There is extensive evidence that people strongly value and are reluctant to relinquish the perception of control. Yet, both helplessness and locus of control theorists interpret various "inward" behaviors (passivity, withdrawal, and submissiveness) as signs of relinquished perceived control. As evidence, they note that inward behavior frequently is accompanied by causal attributions to limited ability, chance, and powerful others-all attributions that suggest uncontrollability. In contrast, we claim,that these attributions and the behaviors to which they relate may often reflect a type of perceived control that is generally overlooked. People attempt to gain control not only by bringing the environment into line with their wishes (primary control) but also by bringing themselves into line with environmental forces (secondary control). Four manifestations of secondary control are considered: (a) Attributions to severely, limited ability can serve to enhance predictive control and to protect against disappointment. Passive and withdrawn behaviors reflect the attempt to inhibit unfulfillable expectations, (b) Attributions to chance can reflect illusory control, since people often construe chance as a personal characteristic akin to an ability ("luck"). Individuals who make attributions to chance may exhibit passivity and withdrawal in skill situations, reserving energy and emotional investment for situations that allow them to capitalize on their perceived strength-that is, being lucky, (c) Attributions to powerful others permit vicarious control when the individual identifies with these others. Submission to a powerful leader, a group, or a deity sometimes enables the individual to join in their power, (d) All of the preceding attributions may foster interpretive control, in which the individual seeks to understand and derive meaning from otherwise uncontrollable events in order to accept them. When perceived control is recognized in both its primary and secondary forms, a broad range of inward behaviors can be seen as efforts to sustain rather than relinquish the perception of control.Factor analytic studies with children (reviewed in Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1978) and systematic observations of adults (e.g., Beck, 1967;Marks, 1977) have identified a This article was funded in part by National Institute of Mental Health Grant 1-RO1-MH-34210-01.The authors are indebted to Camille Wortman for her unusually thorough review of a draft of this article. Her comments added depth and clarity to many of the Central points.Requests for reprints should be sent to Fred Rothbaum, Department of Child Study, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155. set of interrelated problem behaviors including passivity, withdrawal, and submissiveness (hereafter referred to as inward behavior). The popularity of the learned helplessness model (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978;Seligman, 1975) is due largely to its lucid account of at least some of these seemingly maladaptive behaviors (especially passivity and withdrawal). Adherents o...

A meta-analysis of 47 studies was used to shed light on inconsistencies in the concurrent association between parental caregiving and child externalizing behavior. Parent-child associations were strongest when the measure of caregiving relied on observations or interviews, as opposed to questionnaires, and when the measure tapped combinations of parent behaviors (patterns), as opposed to single behaviors. Stronger parent-child associations were also found for older than for younger children, and for mothers than for fathers. Finally, externalizing was more strongly linked to parental caregiving for boys than for girls, especially among preadolescents and their mothers. The meta-analysis helps account for inconsistencies in findings across previous studies and supports theories emphasizing reciprocity of parent and child behavior.

There are at least two general paths to a feeling of control. In primary control, individuals enhance their rewards by influencing existing realities (e.g., other people, circumstances, symptoms, or behavior problems). In secondary control, individuals enhance their rewards by accommodating to existing realities and maximizing satisfaction or goodness of fit with things as they are. American psychologists have written extensively about control, but have generally defined it only in terms of its primary form. This, we argue, reflects a cultural context in which primary control is heavily emphasized and highly valued. In Japan, by contrast, primary control has traditionally been less highly valued and less often anticipated, and secondary control has assumed a more central role in everyday life than in our own culture. To illustrate this cross-cultural difference, we contrast Japanese and American perspectives and practices in child rearing, socialization, religion and philosophy, work, and psychotherapy. These Japanese-American comparisons reveal some key benefits, and some costs, of both primary and secondary approaches to control. In the process, the comparisons reveal the disadvantages of a one-sided pursuit of either form of control. They suggest that an important goal, both for individuals and for cultures, is an optimally adaptive blend of primary and secondary control, a goal best achieved with one's cultural blinders removed.

Attachment theorists maintain that cultural differences are relatively minor, and they focus on universals. Here the authors highlight evidence of cultural variations and note ways in which attachment theory is laden with Western values and meaning. Comparisons of the United States and Japan highlight the cultural relativity of 3 core hypotheses of attachment theory: that caregiver sensitivity leads to secure attachment, that secure attachment leads to later social competence, and that children who are securely attached use the primary caregiver as a secure base for exploring the external world. Attachment theorists use measures of sensitivity, competence, and secure base that are biased toward Western ways of thinking: The measures emphasize the child's autonomy, individuation, and exploration. In Japan, sensitivity, competence, and secure base are viewed very differently, calling into question the universality of fundamental tenets of attachment theory. The authors call for an indigenous approach to the psychology of attachment.

Findings from research on parent-child and adult mate relationships suggest that there are different paths of development in Japan and the United States. In Japan, the path is one of symbiotic harmony, as seen in the emphasis on union in infancy, others' expectations in childhood, the stability of relationships with parents and peers in adolescence, and assurance about the mate relationship in adulthood. In the United States, the path is one of generative tension, as seen in the tug between separation and reunion in infancy, the emphasis on personal preferences in childhood, the transfer of closeness from parents to peers in adolescence, and the emphasis on trust-a faith and hope in new relationships-in adulthood. The notion that there are different paths of development challenges Western investigators' presumption that certain processes-separation-individuation, use of the relational partner as a secure base for exploration, and conflict between partners-are central in all relationships. The notion of different paths also challenges the assumption of many cross-cultural investigators that relationships in the United States are less valued or weaker than those in Japan; this article highlights cultural differences in the meaning and dynamics, as opposed to the importance and strength, of relationships. The model suggests a need to investigate the processes underlying, and the adaptive consequences of, these two alternative paths.