should parental prohibition of adolescents’ peer...

Personal Relationships, 16 (2009), 507–530. Printed in the United States of America.Copyright © 2009 IARR. 1350-4126/09

Should parental prohibition of adolescents’peer relationships be prohibited?

BART SOENENS,a MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE,a AND

CHRISTOPHER P. NIEMIECb

aGhent University and bUniversity of Rochester

AbstractResearch has revealed inconsistent associations between parents’ prohibition of peer relationships and adolescents’deviant peer affiliation. This cross-sectional study examined parents’ styles of prohibition to test the hypothesis thatan autonomy-supportive style would relate negatively, whereas a controlling style would relate positively, to deviantpeer affiliation. Such relations were expected because of the differential relations of styles of prohibition toadolescents’ internalization of parental rules for friendships. Structural equation modeling provided support for thehypotheses in a sample of 234 Belgian midadolescents (Mage = 16.45 years; 65% female), as the differentialrelations of autonomy-supportive and controlling styles of prohibition to deviant peer affiliation were mediated bytheir differential relations to internalization. Implications for research on parental peer management are discussed.

Most parents oppose their adolescent child’saffiliation with friends who are involved inproblem behaviors (e.g., stealing and druguse), yet there exist multiple ways of address-ing this important issue. One possibility is thatparents ignore the problem and hope that theirchild can resist the allure of peer pressure.Children often give in to such pressure andengage in deviant behavior, however, as affil-iation with deviant peers is directly relatedto adolescents’ own involvement in prob-lem behaviors (Lacourse, Nagin, Tremblay,Vitaro, & Claes, 2003). A second possibil-ity is that parents intervene in their child’s

Bart Soenens and Maarten Vansteenkiste, Departmentof Developmental, Social, and Personality Psychology,Ghent University, Belgium; Christopher P. Niemiec,Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychol-ogy, University of Rochester, NY, USA.

The authors are greatly indebted to Dorien Wuyts forher assistance in data collection. Note that the first authoris a postdoctoral researcher at the Fund for ScientificResearch Flanders (FWO).

Correspondence should be addressed to Bart Soenens,Department of Developmental, Social, and PersonalityPsychology, Ghent University, Faculty of Psychologyand Educational Sciences, Henri Dunantlaan, 2, B-9000Ghent, Belgium, e-mail: [email protected].

friendships by prohibiting their child frominteracting with deviant peers. Prohibition offriendships also has risks, however, as ado-lescents may perceive parental attempts toregulate personal issues (e.g., friendships) asillegitimate (Smetana, 1995). Given that thisstrategy may enhance, rather than diminish,the likelihood of an adolescent further asso-ciating with deviant peers, one may wonderwhether practitioners should prohibit parentalprohibition of adolescents’ peer relationships.

The aim of this study was to examinewhether all parental prohibition of adolescents’friendships are maladaptive. Using self-deter-mination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Niemiec,Ryan, & Deci, in press; Vansteenkiste, Ryan,& Deci, 2008), we proposed and tested thehypothesis that the relation of parents’ prohi-bition of their child’s friendships to the ado-lescents’ affiliation with deviant peers woulddiffer as a function of parents’ styles of prohi-bition. Specifically, we hypothesized that ado-lescents would be less likely to associate withdeviant peers when they perceive their par-ents as communicating the prohibition using

507

508 B. Soenens, M. Vansteenkiste, and C. P. Niemiec

an autonomy-supportive, rather than a con-trolling, style and that adolescents’ inter-nalization of their parents’ rules concerningfriendships would mediate those differentialrelations of prohibition style to deviant peeraffiliation.

Affiliation with deviant peers and parentalpeer management

Many individuals begin to affiliate with deviantpeers during adolescence, and this trend peaksaround the age of 15 or 16 years (Lacourseet al., 2003). This is troubling because stud-ies have identified deviant peer affiliationas a consistently strong predictor of ado-lescents’ involvement in problem behaviors,including drug use (Dishion & Owen, 2002),delinquency (Brendgen, Vitaro, & Bukowski,2000), and antisocial behavior (LaCourseet al., 2003; Patterson, Forgatch, Yoerger, &Stoolmiller, 1998). Accordingly, an importantchallenge for developmental psychologists isto identify factors that either halt or exac-erbate adolescents’ affiliation with deviantpeers.

Theory and research suggest that parentscan protect their children from negative peerinfluences either by fostering a high-qualityparent–child relationship or by making spe-cific interventions in their child’s friendships(Ladd & Pettit, 2002; Parke & Bhavnagri,1989). Parents’ rearing style may indirectlyaffect the processes related to deviant peeraffiliation, for example, by reducing suscep-tibility to peer pressure (Mounts & Steinberg,1995). Additionally, parents may use peermanagement strategies that more directly tar-get adolescents’ friendships. Recent research,most of which is cross-sectional, has identifiedseveral strategies that parents use with adoles-cent children, including organizing opportuni-ties to spend time with friends, seeking infor-mation about adolescents’ friendships, andprohibiting certain friendships (Mounts, 2001;Updegraff, McHale, Crouter, & Kupanoff,2001; Vernberg, Beery, Ewell, & Abwender,1993). Although scholars typically conceivepeer management strategies as parental behav-iors that affect children’s social develop-ment, it is important to acknowledge that

children’s social behavior may also influ-ence parents’ management of their child’speer relations. Tilton-Weaver and Galambos(2003), for instance, found that mothers morefrequently disapproved of their child’s friendswhen the mothers were concerned about theirchild’s affiliation with deviant friends. Suchfindings suggest that the association betweenparents’ peer management and adolescents’peer affiliation is reciprocal, whereby par-ents’ response to their child’s affiliationwith deviant peers may subsequently increase(rather than decrease) the child’s involvementwith peers of whom parents disapprove.

Parental prohibition, deviant peer affiliation,and involvement in problem behaviors

Prohibition refers to the degree to whichparents forbid their child from interactingwith a friend of whom they do not approveand thus has particular relevance in thecontext of deviant peer affiliation (Mounts,2001). Although it seems plausible that par-ents prohibit particular friendships to pro-tect their child from negative peer influences,research suggests that the associations amongparental prohibition, deviant peer affiliation,and involvement in problem behaviors arenot straightforward. In an initial examination,Mounts (2001) found that parental prohibi-tion of friendships was unrelated to earlyadolescents’ affiliations with drug-using anddelinquent friends, and argued that the associ-ation between parental prohibition and deviantpeer affiliation might be curvilinear, citingevidence suggesting that moderate levels ofprohibition were related to less affiliationwith deviant peers. Among midadolescents,Mounts (2002) found positive linear asso-ciations between parental prohibition andboth affiliation with drug-using friends andactual drug use, although we should note thatthese associations only showed up in cross-sectional (and not in longitudinal) analyses.Tilton-Weaver and Galambos (2003) foundthat maternal (but not paternal) communica-tion of disapproval of friendships, which issimilar to parental prohibition, related pos-itively to early adolescents’ affiliation withdeviant peers.

Parental prohibition of friendships 509

Together, these studies suggest that rela-tions of parental prohibition to deviant peeraffiliation and involvement in problem behav-iors, if any, are positive, rather than nega-tive. As such, parental prohibition may notrepresent an effective strategy to reduce ado-lescents’ affiliation with deviant peers andsusceptibility to problem behaviors. Giventhe lack of longitudinal associations betweenprohibition and outcomes, one should alsoconsider the alternative possibility that par-ents prohibit friendships in response to theirchild’s problem behavior. As indicated earlier,these alternative views are not mutually exclu-sive, as prohibition and affiliation with deviantpeers may mutually reinforce each other.

Social domain theory (Nucci, 2001;Smetana, 1995) offers one possible explana-tion for why parental prohibition seems tobe a relatively ineffective strategy. Accordingto this theory, the effectiveness of parentingpractices is a function of whether the childconsiders the parental intervention to be legit-imate. The perceived legitimacy of parentalauthority depends on the domain in whichparents intervene, such that children generallyconsider parental interventions in the domainsof morality (e.g., lying and stealing) and socialconvention (e.g., using bad language) to belegitimate because they exist outside the ado-lescent’s personal jurisdiction, whereas theygenerally consider parental interventions inthe personal domain (e.g., friendships) to beillegitimate because such interventions violatethe adolescent’s personal jurisdiction.

On the basis of social domain theory, it isreasonable to suggest that adolescents wouldperceive parental prohibition of friendships,which represents an intervention in the per-sonal domain, as illegitimate or even intrusive.To support this reasoning, Brown, Bakken,Nguyen, and Von Bank (2007) reported thatadolescents believe that their parents are lessentitled to know about their friendships, com-pared to the amount parents believe they areentitled to know about their child’s friend-ships. Furthermore, Soenens, Vansteenkiste,Smits, Lowet, and Goossens (2007) foundthat parental prohibition of friendships corre-lated positively with adolescents’ perceptionsof their parents as intrusive. Social domain

theory also suggests that if the child perceivesparental interference in a particular domainas illegitimate or intrusive, the child is notlikely to comply with the parental rules. Inline with this, Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Smits,and colleagues (2007) showed that parentalprohibition related positively to deviant peeraffiliation. Moreover, adolescents’ perceptionsof their parents as psychologically control-ling partially accounted for these relations.These findings are consistent with the ideathat adolescents typically perceive parentalprohibition as intrusive and controlling. A per-ception of parents as intrusive, in turn, seemsto relate to stronger affiliation with deviantpeers. The cross-sectional nature of this study,however, precludes inferences about direc-tionality among the variables. Specifically,it does not allow a test of the alternativepossibility that low compliance with parentalrules (as expressed in affiliation with deviantpeers) may elicit parental prohibition and,more specifically, may elicit intrusive andcontrolling attempts to prohibit the child’sfriendships.

Styles of prohibition and the internalizationof parental rules

Diverse theoretical perspectives converge tosuggest that internalization of parental rulesis an important determinant of the likelihoodthat parental rules will result in desiredoutcomes (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Grusec &Goodnow, 1994; Kochanska, 2002; Schafer,1968). Thus, it is not enough to consider onlythe child’s compliance with parental rules tofully understand the consequences of parentalprohibition; rather, it is important to considerthe child’s reasons for compliance, which maybe more or less personally endorsed (i.e.,internalized).

Self-determination theory provides a uniqueand detailed account of the process of inter-nalization and the factors that facilitate or hin-der this process. Self-determination theory isa broad theory of motivation and personalitydevelopment that considers autonomy to bepivotal to optimal human functioning (Deci& Ryan, 2000). Within self-determination the-ory, autonomy refers to the experience of


self-endorsement and volition in one’s behav-ior. Intrinsic motivation is the prototypicalexample of autonomously regulated behaviorbecause, when intrinsically motivated, peo-ple engage in an activity out of pleasureand spontaneous curiosity. Even when notintrinsically motivated, however, people canbe more or less autonomous to the extentthat they internalize the value of a behav-ior that is not inherently satisfying (Ryan &Connell, 1989). Internalization refers to thenatural, active process through which peopletransform external regulations into personallyheld values and through which they eventuallymay integrate regulations into the self (Deci,Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994).

Self-determination theory distinguishesbetween several types of behavioral regula-tion, which differ in the extent to which theyreflect internalization into the self. The leastinternalized form of behavioral regulation isexternal regulation, in which a person behavesonly to comply with an external demand inorder to receive a reward or to avoid a pun-ishment. Individuals feel pressured and con-trolled to comply with an externally imposedrule or guideline when their behavior is exter-nally regulated. For instance, adolescents mayfollow their parents’ guidelines for friend-ships to avoid parental punishment or thewithdrawal of privileges by parents. A sec-ond type of behavioral regulation is intro-jected regulation, in which the impetus forthe previously external regulation originatesinside the person, but the person does notfully accept the value of the behavior as hisown. As such, individuals feel controlled fromwithin to satisfy the rule or standard, and fail-ure to meet those standards results in feelingsof guilt and shame (Assor, Vansteenkiste, &Kaplan, 2009). For instance, adolescents mayfollow parental guidelines for friendships toavoid feeling guilty about their behavior or todemonstrate their self-worth.

A third type of behavioral regulation isidentified regulation, in which people under-stand and accept the value of the rule or stan-dard, which facilitates personal endorsementof the behavior. For instance, adolescents mayfollow their parents’ guidelines for friendshipsbecause they understand why their parents ask

them to do so and because they view theirbehavior as conducive to their self-endorsedgoals. People are more likely to experience asense of psychological freedom and volitionin their behavior to the extent that the processof internalization proceeds from external reg-ulation to identification. As such, the processof internalization is essential to autonomousfunctioning.

Self-determination theory further assumesthat the social environment has an impor-tant role in affecting the process of inter-nalization (Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997;Ryan & Deci, 2000). Specifically, control-ling contexts pressure individuals to think,feel, or behave in particular ways, fore-stall the internalization process (Deci et al.,1994), whereas autonomy-supportive contextsprovide opportunities for choice and allowfor volitional functioning, facilitate internal-ization (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Lens, et al.,2007). At the same time, self-determinationtheory recognizes the possibility that a lackof internalization and the behavioral problemsassociated with such a lack may elicit morecontrolling and less autonomy-supportive par-enting (Grolnick, 2003).

To apply these ideas to the domain ofpeer management, we suggest that parentsmay prohibit their children using either a con-trolling or an autonomy-supportive style. Forinstance, parents may prohibit their child fromaffiliating with deviant peers by threateningto punish the child or by withdrawing privi-leges. Such strategies represent overt forms ofcontrol. Moreover, parents may pressure theirchild in a more insidious fashion, by appeal-ing to the child’s feelings of guilt and shameor by withdrawing their love and acceptancewhen the child does not live up to parentalstandards. These types of covert control areconsistent with the concept of psychologicalcontrol (Assor, Roth, & Deci, 2004; Barber,1996; Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Luyten, Duriez,& Goossens, 2005). In contrast to control-ling styles of prohibition, parents may usean autonomy-supportive style of prohibition,whereby they take the adolescent’s frame ofreference and provide a relevant and clearrationale for prohibition while also minimiz-ing pressure (Deci et al., 1994).


We suggest that adolescents would belikely to internalize their parents’ rules forfriendships when they perceive their parentsas communicating the prohibition using anautonomy-supportive style (Deci et al., 1994).As a result, adolescents would be more likelyto accept those guidelines. In other words,an autonomy-supportive style is facilitative ofthe process of internalization and thus wouldbe associated with identified regulation. Incontrast, we suggest that adolescents wouldbe likely to feel pressured to follow theirparents’ rules when parents communicate theprohibition using a controlling style. A con-trolling style of prohibition would thus fostermore controlled and less internalized reasonsfor adopting parents’ guidelines for friend-ships. In line with these hypotheses, studieshave shown that, relative to controlling par-enting, autonomy-supportive parenting yieldshigher levels of internalization in domainssuch as studying (Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci,1991; Vansteenkiste, Zhou, Lens, & Soenens,2005), friendships (Soenens & Vansteenkiste,2005), adoption of parental values (Knafo &Assor, 2007), and emotion regulation (Assoret al., 2004).

On the basis of self-determination theory,we also predicted that the internalization ofparental norms would serve as an interven-ing variable in the relations of parental stylesof prohibition to deviant peer affiliation. Inline with this, studies have shown that highlevels of internalization relate positively toadaptive behavioral outcomes, such as pro-social behavior (Ryan & Connell, 1989) andschool results (Black & Deci, 2000). More-over, research has shown that internalizationplays an intervening role in the relations ofautonomy-supportive (vs. controlling) parent-ing to adaptive emotional and behavioral out-comes (Grolnick et al., 1991).

The current study

The aim of this study was to examinethe associations among parental prohibition,styles of prohibition (viz., autonomy support-ive vs. controlling), internalization of parentalrules for friendships, deviant peer affilia-tion, and involvement in problem behaviors

(i.e., delinquency and antisocial behavior).This study had four specific goals. First, weattempted to develop a measure to assessparental styles of prohibition. With this mea-sure, we sought to provide a new approachto examining the role of parenting stylesin the association between prohibition offriendships and adolescent behavior. Previousstudies used separate measures for parentalprohibition of friendships and for parents’general rearing style (Mounts, 2002; Soe-nens, Vansteenkiste, Smits, et al., 2007). Toexamine whether parental styles moderatethe association between prohibition of friend-ships and adolescent behavior, these stud-ies typically examined whether prohibitionand general parenting style interact to predictproblem behaviors. This approach assumes,for instance, that the interaction of prohibi-tion and a general measure of authoritativeparenting reflects the extent to which parentscommunicate in an authoritative manner in thedomain of friendships. Nonetheless, becausethese studies did not measure authoritativeparenting specifically with regard to the pro-hibition of friendships, they did not providea direct test of this assumption. Therefore, inthe current study we developed an integratedassessment of the degree to which adolescentsperceive their parents as autonomy support-ive or controlling in the domain of prohibit-ing friendships. Specifically, we first askedadolescents to indicate the extent to whichtheir parents prohibit friendships. Then weasked them how their parents would commu-nicate those prohibitions of friendships (i.e.,in an autonomy-supportive or a controllingmanner). The responses from the latter partof the questionnaire thus reflect the extent towhich adolescents perceive their parents asautonomy supportive or controlling in directreference to the issue of prohibiting friend-ships. On the one hand, the scores obtainedfrom this measure of autonomy-supportiveand controlling prohibition represent mea-sures of parenting style because they deal withhow parents communicate their prohibition offriendships (rather than with what parents pro-hibit). On the other hand, this measure differsfrom Darling and Steinberg’s (1993) parent-ing style concept because it taps into styles


of communication within a specific domain(i.e., prohibiting friendships). As such, thismeasure is different from general, domain-overarching measures of the quality of par-ents’ rearing style.

Second, we examined the relative contri-bution of parental prohibition and styles ofprohibition to the prediction of internaliza-tion of parental rules, deviant peer affilia-tion, and involvement in problem behaviors.Based on extant research, we hypothesizedthat parental prohibition itself would be unre-lated or slightly positively related to those out-comes. Using self-determination theory, wehypothesized that parents’ styles of prohibi-tion would be associated with those outcomesabove and beyond the relation of prohibitionto those outcomes. Specifically, we expectedthat a controlling style of prohibition wouldrelate negatively to internalization and pos-itively to both deviant peer affiliation andinvolvement in problem behaviors, whereasan autonomy-supportive style of prohibitionwould reveal the opposite pattern of rela-tions. Third, we examined whether the inter-nalization of parental rules for friendshipswould serve as an intervening variable in therelations of styles of prohibition to deviantpeer affiliation. We expected that deviant peeraffiliation would, in turn, relate negativelyto involvement in problem behaviors (seeFigure 1).

Fourth, we examined gender differences inthe study variables and whether the structuralrelations in the hypothesized model woulddiffer by gender. This is important becausepast research has documented gender differ-ences in both deviant peer affiliation andinvolvement in behavior problems (Lansford,Criss, Pettit, Dodge, & Bates, 2003). We alsoexplored the relation of gender to parentalprohibition and styles of prohibition, althoughresearch did not document consistent gen-der differences in parental involvement withpeers. Similarly, because research has showndevelopmental trends with respect to affilia-tion with deviant peers and problem behaviors(Lacourse et al., 2003), we examined age dif-ferences in the study variables and whetherthe structural relations in the hypothesizedmodel would differ by age.

Method

Participants and procedure

Participants were 234 adolescents (81 boysand 153 girls) from a secondary school ina midsized Belgian city. We examined ourhypotheses in a convenience sample becausethis study was the first to provide a test ofthe conceptual model depicted in Figure 1 andbecause to date there is little evidence that theprocesses examined in this study would differdepending on whether one uses a conveniencesample or a less easily accessible and more

ControllingProhibition

Autonomy-SupportiveProhibition

RelativeInternalization

of Parental Rules

Affiliation WithDeviant Peers

Involvement inProblem

Behaviors

Prohibition ofFriendships

Figure 1. The hypothesized structural model of the associations among parental prohibition,styles of prohibition, internalization of parental rules for friendships, deviant peer affiliation,and involvement in problem behaviors.


heterogeneous sample (e.g., a clinical samplewith youth displaying high levels of problembehavior). The mean age of the participantswas 16.45 years (SD = 0.85), with a rangefrom 15 to 19 years. Sixty-three students(27%) were in 10th grade, 113 students (48%)in 11th grade, and 58 students (25%) in12th grade. In addition, 124 students (53%)attended a high school with an academictrack and 110 students (47%) attended a tradeor vocational school. The majority of theparticipants came from intact families (82%),whereas 16% had divorced parents and 2%came from a family in which one of theparents was deceased. All participants wereWhite and were of Belgian nationality. Thequestionnaires took approximately 45 min tocomplete and we administered them duringa class period. Participation in the study wasvoluntary and we guaranteed anonymity. Priorto the administration of the surveys, we askedadolescents to fill out an active consent form.None of the adolescents refused participation.

Measures

Parental prohibition and stylesof prohibition

We used a modified version of Mounts’s(2002) prohibition scale. Sample items fromMounts’s original scale are as follows: “Myparents tell me that they don’t like myfriends” and “My parents tell me that theydo not approve of the things my friendsdo.” Because Tilton-Weaver and Galambos(2003) argued that such items may not assessparental prohibition per se, but rather mayassess parental disapproval of friendships, weselected four items from Mounts’s scale andreworded those items so that they wouldmore directly reflect active parental prohibi-tion (see Table 1). This is important becausesome parents may disapprove of their child’sfriendships without actively forbidding theirchild to associate with those friends. Par-ticipants responded on a 5-point Likert-typescale, ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5(totally agree). To examine the level of con-vergence between Mounts’s original scale andour adaptation of this scale, we additionallyadministered Mounts’s six-item prohibition

scale. The estimate of internal consistency(Cronbach’s α) for this scale was .66. The cor-relation between both scales was significant(r = .47, p < .001). The magnitude of thiscorrelation suggests that both scales overlapsubstantially but still have somewhat differentcontent.

Directly following each of the four prohi-bition items, we asked participants, “If yourparents would do this, how would they discussthis with you?” and we presented them withthree items tapping parental styles of prohi-bition (one item assessed overt control, oneitem assessed covert control, and one itemassessed autonomy support; see Table 1 forthe items). Participants made responses ona 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1(totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). We pro-vide information about the psychometric qual-ity and internal structure of these measures inthe Results section.

To validate the distinction between a con-trolling and an autonomy-supportive style ofprohibition externally, participants completedgeneral assessments of parental psychologicalcontrol (i.e., the Psychological ControlScale–Youth Self-Report; Barber, 1996; eightitems; e.g., “My parents are less friendly withme if I do not see things their way”) andparental autonomy support (i.e., the Percep-tions of Parents Scale; Grolnick et al., 1991;seven items; e.g., “Whenever possible, myparents allow me to choose what to do”).Participants responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (totally disagree)to 5 (totally agree). The reliability for bothscales was as follows: psychological controlα = .75, autonomy-support α = .74.

Internalization

We assessed participants’ reasons for follow-ing parental rules for friendships using theSelf-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ; Ryan &Connell, 1989), which presented adolescentswith the following stem:

Sometimes parents introduce a rule con-cerning friendships. For instance, they mayforbid you to hang out with certain friendsthat they disapprove of. They may also setrules for how long and where you hang out

514 B. Soenens, M. Vansteenkiste, and C. P. NiemiecT

able

1.F

acto

rlo

adin

gs(p

atte

rnm

atri

x)of

the

prin

cipa

lfac

tor

anal

ysis

foll

owin

gob

liqu

e(p

rom

ax)r

otat

ion

onth

epr

ohib

itio

nan

dst

yles

ofpr

ohib

itio

nm

easu

res

Item

sC

ompo

nent

My

pare

nts

...

III

III

...

dono

tal

low

me

toha

ngou

tw

ithso

me

frie

nds

(PR

OH

1)−.

13−.

06.9

3..

.fo

rbid

me

toha

ngou

tw

ithce

rtai

nfr

iend

s(P

RO

H2)

.30

−.05

.45

...

dono

tw

ant

me

toge

tin

volv

edw

ithfr

iend

sw

hodo

bad

thin

gs(P

RO

H3)

.05

.27

.48

...

wan

tm

eto

put

anen

dto

cert

ain

frie

ndsh

ips

(PR

OH

4).3

8−.

02.4

5..

.w

ould

yell

atm

ean

dte

llm

eth

atI

will

bepu

nish

edif

Ike

epse

eing

thes

efr

iend

s(O

C1)

a.6

9−.

07.0

3..

.w

ould

beco

me

angr

yan

dob

lige

me

tobe

have

asth

eysa

y(O

C2)

b.7

2−.

07.0

4..

.w

ould

thre

aten

togi

vem

eha

rsh

puni

shm

ent

(OC

3)c

.76

.02

−.02

...

wou

ldfo

rce

me

bysa

ying

that

seve

reco

nseq

uenc

esw

illfo

llow

ifI

dono

tdo

wha

tth

eyw

ant

(OC

4)d

.89

−.01

−.10

...

wou

ldsa

yth

atth

eyw

illbe

very

disa

ppoi

nted

with

me

ifI

keep

seei

ngth

ese

frie

nds

(CC

1)a

.47

.05

.10

...

wou

ldbe

less

frie

ndly

with

me

for

aw

hile

,un

tilI

give

inan

ddo

not

mee

tw

ithth

ese

frie

nds

anym

ore

(CC

2)b

.76

.04

−.06

...

wou

ldm

ake

me

feel

guilt

yas

long

asI

hang

out

with

thes

efr

iend

s(C

C3)

c.4

9.0

3.1

0..

.w

ould

avoi

dlo

okin

gat

me

aslo

ngas

Ido

not

dow

hat

they

wan

t(C

C4)

d.8

5.0

8−.

12..

.w

ould

give

am

eani

ngfu

lex

plan

atio

nfo

rw

hyth

eyth

ink

itis

impo

rtan

tth

atI

dono

tha

ngou

tw

ithth

ese

frie

nds

(AS1

)a.0

4.6

8.0

4

...

wou

ldgi

vea

clea

ran

dse

nsib

lere

ason

asto

why

they

dono

tw

ant

me

toha

ngou

tw

ithth

ose

frie

nds

(AS2

)b.0

3.8

0.0

8

...

wou

ldbe

prep

ared

tolis

ten

tom

yop

inio

nan

das

km

eif

Ise

ea

way

toch

ange

som

ethi

ngab

out

thes

efr

iend

ship

sm

ysel

f(A

S3)c

−.11

.84

.00

...

wou

ldsh

owun

ders

tand

ing

for

my

situ

atio

nan

dex

plai

nw

hyth

eyth

ink

itis

impo

rtan

tfo

rm

eto

put

anen

dto

thes

efr

iend

ship

s(A

S4)d

.05

.89

−.08

Not

e.PR

OH

=pr

ohib

ition

;O

C=

over

tlyco

ntro

lling

;C

C=

cove

rtly

cont

rolli

ng;

AS

=au

tono

my-

supp

ortiv

e.a It

ems

follo

win

gth

efir

stpr

ohib

ition

item

.bIt

ems

follo

win

gth

ese

cond

proh

ibiti

onite

m.

c Item

sfo

llow

ing

the

thir

dpr

ohib

ition

item

.dIt

ems

follo

win

gth

efo

urth

proh

ibiti

onite

m.


with your friends. You may have differentmotives for following such rules. Pleaserate the following reasons or motives forfollowing your parents’ rules concerningfriendships. I follow my parents’ rules con-cerning friendships because . . .

Following this single stem, participantsrated 18 preselected responses that reflectthree types of regulation: external (six items),introjected (six items), and identified (sixitems). We provide the items in Table 2. Par-ticipants responded on a 5-point Likert-typescale, ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5(totally agree). We provide information aboutthe internal structure of this measure in theResults section.

Affiliation with deviant peers

We administered two scales to assess theextent to which participants’ best friends (fiveitems; e.g., “My best friend gets in troubleat school”) and peer group (five items; e.g.,

“Members of my group get in trouble atschool”) were involved in antisocial behavior(Lansford et al., 2003). Participants respondedon a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Thereliability for each scale was as follows:best friend antisocial behavior α = .81, peergroup antisocial behavior α = .76. In linewith previous studies (Lansford et al., 2003;Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Smits, et al., 2007),we computed an overall index of deviant peeraffiliation by averaging those two scales. Thepositive correlation between both scales inthis study (r = .52, p < .001) justifies thisapproach. Moreover, as we will detail below,both scales had significant loadings on acommon latent construct.

Involvement in problem behaviors

We administered two scales to assess adoles-cents’ involvement in problem behaviors. First,we assessed delinquency with a well-validated

Table 2. Factor loadings (pattern matrix) of the principal factor analysis following oblique(promax) rotation on the internalization measure

Items Component

I follow my parents’ rules concerning friendships because . . . I II III

. . . otherwise I will be punished (ER) −.02 .81 −.03

. . . I feel pressured to do so (ER) .00 .85 −.04

. . . I am afraid that I will lose the privileges that my parentsgive me (ER)

.09 .92 −.19

. . . I feel obliged to do so (ER) −.02 −.85 −.01

. . . otherwise I will be criticized (ER) −.08 .66 .23

. . . I would disappoint my parents if I would not do so (ER) .03 .47 .29

. . . it makes me feel proud about myself (INTROJ) .14 −.15 .47

. . . I would feel guilty if I would not do so (INTROJ) .00 .23 .59

. . . I owe this to myself (INTROJ) .15 −.07 .70

. . . I would be ashamed if I would not do so (INTROJ) −.05 .20 .64

. . . it makes me feel better about myself (INTROJ) .29 .05 .51

. . . otherwise I would feel bad about myself (INTROJ) −.05 .05 .80

. . . I find these rules personally meaningful (ID) .75 −.05 .04

. . . I fully stand behind this choice (ID) .91 .04 −.13

. . . I understand why these rules are important (ID) .74 .14 −.01

. . . I fully endorse this decision (ID) .84 −.03 −.05

. . . these rules match with my values (ID) .73 −.05 .12

. . . these rules are an expression of my personal values (ID) .72 −.03 −.05

Note. ER = external regulation; INTROJ = introjected regulation; ID = identified regulation.


questionnaire (Houtzager & Baerveldt, 1999).Participants indicated the number of timesthey committed 23 offenses during the past12 months, such as shoplifting, petty theft,vandalism, and unarmed fights. Participantsresponded on a 4-point Likert-type scale,ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (4 times or more).The reliability for this measure was α = .87.Second, we assessed antisocial behavior usingfive items from the Dutch translation (Verhulst,van der Ende, & Koot, 1996) of the Antiso-cial Behavior Scale from Achenbach’s (1991)Youth Self-Report (e.g., “I get into manyfights”). The reliability for this measure wasα = .74. Because both scales were positivelycorrelated (r = .56, p < .001), we computedan overall index of involvement in problembehaviors by averaging those two scales.

Results

Data analysis proceeded in three steps. First,using principal factor analysis (PFA), weexamined the internal structure of the newlydeveloped or modified measures that assessed(a) perceived parental prohibition and stylesof prohibition and (b) the internalization ofparental rules for friendships. Second, weexamined the associations among relevantbackground variables (viz., gender, type ofeducation, family structure, and age) and thestudy variables, as well as the interrelationsamong the study variables. Third, we testedthe hypothesized structural model using struc-tural equation modeling (SEM) with latentconstructs.

Internal structure and validation of themeasure assessing parental prohibitionand styles of prohibition

We performed a PFA with oblique (i.e., pro-max) rotation on the 16 items that assessedparental prohibition, overt control, covert con-trol, and autonomy support. We performedan oblique rotation because previous studieshave suggested that prohibition of friend-ships and parental styles is substantially corre-lated (Mounts, 2002; Soenens, Vansteenkiste,Smits, et al., 2007). Prior to performing thePFA, we calculated Bartlett’s Test of Spheric-ity, which tests the null hypothesis that the

16 items are, as a whole, uncorrelated. Werejected this null hypothesis of uncorrelateditems, χ2(120) = 1,749.44, p < .001, indi-cating that it was appropriate to perform aPFA. The number of missing values on thoseitems ranged from 5 to 18 and we eventu-ally performed the PFA on 216 participantswith full data on all items. Most missing val-ues occurred on the items assessing perceivedstyle of prohibition (and not on the itemsassessing prohibition per se). Specifically, 4%of the participants who responded to the pro-hibition items did not respond to the itemstapping style of prohibition, perhaps becausethey scored low on the prohibition measureand felt that the style of prohibition itemsdid not apply to them. We also note that asubstantial number of items (i.e., 10 of 16)were skewed. As is outlined below, we cor-rected for this deviation from normality in themain analyses. The PFA yielded three fac-tors with eigenvalues larger than 1. Moreover,the scree plot clearly indicated the presenceof three factors and the three-factor solutionexplained 55% of the variance in the items.The first factor, which had an eigenvalue of5.14 and explained 32% of the variance, wascomposed of the eight items that assessed acontrolling (i.e., overt and covert) style ofprohibition; the second factor, which had aneigenvalue of 2.64 and explained 17% of thevariance, was composed of the four items thatassessed an autonomy-supportive style of pro-hibition; and the third factor, which had aneigenvalue of 1.00 and explained 6% of thevariance, was composed of the four items thatassessed parental prohibition. All items hadfactor loadings equal to or greater than .45on their primary factor and, with one excep-tion, none of the items had cross-loadingslarger than .30 on any other factor. We pro-vide the pattern matrix of factor loadings inTable 1.1 The reliability for each factor was

1. Research on self-determination theory typically usesthe term relative autonomy index (RAI) to referto the composite index of autonomy. Most often,researchers compute this index as a combination ofexternal, introjected, and identified regulation, as wellas intrinsic motivation (with weights of–2,–1, 1, and2, respectively; Ryan & Connell, 1989). Unlike typicalself-determination theory studies, however, we did not


as follows: controlling style (eight items) α =.87, autonomy-supportive style (four items)α = .88, and parental prohibition (four items)α = .70.

We computed a number of correlations toexamine the external validity of our mea-sure of parental styles of prohibition. First,our controlling prohibition measure relatedpositively to psychological control (r = .46,p < .001) and negatively to general auton-omy support (r = −.39, p < .001). Second,our autonomy-supportive prohibition measurerelated negatively to psychological control(r = −.17, p < .01) and positively to gen-eral autonomy support (r = .26, p < .001).Together, these analyses supported the psy-chometric properties, as well as the exter-nal validity, of our measures that assessedparental styles of prohibition.

Internal structure of the measure assessinginternalization of parental rules forfriendships

We performed a PFA with oblique (i.e., pro-max) rotation on the 18 items that assessedadolescents’ external, introjected, and iden-tified reasons for following parental rulesfor friendships. We chose for oblique rota-tion because previous research documentedsubstantial correlations between the differ-ent motivational regulations (Neyrinck, Van-steenkiste, Lens, Hutsebaut, & Duriez, 2006;Ryan & Connell, 1989). Bartlett’s Test ofSphericity was again highly significant,χ2(231) = 3,151.89, p < .001. The numberof missing values on those items ranged fromsix to eight, and we eventually performedthe PFA on 225 participants with full dataon all items. Again, a substantial number ofitems (i.e., 7 of 18) were skewed. The PFAyielded three factors with eigenvalues largerthan 1. Although the scree plot did not clearly

assess intrinsic motivation (i.e., engaging in an activityfor its own sake). By definition, reasons for followingparental rules have a means-end structure such that theconcept of intrinsic motivation is not relevant. As thepresent study only assessed different types of extrinsicmotivation that vary in their degree of internalization,it seemed conceptually more appropriate to use thelabel RII (Neyrinck et al., 2006).

differentiate between a two-factor solutionand a three-factor solution, we preferred thethree-factor solution over the two-factor solu-tion (a) on the basis of substantive reasons(i.e., the theoretical expectation of three fac-tors and the theoretically plausible patternof loadings obtained in a three-factor solu-tion; see Table 2) and (b) on the basis of theKaiser criterion (i.e., eigenvalues larger than1). The three-factor solution explained 60%of the variance in the items. The first fac-tor, which had an eigenvalue of 6.45 andexplained 36% of the variance, was composedof the six items that assessed identification;the second factor, which had an eigenvalueof 3.81 and explained 20% of the variance,was composed of the six items that assessedexternal regulation; and the third factor, whichhad an eigenvalue of 1.04 and explained 4%of the variance, was composed of the sixitems that assessed introjected regulation. Allitems had loadings greater than .45 on theirprimary factor and none of the items hadcross-loadings larger than .30 on any otherfactor. We provide the pattern matrix of fac-tor loadings in Table 2. The reliability foreach factor was as follows: external regula-tion (six items) α = .90, introjected regulation(six items) α = .84, and identified regulation(six items) α = .91.

Based on Ryan and Connell (1989), weexpected the three behavioral regulationsubscales to form a quasi-simplex pattern(Guttman, 1954), in which constructs thatare more adjacent to each other on theunderlying internalization continuum shouldcorrelate positively, whereas constructs moredistant to each other should be less positively(or negatively) correlated. Results confirmedthis quasi-simplex pattern. Specifically, exter-nal regulation related positively to intro-jected regulation (r = .53, p < .001) and wasunrelated to identified regulation (r = .05,p > .05). Introjected and identified regula-tion were positively correlated (r = .53, p <

.001). This pattern of correlations suggeststhat introjected regulation lies between exter-nal and identified regulation, which providesfurther evidence for the internal validity of thescale and justifies the creation of a summaryindex that reflects adolescents’ overall level


of internalization (Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay,1997). To create this index, we assigned eachbehavioral regulation a weight depending onits placement along the internalization contin-uum (Ryan & Connell, 1989). We weightedexternal, introjected, and identified forms ofregulation as −2, −1, and +3, respectively,and we summed the weighted scores to cre-ate an overall composite score. This weight-ing procedure guarantees that the sum of theassigned weights is zero (Ryan & Connell,1989). Previous studies used a similar weight-ing procedure (Neyrinck et al., 2006; Ryan& Connell, 1989; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005).Following Neyrinck and colleagues (2006),we refer to this score as the relative inter-nalization index (RII).2

Descriptive statistics

Table 3 presents means and standard devia-tions for the study variables. We used theMahalanobis distance measure to identifymultivariate outliers. On the basis of this mea-sure, we removed 3 participants. Due to miss-ing values, we could not compute scale scoresfor some of the participants. Accordingly, nsvaried somewhat between scales, as indicatedin Table 3. Given the relatively limited num-ber of missing values, we did not estimate orimpute missing values. Full data on all scaleswere available for 215 participants. As shownin Table 3, the mean score on the prohibitingscale was 1.87 on a 5-point scale, indicatingthat prohibition of friendships does not occurfrequently in parent–adolescent relationships.This is further reflected in the finding that85% of the participants obtained a score lowerthan 3 (i.e., the scale’s midpoint) on the prohi-bition scale. Despite this low mean, it is worthnoting that the full range of scores was presentin our sample, with at least some participantsobtaining scores close to or at the maximumof the prohibition scale. Further, we found thatthe mean score for a controlling style of pro-hibition (M = 1.63) was substantially lower

2. We did not report the structure matrix of this PFAand the PFA performed on the internalization itemshere for reasons of parsimony. Readers interested inthis matrix can obtain it from the first author uponrequest.

than the mean for an autonomy-supportivestyle of prohibition (M = 3.59), t (215) =20.16, p < .001, which most likely reflectsthe fact that we obtained our data in a com-munity sample in which parent–adolescentrelationships were rather positive.

We performed a series of analyses of vari-ance (ANOVAs) to examine whether the studyvariables differed by gender, type of education(viz., academic track vs. vocational school),and family structure (viz., intact vs. nonin-tact). Those analyses revealed that type ofeducation and family structure were unre-lated to the study variables. As indicatedin Table 3, however, gender related signifi-cantly to several study variables. Specifically,girls reported higher identified regulationthan boys did. In contrast, boys, relative togirls, reported higher best friend antisocialbehavior, group antisocial behavior, and totaldeviant peer affiliation. Boys, relative to girls,also reported higher delinquency, antisocialbehavior, and total involvement in problembehaviors. We computed a series of corre-lations to examine the associations betweenage and the study variables. None of thosecorrelations was significant (rs ranged from.01 to .13). Thus, we controlled for genderin the primary analyses because it was theonly background variable that systematicallyrelated to the study variables.

Table 4 presents correlations among thestudy variables. As shown, parental prohibitionrelated positively to a controlled style of pro-hibition and was unrelated to an autonomy-supportive style of prohibition. Therefore, onaverage, adolescents perceived parental pro-hibition of friendships as controlling; how-ever, parental prohibition was orthogonal toan autonomy-supportive style of prohibition,indicating that adolescents did not necessar-ily perceive prohibition as autonomy inhibit-ing. Contrary to expectations, the correlationbetween an autonomy-supportive style of pro-hibition and a controlling style of prohibitionwas not significant.

Parental prohibition of friendships relatedpositively to external regulation, antisocialbehavior, and involvement in problem behav-iors. Moreover, parents’ styles of prohibi-tion, relative to prohibition itself, related more


Tab

le3.

Des

crip

tive

stat

isti

csfo

rth

efu

llsa

mpl

ean

dse

para

tely

byge

nder

Full

sam

ple

Boy

sG

irls

Gen

der

diff

eren

ce

Var

iabl

eV

alid

NM

(SD

)Po

ssib

lera

nge

Obs

erve

dra

nge

M(S

D)

M(S

D)

F(1

,21

3)η

2

Proh

ibiti

on22

41.

87(0

.78)

1.0

–5.

01.

0–

5.0

1.77

(0.6

9)1.

99(0

.82)

3.60

.02

Con

trol

ling

proh

ibiti

on21

61.

63(0

.73)

1.0

–5.

01.

0–

5.0

1.50

(0.6

1)1.

70(0

.79)

3.69

.02

Aut

onom

y-su

ppor

tive

proh

ibiti

on21

63.

59(1

.16)

1.0

–5.

01.

0–

5.0

3.42

(1.2

6)3.

63(1

.09)

1.43

.01

Rel

ativ

ein

tern

aliz

atio

nin

dex

225

2.23

(3.5

7)–

8.0

to12

.0–

7.0

to1.

01.

66(3

.28)

2.67

(3.7

6)3.

78.0

2E

xter

nal

regu

latio

n22

51.

99(0

.93)

1.0

–5.

01.

0–

4.7

1.99

(0.8

8)1.

98(0

.97)

0.00

.00

Intr

ojec

ted

regu

latio

n22

52.

16(0

.83)

1.0

–5.

01.

0–

5.0

2.05

(0.7

7)2.

22(0

.86)

1.89

.01

Iden

tified

regu

latio

n22

52.

79(1

.07)

1.0

–5.

01.

0–

5.0

2.57

(0.9

8)2.

95(1

.08)

5.29

∗.0

2D

evia

ntpe

eraf

filia

tion

228

1.82

(0.7

1)1.

0–

5.0

1.0

–3.

82.

20(0

.70)

1.61

(0.6

3)31

.40∗

∗∗.1

2B

est

frie

ndan

tisoc

ial

228

1.73

(0.7

7)1.

0–

5.0

1.0

–4.

62.

06(0

.81)

1.56

(0.7

1)5.

78∗

.03

Peer

grou

pan

tisoc

ial

228

1.98

(0.8

3)1.

0–

5.0

1.0

–4.

22.

36(0

.86)

1.74

(0.7

0)33

.86∗

∗∗.1

2In

volv

emen

tin

prob

lem

beha

vior

s23

00.

72(0

.30)

0.5

–4.

00.

5–

3.0

0.84

(0.3

8)0.

66(0

.22)

18.3

6∗∗∗

.08

Del

inqu

ency

230

0.12

(0.2

3)0.

0–

3.0

0.0

–1.

60.

20(0

.31)

0.08

(0.1

0)19

.79∗

∗∗.0

6A

ntis

ocia

lbe

havi

or23

11.

32(0

.44)

1.0

–5.

01.

0–

4.3

1.48

(0.5

4)1.

24(0

.36)

12.2

3∗∗∗

.05

∗ p<

.05.

∗∗p

<.0

1.∗∗

∗ p<

.001

.


Tab

le4.

Cor

rela

tion

sam

ong

stud

yva

riab

les 1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

1.Pr

ohib

ition

2.C

ontr

ollin

gpr

ohib

ition

.49∗∗

∗3.

Aut

onom

y-su

ppor

tive

proh

ibiti

on.0

4–.1

14.

Rel

ativ

ein

tern

aliz

atio

nin

dex

−.10

–.3

7∗∗∗

.32∗

∗∗5.

Ext

erna

lre

gula

tion

.16∗

.52∗

∗∗–.2

2∗∗∗

–.6

1∗∗∗

6.In

troj

ecte

dre

gula

tion

.03

.17∗

.04

–.0

3.5

3∗∗∗

7.Id

entifi

edre

gula

tion

−.01

–.0

7.2

4∗∗∗

.75∗

∗∗.0

5.5

3∗∗∗

8.D

evia

ntpe

eraf

filia

tion

.11

.15∗

–.2

5∗∗∗

–.3

3∗∗∗

.29∗

∗∗.0

9–.1

8∗∗

9.B

est

frie

ndan

tisoc

ial

.08

.11

–.2

9∗∗∗

–.2

4∗∗∗

.26∗

∗∗.0

9–.0

9.8

8∗∗∗

10.

Peer

grou

pan

tisoc

ial

.13

.25∗∗

∗–.1

8∗–.3

7∗∗∗

.27∗∗

∗.0

8–.2

2∗∗.8

8∗∗∗

.52∗∗

∗11

.In

volv

emen

tin

prob

lem

beha

vior

s.1

3∗.2

2∗∗

–.1

7∗∗

–.2

1∗∗

.18∗

∗–.0

1–.1

3.4

8∗∗∗

.34∗

∗∗.5

3∗∗∗

12.

Del

inqu

ency

.09

.13∗

–.0

5–.1

5∗.1

4∗.0

0–.0

9.4

4∗∗∗

.32∗

∗∗.4

5∗∗∗

.79∗

∗∗13

.A

ntis

ocia

lbe

havi

or.1

3∗.2

3∗∗∗

–.2

1∗∗∗

–.2

0∗∗

.19∗

∗–.0

1–.1

1.4

3∗∗∗

.31∗

∗∗.5

0∗∗∗

.94∗

∗∗.5

6∗∗∗

∗ p<

.05.

∗∗p

<.0

1.∗∗

∗ p<

.001

.


systematically and strongly to the levels ofinternalization and the outcomes. As expected,a controlled style of prohibition related pos-itively to external and introjected regulationand negatively to the RII. A controlled styleof prohibition also related positively to peergroup antisocial behavior, deviant peer affil-iation, delinquency, antisocial behavior, andinvolvement in problem behaviors. Also asexpected, an autonomy-supportive style ofprohibition related negatively to external reg-ulation and positively to identified regula-tion. Further, an autonomy-supportive style ofprohibition related negatively to best friendantisocial behavior, group antisocial behavior,deviant peer affiliation, delinquency, antiso-cial behavior, and involvement in problembehaviors.

Finally, the associations among the levelsof internalization and the problem behavioroutcomes largely confirmed our hypotheses.The relations of the three regulatory stylesto the outcome variables tended to follow asimplex pattern because they related less pos-itively and more negatively as they movedalong the internalization continuum fromexternal to identified regulation. In line withthis, the RII related negatively to each ofthe scales that assessed deviant peer affilia-tion and involvement in problem behaviors.Finally, as expected, there were strong andconsistent associations between the scales thatassessed deviant peer affiliation and involve-ment in problem behaviors.

Primary analyses

We used SEM with latent constructs toexamine the hypothesized conceptual modeldepicted in Figure 1. We preferred SEM withlatent constructs over SEM with observedvariables because the former approach allowsthe analyst to control for measurement error.We used LISREL 8.54 (Joreskog & Sorbom,1996) to conduct analysis of the covariancematrices and to generate solutions on thebasis of maximum-likelihood (ML) estima-tion. Although ML estimation assumes mul-tivariate normality, simulation studies haveshown that the values of parameter esti-mates that ML generates are relatively robust

against nonnormality (Kline, 2005), which isimportant because a substantial number ofindicators in this study violated the assump-tion of normality (see below). We modeledsix latent constructs (i.e., parental prohibition,controlling style of prohibition, autonomy-supportive style of prohibition, internaliza-tion, deviant peer affiliation, and involvementin problem behaviors). The four items thatassessed each of these constructs indicatedthe latent constructs parental prohibition andautonomy-supportive style of prohibition. Fourparcels indicated the latent construct con-trolling style of prohibition. A parcel is anaggregate-level indicator composed of thesum or average of two or more individualitems. In this study, we created four parcelsfor the controlling style of prohibition con-struct by computing the mean of one overtand one covert control item. Three parcelsindicated the latent construct internalization.To create these parcels, we randomly selectedtwo external, two introjected, and two iden-tified regulation items. Next, we weightedeach item according to its theoretical posi-tion along the continuum of internalization.We then computed each of the three RIIparcels as the mean of two external regulationitems (weighted −2), two introjected regu-lation items (weighted −1), and two identi-fied regulation items (weighted +3). We usedparcels, rather than the observed item scores,as indicators of both a controlling style ofprohibition and internalization to reduce theratio between the number of parameters inthe models and the sample size. The latentconstruct deviant peer affiliation had two indi-cators: the scale scores for best friend antiso-cial behavior and peer group antisocial behav-ior. Finally, the latent construct involvementin problem behaviors had two indicators: thescale scores for delinquency and antisocialbehavior. To control for the relation of gen-der, we regressed each parcel onto gender andused the residual scores as indicators.

Data screening of the observed indicatorsrevealed data nonnormality, both at the uni-variate and at the multivariate levels. At theunivariate level, 13 of 20 observed indica-tors were skewed and 8 indicators showeddeviations in kurtosis. The multivariate tests


for skew (z = 36.94, p < .001) and kurto-sis (z = 15.35, p < .001) also showed sig-nificant deviations from normality. Therefore,in all subsequent models we used the asymp-totic covariance matrix between all indicatorsas input and inspected the Satorra–Bentlerscaled chi-square (SBS-χ2; Satorra & Bentler,1994). We selected the comparative fit index(CFI) and the root mean square error ofapproximation (RMSEA) to evaluate modelgoodness of fit, with combined cut-off valuesclose to .95 for CFI and .06 for RMSEA indi-cating good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Measurement model

As Anderson and Gerbing (1988) recommend,we first tested a measurement model com-prised of all latent constructs involved in thisstudy prior to examining the structural associ-ations among the latent constructs. Estimationof the measurement model with 20 observedindicators and six latent constructs yielded anacceptable model fit, SBS-χ2(137) = 252.20,p < .001; CFI = .96; RMSEA = .06. All indi-cators had significant (p < .001) loadings ontheir respective latent constructs, ranging from.50 to .94 (mean lambda = .71).

Structural models

In a first set of structural models, we assessedthe relative contribution of parental prohibi-tion and styles of prohibition to the predictionof internalization, deviant peer affiliation,and involvement in problem behaviors. Thesemodels allowed us to test the hypothesisthat parental styles of prohibition are morestrongly related to internalization, deviantpeer affiliation, and involvement in prob-lem behaviors, compared to prohibition itself.We estimated separate models for internal-ization, deviant peer affiliation, and involve-ment in problem behaviors as dependentvariables. In each model, we modeled pro-hibition, controlling style of prohibition, andautonomy-supportive style of prohibition assimultaneous predictors. Each of the threemodels approached the criteria for acceptablefit (CFIs > .95 and RMSEAs < .08). Prohi-bition was unrelated to each of the three out-come variables (standardized path coefficient

β = .16, β = .10, and β = .07, respectively,all ps > .05). A controlling style of prohibi-tion was negatively related to internalization(β = −.47, p < .001) and positively relatedto deviant peer affiliation and involvement inproblem behaviors (β = .24, p < .05, and β =.27, p < .01, respectively). By contrast, anautonomy-supportive style of prohibition waspositively related to internalization (β = .32,p < .001) and negatively related to deviantpeer affiliation and involvement in problembehaviors (β = −.27, p < .01, and β = −.18,p < .05, respectively). Together, these find-ings suggest that parental prohibition doesnot have unique relations to internalization,deviant peer affiliation, or involvement inproblem behaviors after accounting for thestyles of prohibition.

In the second set of structural models,we examined the full hypothesized modeldepicted in Figure 1, which posits an interven-ing role for internalization in the relations ofstyles of prohibition to deviant peer affiliation.We did not include prohibition in this phase ofmodel testing because it was unrelated to eachof the intervening and dependent variables.We followed Holmbeck’s (1997) recommen-dations to test the intervening role of inter-nalization using three steps. First, we tested adirect effects model that included direct rela-tions of styles of prohibition to deviant peeraffiliation. Second, we tested a full media-tion model in which the styles of prohibitionrelated indirectly to deviant peer affiliationthrough internalization. Third, we tested a par-tial mediation model that included direct rela-tions of styles of prohibition to deviant peeraffiliation, in addition to the indirect relationsthrough internalization. Full mediation is evi-dent when the partial mediation model doesnot fit the data better than the full mediationmodel (Holmbeck, 1997).

The direct effects model included rela-tions of controlling and autonomy-supportivestyles of prohibition to deviant peer affilia-tion, which related to involvement in prob-lem behaviors. This model yielded adequatefit, SBS-χ2(50) = 92.12, p < .001; CFI =.96; RMSEA = .06, and showed that bothcontrolling and autonomy-supportive styles


Controlling Prohibition

Autonomy-Supportive Prohibition

Relative Internalization of Parental Rules

Affiliation With Deviant Peers

Involvement in Problem

Behaviors

-.39***

.32***

-.31** .65***

.25**

Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4

Parcel 4 Parcel 3 Parcel 2 Parcel1

Parcel 3 Parcel 2 Parcel1 Deviant Friend Deviant Group Delinquency Antisocial Behavior

.78 .74

.81 .79

.66 .76 .88 .91

.93 .85 .75 .90 .53 .69 .77

.56 .42 .22 .17

.14 .28 .44 .19 .71 .52 .41

.45 .39 .35 .38

-.17*

Figure 2. The structural model, with standardized parameter estimates, of the associationsamong styles of prohibition, internalization of parental rules for friendships, deviant peeraffiliation, and involvement in problem behaviors.**p < .01. ***p < .001.

of prohibition related to deviant peer affil-iation (β = .37, p < .001, and β = −.23,p < .01, respectively), and deviant peer affil-iation related positively to involvement inproblem behaviors (β = .70, p < .001).Adding direct relations of the styles of pro-hibition to involvement in problem behaviorsdid not result in a significant improvement inmodel fit, �SBS-χ2(2) = 1.52, p > .05, andboth paths were nonsignificant (ps > .05).Thus, we did not include these paths in sub-sequent analyses.

The full mediation model included rela-tions of the styles of prohibition to internaliza-tion, internalization to deviant peer affiliation,and deviant peer affiliation to involvementin problem behaviors. This model yieldedan acceptable fit, SBS-χ2(85) = 151.72, p <

.001; CFI = .97; RMSEA = .06, and all pathcoefficients were significant (ps < .001).

Adding a direct relation of an autonomy-supportive style of prohibition to deviantpeer affiliation (i.e., testing the partial media-tion model for an autonomy-supportive styleof prohibition) did not improve model fit,�SBS-χ2(1) = 1.52, p > .05, and this rela-tion was no longer significant (β = −.12, p >

.05). A Sobel (1982) test showed that theindirect relation of an autonomy-supportive

style of prohibition to deviant peer affilia-tion through internalization was significant(z = −2.94, p < .01). In contrast, adding adirect relation of a controlling style of pro-hibition to deviant peer affiliation improvedmodel fit significantly, �SBS-χ2(1) = 3.86,p < .05, and this relation remained significant(β = .25, p < .01). The indirect relation of acontrolling style of prohibition to deviant peeraffiliation through internalization was signif-icant (z = 2.90, p < .01). In sum, whereasinternalization fully mediated the relation ofan autonomy-supportive style of prohibitionto deviant peer affiliation, internalization wasa partial mediator in the relation of a control-ling style of prohibition to deviant peer affil-iation. The best fitting model, SBS-χ2(84) =146.86, p < .001; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .06,is depicted in Figure 2.3

3. In an additional set of regression analyses, weexamined whether styles of prohibition would predictinternalization of parental rules for friendships aftercontrolling for general dimensions of parenting style(i.e., autonomy support and psychological control).This is important because we wanted to show that it isparents’ specific style in the friendship domain (ratherthan their domain-general style) that matters for theinternalization of rules for friendships. In Step 1, weentered prohibition and the styles of prohibition in theprediction of the three internalization measures and


Moderation by gender and age

We conducted two multigroup analyses toexamine whether gender and age moderatedthe structural relations found in the finalmodel. Multigroup analysis compares a con-strained model, in which the structural coeffi-cients of the model are set equal across genderor age, to an unconstrained model, in whichwe allowed those coefficients to vary acrossgender or age. We compared models usingthe difference in chi-square that correspondsto the difference in the number of degreesof freedom between the unconstrained andthe constrained models. A significant differ-ence implies that the model differs signifi-cantly across gender or age. To test for themoderating role of adolescents’ age, we cre-ated two groups based on a median split ofthe age variable, namely younger adolescents(Mage = 15.77, SD = 0.47) and older ado-lescents (Mage = 17.14, SD = 0.54). Multi-group analysis showed that gender and age didnot moderate the five structural relations inFigure 2, �SBS-χ2(5) = 7.65, p > .05, and�SBS-χ2(5) = 2.01, p > .05, respectively.

Discussion

Most research on the role of parents inthe processes related to deviant peer affilia-tion during adolescence has examined eitherparents’ rearing style (e.g., authoritativeness;Brown, Mounts, Lamborn, & Steinberg, 1993)or specific parenting practices (e.g., pro-hibition; Mounts, 2001). The aim of thisstudy was to add to the body of researchby (a) simultaneously assessing the amountof prohibition and styles of prohibition;(b) examining the associations among parentalprohibition, styles of prohibition, deviant peeraffiliation, and involvement in problem behav-iors; and (c) examining the intervening role of

the RII. In Step 2, we added the general dimensionsof parenting style (i.e., autonomy support and psy-chological control). All associations between styles ofprohibition and internalization remained significant. Ingeneral, the styles of prohibition were more stronglyand consistently related to internalization than the gen-eral dimensions of parenting style, indicating that thestyles of prohibition have specific relevance for inter-nalization and that the general dimensions of parentingstyle cannot explain their relations.

adolescents’ internalization of parental rulesfor friendships among these associations. Sev-eral interesting findings emerged.

First, using factor analysis we demonstratedthat parental prohibition of friendships andparental styles of prohibition (i.e., autonomysupportive and controlling) are distinct con-structs, although we should note that atleast one of the prohibition items tendedto cross-load on the controlling style fac-tor (see Table 1). The mean prohibition scorewas fairly low, indicating that prohibition offriendships does not occur frequently, at leastin this community sample. The low mean ofprohibition of friendships is consistent withthe idea that parents are reluctant to intervenein the personal domain because they antici-pate that children would perceive their inter-vention as illegitimate (Smetana & Daddis,2002). Interestingly, whereas parental prohi-bition itself related positively to a control-ling style of prohibition, it was unrelatedto an autonomy-supportive style of prohibi-tion. Thus, it appears that when parents doprohibit friendships, on average, they com-municate such prohibitions in a more con-trolling way. This is in line with previousresearch showing that adolescents typicallyperceive peer management strategies, such asprohibition and guiding, as controlling (Soe-nens, Vansteenkiste, Smits, et al., 2007). Alsothis finding is consistent with social domaintheory’s assertion that adolescents typicallyexperience parental interventions in the per-sonal domain (e.g., friendships) as illegiti-mate and intrusive (Smetana & Daddis, 2002).The finding that parental prohibition did notrelate negatively to an autonomy-supportivestyle of prohibition is interesting becauseit contradicts the widespread notion withindevelopmental psychology that parental rulesetting is necessarily inhibitive of auton-omy. This confusion stems mainly fromthe tendency among developmental psycholo-gists to equate autonomy with granting unre-stricted freedom and with a permissive, “lais-sez faire” approach (Sierens, Vansteenkiste,Goossens, Soenens, & Dochy, 2009; Soenens,Vansteenkiste, Lens, et al., 2007). Accordingto self-determination theory, parents can sup-port their child’s autonomy even when they


communicate rules for behavior, which limitsthe child’s ability to make independent deci-sions (Grolnick, 2003). This can be done bytaking the child’s perspective (e.g., acknowl-edging that it may not be easy to terminatecertain friendships) and by providing a mean-ingful rationale for following the parentalguidelines. An autonomy-supportive style ofcommunicating a clear parental expectationfor behavior (e.g., not hanging out with a par-ticular friend) does not grant the child unre-stricted freedom; however, it is still likelythat the adolescent would feel understood bythe parents, internalize the parents’ rules, and,hence, experience some degree of volition insticking to their parents’ rules. Apart from thepossibility that autonomy-supportive parent-ing increases the likelihood of internalization,the possibility also exists that parents respondin a more autonomy-supportive manner whentheir children are more inclined to internalizeparental rules.

One unexpected finding was the non-significant association between autonomy-supportive and controlling styles of prohibition(r = −.11). This correlation is surprisingbecause, theoretically, autonomy-supportiveparenting and controlling parenting representrather incompatible parenting dimensions thatshould be strongly negatively correlated(Grolnick, 2003) and because research withdomain-general assessments of both dimen-sions has indeed obtained strong negative cor-relations (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Sierens,2009). The nonsignificant correlation obtainedin the current study suggests that in thefriendship domain, some parents are eitherautonomy-supportive or controlling, whereasother parents are simultaneously autonomy-supportive and controlling. Most likely, thelatter parents sometimes engage in autonomy-supportive tactics and sometimes engage incontrolling tactics, such that those tacticscome to coexist in their parenting style acrosstime. It remains unclear, however, why thiswould be specifically the case in the domainof friendships and not at the general (domain-overarching) level. Clearly, research needsto explore this issue further. Another inter-esting area for future research would be anin-depth, qualitative analysis of the reasons

parents provide to prohibit friendships. It isunlikely that all rationales from parents areequally meaningful or child centered. Somerationales may emanate from an authenticparental concern for the child’s welfare (e.g.,developing mutually satisfying relationships),whereas others may reflect parents’ own agen-das (e.g., when parents want their child toaffiliate with friends that fit with the family’sreputation and status). It would be interestingto examine whether adolescents perceive theformer type of rationale as more meaningfuland autonomy supportive than the latter.

A second set of findings concerns the dif-ferential relations of prohibition and parentalstyles of prohibition to the measures ofdeviant peer affiliation and involvement inproblem behaviors. Parental prohibition itselfwas unrelated to the dependent variables. Ifanything, the amount of prohibition relatedpositively to involvement in problem behav-iors, which is consistent with earlier reports(Mounts, 2001, 2002; Tilton-Weaver &Galambos, 2003). Parental styles of prohibi-tion did relate systematically to the behav-ioral outcomes, as an autonomy-supportivestyle of prohibition related negatively, and acontrolling style of prohibition related posi-tively, to deviant peer affiliation and involve-ment in problem behaviors. These findings arein line with Darling and Steinberg’s (1993)claim that parents’ style of communicatingspecific practices (e.g., prohibition) is essen-tial to understanding whether such practiceswill protect against maladaptive behavioraloutcomes. Another possible interpretation ofthese findings is that parents may respondto their adolescents’ deviant peer affiliationwith a more controlling and a less autonomy-supportive style of prohibition.

Third, the present study goes beyond theobservation that different styles of prohibitionrelate differentially to deviant peer affiliationby examining the process of internalization asan intervening variable in those associations.As such, this study is among the first to assessadolescents’ internalization of parental rulesfor friendships. In line with self-determinationtheory, we found evidence for a distinctionbetween three motives for following parentalrules that one can order along an underlying


continuum of internalization (viz., external,introjected, and identified regulation). Moreimportant, adolescents’ relative position onthis continuum (as their score on the RIIindicates) at least partially accounted for therelations of parental styles of prohibitionto deviant peer affiliation. Adolescents whoreported that their parents communicated pro-hibition using an autonomy-supportive stylescored higher on our measure of internal-ization, whereas adolescents who reportedthat their parents communicated prohibitionusing a controlling style scored lower onthis measure. A lack of internalization relatedpositively to deviant peer affiliation, likelybecause adolescents who follow parental rulesprimarily to avoid punishment or parental crit-icism lack a reason to comply with those rulesonce they are outside of the parental super-vision. It is only when adolescents endorsetheir parents’ rules that they are likely to fol-low these guidelines in the absence of parentalsupervision.

It is worthwhile to note that gender andage did not moderate the hypothesized asso-ciations among the styles of prohibition, inter-nalization, and the behavioral outcomes. Notonly do these findings testify to the robust-ness of the hypothesized model, they also sup-port the claim made within self-determinationtheory that high-quality internalization allowsindividuals to satisfy the basic psychologicalneeds for autonomy, competence, and relat-edness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Because theseneeds are universal (Ryan & Deci, 2000), onecan expect that the process of internaliza-tion and the interpersonal factors that facilitateinternalization invariantly relate to adaptiveoutcomes across age and gender.

Interestingly, taking into account internal-ization did not fully reduce the relation ofa controlling style of prohibition to deviantpeer affiliation. That is, a controlling style ofprohibition had both direct and indirect rela-tions to deviant peer affiliation, which sug-gests that additional processes may accountfor this relation. One possibility is that acontrolling style of prohibition both inhibitsinternalization and elicits an unpleasant affec-tive response by adolescents, who may feelthat prohibition is a threat to their personal

jurisdiction and who may rebel against theirparents’ rules (Brehm, 1966). Future researchmay examine the intervening role of defiantor rebellious reactions. Another possibility isthat the remaining direct association betweencontrolling prohibition and deviant peer affil-iation reflects a child effect, rather than aparent effect. Parents of adolescents who areinvolved with deviant peers may becomehighly concerned about the consequences oftheir children’s deviant peer affiliation. Drivenby such concerns, parents may resort to apunitive response as the most direct way toput an end to the child’s problematic peerrelationships. This punitive response may inturn further undermine adolescents’ internal-ization of their parents’ rules for friendshipsand increase their problem behavior over time.Longitudinal research should examine thesepresumed reciprocal dynamics.

Another direction for future research isto extend the model proposed in this studyto other life domains. Friendships typicallyrepresent a personal issue (Smetana, 1995).Accordingly, it may be worthwhile to exam-ine the validity of our model in the domainsof morality or social convention. Based onsocial domain theory, it is likely that ado-lescents would perceive parental rule settingwithin the moral domain (e.g., stealing andfighting) as less controlling compared to rulesetting in the friendship domain. Also, ado-lescents may more easily internalize parentalrules for moral issues compared to personalissues because they perceive the former rulesas more legitimate. If our conceptual modelholds any truth, however, then the struc-tural relations posited among the concepts ofparental styles, internalization, and adaptivebehavior should hold in other life domains.Even though adolescents may be less likely toperceive their parents as controlling when par-ents prohibit particular behaviors in the moraldomain (e.g., stealing), when parents do pres-sure their children to comply with their moralrules both a lack of internalization and lessengagement in adaptive moral behavior arelikely to follow.


Limitations

This study provided only a preliminary testof our proposed conceptual model. As such,it has a number of important limitations. First,our data were self-reported, and as a con-sequence, some of the associations obtainedmay be overestimated due to shared methodvariance. An important aim for future researchis to obtain parental reports of prohibi-tion and styles of prohibition. This multi-informant approach would increase the valid-ity of our assessments of prohibition andstyles of prohibition, and would allow foran examination of the discrepancies betweenparents’ and children’s reports of styles ofprohibition and the role of these discrepan-cies in the children’s functioning (Mounts,2007). Future research may also use a multi-informant approach to assess deviant peeraffiliation and involvement in problem behav-iors (e.g., through teacher and peer nomina-tion). This is important because the correlationbetween deviant peer affiliation and adoles-cents’ own involvement in problem behaviorsmay be inflated due to the use of self-reports(Mounts, 2001). Second, although our newand integrated measure of parental prohibitionand styles of prohibition yielded interest-ing results, it has a number of shortcom-ings. The reliability of the prohibition measurewas modest, which may explain why prohi-bition as such was less strongly related tothe outcomes than the styles of prohibition.Moreover, one of the prohibition items tendedto cross-load with the controlling prohibitionfactor.4 Further, a number of participants whoscored low on the prohibition items did notfill out the style of prohibition items, possiblybecause they felt that the latter items did notapply to them. Future research may addressthese shortcomings, for instance, by formulat-ing more items (thereby increasing scale reli-ability) and formulating items that distinguish

4. To examine how the fourth prohibition item (whichtends to cross-load on the controlling style of prohi-bition factor) affected our results, we performed addi-tional analyses in which we omitted this item from thescale score. Analyses both with and without this itemin the prohibition scale score yielded highly similarresults.

even better between prohibition and control-ling style of prohibition.

A third limitation is the cross-sectionaldesign of this study, which prevented anexamination of the longitudinal dynamicsinvolved in the relations within our concep-tual model. Based on extant research and the-ory (Tilton-Weaver & Galambos, 2003), itis likely that the relations in our model arereciprocal. For instance, although we modeledprohibition, styles of prohibition, and internal-ization as predictors of deviant peer affiliationand involvement in problem behaviors, ado-lescents’ behaviors may affect parents’ stylesof responding as well. Indeed, parental prohi-bition may not even initiate adolescents’ affili-ations with deviant peers; rather, other factors(e.g., disadvantaged neighborhood, tempera-ment, general lack of parental monitoring)may contribute more directly to a susceptibil-ity to deviant peer affiliation (Lacourse et al.,2003). Once adolescents become involvedwith deviant peers, however, parents’ stylesof responding may be important to the deter-mination of adolescents’ subsequent behav-ior. When adolescents get in trouble becauseof their affiliation with deviant peers, par-ents may become highly concerned with theirchildren’s friendships. Driven by concern andworry, parents may become more likely torespond not just with prohibitions but alsowith a more controlling (i.e., punitive) style.A controlling style of prohibition may in turnrelate in a cyclical manner to less internal-ization, more involvement in problem behav-iors, and again more controlling prohibition;in contrast, an autonomy-supportive responsemay halt this trajectory of increasing affilia-tion with deviant peers. Given the importanceof the outcomes involved in this transactionalprocess (e.g., drug use, school success), alarge-scale longitudinal study should examinethese presumed longitudinal dynamics.

A fourth limitation is that the sample wasnot representative of any known populationand therefore cannot be generalized beyondthe one studied. In particular, the lack of het-erogeneity in our sample in terms of importantsocioeconomic variables such as educationallevel, family structure, and ethnicity limits thegeneralizability of this study. As such, it is


unclear whether the model that we tested inthis study will be generally applicable to pop-ulations that are less homogeneous in termsof these variables. Although there is a need toreplicate this study in populations similar tothe one here to determine whether the findingswill be similar in another sample of the samepopulation, there is also a particular needfor future research to rely on samples withmore ethnic heterogeneity. There are indica-tions that parents in highly family-focusedcultures (e.g., Latino and African Americanfamilies) are less encouraging of friendships,possibly because they want to keep their chil-dren away from influences outside the family(Way, Greene, & Mukherjee, 2007). Accord-ingly, in cultures with a strong orientationtoward the family, parents may often prohibitfriendships and typically use a more control-ling style when doing so. An important aimfor future research, however, will be to gobeyond the study of mean-level differencesand to assess whether the structural relationsobtained in this study generalize to samples ofnon-Western children and adolescents. On thebasis of extant research (Chirkov, Ryan, Kim,& Kaplan, 2003; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005),we hypothesize that, in spite of mean-leveldifferences, autonomy-supportive and control-ling styles of prohibition would relate in sim-ilar ways to internalization and adolescentoutcomes across nations and cultures. Moregenerally, there is a need to replicate ourfindings using samples that are more hetero-geneous in terms of family structure, educa-tional level, and socioeconomic status. Thisis important because we obtained the currentfindings by studying a community sample ofrelatively well-adjusted adolescents. As such,it remains to be examined whether our find-ings are generally applicable to samples ofmore deviant adolescents.

Conclusion

The initial question that guided this researchwas whether practitioners working with par-ents and families (e.g., family therapists andcounselors) should prohibit parental prohi-bition of friendships. Our answer is no.Nonetheless, if parents aim to prohibit their

adolescents’ friendships, they would do wellto pay attention to their style of communicatingprohibitions. When adolescents perceive theirparents as prohibiting friendships in a pres-suring way, adolescents only seem to adopttheir parents’ rules for friendships out ofobligation. This lack of full internalizationis unlikely to protect against the suscepti-bility to deviant peer affiliation. Moreover,the disruptive behaviors that follow fromthis lack of internalization may further elicitand reinforce a controlling parental responseto their children’s friendships. Conversely,adolescents who perceive their parents asmanaging their friendships in an autonomy-supportive manner seem to be more likely toaccept their parents’ rules for friendships. Theadaptive behavioral outcomes associated withthis high-quality internalization may in turnleave room for parents to regulate their chil-dren’s friendships in an autonomy-supportivemanner.

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child BehaviorChecklist/4–18 and 1991 Child Profile. Burlington:University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structuralequation modeling in practice: A review and recom-mended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin,103 , 411–423.

Assor, A., Roth, G., & Deci, E. L. (2004). The emo-tional costs of parents’ conditional regard: A self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Personality,72 , 47–88.

Assor, A., Vansteenkiste, M., & Kaplan, A. (2009).Approach and avoidance introjected motivations:Approach is better than avoidance, but identifiedmotivation is better than both. Journal of EducationalPsychology , 101 , 482–497.

Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control:Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development,67 , 3296–3319.

Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instruc-tors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomousmotivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education,84 , 740–756.

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reac-tance. New York: Academic Press.

Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (2000).Stability and variability of adolescents’ affiliationwith delinquent friends: Predictors and consequences.Social Development, 9 , 205–225.

Brown, B. B., Bakken, J., Nguyen, J., & Von Bank, H.(2007). What do parents have the right to know about


children’s peer relations? Parent claims and adoles-cent responses in Hmong and African American fam-ilies. In B. B. Brown & N. S. Mounts (Eds.), Link-ing family and parents to adolescent peer relations:Ethnic and cultural considerations (pp. 67–82). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, B. B., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. L., &Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and peergroup affiliation in adolescence. Child Development,64 , 467–482.

Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003).Differentiating autonomy from individualism andindependence: A self-determination perspective oninternalization of cultural orientations and well-being.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 ,97–110.

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style ascontext: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin,113 , 487–496.

Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R.(1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determi-nation theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62 ,119–142.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and“why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11 ,227–268.

Dishion, T. J., & Owen, L. D. (2002). A longitudinalanalysis of friendships and substance use: Bidi-rectional influence from adolescence to adulthood.Developmental Psychology, 38 , 480–491.

Grolnick, W. S. (2003). The psychology of parental con-trol: How well-meant parenting backfires . Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997).Internalization within the family: The self-determi-nation theory perspective. In J. E. Grusec &L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and childrens’ inter-nalization of values: A handbook of contemporary the-ory (pp. 78–99). London: Wiley.

Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Theinner resources for school performance: Motivationalmediators of children’s perceptions of their parents.Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 , 508–517.

Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact ofparental discipline methods on the child’s internaliza-tion of values: A reconceptualization of current pointsof view. Developmental Psychology, 30 , 4–19.

Guttman, L. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis:The radex. In E. Lazarfeld (Ed.), Mathematical think-ing in the social sciences (pp. 258–348). New York:Free Press of Glencoe.

Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, concep-tual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediatorsand moderators: Examples from the child-clinical andpediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consult-ing and Clinical Psychology, 65 , 599–610.

Houtzager, B., & Baerveldt, C. (1999). Just like normal:A social network study of the relation between pettycrime and the intimacy of adolescent friendships.Social Behavior and Personality, 27 , 177–192.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fitindexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventionalcriteria versus new alternatives. Structural EquationModeling, 6 , 1–55.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: Struc-tural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS commandlanguage. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structuralequation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Knafo, A., & Assor, A. (2007). Motivation for agreementwith parental values: Desirable when autonomous,problematic when controlled. Motivation and Emo-tion, 31 , 232–245.

Kochanska, G. (2002). Committed compliance, moralself, and internalization: A mediational model. Devel-opmental Psychology, 38 , 339–351.

Lacourse, E., Nagin, D., Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., &Claes, M. (2003). Developmental trajectories of boys’delinquent group membership and facilitation of vio-lent behaviors during adolescence. Development andPsychopathology, 15 , 183–197.

Ladd, G. W., & Pettit, G. S. (2002). Parenting and thedevelopment of children’s peer relationships. InM. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 5.Practical issues in parenting (2nd ed., pp. 269–309).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lansford, J. E., Criss, M. M., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A.,& Bates, J. E. (2003). Friendship quality, peer groupaffiliation, and peer antisocial behavior as moderatorsof the link between negative parenting and adoles-cent externalizing behavior. Journal of Research onAdolescence, 13 , 161–184.

Mounts, N. S. (2001). Young adolescents’ perceptions ofparental management of peer relationships. Journal ofEarly Adolescence, 21 , 92–122.

Mounts, N. S. (2002). Parental management of adoles-cent peer relationships in context: The role of parent-ing style. Journal of Family Psychology, 16 , 58–69.

Mounts, N. S. (2007). Adolescents’ and their mothers’perceptions of parental management of peer rela-tionships. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17 ,169–178.

Mounts, N. S., & Steinberg, L. (1995). An ecologicalanalysis of peer influence on adolescent grade pointaverage and drug use. Developmental Psychology, 31 ,915–922.

Neyrinck, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Hutsebaut, D.,& Duriez, B. (2006). Cognitive, affective and behav-ioral correlates of internalization of regulations forreligious activities. Motivation and Emotion, 30 ,321–332.

Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (in press).Self-determination theory and the relation of auton-omy to self-regulatory processes and personalitydevelopment. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of per-sonality and self-regulation. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Nucci, L. P. (2001). Education in the moral domain.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Parke, R. D., & Bhavnagri, N. P. (1989). Parents as man-agers of children’s peer relationships. In D. Belle


(Ed.), Children’s social networks and social supports(pp. 241–259). New York: Wiley.

Patterson, G. R., Forgatch, M. S., Yoerger, K. L., &Stoolmiller, M. (1998). Variables that initiate andmaintain an early-onset trajectory for juvenileoffending. Development and Psychopathology, 10 ,531–547.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus ofcausality and internalization: Examining reasons foracting in two domains. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 57 , 749–761.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determinationtheory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,social development and well-being. American Psy-chologist, 55 , 68–78.

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P.M. (1994). Corrections to teststatistics and standard errors in covariance struc-ture analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.),Latent variable analysis: Applications in develop-mental research (pp. 399–419). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Schafer, R. (1968). Aspects of internalization. New York:International Universities Press.

Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B.,& Dochy, F. (2009). The interactive effect of per-ceived teacher autonomy-support and structure in theprediction of self-regulated learning. British Journalof Educational Psychology , 79 , 57–68.

Smetana, J. G. (1995). Parenting styles and conceptionsof parental authority during adolescence. Child Devel-opment, 66 , 299–316.

Smetana, J. G., & Daddis, C. (2002). Domain-specificantecedents of parental psychological control andmonitoring: The role of parenting beliefs and prac-tices. Child Development, 73 , 563–580.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirecteffects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart(Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290–312).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Antecedentsand outcomes of self-determination in three lifedomains: The role of parents’ and teachers’ auton-omy support. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34 ,589–604.

Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Luyckx, K.,Goossens, L., Beyers, W., et al. (2007). Conceptual-izing parental autonomy support: Adolescent percep-tions of promotion of independence versus promotionof volitional functioning. Developmental Psychology,43 , 633–646.

Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyten, P., Duriez, B., &Goossens, L. (2005). Maladaptive perfectionisticself-representations: The mediational link between

psychological control and adjustment. Personality andIndividual Differences, 38 , 487–498.

Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Sierens, E. (2009). Howare parental psychological control and autonomy-sup-port related? Naturally occurring profiles of psycho-logical control and two types of autonomy-support.Journal of Marriage and Family, 71 , 187–202.

Soenens, B. Vansteenkiste, M., Smits, I., Lowet, K., &Goossens, L. (2007). The role of intrusive parentingin the relationship between peer management strate-gies and peer affiliation. Journal of Applied Develop-mental Psychology , 28 , 239–249.

Tilton-Weaver, L. C., & Galambos, N. L. (2003). Ado-lescents’ characteristics and parents’ beliefs as predic-tors of parents’ peer management behaviors. Journalof Research on Adolescence, 13 , 269–300.

Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., &Kupanoff, K. (2001). Parents’ involvement in adoles-cents’ peer relationships: A comparison of mothers’and fathers’ roles. Journal of Marriage and Family,63 , 655–668.

Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting:Toward a motivational model of high school dropout.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72 ,1161–1176.

Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008).Self-determination theory and the explanatory roleof psychological needs in human well-being. InL. Bruni, F. Comim, & M. Pugno (Eds.), Capabilitiesand happiness (pp. 187–223). Oxford, UK: OxfordUniversity Press.

Vansteenkiste, M., Zhou, M., Lens, W., & Soenens, B.(2005). Experiences of autonomy and control amongChinese learners: Vitalizing or immobilizing? Journalof Educational Psychology, 97 , 468–483.

Verhulst, F. C., van der Ende, J., & Koot, H. M. (1996).Handleiding voor de CBCL/4–18 [Manual for theCBCL/4–18]. Rotterdam, Netherlands: ErasmusUniversity and Department of Child and AdolescentPsychiatry, Sophia Children’s Hospital.

Vernberg, E. M., Beery, S. H., Ewell, K. K., & Abwender,D. A. (1993). Parents’ use of friendship facilitationstrategies and the formation of friendships in earlyadolescence: A prospective study. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 7 , 356–369.

Way, N., Greene, M. L., & Mukherjee, P. P. (2007).Exploring adolescent perceptions of parental beliefsand practices related to friendships in diverse eth-nic communities. In B. B Brown & N. S. Mounts(Eds.), Linking family and parents to adolescentpeer relations: Ethnic and cultural considerations(pp. 35–50). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

should parental prohibition of adolescents’ peer...

Documents