63

URBAN/BUBAL  UpRINGlftG  AS  A  CORRELATE  OF  70SUBA
CHILDREN'1 S  PE^CEFTICN  OF  FAMILY  POWS^STRUCTURE

x
Dr. Michael Olaseboye Olasehinde

Considerable research evidence abounds to show that the way

a child perceives his family's power structure correlated very

highly with his personal characteristics*  Among such correlates

are age, sex, religious affiliation (Hess and Tcrney, 1962; Kagan,

I9564 King, 1969; Goldin, 1969), social class (Bronfenbrenner,

1961; Blood and Wolfe, I960; Strodtbeck, 1958; Bowerman and Elder,

1 9 & L) and birth order (Cushna, 1966; Hilton, 1967, Kandel an&

Lesser, 1966; Lasko, 195a, Clausen, 1966 and Sutton-Smith, 1968).

Hpwever, in-a review of studies on the correlates of children's

perceptions of family-pov/er structure, Olaseninde (197X) found that

the effect of locale of upbringing on such perceptions was never

studied*  Since research shows that certain idiosyncratic elements

make for marked differences in children's perceptions, it was

hypothesized^ for the purposes of this study, that Yoruba children's

locale of upbringing would be a function of their perceptions of

familial power structure*

The import of this study's problem derives from a number of

socio-psychological propositions.  First, since rural settings are

repository of traditionalism, rural children would report preponderant

instances of traditional patriarchal family power structure.  As

against rural/urban children would report more instances of emergent

family power structures because of greater exposure to forces of

socia.1 change*  Secondly, on a psychological level, a child*s report

of his family's power structure on this basis of his locale of

upbringing will have implications for the kinds of parental identifica~

tion he makes^ the kind of personality he develops,.the type of attitude

jJecturer iric> Psychology and Education, University of Ife,, Ile~Tfe,

Nigeria.

GIL

lie has'towards  authority" ^£f:^ 
of  cultural  values  that'are  transmitted:t6;him  arid  the  role.

^M

he  will  play  in  later  life*

It  is  equated.'with  each tfantily

;  •  I^> would  seem necessary  to  clarify "the"'phrase,  family -power,
in  the  context  of  this  study- 
member's  decision-making  power  in  four  areas  of  family"  activities
as  used  by  Kerbst  (1952)  in  his  Melbourne  study  and'by  King  (19$9)
in  his  Florida  study*  Farrfily  pov/er,-accordiiTt  %o  SafiliosHRothschild
(19?0),  is  regarded  as  'a  imiltidimensional  concept'which  remains vmulti
faceted  even  when  equated  with1 decision•"raaJd.ng*  'Thus,  the.,four  araas
of  family  "activities  covered  by  this  study's,  ins:truaent.werq,  child"
be'arin«>,  household,  economic ;an'd  social*

Subjects

Bir a random samplinc procedure an sixth graders- -of Yor-uba.,.

parentage  in• tite Western State of Nigeria, 5^-'- urban and./j.95 rural

children in the State's school system were selected as subjects of th

this study.  All told, there were 993. sixth f.p?a,ders v/ho had to have

lived in either an urban or rural locale since their birth tup,,1^1 til
the time of this study.  The urban and rural delimitations were based

on the Nigerian national census of 1963*

umcjnt
Tho metliod of data gather in, 1 was a self "report1 questionnaire
comprising ei^ht items, tv/o of which .covered each of childrearinc,

household, economic and social family activities*  Where applicable

to the Yoruba social and cultural .backcrounds, the ideas in

Herbst's and King's questionnaire items were drawn upon; other""

wise relevant items were constructed by the author*  However, the

resulting instrument was different from any other thaii  had been used

in any previous power studies*  The major point of difference was that

instead  of  asking  who decides  and  expecting  responses  such  as  father,
mother  or  both  together,  the  instrument's  items  asked  how much  power
a  particular  family  member  has  in  decision-making  process.  The
responses  were  of  the  Likert~typo  thus:  quite  a  l o t,  small, 
l i t t le
or  none  weighted  &.,  3,  2,  1  respectively.  A sample  item  covering
a  household  a c t i v i ty  was: How much  power  does  each  cf  the  following,
father,  mother,  father  and  mother  together,  or  yourself  have  in
deciding  what  work  you  should  do  around  the  house?  A Yoruba  version
of  the  instrument  yielded  a  r e l i a b i l i ty  coefficient  of  •&'- when
tested  for  r e l i a b i l i ty  by  a  split*-half  odd-even  technique*

Procedure

Data for this study were obtained by administering the question~

naire on the sample by the author, himself a Yoruba, who was involved

in the back translation of the instrument.  The Administration of the

questionnaire was done during one lesson period in eadh of the

participating schools.  The total power score for each family member

or for father and mother together was the summation of the highest

scores assigned by each respondent over the eight power items*

Results

An  analysis  of  the  results  revealed  a  ty^pology  of  power

patterns  thus:  father-~dominance,  mother  dominance,  equiliterrianism
and  childdominance•  These  power  jxatterns  served  as  dependent  variable;
while  urban  .and  rural  locales  were  the  independent  variables.  A
chi~square  test  of  correlation  between  the  two  sets  of  variables
was  conrputed  as  reported  in  Table  1.

Table  1

Chi-Tsquare  y>et}acen__yxhpn/rx)rpX

and_ jfj^lily  power  patterns

" 
Power  Patterns 

Number 
responding 

Urban 

children 

Rural

children

Father"*dorninance
Mother ""dominance 
Equaliterrianism 
Child"dominance 
X2  «  29*56 

202
118
7a

268
131 '
69
38

71
a-9
33
P  ^  -001

df  *  3 

66

Discussion"

Contrary to the traditional belief that the Yoruba family

is typified by patriarchy, the results of this study show that

there are at least four possible power patterns,-to wit; father~

dominance, • mother "dominance, equaliterrianism and child.~dominance»

For the entire sample and for each sub ""sample, father ""dominance

was reported most often«  "However, the hypothesis that more rural

children would report father-dominance than urban children did was

supported.  Conversely, more urban children reported mother~dominance,

equaliterianiem and child-dominance than the rural children, did.

Thus, the results show th?t urb.ui/rural upbringinr is a strong

correlate of children's perceived family power patterns.

c differences in th>- Hdldron's reports ray be explained by

the differential exposure of their r-spective locales of upbringing

to the forcer, r[ social change*  It would seem justifiable to say

that the functional force* of social change explained by Lloyd

(1969) may have led to the collapse of hierarchical ranking,

patriarchal dominance .and the correlation of power with :\re^

seniority and masculinity*  More families are exposed to indus-

trialization, Westernization, foreign contacts and mass media than

rural families are*  Educated parents, more of whom are located in

urban areas, seem u^.ions  to reverse the authoritarian role so

common in the traditional rural society.  It is however clear from

the results that both locales were affected by those factors, as

both urban and rural children reported identical power patterns.

What is ivolved is. the question of extent*  One may however not

expect a complete switch-over from the traditional to the emergent

structure because of the; Yoruba acculturative process.  This process

seems "selective and adaptive rather than substitutive" (flerskovits

and Bascom, 1959)•

Againt  it would  scera reasonable  to say that women and

children in both ' locales enjoy  considerable  emancipation

as evidenced by instances of mothcr~tiominan.ee, equalitariaaism

and  child—dominance*  Mothers are now br.ead~winners and have

unrestrained  access to education.  It would seem interesting to

find out whether Yoruba women's power base can be interpreted in

terms of Blood and Wolfe's  (i960) resource theory*  In the same

vein,  children in both locales can now be heard as well as being

seen..  Whether  this is due to parental permissiveness is a moot

question.  It is however  clear that, in both locales, paternal

authority has declined  (cf« Flogey, 1957) and that women are

succeeding  in their  struggle for marital power  (cf» Gillespie,

19^1)•  As to the power patterns themselves, their possible  effects

on the sample's social and personality  development would  seem to

call for urgent  investigation as Bronfenbrenner  (196I), Dager  (196a)

and Strauss  (1962) have done with American  children.

REFERENCES

Blood, R. and Wolfe, D.M. HusJ^ds__and__V/ives_r N«Y. :

Free Press; 196*0".

Bowerman, C.E. and Elder, G.H. Variations in adolescent  percep™
tions of family  power  structure*  ^2££i£2£_ii£i£^o^o~
£2£al_Sejiew  195a, 29, 551~567,  ' 

. . . " "'

Bronfenbrenner, U.  Some  familial antecedents of responsibility

•  • 

and leadership in. adolescents in L»Petrullo  and
B.H.  Bass  (Eds.)  LeaderGhip_ and  i£iterp_ersona^_behaviour»
N.Y.,  Holt,  Rinehart  and  V/inston,  1961,  PP»  239"*27l7"

Clausen, J»A«  ; Family  structure, socialisation and personality,

pp« 1~53 in L.W. Hoffman and M»L« Hoffman  (Eds.)
B^li^L_2l_l2kiJ-dil£I£l2a5P^%f!£l21Ph*  V o l«2  N.I.
Russell  Sage  Foundation,  I96?).

Cushna,. B. : Agency, birth order differences in very early  childhood.

Paper  presented at A.P.A. Conference*  New York City,
September, 1966.

68

Dager, E.  :  Socialization ond yxjrsoiiality development in the-

child. ' pp 7aX)~782 in N.T. Christ.ensen (Ed.)
Handbook of Marriage and_ the• .Family.  Chicago:
Rard and KcNally, 196a.

Gillespic, D.L. : V/ho has power?  The marital struggle.

Journal of Marriage^ and the Family 19^1, 33 (3)

"8

Goldin, P-C 

A roview of children's reports of parent
behaviours.  Psychological Bulletin, 19&9, 7l,
222-236.

Herbst, P.G. : The measurement of family relationships.

Human Relations, 1952, 5, 3*~3O.

Herskovits, M.J. and Bascom^ V'.R. :  The problem of stability and

change in African culture pp 1~1A- in Continuity and
Change in African Cultures.  V/.R. B as com and M.J; *
Herskovits (Eds.J  Chicago: The University of
.Chicago Press, 1959*

Hess, R.D. and Torney, J.V.:Religion, age and sex in children's-

perceptions of family authority.  Child Development,
1962, 33, 781-789. ' 
~~  "~~

~ 

Hilton, I.':• Differences in the behaviour of mothers towards first
and later born children*  Journal of Personality and"
S ocial Psycholofiy, 1967, 7, 2c12-290.. .

Kagan, J.  :  The child's, perception of the parent Journal of

Abnormal and Social^Psychology, 195^; 53, 25^-268•

Kandel, D. j  And Lesser, G. Social Class and family pov;e£ in

Denmark.  Mimeograph, 1966.

King, K.  :  Adolescent perception of power structure in the Negro
family, Journal of Marriage and the-Family, 1969, 31*
751-755.

Lasko, J.K. : Parent behaviour toward first and second children-

Genetic Psychology Monographs, 195^, ^-9, 96"*137«

Lloyd, P.C. : Africa in Social Change, Baltimore: Penguin African

Library 196*9^

Mogey,  J. 

:  A  century  of  declining  paternal  authority.

jMorrjia>?;e _and  Family^ivinf£j  195^,  19*  23/J-~239*

Olasehinde,  M.0»  :  The  changing  perceptions  of  family  power

structure  and  manipulative  behaviour  among
Yoruba  children.  Unpublished  doctoral
dissertation,  Columbia  University,  19^3•

Safilios-Rothschild,  C.  ;  The  study  of  family  power  structure:

A review  19'SO~*1969» 

Journal  of  Marriagc^md

jaKdl£T  19?0,  J2^W:J52?~~~~~~~ 

"

Strauss,  M.A»  :  Conjugal  power  structure  and  adolescent  personality,

Strodtbeck,  F.L*  :  Family  interaction,  values  and  achievement  in
?^J±J!££Ui2B£!2L'

D.C  McClelland  et_al-  (eds. ) 
Princeton,  N»J»  Von  Nostrand,  1958*

Button "Smith,  B.  ;  and  '.Rosenberg,  B.C.  :  Sibling  perception  of

family  models*  Paper  presented  at  Eastern  Psycholo-
gical  Association  Meeting  in  Washington  D«C«  April
20,  1968.