
negative emotions was tested. The fit of the model was good:
␹2(16) ⫽ 7.98, p ⫽ .95; CFI ⫽ 1.00; TLI ⫽ 1.01; RMSEA ⫽ 0.00.
The results of this model revealed, however, that maternal affec-
tion and children’s negative emotions were not associated with
each other on either the between-person level (variability between
persons) or the within-person level (variability between days) of
the data.
Models for Fathers
Next, models identical to those carried out for mothers were
also tested with regard to the fathers. First, a multilevel model
of prospective change for fathers’ psychological control and
children’s negative emotions was constructed. The fit of the
model was good: ␹2(16) ⫽ 7.82, p ⫽ .95; CFI ⫽ 1.00; TLI ⫽
1.01; RMSEA ⫽ 0.00. The results of this model are presented in
Figure 2.
The results (see Figure 2) showed that, first, at the between-
person level (variability between persons), the higher the fathers’
overall level of psychological control was across the week, the
higher was the overall level of their children’s negative emotions.
Second, the results for the within-person level (variability between
days) of the data showed that the higher the level of psychological
control fathers showed during a particular day, the more negative
emotions their children showed on the following day. Third, the
more negative emotions children showed during a particular day,
the less psychological control their fathers reported the next day.
Fathers’ psychological control showed statistically marginal (p ⫽
.07) day-to-day stability. In the model for the fathers like that for
t
Mothers’
.53 reports
Nega
ve
emo
ons
.52 Fathers’
reports
.59* **
Psychological
.06*** control
Mothers’
.78 report
Nega
ve
emo
ons
.70 Fathers’
report
.68***
mothers, children’s negative emotions during a given day were
negatively associated with their emotions on the following day.
Comparing the CIs of the standardized results between mothers
and fathers indicated that, at the 95% confidence level, the positive
relation of psychological control to children’s subsequent negative
emotions was significantly stronger when exerted by fathers, CI
[.197, .336] than when applied by mothers, CI [.008, .111]. Sim-
ilarly, the negative relation of children’s negative emotions to
subsequent psychological control was significantly stronger
among fathers, CI [⫺.315, ⫺.183] than among mothers, [CI
[⫺.121, ⫺.040].
Finally, a similar kind of model was constructed regarding
fathers’ affection and children’s negative emotions. The fit of the
model was good: ␹2(16) ⫽ 16.84, p ⫽ .40; CFI ⫽ 1.00; TLI ⫽
1.00; RMSEA ⫽ 0.01. The results of this model revealed, however,
that paternal affection and children’s negative emotions were, as
was also the case in the model for the mothers, not associated with
each other on either the between-person level (variability between
persons) or the within-person level (variability between days) of
the data.
The Role of Child’s Gender
To test the possibility that the day-to-day dynamic between
parental affection and psychological control and children’s nega-
tive emotions are different depending on child’s gender, all the
models previously presented were run separately for girls and boys
and the CIs of the standardized results between girls and boys were
compared. The results showed that, at the 95% confidence level,
none of the estimates were statistically significantly different be-
 CHILDREN’S NEGATIVE DAILY EMOTIONS
WITHIN-PERSON LEVEL
t-1
Mothers’
reports .53
Nega
ve
emo
ons
Fathers’ .57 -.25***
reports
.43***
.27***
Psychological
control
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
BETWEEN-PERSON LEVEL
Figure 2. Multilevel prospective change model for fathers’ psychological control and children’s negative
emotions. Note. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
tween these two groups, suggesting that there were no child-related
gender differences in the reported results.
Discussion
The present study examined the temporal dynamics between
parental behaviors and children’s negative emotions in daily in-
teractions. Our major research question asked to what extent
mothers’ and fathers’ daily variation in parenting impacts their
children’s negative emotions and also to what extent children’s
variation in daily negative emotions foster certain kinds of parent-
ing. The results showed that it was particularly mothers’ and
fathers’ psychological control in daily interactions that increased
the negative emotions in their children. In contrast, children’s
negative emotions during a given day were shown to predict
decreased parental psychological control for the next day.
Previous studies have shown that psychological control applied
by parents is associated with various negative outcomes among
children (Barber & Harmon, 2002) and also prospectively predicts
children’s and adolescents’ adjustment and well-being in the long
run (e.g., Aunola & Nurmi, 2005; Barber et al., 2005; Soenens et
al., 2008). In accordance with this earlier research, the results of
the present study confirmed that mothers’ and fathers’ high overall
level of psychological control was associated with a high overall
level of negative emotions in their children. Moreover, the results
of the present study add to the earlier literature by showing that a
high level of psychological control applied by parents contributes
to an increase in their children’s negative emotions also at the level
of daily interactions: The higher the level of parents’ psychological
control was during a certain day, the more negative emotions their
459
t
Mothers’
.49 reports
-.17*** Nega
ve
emo
ons
.53 Fathers’
reports
.46***
Psychological
.04 control
Mothers’
.76 reports
Nega
ve
emo
ons
.77 Fathers’
reports
.77***
Psychological
control
children showed on the following day. This result was evident both
with either mothers or fathers exercising the psychological control.
One explanation for this result is that psychological control applied
by parents fosters negative emotions among children by diminish-
ing the child’s sense of control (Becker et al., 2010; Nanda et al.,
2012), instilling a sense of dependence (Chorpita et al., 1998) and
promoting negative self-schemas (Barber, 1996; McLeod et al.,
2007). Overall, these kinds of negative daily impacts of parental
psychological control accumulate over time and can lead to “stand-
ing patterns of emotion” in some children (Larson & Pleck, 1999),
that is, heightening distress.
In the study by Soenens et al. (2008), adolescents’ depression
predicted increased perceived parental psychological control, re-
searched over the period of 1 year (see also, Albrecht, Galambos,
& Jansson, 2007; Barber et al., 2005; Rogers, Buchanan, &
Winchell, 2003). The results of the present study showed, how-
ever, that on the daily level (within-person) and among younger
children, a child’s negative emotions during a given day predicted
a decrease rather than an increase in his or her mother’s and
father’s psychological control for the following day. One possible
explanation for this result is that parents decrease their control
attempts in daily interactions when they realize that it has had an
impact on their child: A high level of parents’ psychological
control increases their child’s negative emotions as evidenced by
distress. After becoming aware of such a negative effect, parents
further decrease their psychological control. It is also possible that,
in the long run, these kinds of repetitive cycles may help to
maintain the family’s equilibrium (Cox & Paley, 1997; Minuchin,
1985). According to family system theory, individual symptoms
 460 AUNOLA, TOLVANEN, VILJARANTA, AND NURMI
(e.g., in the present study negative emotions) can be seen as a
reflection of the functioning of the larger family system, and such
symptomatic behaviors may help to further balance or unbalance
the system (Cox & Paley, 1997). Another possible explanation for
the result that children’s negative emotions decreased their par-
ents’ subsequent psychological control is that because children’s
negative emotions during a given day predicted decreased negative
emotions for the following day, these decreases in the children’s
negative emotions are reflected in the lowered level of parental
psychological control. In order to capture these kinds of more
intensive interactional processes in more detail, studies including
various measurement or observation points during the day should
be conducted.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
In previous literature, parental affection has been related to good
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
child adjustment and overall well-being (for a review, see Cum-
mings & Davies, 1994; Hart et al., 2003), and child behaviors have
been shown to influence the subsequent level of parental affection
and responsiveness (Hipwell et al., 2008; Combs-Ronto et al.,
2009; Gault-Sherman, 2012; Zadeh et al., 2010). Because, in the
present study, we did not find any associations (neither at the
between- nor at the within-person level) between parental affection
and children’s negative emotions, our results are different from
those of earlier longitudinal research focusing on the role of
parenting styles in child adjustment. As far as we know, only one
previous study has focused on the daily interactions between
parents’ positive behavior characterized by maternal affection
(warmth) and children’s emotions. This earlier study did not find
any associations between positive parenting and children’s level of
anger during daily interactions (Downey et al., 1999). Conse-
quently, the results of the present study are in line with those found
by Downey et al. (1999) as regards the context of daily interaction.
One explanation for the result that parental affection was not
related to children’s emotions in daily interactions is that because
parental affection is a somewhat stable parental characteristic; it
tends to be related to children’s problem behaviors and adjustment
evident in the long run rather than to continuously changing daily
or weekly emotional states. The results of the present study support
this argument by showing that children’s negative emotions varied
more between days than between persons, whereas parental affec-
tion varied more between persons than between days. Affection
was also found to be a more person-related parental characteristic
than psychological control, both in mothers and fathers.
In previous literature, the focus has mainly been on the role that
mothers play in their child’s development, although the role of
fathers has become increasingly emphasized. The results of the
present study showed that, although the basic pattern of the results
was similar for mothers and fathers, the results concerning the
temporal dynamic between parents’ psychological control and
their children’s negative emotions in daily interaction were stron-
ger for fathers than for mothers. These results suggest that, on the
one hand, fathers’ use of psychological control in daily interactions
plays an important role in their children’s day-to-day variability in
negative emotions. On the other hand, fathers seem to adaptively
adjust their control attempts in daily interaction according to their
child’s negative emotions to a greater extent than mothers do. This
conclusion—that fathers’ psychological control in daily interaction
is more susceptible to the influence of their child than is the case
for mothers—is further strengthened by the finding that the fa-
thers’ use of psychological control did not show stability from day
to day to the same extent that the mothers’ use of psychological
control did.
Overall, these findings are different from many previous longi-
tudinal findings suggesting that children are more influenced by
and more likely to influence the mother than the father (see the
meta-analyses by Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994). The results are,
however, in line with previous diary studies focusing on emotional
transmission in daily life between family members. In these pre-
vious diary studies negative emotions in the family have been
shown to be transmitted particularly from fathers to other family
members (Almeida et al., 1999; Larson & Almeida, 1999). This
has been suggested to be due to the fact that fathers typically show
authority in the family and emotions are more easily transmitted
from the person showing authority figure to others than vice versa
(Larson & Almeida, 1999; see also, Rasbash, Jenkins, O’Connor,
Tackett, & Reiss, 2011). Based on the previous findings on emo-
tion transmission, one explanation for the result of the present
study that it was particularly fathers’ psychological control that
had impact on children’s daily negative emotions is that fathers’
psychological control during a certain day reflects their own neg-
ative emotions on that day, which are then transmitted to their
children via their use of psychological control. Another explana-
tion, as was suggested by Forehand and Nousiainen (1993), is that
children are more eager to obtain the approval of the father in daily
interaction than that of the mother, because the fathers’ acceptance
is less available. Fathers have been shown to provide emotional
support and acceptance to their children particularly through en-
couraging independence and exploration, whereas mothers provide
emotional support rather by responding to child distress (Gross-
mann et al., 2002; see also, Nelson, O’Brien, Blankson, Calkins, &
Keane, 2009). From this point of view, it is possible that fathers’
psychological control which discourages child’s independence and
exploration reflects a lack of emotional support for children.
The findings of the present study have also some practical
implications. The result that daily variation in children’s negative
emotions is affected by their mothers’ and fathers’ use of psycho-
logical control suggests that developing programs that aim at
increasing positive parenting may lead benefits for children’s
everyday life by decreasing their experience and expression of
negative emotions. For example, by informing parents, and par-
ticularly fathers, about the fact that psychological control as a
mean of parenting increases child’s negative emotions in daily life
may help parents to change their parenting behaviors to be more
adaptive from the child’s point of view. This may further impact
daily emotions of other family members, as well make more room
for positive emotions in the family, leading to less stressful daily
life in general. Because transition to primary school is an important
developmental period in children’s lives and because children also
start to increasingly develop independence from their parents
during this period (Entwisle & Alexander, 1998), lack of support
for children’s autonomy, that is, psychological control, might be
particularly detrimental for children’s well-being. In turn, favor-
able daily interaction with parents may adaptively support chil-
dren’s transition and, by this way, also have long-term impacts on
children’s further school adjustment (Hemmeter et al., 2006).
The present study includes some limitations. First, the children’s
emotions were evaluated by their parents. To what degree parents’
ratings of their children’s emotions are consistent with the chil-
dren’s own ratings or with observational data is a matter of debate
 CHILDREN’S NEGATIVE DAILY EMOTIONS
(Richters, 1992). The strength of the present study was, however,
that both mothers’ and fathers’ evaluation was used to measure
children’s emotions. This approach made it possible to reduce the
problems related with shared method variance when using single
informant. It is recommended, however, that in future studies also
children’s reports of their emotions are included, as well as chil-
dren’s reports of their parents’ emotions and behaviors, or, alter-
natively, observational data from all family members. Including
reports of emotions and behaviors from different family members
(in the best case also from the siblings) would make it possible to
examine the dynamics of parenting behaviors and emotions in the
family from the relationship perspective, that is, examine whether
the studied phenomena is evident at the level of the whole family,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
whether it is rather specific for some dyadic relationship within the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
family, or yet specific for certain individual in the family (Cook &
Kenny, 2004; Kenny & Ledermann, 2010; Rasbash et al., 2011).
Second, parents were asked to fill in a diary only once a day. More
intensive measurements would provide a better possibility for
capturing the reciprocal processes between parents’ behaviors and
their children’s emotions in daily interactions. Third, the third
parenting style dimension, that is, behavioral control, was not
examined in the present study. In further studies, the daily dynam-
ics between parents’ behavioral control and their children’s emo-
tions should be targeted as well.
Overall, the results of the present study suggest that psycholog-
ical control applied by mothers and fathers in daily interactions
with their children increases child distress in daily life. In connec-
tion with this, we also found that high levels of negative emotions
among children lead parents to adaptively decrease their use of
psychological control in daily interactions with their offspring.
References
Albrecht, A. K., Galambos, N. L., & Jansson, S. M. (2007). Adolescents’
internalizing and aggressive behaviors and perceptions of parents’ psy-
chological control: A panel study examining direction of effects. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 673– 684. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-
9191-5
Almeida, D. M., Wethington, E., & Chandler, A. L. (1999). Daily trans-
mission of tensions between marital dyads and parent-child dyads.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 49 – 61. doi:10.2307/353882
Assor, A., Roth, G., & Deci, E. L. (2004). The emotional costs of parents’
conditional regard: A Self-Determination theory analysis. Journal of
Personality, 72, 47– 88. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00256.x
Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2004). Maternal affection moderates the
impact of psychological control on a child’s mathematical performance.
Developmental Psychology, 40, 965–978. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.6
.965
Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2005). The role of parenting styles in chil-
dren’s problem behavior. Child Development, 76, 1144 –1159. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00840.x-i1
Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2007). The Daily Emotion Scale (Unpublished
test material). University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a ne-
glected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296 –3319. doi:10.2307/
1131780
Barber, B. K., & Harmon, E. L. (2002). Violating the self: Parental
psychological control 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. doi:10.1037/10422-002
461
Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. A., & Shagle, S. (1994). Associations between
parental psychological control and behavioral control and youth inter-
nalized and externalized behaviors. Child Development, 65, 1120 –1136.
doi:10.2307/1131309
Barber, B. K., Stolz, H. E., & Olsen, J. A. (2005). Parental support,
psychological control, and behavioral control: Assessing relevance
across time, culture, and method. Monographs of the Society for Re-
search in Child Development, 70, 1–137.
Becker, K. D., Ginsburg, G. S., Domingues, J., & Tei, J.-Y. (2010).
Maternal control behavior and locus of control: Examining mechanisms
in the relation between maternal anxiety disorders and anxiety symp-
tomatology in children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38,
533–543. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9388-z
Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies
of socialization. Psychological Review, 75, 81–95. doi:10.1037/
h0025583
Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life
as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579 – 616. doi:10.1146/
annurev.psych.54.101601.145030
Chen, X. Y., Liu, M. W., & Li, D. (2000). Parental warmth, control, and
indulgence and their relations to adjustment in Chinese children: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 401– 419. doi:
10.1037/0893-3200.14.3.401
Chorpita, B., Brown, T., & Barlow, D. (1998). Perceived control as a
mediator of family environment in etiological models of childhood
anxiety. Behavior Therapy, 29, 457– 476. doi:10.1016/S0005-
7894(98)80043-9
Combs-Ronto, L. A., Olson, S. L., Lunkenheimer, E. S., & Sameroff, A. J.
(2009). Interactions between maternal parenting and children’s early
disruptive behavior: Bidirectional associations across the transition from
preschool to school entry. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37,
1151–1163. doi:10.1007/s10802-009-9332-2
Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2004). Application of the Social Relations
Model to family assessment. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 361–
371. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.361
Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of
Psychology, 48, 243–267. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.243
Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (1994). Maternal depression and child
development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 73–122.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01133.x
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An inte-
grative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487– 496. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.113.3.487
Downey, G., Purdie, V., & Schaffer-Neitz, R. (1999). Anger transmission
from mother to child: A comparison of mothers in chronic pain and well
mothers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 62–73. doi:10.2307/
353883
Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1998). Facilitating the transition to
first grade: The nature of transition and research on factors affecting it.
The Elementary School Journal, 98, 351–364. doi:10.1086/461901
Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., Pallas, A. M., & Cadigan, D. (1988). A
Social psychological model of the schooling process over first grade.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 173–189. doi:10.2307/2786918
Forehand, R., & Nousiainen, S. (1993). Maternal and paternal parenting:
Critical dimensions in adolescent functioning. Journal of Family Psy-
chology, 7, 213–221. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.7.2.213
Gault-Sherman, M. (2012). It’s a two-way street: The bidirectional rela-
tionship between parenting and delinquency. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 41, 121–145. doi:10.1007/s10964-011–9656-4
Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Kindler, H.,
Scheuerer-Englisch, H., & Zimmermann, P. (2002). The uniqueness of
the child–father attachment relationship: Fathers’ sensitive and challeng-
ing play as a pivotal variable in a 16-year longitudinal study. Social
Development, 11, 301–337. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00202
 462 AUNOLA, TOLVANEN, VILJARANTA, AND NURMI
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group socializa-
tion theory of development. Psychological Review, 102, 458 – 489. doi:
10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.458
Harris, J. R. (2000). The outcome of parenting: What we really know?
Journal of Personality, 68, 625– 637. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00110
Hart, C. H., Newell, L. D., & Olsen, S. F. (2003). Parenting skills and
social-communicative competence in childhood. In J. O. Greene & B. R.
Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction
skills (pp. 753–797). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hemmeter, M. L., Ostrosky, M., & Fox, L. (2006). Social and emotional
foundations for early learning: A conceptual model for intervention.
School Psychology Review, 35, 583– 601.
Hipwell, A., Keenan, K., Kasza, K., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., &
Bean, T. (2008). Reciprocal influences between girls’ conduct problems
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
and depression, and parental punishment and warmth: A six year pro-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
spective analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 663– 677.
doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9206-4
Holden, G. W., & Miller, P. C. (1999). Enduring and different: A meta-
analysis of the similarity in parents’ child rearing. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 125, 223–254. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.223
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D.,
Green, C. L., Wilkins, A. S., & Closson, K. E. (2005). Why do parents
become involved? Research findings and implications. The Elementary
School Journal, 106, 105–130. doi:10.1086/499194
Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing
dyadic patterns in the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Journal of
Family Psychology, 24, 359 –366. doi:10.1037/a0019651
Kerr, M., Stattin, H., Biesecker, G., & Ferrer-Wreder, L. (2003). Relation-
ships with parents and peers in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner, M. A.
Easterbrooks, & J. Mistry (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 6.
Developmental psychology (pp. 395– 419). New York, NY: Wiley.
Larson, R. W., & Almeida, D. M. (1999). Emotional transmission in the
daily lives of families: A new paradigm for studying family process.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 5–20. doi:10.2307/353879
Larson, R., & Pleck, J. H. (1999). Hidden feelings: Emotionality in boys
and men. In D. Bernstein (Ed.), Gender and motivation: Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation 1998 (Vol. 45, (pp. 25–74). Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
Maccoby, E. E. (2000). Parenting and its effects on children: On reading
and misreading behavior genetics. Annual Review of Psychology, 51,
1–27. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.1
McLeod, B. D., Weisz, J. R., & Wood, J. J. (2007). Examining the
association between parenting and childhood depression: A meta-
analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 986 –1003. doi:10.1016/j.cpr
.2007.03.001
Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations
from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56, 289 –302.
doi:10.2307/1129720
Mize, J., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Mothers’ social coaching, mother– child
relationship style, and children’s peer competence: Is the medium the
message? Child Development, 68, 312–332. doi:10.2307/1131852
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2010). Mplus user’s guide. Los
Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Nanda, M. M., Kotchick, B. A., & Grover, R. L. (2012). Parental psycho-
logical control and childhood anxiety: The mediating role of perceived
lack of control. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21, 637– 645.
doi:10.1007/s10826-011-9516-6
Nelson, J. A., O’Brien, M., Blankson, A. N., Calkins, S. D., & Keane, S. P.
(2009). Family stress and parental responses to children’s negative
View publication stats
emotions: Tests of the spillover, crossover, and compensatory hypothe-
ses. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 671– 679. doi:10.1037/a0015977
Olsen, S. F., Yang, C., Hart, C. H., Robinson, C. C., Wu, P., Nelson, D. A.,
. . .Wo, J. (2002). Maternal psychological control and preschool chil-
dren’s behavioral outcomes in China, Russia, and the United States. In
B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological control
affects children and adolescents (pp. 235–262). Washington, DC: Amer-
ican Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10422-008
Pettit, G. S., Laird, R. D., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Criss, M. M.
(2001). Antecedents and behavior-problem outcomes of parental moni-
toring and psychological control in early adolescence. Child Develop-
ment, 72, 583–598. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00298
Rasbash, J., Jenkins, J., O’Connor, T. G., Tackett, J., & Reiss, D. (2011).
A Social Relations Model of observed family negativity and positivity
using a genetically informative sample. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 100, 474 – 491. doi:10.1037/a0020931
Richters, J. E. (1992). Depressed mothers as informants about their chil-
dren—A critical review of the evidence for distortion. Psychological
Bulletin, 112, 485– 499. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.485
Roberts, G. C., Block, H., & Block, J. (1984). Continuity and change in
parents’ child-rearing practices. Child Development, 55, 586 –597.
Rogers, K. N., Buchanan, C. M., & Winchell, M. E. (2003). Psychological
control during early adolescence: Links to adjustment in differing par-
ent/adolescent dyads. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 349 –383.
doi:10.1177/0272431603258344
Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J. R. (1994). Parental caregiving and child
externalizing behavior in nonclinical samples—A meta-analyses. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 116, 55–74. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.55
Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environ-
ments—A theory of genotype-environment effects. Child Development,
54, 424 – 435. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1983.tb03884.x
Siqueland, L., Kendall, P. C., & Steinberg, L. (1996). Anxiety in
children: Perceived family environments and observed family inter-
action. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 225–237. doi:10.1207/
s15374424jccp2502_12
Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., Vansteenkiste, M., Duriez, B., & Goossens, L.
(2008). Clarifying the link between parental psychological control and
adolescents’ depressive symptoms reciprocal versus unidirectional mod-
els. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly—Journal of Developmental Psychology,
54, 411– 444. doi:10.1353/mpq.0.0005
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-
dation of brief measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Williams, L. R., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Reciprocal relations between
parenting and adjustment in a sample of juvenile offenders. Child
Development, 82, 633– 645. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01523.x
Wolfradt, U., Hempel, S., & Miles, J. N. V. (2003). Perceived parenting
styles, depersonalization, anxiety and coping behavior in adolescents.
Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 521–532. doi:10.1016/
S0191-8869(02)00092-2
Zadeh, Z. Y., Jenkins, J., & Pepler, D. (2010). A transactional analysis of
maternal negativity and child externalizing behavior. International Jour-
nal of Behavioral Development, 34, 218 –228. doi:10.1177/
0165025409350953
Received August 3, 2012
Revision received February 12, 2013
Accepted February 27, 2013 䡲