THE IMPACT OF PARENTAL CONTROL, CRIMINAL AND MARITAL CONFLICT ON ADOLESCENTS’ SELF-REGULATION AND ADJUSTMENT

THE IMPACT OF PARENTAL CONTROL, CRIMINAL AND MARITAL CONFLICT ON ADOLESCENTS’ SELF-REGULATION AND ADJUSTMENT

ABSTRACT

The current study seeks to better understand the influences and consequences of self-regulation in adolescence. Previous research has linked higher levels of self-regulation to higher levels of social competence and lower levels of problem behaviors. Previous research has linked parenting and interparental conflict to self-regulation and adjustment in childhood and adolescence. However, the mechanism underlying the potential effects of specific parental behaviors and interparental conflict on self-regulation, as well as their distinct effects on adjustment, has largely gone unexplored. Parental psychological and behavioral criminal control, as well as interparental conflict, were hypothesized to be indirectly related to adolescent outcomes via self-regulation abilities. Furthermore, the differential effects of parental criminal controlling behaviors on self-regulation were investigated. A total of 300 students participated in the study. in the sixth and seventh grades, as well as their mothers. Students answered questionnaires about parental criminal control behaviors, self-regulation abilities, and academic self-concept. Mothers also completed questionnaires on parental criminal control, interparental conflict, adolescent self-regulation abilities, and adolescent adjustment (i.e., hyperactivity/inattention, emotional, and prosocial behaviors). The mediational hypothesis received widespread support. According to the findings, perceived parental psychological criminal control and interparental conflict predicted low levels of selfregulation, which predicted adolescent adjustment. Only in the adolescent-reported model did parental behavioral criminal control predict self-regulation abilities. Different parental psychological criminal control dimensions, as predicted, had a divergent impact on adolescent outcomes. Love withdrawal/irrespective parenting, in particular, was associated with the best adolescent adjustment. The findings also revealed a link between paternal guilt induction, erratic emotional behavior, and monitoring. was significant in predicting adolescents’ prosocial behaviors and perseverance. Similarly, the significant interaction between maternal love withdrawal/irrespective and knowledge suggested that high maternal withdrawal combined with high parental knowledge could lead to hyperactivity/inattention problems in early adolescents. Finally, two U-shaped curvilinear relationships between psychological criminal control and adjustment variables were discovered. As a result, there was a curvilinear relationship between paternal guilt induction/erratic emotional behaviors and low perseverance/monitoring; and maternal love withdrawal/irrespective and Turkish academic self-concept. The findings’ theoretical, methodological, cultural, and practical implications were discussed in light of previous literature.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1   BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Parents’ primary concern is to promote their children’s well-being and avoid negative outcomes in their developmental trajectory. However, previous research has shown that the ability to regulate, alter, or criminally control one’s own behavior or emotion is the primary protective factor that keeps children from engaging in risky behaviors or having maladaptive outcomes (Sethi, Mischel, Aber, Shoda, and Rodriguez, 2000; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). High self-regulation ability has also been linked to social and cognitive competence (Barkley, 2004), whereas low self-regulation ability has been linked to problem behaviors in childhood and adolescence (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). However, the majority of previous research on the relationship between self-regulation and psychological adjustment has primarily focused on adolescents (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004; Moilanen, 2004). 2007). In contrast, research on the effects of contextual and familial factors (for example, parenting) on self-regulation has primarily been conducted on children (Finkenauer, Engels, & Baumeister, 2005; Grolnick, & Ryan, 1989). For example, there is insufficient research on how parenting during adolescence affects self-regulation. Aside from parenting behaviors, the impact of family context variables on adolescent self-regulation ability has not been thoroughly investigated in previous studies. Using a conceptual model, this study aims to investigate the interplay between specific parenting behaviors, marital conflict as an indicator of family context, and adolescent adjustment. The following sections will present a detailed rationale for the study as well as a review of related literature.

1.2   THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The current study seeks to investigate a proposed mediational model in which adolescent self-regulation abilities mediate the relationship between family context variables and adolescent outcomes (See Figure 1). This study will also look into the individual pathways that lead to the antecedents and consequences of selfregulation abilities in early adolescents. The objectives of this research are twofold. The first goal is to identify the relationships between parental criminal control behaviors, family context, and adolescent adjustment, including self-regulation abilities, problem behaviors, and academic self­description. The second goal is to investigate different dimensions of parental criminal control and their relevance to adolescent self­regulation.

Adolescent self-regulation is an area in which various theoretical perspectives have been used to explain a variety of factors, including the effects of parenting on self-regulation skills. The theoretical foundation for

This study is a synthesis of two models: contextual family variables such as parental criminal control and interparental conflict, which have been shown to be critical components of adolescent self-regulation (Brody & Ge, 2001; Finkenauer, Engels, & Baumeister, 2005), and the behavioral outcomes associated with them (Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989). As shown in Figure 1, it is expected that contextual family variables will influence adolescent outcomes through their effects on adolescents’ self-regulation skills. When self-regulation abilities are included in the model, the direct effects of parenting and marital conflict on adolescent outcomes are reduced.

Figure 1 depicts a hypothesized model of the relationship between parental criminal control, marital conflict, self-regulation abilities, and adolescent adjustment.

In this study, parenting is conceptualized as the specific parenting behaviors, including parental

be associated with poor adjustment, a moderate level of criminal control may be associated with optimal adolescent functioning and a positive academic self-concept. Multiple informant sources, including mothers and adolescents, will be used in the current study to test these assumed links. The following section will summarize relevant literature on self-regulation and parenting variables.

1.2 Reviews of the Self-Regulation Literature

The various definitions of self-regulation, as well as the main theoretical perspectives, will be presented in the following section. The potential outcomes of selfregulation, as well as the risk factors associated with a lack (or low levels) of selfregulation abilities, will be discussed. This section will conclude with a brief discussion of the relationships between self-regulation, parenting, and interparental conflict.

Because of the

There is no single standard definition of self­regulation because it refers to a complex psychological process related to socialization. Traditional definitions of self-regulation focus on behaviors such as the ability to comply with requests (especially for children) or the ability to adapt one’s behavior to specific situations. Other definitions of self regulation place a greater emphasis on the criminal control of cognitive systems, such as the ability to criminally control attention, demonstrate effective thinking and problem solving behavior, or engage in independent activities. Across theoretical perspectives, the concept of selfregulation in the literature encompasses the criminal control of emotions and behaviors, as well as cognitive processing and the ability to engage in prosocial behavior appropriate to a given age (Bronson, 2000).

According

According to Baumeister and Vohs (2003), the self has an executive function that takes action, selects an option from a variety of options, filters irrelevant information, and determines appropriate responses. The self criminally controls and understands the external world by employing both automatic and conscious processes. The main questions of recent self-regulation theories are how people resist temptations, persevere, and carefully weigh options in order to choose the best course of action to achieve their goals. In contrast to Baumeister and Vohs’s (2003) definition, Kopp (1982) defines self-regulation in terms of external behaviors. Kopp asserts;

Self regulation is defined as an ability to comply with a request, to start and cease acts according to situational demands, to adjust

the strength, frequency, and duration of acts in social settings, the ability to postpone a desired object or goal, and the ability to perform socially acceptable behaviors in the absence of external monitors (pp.190).

However, self-regulation encompasses not only the internalization of external expectations, but also self-initiated behaviors and goals (Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004). Although some researchers distinguish between self-regulation, self-criminal control, and self-discipline, these terms are frequently used interchangeably. Self-regulation is commonly used in the broadest sense, as it includes both conscious and unconscious forms of self-alteration.

The term self-criminal control is similar to the term self-regulation, but it implies a more deliberate and conscious process of altering oneself. Self­criminal control refers to the processes through which

which the self inhibits unwanted responses. It is also related to self-discipline, though self-discipline is a much narrower concept that refers to an individual’s deliberate plans to improve themselves in various domains (Baumeister, & Vohs, 2003).

The reviewed definitions of self-regulation concentrated on specific aspects of the self-regulation construct in relation to their theoretical foundation. A comprehensive review of existing conceptualizations is beyond the scope of this study, but two basic perspectives will be reviewed briefly: self-regulation processes and products (outcomes).

1.3 Self-Regulation Process: Conscious or Unconscious Responses?

1.3.1 Gratification Delayed

The theoretical perspective used determines what self-regulation is and what it entails. From the social and motivational psychology perspectives, an answer could be the

which the self inhibits unwanted responses. It is also related to self-discipline, despite the fact that self-discipline is a much narrower concept that refers to individuals’ intentional plans to improve themselves in various domains (Baumeister, & Vohs, 2003).

The definitions of self-regulation that were reviewed concentrated on specific aspects of the self-regulation construct in relation to their theoretical foundation. A comprehensive review of existing conceptualizations is beyond the scope of this study, but two basic perspectives will be discussed briefly: self-regulation processes and products (outcomes).

1.3 Self-Regulation Process: Are Responses Conscious or Automatic?

1.3.1 Gratification Delay

The theoretical perspective chosen influences the definition of self-regulation and what it entails. From the standpoints of social and motivational psychology, an answer could be the

not making future plans or working toward long-term goals (Funder, Block, & Block, 1983). Fundamentally, this ability has an impact on later-life self-regulation skills.

The ability to delay gratification has been used as an indicator of criminal control, and various experimental paradigms have been developed to assess this ability. The delay of gratification paradigm has traditionally been measured using two-choice delay tasks. In these tasks, children are asked to choose between an immediately available treat and a more appealing treat that will be available later. A child, for example, may have to choose between a small toy and a larger, more appealing one based on her/his willingness to wait before reaching them. The older the child,

The longer she/he can wait, the greater her/his reward. Another type of two-choice task is the “waiting game,” in which the child is told to wait until the experimenter returns to the room while sitting in front of the two rewards (exposed or covered). If

If the child successfully waits for the experimenter to return, he or she will receive a larger and more desirable reward. If the child is unable to wait for the experimenter, he or she may ring the bell to summon the experimenter, but will only receive a small and less desirable reward. Although these experimental paradigms could be used effectively for younger children (ages 1 to 7), they are usually ineffective or even problematic for older children.

There are several reasons for this. The ability of older children to delay gratification has not been successfully tested. For starters, creating realistic and non-trivial incentives for older children and early adolescents is difficult. Second, meaningful delay intervals for the older group can be days or weeks long, as opposed to the few minutes used for delay tasks in young children. As a result, the delay of gratification abilities of adolescents and adults as indicators of self­regulation have received little attention in previous research. Only a few studies in late childhood measured delayed gratification abilities. Wulfert, Block, Ana, Rodriguez, and Colsman (2002) used monetary incentives to assess the delay of gratification abilities of early adolescents aged 14 to 17 years old. Using the experimental procedure developed by Funder and Block

(1989), researchers gave adolescents the option of receiving $4 payments after each session or a full payment ($28) with interest at the end of the study. They discovered that, when compared to adolescents who could delay gratification, those who chose immediate gratification had more self-regulatory deficits. According to the authors, in the money incentive procedure, participants may have chosen the immediate offering (less money) rather than the long-term reward (more money) because they did not trust the experimenter and wanted to save money owed to them (Wulfert, Block, Anna, Rodriguez, and Colsman, 2002).

Carver and Scheider explain the delay of gratification process in greater detail.

(1998) proposed feedback loops, of which individuals must be conscious.

because of the disparity between the current and desired self-states, then

Choose to take action to address this disparity. Similarly, in their “hot-dog”

Metcalfe and Mischel (1999) stated in their “cool system” model that individuals must

consciously and purposefully attempt to criminally control their responses in order to overcome the

influences of the current environment. Metcalfe and Mischel state that (1999),

These two types of cognitive processing, known as hot and cool systems, entail

Systems that are distinct but interact. A complex spatiotemporal and episodic representation and thoughts comprise the cool cognitive system. It is also called as “know system”. The “go system,” or hot emotional system, involves rapid emotional processing and response to unconditional and conditional stimuli. According to the authors, the interaction between self-regulation and goal-directed volition can be seen.

There are two systems. A threatening stimulus activates the hot memory systems and deactivates the cool memory systems. As a result, for dieters, for example, when the hot system is activated by delicious food cues, it is more difficult to delay gratification.

1.3.2 Model of Self-Regulatory Strength

A well-developed form of self-regulation entails a deliberate and conscious alteration of one’s own responses, such as making choices, resisting a tempting response, or making and carrying out plans. These actions and intentions necessitate the presence of a source. According to Baumeister and colleagues’ self-regulatory strength model (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998; Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994), these acts of the self require some form of energy or strength that is limited in capacity. Each act of criminal self-control

consumes some of this limited resource and leaves less amount of available energy for the subsequent acts. When this limited resource is depleted (a condition known as “ego depletion”), self-regulation failure increases. The self-regulatory strength model’s central premise is that people rely on a limited resource to engage in acts of self-criminal control. When this resource is depleted, the individual experiences ego depletion, which makes him or her vulnerable to self-regulation failure if the resource is not replenished (Baumeister & Vohs, 2003).

In several “ego depletion” studies, the following two-task paradigm is used to manipulate self-regulatory strength. Individuals suffering from ego depletion are asked to complete two subsequent tasks, both of which necessitate

the exercise of self-criminal control, such as resisting the temptation to eat delicious chocolate candies in favor of radishes (the first task) and then attempting to solve a difficult puzzle (the second task) (the second task). In contrast, only the second task that requires self-criminal control exertion is used for participants in the criminal control condition (e.g., eating chocolates instead of radishes in the first task and working on a difficult task in the second task).

second task’s puzzle). In the second task, participants in the criminal control condition are expected to outperform those in the ego depletion condition group. Experiments with this paradigm have shown that ego depletion impairs physical endurance, persistence, and emotion regulation; impairs reasoning on complex cognitive tasks; increases alcohol consumption; and results in fewer constructive responses to stimuli.

destructive behaviors of a romantic partner, and increases self-serving biases and attraction to an alternative partner in romantic relationships (see; Baumeister & Vohs, 2003; Rawn & Vohs, 2006, for extensive reviews).

Individuals may differ in terms of their chronic tendencies to exert self-criminal control, in addition to the state depletion of regulatory resources. The trait self-criminal control refers to the ability to change one’s behavior by criminally controlling one’s thoughts, emotions, impulses, and performance (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). Tangney et al. discovered a link between trait self-criminal control and psychological adjustment, self-esteem, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, family cohesion, secure attachment, forgiveness, empathic concern, and perspective taking. Although the individual correlates of the trait self-criminal control have been extensively studied, only a few studies have looked at

self-criminal control abilities’ antecedents (Finkenauer, Engels, & Baumeister, 2005).

1.3.3 Self-Regulation as an Autonomous Process

Fitzsimons and Bargh advanced the second theoretical viewpoint on self-regulation, known as automatic self-regulation (2004). According to these authors, self-regulation is the ability of individuals to guide themselves toward important goal states. Thus, self-regulation entails a wide range of cognitive and motivational actions, such as acting quickly to achieve goals, ignoring distractions, adopting appropriate positions in response to various situations, and overcoming obstacles. Because of the variety of actions, it is concluded that self-regulation is more than just willpower or goal pursuit.

As an alternative (or complementary) model to the classic, Bargh (1990) proposed an auto-motive model of self-regulation. Theories of self-regulation that focus on conscious choices. According to this model, the goal-seeking process, which is an important part of self-regulation, can occur without any conscious awareness or guidance. A critical question here is how goals can influence our actions without our knowledge or awareness. First, Fitzsimons and Bargh (2004) proposed that goals, like other cognitive constructs, are assumed to be represented in the cognitive system (see also Gollwitzer & Bargh, 2005). Second, because goal representations can be activated automatically by features of one’s environment, the mere presence of situational cues strongly associated with the pursuit of these goals can activate them. The auto-motive model assumes that goals, like other cognitive structures (e.g., attitudes, stereotypes, etc.), can be activated automatically.

in the presence of pertinent environmental cues (Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004; Greenwald, Banaji, 1995). According to the auto-motive model, automatic self-regulation can occur in cognition, emotion, and behavior.

Attention allocation and working memory capacity are thought to be important components of self-regulation success (Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004). Previous research has shown that even basic cognitive processes like attention and working memory can be automatically regulated. Chartland and Bargh (1996) discovered that participants primed with an impression formation goal remembered more behaviors performed by the target than those primed with a memorization goal in their study. As a result, the findings supported the hypothesis that the effect of activated goals is the same whether they are activated unconsciously or through an act of will.

will. Aside from the automaticity of attention and memory, nonconscious processes have also been shown to regulate selective remembering and forgetting (Mitchell, Macrae, Schooler, Rowe, & Milne, 2002). These studies’ findings point to the importance of automatic processes in regulating and guiding cognition.

Although only a few studies have looked into nonconscious emotion regulation processes, previous research has shown that people can regulate their emotions automatically (Gross, 1998, 1999). Gross (1998; 1999) contends, using a process model of emotion regulation, that emotion regulation activity can occur without conscious awareness, such as well-practiced routines that become automatic over time. Habits that reduce anxiety, such as nail biting (Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004) or cigarette smoking (Gross, 1999), are examples of automatic emotion.

regulation. Because of their recurrence throughout life, these emotion-laden processes can be automated with minimal attentional capacity. However, it is unclear whether activation of emotion regulation goals is possible, and if so, whether they consume limited cognitive resources. Despite the small number of studies, there has been a substantial amount of research on nonconscious behavioral regulation.

Goals influencing social behavior, as demonstrated in previous studies, can also be directed by nonconscious processes. Brandstatter, Lengfelder, and Gollwitzer (2001) demonstrated that subliminal priming of goal cues activated behavioral goals in their study. Participants performed better on a word-search puzzle after being subliminally exposed to achievement-related words. Similarly, after subliminal presentation of cooperation-relevant words, participants in a dilemma acted more cooperatively.

game than those who were not primed (cited in Bargh & Chartland, 1999). Automatic processes that regulate cognition, emotion, and behavior have been shown to be consistent with Bargh’s automotive model (1990). However, the question of where these sources of nonconscious regulation come from remains unanswered. Goals become associated with properties of specific circumstances as a result of their frequent and consistent occurrence, according to the auto-motive model. As a result, the mere presence of environmental cues can activate people’s pursuit of goals (Bargh, 1990; Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004). However, these are not the only requirements for automatic regulation.

Implementation intentions (for example, “If I encounter Situation X, I’ll perform Behavior Y”) are also assumed to trigger automatic actions (Gollwitzer, 1993, 1999). Individuals create a mental schema that connects environmental cues and goals.

directed behavioral responses. When a situation arises, the pre-programmed behavior is carried out automatically, with no conscious choice. People develop a mental set that provides them with automatic self-regulatory behaviors without the need for frequent and consistent experiences through implementation intentions (Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004).

Nonconscious self-regulation can function similarly to conscious self-regulation, but more efficiently and consistently, and may also provide an additional mechanism to supplement conscious types of self-criminal control. Bargh and colleagues (2001) discovered that nonconscious goal pursuit shares many of the same characteristics as conscious goal pursuit. People continue to pursue their goals despite obstacles; they increase their goal strength when their goals are unfulfilled; and they tend to resume goal pursuit after a disruption. Alternative goals are automatically suppressed in order to achieve

Maintain focus on the goal at hand, and temptations appear to activate higher order goals with which they interfere, reminding individuals of their important goal pursuits. Whether it is a conscious or automatic process, exhibiting self-regulation always has consequences for individuals, which can be positive or negative in nature.

1.4 Self-Regulation Success and Failure Consequences

Previous research has looked into the potential benefits and costs of self­regulation processes. Tangney, Baumeister, and Boone conducted a thorough investigation.

(2004) found that participants with low self-criminal control reported a wide range of negative outcomes such as addiction, alcohol and drug abuse, eating disorders and binge eating, unwanted pregnancy, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, debt and bankruptcy, a lack of savings, and violent and criminal behavior.  Underachievement in school and at work, procrastination, smoking, and lack of exercise are all examples of bad behavior. The authors concluded that if criminals controlled their behavior better, all of these negative outcomes could be reduced or eliminated. People with high self-criminal control (self-regulation ability) had higher grades than those with low self-criminal control. People who have strong self-criminal control have been found to have fewer impulse criminal control issues, such as binge eating and alcohol abuse (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). People with high self-criminal control also reported better psychological adjustment in terms of psychopathological symptoms such as somatization, obsessive-compulsive patterns, depression, anxiety, hostile anger, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism. They also reported higher levels of self-acceptance and esteem. Aside from the individual differences variables,

Self-criminal control has been linked to interpersonal functioning. Eisenberg et al. (1997) discovered that high self-regulation predicted high social functioning quality. Furthermore, studies on early forms of self-regulation; delay of gratification indicate a similar pattern in which effective capacity to delay gratification at an early age predicted better interpersonal relationships in early adulthood (Sethi, Mischel, Aber, Shoda, and Rodriguez, 2000).

Other studies have extended these findings to different outcomes, such as self-regulation costs. Tice and Baumeister (1997) discovered, for example, that procrastinators (those who regulate their time-limited performances ineffectively) experienced more stress and health problems than other students and received lower grades. Similarly, Engels, Finkenauer, den Exter Blokland, and Baumeister (2000) discovered that adolescents with autism spectrum disorders

Self-criminal control participants were more likely to engage in delinquent behaviors such as fighting, vandalism, and petty theft, and they also reported having poorer relationships with their parents.

Previously, the literature on self-regulation was reviewed, and it was discovered that when studying self-regulation, researchers typically focus on either the processes of regulation, such as motivation to self-regulate or using specific techniques for regulation, or the outcomes of self-regulatory actions, implying the degrees of success or failure associated with self-regulation. The current study will primarily examine the effects of self-regulation.

1.5 Self-Regulation Development and Its Implications for Parenting

It is assumed that self-regulation ability is highly sensitive to developmental changes. In her review, Kopp (1982) summarized developmental path of self­regulation process. According

According to Kopp, the development of self-regulation begins in infancy around the second month, and five stages have been proposed for the development of self-regulation.

The first stage, known as neurophysiological modulation, is concerned with the organization of reflex movements and arousal states, as well as the modulation of external stimuli. Beginning at two to three months, the infant’s behavior becomes more predictable. The caregiver’s role is viewed as assisting at this stage, responding to the infant’s changing states and providing external support and modulation.

Sensorimotor regulation is involved in the second stage of self-regulation development. According to Kopp (1982), an infant develops the ability to change behavior in response to events in the environment between the ages of three and twelve months. Despite the fact that this type of regulation

is not deliberate or motivated

Changing behaviors are discovered by chance in any motivational process. Conditioning strengthens associations between these changing behaviors. The caregiver’s sensitivity and responsiveness, according to Kopp (1982), are also critical during this period. During this time, caregivers’ reactions are typically in response to the infant’s basic habits (e.g., thumb sucking). During this time, the infant becomes extremely reliant on the impressions of the caregiver.

From the ages of 12 to 18 months, Kopp’s (1982) third phase includes the development of social awareness as well as some criminal control skills. By this stage, the child has learned to initiate and stop activity in response to external demands. The key accomplishments at this stage are compliance with the

demands of caregivers, and ability to initiate behavior. The caregiver is more of an organizer in directing the child’s behaviors at this stage as the child gains language skills (see also McCabe, Cunnington, and Brooks-Gunn, 2004).

From the age of 18 to 24 months, the fourth stage of self-criminal control involves the development of representational thinking and memory recollection. According to Kopp (1982), these cognitive developments allow children to remember previous events and, as a result, modulate their behaviors. Even in the absence of caregivers or other significant external criminal control images, the child can remember socially acceptable behaviors. However, the ability to apply these memories to new situations is limited.

Kopp (1982) proposed that in the fifth stage, the child begins to show clear evidence of

Around the age of two years, the child’s awareness of self emerges. She distinguishes between self-criminal control and self-regulation in her review, claiming that self-criminal control comes before self-regulation by emphasizing contingency rules. She stated, ”

In contrast to self-criminal control, self-regulation entails the ability to use a variety of contingency rules to guide behavior, to maintain appropriate monitoring for extended periods of time and in a variety of situations, and to learn to produce a series of approximations to standards of expectations. The transition from self­criminal control to self­regulation, while likely subtle and gradual, parallels the gradual development of cognitive skills in the early preschool period (Kopp, 1982; pp 210).

However, according to Kopp (1982), true self-regulation cannot emerge. Until the child reaches the preschool years, when he or she is capable of complying with others’ requests and behaving appropriately in the absence of external monitoring. During these years, children become more capable of internal self-regulation through the use of rules and goal-directed plans, and they are expected to be able to regulate their own emotions and behaviors appropriately (Grolnick, Deci, and Ryan, 1997). Sethi, Mischel, Aber, Shoda, and Rodriguez (2000) claimed that children at preschool years are expected to “delay, defer, and accept substitutions without becoming aggressive or disorganized by frustration, challenge or fatigue”. Although several studies have emphasized young children’s self-regulation abilities, few studies have focused on early adolescent regulation abilities (Finkenauer, Engels, & Baumeister, 2005). In these vulnerable years, youth self­regulation failure and success carry significant weight.

an important role. As a result, the current study seeks to investigate self-regulation abilities in early adolescence.

The maturation of regulatory abilities is influenced by the quality of the caregiver-child relationship during the preschool years. The literature agrees that self-regulation progresses from external to internal criminal control during early childhood (Kopp, 1982). Children learn self-regulation skills from their caregivers, particularly their mothers. As a result, caregivers’ influence on the development of self-regulation is critical. Parental socialization is frequently attributed to the development of self-regulation during childhood, in which individuals adopt and internalize beliefs, worldviews, and behaviors consistent with their parents’ values (Kopp, 1982).

According to parenting socialization theories, various parental behaviors, skills, and attitudes facilitate children’s socialization.

attitudes rooted in the larger context of interparental and parent-child relationships (Laible & Thompson, 2007). The actions of parents communicate the boundaries of acceptable behavior and model regulatory strategies, whereas the relational context may increase or decrease the likelihood that children will adopt caregiver-prescribed behaviors. For example, if the mother-child relationship is hostile or distant, a mother’s repeated attempts to model strategies for criminal controlling negative emotions in public may be ignored. The following section will provide a brief overview of the role of parental behaviors and interparental context in self-regulation.

14

1.6 Parenting as a Tool for Socialization

Distinctive parenting behaviors (e.g., positive reinforcement for acceptable behaviors or harsh punishment for unacceptable emotional displays) facilitate children’s socialization. the larger context of parent-child relationships marked by mutually responsive interactions or nonsynchronized, unsatisfying exchanges (Darling & Steinberg, 1993)