Conger Rand D
Department of Human and Community Development University of California, Davis.
Child Dev Perspect. 2009 Dec 1;3(3):173. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00101.x.
Grolnick and Pomerantz (this issue) take on the difficult challenge of rethinking how investigators might use the concept of parental control in the study of child and adolescent development. They note that previous conceptual and empirical work has employed a wide variety of definitions of parental control and argue that this broad range of approaches has created problems for the field. For example, they cite Rollins and Thomas (1979), who identified more than 15 different labels for the construct. This multiplicity of definitions, the authors suggest, has led to ambiguity in the interpretation of research findings. In particular, Grolnick and Pomerantz propose that the multiple-forms approach to defining parental control is so fraught with problems that scholars should replace it with another strategy for describing and measuring control and related constructs. They then suggest a new approach that they believe will solve the problem and also increase the theoretical value of research on these types of parenting behaviors. In this commentary, I first discuss their critique of the multiple-forms approach and then analyze their proposed solution to the conceptual difficulties they describe.
格罗尔尼克和波梅兰茨(本期)面临一项艰巨挑战,即重新思考研究者在儿童和青少年发展研究中如何运用父母控制这一概念。他们指出,以往的概念性和实证性研究采用了各种各样的父母控制定义,并认为这种广泛的方法给该领域带来了问题。例如,他们引用了罗林斯和托马斯(1979年)的研究,他们为这一构念确定了15种以上不同的标签。作者认为,这种定义的多样性导致了研究结果解释的模糊性。特别是,格罗尔尼克和波梅兰茨提出,定义父母控制的多种形式方法存在诸多问题,以至于学者们应该用另一种描述和衡量控制及相关构念的策略来取代它。然后他们提出了一种新方法,他们认为这种方法将解决问题,同时也会增加对这类养育行为研究的理论价值。在这篇评论中,我首先讨论他们对多种形式方法的批评,然后分析他们针对所描述的概念难题提出的解决方案。