5 The direction of effects is family-specific 153 observations per variable ranged from 14,512 to 14,819. This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Tilburg University (RP250), and all methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. More detailed information about the procedure can be found online: https://osf.io/5mhgk/ Measures All items were scored on a visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 100 (Very much). Parental Psychological Control Parental psychological control involves regulating others’ thoughts and emotions through manipulative behaviors, including (a) constraining verbal expression, (b) guilt induction, and (c) love withdrawal (Barber, 1996). To measure these parenting behaviors, adolescents rated three items that were adapted from an existing 4-item daily diary scale (Van Der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2017). The items were: “When I wanted to say something, my parent started to talk about something else” (constraining verbal expressions), “My parent blamed me for the problems at home” (guilt induction), and “My parent was less affectionate towards me when I did not see things his/her way” (love withdrawal). Multilevel confirmatory factor analysis indicated moderate internal consistency at the within-family level (ω = .61) and excellent internal consistency at the between-family level (ω = .83) (Geldhof et al., 2014). Parental Behavioral Control Parental behavioral control involves regulating others’ behavior through (a) rules, regulations, and restrictions and (b) actively monitoring whereabouts and activities (Kerr et al., 2012). To capture both facets, adolescents rated two items, which were adapted from prior work (Dietvorst et al., 2018; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). The items were “My parent was strict” (rule setting) and “I had to tell my parent what I did, with whom and where” (monitoring). Internal consistency, measured with the inter-item correlation, was insufficient at the within-family level (r = .11, p < .001) and good at the between-family level (r = .50, p < .001). Hence, although the two items co-fluctuated to some extent, the items likely reflected different parenting practices. We report the pre-registered analyses of the subscale in the main text and then examined differences using each item separately in sensitivity analyses (see Supplementary Table S7).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw