Parental Perceived Control Over Caregiving and Its Relationship to Parent – Infant Interaction Jacqueline R. Guzell and Lynne Vernon-Feagans In this sample of 66 dual-earner mothers and fathers and their 1-year-old infants, associations among parental ratings of infant difficulty, parental perceived control over caregiving outcomes, and parental sensitive and directive behavior were examined during a triadic free-play session in the home. Perceived infant difficulty was related to maternal directiveness for mothers with low perceived control. Fathers with low perceived control exhibited more directiveness, regardless of their ratings of infant difficulty. For both mothers and fathers, there was a negative association between sensitivity and directiveness but no association between sensitive behavior and parental perceived control. Although parents scored similarly overall on various other measures, mothers with low perceived control demonstrated more categorical thinking about children’s development than other mothers. Recent research has highlighted the importance of the construct of parental perceived control (Bugental & Johnston, 2000; Katsurada & Sugawara, 2000). Parents who believe they have less control over their children’s behavior and, at the same time, believe that the children themselves have more control often demonstrate highly controlling behavior toward their children, especially under conditions of stress. This seemingly paradoxical response appears to be the parents’ attempt to regain influence over their children, whom they view as more powerful than themselves (Bugental & Lewis, 1999; Strassberg & Treboux, 2000). Perceived control over caregiving is distinct from other constructs, such as parenting self- efficacy and general locus of control in that it refers specifically to parents’ perception of their own responsibility and control over failed caregiving outcomes compared with that of their children (Lovejoy, Verda, & Hays, 1997). The study of parental perceived control has been focused primarily on parents of older preschool and school-aged children. However, it would also seem to be important to understand whether low per- ceived control is a source of individual differences among parents with very young children. Although there is a large literature related to the correlates of parent – infant interaction styles, no studies have carefully investigated how differences in parental perceived control might affect parent – infant inter- action. The purpose of the present study was to understand whether the same pattern of relation- ships among child characteristics, parental perceived control, and parenting behavior that was found in studies of parents and their older children could be supported in a study involving mothers and fathers of 1-year-old infants. Theoretical Basis for Linking Low Perceived Control and Maladaptive Parenting Behavior Attributions about control and responsibility have been postulated to result from a three-part process. First, behavior is noticed or identified. Second, dispositional inferences are made about the person exhibiting the behavior. Third, those inferences are corrected or adjusted, depending on situational constraints. In the parental attribution process, parents’ judgments about caregiving outcomes are continually modified as parents consider both temporary-situational and stable-dispositional ex- planations for their children’s behavior (Bugental, Blue, & Lewis, 1990). However, among parents with low perceived control, much greater responsibility for negative caregiving outcomes is consistently attributed to their children than to themselves (Bugental & Lewis, 1999). Parents with low perceived control tend to generate negative explanations and unvarying re- r 2004 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2004/7501-0009 Jacqueline R. Guzell, Human Development and Family Studies, Bowling Green State University; Lynne Vernon-Feagans, School of Education, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This research was supported in part by Grant HD31540 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Lynne Vernon-Feagans and by dissertation funding awarded to Jacqueline Guzell from the Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Pennsylvania State University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jacqueline R. Guzell, Human Development and Family Studies, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH. 43403. Electronic mail may be sent to jguzell@bgnet.bgsu.edu. Child Development, January/February 2004, Volume 75, Number 1, Pages 134 –146