Ean Caucasian; I = Israeli;In = Indonesian; A = Australian; T = Turkish. d

Ean Caucasian; I = Israeli;In = Indonesian; A = Australian; T = Turkish. d D = discipline task; F = free play; N = naturalistic setting; T = teaching/problem-solving task; M = mixede fSES; 1 = low; 2 = middle; 3 = high; 4 = mixedSetting: H = Home; L = Lab g Other moderators: 1) observation length in minutes; 2) gender of coders (1 = male, 2 = female, 3 = mixed); 3) study goal (1 = examine gender differences, 2 = not examining gender differences), 4) gender first author (1 = male, 2 = female), 5) percentage male authors, 6) publication type (1 = journal, 2 = dissertation). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159193.tPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.ASP015KMedChemExpress ASP015K 0159193 July 14,12 /Gender-Differentiated Parental Controlpersonal attack), guilt induction (i.e., continually reminding the child of all the sacrifices parents have made to pressurize the child to comply with parents’ requests). Of the 60 controlling constructs that were examined, only five controlling strategies could be considered indices of psychological control: contingent emotional support (i.e., withdrawal of emotional support after child failure), critiquing/humiliating (i.e., expressing disappointment or criticizing when the child fails to meet expectations), parental negativity (i.e., critical or hostile comments, negative commands, sarcastic and condescending remarks), negatives/ negativity (i.e., cold, neglect, reprimands, criticism, corrections), and criticism/critical statements. Five constructs were considered indices of harsh physical discipline: harsh physical discipline, physical power, negative physical control, physical punishment, physical force. The remaining constructs contained a mix of physical, psychological and verbal control (e.g., [81], [145], [146], [175]) or were not defined specifically enough (e.g.,[129]; harsh-intrusive parenting), and were therefore not included in the meta-analyses on psychological control and physical discipline.Data ExtractionThree types of moderators were coded: Dalfopristin chemical information sample characteristics, procedural moderators, and publication moderators (S3 Table). Sample characteristics included the child’s age at the time of the assessment (continuous and categorical; 0? years, 2? years, 4?8 years), the percentage of girls in the sample (continuous), the socioeconomic background (high, middle, low, mixed), the ethnicity of the sample (African-American, Chinese, North-American Caucasian, WestEuropean Caucasian, South-American, mixed), and the clinical/at-risk status of the sample. Regarding the ethnicity of the sample, samples that were heterogeneous in terms of ethnicity were coded as mixed. Ethnicities other than the ones mentioned above were too uncommon to form a separate category for moderator analyses (i.e., one Australian sample, one Turkish sample, one Indonesian sample, two Israeli samples, one Thai sample). The sample was considered clinical/at risk if the child’s score on a clinical instrument was in the clinical range, if a clinical diagnosis was established, or when a sub-sample of a normal sample with highest/lowest scores on a clinical screening instrument was distinguished. Sample size was also coded, in order to assign weight to the effect sizes. Outcomes were included in the form of, in hierarchical order: (a) mean and standard deviation for parental use of control in boys and girls; (b) correlations between child gender and parental control; (c) p-values; (d) statements that there were no differences. Procedural moderators regarding the measure.Ean Caucasian; I = Israeli;In = Indonesian; A = Australian; T = Turkish. d D = discipline task; F = free play; N = naturalistic setting; T = teaching/problem-solving task; M = mixede fSES; 1 = low; 2 = middle; 3 = high; 4 = mixedSetting: H = Home; L = Lab g Other moderators: 1) observation length in minutes; 2) gender of coders (1 = male, 2 = female, 3 = mixed); 3) study goal (1 = examine gender differences, 2 = not examining gender differences), 4) gender first author (1 = male, 2 = female), 5) percentage male authors, 6) publication type (1 = journal, 2 = dissertation). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159193.tPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0159193 July 14,12 /Gender-Differentiated Parental Controlpersonal attack), guilt induction (i.e., continually reminding the child of all the sacrifices parents have made to pressurize the child to comply with parents’ requests). Of the 60 controlling constructs that were examined, only five controlling strategies could be considered indices of psychological control: contingent emotional support (i.e., withdrawal of emotional support after child failure), critiquing/humiliating (i.e., expressing disappointment or criticizing when the child fails to meet expectations), parental negativity (i.e., critical or hostile comments, negative commands, sarcastic and condescending remarks), negatives/ negativity (i.e., cold, neglect, reprimands, criticism, corrections), and criticism/critical statements. Five constructs were considered indices of harsh physical discipline: harsh physical discipline, physical power, negative physical control, physical punishment, physical force. The remaining constructs contained a mix of physical, psychological and verbal control (e.g., [81], [145], [146], [175]) or were not defined specifically enough (e.g.,[129]; harsh-intrusive parenting), and were therefore not included in the meta-analyses on psychological control and physical discipline.Data ExtractionThree types of moderators were coded: sample characteristics, procedural moderators, and publication moderators (S3 Table). Sample characteristics included the child’s age at the time of the assessment (continuous and categorical; 0? years, 2? years, 4?8 years), the percentage of girls in the sample (continuous), the socioeconomic background (high, middle, low, mixed), the ethnicity of the sample (African-American, Chinese, North-American Caucasian, WestEuropean Caucasian, South-American, mixed), and the clinical/at-risk status of the sample. Regarding the ethnicity of the sample, samples that were heterogeneous in terms of ethnicity were coded as mixed. Ethnicities other than the ones mentioned above were too uncommon to form a separate category for moderator analyses (i.e., one Australian sample, one Turkish sample, one Indonesian sample, two Israeli samples, one Thai sample). The sample was considered clinical/at risk if the child’s score on a clinical instrument was in the clinical range, if a clinical diagnosis was established, or when a sub-sample of a normal sample with highest/lowest scores on a clinical screening instrument was distinguished. Sample size was also coded, in order to assign weight to the effect sizes. Outcomes were included in the form of, in hierarchical order: (a) mean and standard deviation for parental use of control in boys and girls; (b) correlations between child gender and parental control; (c) p-values; (d) statements that there were no differences. Procedural moderators regarding the measure.