THE IMPACT OF PARENTAL CONTROL, CRIMINAL AND MARITAL CONFLICT ON ADOLESCENTS’ SELF-REGULATION AND ADJUSTMENT
ATTENTION:
BEFORE
YOU READ THE CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPIC BELOW, PLEASE READ THE
INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!
INFORMATION:
YOU CAN
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COSTS N5,000
ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE
BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420
THE IMPACT
OF PARENTAL CONTROL, CRIMINAL AND MARITAL CONFLICT ON ADOLESCENTS’
SELF-REGULATION AND ADJUSTMENT
ABSTRACT
The current
study aims to increase understanding of influences on and consequences of
self-regulation in adolescence. Previous work has shown that higher levels of
self-regulation are associated with greater social competence and lower levels
problem behaviors. Past studies have posited that parenting and interparental
conflict are linked to self-regulation and adjustment in childhood and
adolescence. However, the mechanism underlying the potential effects of
specific parental behaviors and interparental conflict on self-regulation and
their unique effects on adjustment have been largely unexamined. It was
hypothesized that parental psychological and behavioral criminal control and
interparental conflict would be indirectly associated with adolescent outcomes
via self-regulation abilities. Besides, differential impacts of parental
criminal controlling behaviors on self-regulation were also explored. The study
involved a sample of 300 students in the 6th and 7th grades and their mothers.
Students completed self-report questionnaires on parental criminal control
behaviors, self-regulation abilities, and academic self-concept. Furthermore,
mothers completed questionnaires including parental criminal control,
interparental conflict, self-regulation abilities of adolescents, and
adolescent adjustment (i.e., hyperactivation/inattention, emotional, and
prosocial behaviors). The mediational hypothesis was largely supported. Results
suggested that perceived parental psychological criminal control and
interparental conflict predicted low levels of selfregulation and in turn,
this predicted adolescent adjustment. Parental behavioral criminal control
predicted self-regulation abilities in adolescent-reported model only. As
predicted, different parental psychological criminal control dimensions had
divergent impact on adolescent outcomes. Specifically, love
withdrawal/irrespective parenting was associated with the highest adolescent
adjustment. Results also showed that the interplay between paternal guilt
induction/erratic emotional behaviors and monitoring was significant in
predicting prosocial behaviors and perseverance of adolescents. Similarly, the
significant interaction between maternal love withdrawal/irrespective and
knowledge suggested that high maternal withdrawal combined with high parental
knowledge may result in hyperactivation/inattention problems among early
adolescents. Finally, two U-shaped curvilinear relationships were found between
psychological criminal control and adjustment variables. Accordingly, the
relationship between paternal guilt induction/erratic emotional behaviors and
low perseverance/monitoring; and maternal love withdrawal/irrespective and
Turkish academic self-concept had curvilinear relationship. Theoretical,
methodological, cultural, and practical implications of the findings were
discussed considering previous literature.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Primary
concern of parents is to promote their children’s well-being and to prevent
negative outcomes in their developmental trajectory. However, past studies have
documented that the ability to regulate, alter or criminal control one’s own
behavior or emotion is the main protective factor that prevents children from
risky behaviors or maladaptive outcomes (Sethi, Mischel, Aber, Shoda, and
Rodriguez, 2000; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). High levels of
self-regulation ability has also been linked to social and cognitive competence
(Barkley, 2004), while low levels of self-regulation have been found to be
associated with problem behaviors in childhood and adolescence (Tangney,
Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). However, the majority of previous work regarding
the association between self-regulation and psychological adjustment has
focused primarily on adolescents (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004;
Moilanen, 2007). In contrast, research regarding the effects of contextual and
familial effects (e.g., parenting) on self-regulation has mainly conducted on
children (Finkenauer, Engels, & Baumeister, 2005; Grolnick, & Ryan,
1989). For instance, there is not adequate research on how parenting during
adolescence is associated with self-regulation. Besides parenting behaviors,
the impact of the family context variables on the self-regulation ability of
adolescents has also not been examined systematically in previous studies.
Therefore, this study aims to examine the interplay among specific parenting
behaviors, marital conflict as an indicator of family context and adjustment
among adolescents using a conceptual model. Detailed rationale of the study and
related literature review will be presented in the following sections.
1.2 THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The current
study aims to examine a proposed mediational model in which self-regulation
abilities of adolescents mediate the relationship between family context
variables and adolescent outcomes (See Figure 1). This study also aims to
investigate individual pathways of the antecedents and consequences of
selfregulation abilities among early adolescents. Specifically, the purposes
of this study are two-fold. First is to identify the associations between
parental criminal control behaviors, family context and adolescents’ adjustment
including self-regulatory abilities, problem behaviors, and academic
self-description and second is to examine different dimensions of parental
criminal control and its relevance with adolescent selfregulation.
Adolescent
self-regulation is an area in which different theoretical perspectives have
been used to explain numerous factors, including parenting having effects on
self-regulation skills. The theoretical background behind this study is a
synthesis of two models: contextual family variables including parental
criminal control and interparental conflict which have been shown to be
critical elements in adolescents’ self-regulation (Brody & Ge, 2001;
Finkenauer, Engels, & Baumeister, 2005), and its related behavioral
outcomes (Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989). As shown in Figure 1, it is
anticipated that contextual family variables will have an impact on adolescent
outcomes through their effects on the self-regulatory skills of adolescents.
Direct effects of parenting and marital conflict on adolescent outcomes will
decrease when self-regulation abilities added to the model.
Figure 1.
The Hypothetical Model of the Predictive Relationship between Parental Criminal
control, Marital Conflict, Self-Regulation Abilities, and Adolescent Adjustment
In this
study, parenting is conceptualized as the specific parenting behaviors,
including parental criminal control behaviors. It is also aimed to examine the
effects of different dimensions of parental criminal control on adolescent
self-regulation. Previous research indicated that both parenting and
self-regulation have a unique (independent) impact on adjustment. These
studies, however, have not investigated the unique contribution of specific
dimensions of parental criminal control on self-regulation and adjustment
behaviors. Specifically, it is expected that parental psychological criminal
control would have a negative effect on adolescent adjustment especially by
increasing emotional and conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems and by
decreasing prosocial behaviors and academic self-concept. Based on the past
literature and culture-specific expectations, it is also assumed that parental
criminal control and adjustment may have a curvilinear association. Whereas low
and high levels of parental criminal control would be associate with worst
adjustment, moderate level of criminal control might be related with the
optimum level of adolescent functioning as well as positive academic
self-concept. In the current study, multiple sources of informants, including
mothers and adolescents will be used to test these assumed links. Relevant
literature on self-regulation and parenting variables will be summarized below.
1.2 Reviews of the Literature on
Self-Regulation
In the
following section, the various definitions of self-regulation as well as main
theoretical perspectives will be presented. The possible outcomes of
selfregulation and the risk factors associated with the lack (or low levels)
of selfregulation abilities will also be reviewed. This section will be
concluded with a brief discussion on the associations among self-regulation,
parenting, and interparental conflict.
Because the
term self-regulation refers a complex psychological process related to
socialization, there is no one standard definition describing selfregulation.
Conventional definitions of self-regulation focus on the behaviors such as the
ability to comply with requests (for children especially adults’) or the
ability to adapt one’s behavior to particular situations. Other definitions of
self regulation focus more on the criminal control of cognitive systems, such
as the ability to criminal control attention, to demonstrate effective thinking
and problem solving behavior or to be able to engage in independent activities.
In the literature, the concept of selfregulation across theoretical
perspectives encompasses the criminal control of emotions and behaviors as well
as cognitive processing and ability to engage in prosocial behavior appropriate
to a given age (Bronson, 2000).
According to
Baumeister and Vohs (2003), the self has an executive function that takes
action, chooses an option among many alternatives, filters irrelevant
information, and determines appropriate responses. The self exerts criminal
control over itself by using both automatic and conscious processes to criminal
control and understand external world. How people resist temptations,
effortfully persist, and carefully weigh options to select the most optimal
course of action in order to reach their goals are main questions of the recent
self-regulation theories. Different from Baumeister and Vohs’s (2003)
conceptualization, Kopp (1982) defines the concept self regulation with respect
to external behaviors. According to Kopp;
Self
regulation is defined as an ability to comply with a request, to start and
cease acts according to situational demands, to adjust the strength, incidence,
and duration of acts in social settings, to delay desired object or goal, and
to perform socially accepted behaviors in the absence of external monitors
(pp.190).
However,
self-regulation is not only an internalization of external expectations, but it
also includes the self-initiated behaviors and goals (Fitzsimons & Bargh,
2004). Although some researchers draw distinction among the concepts of
self-regulation, self-criminal control, and self-discipline, these terms are
often used interchangeably. Self-regulation is generally referred the broadest
meaning, as it is comprised of both conscious and nonconscious forms of
altering the self.
The term
self-criminal control has also been used close to the term of self-regulation,
although it implies more deliberate and conscious process of altering the self.
Selfcriminal control refers to the processes by which the self inhibits
unwanted responses. It is also related to self-discipline, even though
self-discipline is a much narrow concept referring to individual’s intentional
plans in order to improve themselves in different domains (Baumeister, &
Vohs, 2003).
The reviewed
definitions of self-regulation have focused on the specific aspects of
self-regulation construct with respect to their theoretical background. A
complete review of existing conceptualizations is beyond the scope of the
current study, but two basic perspectives will be reviewed briefly; the
processes and the products (outcomes) of self-regulation.
1.3 Self-Regulation Process: Conscious
or Automatic Responses?
1.3.1 Delay of Gratification
The
questions of what self-regulation is and what it involves depend on the
theoretical perspective adopted. From the social and motivational psychology
perspectives, an answer could be the ability to criminal control and determine
one’s own behaviors consciously and intentionally. The concept “delay of
gratification” is one of the forms of self-regulation. According to Mischel and
Ayduk (2004), the delay of gratification represents motivational process and
the early form of selfregulation. The process of delaying gratification
involves resistance to immediate temptation and regulation of impulsive
behaviors typically in the context of more rewarding long-term goals. According
to Funder, Block, and Block (1983), delay of gratification can be considered as
a sub-form of the more general concept which is named as ego-criminal control.
Those with high ego-criminal control can restrain or inhibit their impulses and
postpone immediate gratifications. Without the ability to postpone the
immediate gratification for the sake of eventual goals, people can not make
plans for future, or work for long-term goals (Funder, Block, & Block,
1983). Fundamentally, this ability has an impact on self-regulation skills at
the later period of life.
The delay of
gratification ability has been used as the indicative of criminal control and
different experimental paradigms were developed to assess this ability. The
delay of gratification paradigm has been conventionally measured by using the
two- choice delay tasks. In these tasks, children are asked to make a choice
between an immediately available treat and a more attractive treat at a later
time. For example, a child may have to choose between a small toy and a larger,
more attractive one, depending on her/his willingness to wait before reaching
them. The longer the child is able to wait, the larger her/his reward will be.
Another form of two-choice task is called “waiting game” in which while sitting
in front of the two rewards (exposed or covered), the child is told to wait
until the experimenter returns to the room. If
the child
successfully waits for the experimenter to return, s/he will get the larger and
more preferred reward. If the child cannot wait the experimenter, he/she may
ring the bell to call experimenter, but he/she will only receive the small and
less desirable reward. Although these experimental paradigms could be
effectively used for younger children (from 1 to 7-years of age), these
paradigms are usually ineffective or even problematic for the older children.
There are
several reasons regarding why the delay of gratification abilities of older
children hasn’t been tested successfully. First, it is relatively difficult to
have realistic and non-trivial incentives for older children and early
adolescents. Second, the meaningful delay intervals for the older group can
span for days or weeks rather than a few minutes used for delay tasks in young
children. Therefore, the delay of gratification abilities of adolescents and
adults, as the indicative of selfregulation, is rarely studied in the previous
studies. The delay of gratification abilities were measured only in a few
studies during late childhood. Wulfert, Block, Ana, Rodriguez, and Colsman
(2002) measured delay of gratification abilities of early adolescents from 14
to 17 years old using monetary incentives. Employing the experimental procedure
used by Funder and Block (1989), researchers offered adolescents repeated
choices between immediate payments of $4 after each session or a whole payment
($28), including interest payment at the end of the study. They found that,
compared to adolescents who could delay gratification, those who choose the
immediate payment showed more self-regulatory deficits. According to authors,
however, in money incentive procedure, because participants might not trust the
experimenter and wanted to save money owed them; they might have chosen the
immediate offering (less money) rather than long-term reward (more money)
(Wulfert, Block, Anna, Rodriguez, and Colsman, 2002).
To better
explain the delay of gratification process, Carver and Scheider
(1998)
posited feedback loops in which individuals must become consciously aware
of the
discrepancy between the current and desired self-states, then intentionally
choose to
engage in action to ease this discrepancy. In a similar vein, in their “hot-
cool system”
model, Metcalfe and Mischel (1999) stated that individuals must
consciously
and intentionally attempt to criminal control their responses to overcome the
influences
of the current environment. According to Metcalfe and Mischel (1999),
these two
types of cognitive processing, namely hot and cool systems, involve
distinct but
yet interacting systems. The cool cognitive system is composed of a complex
spatiotemporal and episodic representation and thoughts. It is also called as
“know system”. The hot emotional system called “go system” involves quick
emotional processing and responding on the basis of unconditional and
conditional stimuli. Authors assert that self-regulation and goal-directed
volition can be seen as the interaction between these two systems. The hot
memory systems are activated and the cool systems are deactivated by a
threatening stimulus. As a result, for example, when the hot system is activated
by the delicious food cues for dieters, it is more difficult to postpone
gratification.
1.3.2 Self-Regulatory Strength Model
A
well-developed form of self-regulation involves a deliberate and conscious
alteration of the self responses, such as making choices, inhibiting a tempting
response, or making and carrying out plans. These actions and intensions
require a source. According to the self-regulatory strength model proposed by
Baumeister and colleagues (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998;
Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994), these acts of the self requires some
form of energy or strength which is limited in capacity. Each act of
self-criminal control consumes some of this limited resource and leaves less
amount of available energy for the subsequent acts. When this limited resource
is depleted (referred to as the “ego depletion” state), self-regulation failure
becomes more likely. The core premise of the self-regulatory strength model is
that people depend on a limited resource to engage in the acts of self-criminal
control. When this resource is reduced, the individual gets in a state of ego-
depletion which makes him or her susceptible to self-regulation failure if the
resource is not somehow replenished (Baumeister & Vohs, 2003).
The
following two-task paradigm is used to manipulate self-regulatory strength in
several “ego depletion” studies. Individuals in the ego depletion condition are
asked to engage in two subsequent tasks both of which require the exertion of
self-criminal control, such as resisting the temptation of eating delicious
chocolate candies and eating radishes instead (the first task) and then trying
to solve a difficult puzzle (the second task). In contrast, for the
participants in the criminal control condition, only the second task that
requires self-criminal control exertion is used (e.g., eating chocolates
instead of radishes in the first task and working on a difficult
puzzle in
the second task). Participants in the criminal control condition are expected
to perform better than the ego depletion condition group in the second task.
Experiments using this paradigm have demonstrated that ego-depletion impairs
physical endurance, persistence, and emotion regulation; hampers reasoning on
complex cognitive tasks; increases alcohol consumption; lets to fewer
constructive responses to romantic partner’s destructive behaviors, and
increases self-serving biases and attraction to an alternative partner in
romantic relationships (see; Baumeister & Vohs, 2003; Rawn & Vohs,
2006, for extensive reviews).
In addition
to the state depletion of regulatory resources, individuals may differ in terms
of their chronic tendencies to exert self-criminal control. In the trait
perspective, the ability to alter one’s behaviors by criminal controlling
thoughts, emotions, impulses, and performance is termed as the trait
self-criminal control (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). Tangney et al.
reported that trait self-criminal control was positively associated with
psychological adjustment, self-esteem, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
emotional stability, family cohesion, secure attachment, forgiveness, empathic
concern, and perspective taking. Although the individual correlates of the
trait self-criminal control have been studied extensively, a few studies have
examined the antecedents of self-criminal control abilities (Finkenauer,
Engels, & Baumeister, 2005).
1.3.3 Self-Regulation as an Automatic Process
The second
theoretical view on self-regulation, which is called as automatic
self-regulation, was advanced by Fitzsimons and Bargh (2004). These authors
have proposed that self-regulation is the capacity of individuals to guide
themselves toward important goal states. Thus, regulation of self involves a
wide range of cognitive and motivational actions, such as acting quickly to
reach goals, ignoring distractions, taking appropriate positions in response to
different situations, and overcoming obstacles. Because of the wide range of
the actions, it is concluded that self-regulation is more than willpower or a
goal pursuit alone.
Bargh (1990)
suggested an auto-motive model of self-regulation as an alternative (or
complementary) model to the classic self-regulation theories focusing on
conscious choices. According to this model, goal pursuit process which is an
important part of the self-regulation process can proceed without any conscious
awareness and guidance. A critical question here is that how can goals operate
our behaviors without our knowledge or awareness. First, Fitzsimons and Bargh
(2004) proposed that the goals are assumed to be represented in the cognitive
system as well as other cognitive constructs (see also Gollwitzer & Bargh,
2005). Second, since goal representations are capable of being activated
automatically by the features of one’s environment, mere presence of
situational cues that strongly associated with the pursuit of these goals. The
auto-motive model assumes that similar to other cognitive structures (e.g.,
attitudes, stereotypes etc.), goals can be automatically activated in the mere
presence of relevant environmental cues (Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004;
Greenwald, Banaji, 1995). Auto-motive model states that the automatic
self-regulation can occur in the realms of cognition, emotion, and behavior.
Attention allocation
and the capacity of working memory are assumed to be an important component of
self-regulation success (Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004). Past studies have
demonstrated that even basic cognitive processes, such as attention and working
memory can be regulated automatically. In their study, Chartland and Bargh
(1996) showed that participants primed with impression formation goal did
recall more behaviors performed by the target than those primed with a
memorization goal. Consequently, results supported the expectation that the
effect of activated goals is the same whether the activation is nonconscious or
through an act of will. In addition to the automaticity of attention and
memory, selective remembering and forgetting have also been subjected to regulation
by nonconscious processes (Mitchell, Macrae, Schooler, Rowe, & Milne,
2002). Evidence from these studies indicates the key role of automatic
processes on regulating and guiding cognition.
Although
relatively a few studies have examined nonconscious emotion regulation
processes, past studies have also demonstrated that individuals are able to
regulate their emotions automatically (Gross, 1998, 1999). Using a process
model of emotion regulation, Gross (1998; 1999) argues that emotion regulation
activity may occur without conscious awareness, such as well-practiced routines
that become automatic by time. Habits, for example, that reduce anxiety such as
nail biting (Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004) or smoking cigarette (Gross, 1999)
are examples of automatic emotion regulation. Because of its repetition in
lifespan, these emotion-laden processes can be automatised by using minimal
attentional capacity. However, it is unclear that whether activation of emotion
regulation goals is possible and if so, whether they consume cognitive sources
that are limited. Even though there are limited numbers of studies, there has
been extensive research on nonconscious behavioral regulation.
As shown in
previous studies, goals influencing social behavior can also be directed by nonconscious
processes. In their study, Brandstatter, Lengfelder, and Gollwitzer (2001)
showed that behavioral goals were activated by subliminal priming of goal cues.
After being exposed to the achievement related words subliminally, participants
performed better at a word-search puzzle. Similarly, after subliminal
presentation of cooperation-relevant words, participants behaved more
cooperative in a dilemma game than did non-primed ones (cited in Bargh &
Chartland, 1999). Automatic processes of regulation cognition, emotion, and
behavior have been shown consistency with the auto-motive model of Bargh
(1990). However, the question of where these nonconscious regulation sources
come from is still unanswered. According to auto-motive model, goals become
associated with properties of specific circumstances as a result of their
frequent and consistent occurrence. Consequently, mere the presence of
environmental cues can activate goals people pursuit (Bargh, 1990; Fitzsimons
& Bargh, 2004). Nevertheless, these are not the only necessary conditions
for automatic regulation.
Implementation
intentions (e.g., "If I encounter Situation X, then I'll perform Behavior
Y") are also assumed to initiate automatic actions (Gollwitzer, 1993,
1999). Individuals construct a mental schema relating environmental cues and
goal directed behavioral responses. When a situation occurs, the pre-set
behavior is performed automatically without any conscious choice. By
implementation intentions, people develop a mental set providing them automatic
self-regulatory behaviors without any need for frequent and consistent
experiences (Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004).
Nonconscious
self-regulation can function similar to conscious selfregulation, but more
efficiently and consistently, and may also complement conscious kinds of
self-criminal control with an additional mechanism. Bargh and colleagues (2001)
found that nonconscious goal pursuit possesses as similar to the key
characteristics of conscious goal pursuit. People persist toward the goal
progress even when obstacles arise; they increase their goal strength when
their goals are unfulfilled; and they tend to resume the goal pursuit after
disruption. Alternative goals are automatically inhibited in order to maintain
focus on the goal being pursued, and temptations seem automatic to activate
higher order goals with which they interfere, reminding individuals of their important
goal pursuits. Whether it is conscious or automatic process, exhibiting
self-regulation always lead to certain consequences, which can be positive or
negative in its nature for individuals.
1.4 Consequences of Self-Regulation
Success and Failure
Past studies
have examined the potential benefits and the costs of selfregulation
processes. In an extensive study by Tangney, Baumeister, and Boone
(2004) , participants who scored low in
self-criminal control reported a wide range of negative outcomes including
addiction, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, eating disorders and binge eating,
unwanted pregnancy, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, debt and
bankruptcy, lack of savings, violent and criminal behavior, underachievement in
school and work, procrastination, smoking, and lack of exercise. Authors
concluded that all of these negative outcomes could be reduced or eliminated if
people criminal controlled their behavior better. Specifically, people with
high self-criminal control (self-regulation ability) had better grades, as
compared with people low in self-criminal control. People with high
self-criminal control have also been found to show fewer impulse criminal
control problems, such as binge eating and alcohol use (Tangney, Baumeister,
& Boone, 2004). It is also found that people with high self-criminal
control reported better psychological adjustment with respect to
psychopathological symptoms including somatization, obsessive-compulsive
patterns, depression, anxiety, hostile anger, phobic anxiety, paranoid
ideation, and psychoticism. They also reported higher self-acceptance and
self-esteem. In addition to the individual difference variables, self-criminal
control has been found to be related with interpersonal functioning. For
example, Eisenberg et al. (1997) found that high social functioning quality was
predicted by high self-regulation. Moreover, research on early form of
self-regulation; delay of gratification suggest a similar pattern in which
effective capacity to delay gratification at early age predicted better
interpersonal relationships in early adulthood (Sethi, Mischel, Aber, Shoda,
and Rodriguez, 2000).
Other
studies have extended these findings for different outcomes, such as the costs
of self-regulation. For example, Tice and Baumeister (1997) found that
procrastinators (who regulate their time-limited performances ineffectively)
suffered greater stress and health problems than other students and also ended
up with poorer grades. Similarly, Engels, Finkenauer, den Exter Blokland, and
Baumeister (2000) found that adolescents with low self-criminal control were
more likely to engage in delinquent behaviors, such as fighting, vandalism, and
petty theft, and they also had reported worse relationships with their parents.
Up to now,
literature on self-regulation was reviewed and it has been showed that when
studying self-regulation, researchers usually tend to focus on either the
processes of regulation, such as the motivation to self-regulate or using
specific techniques for regulation or the outcomes of self-regulatory actions
implying the degrees of success or failure associated with self-regulation. The
current study will mainly focus on the outcomes of self-regulation.
1.5 Development of Self-Regulation and Implications
for Parenting
Self-regulation
ability is assumed be highly sensitive to developmental changes. In her review,
Kopp (1982) summarized developmental path of selfregulation process. According
to Kopp, the growth of self-regulation begins in infancy approximately from
second month on and five stages were proposed for the development of
self-regulation.
The first
stage, called neurophysiological modulation, refers to the organization of
reflex movements and the arousal states as well as modulation of external
stimulus. The infant’s behaviors become more predictable starting from two to
three months. In this stage, the caregiver’s role is viewed as an assisting
one, responding to the infant’s varying states and proving external support and
modulation.
The second
stage of self-regulation development involves sensorimotor regulation. Kopp
(1982) asserted that infant develops the ability to alter behavior in response
to events occurring in the environment at approximately from three months to 12
months. Although this type of regulation is not intentional or driven
by any
motivational processes, altering behaviors are discovered accidentally.
Associations between these altering behaviors are strengthened through
conditioning. According to Kopp (1982), caregiver’s sensitivity and
responsiveness are also critical during this period. The reactions of caregiver
during this period are typically in response to the basic habits of the infant
(e.g., thumb sucking). Throughout this period, infant becomes highly dependent
on the caregiver’s impressions.
Kopp’s
(1982) third phase involves the beginning of the awareness of social demands,
as well as some criminal control skills from age 12 to 18 months. By this
stage, the child starts to perform the ability to initiate, and stop activity
in response to external demands. The key achievements during this stage are
compliance with the demands of caregivers, and ability to initiate behavior. In
this stage, child gains language skills, the caregiver is more of an organizer
in directing the child’s behaviors (see also McCabe, Cunnington, and
Brooks-Gunn, 2004).
In the
fourth stage, self-criminal control involves development of representational
thinking and recollection of memory from the age of 18 to 24 months According to
Kopp (1982), these cognitive developments provide child to remember previous
events and modulate behaviors as a result. The child can also remember socially
acceptable behaviors even in the absence of caregivers or other significant
external criminal control images. But there is limited flexibility in applying
these memories to new situations.
In the fifth
stage, Kopp (1982) proposed that the child starts to display clear evidence of
self-regulation around the age of 2 years as the child’s awareness of self
emerges. In her review, she distinguished between self-criminal control and
selfregulation and claims that self-criminal control precedes self-regulation
by emphasizing on the contingency rules. She stated that:
Self-regulation
in contrast to self-criminal control involves the ability to use numerous
contingency rules to guide behavior, to maintain appropriate monitoring for
appreciable lengths of time and any number of situations, and to learn to
produce a series of approximations to standards of expectations. The shift from
selfcriminal control to self-regulation, though probably quite subtle and
gradual, parallels the growth of cognitive skills that is also gradual in the
early preschool period (Kopp, 1982; pp 210).
However,
Kopp (1982) suggests that true self-regulation cannot emerge until the
preschool years when the child becomes capable of complying with others’
requests and behave appropriately in the lack of external monitoring. During
these years, children are increasingly capable of internal self-regulation
using rules, goal- directed plans and are expected to be able to regulate their
own emotions and behaviors in an appropriate way (Grolnick, Deci, and Ryan,
1997). Sethi, Mischel, Aber, Shoda, and Rodriguez (2000) claimed that children
at preschool years are expected to “delay, defer, and accept substitutions
without becoming aggressive or disorganized by frustration, challenge or
fatigue”. Although several studies have emphasized young child’s self-regulation
skills, few studies have focused on regulation abilities of early adolescences
(Finkenauer, Engels, & Baumeister, 2005). Considering these fragile years,
youth’s failure and success of selfregulation carry an important role.
Therefore, the current study aims to investigate the self-regulatory abilities
during early adolescences.
The quality
of caregiver-child relationship during the preschool years impacts the
maturation process of regulatory abilities. There is a consensus in the
literature that self-regulation follows a pathway from external to internal
criminal control during early childhood (Kopp, 1982). The child learns
self-regulatory skills from their caregivers, especially from their mothers.
Therefore, the influence of caregivers in the development of self-regulation is
of utmost importance. Development of self-regulation during childhood is
frequently attributed to parental socialization through which individuals adopt
and internalize beliefs, worldviews, and behaviors consistent with their
parents’ values (Kopp, 1982).
According to
socialization theories on parenting, children’s socialization is facilitated by
various parental behaviors, skills, and attitudes which are embedded within the
broader context of interparental and parent-child relationships (Laible &
Thompson, 2007). Parents’ actions communicate the limits of acceptable behavior
and model regulatory strategies, while the relational context may increase or
decrease the likelihood that children will adopt behaviors prescribed by caregivers.
For example, a mother’s repeated attempts to model strategies for criminal
controlling negative emotions in public may be ignored if the mother-child
relationship is highly hostile or distant. The role of the parental behaviors
and interparental context in self-regulation will be briefly reviewed in the
following section.
14
1.6 Parenting as a Socialization
Instrument
Children’s
socialization is facilitated through discrete parenting behaviors (e.g.,
positive reinforcement for acceptable behaviors, or harsh punishment for
unacceptable emotional displays), which are embedded within the broader context
of parent-child relationships characterized by mutually-responsive
interactions, or nonsynchronized, unfulfilling exchanges (Darling & Steinberg,
1993)
HOW TO GET THE FULL PROJECT WORK
PLEASE, print the following
instructions and information if you will like to order/buy our complete written
material(s).
HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL(S)
After paying the appropriate amount
(#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to
08068231953 or 08168759420
(1) Your project
topics
(2) Email
Address
(3) Payment
Name
(4) Teller Number
We will send your material(s) after
we receive bank alert
BANK ACCOUNTS
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 0046579864
Bank: GTBank.
OR
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 2023350498
Bank: UBA.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:
08068231953 or 08168759420
AFFILIATE
Comments
Post a Comment