Types of Compliance

Compliance can be differentiated according to the degree of external control and the motivation of children when they obey. Some developmental psychologists classify compliance into two types: situational compliance and committed compliance. Situational compliance refers to episodes when children cooperate and follow their caregivers' instructions, but this is contingent on external control. That is, an adult needs to supervise the child and prompt the child to obey. Committed compliance refers to compliance behaviors characterized by high motivation. Although committed compliance is shown in the presence of the caregiver, the child does not need to be continuously encouraged to comply (^{Kochanska et al., 2001}; Kochanska, Tjebkes, & Fortnan, 1998).

Internalization occurs when children follow their caregivers' instructions in their absence (^{Harden, Duncan, Morrison, Panlilio, & Clyman, 2015}; ^{Kochanska et al., 2001}; Kochanska & Kim, 2013; ^{Spinrad et al., 2012}). Several authors have proposed that internalization reflects the ability of the child to recognize societal values that are transmitted through parental expectations. Thus, the children's behavior is guided by comprehending and internalizing what is socially expected and not by the anticipation of external consequences (^{Forman, 2007}; ^{Grusec, 2015}; Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; ^{Ryan, Deci, Grolnick, & La Guardia, 2006}).

Social psychology has also made contributions to the study of compliance, thus complementing our understanding of this phenomenon. For example, some authors have classified compliance as obedience to authority and obedience to power. The former refers to behaviors that comply with a leader's demands because of that leader's legitimacy. This means that compliance is based on social status, trust placed in that person's authority, and identification with the values of that person. Obedience to power refers to compliance that is motivated by fear of repercussions and potential punishment that is imposed by the leader (^{Morselli& Passini, 2011}). Thus, obedience to power is understood as a surrender to external control, whereas obedience to authority is based on an intrinsic motivation (Morselli & Passini, 2011).

These concepts from social psychology can be applied to child obedience when looking at parental control, in which the parents' behaviors are directed toward influencing the child's behavior (^{Kalb & Loeber, 2003}). Parental control has been classified in several ways (e.g., ^{Baumrind, 1966}; ^{Maccoby & Martin, 1983}).One classification that has been frequently used -and guided the reflections that are discussed in the present paper- is the distinction between positive and negative parental control (^{Bugental & Grusec, 2006}; ^{Karreman et al., 2006}).Positive control is characterized by directive behaviors that are accompanied by clear efforts to motivate and guide children's behavior. Parents also try to establish clear and consistent norms of behavior, explain the reasons for their demands, and establish a warm relationship with their children. Negative control is characterized by negative parental emotions that are expressed as anger and negative criticism, as well as excessive control and, generally, physical control (Bugental & Grusec, 2006; Karreman et al., 2006).

Positive control promotes the ability of children to internalize norms and parental values by explaining the reasons for their parents' demands, thus generating greater confidence between parents and children (^{Kalb & Loeber, 2003}). In contrast, when parents employ negative control, they make it more difficult for the child to internalize parental values, and their behavior will be guided by external control and the motivation to avoid punishment. This is supported by evidence showing that negative control is positively associated with situational compliance, whereas positive control is positively associated with committed compliance and internalization (^{Bryce & Jahromi, 2013}; ^{Kim & Kochanska, 2012}; Kochanska, 1995; Kochanska & Aksan, 1995; Kochanska & Kim, 2013).

Figure 1 compares the different types of compliance that are presented here. They can be classified into two categories: (a) compliance that depends on external control and (b) compliance that is motivated by the internalization of norms or social values. Category (a) includes obedience to power and situational compliance. The difference between these two types of compliance is that the motivation for obedience to power is to avoid punishment, while situational compliance depends on continuous instigation by the caregiver and does not necessarily rest on the possible threat of punishment.

Figure 1 Classification of proposed types of obedience in developmental psychology and social psychology. 

The types of compliance in category (b) are guided by the internalization of norms or social values. Committed compliance, internalization, and obedience to authority are in this group. Committed compliance requires less external control than situational compliance, so it has been suggested that it is an early form of internalization (^{Kochanska et al., 2001}). However, committed compliance is observed in the presence of the caregiver. Although the child does not need continuous encouragement from the caregiver, this does not necessarily mean that when the caregiver is absent, the child will continue obeying. Obeying in the absence of the caregiver is described by the concepts of internalization and obedience to authority because they both suppose that adhering to demands is attributable to internalization of the authority figure's values.

In summary, different types of compliance reflect the capacity to obey with distinct levels of independence and different motivations. Both aspects provide valuable information about self-regulation development, thus providing insights into the types of factors that should be considered to assess it. I will elaborate on both of these aspects below.

Compliance Independence and Self-Regulation Assessment

Several authors have proposed that self-regulation development progresses from a behavior that is co-regulated or regulated by caregivers to a behavior that is regulated independently and in the absence of caregivers (^{Calkins & Hill 2007}; ^{Kochanska et al., 2001}; ^{Kopp, 1982 Lunkenheimer et al., 2016}; Montroy et al., 20i6).This process was described by ^{Vygotsky (1996)} in his "general genetic law of cultural development". This law states that the higher psychological functions, including attention regulation, memory, thinking, and volition, develop from a social plane to an individual plane. This means that they appear first through social or shared activities with others, but then these functions are internalized and become private. It would be at this stage that children master these functions independently. Thus, children present greater self-regulation if they follow a demand without continuous control by their caregiver, even more so if they can do it when the caregiver is not with them

The concepts of situational compliance, committed compliance, and internalization may provide valuable information about this trajectory. Accordingly, committed compliance exhibits greater self-regulation than situational compliance, and internalization exhibits greater self-regulation than committed compliance, because these reflect increasingly higher levels of independence of the child. Tis developmental trajectory is supported by two facts. First, situational compliance is expressed earlier in life than committed compliance, and the latter predicts internalization (^{Kochanska et al., 2001}). Second, young children that show committed compliance do so especially in less difficult tasks, such as inhibiting a response (e.g., when they are asked to not touch a toy); in contrast, they display situational compliance at higher rates than committed compliance in more difficult tasks, such as performing a response (e.g., when they are asked to organize some toys; Kochanska et al., 2001; Kochanska et al., 1998). Tus, because of the challenges that committed compliance implies, it can be primarily demonstrated in tasks that require few regulatory demands. Situational compliance does not require higher levels of self-regulation; it can, therefore, be observed even in the most demanding circumstances.

Conforming to paternal instructions in the absence of supervision (i.e., internalization) may impose higher regulatory demands than doing so in the presence of supervision. When supervision is absent, signs of immediate punishments are reduced, which can increase the tendency to carry out the preferred behavior and thus disobey. A study of 47 preschool foster children found that 72.3% showed committed compliance when they had to organize toys, but only 36.2% showed internalization when they had to inhibit the response of touching toys (^{Harden et al., 2015}). Tese results may indicate that internalization is more difficult than committed compliance. This is more compelling, considering that inhibiting a response is less demanding than performing a response (^{Kochanska et al., 2001}). Nonetheless, few children inhibited a response in the absence of their caregiver.

These considerations may have implications for evaluating self-regulation development based on the children's obedience. A researcher who seeks to assess self-regulation based on obedience behaviors may benefit from assessing the following: situational compliance, committed compliance, and internalization. However, not all researchers who are interested in studying self-regulation development make differentiations among these facets in the methodologies they use. Some only observe whether the child obeys or disobeys (e.g., ^{Bentley, 2012}; ^{Denham et al., 2012}; ^{Elias & Berk, 2002}; ^{Keller et al., 2004}), and others differentiate some of these types of compliance but do not assess compliance behaviors in the absence of adult supervision (internalization; e.g., ^{Spinrad et al., 2012}).

There are coding systems that can be used to differentiate these behaviors. The most recognized coding system was developed by ^{Kochanska (1999)}, and has been utilized in several studies (e.g., ^{Braungart-Rieker, Garwood, & Stifter, 1997};Har-denetal., 2015;Kochanska et al., 2001; Kochanska & Kim, 2013; ^{Kok et al., 2012}; ^{Wachs, Gurkas, & Kontos, 2004}). Tis system was originally used in the laboratory. The caregiver asks the child to perform an action (e.g., organize some toys) or inhibit a response (e.g., do not touch a toy; Kochanska et al., 2001). The child's behavior is then observed for periods of 30 seconds and classified as situational or committed compliance. A situational compliance behavior is codified when the child does what the caregiver asks him or her, but the child seems uninterested in performing the action. Furthermore, without the control of the caregiver, the child becomes distracted or performs a different action than the one that was requested. Situational compliance is also codified when the child stops doing an action if instructed to, but only if the caregiver constantly intervenes and reminds the child about the instructions, and when the time intervals of the child's attempts to perform the forbidden action are short (Kochanska et al., 2001; Wachs et al., 2004).Committed compliance is codified when the child performs the action in a motivated manner or inhibits the requested action without the caregiver's intervention. For example, the child eagerly picks up some toys, moves autonomously to pick up different toys, observes a forbidden toy that he has been instructed not to touch and spontaneously turns away from it, or verbalizes the rule. Finally, a behavior is classified as internalization if after hearing the demand and the child is left alone for some minutes, the child follows the caregiver's instructions (Kochanska et al., 2001).

^{Wachs et al. (2004)} adapted the situational and committed compliance coding system to a more ecological context (i.e., the classroom). Authors performed naturalistic observations, so they codified children's behavior as it occurred naturally in the classroom, without any intervention. They observed this behavior in two moments of the day, during cleanup time (when children had to organize the toys they had been playing with) and during pedagogical activities carried out with the whole group. Situational compliance was codified when the child obeyed, but this obedience relied on the teacher's control, or the child did not perform the action in a motivated way. For example, the child may begin to organize some toys but soon stops, or he/she participates in a group activity but occasionally becomes distracted or starts engaging in a different action (e.g., talking with friends). Committed compliance was codified when the child obeyed for most of the 30-second time segment (i.e., >25 seconds), without any additional directive. For example, when the teacher gives instructions and the child looks at her attentively. Another example is when the child participates in a reading activity and answers the teacher's questions or when the child picks up one group of toys and continues picking up another group of toys without further instructions from the teacher (Wachs & Gurkas, s.f.; Wachs et al., 2004).

Compliance Motivation and Self-Regulation Assesment

In addition to independence from external control, another aspect that is fundamental to understanding self-regulation development is the children's motivation when they obey. As mentioned above, the first two steps for children to self-regulate are understanding the social standards to which they must adjust their behavior and having the motivation to meet those standards (Hoffman et al., 2012). The social psychology concepts of obedience to power and obedience to authority emphasize the individuals' motivation when they comply. This occurs when they do it to avoid punishment or because they have internalized the authority figure's values. If a child's motivation to obey reflects a desire to avoid punishment, then this can cause the child to stop performing the regulated behavior as soon as the caregiver is absent. In contrast, when the child's motivation is based on the internalization of parental values, the child is expected to express the regulated behavior under various circumstances, even in the absence of the caregiver.

Although not studied in depth, compulsive compliance is a clear example of why it is important to know the motivation behind compliance. Tis concept is similar to obedience to power, which has been used to describe behavior in physically abused children. These children are very attentive to parental demands, respond very quickly, and return to a state of alertness so they can minimize negative interactions with their caregivers (^{Crittenden & DiLalla, 1988}). Because this type of obedience is based on fear, it is unlikely that it may evolve to internalization (^{Forman, 2007}; ^{Koenig, Cicchetti, & Rogosch, 2000}; ^{Ryan, Deci, & Grolnick, 1995}). In this case, it is important to know the child's motivation to obey; otherwise, this behavior may be confused with committed compliance, which can result in very different conclusions about self-regulation development in these children.

For these reasons, it is important to analyze not just the degree of independence of the children when they obey but also the motivation that guides this behavior. Situational compliance, committed compliance, and internalization inform about the degree of independence of the children when they obey and may provide information about their motivation. Committed compliance and internalization present a higher level of internalization of parental values (^{Kochanska et al., 2001}). However, to obtain more evidence of the children's motivation to obey (e.g., to avoid punishment or to follow internalized values), it may be necessary to codify not only the children's behavior, but also the parents' behavior. Thus, if the children show situational or committed compliance and their parents apply negative control, then one may infer that the children's motivation to obey is guided by the avoidance of punishment (obedience to power). However, if the children's behavior is categorized as committed compliance and their parents display positive control, then this may demonstrate that their behavior is guided by the internalization of their parents' values. Finally, if the children obey in the absence of their caregiver, then this may indicate that the children's motivation is based on identification with their parents' values.

Some authors have used methodologies to analyze the behavior of dyads when studying compliance and self-regulation in children. One example is the study by ^{Lunkenheimer et al. (2016)}. They asked a group of children to put together a puzzle in a restricted period of time with their mother's help. The researchers codified the mother's behavior in real time in nine categories, including teaching, directive, positive reinforcement, emotional support, and negative discipline, among others. The children's behaviors were codified in seven categories, including compliance, non-compliance, persistence, and tantrums, among others. Finally, the authors constructed a 9x7 matrix, resulting in 63 possible descriptions of the mothers' and children's behaviors (e.g., when the mother was directive while the child was obeying).

^{Zaidman-Zait, Marshall, Young, and Hertzman (2014)} employed a similar methodology using a situation in which the children had to organize toys. In this study, the authors codified the mothers' and children's behaviors during 5-second time segments. The mothers' behaviors were classified into six categories (e.g., negotiating, encouraging, acknowledgment, etc.), and the children's behaviors were classified into five categories (e.g., rejecting collaboration, engaging in clean up, observing the mother's actions, etc.). They also categorized the dyad's behavior by crossing the mother's and child's behaviors in a matrix.

Terefore, to obtain more complete information about the children's motivation when obeying and their levels of self-regulation, a similar approach to that applied in these studies can be employed. Researchers can codify in specific segments of time (e.g., 30 seconds) the children's behavior as situational compliance, committed compliance, and internalization, and parental behavior can be codified as positive or negative control. Tis would result in a 3x2 matrix for a total of six categories (Table 1). If the child obeys in the absence of the caregiver, then this may be strong evidence of high levels of self-regulation. If the child shows committed compliance only in the presence of a caregiver, and the latter demonstrates positive control, this can show us moderated levels of self-regulation. If the parents present positive control and the child presents situational compliance, then this may suggest low levels of self-regulation. Finally, if the child's behavior is classified as situational or committed compliance and the parents present negative control, then this would suggest compliance that is motivated by fear and, therefore, low levels of self-regulation. Table 1 presents this matrix, including different levels of self-regulation and operational definitions of each of the categories mentioned above. The definitions of the types of compliance are based on the work of ^{Kochanska et al. (2001)} and ^{Wachs et al. (2004)}. The definitions of the types of parental control are based on ^{Karreman et al. (2006)}.

Table 1  Self-Regulation Matrix by Types of Compliance and Types of Parental Control