Big Parental Control May Stunt Kid Assertiveness

Young adults who’d had highly controlling parents were less able to stress their own viewpoints to a friend or partner in confident and productive ways. Daisy Yuhas reports

 

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Domineering parents may keep kids under their thumb to try to protect the kids from the perils of peer pressure. But this approach may backfire and actually make kids more susceptible to going with the crowd. So finds a study in the journal Child Development. [Barbara A. Oudekerk et al, The Cascading Development of Autonomy and Relatedness From Adolescence to Adulthood]
 
Psychologists got baseline information through interviews with 184 13-year-olds. The researchers learned about their parents’ control tactics—such as using guilt to manipulate behavior—and watched how the kids dealt with a difference of opinion or argument with a friend.   
 
Years passed. Then the researchers followed up with the study participants when they were 18 and again when they reached 21. Of particular interest were interactions with a peer or romantic partner.
 
The now young adults who’d had highly controlling parents were less able to stress their own viewpoints to a friend or partner in confident and productive ways. And the effects of that inability increased over time: poor relationship skills in an 18-year-old predicted further deficits at 21.
 
Seems that resisting parental control may be how kids learn to assert themselves, an important skill for healthy future relationships.

—Daisy Yuhas
 
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe