The Association Between Overinvolved Parenting and Young Adults’ Self-Efficacy,Psychological Entitlement,and Family Communication

Abstract

This study sought to examine the association between parental behavior indicative of overinvolvement and control and young adult child self-identity, namely self-efficacy and psychological entitlement. Participants in this study were 339 parent-young adult child dyads who completed survey measures of family environment, parenting, family communication, and family satisfaction. Young adults also completed measures of self-efficacy and entitlement. Results showed that balanced family adaptability and cohesion, open family communication, and authoritative rather than authoritarian parenting, were positively associated with parents’ and young adults’ family satisfaction. Parental behavior that emphasized control over the child was associated with diminished self-efficacy and exaggerated psychological entitlement in young adult children. The relationship between these two classes of variables was amplified by open parent-child communication.

Keywords

cohesion adaptability parenting styles family satisfaction family communication

Parenting styles play an important role in shaping child behavioral and psychological outcomes. Some family scholars have recently focused their attention on the potentially deleterious effects of a style of parenting late adolescents and young adults where parents are hyperinvolved in their children’s lives, often in a developmentally inappropriate way (Nelson, 2010). Out of a desire to advance their children’s achievement potential and prevent them from experiencing harm or failure, these parents sometimes construct family environments that are overly controlling and highly cohesive, which is not characteristic of optimal family functioning (Olson, 1986). Parental access to new technologies has been dubbed “the electronic umbilical cord,” facilitating constant parental monitoring, micromanagement, and overinvolvement (LeMoyne & Buchanan, 2011, p. 400), even when the young adult child is no longer residing in the family home. There is ample anecdotal evidence of parents interfering in their adult children’s lives in educational settings as well as in the work place, however, there is little scientific research into this phenomenon and its potential consequences for the emergent adult (i.e., someone who is legally an adult, but who continues to be financially, emotionally, or otherwise dependent upon his/her parent[s]). This study examines the influence of parenting styles and family environments that are consistent with parental overinvolvement, on family satisfaction and the identity development of emerging adults in terms of self-efficacy and entitlement attitudes. Healthy psychological functioning across the lifespan requires individuation (i.e., a degree of psychological distance from parents and family) as adolescents transition into adulthood, necessitating a realignment of relationships with parents (Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986). Excessively involved, controlling, and rigid parenting that is developmentally inappropriate can impede that realignment and result in negative outcomes, despite good intentions on the part of the parent.

The circumplex model of family systems (Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1989) provides a typology for classifying families based on emotional bonding between family members and their ability to reorganize in response to situational or developmental needs. The model proposes that too little or too much of either of these will lead to difficulties in functioning across the life cycle, whereas a balance between the two extremes promotes optimal functioning (Olson, 1986). Parental overinvolvement is a reflection of an unbalanced family system. The dysfunction associated with the imbalance has the capacity to intrude upon and impede the individuation process, and thus, the emergent adult’s development of psychological competence and self-direction.

Parental overinvolvement shares some similarities with related concepts in the parenting literature, but there are also some unique aspects of this type of parenting. The literature on intrusive parenting (e.g., Barber & Harmon, 2002) illustrates how parental psychological control can diminish a child’s individuation, competence, and efficacy (Barber, Olsen, Shagel, 1994). Parental overinvolvement, or overparenting is assumed to result in many of the same consequences, although not through manipulation of the child’s emotions and constraint of the child’s expressions, as in the case of psychological control. Overparenting reflects unbridled affection for the child, and is typically enacted with extremely benevolent intentions. Likewise, the control that is a key ingredient in authoritarian parenting (e.g., Baumrind, 1971) has some of the same elements of directiveness that can be found in parental overinvolvement. The parental control of the authoritarian parent, however, is not responsive to the child’s needs, whereas, like permissive parenting, overparenting is overly responsive to the child’s needs. Notwithstanding these similarities, parental overinvolvment has unique qualities such as risk aversion, a preoccupation with the child’s happiness, and the drive to problem solve for the child (Segrin, Wozidlo, Givertz, Bauer, & Murphy, 2012) that are not captured in any of these related constructs.

The aim of this investigation is to systematically examine how parent-child communication patterns are associated with the identity development of the emergent adult. Specifically, this study examines dyadic effects of a series of psychological and communication variables that are central to the parent-child relationship, and investigates their association with perceptions of self-efficacy and attitudes of entitlement in the emergent adult. Soliciting information from both parent and child not only affords a more holistic view of family functioning, it also permits examination of the interdependence that exists in close, intimate, inescapable relationships that involve frequent interaction, such as the parent-child relationship.

Family Environment, Parenting Styles, and Family Satisfaction

The circumplex model of marital and family systems integrates three dimensions of family life, cohesion, flexibility, and communication, each of which has been found by theorists and clinicians to be critical to understanding relational and family functioning (e.g., Beavers & Hampson, 1990; Fitzpatrick, 1984; Gottman, 1994; Kantor & Lehr, 1975). Cohesion refers to emotional bonding between family members, and includes factors such as boundaries, use of time and space, and leisure activities. Cohesion focuses on how families balance separateness and togetherness. Balanced cohesion is optimal for family functioning as it allows family members to maintain both independence and interdependence. Flexibility refers to the amount of change in leadership, role relationships, and relationship rules, and includes factors such as discipline, control, and negotiation styles; it involves how families balance stability and change. Again, balanced or moderate levels of flexibility are optimal for family functioning. Long-term relationships require both stability and change, and balanced flexibility allows family members to negotiate stability and change in a functional way. The final dimension, communication, is conceptualized as a facilitating dimension, and ranges from poor to very effective. Communication is what facilitates movement along the dimensions of cohesion and adaptability as families respond to developmental changes and/or situational needs. Positive communication skills (i.e., empathic, attentive listening, speaking for oneself and not others, and staying on topic) have been found to facilitate and maintain balance within the family system (Olson & Gorall, 2003). Ultimately, balanced families function more effectively than unbalanced families (Olson, 2000), they have more positive communication (Barnes & Olson, 1985), and they experience higher levels of family satisfaction (Kouneski, 2001).

Just as families must strike a balance between interdependence and autonomy, as well as between stability and change, parents must strike a balance between supportive and controlling behaviors. In line with the circumplex model’s predictions about the importance of balanced cohesion and flexibility, Amato and Booth (1997) found a curvilinear relationship between parental control and positive outcomes in children; children whose parents were either too lenient or too controlling were more likely to have psychological problems. Successful development of the self is facilitated by “optimal frustrations” (Kohut, 1977, 1984) of the child by a parent, where the child is forced to rely on his/her own abilities without the benefit of parental support and guidance. Parenting that is too lenient or too controlling disrupts the development of an independent self.

Baumrind’s (1966, 1971, 1978, 1991) typology of parenting styles focuses on parental demandingness and responsiveness, and identifies three distinct types of parents: authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative. Authoritarian parents are highly demanding and directive, but not responsive. This type of parenting emphasizes orderliness and structure, obedience without discussion, and close monitoring of a child’s behavior. Authoritarian parents are highly restrictive. Permissive parents are not demanding or directive, but they are highly responsive and accepting. Permissive parenting emphasizes leniency, self-regulation, and conflict avoidance. Authoritative parents fall somewhere between these two extremes; this parenting style is both demanding and responsive. Authoritative parenting involves monitoring a child’s behavior without being intrusive or restrictive. It communicates clear standards for behavior, but relies on disciplinary methods that are supportive instead of punitive. Authoritative parenting is somewhat democratic, in that it invites participation and negotiation, while always maintaining a clear leadership role within the family

The different parenting styles are variously associated with children’s psychosocial development (Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Park & Buriel, 1998), and authoritative parenting is associated with the most positive outcomes for children and adolescents both concurrently and prospectively (Baumrind, 1989; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994). The parenting styles can be distinguished on the basis of leniency versus control, and as such, they differ in the extent to which they provide optimal frustrations that are critical to the individuation process. Permissive parenting is overindulgent and insufficiently frustrating, authoritarian parenting is overly controlling and excessively frustrating, and authoritarian parenting sets appropriate limits and is optimally frustrating (Trumpeter, Watson, O’Leary, & Weathington, 2008). Authoritative parenting has been associated with the development of an internal locus of control and a more positive self-concept (McClun & Merrell, 1998), with the ability to self-regulate and demonstrate social responsibility (Baumrind, 1991), and to facilitate self-actualization (Dominguez & Carton, 1997).

Parenting style needs to be responsive to developmental changes in the child across the lifespan, and this is particularly important during the adolescent period, as family communication affects both identity formation and role taking ability (Barnes & Olson, 1985). A critical aspect of identity formation during adolescence involves individuation, or an emotional distancing from the family of origin and an increased attachment to and reliance on peers (Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986). Individuation requires a balance between support and control, and connectedness and separateness (Bartle, Anderson, & Sabatelli, 1989). As a child progresses through adolescence, the ratio should increasingly favor supportiveness and separateness (Baumrind, 1991). In most families this represents a change in the prevailing nature of the parent-child communication from earlier in the child’s lifespan.

Based on theoretical conceptualizations of family environment and parenting, as well as prior empirical findings, the following hypotheses were tested:

Hypothesis 1: Family environments characterized by balanced cohesion, balanced adaptability, and higher levels of family communication will be associated with higher family satisfaction for both emergent adults and their parents.

Hypothesis 2: Authoritative parenting will be positively associated with parent and young adult family satisfaction, whereas authoritarian and permissive parenting will be associated with lower family satisfaction.

Parental Control and Child Psychological Outcomes

Parental behavior that is overly controlling is associated with disruption in the development of an independent self; it has been found to inhibit a child’s ability to develop as a separate individual from the parent (Schaefer, 1965a). According to Steinberg (1990), parental psychological control facilitates dependency and disrupts the development of psychological competence and self-direction. Parental behavior that is psychologically controlling does not allow for self-exploration and self-discovery; it is widely associated with a child’s diminished psychological self, with lower levels of self-well-being (LeMoyne & Buchanan, 2011), and overall, has been found to disrupt ego development (Barber & Harmon, 2002). Overly controlling parental behavior often occurs in a context of high family cohesion to the point of enmeshment (Munich & Munich, 2009) and intrudes upon a basic human drive toward differentiation and increased autonomy as individuals move through adolescence into adulthood. It interferes with the development of self-efficacy, the belief that one can successfully perform a behavior (Bandura, 1977), and as such, interferes with an individual’s ability to problem solve, make decisions, meet needs, and set goals and achieve them. At the same time, to the extent that young people become accustomed to having these things done for them by a parent, that dependency may eventually facilitate the development of psychological entitlement, “a stable and pervasive sense that one deserves more and is entitled to more than others” (Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004, p. 31).

Entitlement has been found to be positively correlated with narcissism (Miller et al., 2011), and in some conceptualizations, comprises one of its four dimensions (Emmons, 1984, 1987). Narcissism is a trait that has been found to be negatively correlated with self-esteem (Watson, Little, & Biderman, 1992). Most perspectives on the development of narcissism implicate parental behavior in some way (Bosson & Prewitt-Freilino, 2007; Horton, Bleau, & Drwecki, 2006; Miller & Campbell, 2008). For example, conceptualizations of narcissism based in social learning (e.g., Benjamin, 1996; Millon, 1981) suggest that it develops as a result of noncontingent parenting that overvalues the child’s accomplishments regardless of actual performance, thereby teaching the child that he/she is superior and entitled to special treatment. Consistent with this perspective, Otway and Vignoles (2006) found that parental overvaluation during childhood, measured with items such as “When I was a child, my parents praised me for virtually everything I did,” was a strong predictor of narcissism later on in adulthood. When levels of parental responsiveness approach indulgence and are coupled with inappropriately low levels of demandingness, offspring are likely to exhibit high levels of narcissism in young adulthood (Cramer, 2011). Young adults’ reports of parental overindulgence and several dimensions of narcissism are significantly and positively associated (Capron, 2004).

In addition to parental overindulgence, parental control has been argued to be a precursor to narcissism in later life. For example, Kohut (1977) suggested that narcissism develops as a result of parental enmeshment and overcontrol that results in a failure to provide an accurate reflection of the child’s accomplishments, an overprotectiveness that shields the child from experiencing optimal frustration, and an overinvolvement that fails to nurture an independent self. Consistent with this theorizing, parental authoritarianism, a practice that includes a strong control component, has been significantly associated with various dimensions of narcissism in young adults (Ramsey, Watson, Biderman, & Reeves, 1996). Being the recipient of psychologically controlling and intrusive parenting is also predictive of a grandiose form of narcissism in young adults, but not the vulnerable form of narcissism (Miller & Campbell, 2008). However, empirical support for the association between parental involvement or overprotectiveness and child narcissism has been inconsistent (Barry, Frick, Adler, & Grafeman, 2007; Capron, 2004). Regardless, there is compelling evidence to indicate that intrusive parenting is associated with a variety of interpersonal difficulties later in life (e.g., Andersson, Mullins, & Johnson, 1987) and there is reason to at least speculate that narcissism and associated traits such as entitlement may contribute to these difficulties.

Parental behaviors that are intrusive, constraining, possessive, and dominant, are not only likely to disrupt the development of a child’s self-system, but they are also likely to impact the child’s perceptions of self-in-relation-to-other. Although seemingly paradoxical, the dependency created through these types of parenting practices on the one hand undermines the development of self-competence, but on the other hand, has the potential to create unrealistic expectations and/or a sense of entitlement. Parenting that is laden with achievement pressure and control through rewards has been linked to young adults’ entitlement in academic and employment settings (Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, & Farruggia, 2008; Michigan State University, 2007). Based on these prior findings, the following hypothesis was tested:

Hypothesis 3: Elements of parental control (e.g., psychological control, authoritarian parenting, rigid family flexibility) will be associated with diminished self-efficacy and an increased sense of entitlement in young adults.

Open Parent-Child Communication

Open family communication has been linked repeatedly with effective family functioning and positive family outcomes (Olson & Gorall, 2003). Parents in families with more open and conversational styles of communication exhibit a greater understanding of their child’s self-concept (Sillars, Koerner, & Fitzpatrick, 2005). Open family communication has also been associated with young adults reporting lower levels of guilt and resentment toward their parents (Orrego & Rodriguez, 2001). We therefore predicted that the ordinarily harmful effects of overly controlling parental behavior on child identity outcomes (i.e., self-efficacy) would be lessened in the context of family environments marked by open parent-child communication. This is because open family communication fosters a sense of involvement and participation in family life that should enhance children’s sense of autonomy and self-direction.

Hypothesis 4: Open family communication was predicted to moderate the association between parental psychological control and child identity outcomes.

Method

Participants

Parent-child dyads were solicited to participate in the study through classroom recruitment at two universities located in the Western and Southwestern regions of the United States. Young adults were offered extra credit toward their course grade if they recruited a parent to participate with them. Young adults provided the parent’s name, email address, mailing address, and phone number to the research staff. A total of 362 young adults completed the questionnaire, and provided contact information for a parent. Parents were then contacted through the mail. A total of 339 parents completed and returned the questionnaire, for a parental response rate of 94%. The remaining 24 completed student questionnaires not accompanied by a parent questionnaire were not included in any further analyses.¹ Consequently, the final sample consisted of 339 parent-child dyads.

Of the 339 young adults, 130 were male and 209 were female, and were on average 19.93 years of age (SD = 1.70). The student sample was 75% White, 12% Hispanic, 4% Asian or Pacific Islander, 1% American Indian, 2% African American, and the remaining 6% reported their race/ethnicity as other or unknown. In terms of frequency of communication with the parent who was participating with them in the study (i.e., via phone, text messaging, email, face-to-face, etc.), 25% reported several times a day, 25% approximately once a day, 33% approximately once a week, 14% several times a month, 2% several times a month, and 1% approximately once a month.

Most of the parents (81%) were mothers.² Parents’ were on average 50.98 years of age (SD = 5.15). Virtually all of the parents (98%) were biologically related to the child participants, with the remaining 2% being either stepparents or adoptive parents. Nine percent of parents had some high school or had completed high school, 33% had some college or had completed a 2-year college, 34% had completed a 4-year college, and 23% reported having an advanced degree. When annual household income was roughly divided into thirds, 28% earned less than US$80,000, 38% earned between US$80,000 and US$160,000, and 31% earned more than US$160,000. The remaining 3% of participants did not report household income. A majority of parent participants (83%) indicated that their child had been raised by two biological parents, 9% by a single parent, 7% by a parent and a stepparent, and 1% by an adoptive parent. When asked to indicate number of offspring, 10% reported having one child, 43% had two children, 32% had three children, and 15% had four or more children.

Procedure

At the time of recruitment young adults were provided with a consent form and a questionnaire. Upon completion of the questionnaire, young adults were asked to provide contact information for a parent or guardian who would be willing to participate in the study with them. Parent participants were then sent a packet in the mail containing a cover letter with instructions, a consent form, a questionnaire, and a prepaid return envelope. There were two versions of the questionnaire, one for young adults and one for parents. The parent version assessed family adaptability, cohesion, communication, and satisfaction in addition to parent-adolescent communication and parenting style. The student version included all of the measures contained in the parent version, as well as psychological autonomy versus control, parental psychological control, self-efficacy, and psychological entitlement. Parent questionnaires were mailed out after the young adult child completed his or hers to ensure independent assessments. Both parent and student participants were instructed to respond to survey items in terms of how the statement related to the parent/child who was participating in the study with them.

Measures

Family adaptability and cohesion

Family adaptability and cohesion were assessed using the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales, Version IV (FACES IV). FACES IV (Olson, Gorall, & Tiesel, 2006) is a 42-item measure, composed of two dimensions, family cohesion and family adaptability (i.e., flexibility). Three subscales assess each dimension, and each of the subscales contains seven items. The three subscales used to assess cohesion are balanced cohesion (e.g., “Our family has a good balance of separateness and closeness.”), disengaged (e.g., “Family members seem to avoid contact with each other when at home.”), and enmeshed (e.g., “We spend too much time together.”). The three subscales used to assess adaptability are balanced flexibility (e.g., “Our family tries new ways of dealing with problems.”), rigid (e.g., “Our family has a rule for almost every possible situation.”), and chaotic (e.g., “Our family feels hectic and disorganized.”). Participants were asked to rate the degree to which they agreed with the statements using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), as was the case with all of the measures unless otherwise indicated. The reliability for balanced cohesion was α = .80 for young adults and α = .73 for parents. For balanced flexibility, the reliability was α = .65 for young adults and α = .61 for parents. For disengaged, the reliability was α = .71 for young adults and α = .70 for parents. For enmeshed, the reliability for young adults was α = .70 and α = .72 for parents. Due to low reliability for both young adults and parents on the rigid subscale, three of the items were dropped. The resulting reliability for rigid was α = .74 for both young adults and parents, and the reliability for chaotic was α = .78 for both young adults and parents. As recommended by Olson (2009), the cohesion dimension score was calculated by subtracting the disengaged score from the enmeshed score, dividing by 2, and adding the quotient to the balanced cohesion score. Likewise, the flexibility dimension score was calculated by subtracting the rigid score from the chaotic score, dividing by 2, and adding the quotient to the balanced flexibility score (Olson, 2009).

Family communication

Family communication was assessed using the Family Communication Scale (Olson & Barnes, 2006). The scale has 10 items, including “Family members discuss their ideas and beliefs with each other,” and “Family members try to understand each other’s feelings.” The reliability for this scale was α = .88 for young adults, and α = .89 for parents.

Family satisfaction

Family Satisfaction was assessed using the Family Satisfaction Scale (Olson & Wilson, 1982, 1989). The scale has 10 items, and asks participants to rate the degree to which they are satisfied with family interactions using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = very dissatisfied, 5 = extremely satisfied). Sample items include, “The quality of communication between family members,” and “The fairness of criticism in your family.” The reliability for this scale was α = .91 for young adults, and α = .92 for parents.

Open parent-child communication

Parent-child communication was assessed using the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale (Barnes & Olson, 1982). The scale is composed of two subscales, one that measures the degree of openness in family communication and one that assesses the extent of problems in family communication (reverse scored), each of which contains 10 items. The Open Family Communication subscale includes items such as, “It is very easy for me to express all of my true feelings to my (mother/father, child),” and “My (mother/father, child) is always a good listener.” The Problems in Family Communication subscale includes items such as, “My (mother/father, child) has a tendency to say things to me that would be better left unsaid,” and “When we are having a problem, I often give my (mother/father, child) the silent treatment.” There are two versions of the scale, the parent form and the adolescent form; the only difference between the two is the referent of each question. The reliability for the composite of both scales combined was α = .87 for young adults, and α = .80 for parents.

Parenting style

Parenting style was assessed using the Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri, 1991). The questionnaire was developed for the purpose of measuring Baumrind’s (1971) parental authority prototypes. It consists of 30 items, and yields permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative scores for the parent, based upon the child’s appraisal of the parent’s authority. Sample items include, “Whenever my mother/father told me to do something when I was growing up, s/he expected me to do it immediately without asking questions,” “As I was growing up, my mother/father seldom gave me expectations and guidelines for my behavior,” and “My mother/father has always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever I felt that family rules and restrictions were unreasonable.” For the purposes of this study, the PAQ was adapted to create a parent-version of the questionnaire, with the only difference between the two versions being the referent of each question. Reliabilities were calculated for each of the parenting prototypes. For young adults, the reliabilities were permissive parenting α = .74, authoritarian parenting α = .85, and authoritative parenting α = .80. For parents the reliabilities were permissive parenting α = .72, authoritarian parenting α = .80, and authoritative parenting α = .74.

Parental autonomy versus control

Parental autonomy versus control was assessed using the Psychological Autonomy versus Psychological Control (Schaefer, 1965b) scale. The 10-item scale assesses parental psychological control, including guilt induction, love withdrawal, and excessive pressure for change (Barber, 1996). Sample items include, “My mother/father is a person who tells me all of the things she has done for me,” and who “Will avoid looking at me when I have disappointed him/her.” Using a 5-point Likert-type scale, young adults were asked to rate the degree to which the statements were like/not like the parent participating with them in the study (1 = not at all like him/her, 5 = a lot like him/her). The reliability for this scale was α = .86.

Parental psychological control

Parental psychological control was assessed using the Psychological Control Scale-Youth Self-Report (Barber, 1996). The 16-item scale assesses parental psychological control in terms of invalidating feelings, constraining verbal expressions, personal attack, and love withdrawal (Barber, 1996). Five of the 16 items are also included in the Psychological Autonomy versus Psychological Control scale (Schaefer, 1965b), so they were omitted, and only the unique items were retained. Sample items include, “My mother/father is a person who finishes my sentences whenever I talk,” and who, “Acts like she/he knows what I’m thinking or feeling.” The rating system for this scale was the same as the Psychological Autonomy versus Psychological Control scale, and the reliability was α = .91.

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy was assessed using the Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982). The 22-item scale consists of two subscales: general self-efficacy (16 items) and social self-efficacy (6 items). Sample items of general self-efficacy include, “When I set important goals for myself, I rarely achieve them,” and “When I decide to do something, I go right to work on it.” Sample items of social self-efficacy include, “It’s difficult for me to make new friends,” and “I have acquired my friends through my personal abilities at making friends.” The reliability for the general self-efficacy subscale was α = .85, and for the social self-efficacy subscale α = .68.

Entitlement

Entitlement was assessed using the Psychological Entitlement Scale (Campbell et al., 2004). The scale has 9 items, including “I demand the best because I’m worth it,” and “People like me deserve an extra break now and then.” Participants were asked to rate the degree to which they agreed with the statements using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The reliability for this scale was α = .85.

Results

Prior to testing the study’s hypotheses, correlations were calculated between all of the variables. The results for parents and young adult children are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Intercorrelations Among Study Variables for Parents and Young Adult Children.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
Flexibility	—	.52**	.56**	−.14*	.05	.32**	.57**	.42**
Cohesion	.59**	—	.56**	−.18**	−.05	.37**	.61**	.47**
Family communication	.62**	.70**	—	−.11*	−.11	.38**	.81**	.58*
Permissive parenting	.03	−.04	.05	—	−.15**	−.09	−.05	−.07
Authoritarian parenting	−.12*	−.18**	−.24**	−.43**	—	−.18**	−.09	−.13*
Authoritative parenting	.52**	.50**	.55**	.06	−.30**	—	.36**	.38**
Family satisfaction	.59**	.67**	.79**	.03	−.20**	.51**	—	.59**
Parent-Adolescent Communication	.49**	.60**	.69**	.04	−.30**	.58**	.62**	—
Parental autonomy versus control	−.30**	−.38**	−.40**	−.07	.48**	−.43**	−.38**	−.60**	—
Parental psychological control	−.34**	−.38**	−.46**	.05	.37**	−.42**	−.43**	−.60**	.79**	—
General self-efficacy	.16**	.19**	.24**	−.14*	−.02	.25**	.29**	.27**	−.26**	−.27**	—
Social self-efficacy	.15**	.17**	.17**	−.06	.001	.16**	.20**	.22**	−.10	−.07	.41**	—
Entitlement	−.08	−.06	−.03	.14*	.07	−.07	−.05	−.10	.18**	.16**	−.07	.07	—

Note. Correlations for parents appear in the upper portion of the matrix, and for young adult children in the lower portion. N = 335 to 339.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Parent-child differences in perceptions of family

Because tests of the study’s predictions are based on data from both parent and child, it is useful to first understand the extent to which both members of the dyad share a similar appraisal of family of origin processes, and if not, what their relative biases might be. These were explored with paired t tests, the results of which appear in Table 2. As evident from Table 2, there were significant differences in the parent-child dyads for all variables except for flexibility and family satisfaction. Although their appraisals of flexibility were uncorrelated, r (336) = .10, ns, there were no significant differences in how parents and their children viewed the flexibility in their family, t (337) = −1.13, ns. Similarly, parents and children had identical means for ratings of family satisfaction, thus there was no significant difference, t (338) = −0.17, ns. However, parents rated the family’s cohesion and communication more highly than their children did. At the same time, parents reported using lower levels of permissive parenting and authoritarian parenting, and higher levels of authoritative parenting, relative to how their children rated the respective practices of their parents.

Table 2.

Differences in Child and Parent Reports of Family Environment Variables.

	Child report		Parent report
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	Correlation	Paired t
Flexibility	3.18	0.54	3.22	0.50	.10	−1.13
Cohesion	4.03	0.80	4.20	0.59	.53***	−4.41***
Family communication	3.83	0.66	3.98	0.57	.37***	−3.99***
Permissive parenting	2.50	0.56	2.11	0.55	.27***	10.52***
Authoritarian parenting	2.99	0.71	2.68	0.63	.25***	6.88***
Authoritative parenting	3.69	0.57	4.01	0.43	.18**	−9.10***
Family satisfaction	3.72	0.71	3.72	0.67	.37***	−0.17
Parent-adolescent communication	3.69	0.59	3.94	0.44	.46***	−8.40***

Note. df = 332 to 338.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The preponderance of significant parent-child correlations coupled with significant parent-child differences as indicated by the paired t tests suggests on the one hand that in a relative sense, parents and their children exhibit some degree of agreement in perceptions of their family environment and parenting practices (e.g., a very cohesive family would receive high scores from both parent and child). However, at the same time, there appear to be perceptual biases that are systematic, as a function of role in the dyad (parent vs. child) that impact these appraisals (e.g., parents exaggerate their family’s cohesion or children minimize their family’s cohesion).

Family environment, parenting styles, and family satisfaction

The role of family environment variables (i.e., family flexibility, cohesion, and communication) and parenting styles (i.e., permissive, authoritative, authoritarian) in predicting family satisfaction was evaluated with a series of actor-partner interdependence models (APIM) as described by Kenny, Kashy, and Cook (2006). These analyses treat the dyad as the unit of analysis. For each analysis, both the parent’s and the child’s reports of family environment or the parent’s parenting style were entered into the model as independent variables. Reports of family satisfaction were the dependent variables. The independent variables for the parent and child as well as the family satisfaction error terms were correlated, as recommended by Cook and Kenny (2005). The APIM estimates regression coefficients for family members’ perceptions of family environment and parenting practices in predicting their own and their parent’s or child’s family satisfaction, while simultaneously controlling for potential interdependence on the independent variables. One model was calculated for each of the family environment and parenting style variables. Significance testing was based on unstandardized regression coefficients but for ease of interpretation standardized regression coefficients are presented. For each structural model, the parent actor effect (e.g., parent cohesion → parent family satisfaction) was constrained equal to the corresponding child actor effect, and the parent partner effect (e.g., parent cohesion → child family satisfaction) was constrained equal to the corresponding child partner effect. If releasing the constraint significantly improved the model fit, then coefficients from the unconstrained model were reported, and this signifies that the parent and child actor effects and parent and child partner effects were not equal in magnitude. Results of these analyses appear in Table 3.

Table 3.

Actor Partner Interdependence Analyses of Parent and Child Reports of Family Environment and Parenting Styles and Their Associations With Family Satisfaction.

Interdependence	Actor effects	Partner effects
Independent variable	Parent↔child (r)	Parent→parent	Child→child	Parent→child	Child→parent
Family environment:
Flexibility	.10	.19***	.20***	.09*	.08*
Cohesion	.41***	.42***	.47***	.07*	.08*
Family communication	.37***	.78***	.79***	.03	.04
Parenting Styles:
Permissive parenting	.27***	.00	.00	−.04	−.04
Authoritative parenting	.18**	.37***	.47***	.07**	.10**
Authoritarian parenting	.25***	−.14***	−.15***	−.01	−.01

Note. Table values are standardized regression coefficients, unless otherwise indicated. The dependent variable in all analyses was family satisfaction. Parent paths were constrained equal to child paths in all cases and model fit was not significantly improved by releasing the constraints for any of the models.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The results of the APIMs in Table 3 indicate significant actor effects for all three family environment variables. The more balanced the family flexibility, cohesion, and communication, the higher the family member’s (be it parent or child) satisfaction with the family. However, of these three family environment variables, there were significant partner effects only for family flexibility and family cohesion. The more the parent rated the family’s flexibility as balanced, the higher the child’s reported family satisfaction (β = .09, p < .05), and vice versa (β = .08, p < .05). Similarly, the more the parent rated the family’s cohesion as balanced, the higher the child’s reported family satisfaction (β = .07, p < .05), and vice versa (β = .08, p < .05). However, parents’ reports of family communication were unrelated to their children’s reports of family satisfaction, and children’s reports of family communication were unrelated to their parents’ family satisfaction. Incidentally, the unconstrained model did not provide a significantly better fit than the constrained model and therefore it can be concluded that one dyad member’s actor and partner effects did not differ significantly from the other member’s.

Perhaps the most striking result for parenting styles was the complete lack of actor or partner effects for parental permissiveness. The permissive parenting style was unrelated to the parent or the child’s family satisfaction, regardless of whose report was considered as the predictor. However, there were significant actor effects for authoritative and authoritarian parenting. Dyad members’ reports of higher authoritative parenting and lower authoritarian parenting were predictive of higher levels of their own family satisfaction. Significant partner effects for authoritative parenting showed that parents’ reports of authoritative parenting were also associated with higher family satisfaction as reported by their child (β = .07, p < .01). Also, children’s reports of authoritative parenting were associated with their parents’ reports of greater family satisfaction (β = .10, p < .01). Finally, there were no significant partner effects for authoritarian parenting.

Parental control and child psychological outcomes

It was predicted that overly controlling parental behavior would be associated with a greater sense of entitlement and lower self-efficacy in children. The first step in testing this prediction was the creation of a latent parental control variable. There were multiple assessments of variables that indicate parental control and these were tested in a measurement model that initially included measures of parental psychological control, parental autonomy versus control, authoritarian parenting (parent and child report), and family flexibility (parent and child report). A test of this initial measurement model indicated that its fit could be improved substantially by dropping the parent report of authoritarian parenting and by specifying a correlation between parental psychological control and parental autonomy versus control measures. Because both of these measures came from the child and indexed very similar phenomena, this specification appeared justifiable. The resultant model had an excellent fit to the sample data, χ² = 1.99, df = 4, p = 0.74, χ²/df = 0.50, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .000. For the latent parental control variable, family flexibility was rescaled such that high scores implied lower family flexibility (i.e., rigidity). This was done so that all indicators of parental psychological control were scaled in the same direction.

The hypothesis was tested in a structural model in which parental control was treated as a latent variable indicated by the following measures: parental psychological control, parental autonomy versus control, authoritarian parenting (child report), and family flexibility (parent and child report). Psychological entitlement, general self-efficacy, and social self-efficacy were each treated as observed variables. Results of these analyses appear in Figure 1. This model had an acceptable fit to the sample data, χ² = 51.10, df = 18, p < .001, χ²/df = 2.84, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .07. As predicted, higher parental control was associated with significantly higher psychological entitlement in the adult child, β = .18, p < .01. Higher parental control was also associated with significantly lower adult child general self-efficacy, β = −.20, p < .01, but not social self-efficacy, β = −.06, ns.

Figure 1.

Structural model of parental control and child psychological outcomes.

Parent-child communication as a moderator of the effects of parental control

Finally, the deleterious effects of parental control on adult children’s self-efficacy were predicted to be moderated by open parent-child communication. Specifically, the association between parental control and adult child self-efficacy was predicted to be weaker to the extent that there was open parent-child communication. Stated differently, open parent-child communication was expected to lessen the ill effects of parental control. This prediction was tested with a series of multiple regression analyses that were set up following procedures outlined by Aiken and West (1991). For each analysis the independent and moderator variables were both centered such that their mean was 0. These two centered variables were multiplied to create the interaction term. The centered main effects were entered in the first step of a hierarchical multiple regression analysis, followed by the interaction term in the second step. The interaction between open parent-child communication, as measured by the child report of Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale, and each of the five parental variables (i.e., parental psychological control, parental autonomy vs. control, authoritarian parenting, family flexibility-parent and child report) was assessed for both general self-efficacy and social self-efficacy as dependent variables. Results of these analyses appear in Table 4.

Table 4.

Parent-Adolescent Communication as a Moderator of the Association Between Overinvolved Parenting and Adult Child Self-Efficacy.

Predictor x
		Parent-adolescent communication		Post hoc analysis of slopes @
Dependent variable	Predictor variable	Interaction	(R²)	−1SD	M	+1SD
General self-efficacy	Parental psychological. control	−.64***	.03***	−.20	−.58***	−.96***
	Parental autonomy versus control	−.58**	.03**	−.10	−.44**	−.78***
	Authoritarian parenting	−.34
	Family flexibility (c)	.57*	.01*	−.65**	−.31	.02
	Family flexibility (p)	−.07
Social self-efficacy	Parental psychological. control	−.26**	.03**	.16*	.01	−.15
	Parental autonomy versus control	−.22**	.02**	.13(p=.07)	.00	−.13
	Authoritarian parenting	−.17 (p = .06)	.01	.19*	.08	−.01
	Family flexibility (c)	−.28*	.02*	−.30**	−.14(p = .07)	.03
	Family flexibility (p)	.00

Note. Table values are unstandardized regression coefficients unless otherwise noted.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

As the results in Table 4 indicate, for general self-efficacy there were significant interactions between open parent-child communication and the following parental control variables: parental psychological control, parental autonomy versus control, and family flexibility-child report. These three statistically significant interactions were deconstructed following procedures described by Aiken and West (1991) whereby the slope representing the relationship between the independent and dependent variables was calculated at three different values of the moderator, specifically −1SD, the mean, and +1SD. These post hoc analyses revealed a consistent pattern of unpredicted findings. Instead of minimizing the ill effects of parental control on adult child self-efficacy, open parent-child communication intensified these effects. Consider for example the unstandardized regression coefficients at −1SD, M, and +1SD of open parent-child communication when parental control is the independent variable: b = −.20, −.58, and −.96, respectively. This indicated that the association between parental control and adult child self-efficacy becomes stronger and more negative at higher, not lower, values of open parent-child communication. The respective coefficients for parental autonomy versus. control, b = −.10, −.44, and −.78, reveal the exact same pattern. For family flexibility the coefficients of b = −.65, −.31, and .02 at −1SD, M, and +1SD of open parent-child communication indicate that family flexibility was most negatively associated with adult child self-efficacy when open parent-child communication was lowest. In contrast, at a high (+1SD) level of open parent-child communication, family flexibility was unrelated to adult child self-efficacy (b = .02, ns).

The results for adult child social self-efficacy mirror those for general self-efficacy, in that the best outcomes associated with parental control occur when open parent-child communication is at low levels. Post hoc analysis of regression slopes indicate that low levels of open parent-child communication are associated with the best adult child outcomes when considering parental psychological control, psychological autonomy versus control, and authoritarian parenting as predictors of adult child social self-efficacy. In contrast, the association between parental control tactics and adult child social self-efficacy was most negative at the highest levels of open parent-child communication. When adult child social self-efficacy is the dependent variable, findings once again show that the association between family flexibility and social self-efficacy is most negative when open parent-child communication is low (b = −.30, p < .01) but at high levels of open parent-child communication this association is not significantly different from 0 (b = .03, ns).

Discussion

This investigation tested the prediction that indicators of parental overinvolvement and control would be negatively associated with family satisfaction for both parents and young adult children. The results supported this prediction, but that support was largely limited to actor effects and not partner effects. A secondary aim was to test the prediction that family environments and parenting styles that are indicative of parental control would be associated with negative aspects of young adults’ identity, namely diminished self-efficacy and heightened entitlement. Results were generally supportive of this prediction. Finally, this study produced an unexpected set of findings showing that open family communication intensifies the relationships between parental control and young adults’ diminished self-efficacy.

The preliminary tests of parent-child differences in perceptions of family processes revealed several interesting patterns. In general, parent and child perceptions of family processes were significantly correlated, but at the same time significantly different. There are several possible phenomena that could explain this pattern. First, it is possible that parents and their children simply use the response scales differently. Simply put, “very flexible” to a parent might imply a different numerical rating than “very flexible” to a young adult child. If parents and their adult children had different standards of rating, this could explain why they were simultaneously significantly correlated and significantly different from each other. A second possibility is that parents might be more motivated than their children to present the child’s family of origin in a socially desirable way. Although scientists routinely recognize mutual influence processes in families (Broderick, 1993; Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007), it is still the case that parents might be more inclined to see themselves as the architects and engineers of the family environment whereas children might be inclined to see themselves more as passive recipients of that environment. Were this to be the case, parents might then be more sensitive to social desirability biases. From the perspective of a parent, qualities such as cohesion, family communication, and authoritative parenting could be viewed as highly desirable and therefore susceptible to perceptual and self-evaluative biases that help to preserve psychological well-being (e.g., Alicke, 1985; Taylor & Brown, 1988). The pattern of findings is generally consistent with this effect. For example, in terms of family environment, parents reported significantly higher levels of cohesion and effective communication than their children did. In terms of parenting styles, parents rated their own use of authoritative parenting (the most functional style) significantly higher than their children rated them. Also, parents reported engaging in authoritarian and permissive parenting to a significantly lesser extent than their children reported. Relative to their children, parents are consistently presenting a more positive view of their enactment of the various parenting styles.

The results of dyadic analyses of family environment variables and family satisfaction are consistent with theoretical models positing that flexibility, cohesion, and communication are all associated with family satisfaction (Olson & Gorall, 2003). The consistent and significant actor effects show that parents’ ratings of these family processes are predictive of their own satisfaction. The same is true of children’s reports and children’s satisfaction with the family. However, the partner effects were considerably weaker in magnitude and not always statistically significant. Specifically, one dyad member’s reports of family communication were unrelated to the other dyad member’s family satisfaction. Findings such as these question the extent to which these family processes are shared experiences for all family members. They also qualify some of the commonly accepted findings in the literature on family communication and satisfaction. These associations might be most evident when examining the perceptions of a single individual within the family. However, there were significant partner effects for family flexibility and family cohesion. The higher (i.e., more balanced) the flexibility or cohesion reported by one dyad member, the higher the other’s satisfaction with the family environment, although once again these effects were small in magnitude.

Results for parenting styles clearly showed the benefits of authoritative parenting with significant actor and partner effects, which are consistent with much of the existing literature (e.g., Baumrind, 1991; McClun & Merrell, 1998), although dyadic analyses of these associations are rare in the literature. Greater enactment of authoritative parenting was associated with both parent and child satisfaction with the family. In contrast, authoritarian parenting had significant and negative actor effects. Dyads that reported high levels of authoritarian parenting also reported lower levels of satisfaction with the family. However, this effect was not evident when one dyad member’s report of authoritarian parenting was used to predict the other’s satisfaction. Finally, permissive parenting was entirely unrelated to family satisfaction as reported by either parent or child.

Permissive parenting is generally regarded as a dysfunctional parenting style that is not associated with positive child outcomes (Baumrind, 1991). Nevertheless, permissive parenting could be the expression of a diverse range of social psychological processes. For example, some permissive parents may harbor high levels of positive regard for their children and mistakenly feel that this parenting practice will be most pleasing to their child. At the other extreme are permissive parents who may not have as much positive affect for their child, but who enact this style as a laissez-faire approach to parenting in which the child is allowed to do as she or he pleases. Observant young adults might take very different views of the different family environments that are marked by parental permissiveness, and these could potentially explain the lack of association with family satisfaction.

We predicted that parental control would be positively associated with the child’s psychological entitlement. The results of a structural equation model with parental control treated as a latent variable indicated by a number of related family processes confirmed this hypothesis. Parental control was positively associated with child psychological entitlement, but this association was small in magnitude. This finding is consistent with a related study in the literature showing that parental control is positively associated with a grandiose form of narcissism (Miller & Campbell, 2008), a construct closely related to entitlement. It is also consistent with findings linking parental authoritarianism, a parenting practice high in control, with child narcissism. However, at the same time, parental control was significantly and negatively associated with the child’s general sense of self-efficacy.

At first it may appear unusual that the same parenting process that predicts psychological entitlement in the child also predicts lower self-efficacy. One potential explanation for this pattern lies in a type of parental control whereby the parent is excessively involved in the child’s life, is overly responsive to the child’s needs, demonstrates unbridled affection for the child, and is preoccupied with the child’s success and happiness. This type of parental control is distinct from parental psychological control, which is nonresponsive to the child’s needs and involves manipulation of the child’s emotions and constraint of the child’s expressions. Parental overinvolvement, on the other hand, promotes extreme intimacy through frequency of contact and provision of goods and services (i.e., rewards). It also includes a heavy dose of advice giving and other directive behaviors that intrude upon the young adult child’s ability to become self-sufficient. As benevolently intended as these parents may be, their desire to protect their child from negative outcomes while simultaneously providing for all of the child’s needs, may lead to an expectation of privilege in their children. Parents that continually and excessively impose their will on their children, so long as it entails doing things and providing things for the child, could easily raise children with a strong sense of entitlement. However, this same parenting practice would diminish the child’s self-efficacy as they grow used to having someone else provide for them at the exclusion of their own efforts. That style of controlling and intrusive parenting, well-intentioned though it may be, effectively forecloses opportunities for children to try to acquire things and meet their needs through their own efforts. This corrupts the foundational process in acquisition of self-efficacy (i.e., trying successfully to solve problems, achieve goals, meet needs, etc. on one’s own), and disrupts differentiation and individuation (Bartle et al., 1989; Gavazzi & Sabatelli, 1990).

Parental control to the point of intrusiveness constitutes parental overinvolvement. Overparenting is defined in a matter of degrees, and the emergent adult no longer needs this level of parental directive, but the overzealous parent, who often wants the best for his/her child, may enact these behaviors due to enmeshment and projection of his or her own ideals on the child (Munich & Munich, 2009). As predicted, young adult children exposed to such parenting practices not only have diminished general self-efficacy, but they also report a greater sense of entitlement, again perhaps due to a learning history replete with parentally orchestrated outcomes. The association between overparenting and entitlement is consistent with related research on parental control and narcissism, but the parallel association with diminished self-efficacy has less precedent in past research. The evidence for a negative association between parental overcontrol and offspring self-efficacy has largely been isolated to studies of younger children who are still residing with their parents (e.g., Ngai & Cheung, 2009). Results of the present study show that this association, albeit small in magnitude, is evident even into young adulthood, and when parental overcontrol is assessed with both child and parent reports.

We originally predicted that open parent-child communication would moderate the relationship between parental control tactics and child self-identity outcomes by decreasing the negative impact on adult children’s self-efficacy. Although there were a number of statistically significant interactions between open parent-child communication and parental psychological control tactics, most post hoc analyses revealed that the pattern was in the opposite direction as predicted. That is, open parent-child communication appeared to amplify, not minimize, the deleterious effects of parental control tactics. This finding is new to the literature. Although unexpected, there are at least two processes that might explain this pattern of findings. First, a high score on the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale indicates that the child feels that he or she has an open line of communication with the parent, free of difficulties and problems. Consider for example the following two items from the scale: “Sometimes I have trouble believing everything my mother/father tells me” (reverse scored) and “When I ask questions, I get honest answers from my mother/father.” High scores indicate that the child is accepting of the parent’s discourse, and has perhaps bought into the family environment created by that parent. It would stand to reason that a child who is generally accepting and not critical of parental control tactics would not go on to develop a strong sense of self-efficacy because the child is accustomed to being directed by an authority figure who does not honor his or her autonomy. Second, high scores on the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale might represent a heavy application of control tactics by parents who are so inclined. In other words, participants who provided high scores in response to items such as “My mother/father can tell how I am feeling with out asking” and “I openly show my affection to my mother/father” might be more enmeshed with the parent, and when this is coupled with parental predilections toward control, the child is not as likely to develop a great deal of self-efficacy. A corollary implication of this process would be that when the parent has a tendency to wield heavy handed and dysfunctional control tactics, the child fares best to the extent that he or she maintains some distance from the parent and actually keeps parent-child communication to lower levels.

There are several limitations to this study that must be considered when interpreting the results. First, the parent-young adult child dyads that participated in this study did not constitute a random sample. Participants were university students and their parents (mostly mothers), resulting in a mostly white, well-educated, affluent sample, skewed toward a middle or upper socioeconomic status. Although the sample used in this study may limit the generalizability of the research, it is important to note that parental overinvolvement is a phenomenon that is heavily concentrated among professional middle- and upper-class parents (Nelson, 2010). In other words, it is not equally prevalent across the population, and the observed associations in this study were likely enhanced by obtaining a middle- to upper-class sample of families. Second, the data are cross-sectional, and although we have presented our discussion of the results in a way that attempts to provide a conceptual understanding of the relationship between variables, we caution readers not to infer causality, as it is not possible to determine the direction of the relationship between variables. It is equally plausible that some children elicit overparenting behaviors, as opposed to the other way around. For example, children who lack self-efficacy but have a high sense of entitlement might elicit an overparenting response. A child’s inability to achieve goals independently combined with attitudes of entitlement may engender in parents a tendency toward enmeshment, rigidity, and psychological control tactics. A longitudinal study of the ways in which self-efficacy and entitlement change as a function of parenting (or vice versa) could address this possibility. Third, the self-report nature of the investigation is itself a limitation in that participants may have been motivated by social desirability, and thus the need to give socially appropriate responses. Finally, the effect sizes reported in this study range from small to moderate. Although the variables examined in this study explain some of the variance in family satisfaction and identity outcomes for young adults, they do not explain all of the variance. Examination of other variables will be necessary to provide a more complete picture of the processes and outcomes associated with overparenting, suggesting an avenue for future research.

In conclusion, this investigation shows that both parents and young adult children are most satisfied with family environments marked by balanced flexibility and cohesion, and higher levels of positive communication. Both parents and young adult children were most satisfied when parenting was authoritative. In contrast, authoritarian parenting was associated with lower family satisfaction for both parent and child. High levels of parental control were associated with lower general self-efficacy and higher psychological entitlement in young adult children. Ironically, the same family dynamics that engender a sense of entitlement in young adult children are simultaneously associated with their lower satisfaction with the family. These findings add to the literature on the circumplex model and parenting styles by showing how parent child interactions that put excessive emphasis on controlling child outcomes actually have deleterious effects on young adults’ self-identity, and how open parent-child communication might exacerbate, not minimize, these psychological outcomes in the young adult.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Michelle Givertz is an assistant professor in the Communication Arts and Sciences Department at California State University, Chico. Her research focuses on communication in close relationships.

Chris Segrin is a professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Arizona. His research focuses on interpersonal relationships and mental health problems as well as family communication.

References

Aiken

L.S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Alicke

M. D.

(1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1621-1630. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.6.1621

Amato

P. R.

Booth

(1997). A generation at risk: Growing up in an era of family upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ansdersson

Mullins

L. C.

Johnson

D. P.

(1987). Parental intrusion versus social isolation: A dichotomous view of the sources of loneliness. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 2, 125-134.

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Barber

B. K.

(1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296-3319. doi:10.2307/1131780

Barber

B. K.

Harmon

E. L.

(2002). Violating the self: Parental psychological control of children and adolescents. In Barber

B. K.

(Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents (pp. 15-52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10422-022

Barber

B. K.

Olsen

J. E.

Shagel

S. C.

(1994). Associations between parental psychological and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized behaviors. Child Development, 65, 1120-1136. doi:10.2307/1131309

Barnes

H. L.

Olson

D. H.

(1982). Parent-adolescent communication scale. In Olson

D.H.

. (Eds.), Family inventories: Inventories used in a national survey of families across the family life cycle (pp. 33-48). St. Paul, MN: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.

10.

Barnes

H. L.

Olson

D. H.

(1985). Parent-adolescent communication and the circumplex model. Child Development, 56, 438-447. doi:10.2307/1129732

11.

Barry

C. T.

Frick

P. J.

Adler

K. K.

Grafeman

S. J.

(2007). The predictive utility of narcissism among children and adolescents: Evidence for a distinction between adaptive and maladaptive narcissism. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 508-521. doi:10.1007/s10826-006-9102-5

12.

Bartle

S. E.

Anderson

S. A.

Sabatelli

R. M.

(1989). A model of parenting style, adolescent individuation and adolescent self-esteem: Preliminary findings. Journal of Adolescent Research, 4, 283-298. doi:10.1177/074355488943003

13.

Baumrind

(1966). Effects of authoritative parental psychological control on child behavior. Child Development, 37, 887-907. doi:10.2307/1126611

14.

Baumrind

(1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4, 1-103. doi:10.1037/h0030372

15.

Baumrind

(1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth and Society, 9, 239-275.

16.

Baumrind

(1989). Rearing competent children. In Damon

(Ed.), Child development today and tomorrow (pp. 349-378). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

17.

Baumrind

(1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95. doi:10.1177/0272431691111004

18.

Beavers

W. B.

Hampson

R. B.

(1990). Successful families: Assessments and intervention. New York, NY: Norton.

19.

Benjamin

L. S.

(1996). Interpersonal diagnosis and treatment of personality disorders (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

20.

Bosson

J. K.

Prewitt-Freilino

J. L.

(2007). Overvalued and ashamed: Considering the roles of self-esteem and self-conscious emotions in covert narcissism. In Tracy

J. L.

Robins

R. W.

Tangney

J. P.

(Eds.), The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research (pp. 407-425). New York, NY: Guilford.

21.

Broderick

C.B.

(1993). Understanding family processes: Basics of family systems theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

22.

Buri

J. R.

(1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of personality Assessment, 57, 110-119. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5701_13

23.

Campbell

W. K.

Bonacci

A. M.

Shelton

Exline

J. J.

Bushman

B. J.

(2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 29-45. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8301_04

24.

Capron

E. W.

(2004). Types of pampering and the narcissistic personality trait. Journal of Individual Psychology, 60, 73-93.

25.

Cook

W. L.

Kenny

D. A.

(2005). The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model: A model of bi directional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101-109. doi:10.1080/01650250444000405

26.

Cramer

(2011). Young adult narcissism: A 20-year longitudinal study of the contribution of parenting styles, preschool precursors of narcissism, and denial. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 19-28. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.004

27.

Dominguez

M. M.

Carton

J. S.

(1997). The relationship between self-actualization and parenting style. Journal of Social Behavior and personality, 12, 1093-1100.

28.

Emmons

R. A.

(1984). Factor analysis and construct validation of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 291-300. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_11

29.

Emmons

R. A.

(1987). Nacissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 11-17. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.11

30.

Fitzpatrick

M. A.

(1984). A typological to marital interaction: Recent theory and research. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 1-47). New York, NY: Academic Press.

31.

Gavazzi

S. M.

Sabatelli

R. M.

(1990). Family system dynamics, the individuation process, and psychosocial development. Journal of Adolescent Research, 5, 500-519. doi:10.1177/074355489054008

32.

Gottman

J. M.

(1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

33.

Greenberger

Lessard

Chen

Farruggia

S. P.

(2008). Self-entitled college young adults: Contributions of personality, parenting, and motivational factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 1193-1204. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9284-9

34.

Horton

R. S.

Bleau

Drwecki

(2006). Parenting narcissus: What are the links between parenting and narcissism? Journal of Personality, 74, 345-376. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00378.x

35.

Kantor

Lehr

(1975). Inside the family. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

36.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.

37.

Kohut

(1977). The restoration of the self. New York, NY: International Universities Press.

38.

Kohut

(1984). How does analysis cure? Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

39.

Kouneski

(2001). Circumplex model and FACES: Review of literature. Retrieved from http://www.lifeinnovations.com/familyinventoriesdatabase.html

40.

LeMoyne

Buchanan

(2011). Does “hovering” matter? Helicopter parenting and its effects on well-being. Sociological Spectrum, 31, 399-418. doi:10.1080/02732173.2011.574038

41.

Maccoby

E. E.

Martin

(1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In Hetherington

E. M.

(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4: Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 1-101). New York, NY: Wiley.

42.

McClun

L. A.

Merrell

K. W.

(1998). Relationship of perceived parenting styles, locus of control orientation, and self-concept among junior high young adults. Psychology in the Schools, 35, 381-390. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(199810)35:4,381::AID-PITS9>3.0.CO;2-S

43.

Michigan State University (2007). Parent involvement in the college recruiting process: To what extent? Retrieved from http://ceri.msu.edu/publications/pdf/ceri2-07.pdf

44.

Miller

J. D.

Campbell

W. K.

(2008). Comparing clinical and social-personality conceptualizations of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 76, 449-476. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00492.x

45.

Miller

J. D.

Hoffman

B. J.

Gaughan

E. T.

Gentile

Maples

Campbell

W. K.

(2011). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: A nomological network analysis. Journal of Personality, 79, 1013-1042. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00711.x

46.

Millon

(1981). Disorders of personality. New York, NY: Wiley.

47.

Morris

A. S.

Silk

J. S.

Steinberg

Myers

S. S.

Robinson

L. R.

(2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16, 361-388. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x

48.

Munich

R. L.

Munich

M. A.

(2009). Overparenting and the narcissistic pursuit of attachment. Psychiatric Annals, 39, 227-235. doi:10.3928/00485713-20090401-04

49.

Nelson

M. K.

(2010). Parenting out of control: Anxious parenting in uncertain times. New York: New York University Press.

50.

Ngai

S. S.

Cheung

C. K.

(2009). The effects of parental care and parental control in the internal assets of adolescent children in Hong Kong. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 15, 235-255.

51.

Olson

D. H.

(1986). Circumplex model VII: Validation studies and FACES III. Family Process, 25, 337-351. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1986.00337.x

52.

Olson

D. H.

(2000). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 144-167. doi:10.1111/1467-6427.00144

53.

Olson

D. H.

(2009). FACES IV package: Administration manual. Minneapolis, MN: Life Innovations.

54.

Olson

D. H.

Barnes

H. L.

(2006). Family Communication Scale. In Olson

D. H.

Gorall

D. M.

Tiesel

J. W.

(Eds.), FACES IV Manual (p. 7). Minneapolis, MN: Life Innovations.

55.

Olson

D. H.

Gorall

D. M.

(2003). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. In Walsh

(Ed.), Normal family processes (3rd ed., pp. 514-547). New York, NY: Guillford. doi:10.4324/9780203428436_chapter_19

56.

Olson

D. H.

Gorall

D. M.

Tiesel

J. W.

(2006) FACES IV Manual. Minneapolis, MN: Life Innovations.

57.

Olson

D. H.

Russell

C. S.

Sprenkle

D. H.

(1989). Circumplex model: Systematic assessment and treatment of families. New York, NY: Haworth Press.

58.

Olson

D. H.

Wilson

(1982, 1989). Family satisfaction. In Olson

D. H.

McCubbin

H. I.

(Eds.), Family inventories (p. 7). St. Paul, MN: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.

59.

Orrego

V. O.

Rodriguez

(2001). Family communication patterns and college adjustment: The effects of communication and conflictual independence on college young adults. Journal of Family Communication, 1, 175-189. doi:10.1207/S15327698JFCO103_02

60.

Otway

L. J.

Vignoles

V. L.

(2006). Narcissism and childhood recollections: A quantitative test of psychoanalytic predictions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 104-116. doi:10.1177/0146167205279907

61.

Parke

R. D.

Buriel

(1998) Socialization in the family: Ethnic and ecological perspectives. In Eisenberg

(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 463-552). New York, NY: Wiley.

62.

Ramsey

Watson

P. J.

Biderman

M. D.

Reeves

A. L.

(1996). Self-reported narcissism and perceived parental permissiveness and authoritarianism. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 157, 227-238. doi:10.1080/00221325.1996.9914860

63.

Schaefer

E. S.

(1965a). Children’s reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development, 36, 413-424. doi:10.2307/1126465

64.

Schaefer

E. S.

(1965b). A configurational analysis of children’s reports of parents’ behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29, 552-557. doi:10.1037/h0022702

65.

Segrin

Woszidlo

Givertz

Bauer

Murphy

(2012). The association between overparenting, parent-child communication, and entitlement and adaptive traits in adult children. Family Relations, 61, 237-252. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00689.x

66.

Sherer

Maddux

J. E.

Mercadante

Prentice-Dunn

Jacobs

Rogers

R. W.

(1982). The Self-efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663-671. doi:10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663

67.

Sillars

Koerner

Fitzpatrick

M. A.

(2005). Communication and understanding in parent-adolescent relationships. Human Communication Research, 31, 107-128.

68.

Steinberg

(1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship. In Feldman

S. S.

Elliot

G. R.

(Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 255-276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

69.

Steinberg

Lamborn

S. D.

Darling

Mounts

N. S.

Dornbusch

S. M.

(1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754-770. doi:10.2307/1131416

70.

Steinberg

Siverberg

S. B.

(1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence. Child Development, 57, 841-851. doi:10.2307/1130361

71.

Taylor

S. E.

Brown

J. D.

(1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193

72.

Trumpeter

N. N.

Watson

P. J.

O’Leary

B. J.

Weathington

B. L.

(2008). Self-functioning and perceived parenting: Relations of parental empathy and love inconsistency with narcissism, depression, and self-esteem. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 169(1), 51-71. doi:10.3200/GNTP.169.1.51-71

73.

Watson

P. J.

Little

Biderman

M. D.

(1992). Narcissism and parenting styles. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 9, 231-244. doi:10.1037/h0079344