1 / 44

Relationships Between Parental Psychological Control, Rejection Sensitivity and Prosocial/Aggressive Behaviors in Younge

Relationships Between Parental Psychological Control, Rejection Sensitivity and Prosocial/Aggressive Behaviors in Younger Adolescents. Yasemin Abayhan, Deniz Sahin, Orhan Aydın, Gonca Ciffiliz, Hayal Yavuz, Savas Ceylan, Alp Giray Kaya. Literature Review.

nhi
Download Presentation

Relationships Between Parental Psychological Control, Rejection Sensitivity and Prosocial/Aggressive Behaviors in Younge

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Relationships BetweenParental Psychological Control, Rejection Sensitivity and Prosocial/Aggressive Behaviors in Younger Adolescents Yasemin Abayhan, Deniz Sahin, Orhan Aydın, Gonca Ciffiliz, Hayal Yavuz, Savas Ceylan, Alp Giray Kaya

  2. Literature Review • Recentresearchsuggeststhatsomeparentingbehaviorssuch as supportandcontrolarerelatedtoadolescent’spositiveandnegativedevelopmentaloutcomes (Been, BarberandCrane, 2006; KerrandStatin, 2000). • Parentalsupportincludesparentalbehaviorsrepresenting a well-establishedpositivedimension of parenting. • Parentalcontrolling can be conceptualized as coveringbothnegativeandpositiveparentingdimensions.

  3. Literature Review • Types of parent’scontrolattemptssuch as tocontrolthechild’sbehaviorversustocontrolthechild’s self mighthavepositiveandnegativeconsequences. Barber (1996) argues: • “Parentalcontrol” has to be separatedbytwocontroltypessuch as • “PsychologicalControl” and“BehavioralControl”

  4. Literature Review BehavioralControl • Parentalbehaviors of monitoringandregulatingadolescents’ behavior. • Providingstructure on theirfunctioning (Steiner, 2005).

  5. LiteratureReview PsychologicalControl • Intrusiveparentalpracticestotheadolescents’ autonomy. • Manipulatingtheirpsychologicalandemotionalworlds. • Utilizingemotionalstrategiestocontroladolescents’ behaviors. • Hinderingtheir self expressions. • Parentscontroltheadolescent’sinnerstate (Steiner, 2005).

  6. Literature Review • Parents’ use of psychologicalcontrolaremoststronglyrelatedtonegativedevelopmentaloutcomessuch as; • Low self-esteem • Low self-confidence • Lowacademicachievement • Identitydevelopment (BarberandBuehler, 1996; BarberandHarmon, 2002).

  7. LiteratureReview • As Steinberg (1990) stated, healthyadolescentdevelopment is associatedwithhigherlevelsof behavioralcontrolbut lowerlevels of pscyhologicalcontrol. • Inpscyhologicalcontrolparentsareusingemotionalstrategies in ordertocontroladolescents’ behaviors. • Therefore, they can inductthefeeling of guiltorthey can ignoreand minimize thewarmthandcompassionbehaviorswhich can be associatedwiththeterm of “rejectionsensitivity”.

  8. LiteratureReview What is RejectionSensitivity? • People have a tendency to avoid rejection in daily life. • Some people interpret the ambiguous negative cues as a rejection and start anxiously expect rejection and overreact to rejection (Downey et al, 2004; Romero-Canyas & Downey, 2005; Pietrzak, Downey & Ayduk, 2005).

  9. LiteratureReview • RejectionSensitivity—> “cognitive-affective processing dynamic or disposition to anxiously expect, readily perceive and react in an exaggerated manner to cues of rejection in the behavior of others” (Downey & Feldman, 1996). • Expectations of rejection facilitate subjective perceptions of rejection, which cause behaviors that evoke objective rejections, reinforcing expectations of rejection.

  10. LiteratureReview • RS stems from early experiences of both parental and peer rejection (Downey & Feldman, 1996; Pietrzak, Downey & Ayduk, 2005). • Early parental rejections which include cruelty, hostility, physical and emotional neglect and abuse are internalized by children as a legacy of rejection (Feldman &Downey, 1994).

  11. LiteratureReview • Psychologicalcontrol could be perceived as associatedwithparentalrejection it may be relatedwithrejectionsensitivity. • Sociallyexcludedpeopleeitheractprosocially in ordertogainacceptanceoractaggressivelyregaincontrol. As a negativedevelopmentaloutcomes of pscyhologicalcontrol, adolescents’ can useaggressionand/orprosocialbehavior as a coopingstrategies of bothrejectionsensitiviyandpsychologicalcontrol.

  12. TheAim of theCurrentStudy • Therefore, thecurrentstudyaimstoanswerthreequestions; 1- Doespsychologicalcontrolpredictsrejectionsensitivity? 2- Doespsychologicalcontrolandrejectionsensitivitypredictbothaggressiveandprosocialbehaviors of adolescents? 3- Doespscyhologicalcontrolandrejectionsensitivitypredictbothaggressiveandprosocialbehaviors of adolescentsaccordingtotheirsex?

  13. Method • Participantswere 297( 147F, 150M) studentsfrom 6th (96=58F, 38M) 7th (73=31F, 42M) and 8th(128=58F, 70M) gradesfrom a statejuniorhighschool.

  14. Method • Instruments • ParentalPsychologicalControlScalesMaternalandpaternal 8-itempsychologicalcontrolscaleswith a 4-pointresponse rate, developedbyBarber (1996) andadaptedtoTurkishby Sayıl andKındap (2010) wereused. CronbachAlphacoefficientsfortheTurkishversion of themother form is .89 andthefather form is .79.

  15. MethodInstruments • Children’sRejectionSensitivityQuestionnaire (CRSQ): CRSQ developedbyDowney, Lebolt, RinconandFreitas (1998) andadaptedtoTurkishbyAbayhan, Sahin,Yavuz, Aydın and Giray (2008) wasused. It is a 12 itemscalewith a 6-pointresponse rate. CronbachAlphacoefficientsfortheanxietyexpectationandangerexpectationdimensions of theTurkishversionare .89 and .79 respectively.

  16. MethodInstruments • AggressiveandProsocialBehaviorQuestionnairedevelopedbyBoxer, Tisak, Goldstein (2004) andadaptedtoTurkishby Bayraktar, Kındap, Kumru, Sayıl (underrevision) wasused. It is 25 itemscalewith a 4-pointresponse rate. Aggressivebehaviordimensionconsists of 10 items. Prosocialbehavior is consisted of altruistic, proactiveandreactiveprosocialbehaviordimensions. CronbachAlpha’s of theTurkishversionare .90 fortheaggressivebehavior, .75 forthealtruistic, .84 fortheproactiveand .78 forthereactiveprosocialbehaviordimensions.

  17. Method • Procedure -Participantsfilledoutthequestionnairesduringclass time. -Averageadministrationlastedfor 30 minutes.

  18. Results • A series of hierarchicanalyseswereperformedtoexplorethepredictiveabilities of theparentalpsychologicalcontrolvariableandtheanxietyexpectationandangerexpectationdimensions of therejectionsensitivityvariableon aggressiveandprosocialbehaviors of youngeradolescents

  19. ResearchQuestions- 1 • Doespscyhologicalcontrolpredictsrejectionsensitivity? • PredictedVariables: Angerexpectationsandanxietyexpectations • Predictor: Maternalandpaternalpsychologicalcontrol

  20. PredictedVariable: AnxietyExpectation Anxietyexpectationdimensionscores of therejectionsensitivitywerefirstregressedon • maternalpsychologicalcontrolscores andthen on the • paternalpsychologicalcontrolscores

  21. PredictedVariable: AnxietyExpectation • MultipleR wasfoundto be significant in thefirst model [R=.152, R(sqchange)=.023, F(1, 295) =6.932, p<.009]. • Theincrement in thesecond model wasalsofoundto be significant [R=.201, R(sqchange)=.018, F(1, 294)=5.365, p<.021).

  22. PredictedVariable: AnxietyExpectation • Examinationof theβ’sindicatedthatbothmaternalandpaternalpsychologicalcontrolsweresignificantpredictors of anxietyexpectation (β=.152, p<.009 and β=.169, p<.021 respectively )

  23. PredictedVariable: AngerExpectation Angerexpectationdimensionscores of therejectionsensitivitywerefirstregressedon • maternalpsychologicalcontrolscores andthen on the • paternalpsychologicalcontrolscores

  24. PredictedVariable: AngerExpectation • MultipleR wasfoundto be significant in thefirst model [R=.174, R(sqchange)=.030, F(1, 295) =9.23, p<.003]. • Theincrement in thesecond model wasalsofoundto be significant [R=.245, R(sqchange)=.030, F(1, 294)=9.278, p<.003).

  25. PredictedVariable: AngerExpectation • Examinationof theβ’sindicatedthatbothmaternalandpaternalpsychologicalcontrolsweresignificantpredictors of angerexpectation (β=.174, p<.0093 and β=.221, p<.030 respectively )

  26. Prediction of RejectionSensitivityDimensions in Girls • Neithermaternalnorpaternalcontrolpredictednone of therejectionsensitivitydimensions in girls.

  27. Prediction of Anxiety Expectation in Boys • Maternalcontrol had a significantpredictivepower [R=.231, R(sqchange)=.053, F(1, 148) =8.38, p<.004; β=.231,p<.004 ]. • Paternalcontrolalso had a significantpredictivepower (R=.287, R(sqchange)=.029, F(1, 148) =4.607, p<.033; β=.219,p<.033 ].

  28. Prediction of Anger Expectation in Boys • Maternalcontrolhad a significantpredictivepower [R=.220, R(sqchange)=.048, F(1, 148) =7.521, p<.007; β=.220,p<.007 ]. • Paternalcontrolalso had a significantpredictivepower (R=.287, R(sqchange)=.029, F(1, 148) =4.607, p<.033; β=.216,p<.037 ].

  29. ResearchQuestions- 2 and 3 • Doespsychologicalcontrolandrejectionsensitivitypredictbothaggressiveandprosocialbehaviors of adolescents? • Doespscyhologicalcontrolandrejectionsensitivitypredictbothaggressiveannprosocialbehaviors of adolescentsaccordingtotheirsex? • PredictedVariables: AgressionandProsocialBehaviors • Predictors: Maternalandpaternalpsychologicalcontrol; rejectionsensitivity (angerexpectationsandanxietyexpectations)

  30. PredictedVariable: Aggression Inthoseanalysesaggressionwasfirstregressedon • maternalandpaternalpsychologicalcontrolscores andthen on the • anxietyandangerexpectationsdimensions of rejectionsensitivityscores.

  31. PredictedVariable: Aggression • MultipleR wasfoundto be significant in thefirst model [R=.238, R(sqchange)=.057, F(2, 294) =8.859, p<.000]. • Theincrement in thesecond model wasalsofoundto be significant [R=.318, R(sqchange)=.044, F(2, 292)=7.161, p<.001).

  32. PredictedVariable: Aggression • Examinationof theβ’sindicatedthatwhilematernalpsychologicalcontrolwas a significantpredictor of aggression (β=.178,p<.015) paternalpsychologicalcontrolwas not. • Angerexpectationdimension of therejectionsensitivitywas a significantpredictor of aggressionwith a higher β (.273, <.005) where as anxietyexpectationdidnot.

  33. PredictedVariable: Aggressionin Girls • MultipleR wasfoundto be significant in thefirst model [R=.223, R(sqchange)=.050, F(2, 144) =3.777, p<.025]. • Theincrement in thesecond model wasalsofoundto be significant [R=.383, R(sqchange)=.097 F(2, 142)=8.038, p<.000).

  34. PredictedVariable: Aggressionin Girls • Examinationof theβ’sindicatedthatneithermaternalnorpaternalpsychologicalcontrolwas a significantpredictor of aggression (β=.178,p<.015). • Angerexpectationdimension of therejectionsensitivitywas a significantpredictor of aggressionwith a high β (.426, <.001).

  35. PredictedVariable: Aggressionin Boys • MultipleR wasfoundto be significant in thefirst model [R=.239, R(sq)=.057, F(2, 147) =4.455, p<.013]. • But theincrement in thesecond model was not significant. • Examination of theβ’srevealedthatmaternalpsychologicalcontrolpredictedaggression in boys (β=.248, p<.018).

  36. PredictedVariable: ProsocialBehavior Prosocialbehaviorscoreswerefirstregressedon • maternalandpaternalpsychologicalcontrolscores andthen on the • anxietyandangerexpectationsdimensions of rejectionsensitivityscores.

  37. PredictedVariable: ProsocialBehavior • MultipleR was not significant in thefirst model; hencepaternalpsychologicalcontrol had no significantpredictivepower on prosocialbehavior. • Thesecond model, had a significantpredictivepower on prosocialbehavior (R= .239, R(sqchange)=.057 F(2,292)=.001).

  38. PredictedVariable: ProsocialBehavior • Bothdimensions of rejectionsensitivitypredictedsignificantly: • whileanxietyexpectation (β=.32,p<.001) predictedpositively; • angerexpectationpredictednegatively (β= -.377,p<.001).

  39. Predicted Variable Prosocial Behavior in Girls • MultipleR wassignificantonly on thesecond model(R=.306, R(sqchange)=.081, F(2,142)=6.36, p<.002).

  40. PredictedVariable: ProsocialBehavior in Girls • Whileanxietyexpectation (β=.433,p<.001) predictedprosocialbehaviorpositively; • angerexpectationpredictednegatively(β= -.434,p<.001).

  41. PredictedVariable: ProsocialBehavior in Boys • Neitherparentalpsychologicalcontrolnorrejection of sensitivity had predictivepower on theprosocialbehavior of theboys.

  42. Discussion • Resultsindicatedthatbothmaternalandpaternalpsychologicalcontrolspredictedbothangerandanxietyexpectations. • Theseresultsshows us thatpsychologicalcontrolpredictsbothdimensions of rejectionsensitivity in general. • But renewing of theanalysisaccordingtosexdifferencesshowedthatneithermaternalnorpaternalcontrolpredictednone of therejectionsensitivitydimensions in girl. On theotherhand, bothpaternalandmaternalcontrolpredictedboy’sangerandanxietyexpectations. Theperceptiondifferencesbetweenboysandgirls can be one of theexplanationsfortheseinterestingresults. Also Sayıl andKındap (2010) foundthatboysaremuchmoresensitivetopaternalpsychologicalcontrolthangirls.

  43. Discussion • Resultsalsoindicatedthatmaternalpsychologicalcontrolandangerexpectations of adolescentspredictedaggressivebehaviors in general. • Accordingtosexdifferences, angerexpectationswasonlysignificantpredictorforgirls’ aggressivebehaviors. • On theotherhand, boys’ aggressivebehaviorswaspredictedbytheirmotherspsychologicalcontrol but none of thepredictorspredictedtheirprosocialbehavior. We can assumethat, mothersareusingpsychologicalcontrol as a preventivestrategiesfortheirsons.

  44. Discussion • Interestingly, prosocialbehaviorswereonlypredictedbyanxietyandangerexpectations of adolescents. • However, anxietyexpectations of adolescentspredictedprosocialbehaviorpositively; whereasanxietyexpectations of adolescentspredictedprosocialbehaviornegatively. Theseresultareconsistentwithresearchwhicharesummarizedthatsociallyexcludedpeopleactprosocially in ordertogainacceptance(Maner, DeWall, Baumeister, Schaller, 2007).

More Related