T of parental sensitivity as formulated within attachment theory, as sensitivity is also concerned with child-centered responding and promoting autonomy through support [16], [17]. Examples of autonomy-supporting Nutlin (3a) web strategies are induction (i.e., providing explanations for commands and prohibitions), empathy for the child (“I know this is difficult for you”), approval, support, and encouragement (see [11], [18]). Meta-analyses have shown that maternal and paternal autonomy-supportive strategies tend to be associated with lower levels of child Dalfopristin site disruptive behaviors such as oppositional, aggressive, and hyperactive behaviors [19], [20], [21]. Furthermore, a previous study has also shown that an intervention to promote mothers’ use of autonomy-supportive strategies (i.e., sensitive discipline) was effective in decreasing children’s disruptive (i.e., overactive) behavior [22]. Controlling strategies undermine the child’s ability for autonomous regulation, and press the child to think, behave, or feel in particular ways [14], [15]. These strategies are thought to foster controlled regulation and behavioral maladjustment, because they do not support children’s basic needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy [12]. Controlling strategies are conceptually similar to the parenting practices described within coercion theory [23]. Coercive parenting also refers to strategies that force rather than motivate a child to comply without fostering the child’s autonomy. There are two ways in which parents can be controlling [15], that is, via internal and external pressure. External pressure refers to harsh, explicit, or tangible control, such as spanking, hitting, grabbing with force, or forcefully taking the child out of the situation (i.e., harsh discipline/power assertion; [24]). Internal pressure refers to parental behaviors that intrude upon the child’s psychological world (i.e., thoughts and feelings) as a pressure to comply, and includes manipulative parenting techniques, such as guiltPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0159193 July 14,2 /Gender-Differentiated Parental Controlinduction, shaming, criticism, invalidation of the child’s feelings, and love withdrawal (i.e., psychological control; [10]). There is ample empirical evidence that maternal and paternal controlling behavior in general is related to an increase in disruptive behavior in children of different ages (see meta-analyses [19], [25]). Moreover, both mothers’ and fathers’ use of psychological control is associated with internalizing problems in children and adolescents [10], [15], [26], [27], [28], and with girls’ relational aggression in middle childhood [29]. Mothers’ and fathers’ harsh physical discipline is more often associated with externalizing problems in children [30] and adolescents [31]. Self-determination theory cannot be applied to the study of gender-differentiated parental control as one of its fundamental assumptions is the universality of its psychological constructs across gender. Therefore, in the current meta-analysis the hypotheses with regard to the direction of gender-differentiated control (i.e., used more with boys or girls) were guided by theoretical frameworks addressing socialization and gender development, including biosocial theory [2], [3], and gender schema theories (e.g., [4], [5]). Biosocial theory. Biosocial theory of sex differences provides rationales for differential control of boys and girls [2], [3]. According to this theory, gender differen.T of parental sensitivity as formulated within attachment theory, as sensitivity is also concerned with child-centered responding and promoting autonomy through support [16], [17]. Examples of autonomy-supporting strategies are induction (i.e., providing explanations for commands and prohibitions), empathy for the child (“I know this is difficult for you”), approval, support, and encouragement (see [11], [18]). Meta-analyses have shown that maternal and paternal autonomy-supportive strategies tend to be associated with lower levels of child disruptive behaviors such as oppositional, aggressive, and hyperactive behaviors [19], [20], [21]. Furthermore, a previous study has also shown that an intervention to promote mothers’ use of autonomy-supportive strategies (i.e., sensitive discipline) was effective in decreasing children’s disruptive (i.e., overactive) behavior [22]. Controlling strategies undermine the child’s ability for autonomous regulation, and press the child to think, behave, or feel in particular ways [14], [15]. These strategies are thought to foster controlled regulation and behavioral maladjustment, because they do not support children’s basic needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy [12]. Controlling strategies are conceptually similar to the parenting practices described within coercion theory [23]. Coercive parenting also refers to strategies that force rather than motivate a child to comply without fostering the child’s autonomy. There are two ways in which parents can be controlling [15], that is, via internal and external pressure. External pressure refers to harsh, explicit, or tangible control, such as spanking, hitting, grabbing with force, or forcefully taking the child out of the situation (i.e., harsh discipline/power assertion; [24]). Internal pressure refers to parental behaviors that intrude upon the child’s psychological world (i.e., thoughts and feelings) as a pressure to comply, and includes manipulative parenting techniques, such as guiltPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0159193 July 14,2 /Gender-Differentiated Parental Controlinduction, shaming, criticism, invalidation of the child’s feelings, and love withdrawal (i.e., psychological control; [10]). There is ample empirical evidence that maternal and paternal controlling behavior in general is related to an increase in disruptive behavior in children of different ages (see meta-analyses [19], [25]). Moreover, both mothers’ and fathers’ use of psychological control is associated with internalizing problems in children and adolescents [10], [15], [26], [27], [28], and with girls’ relational aggression in middle childhood [29]. Mothers’ and fathers’ harsh physical discipline is more often associated with externalizing problems in children [30] and adolescents [31]. Self-determination theory cannot be applied to the study of gender-differentiated parental control as one of its fundamental assumptions is the universality of its psychological constructs across gender. Therefore, in the current meta-analysis the hypotheses with regard to the direction of gender-differentiated control (i.e., used more with boys or girls) were guided by theoretical frameworks addressing socialization and gender development, including biosocial theory [2], [3], and gender schema theories (e.g., [4], [5]). Biosocial theory. Biosocial theory of sex differences provides rationales for differential control of boys and girls [2], [3]. According to this theory, gender differen.
