Perkembangan Anak, November / Desember 2005, Volume 76, Nomor 6, Halaman 1144 - 1159

Peran Gaya Orang Tua dalam Perilaku Bermasalah Anak

Kaisa Aunola dan Jari-Erik Nurmi
University of Jyva¨skyla¨

Penelitian ini menyelidiki kombinasi ibu dan ayah Gaya pengasuhan (kasih sayang, kontrol perilaku, dan
kontrol psikologis) yang paling berpengaruh dalam memprediksi perilaku masalah internal dan eksternal
anak-anak mereka. Sebanyak 196 anak (usia 5 - 6 tahun) ditindaklanjuti sebanyak enam kali dari taman
kanak-kanak hingga kelas dua untuk mengukur perilaku bermasalah mereka. Para ibu dan ayah mengisi
kuesioner yang mengukur gaya pengasuhan mereka setiap tahun. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa tingkat
kontrol psikologis yang tinggi yang dilakukan oleh ibu dikombinasikan dengan kasih sayang yang tinggi
memprediksi peningkatan tingkat perilaku bermasalah baik internal maupun eksternal pada anak. Kontrol
perilaku yang dilakukan oleh ibu menurunkan masalah perilaku eksternal anak tetapi hanya jika
dikombinasikan dengan tingkat kontrol psikologis yang rendah.
Aunola, Departemen Psikologi, Universitas Jyva¨skyla¨, PO Box
35, 40014 Jyva¨skyla¨, Finlandia. Surat elektronik dapat dikirim ke
Beberapa penelitian telah dilakukan untuk menguji aunola@psyka.jyu.fi.
peran gaya pengasuhan dalam perilaku masalah Perilaku bermasalah pada anak-anak dapat
internalisasi dan eksternalisasi anak dan remaja dimanifestasikan dalam perilaku eksternalisasi atau
(Hart, Newell, & Olsen, 2003). Meskipun tiga internalisasi. Perilaku eksternalisasi terdiri dari
dimensi gaya pengasuhan, yaitu, kehangatan / kasih perilaku disinhibited dan ekspresi undersosialisasi
sayang orang tua, kontrol perilaku, dan kontrol lainnya (Kovacs & Devlin, 1998). Dalam jenis
psikologis, masing-masing telah terbukti terkait perilaku bermasalah ini, emosi negatif diarahkan
dengan penyesuaian anak (Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, kepada orang lain, manusia jika diuji sebagai
1994; Siequ eland, Kendall, & Steinberg , 1996), kemarahan, agresi, dan frustrasi (Roeser, Eccles, &
telah disarankan bahwa kombinasi karakteristik Strobel, 1998). Anak-anak dengan perilaku
parenting khususnya yang berpengaruh dalam bermasalah eksternalisasi memiliki keterampilan
perkembangan anak (Baumrind, 1991; Darling & pengaturan diri yang terbelakang, menyebabkan
Steinberg, 1993; Steinberg, 2001). Terlepas dari perilaku yang tidak terkontrol (Cole, Zahn-Waxler,
gagasan ini, hanya beberapa penelitian (Gray & Fox, Usher, & Welsh, 1996). Perilaku internalisasi,
Steinberg, 1999; Galambos, Barker, & Almeida, sebaliknya, termasuk dengan drawal, rasa takut,
2003; Pettit & Laird, 2002) telah melakukan upaya penghambatan, dan kecemasan (Eisenb erg et al.,
sistematis untuk memeriksa apakah dampak dari 2001; Roeser et al., 1998). Dalam jenis masalah
dimensi gaya pengasuhan tertentu dimoderasi oleh perilaku emosi negatif diarahkan pada diri sendiri
dua dimensi lainnya. Apalagi, semua penelitian yang daripada orang lain (Roeser et al., 1998). Dalam
dilakukan selama ini berfokus pada remaja. Studi menganalisis perilaku masalah berasal dari
longitudinal ini menyelidiki kombinasi apa dari kasih pengaturan diri yang terlalu kuat (Block & Block,
sayang ibu, kontrol perilaku, dan kontrol psikoologis 1980; Cole et al., 1996). Baik masalah internal dan
di satu sisi, dan kasih sayang ayah, kontrol perilaku, eksternal perilaku telah terbukti agak stabil sejak
dan kontrol psikologis, di sisi lain, akan awal tahun sekolah dan seterusnya (lihat, misalnya,
menunjukkan pengaruh paling besar terhadap Denham et al., 2000; Kovacs & Devlin, 1998). Lebih
internal anak-anak mereka. dan masalah perilaku lanjut, kedua jenis perilaku ini menimbulkan masalah
eksternal selama tahun-tahun awal sekolah mereka. dalam berbagai domain kehidupan, termasuk
sekolah, hubungan teman sebaya, dan kesehatan
mental (Hinshaw, 1992; Roeser et al., 1998).
Banyak penelitian telah dipublikasikan tentang
Studi ini adalah bagian dari Studi Masuk Jyva¨skyla¨ yang peran keluarga dalam perilaku bermasalah
sedang berlangsung ke Sekolah Utama (JEPS), dan didanai oleh
anak-anak dan remaja. Dari banyak variabel
hibah dari Akademi Finlandia (63099, 778230). Sebuah versi dari
artikel ini telah dipresentasikan pada Agustus 2003 di Konferensi pengasuhan, gaya pengasuhan telah menjadi salah
Eropa XIth tentang Psikologi Perkembangan, Milano, Italia. satu yang paling sering diselidiki (Steinberg, 2001;
Ucapan terimakasih kami ucapkan kepada seluruh anak dan Wood, McLeod, Sigman, Hwang, & Chu, 2003).
orang tua yang telah berpartisipasi dalam pembelajaran ini. Dalam pendekatan dimensional untuk gaya
Korespondensi mengenai artikel ini harus ditujukan ke Kaisa
 pengasuhan, fokusnya adalah pada dampak tiga psikologis yang tinggi dan perilaku masalah yang
dimensi (Hart et al., 2003; Schaefer, 1965): kasih mengungkapkan (untuk review, lihat Barber &
sayang (misalnya, daya tanggap, keterlibatan, Harmon, 2002; Yang et al., 2004).
dukungan) mengacu pada keterhubungan orang tua Namun, banyak peneliti telah menyarankan
dengan
tahun 2005 oleh Society for Research in Child Development, berkontribusi pada penyesuaian anak-anak dan
Inc. Semua hak dilindungi undang-undang. 0009-3920 / 2005 / remaja (Baumrind, 1989, 1991; Darling & Steinberg,
7606-0002
anak dan kehangatan interaksional mereka
(Galambos et al., 2003; Wood et al., 2003); kontrol
perilaku (misalnya, tuntutan kedewasaan,
pemantauan, pengaturan batas) terdiri dari regulasi
perilaku anak melalui disiplin yang tegas dan
konsisten (Barber, 1996; Gala mbos et al., 2003);
dan kontrol psikologis (misalnya, penarikan cinta,
induksi rasa bersalah) mengacu pada kontrol orang
tua atas emosi dan perilaku anak melalui sarana
psikologis (Barber, 1996).
Ketiga dimensi gaya pengasuhan masing-masing
telah terbukti terkait dengan perilaku bermasalah
pada anak dan remaja. Misalnya, tingkat kontrol
perilaku yang tinggi terkait dengan rendahnya
tingkat masalah eksternalisasi, seperti perilaku
antisosial dan gangguan perilaku, baik di kalangan
remaja (Barber & Olsen, 1997; Eccles, Early,
Frasier, Belansky, & McCarthy, 1997; Pettit, Laird,
Dodge, Bates, & Criss, 2001; Stice & Barrera, 1995)
dan di antara anak-anak sekolah dasar (Barber,
1996; Lewis, 1981). Hasil ini dianggap berasal dari
fakta bahwa kontrol perilaku mendorong pengaturan
diri dan kepatuhan (Hart et al., 2003; Lewis, 1981).
Demikian pula, telah disarankan bahwa kasih
sayang orang tua memfasilitasi penyesuaian
anak-anak (Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Siequeland et
al., 1996). Namun, temuan tentang kasih sayang
orang tua kontradiktif. Sebagai contoh, Miller, Co
wan, Cowan, Hetherington, dan Clingempeel (1993)
dan Dodge, Pettit, dan Bates (1994) menemukan
bahwa kehangatan ibu berhubungan negatif dengan
masalah eksternalisasi di antara anak-anak
prasekolah, sedangkan Galambos et al. (2003)
menunjukkan bahwa dukungan orang tua tidak
terkait dengan perilaku bermasalah remaja (lihat
juga Stice & Barrera, 1995). Kontrol psikologis, pada
gilirannya, dikaitkan dengan masalah internalisasi,
seperti suasana hati yang tertekan dan kecemasan,
di antara kedua remaja (Barber et al., 1994; Conger,
Conger, & Scaramella, 1997; Pettit et al., 2001;
Wolfradt, Hempel, & Miles, 2003) dan anak-anak
(Siequeland et al., 1996; Barber & Harmon, 2002;
Olsen et al., 2002). Beberapa penelitian juga telah
menemukan hubungan antara tingkat kontrol
bahwa kombinasi tertentu dari variabel gaya
pengasuhan daripada dampak unik mereka yang
1993; Steinberg, 2001). Sebagian dari argumentasi
ini berasal dari paradigma gaya pengasuhan
tradisional yang menggambarkan pola asuh sebagai
kombinasi dari berbagai tingkat kontrol perilaku dan
kasih sayang (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Sebagai
contoh, pola asuh otoritatif, yang ditandai oleh
tingkat tinggi kasih sayang orang tua dan
Gaya Pengasuhan dalamPerilaku Anak 1145
Pengendalian perilaku, terbukti terkait secara positif
dengan penyesuaian pada anak-anak dari berbagai
usia (Baumrind, 1966, 1989; Hart et al. ., 2003;
Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Sebaliknya, pola asuh
otoriter, yang dicirikan sebagai kontrol perilaku yang
tinggi (atau, dalam beberapa konseptualisasi,
kontrol yang keras dan menghukum; untuk tinjauan,
lihat Hart et al., 2003) tetapi kasih sayang yang
rendah, dan pola asuh yang permisif, yang ditandai
dengan kontrol perilaku yang rendah, adalah terkait
dengan berbagai jenis ketidakadilan, seperti perilaku
menarik diri, afiliasi teman yang rendah, dan
gangguan perilaku (Baumrind, 1989; Heller, Baker,
Henker, & Hinshaw, 1996; Jewell & Stark, 2003;
Wolfradt et al., 2003) .
Penelitian sebelumnya tentang peran gaya
pengasuhan, dan pentingnya kombinasinya secara
khusus, memiliki setidaknya dua keterbatasan.
Pertama, dalam sebagian besar studi, peran kontrol
psikologis belum diteliti, atau belum
dioperasionalkan sebagai dimensi terpisah dari
kontrol perilaku dan kasih sayang (Barber, 1996).
Kedua, hanya sedikit upaya sistematis yang telah
dilakukan untuk membedakan antara efek utama
dari tiga dimensi gaya pengasuhan dan interaksinya.
Sejauh yang kami ketahui, baru tiga studi yang
meneliti sejauh mana dampak ketiga dimensi
parenting style dimoderasi oleh dua dimensi lainnya.
Dalam salah satu studi ini, Galambos et al. (2003)
menemukan bahwa tingkat kontrol psikologis orang
tua yang tinggi dikombinasikan dengan tingkat
kontrol perilaku yang tinggi terkait dengan masalah
eksternalisasi (penggunaan zat, perilaku antisosial,
dan perilaku buruk di sekolah) di kalangan remaja.
Mereka menyarankan bahwa kontrol perilaku
mungkin tidak efektif secara tunggal bila
dikombinasikan dengan pola asuh yang kurang
diinginkan. Dalam studi lain, Pettit dan Laird (2002)
 menemukan bahwa tingkat kontrol psikologis yang parenting, asumsi kuncinya adalah bahwa gaya
tinggi dikombinasikan dengan tingkat keterlibatan pengasuhan memengaruhi periklanan anak-anak
orang tua yang rendah dikaitkan dengan perilaku (untuk review, lihat Maccoby, 1992). Namun, telah
nakal di kalangan remaja, sedangkan tingkat kontrol disarankan bahwa anak-anak dan pembenaran
psikologis yang tinggi dikombinasikan dengan mereka juga dapat mempengaruhi pola pengasuhan
tingkat keterlibatan orang tua yang tinggi. tidak. anak orang tua mereka (Bell, 1968; Harris, 1995;
Serupa dengan itu, Gray dan Steinberg (1999) juga Hart et al., 2003). Dalam penelitian ini, kami
menemukan bahwa, di antara remaja, kasih sayang menggunakan data longitudinal cross-lag untuk
orang tua lebih mencegah distres internal bila memeriksa kemungkinan bahwa penyesuaian anak
dikombinasikan dengan kontrol psikologis tingkat juga mempengaruhi pola asuh ibu dan ayah mereka.
tinggi daripada bila dikombinasikan dengan Penelitian ini berusaha menjawab pertanyaan
pemberian otonomi tingkat tinggi. Mereka penelitian berikut. Pertama, apakah gaya
menyarankan bahwa tingkat kasih sayang yang pengasuhan ibu dan ayah, yaitu kasih sayang,
tinggi mengimbangi efek negatif dari kontrol kontrol perilaku, dan kontrol psikologis, memprediksi
psikologis. Gray dan Steinberg (1999) menemukan perilaku masalah internal dan eksternal anak
lebih lanjut bahwa kasih sayang meningkatkan mereka selanjutnya selama transisi dari taman
perkembangan psikososial remaja, terutama bila kanak-kanak ke sekolah dasar? Hipotesis berikut
digabungkan dengan kontrol perilaku tingkat tinggi dikemukakan: (1a) kurangnya kontrol perilaku orang
(lihat juga Forehand & Nousiainen, 1993). tua akan meningkatkan perilaku masalah
Studi sebelumnya tentang sejauh mana eksternalisasi anak-anak (Barber, 1996; Barber &
kombinasi dari tiga variabel gaya pengasuhan anak Olsen, 1997; Galambos et al., 2003); (1b) tingkat
memprediksi perilaku bermasalah dibatasi dalam kontrol psikologis yang tinggi yang dilakukan oleh
dua cara. Pertama, orang tua akan meningkatkan internalisasi
1146 Aunola dan Nurmi anak-anak (Barber & Harmon, 2002) dan perilaku
masalah eksternalisasi (Olsen et al., 2002; Yang et
sebagian besar penelitian di lapangan telah meneliti al., 2004); (1c) tingkat kasih sayang orang tua yang
remaja, dan karenanya sedikit yang diketahui tinggi akan menurun dalam perilaku bermasalah
tentang bagaimana tiga dimensi gaya pengasuhan anak eksternal dan eksternal (Dodge et al., 1994;
berinteraksi dalam prediksi perilaku bermasalah Miller et al., 1993). Pertanyaan kedua
anak. Meskipun dalam satu studi baru-baru ini
Gadeyne, Ghesquie´re, dan Onghena (2004)
meneliti hubungan prospektif antara gaya adalah sejauh mana pengaruh variabel gaya
pengasuhan dan perilaku masalah anak-anak dari pengasuhan tertentu terhadap perilaku bermasalah
taman kanak-kanak hingga kelas dua, studi mereka internal dan eksternal anak yang dimoderasi oleh
terbatas pada dua dimensi gaya pengasuhan (yaitu, dua variabel gaya pengasuhan lainnya? Dengan
kasih sayang dan kontrol terbatas). Selain itu, kata lain, apakah kombinasi variabel gaya
penelitian ini tidak melakukan upaya sistematis pengasuhan dan bukan dampak uniknya yang
untuk membedakan antara efek utama dimensi berpengaruh? Hipotesis berikut diajukan: (2a)
parenting dan interaksinya. Batasan kedua adalah tingkat kasih sayang yang tinggi dikombinasikan
bahwa, dalam sebagian besar studi sebelumnya dengan tingkat kontrol perilaku yang tinggi akan
tentang interaksi antara dimensi parenting, parenting menurunkan perilaku masalah internal dan eksternal
maternal dan paternal telah dikumpulkan untuk ke tingkat yang lebih besar daripada tingkat kasih
mengukur parenting secara keseluruhan dalam sayang yang tinggi dengan kontrol perilaku yang
keluarga (Galambos et al., 2003; Grey & Steinberg, rendah atau tingkat yang rendah kasih sayang
1999). Jadi tidak mungkin untuk memeriksa apakah dengan kontrol perilaku yang tinggi (Baumrind,
beberapa pola pengasuhan yang ditemukan 1989; Forehand & Nousiainen, 1993; Grey &
mempengaruhi perilaku bermasalah berbeda untuk Steinberg, 1999); (2b) tingkat kontrol perilaku yang
ibu dan ayah (untuk pengecualian, lihat Forehand & tinggi yang dikombinasikan dengan tingkat kontrol
Nousiainen, 1993). Studi ini menyelidiki dampak psikologis yang rendah akan menurunkan perilaku
kasih sayang ibu dan ayah, kontrol perilaku, dan bermasalah anak yang mengeksternalisasi; namun,
kontrol psikologis terhadap perilaku buruk internal jika dikombinasikan dengan kontrol psikologis
dan eksternal anak, dan apakah dampak tersebut tingkat tinggi, dampaknya akan berbalik (Galambos
dimoderasi oleh dua dimensi gaya pengasuhan et al., 2003); (2c) kontrol psikologis tingkat tinggi
lainnya. yang dikombinasikan dengan kasih sayang yang
Dalam sebagian besar penelitian tentang tinggi akan memiliki dampak negatif yang lebih kecil
 pada masalah perilaku internal dan eksternal anak dasar. Anak-anak yang tidak masuk sekolah pada
daripada kontrol psikologis tingkat tinggi yang hari ujian (misalnya karena sakit) diperiksa segera
dikombinasikan dengan tingkat kasih sayang yang setelah mereka kembali ke sekolah. Trisi dari 11
rendah (Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Pettit & Laird, anak ini disebabkan oleh fakta bahwa keluarga dari
2002). Pertanyaan ketiga yang dijawab adalah anak-anak tersebut pindah ke kabupaten lain
sejauh mana masalah perilaku internal dan eksternal sehingga hilang dalam penelitian.
anak-anak memprediksi jenis pola asuh yang Informasi latar belakang dikumpulkan dari orang
ditunjukkan oleh ibu dan ayah mereka? tua dari 191 anak. Sebanyak 83,2% anak berasal
dari keluarga dengan dua orang tua, 9,9% keluarga
terdiri dari ibu atau ayah yang tinggal bersama / atau
pasangan barunya dan anak-anaknya, dan 6,8%
Metode
anak tinggal bersama mereka. janda. Jumlah anak
per keluarga berkisar antara 1 sampai 11 (M 5 2,80,
Peserta dan Prosedur
SD 5 1,50). Analisis pendahuluan menunjukkan
Anak-anak. Studi yang dilaporkan di sini adalah bahwa anak-anak yang tinggal dengan dua orang
bagian dari studi Jyva¨skyla¨ Masuk ke Sekolah tua biologis menunjukkan tingkat perilaku masalah
Dasar (JEPS) (Nurmi & Aunola, 1999). JEPS adalah eksternalisasi yang lebih rendah pada Waktu 4 dan
proyek penelitian berkelanjutan yang melacak Waktu 9 daripada mereka yang tinggal dengan
perkembangan akademis dan motivasi anak-anak orang tua mereka yang menikah lagi, dan tingkat
selama masa transisi mereka dari taman perilaku masalah eksternal yang lebih rendah pada
kanak-kanak ke sekolah dasar, dan peran yang Waktu 9 daripada mereka yang hidup dengan lajang
dimainkan oleh konteks keluarga dan kelas dalam ibu.
perkembangan ini. Sampel yang dipilih untuk
penelitian (N 5 210) terdiri dari semua anak usia 5
Tabel 1
sampai 6 tahun (usia pada baseline M 5 75 bulan,
Gaya Mengasuh Anak dalam Perilaku Anak 1147
SD 5 3,30 bulan) yang lahir pada tahun 1993 di dua
distrik berukuran sedang di Finlandia tengah . Orang Tua. Orang tua anak-anak diselidiki tiga
Konsisten dengan populasi sekolah Finlandia secara kali (Titik waktu 2, 5, dan 8; lihat Tabel 1): selama
umum, sampelnya homogen dalam hal ras dan latar bulan Desember tahun taman kanak-kanak
belakang budaya (semua anak adalah Kaukasia dan anak-anak (Waktu 2); selama bulan Desember
berbicara bahasa Finlandia sebagai bahasa asli tahun pertama sekolah dasar anak-anak (Waktu 5);
mereka). Izin orang tua untuk mengumpulkan data dan selama bulan Desember tahun kedua sekolah
dari anak-anak mereka diperoleh pada Agustus dasar anak-anak (Waktu 8). Pada kesempatan ini,
1999. Izin diberikan oleh orang tua dari 207 anak. kedua orang tua anak-anak dikirimi kuesioner.
Representasi poin pengukuran dan variabel Mereka diminta mengisi kuesioner tanpa saling
penelitian ditunjukkan pada Tabel 1. membahas topik yang dibahas. Selama bulan
Desember tahun taman kanak-kanak pertanyaan
tentang pola asuh diisi oleh 191 ibu dari 207
Anak-anak yang berpartisipasi dalam penelitian
(92,3%); selama bulan Desember kelas pertama
diperiksa enam kali (Titik waktu 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, dan 9;
sebanyak 171 dari 196 (87,2%); dan selama bulan
lihat Tabel 1): dua kali selama tahun taman
Desember kelas dua sebanyak 169 dari 196
kanak-kanak mereka, yaitu pada bulan Oktober
(86,2%). Selama bulan Desember tahun taman
1999 (N 5 207) dan pada bulan April 2000 (N 5 199);
kanak-kanak pertanyaan tentang gaya pengasuhan
dua kali selama tahun pertama sekolah dasar
diisi oleh 167 (80,7%) ayah, selama bulan
mereka, yaitu pada bulan Oktober 2000 (N 5 196)
Desember kelas satu sebanyak 157 (74,1%), dan
dan pada bulan April 2001 (N 5 196); dan dua kali
selama bulan Desember kelas dua sebanyak 152
selama tahun kedua sekolah dasar mereka, yaitu,
(73,4%).
pada bulan Oktober 2001 (N 5 197) dan pada bulan
Sebanyak 18,0% ibu dan 13,7% ayah memiliki
Maret 2002 (N 5 196). Data dari keenam titik
gelar dari lembaga perguruan tinggi, 68,3% ibu dan
pengukuran dikumpulkan dari 196 (104 laki-laki, 92
75,2% ayah memiliki kualifikasi dari lembaga
perempuan) anak-anak. Perilaku masalah
pendidikan profesi atau vokasi, dan 13,7% ibu dan
internalisasi dan eksternalisasi anak dinilai melalui
11,2% ayah tidak memiliki pendidikan kerja.
wawancara terstruktur yang dilakukan oleh
Untuk menyelidiki kemungkinan efek seleksi,
penyelidik terlatih. Wawancara dilakukan di ruangan
anak-anak yang ibunya berpartisipasi dalam
yang sesuai di taman kanak-kanak atau sekolah
penelitian (n5197) dibandingkan dengan anak-anak
 yang ibunya tidak berpartisipasi (n510), menurut
variasi perilaku masalah. Analisis ini menunjukkan
bahwa anak-anak yang ibunya mengembalikan
setidaknya satu dari tiga kuesioner menunjukkan
Means (M) dan Standard Deviations (SD) untuk Variabel Perilaku Masalah Internal dan Eksternal yang diamati dan Gaya Pengasuhan
Ibu dan Ayah pada Waktu 2, 5, dan 8
Waktu 1 Waktu 2 Waktu 3 Waktu 4 Waktu 5 Waktu 6 Waktu 7 Waktu 8 Waktu 9
Anak-anak
Perilaku masalah internal 1.83 1.58 1.52 1.49 1.12 1.29 1.19 1.30 .79 1.01 .87 1.16 Perilaku masalah eksternal 1.41 1.35 1.06 1.21
0.81 1.12 0.89 1.17 .57 0.96 .62 1.12Ibu
Kasih Sayang4.16 .44 4.19 .42 4.20 .41 Pengendalian perilaku 3.82 .46 3.77 .44 3.70 .49 Pengendalian psikologis 2.69 .72
2.68 .68 2.66 .69Ayah
Kasih Sayang3.92 .47 3.97 .44 3.93 .42 Pengendalian perilaku 3.79 .47 3.76 .44 3.69 .46 Pengendalian psikologis 2.85 .70
2.72 .68 2.72 .64
1148 Aunola dan Nurmi
yang ayahnya tidak mengembalikan salah satu dari
tiga pertanyaan naires (n525) menunjukkan tingkat
masalah internal yang lebih tinggi perilaku pada
Times 4, 6, dan 9, dan tingkat perilaku masalah
eksternal yang lebih tinggi pada Times 6 dan 9,
daripada mereka yang ayah mengembalikan
setidaknya satu kuesioner (n5182).
Pengukuran
Perilaku Masalah. Perilaku masalah diukur
dengan menggunakan kuesioner (Aunola & Nurmi,
1999a) berdasarkan Skala Depresi Johns Hopkins
(Joshi, Cappozoli, & Coyle, 1989) dan Kuesioner
Kekuatan dan Kesulitan (Goodman, Meltzer, &
Bailey, 1998). Kuesioner berisi 14 pernyataan (9
untuk perilaku masalah internal dan 5 untuk perilaku
masalah eksternal), yang dibacakan kepada
anak-anak dalam situasi wawancara individu yang
terstruktur. Anak-anak diminta untuk menanggapi
setiap pernyataan negara dengan cara dikotomi,
baik "tidak benar" atau "benar". Berdasarkan analisis
faktor konfirmatori untuk item kategori, dua skor
ringkasan akhir dibuat. Rangkuman skor untuk
menginternalisasikan masalah perilaku terdiri dari 5
pernyataan yang berfokus pada penilaian gejala
depresi anak ('' Saya khawatir tentang banyak hal, ''
'' Saya sering merasa ingin menangis, '' '' Saya
sering sakit perut, '' '' Saya sering merasa lelah
untuk melakukan apa saja, '' '' Saya sering merasa
kesal ''). Rangkuman skor untuk mengeksternalisasi
perilaku bermasalah terdiri dari empat pernyataan
yang terutama menilai perilaku antisosial dan
hubungan bermasalah dengan teman sebaya (''
tingkat perilaku masalah internal yang lebih tinggi
pada Waktu 1 dan Waktu 3 daripada mereka yang
ibunya tidak mengembalikan satu pun kuesioner.
Selain itu, anak-anak
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Saya sering berakhir dengan masalah dengan
anak-anak lain, '' '' Anak-anak lain mengganggu
saya, '' ' 'Saya sering marah dan marah,' '' 'Saya
sering berkelahi' ').
Reliabilitas tes - tes ulang adalah 0,82 untuk
perilaku masalah internalisasi dan 0,78 untuk
perilaku masalah eksternalisasi. Konsistensi internal
yang dinilai dengan koefisien Kuder - Richardson 20
(K - R 20) pada titik pengukuran berturut-turut
adalah .69, .68, .64, .62, .57, .64 untuk
menginternalisasi perilaku masalah dan .68, .64, .66,
.66, .64, .78 untuk mengeksternalisasi perilaku
masalah. Reliabilitas split-half (Unequal-length
Spearman - Brown) pada poin yang sama adalah
0,72, .79, .68, .64, .63, .69 untuk menginternalisasi
perilaku masalah dan .66, .70, .68, .71 , .72, .80
untuk mengeksternalisasi perilaku masalah.
Konsistensi internal yang rendah dari timbangan di
beberapa titik pengukuran sebagian disebabkan
oleh distribusi yang miring dari masing-masing item.
Untuk menguji validitas konstruk masalah menjadi
pengukuran perilaku (yaitu, apakah struktur faktor
akan invarian di titik pengukuran yang berbeda),
analisis faktor konfirmatori dilakukan di berbagai titik
waktu menggunakan paket statistik Mplus (versi 3;
LK Muthe ´n & Muthe´n,
1998 - 2004). Model terpisah dilakukan untuk
membangun perilaku masalah internalisasi (lima
item) dan eksternalisasi (empat item). Karena item
dalam pembagian tidak terdistribusi normal, maka
parameter model diestimasi dengan menggunakan
penduga nonnormalitas robust (MLR; LK Muthe´n &
Muthe´n, 1998 - 2004). Varians struktur faktor (yaitu,
beban faktor) diuji dengan membandingkan model
 tidak dibatasi dengan model terbatas (yaitu, beban saya bahwa saya menghargai apa yang dia coba
faktor dibatasi agar setara sepanjang waktu). Uji atau capai, '' '' Saya sering menunjukkan kepada
perbedaan chi-kuadrat antara kedua model ini anak saya bahwa saya mencintainya /nya''). Kontrol
menggunakan chi-kuadrat berskala Satorra - Bentler perilaku, termasuk item yang menunjukkan bahwa
menunjukkan bahwa beban faktor invari ant di enam perilaku buruk akan memiliki konsekuensi yang jelas
titik pengukuran untuk kedua inter nalisasi (w2diff(20, dan kemauan orang tua untuk menghadapi anak
N 5 207) 5 13,99, p ns) dan eksternalisasi (w2diff(15, yang tidak patuh (Baumrind, 1991; Maccoby &
N 5 207) 5 10.08, p ns) masalah perilaku. Martin, 1983) (6 item; misalnya, '' Anak saya harus
belajar bahwa kita memiliki aturan dalam keluarga, ''
Dalam kumpulan data sebelumnya, korelasi
'' Ketika saya marah dengan anak saya, saya beri
antara skala untuk menginternalisasi perilaku
tahu dia tentang hal itu, '' '' Jika anak saya
masalah dan penghindaran tugas yang dinilai guru
berperilaku buruk saya biasanya menegurnya '').
di antara anak-anak usia taman kanak-kanak adalah
Operasionalisasi be havioral control bervariasi dari
0,68 (po.01; Aunola & Nurmi, 1999b). Dalam sampel
satu studi ke studi lainnya. Misalnya, dalam
ini, ada korelasi yang signifikan secara statistik
beberapa studi, kontrol perilaku telah
antara skala untuk masalah perilaku eksternal dan
dioperasionalkan sebagai pemantauan (pa rental
menerima nominasi teman sebaya negatif (dari r
knowledge; Kerr & Stattin, 2000) atau supervisi
5.22, po.01 hingga r 5.25, po.01). Kedua skala
(Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Pettit et al., 2001),
dalam sampel ini juga memprediksi perkembangan
sedangkan dalam beberapa studi lain telah telah
keterampilan membaca anak secara negatif
dioperasikan sebagai tuntutan, pengaturan batas,
(Halonen, Aunola, Ahonen, & Nurmi, in press).
atau tuntutan keamanan (baik dengan atau tanpa
Dalam sampel ini, skala untuk perilaku masalah
alasan tentang aturan dan konsekuensi dari perilaku
eksternal menunjukkan korelasi yang signifikan
buruk; Baumrind, 1989, 1991; Maccoby & Martin,
secara statistik dengan penilaian ibu tentang
1983; Hart et al., 2003). Selain itu, dalam beberapa
perilaku masalah eksternal yang berkisar dari 0,18
studi, istilah kontrol telah digunakan untuk merujuk
(po.05) hingga 0,26 (po.01). Tidak ada korelasi yang
pada kontrol restriktif, keras, atau hukuman
ditemukan antara perilaku bermasalah yang
(misalnya, Gadeyne et al., 2004; Pettit, Bates, &
dilaporkan oleh anak dan ibu. Demikian pula, dalam
Dodge, 1997). Dalam penelitian ini, skala kontrol
penelitian sebelumnya, evaluasi anak dan orang tua
perilaku dicirikan oleh pengaturan batas orang tua
terhadap depresi anak juga menunjukkan tidak ada
dan tuntutan kedewasaan pada anak (Baumrind,
atau hanya korelasi yang rendah (Engel, Rodrigue,
1991) daripada dengan kontrol yang keras atau
& Geffken, 1994; Ialongo, Edelsohn, & Kellam, 2001;
pembatasan. Skala yang digunakan dalam
Kazdin, 1990; Kemper, Gerhardstein, Repper , &
penelitian ini menilai direktif daripada kontrol
Kistner, 2003; Leftkowitz & Tesiny, 1984; Weissman,
perilaku yang berorientasi pada penalaran.
Orvaschel, & Padian, 1980). Juga telah
Kuesioner asli termasuk item yang juga mengukur
dikemukakan bahwa, karena mayoritas gejala
pemantauan dan pengetahuan orang tua tentang
depresi bersifat pribadi dan internal (Kazdin, 1990;
keberadaan anak-anak mereka. Namun, karena
Sacco & Graves, 1985) dan tidak terlihat melalui
dalam sampel ini item-item ini hanya menunjukkan
interaksi, laporan diri sangat penting dalam menilai
sedikit perbedaan, mereka dikeluarkan dari analisis.
perilaku masalah internal (Angold , 1988; Ialongo et
Kontrol psikologis (Kontrol oleh rasa bersalah),
al., 2001).
termasuk item yang mencerminkan sikap orang tua
Gaya pengasuhan. Gaya pengasuhan ibu dan
yang menarik rasa bersalah dan mengungkapkan
ayah diukur menggunakan versi Finlandia dari
kekecewaan (Barber, 1996; Schaefer, 1965) (4 item;
Laporan Praktik Pemeliharaan Anak Block (CRPR;
misalnya, `` Saya percaya seorang anak harus
Roberts, Block, & Block, 1984), yang mencakup item
menyadari seberapa banyak yang telah saya
yang menyentuh sikap, nilai, dan perilaku
lakukan untuknya, '' '' Saya membiarkan anak saya
membesarkan anak. Berdasarkan analisis faktor
melihat betapa kecewa dan malunya saya jika dia
(untuk penjelasan
berperilaku buruk '').

lebih rinci lihat Aunola & Nurmi, 2004), skor
ringkasan untuk tiga dimensi gaya pengasuhan
dihitung secara terpisah untuk setiap titik
pengukuran. Kasih sayang, termasuk hal-hal yang
mencerminkan hubungan positif dengan anak (10
hal; misalnya, '' Saya sering memberi tahu anak
Reliabilitas alpha Cronbach masing-masing untuk
tiga dimensi gaya pengasuhan untuk ibu adalah
0,82, 0,66, dan 0,79 pada Time 2; 0,81, .66, dan
0,77 pada Waktu 5; dan 0,82, 0,70, dan 0,76 pada
Waktu 8. Reliabilitas alpha Cron bach
masing-masing untuk ayah adalah 0,82, 0,70, dan
 Gaya Mengasuh Anak dalam Perilaku Anak 1149 dilakukan dengan menggunakan paket statistik
Mplus (versi 3; LK Muthe´n & Muthe´n, 1998 -
0,74 pada Waktu 2; 0,84, 0,69, dan 0,72 pada 2004). Parameter model diestimasi menggunakan
Waktu 5; dan 0,80, 0,70, dan 0,75 pada Waktu 8. Uji metode data yang hilang dengan estimator MLR (LK
reliabilitas tes ulang untuk tiga dimensi gaya Muthe´n & Muthe´n, 1998 -
pengasuhan untuk ibu adalah 0,89, 0,82, dan 0,88. 1150 Aunola dan Nurmi
Reliabilitas test - retest untuk yang lainnya adalah
.89, .85, dan .85. Reliabilitas serupa telah dilaporkan 2004). Metode ini memungkinkan semua data yang
dalam studi sebelumnya tentang gaya pengasuhan tersedia untuk digunakan dalam estimasi parameter
(lihat, misalnya, Chen, Liu, & Li, 2000; Dornbusch, model. Kesesuaian yang baik dievaluasi
Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; menggunakan empat indikator: w2/ df; Bentler's
Gadeyne et al., 2004; Glasgow, Dornbusch, Troyer , (1990) comparative fit in dex (CFI); the Tucker –
Steinberg, & Rit ter, 1997; Pettit dkk., 1997; Gray & Lewis index (TLI); and the standardized root mean
Steinberg, 1999). square residual (SRMR). The means and standard
Untuk lebih memvalidasi struktur faktor gaya deviations for the observed variables are given in
orang tua, analisis faktor untuk skala dilakukan Table 1.
dalam sampel lain (terdiri dari ibu dan ayah dari 280
remaja). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan struktur tiga
faktor yang identik antara ibu dan ayah (Aunola, LGMs for Individual Variables
Nurmi, Salmela-Aro, Ni emivirta, & Vuori, 2005). As a first step, unconditional growth curve mod
Kemampuan reliabilitas Cronbach untuk tiga els (ie, models without any predictors) were con
dimensi gaya pengasuhan dalam kumpulan data structed separately for each variable in order to
lain ini adalah 0,88 (ibu) dan 0,86 (orang lain) untuk investigate the extent of individual variation in the
kasih sayang, 0,72 dan 0,72 untuk kontrol perilaku, initial level and the linear and quadratic growth
dan 0,79 dan 0,80 untuk kontrol psikologis . components of each variable. In the case of
Dalam sampel ini, korelasi antara kasih sayang children's internal and external problem behaviors,
dan kontrol psikologis untuk ibu berkisar antara 0,03 models were constructed across six measurement
dan 0,11 (p ns) di ketiga pengukuran. Kontrol points. The model construction was started in both
perilaku berkorelasi secara positif dan signifikan cases by testing a model which included three
secara statistik dengan kasih sayang (berkisar dari growth com ponents: initial status, linear trend, and
0,17 hingga 0,18, po.05) dan kontrol psiko-logis quadratic trend. However, because the quadratic
(berkisar dari 0,28 hingga 0,39, po.01). Untuk ayah, term showed no statistically significant variance in
kontrol perilaku berkorelasi positif dan signifikan these models, its variance was fixed at zero in the
secara statistik dengan kontrol psikologis (berkisar final models. The results for the final models are
dari .18, po.05 - .29, po.01). Kasih sayang tidak shown in Table 2.
secara signifikan berkorelasi dengan kontrol perilaku The results for children's internal problem be
(r 5,01 - 0,06, p ns) atau psikologis (r 5, 13 hingga havior (w2(15, N 5 207) 5 32.29; CFI 5 0.94; TLI 5
.04, p ns) di salah satu titik pengukuran.
0.94; SRMR 5 0.06) indicated that, at the mean
level, children's internalizing problem behaviors
Hasil showed a decreasing trend, leveling out over time
(see Figure 1). Moreover, the results showed that
Pertanyaan penelitian diperiksa dengan the variance both of the level and of the linear trend
menggunakan pemodelan kurva pertumbuhan laten
were statis tically significant, indicating that there
(LGM) (Duncan, Duncan, Strycker, Li, & Alpert,
were signifi cant individual differences both in the
1999). Metodologi ini memungkinkan untuk
initial status and in the developmental trend of
menyelidiki perubahan intraindividual dalam variabel
internal problem behaviors. The correlation between
minat tertentu dari waktu ke waktu (yaitu, lintasan
the level and linear trend of internal problem
pertumbuhan) serta perbedaan antar individu dalam
behavior was nega tive and statistically significant
perubahan tersebut (BO Muthe'n & Khoo, 1998)
(standardized esti mate 5 .67, po.01), suggesting
dengan membedakan komponen tingkat awal dan
that the higher the initial level of internal problem
komponen pertumbuhan (misalnya, pertumbuhan
behavior, the more the level of it decreased during
linier dan pertumbuhan kuadrat). Selain itu,
the study period.
metodologi LGM memungkinkan pemeriksaan
The results for external problem behavior (w2(15,
asosiasi antara komponen pertumbuhan ini di
beberapa variabel, serta interaksinya. Analisis N 5 207) 5 29.81; CFI 5 0.93; TLI 5 0.93; SRMR 5
0.07) showed a similar pattern (Table 2). At the
mean level, externalizing problem behavior showed
a decreasing trend, leveling out over time (see
Figure 1). Moreover, the results showed a
statistically significant variance in the level and linear
trend of external problem be haviors, indicating the
presence of significant indi vidual differences in both
the initial status and developmental trend of external
problem behaviors. The correlation between the
Level and Linear trend of external problem behavior
was negative and statisti
cally significant (standardized estimate 5 .54, po.05),
suggesting that the higher the initial level of external
problem behavior, the more the level of it decreased
during the study period.
Models for mothers' and fathers' parenting styles,
that is, affection, behavioral control, and psycholog
ical control, were constructed across three measure
ment points. Consequently, these models contained
only two growth components: initial status and lin
ear trend. These models for parenting styles were
tested separately for each dimension and also sepa
rately for mothers and fathers. The results of the
models are presented in Table 2.
The results for mothers' parenting styles showed,
first, that at the mean level behavioral control slightly
decreased over time (Figure 2, Table 2). No mean
level changes were evident in mothers' affection or
psychological control. Second, the variances of the
level components of all three parenting style dimen
sions were statistically significant. However, the var
iances for the linear trends of the three parenting
style variables were not significant. This suggests
that, al though mothers showed different levels of
affection, behavioral control, and psychological
control, there were no individual differences in the
changes in these parenting styles. The results for
fathers' parenting styles showed a somewhat similar
pattern. At the mean level, fathers' behavioral and
psychological control decreased across time,
whereas no mean-level changes were evident in
fathers' affection (Figure 2, Table 2). As with
mothers, the fathers' results also showed statistically
significant interindividual vari ance in the Levels of
affection, behavioral control, and psychological
control. However, no statistically sig nificant variance
emerged in the linear trends of any of these
variables. The absence of interindividual variation
(ie, individual diversity) in the linear trend of mothers'
and fathers' parenting styles means also that
children's problem behaviors, or any other vari able,
do not predict changes in mothers' and fathers'
parenting styles in this sample (because there is no
individual variation in these changes to be
predicted). Because individual variation existed only
in the levels of parenting styles, the linear trend
components of these variables were not included in
the subsequent conditional growth models.
Mothers' Parenting Styles and Children's
Problem Behavior
Internal problem behavior. To examine whether
the levels of mothers' affection, behavioral control,
and psychological control would be associated with
the initial level of children's internal problem
behavior
Parenting Styles in Children's Behavior 1151

Table 2
Parameter Estimates (Unstandardized Forms) of Latent Growth Models for Children's Internal and External Problem Behaviors and
Mothers' and Fathers' Parenting Styles (Each in Separate Analyses)

Means Variances

Level Linear trend Quadratic trend Level Linear trend Quadratic trend

Estimate t-value Estimate t-value Estimate t-value Estimate t-value Estimate t-value Estimate t-value

Internal problem behavior 1.84 17.53 .38 5.81 .04 3.13 1.24 6.47 .03 2.89 0a External problem behavior 1.38 15.48 .31 4.81
.03 2.68 0.72 5.50 .02 2.56 0a Mothers' affection 4.16 136.33 .01 1.04 0.16 7.32 .02 1.90 Mothers' behavioral control 3.82
122.03 .05 3.03 0.13 6.77 0a Mothers' psychological control 2.70 54.40 .01 0.62 0.35 8.43 0a Fathers' affection 3.92 111.03 .00
0.16 0.18 6.97 .01 1.34 Fathers' behavioral control 3.80 111.84 .05 3.11 0.14 7.29 0a Fathers' psychological control 2.83 54.64
.06 2.52 0.31 5.08 .02 0.58

a
Note. t-Values greater than 1.96 in magnitude indicate a parameter estimate that is significantly different from zero. Fixed.
the associations between the level of the parenting
and changes in this behavior across the six mea style variables (Time 2) and the initial level of chil
surements, an LGM was constructed which included dren's internal problem behavior, and the paths from
 the level of parenting styles to the linear trend of significantly predicted the linear trend of internal
internal problem behavior. The fit of the model was problem behavior (standardized estimate 5 .20,
good: w2(27, N 5 207) 5 47.97; CFI 5 0.93; TLI 5 po.05). To investigate this effect in detail, a median
0.92; SRMR 5 0.05. The results showed, however, split was used to divide the data into two groups
that the parenting style variables were not according to the level of maternal psychological
associated with the level of children's internal control at Time 2. Because the parenting style vari
problem behavior nor did they have any effects on ables were not perfectly normal, medians were
its linear trend. thought to better represent the central tendencies of
analyses for each. The results showed that the in the distributions than means (Owens & Shaw, 2003).
teraction term Affection Psychological Control
model in separate
Behavioral Control Psychological Control
As a second step, the interaction Affection
terms of the three parenting style
Behavioral Control Psychological Control
variables (both two- and three-way
interactions) were added to the Affection
r

P 0.4 e

l
Internal Problem y

Behavior 0.2 t

2.0 0.0 g

External Problem
1.8 n

e
Behavior i

r t

o 1.6 n

c e

S
r
1.4 r

a
o

iv
a
1.2 P

he
4.3 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.5
B 1.0 e
m

e
0.8
r
3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.5
o
l
c
b

o
0.6 S

134679 2 58
Measurement Point Measurement Point

Figure 1. Unconditional growth curves for internal and external Figure 2. Unconditional growth curves for mothers' (straight lines)
problem behaviors. and fathers' (dotted lines) parenting styles.
1152 Aunola and Nurmi Wothke, 1998). In this analysis, the path from affec

Growth curve analysis for children's internal prob

lem behavior and mothers' affection was then con
ducted for these two groups using a multisample

a
r

0.6 0.3
approach for the LGM (Curran & Hussong, 2003;
T
e

0.5 tion to the linear trend of internal problem behavior

r

Jo¨reskog & So¨rbom, 1993; Rigdon, Schumacker,

&

r
B

o
d a

i e

0.4 0.2
n m
v

e
was allowed to be estimated separately for each

n
e
i
l

L
b
r

group, w2(47, N 5 191) 5 56.64; CFI 5 0.97; TLI 5 − 0.1

g
e

0.97; t
n

n
a

psychological control (n 5 102), the higher the

level

0.1
o
e

P
t

SRMR 5 0.08. The results showed that, among

those
I

− 0.2
h

C
o

of maternal affection, the greater the increase the

0.0
l

n
a
i

n
e

children whose mothers reported a high level of

− 0.3
children showed in internal problem behavior
(standardized estimate 5 .25, po.05). Among those

Psychological Control:
Low level High level

13 5 Affection Level
whose mothers showed a low level of
psychological control (n 5 89), maternal affection
had no effects on the trend of children's internal
problem behavior (standardized estimate 5 0.13,
p ns). The results are shown in Figure 3.
In order to investigate the Affection Psycholog
ical Control interaction further, multisample
analy ses were performed by dividing the
sample into two groups according to maternal
affection at Time 2 and then investigating the
effects of psychological control on the linear
trend of internal problem behavior in these two
groups. The results showed that among those
children whose mothers reported a low level of
affection, maternal psychological control had no
ef fects on the trend of children's internal
problem be havior (standardized estimate 5 .07,
p ns). Among those children whose mothers
reported a high level of affection the impact of
psychological control did not reach statistical
significance either (standardized estimate 5 .27,
t 5 1.71, p ns).
Because of the somewhat low reliabilities of
the internalizing problem behavior scale at
measurement points 4 (Time 6) and 5 (Time 7),
additional analyses were conducted in which the
data gathered at these two time points were
excluded from all statistical analyses reported
previously. In these analyses, the results and
major conclusions concerning the role of
mothers' parenting styles in children's
internalizing problem behaviors remained
unchanged.
External problem behavior. Next, an
analogous LGM was constructed for children's
external problem behavior and mothers'
parenting styles, w2(27, N 5 207) 5 39.89; CFI 5
0.95; TLI 5 0.94; SRMR 5 0.06. The results
showed that the level of maternal affection
predicted the Linear trend of external problem
be havior (standardized estimate 5 .26, po.05)
but that the other parenting dimensions did not.
However, examination of the interaction terms
showed that the interaction terms between
Affection
Figure 3. Change in the linear trend of internal problem
behavior at different levels of maternal affection (range 1 –
5) and psycho logical control (low/high).
Psychological Control (standardized estimate
5 .26, po.05), and Behavioral control
Psychological Control (standardized estimate 5
.26, po.05) signif icantly predicted the linear
trend of external problem behavior. To
investigate these effects in detail, the data were
divided into two groups according to the level of
maternal psychological control at Time 2
(median split). Growth curve analysis for
children's external problem behaviors and
mothers' affection and behavioral control was
then conducted for these two groups, allowing
the paths from the level of af fection and
behavioral control to the linear trend of external
problem behavior to be estimated separately for
each group, w2(58, N 5 191) 5 65.96; CFI 5
0.97; TLI 5 0.97; SRMR 5 0.09. The results
showed, first, that, among children whose
mothers reported a high level of psychological
control (n 5 102), a high level of maternal
affection predicted an increase in chil dren's
external problem behavior (standardized es
timate 5 .42, po.001). When combined with a
low level of psychological control, no affection
effects were found (standardized estimate 5 .09,
p ns). Second, among children whose mothers
reported a low level of psychological control,
behavioral control predicted a decrease in
children's external problem behavior
(standardized estimate 5 .27, po.05). When
combined with a high level of psychological
control, no effects of behavioral control were
found (standardized estimate 5 .01, p ns). The
results are shown in Figures 4 and 5.
In order to investigate the Affection
Psychological Control interaction further, and
that of Behavioral Con trol Psychological
Control, two subsequent multi sample analyses
were conducted. First, the sample was divided
into two groups according to maternal affec
tion at Time 2, and the effects of psychological
control on the linear trend of external problem
behavior in these two groups were investigated.
The results showed that among those children
whose mothers re ported a low level of affection,
maternal psychological control decreased
children's external problem behavior
(standardized estimate 5 .35, po.01). By
contrast, among those children whose mothers
reported a high level of affection maternal
psychological control in creased their children's
external problem behavior (standardized
estimate 5 .31, po.05).
Second, the sample was divided into two
groups according to maternal behavioral control
at Time 2, and the effects of psychological
control on the linear trend of external problem
behavior were investigat ed. The results showed
that among those children whose mothers
reported a low level of behavioral control, no
effects of psychological control on the trend of
external problem behavior were found
(standardized estimate 5 .04, p ns). Among
those children whose mothers reported a high
level of behavioral control, the impact of
psychological con trol did not reach statistical
significance either (standardized estimate 5 .19,
p ns).
Fathers' Parenting Styles and Children's
Problem Behavior
Next, analogous analyses were performed for
fathers' parenting styles and children's internal
and external problem behaviors separately.
However, no associations between the levels of
fathers' parenting styles, and children's level and
linear trends of in ternal or external problem
behaviors were found.
Psychological Control:
low level high level
1.0
Parenting Styles in Children's Behavior 1153
additional analyses were conducted in which the
data gathered at these two time points were
excluded. The results and major conclusions
concerning the role of fathers' parenting styles in
children's internalizing problem behaviors
remained unchanged, with one exception: when
using only four as against all six measurement
points for internalizing problem behaviors,
fathers' psychological control was positively
associated with the rate of change of
internalizing problem behavior.
Because in the present study fewer fathers
than mothers participated, it is possible that the
absence of statistically significant predictions in
the fathers' data is due to low sample size. To
investigate this possi bility, we performed
various simulation analyses to test whether any
effects of fathers' parenting styles would
become statistically significant if there had been
as many fathers as mothers (N 5 191) in the
original sample. These simulation analyses
showed that, when the sample of fathers was
made equal to that of mothers, fathers' high
psychological control was found to predict
positively the linear trend of children's ex
ternalizing problem behaviors (standardized esti
mate 5 .26, po.05; R2 5 .07). No other effects
turned out to be significant in these simulation
analyses.
Discussion
This study examined the extent to which the
impact of a particular parenting dimension on
children's internal and external problem
behaviors would be

Because of the somewhat low reliabilities of Psychological Control:

the internalizing problem behavior scale at low level high level
measure ment points 4 (Time 6) and 5 (Time 7), 0.1
o
iv
0.6 n

a 0.2
he

B
d
m
n
e
e r
l
r
a
b

T e
o
r
n
r
a i
P
e
la

n
n 0.4
i r
i
e
L
e tx
e
E
h fo
g
t
n

n 0.8 a

i
e
L
0.0
d
g
n
e
n
e

a h
r
t
hC
r T

h
C
− 0.2
135
Affection Level
0.0
r
o − 0.4
i
v
a
Figure 4. Change in the linear trend of external problem behavior
at different levels of maternal affection (range 1 – 5) and psycho
logical control (low/high).
Figure 5. Change in the linear trend of external problem behavior El-Sarraj, 2001), or double message (Humphrey,
at different levels of maternal behavioral control (range 1 – 5) and 1989), may impact neg atively on child adjustment,
psychological control (low/high).
1154 Aunola and Nurmi
found to be dependent on the other two dimensions.
The results showed that a high level of maternal
psychological control combined with high affection
predicted increases in the levels of children's internal
and external problem behaviors during their transi
tion from kindergarten to primary school. By con
trast, a high level of maternal behavioral control
combined with a low level of psychological control
predicted decreases in the level of children's
external problem behavior.
The finding that mothers' psychological control in
combination with high affection was detrimental to
child adjustment was unexpected. There are at least
two possible explanations for this result. The first is
that high affection when combined with psycholog
ical control, that is, guilt-inducing and manipulative
child-rearing, leads to enmeshment in parent – child
communication (Aunola & Nurmi, 2004). On the one
hand, mothers are supportive and close to the child
but, on the other hand, they communicate guilt
inducing attitudes which manipulate the child's
psychological world and increase the child's de
pendence. Such enmeshment, being characterized
as family communication patterns that lead to
psycho logical and emotional fusion among family
members (Barber & Buehler, 1996), restricts
children's expres sion of their own thoughts and
emotions. Conse quently, it may also lead to various
forms of problem behaviors among children
(Schaefer, 1965; Hum phrey, 1989).
The second explanation is that a child-rearing pat
tern characterized by both a high level of affection
and a high level of psychological control may
h
− 0.1
e
− 0.5
B
135
− 0.2
b
l
− 0.3
a
n
e
t
E
f Behavioral Control Level
o
communi cate an inconsistent message of maternal
approval and love to a child (Barber, 1996). In
parenting, such a discrepancy (Punama¨ki, Qouta, &
for example, by provok ing anxiety and by
diminishing the child's sense of control (Chorpita &
Barlow, 1998). The fact that in the present study high
psychological control combined with high affection
increased not only internal but also external problem
behavior among children suggests that internal
distress and negative emotions aroused by
guilt-inducing mothering also has an influence on a
child's undercontrolling behavior (see also Olsen et
al., 2002; Yang et al., 2004).
The results of this study showed further that,
among those children whose mothers reported low
affection, maternal psychological control predicted a
decrease in children's external problem behavior.
One possible explanation for this result is that low
affection combined with low psychological control is
a sign of disengaged and neglectful parenting, which
has been shown to be the most detrimental combi
nation in child development (Baumrind, 1989, 1991).
By contrast, low affection combined with high psy
chological control may be a more functional parent
ing pattern, which also leads to a decrease in
external problem behavior.
Overall, the results of this study concerning the
interaction between maternal affection and psycho
logical control were against our hypothesis (2c) and
also different from the findings reported previously
for adolescents. For example, Gray and Steinberg
(1999) and Pettit and Laird (2002) found that
parental affection and involvement decreased
problem be haviors, particularly when combined with
a high level of psychological control. By contrast, the
results of the present study among children showed
that maternal affection when combined with high psy
 chological control had a negative impact on child disorders (eg, Barber, 1996; Hart et al., 2003). It has
adjustment. We have previously shown a similar been suggested that behavioral control exercised by
pattern of impact of maternal parenting on children's parents prevents externalizing problem behaviors
mathematics skill development using the same because it fosters children's own self-regulation in
sample (Aunola & Nurmi, 2004). One explanation for social situations (Lewis, 1981; Hart et al., 2003). The
this discrepancy between the findings of the present results of the present study, and those found by
study and those of previous research is that the im Galambos et al. (2003), suggest, however, that the
pact of parenting varies according to the child's age. positive impacts of behavioral control vanish if
For example, it may be that manipulation of the mothers show simultaneously a high level of psy
affective relationship with the child by use of chological control. One possible explanation for why
psychological control (Baumrind, 1966; Schaefer, behavioral control has beneficial effects particularly
1965), that is, contingent affection, is harmful, espe when combined with a low psychological control is
cially during middle childhood, because at that age that such a pattern of parenting provides clear rules
children have not yet begun to separate emotionally and expectations for the child but simultaneously
and psychologically from their parents (Barber et al., also allows him or her to experience and express
1994). By contrast, during adolescence, when indi own thoughts and emotions freely, described also in
viduals are gaining increasing autonomy from their terms of psychological autonomy (Hart et al., 2003).
parents, a warm parental relationship may function This kind of autonomy, or feeling of being respected
as a protective factor against the negative impacts of as an individual, has been suggested to be important
psychological control. However, because there are in the processes of internalizing rules and becoming
thus far only few studies conducted among kinder self-governing (Grolnick, 2003; Hart et al., 2003).
garten and school-aged children, further studies The fact that the positive effect of mothers'
should be performed to support this explanation. The behavioral control on children's external problem
other possible explanation is the fact that in previous behaviors di minished when combined with a high
studies parenting styles have been mea sured using psychological control may be because high
adolescents' reports (Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Pettit behavioral control to gether with high psychological
& Laird, 2002), whereas in the present study we control reflects pa rental ''overmanagement'' (Pettit
used parent-reported parenting styles. It is possible, et al., 2001), and in this way intrudes on rather than
for example, that children and adolescents are benefits the child's autonomy and self-regulation
unable to differentiate between psychological control (Galambos et al., 2003). This kind of
and affection in their mothers' and fathers' parenting overmanagement resembles in fact the authoritarian
to the same extent as are parents them selves, and parenting style (Barber, 1996; Baumrind, 1966,
therefore child-reported parenting measures are 1989, 1991; Barber, Bean, & Erickson, 2002).
unable to tap the enmeshment conse quences of Overall, the results of the present study add to the
parenting characteristics. previous literature by showing that behavioral con
The results of the present study showed further trol is a good strategy for preventing external prob
that, among mothers, psychological control moder lem behavior among children (Coopersmith, 1967;
Pettit et al., 2001), provided that the child's sense of
competence and autonomy are not simultaneously
ated the impact of behavioral control on children's Parenting Styles in Children's Behavior 1155
external problem behaviors: a high level of maternal
behavioral control predicted a decrease in the child's violated by intrusive and manipulative parenting.
external problems, but only if combined with a low The fact that mothers' behavioral control combined
level of psychological control. When combined with a with low psychological control decreased external
high level of psychological control, behavioral control problem behaviors rather than internal problem be
was found to have no impact. This result is havior is consistent with previous findings suggest
consistent with that of Galambos et al. (2003), who ing that behavioral control is an important factor in
found that parental high behavioral control was fostering pro-social behavior and preventing exter
negatively associated with adolescents' external nal problem behaviors in particular (Lewis, 1981;
problem behaviors but only if combined with low Hart et al., 2003).
levels of psychological control. In previous research, In this study, no interactions were found between
parental behavioral control has been shown to be parental affection and behavioral control in the pre
associated with low levels of various kinds of ex diction of children's problem behaviors. This result
ternalizing problems among children and adoles resembles that of Galambos et al. (2003), but
cents, such as antisocial behavior and conduct conflicts with the results reported by Gray and
 Steinberg (1999) and Forehand and Nousiainen parenting is that the sample of fathers was too small
(1993). The present result is also in contradiction to for the effects of fathers' parenting to be detected
the tradi tional typological theory of parenting styles, statistically (Chou, Bentler, & Pentz, 2000).
ac cording to which it is a combination of high The results of this study also showed that it was
affection and high behavioral control that leads to parenting styles that contributed to children's prob
the most positive child outcomes (Maccoby & Martin, lem behaviors rather than vice versa: the fact that
1983; Steinberg, 2001). One possible explanation for there were no interindividual variances in the trends
the inconsistencies between the results found in the of any of the parenting variables suggest that child
present study and those of some earlier ones is that outcomes did not influence their parents' parenting
psychological control in previous studies has typi styles during this early period (see also Aunola &
cally been included in either the affection (as in Nurmi, 2004). This result is in accordance with the
measuring negative affect or lack of autonomy traditional notion of parents' role in chil dren's
granting) or behavioral control (as in measuring socialization (for a review, see Maccoby, 1992), but
control in terms of restrictiveness) dimensions of runs contrary to the notion that child character istics
parenting, or incorporated into the parenting style influence parenting (Bell, 1968; Harris, 1995).
typology (eg, as a characteristic of authoritarian Although in the present study children's problem
parenting) rather than measured as a separate vari behaviors were not found to predict changes in
able (for a review, see Pettit & Laird, 2002). Thus, mothers' and fathers' parenting styles, it is still pos
researchers have not distinguished the impacts of sible that the impact of parenting is dependent on
psychological control from the impacts of affection child characteristics. The present study does not, for
and behavioral control. The results of this study example, answer the question of what kind of role
suggest that such differentiation is important, be parenting styles play in modifying the expression of
cause psychological control in combination with af genetically based temperamental differences
fection, or in combination with behavioral control, is (Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington, &
a more powerful predictor of the child's adjustment Bornstein, 2000; Repetti, Taylor, & Seeman, 2002) or
than is the combination of affection and behavioral in maintaining, or exacerbating, preexisting
control (see also Aunola & Nurmi, 2004). vulnerabilities in risky families (Dodge & Pettit, 2003;
The results of the present study showed further Hart et al., 2003; Repetti et al., 2002).
that mothers' parenting played an important role in There are six limitations that should be
young children's problem behaviors, whereas fa considered in any attempt to generalize the findings
thers' parenting had only a marginal role. One ex of this study. First, problem behaviors were
planation for the importance of mothers' parenting assessed on the basis of children's self – reports.
style is that, because mother – child interactions are The rationale for using this methodology was that
characterized more than father – child interactions there are some findings suggesting that children are
by warmth, responsiveness, and intimate exchanges already able to assess their behavior reliably at quite
(Collins & Russel, 1991; Forehand & Nousiainen, a young age (Edelsohn, Ialongo,
1993), children are more open to maternal than pa Werthamer-Larsson, & Crockett, 1992; Ialongo et al.,
ternal influences (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Moth 2001). However, because it is possible that the
ers, compared to fathers, have also been shown to results obtained using children's assessments will
make a greater effort to maintain dependency in differ somewhat from those ob tained using other
1156 Aunola and Nurmi data sources, there is a need in future research to
gather information from several
their children (for a review, see Collins & Russel,
1991). It may be that the impact of psychological
control in this kind of dependent relationship is sources, for example, child and parent reports as
greater than in the more autonomous father – child well as observational data, to form a more complete
relationship. Another possible explanation for fa understanding of the role of parenting. Second, the
thers' marginal role is that, in the present study, the problem behavior measurement used in this study
measures of parenting did not cover the kind of in focused mainly on one aspect of internalizing prob
teraction that is important in a father – child rela lem behavior, that is, depressive symptoms, and on
tionship. For example, it has been suggested one aspect of externalizing problem behavior, that is,
previously that fathers' playful, companionable, and antisocial behavior/problematic peer relations. This
patient interaction styles are particularly important in turn points to the need in future studies to in
for children's adjustment (Hart et al., 2003). The third vestigate the effects of parenting styles on other do
possible explanation for the minor effect of fathers' mains of internalizing (eg, anxiety, fearfulness) and
 externalizing (eg, impulsiveness, oppositional and the notion that it is not single parenting style
nonconforming behaviors) problem behaviors as variables as such, but rather their combination that is
well. Third, parent-reported questionnaires were influential in child development (Baumrind, 1991;
used to measure parenting styles. Although mea Darling & Steinberg, 1993).
sures of this kind provide information about parental
attitudes, there is an obvious advantage to be
gained from using observational methods, which References
study how parents actually behave in interaction Angold, A. (1988). Childhood and adolescent depression:
situations with their offspring. The fact that findings I. Epidemiological and aetiological aspects. British
from studies that have used observational methods Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 601 – 617.
and those that have used self-report measures of Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (1999a). Problem behavior
parenting on children's problem behaviors are scale for children (self-rating form). Unpublished test
relatively consist ent (for a review, see Hart et al., material, University of Jyva¨skyla¨, Finland.
2003) suggests, however, that different information Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (1999b). Unpublished data,
sources may, at least in part, yield similar University of Jyva¨skyla¨, Finland.
information about parental behaviors. Fourth, the Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2004). Maternal psycholog ical
instrument used in the present study to measure control moderates the impact of affection on chil dren's
math performance. Developmental Psychology, 40, 965
psychological control emphasized the guilt-inducing
– 978.
aspect rather than, for example, excessive criticism
Aunola, K., Nurmi, J.-E., Salmela-Aro, K., Niemivirta, M., &
and restrictive or possessive com munication. It is Vuori, J. (2005). The role of mothers' and fathers'
possible, therefore, that the present results parenting styles in adolescents' educational plans and
concerning the impacts of psychological con trol hold aspirations. Manuscript under preparation.
particularly for guilt induction rather than other Barber, BK (1996). Parental psychological control: Revis
aspects of psychological control. Fifth, the in ternal iting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67,
consistencies for the parent-reported behavi oral 3296 – 3319.
control construct were somewhat low. Clearly, there Barber, BK, Bean, RL, & Erickson, LD (2002). Ex panding
is a need to develop measures targeted at the the study and understanding of psychological control. In
parents of kindergarten and school-aged children. BK Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting. How psychological
Finally, in the present study, fathers' data were control affects children and adolescents (pp. 263 –
subject to a selection effect. Children whose fathers 289). Washington, DC: Asosiasi Psikologi Amerika.
did not participate reported a higher level of both Barber, BK, & Buehler, C. (1996). Family cohesion and
internaliz ing and externalizing problem behaviors enmeshment: Different constructs, different effects.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 433 – 441.
than those whose fathers participated. It is therefore
Barber, BK, & Harmon, EL (2002). Violating the self: Pa
possible that, although the effects of fathers'
rental psychological control of children and adolescents.
parenting were not strong in a sample biased in In BK Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting. How psycholog
favor of children who showed a somewhat low level ical control affects children and adolescents (pp. 15 –
of problem behaviors, these effects might have turn 52). Washington, DC: Asosiasi Psikologi Amerika.
out to be significant among those with higher levels Barber, BK, & Olsen, JA (1997). Socialization in context:
of problem behaviors. Moreover, before making any Connection, regulation, and autonomy in the family,
generalizations con cerning the role of fathers' school, and neighborhood, and with peers. Journal of
parenting styles, there is a need to investigate the Adolescent Research, 12, 287 – 315.
role of fathers using larger and more representative Barber, BK, Olsen, JA, & Shagle, S. (1994). Associations
samples. between parental psychological control and behavioral
Overall, the results of this study add to the pre control and youth internalized and externalized be
vious literature on parenting styles and children's haviors. Child Development, 65, 1120 – 1136.
Parenting Styles in Children's Behavior 1157

adjustment by showing, first, that in mothers high
psychological control together with a high level of
affection appears to be the most detrimental combi
nation for the development of problem behaviors
among children. Second, mothers' high behavioral
control was shown to decrease children's external
problem behaviors but only in combination with a low
level of psychological control. These results support
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental
control on child behavior. Child Development, 37, 887 –
907. Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In
W. Damon (Ed.), Child development today and tomorrow
(pp. 349 – 378). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting styles on
adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 11, 56 – 95.
Bell, R. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects
 in studies of socialization. Psychological Review, 75, 81 – mediators of the relation between socioeconomic status
95. Bentler, PM (1990). Comparative fit indexes in and child conduct problems. Child Development, 65,
structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 229 – 246. 649 – 665.
Block, JH, & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and Dornbusch, SM, Ritter, PL, Leiderman, PH, Roberts, DF, &
ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. In WA Fraleigh, MJ (1987). The relation of parenting style to
Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology: adolescent school performance. Child Development,
Vol. 13. Development of cognition, affect, and social 58, 1244 – 1257.
relations (pp. 39 – 101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Duncan, TE, Duncan, SC, Strycker, LA, Li, F., & Al pert, A.
Chen, X., Liu, M., & Li, D. (2000). Parental warmth, (1999). An introduction to latent variable growth curve
control, and indulgence and their relations to modeling. Concepts, issues, and applications. Mahwah,
adjustment in Chinese children: A longitudinal study. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 401 – 419. Eccles, JS, Early, D., Frasier, K., Belansky, E., &
Chorpita, BF, & Barlow, DH (1998). The development of McCarthy, K. (1997). The relation of connection,
anxiety: The role of control in the early environment. regulation, and support for autonomy to adolescents'
Psychological Bulletin, 124, 3 – 21. functioning. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 263 –
Chou, C.-P., Bentler, PM, & Pentz, MA (2000). A two stage 286.
approach to multilevel structural equation models: Edelsohn, G., Ialongo, N., Werthamer-Larsson, L., &
Application to longitudinal data. In TD Little, KU Crockett, L. (1992). Self-reported depressive symptoms
Schnabel, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Modeling longitudinal in first-grade children: Developmentally transient phe
and multilevel data. Practical issues, applied nomena? Journal of the American Academy of Child &
approaches and specific examples (pp. 33 – 49). Ad olescent Psychiatry, 31, 282 – 290.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, TL, Fabes, RA,
Cole, PM, Zahn-Waxler, C., Fox, NA, Usher, BA, & Welsh, Shepard, SA, Reiser, M., et al. (2001). The relations of
JD (1996). Individual differences in emotion regulation regulation and emotionality to children's externalizing
and behavior problems in preschool children. Journal of and internalizing problem behavior. Child Development,
Abnormal Psychology, 105, 518 – 529. 71, 1112 – 1134.
Collins, WA, Maccoby, EE, Steinberg, L., Hetherington, Engel, NA, Rodrigue, JR, & Geffken, GR (1994). Parent –
EM, & Bornstein, MH (2000). Contemporary research child agreement on ratings of anxiety in chil dren.
on parenting: The case for nature and nurture. Psychological Reports, 75, 1251 – 1260.
American Psychologist, 55, 218 – 232. Forehand, R., & Nousiainen, S. (1993). Maternal and pa
Collins, WA, & Russell, G. (1991). Mother – child and ternal parenting: Critical dimensions in adolescent
father – child relationships in middle childhood and functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 213 – 221.
adolescence: A developmental analysis. Developmental Gadeyne, E., Ghesquie´re, P., & Onghena, P. (2004).
Review, 11, 99 – 136. Longi tudinal relations between parenting and child
Conger, KJ, Conger, RD, & Scaramella, LV (1997). adjust ment in young children. Journal of Clinical Child
Parents, siblings, psychological control, and adolescent and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 347 – 358.
adjustment. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 113 – Galambos, NL, Barker, ET, & Almeida, DM (2003).
138. Parents do matter: Trajectories of change in
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. externalizing and internalizing problems in early
San Francisco: Freeman. adolescence. Child Development, 74, 578 – 594.
Curran, PJ, & Hussong, AM (2003). The use of latent Glasgow, KL, Dornbusch, SM, Troyer, L., Steinberg, L., &
trajectory models in psychopathology research. Journal Ritter, PL (1997). Parenting styles, adolescents' at
of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 526 – 544. tributions, and educational outcomes in nine heteroge
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as neous high schools. Child Development, 68, 507 – 529.
context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, Goodman, R., Meltzer, H., & Bailey, V. (1998). The
113, 487 – 496. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A pilot study
Denham, SA, Workman, E., Cole, PM, Weissbrod, C., on the validity of the self-report version. European Child
Kendziora, KT, & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2000). Prediction of & Adolescent Psychiatry, 7, 125 – 130.
externalizing behavior problems from early to middle Gray, MR, & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authorita tive
childhood: The role of parental socialization and emo parenting: Reassessing a multidimensional con struct.
1158 Aunola and Nurmi Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 574 – 587.
Grolnick, WS (2003). The psychology of parental control.
tion expression. Development and Psychopathology, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12, 23 – 45.
Dodge, KA, & Pettit, GS (2003). A biopsychosocial model
of the development of chronic conduct problems in Halonen, A., Aunola, K., Ahonen, T., & Nurmi, J.-E.
adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 39, 349 – (sedang dicetak). The role of learning to read in the
371. development of problem behaviour: A cross-lagged
Dodge, KA, Pettit, GS, & Bates, JE (1994). Socialization
 longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational
Psychology.
Harris, JR (1995). Where is the child's environment?. A Lewis, CC (1981). The effects of parental firm control: A
group socialization theory of development. reinterpretation of findings. Psychological Bulletin, 90,
Psychological Review, 102, 458 – 489. 547 – 563.
Hart, CH, Newell, LD, & Olsen, SF (2003). Parenting skills Maccoby, EE (1992). The role of parents in the social
and social-communicative competence in child hood. In ization of children: An historical overview. Developmen
tal Psychology, 28, 1006 – 1017.
JO Greene & BR Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of
Maccoby, EE, & Martin, JA (1983). Socialization in the
communication and social interaction skills (pp. 753 –
context of the family: Parent – child interaction. In PH
797). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mussen (Series Ed.) & Hetherington, EM (Vol. Ed.),
Heller, TL, Baker, BL, Henker, B., & Hinshaw, SP (1996).
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization,
Externalizing behavior and cognitive functioning from person ality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 1 –
preschool to first grade: Stability and predictors. Journal 101). New York: Wiley.
of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 376 – 387. Miller, NB, Cowan, PA, Cowan, CP, Hetherington, EM, &
Hinshaw, S. (1992). Externalizing behavior problems and Clingempeel, WG (1993). Externalizing in preschoolers
academic underachievement in childhood and adoles and early adolescents: A cross-study repli cation of a
cence: Causal relationships and underlying mecha family model. Developmental Psychology, 29, 3 – 18.
nisms. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 127 – 155. Muthe´n, BO, & Khoo, S.-T. (1998). Longitudinal studies of
Humphrey, LL (1989). Observed family interactions among achievement growth using latent variable modeling.
subtypes of eating disorders using structural analysis of Learning & Individual Differences, 10, 73 – 102.
social behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Muthe´n, LK, & Muthe´n, BO (1998 – 2004). Mplus. Sta
tistical analyses with latent variables. User's Guide. Los
Psychology, 57, 206 – 214.
Angeles, CA: Muthe´n & Muthe´n.
Ialongo, NS, Edelsohn, G., & Kellam, SG (2001). A further
Nurmi, J.-E., & Aunola, K. (1999). Jyva¨skyla¨ Entrance
look at the prognostic power of young children's reports into Primary School Study (JEPS) (ongoing). University
of depressed mood and feelings. Child Develop ment, of Jy va¨skyla¨, Finland.
72, 736 – 747. Olsen, SF, Yang, C., Hart, CH, Robinson, CC, Wu, P.,
Jewell, JD, & Stark, KD (2003). Comparing the family Nelson, DA, et al. (2002). Maternal psychological
environments of adolescents with conduct disorder and control and preschool children's behavioral outcomes in
depression. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12, 77 China, Russia, and the United States. In BK Barber
– 89. (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological control
Joshi, P., Cappozoli, J., & Coyle, J. (1989). The Johns affects children and adolescents (pp. 235 – 262).
Hopkins Depression Scale: Normative data and Washington, DC: Asosiasi Psikologi Amerika.
validation in child psychiatry patients. Journal of Amer Owens, EB, & Shaw, DS (2003). Predicting growth curves
ican Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, of externalizing behavior across the preschool years.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 575 – 590.
283 – 288.
Pettit, GS, Bates, JE, & Dodge, KA (1997). Supportive
Jo¨reskog, K., & So¨rbom, D. (1993). LISREL8: Structural
parenting, ecological context, and children's adjustment:
equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command
A seven-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 68,
language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
908 – 923.
Kazdin, AE (1990). Childhood depression. Journal of Child
Pettit, GS, & Laird, RD (2002). Psychological control and
Psychology and Psychiatry, 31, 121 – 160.
monitoring in early adolescence: The role of parental
Kemper, TS, Gerhardstein, R., Repper, KK, & Kistner, JA
involvement and earlier child adjustment. In BK Bar ber
(2003). Mother – child agreement on reports of inter (Ed.), Intrusive parenting. How psychological control
nalizing symptoms among children referred for evalu affects children and adolescents (pp. 97 – 123).
ation of ADHD. Journal of Psychopathology and Washington, DC: Asosiasi Psikologi Amerika.
Behavioral Assessment, 25, 239 – 250. Pettit, GS, Laird, RD, Dodge, KA, Bates, JE, & Criss, MM
Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how (2001). Antecedents and behavior-problem outcomes of
they know it, and several forms of adolescent parental monitoring and psychological control in early
adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of adolescence. Child Development, 72, 583 – 598.
monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36, 366 – 380. Punama¨ki, R.-L., Qouta, S., & El-Sarraj, E. (2001). Resil
Kovacs, M., & Devlin, B. (1998). Internalizing disorders in iency factors predicting psychological adjustment after
childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, political violence among Palestinian children. Interna
39, 47 – 63. tional Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 256 –
267.
Leftkowitz, MM, & Tesiny, EP (1984). Rejection and
Parenting Styles in Children's Behavior 1159
depression: Prospective and contemporary analysis.
Developmental Psychology, 20, 776 – 785.
Repetti, RL, Taylor, SE, & Seeman, TE (2002). Risky
 families: Family social environments and the mental and
physical health of offspring. Psychological Bulletin, 128,
330 – 366.
Rigdon, EE, Schumacker, RE, & Wothke, W. (1998). A
comparative review of interaction and nonlinear
modeling. In RE Schumacker & GA Marcoulides (Eds.),
Interaction and nonlinear effects in structural equa tion
modeling (pp. 1 – 16). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Er lbaum
Associates.
Roberts, GC, Block, H., & Block, J. (1984). Continuity and
change in parents' child-rearing practices. Child Devel
opment, 55, 586 – 597.
Roeser, R., Eccles, J., & Strobel, K. (1998). Linking the
study of schooling and mental health: Selected issues
and empirical illustrations at the level of the individual.
Educational Psychologist, 33, 153 – 176.
Sacco, WP, & Graves, DJ (1985). Correspondence
between teacher ratings of childhood depression and
child self ratings. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,
14, 353 – 355.
Schaefer, ES (1965). A configurational analysis of chil
dren's reports of parent behavior. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 29, 552 – 557.
Siequeland, L., Kendall, PC, & Steinberg, L. (1996).
Anxiety in children: Perceived family environments and
observed family interaction. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 25, 225 – 237.
Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent – ado
lescent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal
of Research on Adolescence, 11, 1 – 19.
Stice, E., & Barrera, M. (1995). A longitudinal examination
of the reciprocal relations between perceived parenting
and adolescents' substance use and externalizing be
haviors. Developmental Psychology, 31, 322 – 334.
Weissman, MM, Orvaschel, H., & Padian, N. (1980).
Children's symptoms and social functioning self-report
scales: Comparison of mothers' and children's reports.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 168, 736 –
740.
Wolfradt, U., Hempel, S., & Miles, JNV (2003). Perceived
parenting styles, depersonalisation, anxiety and coping
behaviour in adolescents. Personality and Individual Dif
ferences, 34, 521 – 532.
Wood, JJ, McLeod, BD, Sigman, M., Hwang, WC., & Chu,
BC (2003). Parenting and childhood anxiety: Theory,
empirical findings, and future directions. Journal of Child
Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 44, 134 –
151.
Yang, C., Hart, CH, Nelson, DA, Porter, CL, Olsen, SF, &
Robinson, CC (2004). Fathering in a Beijing, Chinese
sample: Associations with boys' and girls' negative
emotionality and aggression. In RD Day & ME Lamb
(Eds.), Conceptualizing and measuring father
involvement (pp. 185 – 215). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence
Erlbaum Associates.