MARITAL DISSATISFACTMN AND SHIFTS 1N
BHiL'D REJECTION

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE unwmsm‘
mum H. zmmmm

      
     

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University 1

 

 

a; c 1:; an,

 

 

ABSTRACT

MARITAL DISSATISFACTION ARD
SHIFTS IN CHILD REJECTION
by

Kenneth H. Zimmerman

This study was suggested by two prior findings:

(a) that marital satisfaction, measured by the Family
Concept Inventory (FCI), was negatively related to child
density (number of children divided by years married)
among married housing residents at MSU (Hurley & Palonen,
1967); and (b) that parents of three or more children
made greater increases than persons producing fewer
children on the Manifest Rejection (MR) scale when
readministered by mail six years after this scale had
been initially taken.as undergraduates in MSU Child
Psychology classes (Hurley & Hohn, 1971). The present
study was designed to ascertain if increases in child
rejection are related to marital dissatisfaction.

This problem was approached through mailing the FCI
and a supplementary questionnaire concerning demographic,
sociological, and other variables considered relevant to
changes in child-rearing attitudes to 93 former MSU
students who had taken the MR scale both about six months
previously (by mail) and also about 10-11 years earlier
when they were MSU undergraduates. Twenty-one males and

42 females supplied usable returns. Their MR and FCI

scores were closely comparable to those of similar samples.
FCI scores correlated negatively (g = -.28, £51.05) with
increments in MR, linking marital dissatisfaction with the
increasing rejection of children. Written responses to
the questionnaire item "Since undergraduate college days,
how do you think you have changed, if at all, in your
attitude toward the utility of strictness in disciplining
children?”, after being reliably classified into categories
of increase, decrease, and no change by two independent
judges, correlated significantly (3,: .40, pg:.05) with

MR changes. This finding supported the validity of MR as
a measure of change in disciplinary strictness.

Parents of three or more children showed an MR increase
which contrasted with an overall MR decrease in the total
sample. The Hurley and Hohn (1971) finding of a monotonic
relationship between MR increases and number of children
(0, 1, 2, and 3+) was also confirmed. However, the general
MR increase found in that earlier study did not obtain in
this one. Child density was unrelated to marital satis-
faction for this sample, as Figley had found with a more
broadly representative sample in a Pennsylvania university
community. Apparently the high.child density, low marital
satisfaction linkage is a special characteristic of student
families with children who live in relatively cramped low
income housing, since Tucker (1972) recently replicated,
in another sample of MSU married housing families, the
earlier findings of Hurley and Palonen (1967).

An elementary factor analysis of 28 variables derived
from the supplementary questionnaire plus MR and FCI scores,
yielded three major clusters focusing on MR, number of
children, and age at marriage. These and three minor
clusters seemed to identify a conservative versus contem-
porary orientation, the former facet being associated with
greater religious attendance, earlier marriage, and larger
families. Also, Catholics made greater MR decrements than
Protestants, a difference associated with higher under-
graduate MR scores among the Catholics.

Further research in this area might well attend to the
conservative-contemporary orientation variable and attempt
to ascertain if a causal relationship obtains between

marital satisfaction and MR changes.

gZ/Mj

Committee Chairman

 
 
   

Approved

Date: 10/13/72

Thesis Committee:
John R. Hurley, Chairman
Donald L. Grummon

Mary Leichty

MARITAL DISSATISFACTION ND
SHIFTS IN CHILD REJECTION
by

Kenneth H. Zimmerman

A THESIS

Submitted to

Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express special thanks to Dr. John Hurley,
my chairman, supervisor, and advisor, for his contributions
to this thesis and to my graduate education.

I would like to thank Drs. Donald R. Grummon and Mary
Leichty for serving on my committee.

I also wish to extend thanks to Grey Larison, a fellow
graduate student who served as co-rater, and to my wife,

Janet, whose typing skill has been so helpful.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
LIST OF FIGURESOOOOOO00.00.000.000...00.000.00.000.
anRODUCTIOI‘IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOO.IOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.

I‘ETHODOOOQOOOOOOOOO00.000.00.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

RESULTSOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0....0000000

Sample AttributeSOO0.0..OOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOO
hm ChangeSOOOOOO0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0..

Religion-.00.00.00.00.0000IOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOO.

Subjective Questionnaire......................
Elementary Factor Analysis....................
Content Of Clusters.........................o.
MR and FCI Means Compared with Other Samples..
DISCUSSIONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.000000000000000000000
The Meaning of MR Changes.....................
The Central Finding: Linkage between MR
Change arid the FCIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.
The Issue of Child Density....................
Peripheral Findinssoooooo00000000000000.coo...
Implications for Future Research..............
REFEquCESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0...
APPENDICES
A. Child Behavior Inventory..................
B. Research Feedback Eaterial................
C. Family Concept Inventory..................
D. General Information FormOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
E. Letter Accompanying Questionnaires........

F. Return Postcard...........................

111

Page
iv

0-.

n) .n-auma
CD \D—q¢¢0u30“fl U1 k»

'0
<3

NHDR)N
#«NNHD

h)
53

29
34
37

39
40

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page
1. Means and Standard Deviations.................. 7

2. Intercorrelations among Selected Variables for
Men and Women Combined......................... 8

30 Mean Changes in MR scoresooooooooooooooooone... 10

4. Selected Means by Religion..................... 11

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page

1. Relationships of Variables Found by Modified
Elementary Factor Analysis................... 16

Introduction

This study was concerned with one aspect of the ways
in which parents, marriage, and children influence each
other, particularly in regard to the child-rearing attitudes
of parents. As noted by Walters and Btinnett (1971), much
has been written about the effects of parents and their
marriages on the personalities of children, but little on
the effects of children on their parents.

One aspect of the effects of children on parents that
has been investigated is the effect of number of children
and child density on marital satisfaction. Child density,
defined by Hurley and Palonen (1967), is the number of child-
ren divided by the number of years married. Hurley and
Palonen, using 40 couples in a Michigan State University
(MSU) married housing unit, found that marital satisfaction
had a significant negative correlation (5,: -.39, p<:.05)
with child density. Marital satisfaction was measured with
the combined T-scores of the Locke-Wallace scale and the
Family Concept Inventory (FCI), a multiple-choice instrument
described in the method section of this paper. Tinker (1972)
observed a similar correlation (3.: -.35, 2<:.10) several
years later in another study of 24 couples from the MSU
married housing unit. Neither Hurley and Palonen nor Tinker

found a significant correlation between number of children

2
and marital satisfaction, suggesting that the impact of
several small children at one time is much more important
than the number of children alone. The negative findings
of Figley (1971) in an attempted extention of the Hurley
and Palonen (1967) study to a more heterogeneous pOpulation
support this conclusion. For a sample of 92 university
faculty and staff members and spouses married an average of
15.9 years, Figley found a correlation of .02 between child
density and the Locke-Williamson Marital Adjustment Question-
naire.

Investigating the impact of children on child-rearing
attitudes, Hurley and Hohn (1971) compared the child-rearing
attitudes of 75 former university students with their atti-
tudes as eXpressed six years earlier while enrolled in an
MSU undergraduate psychology course. Unlike similar atti-
tudinal variables of Cverprotection and Achievement Pressure,
which decreased over the interval, Manifest Rejection (MR)
increased over this period, especially for those producing
three or more children. With the exception of this study,
the present search of the literature shows this to be an
unexplored area of research. 5 Decade Review of Family
Research and Action (Broderick, 1971), reviewing most of
the research in the area of family behavior for the 1960's,
contains no reference to the influence of children on
parental child-rearing attitudes.

The studies cited show a negative relationship between
child-rearing experience and both marital adjustment (Hurley

and Palonen, 1967) and attitudes toward children (Hurley and

3
Hohn, (1971). This suggests that marital dissatisfaction

and manifest rejection of children would tend to occur
together. The present study was designed to test that
hypothesis.

Method

With data gathered recently by Hurley, the Hurley and
Hohn (1971) study was replicated with a sample of 93 former
university students who had been tested with the Child
Behavior Inventory while taking undergraduate courses in
child psychology, communication skills, and physics. They
were tested again by mail after a 10-11 year interval.
Current addresses were obtained from the files of the
university alumni office. These g3 were used for this
study.

The Child Behavior Inventory, developed by Hurley from
original items and items from instruments by Shoben (1949)
and Mark (1953), consists of 1A9 items offered with
"strongly agree, mildly disagree, neither agree nor
disagree, mildly disagree, and strongly disagree” response
alternatives designed to reflect parental attitudes on
dimensions of MR, Overprotection, Achievement Pressure,
and Overindulgence (see Appendix A, page 29). The MR
scale, which was central to this study, consists of 30
items randomly placed within the Child Behavior Inventory.
MR was defined by Hurley and Hohn as

...the general tendency to assume a negative and

punitive stance toward children. It was repre-
sented by items endorsing behaviors which minimize

4
or restrict contact with children, inhibit the

child's legitimate demands for attention and con-
siderate care or would impose harsh sanctions.

(1971, p. 325)

Test-retest reliability of the short initial version of the
Child Behavior Inventory used by Hurley and Laffey (1957)
was .68 for a 20 item MR over a ten-week period. For
Hurley and Hohn (1971), the test-retest correlation was .37
over a six-year interval for a 36 item MR scale. Using a
revised, 30 item version of the MR scale balanced for
agreement (15) and disagreement (15) statements, Hurley
(1965) found that the MR scores of parents of 204 third-
grade children were negatively correlated (g = -.27,
p<:.001) with the children's intelligence as measured by
the California Test of Mental Maturity. In the same study
MR was found positively correlated (r = .46) with the
Punishment Index (From, Raider, Toigo, and Lefkowitz, 1963),
a measure of direct parental acknowledgement of severity

of punishment.

The present §§ received a mailing containing infor-
mation on the results of the research in which they were
participating (see Appendix B, page 34) together with a
multiple-choice variation of the FCI (see Appendix 0, page
37) developed by van der Veen, Huebner, Jorgens, and Neja
(1964) and used in the Hurley and Palonen study (1967).
This consisted of 48 items answered with five response
Options similar to those of the Child Behavior Inventory.
Palonen (1966) found correlations between the FCI and the

Locke-Wallace Scale of marital adjustment of .72 for men,

5
.69 for women, and .73 for men and women together, and a
split-half reliability of .85 for the FCI. SQ were also
asked to provide information regarding date of marriage,
birthdates of children, their religious denomination, and
the frequency of their religious attendance. 0n the same
form (see Appendix D, page 38) they were asked to state
how their attitudes might have changed since college days
regarding disciplinary strictness, protective supervision,
freedom, affection, and achievement pressure toward child-
ren, and were also asked to give reasons for such changes.
Additionally they were asked at what age it was best for a
person of their sex to marry, and how many children they
would plan to have if newly married. These were intended
as supplementary measures, on the assumption that they
would reflect satisfaction or dissatisfaction with marriage
and children. This material was accompanied by an explan-
atory letter (see Appendix E, page 39) and a return envelope.
Several weeks after the original mailing, a postcard (see
Appendix F, page 40) was mailed to verify their willingness
or unwillingness to participate by checking an appropriate

box and dropping it in the mail.

Results
Sample Attributes
Twenty-two males and 45 females responded, comprising
84%, 68%, and 72% of the male, female, and combined g;
respectively. Of these, two females and one male did not

answer the FCI because they were unmarried, and another

6
female was removed from the sample because she had
remarried quite recently, leaving a total of 63 §§.
Of those who did not respond, an incorrect address and
persons indicating unmarried status on the return post—
card account for three, and probably more of these were
unknown to g,

The average respondent was 31.7 years old, had been
married nine years, and had 2.2} children. These and
related data means are presented in Table 1. Most were
Protestant and fairly regular church-goers. Two of the
women were divorced and remarried, and one of the men was
separated. The g3 were in a broad variety of occupations,
commensurate with their educational levels as former

college students.

MR'Changes

A product—moment correlation of -.28 (23:.05) between
the FCI and MR change supports the hypothesis that increased
rejection of children occurs together with marital dissat-
isfaction. Most of this correlation was related to new MR,
which correlated -.23 with the FCI, while the college MR
had a correlation of .12 with the FCI. For women, the new
MR correlated more highly (5 = -.32, p<:.05) with the FCI
than did MR change. These and other correlations are
listed in Table 2. Two-tailed tests of significance were
used exclusively in this study.

The overall shift in MR for the group was a drop of
2.63 points from the earlier mean of 50.76. Men shifted

Means and Standard Deviations

Table 1

 

 

Variable

Total years married
Actual marriage age
Ideal marriage age
A-I marriage age
Child density
Number of children
Ideal # of children
A-I children
College MR

New MR

MR.change

FCI

Both
8.95
22.78
24.37,
-1. 55
.25
2.25
2.46
-.22
50.76
48.13
-2.63

149.60

63
63
49
49
63
63
58
58
63
63
63
63

Means

M33
9.38
23.24
25.56
-2.03
.23
2.14
2.45
—.45
59.67
53.90
~5.76

147.10

21
21
17
17

21
2O
20
21
21
21
21

42
42
31
31
42
42
38
38
42
42
42
42

Std.

.77
13.66
12.68
16.13

1.76

 

Jeane? .350 6.3 «a 6%. .3233 mm I m uncanny».
.u« .0" one w .m meanedwer neesvep wa.l z .exoamom we aneowe no I z
.03.; non.“ 33.23 3509 dungeon .33 “Eagles... 60. VB.

H050 El 0 .m c0253 m: I 3

8a .9

emu: 093:0 m: .3
mm- Ian . a: :0: .aa
Na 4mm- .mm m: omoaaoo .0“
no- ea «0 ma- ooeueeoepa usoawaaom .m
an. ac- 4am- ea- so- soueadno no .oz H1< .m
A“ tam Ion mo- woe. wan- nonsense mo .0: HuoeH .a
so o« No1 mm- wow the Ian :oueaago no .0: .8
mo- oo «on we. wow Ian was Ina assuage canes .n
mm ma aa mo- 48m em- Inn no co om. assayed. H1< .4
mm- ma- no- ma 4mm- no Ina. Immu ea- INA- owe omuauuea Hausa .m
on- mo- am 4mm we won- so- Inn- ac. to: em oceans: emu Heeeo< .m
me no ea1 a“- co. 4am ac- 4H0 Ho ma- am- waeu sedans: once» .a
91 Mm mm mm m m N. w. w. m n M a

 

41'“) IIHI Inll

3:330 none: one no: you neapeflfllw peaceaom wcole ugapdnonuoouovaa
m canes

9
more (~5.76) than women (-1.26), but still remained sub-
stantially higher, with means of 53.90 for men and 44.52
for women. This general MR decrease is contrary to the
general MR.increment of 3.85 points found earlier by Hurley
and Hohn (1971) after a six year hiatus.

The test—retest correlation for the MR scale was .25
(p<:.05), somewhat less than Hurley and Hohn's finding of
.37, but not surprising for a time—span nearly twice as
long.

This sample did not confirm the findings of Hurley and
Palonen (1967) and Tinker (1972) that child density is
related to marital satisfaction. The correlation was .06
between child density and the FCI. However, the present
data and the Hurley and Hohn (1971) finding show the same
pattern of MR change differences among parents producing
0, 1, 2, or 3 or more children. MR change score means by
number of childralfrom Hurley and Hohn (1971) and the §§
who received the mailing for the present study are listed
in Table 3.

Religion

Means across religion for MR change were -2.25 for
Protestant, -12.28 for Catholic, and -5.50 for those
indicating no religion. The difference between Protestant
and non-Protestant yielded a t of 2.14, (p<:.05). Means
for college MR, new MR, MR.change, FCI, and number of
children by religion are listed in Table 4.

10

Table 3

Mean Changes in MR Scores

 

 

 

 

Number g£_Children Hurley and Hohn Present Data
N* MR Change MR change NI

3. 11 11.2 __ 1.9 25

2 17 6.2 -3.2 36

1 22 3.0 -4.8 16

0 25 0.2 -5.2 14

 

*N's include males and females

11

Table 4

Selected Means by Religion

 

 

FCI

Number of children
College MR

New MR

MR change

 

Protestant Catholic None
(:1 = 467 (a = 8) (gt-=8)
150.15 151.25 145.13
2.22 2.50 2.25
48.76 61.50 56.26
47.48 49.25 50.76
-1.28 ~12.25 ~5.50

 

12

Subjective Questionnaire

The responses to the questions on how Sg had changed

in respect to attitudes regarding disciplinary strictness,

protective supervision, freedom, affection, and achievement

pressure toward children were rated by g as increased,

unchanged, or decreased in importance, and the reasons

given for change were sorted into categories derived from

examination of the data as follows:

Own children:

Other's children:

Society:

Self-change:

Home-life:

Profession:

Mate:

Reading:

mention of coping with or attitude
change toward own children.

mention of other children known to
the respondent or seen by him.

general reference to the ills of the
world and society, e.g. drugs, crime.

reference to personal change or
growth, more general than in specific
attitudes.

mention of parents' attitudes or
behavior as important in own
attitude change.

mention of professional or work
eXperience.

mention of spouse as influence.

mention of reading as influence.

These responses were independently rated again for direc-

tion of change and sorted into the above categories by an

advanced graduate student in clinical psychology. Of 315

answers rated for direction of change, the independent

rater and Q rated 290 the same for 92% agreement. or the

total of 1008 possible category assignments (2 raters x

8 categories x 63 gg) for reason of change for both raters

13
combined, 216 categories were selected, and of these,
179, or 83% were identical. Following this proceedure, the
ratings and sortings of the independent rater were checked
for apparent clerical errors, and he was asked to re-rate
the items with apparent clerical errors without reference
to his previous work. This proceedure resulted in 98%
agreement on direction of change, the 2% disagreement being
limited to whether a given response was ratable or not.
Respondents tended to ignore the instructions on these
questions, and 34% of the items were unratable for direc-
tion of change. Agreement on category sorting was in-
creased to 96% by the re-rating proceedure.

Of the five attitudinal change questions, only the one
concerning the change in importance of disciplinary strict-
ness bore a relationship to the MR change scores. Of 16
gg indicating an attitude of increased emphasis on disci-
plinary strictness, 12 had increased in MR, and of 16
indicating decreased emphasis on disciplinary strictness,
12 had lower MR scores. Mean MR change for those indi-
cating an increased emphasis on disciplinary strictness
was +8.6 with a mean of -8.4 for those indicating a de-
creased emphasis. The product-moment correlation between
MR change and change in importance of disciplinary strict-
ness was .40 (p<.01).

The correlation between the FCI and actual-minus-ideal
(A-I) marriage age was substantial for men (.41) but

non-significant, while the correlation was .02 for women.

14
The correlation of .06 between MR.change and A-I number of
children suggests that there is no relationship between
these variables.
Reaction to own children was by far the most frequently
(#0 mentions) cited reason for attitude change, while the
remainder ranged from six to 14 mentions, except for

reading (two mentions).

filamentary Factor Analysis

Correlational matrices for men, women, and both were
prepared for the following variables: sex; total years
married; years of current marriage; age when married;
ideal age for getting married; A-I age for marriage; child
density; number of children; ideal number of children;
A-I number of children; religious attendance on a five-
point scale; increase or decrease in emphasis on disci-
plinary strictness, freedom, protective supervision,
affection, and achievement pressure (all rated plus, zero,
or minus); presence or absence of mentioning one's own
children, others' children, society, self-change, home»
life, profession, mate, or readingixxexplanation of atti-
tude changes; college MR scores; new MR scores; MR
change scores; FCI; and time in months to respond to the
questionnaire.

An elementary factor analysis was performed as de-
scribed by McQuitty (1961) except that significance levels
were used rather than correlations, since the Q's for

correlations varied widely due to missing data. This was

15
done as follows: A matrix of significant correlations
was made, including those for men, women, and both, and
the high correlations between obviously related varia-
bles were deleted. The remaining data were translated
into reciprocals of the levels of significance and sum-
med for men, women, and both at each point in the matrix.
McQuitty's procedure was then applied to the matrix of
the sums of the reciprocals of the levels of signifi-
cance. Ties were solved by summing the three correla-
tions at each point in the tie, and using the point with
the highest sum. Using correlations for the procedure
would have resulted in the same analysis providing the
fife were equal, since the highest correlations would
have the highest levels of significance. In the present
case, however, a nonsignificant correlation might be
larger than another which is significant due to a lar-
ger fl, Using reciprocals of levels of significance
allows one to avoid building clusters of variables on
large but nonsignificant correlations. Combining all
three matrices gives more weight to the more reliable
effects. The clusters formed by this procedure were
further related by finding the highest correlation
linking each cluster with a variable in another cluster,
and Joining the clusters at these points as depicted in
Figure 1. This procedure gives an overview of the

strongest relationships among the variables.

16

/ \
// \\
// \
\
’P fession \|
Disciplinary:
strictness

New F?
‘J £Z’FCI

—’-—-—-——--—————\

 

 

[L’Others' I
\ cnnmh M1'9“"’*1""*')"’can ren

---..___________,/ II

I
I
I
!
MR chan e I ,,—-\\
T—L l / \
I ,I \
I , I
Go loge MR : I'Protection I
l I
Hate : I :
I
Se | INumber of |
Freedom E Ichildren | , ------- -\
I I l // \
\ I ‘ \J I ,l
\ Society // IA A—I number | IYears
\\ / I chhildrenl lmarried,
\\~ (I/ I I 'total
-’ I : ESQ Years
____________ I married,
1’ ”Self L Ideal I? of I :1 eal / current
\ 9§§§§g_ 391181°n_ children I Izagriage
-------- --—-~\ {w : I “.\\\Home--
’l‘°h1°'°fiwl I I 11:.
‘ 919.112-23.121" I I dgneity I IA- I
I I Imarriage
--------------- I la 9
.0 I I
l I
'.
\

/ Age married
\\ ,” \

Nu—fi

Fig. 1. Relationships of variables found by modified
elementary factor analysis. Clusters are encircled by
dashes with dominant variables underlined.

--—-————_—-—-—-D—’

I. . _
' I ‘ N . . ‘ ‘
' e u . . .
'V

" " V \
V . .
- - -v o

.A . ‘

 

 

 

 

. ' “ " -’ —., _
. I
.
..
~ .
- .- '> ‘
. ‘4 ,
. _ - _ I > W
a I- ‘ ‘ .. . I ‘
- - . _ - ., -
77“" ~ "" —- , 7._-
‘ j I' v,
.. .-._ ' I .
n P- ,
— I I H
A V . L .
.
1
>. .
. I ‘
.
)1
. ‘ ‘4 ‘
l I
. .J .
I
’\ "Q ' .1
.
c .
' .
-.I . I . ‘ _
. H . , ‘ s AMI _ ‘ I I ~ ‘
.
. . .. . .. . “I,“ , . , _
I , _ .
_ .4 . _ 4 . . A I I _
I .
I . I

 

.
V ‘ I- n.
I!
II.
’-
I
.
It.
‘ .
x
\u‘.
11.,\»
~ “
V
..g
. I
. I
A
. _ l.
.
A:
7" D 4.‘

 

 

17
Content 2£ICIusters

In the following description of the relationships
between the variables depicted in Figure 1., all corre-
lations referred to were significant at the .05 level
or*higher.

Three major clusters of variables were observed.
Central to these clusters were marriage ages, manifest
rejection, and numbers of children. The first major
group is formed around the correlation (-.72 for men and
women together) between A-I marriage age and ideal
marriage age, which indicates that although ideal mar-
riage age correlated positively with actual marriage
age, the tendency to prefer an older ideal marriage
age than actual marriage age was greatest for those
who married latest. Thus, those who waited longest to
get married thought it would be better to wait even
longer, since the mean ideal marriage age was 2#.4, or
1.6 years more than actual marriage age. A general
relationship was found between religious attendance,
children, and ideal marriage age. Those more regularly
attending church indicated a younger ideal age for
marriage, although they had not married younger. The
more regularly church-attending men indicated a larger
ideal number of children, and a larger number than they
presently had, even though their actual number of chil-
dren was more than those of men less regularly attending.

Men indicating a younger ideal marriage age also pre-

ferred a larger ideal number of children, regardless

18
of religious attendance. Apparently those who go to
church more regularly are more likely to seek to con-
form to traditional concepts of marriage and family.
Those with greater religious attendance also responded
more quickly to the questionnaire and were less likely
to mention self-change as a reason for changing atti-
tudes in child-rearing. Self-changes were mentioned
by those who would marry older, and by women who
wanted more children and put relatively more value on
protective supervision and achievement. Men who men-
tioned home-life as a reason for changed attitudes
also preferred an older ideal marriage age.

In the group of variables build around numbers of
children, the correlations between actual number of
children, ideal number of children, and A-I number of
children reflect the finding that the most popular
(31 of 58) ideal number of children was two, whether
the respondent had two, or more, or fewer than two.
Having more children and thinking it better to have
fewer correlates positively with mentioning one's own
children as a reason for child-rearing attitude changes.
For men, an indicated increase in the importance of
affection correlates positively with mentioning their
own children, but negatively with mentioning others'
children as reasons for attitude changes. This suggests
that those who have warmed up to their own children are

more likely to relate their attitudes to them than to

19
others. Increased importance of protective supervision
for men correlates positively with having more children,
being married longer, and having scored lower on col-
lege MR.

Another major group is formed around MR. Those who
mentioned professional experience as a source of change
in child-rearing attitudes tended to have low MR scores.
MR increments were associated with indicated increase
in emphasis upon disciplinary strictness, while men
with high college MR scores reported increased value on
freedom for children. Influence of mate on child-rear-
ing attitudes was mentioned by women who tended to have
lower MR scores, and who had more than their ideal num-
ber of children. Men mentioned society as a reason

for attitude change more often than women.

M§,and FCI Means Compared with Other samples

The present sample seems quite representative of
samples with similar ages and educational backgrounds
in terms of MR and FCI scores. For couples with a mean
age of 29.6 years, averaging about three years of
college, and living in an apartment complex near MSU,
Updyke (1968) found mean FCI scores of 145.3 for men and
154.3 for women, compared to 147.1 and 151.0 respec-
tively for this sample. Mean MR scores of Updyke's
sample were 52.5 for men and 47.9 for women, similar to
the means of 53.9 and 44.5 for men and women respec-

tively in the present sample. Palonen (1966) found

2O
FCI means of 148.4 for men and 154.7 for women among

40 couples living in an MSU married housing unit.

Discussion
2113 Meaning _o_i_‘_ MR Changes

An important question concerns the behavioral cor-
relates of MR scores. The import of the present find-
ings is clarified to the extent that information is
available on the relationship between the MR scale and
the global behavior of parents, as well as the impact
of such behavior on children.

In the present data, the correlation (.40) between
MR change and the ratings of subjective reports of
change in emphasis on disciplinary strictness support
the validity of the present MR changes. Other possible
facets of rejection explored by the subjective question-
naire such as lack of affection, protective supervision,
and achievement pressure were not significantly related
to MR change.

To the extent that MR represents non-pathological
strictness, the relationship between MR change scores
and number of children found by Hurley and Hohn (1971),
and supported by this data may reflect the need for
more discipline in larger families, as well as a com-
bination of the old-fashioned values favoring large
families and strict discipline. Ernhart and Loevinger
(1969) found a positive linkage between women's scores

on Approval of Conventional Social Role and their number

21
of offspring.

Evidence of an undesirable child-rearing outcome
related to high parental MR scores was found by
Hurley's (1965) study of parental MR and children's
intelligence. The correlation (.46) between MR
scores and the Punishment Index reported by Hurley
(1965) indirectly suggests another possible negative
outcome, inasmuch as parental scores on the Punishment
Index were found by Bron, et al. (1963) to be posi-
tively related to peer ratings of children's aggres-
sion.

Melnick and Hurley (1969) unexpectedly found
higher mean MR scores (3': 66) for controls than for
child-abusing mothers (3': 54) although both groups
of lower-class Negro women scored substantially higher
than the present sample of middle-class white women
(35 = 44.5). Limited information about the parental
behavior of the control §§, a small combined §_of 20,
and the likelihood that the abusive mothers, who faced
possible court action, intentionally biased their
responses to some of the rather blatant MR items
(A naughty child sometimes needs a good slap in the
face, etc.) severely limit the implications of this
study in regard to MR scores, although the vulnerability

of MR scores to defensiveness seems clear.

22

The Central Eindigg: Linkage between MR Change ggg.thg_§g;

Because of the well-known instability of change scores
(Bereiter, 1963), it is not surprising that the corre-
lation between the FCI and MR change was modest. It
would be surprising if it were otherwise, due to the
problems inherent in repeating a measure over a time span
of more than a decade. Like many similar change measures,
the MR change scores were highly correlated (-.65 and .57)
with the first and second administrations of the MR
scale, respectively. The time span of nearly a year
between the administration of the MR scale and the FCI
tended to further reduce their observed correlation.
Therefore, the significant correlation between MR change
and the FCI suggests that a relationship not only exists,
but may well be stronger than our methods allow us to
demonstrate. A base-free measure of change (Tucker,
Damarin, and Messick, 1966) has been designed which may
help alleviate measurement problems. It would be desir-
able to move toward such more sophisticated techniques

in future research.

.222 Lasts 9.1: sails. ____11>ensit

The lack of linkage between marital satisfaction and
child density in this sample, and in Figley's (1971)
data, in contrast to inverse correlations between these
variables in the studies of Hurley and Palonen (1967)
and Tinker (1972), suggests that length of marriage and

other factors may importantly impinge upon child density.

23
Both the Hurley-Palonen and Tinker studies used uni-
versity married housing tenants, who typically have
been married about five years, have crowded living
quarters, minimal privacy, poverty-level incomes, and
academic pressure to deal with. Adding several young
children could be expected to stress a marriage much
more under such conditions than in an economically
established family with normal living space and job
pressures. Future research in this area should con-
sider these factors. For longer-married persons, as
in this study and Figley's (1971), the variable of
child density is less discriminating, since those who
started their families late and have several infants
have the same child density as those who spaced out
the same number of children. A corrected measure of
child density which also considers the ages and spacing
of children might be more discriminating.

geripheral Findings
Greater MR changes for Catholics and those not

indicating a religion represent moves from more extreme
earlier positions, particularly for Catholics, to more
typical adult positions. This suggests that while at

the stage of no longer being children and not yet being
parents, the role of the child was seen with considerable
dislike by these respondents, becoming more positive
with age and child-rearing experience. The earlier

tendency of the Catholic group to score very high on MR

24
might be speculatively explained both as looking back at
childhood as a somewhat repressed period, and looking for-
ward to parenthood as a burdensome duty.

The most saliant generalization from the elementary fac-
tor analysis is the appearance of a conservative versus
contemporary orientation encompassing greater religious
attendance, younger ideal marriage age, more children, and
greater ideal number of children, as well as other connected
variables such as not mentioning self-change, shorter time
of response to the questionnaire, and emphasis on achieve-
ment characterizing the conservative respondent. Future
research on child-rearing attitudes might consider the effects

of the conservative-contemporary orientation of their subjects.

lmplications 3g; Future Research

The need for more information on the validity of the
MR scale suggests numerous research possibilities, such as
comparing MR scores of controls with parents of juvenile
delinquents and parents of children brought to mental health
clinics, or correlating MR scores of parents with teacher
ratings of students on various interpersonal dimensions.

In any such research, the vulnerability of the MR scale to
defensiveness would have to be taken into account.

The increase in MR earlier in marriage (Hurley and Hohn,
1971) followed by the decrease at nine years, as found in
this study, may be related to the growth of mature parent-
child relationships over time and increasing age of child-

ren, and perhaps a decreasing need for discipline. Here

25
again, perhaps a better index of child density, corrected
for the age and spacing of children would correlate more
closely with MR scores. Decreased MR may also be related
to the increasing age of parents, with attendant maturity
and personal security. Interpretation of the trend over
years in MR as mentioned, overlooks the differences in the
two versions of the MR scale used to measure this trend.
However, it seems unlikely that the difference of six
items alone could account for a difference in MR change
score means of 6.48 (-2.63 versus 3.85) between this study
and that of Hurley and Hohn (1971).

MR trends over years of marriage, and the correlation
between MR and the FCI, may be related to the findings of
Rollins and Feldman (1970) that satisfaction with marriage
tends to decrease following the birth of the first child,
hitting a low in about the middle of the child-rearing
period, and then rising into the retirement stage. About
half of this sample falls in Stage IV as defined by Rollins
and Feldman, which is the point of lowest ebb of general
marital satisfaction. Most of the remainder fall in Stage
III.

A cross-sectional study of MR, marital satisfaction,
and years married, taking into account parental age, and
ages and number of children, could provide a measure of MR
trends over the child-rearing period as they relate to
marital satisfaction. It has already been suggested that
such studies might profit by considering the conservative-

26
contemporary orientation of the §g, economic and housing
conditions, and a child density measure corrected for ages
of children. The number of possible variables is limited
only by the need to prevent the design from becoming
unwieldy, and should be restricted to variables most likely
to be of major importance. It would be simpler to plot MR
and other child-rearing attitudes over time if §g,could be
limited to those conforming to relatively typical economic
and family patterns.

For the present it appears that having more children,
being unsatisfied with marriage, and increasing child
rejection as measured by the MR scale tend to occur together,
at least in certain stages or circumstances of marriage.
Why they occur together deserves further study. It seems
likely that those factors of personality and interpersonal
competence that contribute to better marriages could also
be expected to affect the quality of parent-child relation-
ships.

REFERENCES

27

References

Bereiter, C. Some persisting dilemmas in the measurement
of change. In C. M. Harris (Ed.), Problems ip
measuripg change. Madison: University of Wisconsin

Press, 9

Broderick, C. B. (Ed.) A_decade p£_family research and
action. National Council on Fam y Relations, 19 I.

Ernhart, C. B., and Loevinger, J. Authoritarian family
ideology: A measure, its correlates, and its robust-
ness. Multivariate thavioral Research Monographs,
1969, NO. 9.1.

Bron, L. D., Walder, L. 0., Toigo, R. & Lefkowitz, M. M.
Social class, parental punishment for aggression, and
ggild aggression. Child pevelopment, 1963, 4, 849-

Figley, C. R. Child density and the marital relationship.
Unpublished master's thesis, Pennsylvania State
University, 1971.

Hurley, J. R. Parental acceptance-rejection and children's

intelligence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1965, 1;,
19-310

Hurley, J. R., a Hohn, R. L. Shifts in child-rearing
attitudes linked with parenthood and occupation.

Qevelopmental Psychology, l97l,lfi, 324-328.

Hurley, J. R. a Laffey, J. J. Influence of a conventional
child psychology course upon attitudes toward children.
Collected Papers of the Michi an Academ of Science
Mtg, an We ters, 1579 ,‘XL' 1' 157, 99-30 . '

Hurley, J. R., & Palonen, D. P. Marital satisfaction and
child density among university student parents.

Journal p§,Marria e gpg_ppp,Famil , 1967, 2 (3), 483-
IEHT"" ._____£L. .____I. .2.

Mark, J. C. The attitudes of mothers of male schizophrenics
toward child behavior. Journal p§,Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 1953.7£§, 185-190.

McQuitty, L. I. Elementary Factor analysis. Psychological
Reports, 1961, 2, 71-7 .

Melnick, B., & Hurley, J. R. Distinctive personality
attributes of child-abusing mothers. Journal of
Consultipg and Clinical Psychology, 1969, E, 746L749.

28

Palonen, D. J. Interpersonal perceptions and marital
adjustment. Unpublished master s thesis, Michigan
State University, 1966.

Rollins, B. C., & Feldman, H. {arital satisfaction over
the family life cycle. Journal p§,Marrigge and the
Family, 1970, pg, 20-27.

Shoben, E. J., Jr. The assessment of parental attitudes
in relation to child adjustment. Genetic Psychology
Monographs, 1949, 32, 101-148.

Tinker, R. H. Dominance in marital interaction. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Univer-
sity, 1972.

Tucker, L. R., Damarin, F., & Messick, S. A base-free
measure of change. Psychometrika, 1966, 1, 457-473.

Updyke, P. R. Family and role satisfaction among young
married women. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan
State University, 1968.

van der Veen, F., Huebner, B., Jorgens, B., a Neja, P.
Relationships between the parents' concepts of the
family and family adjustment. American Journal 2;

Orthopsychiatpy, 1964, 35(2), 45-55.

Walters, J., & Stinnett, N. Parent-child relationships:
a decade review. In C. B. Broderick (Ed.) A decade
‘9; famil research and action. National Council on
Fam y Relations, 1971.

APPENDIX A
CHILD BEHAVIOR INVENTORY

, 29
cans mum names

The statements about children expressed in this booklet are both agreed and disagreed
with by many people. In this soon, there are no "right" or "wrong" answers. Please
read and then rate each of these statements as follows:
1. Strongly agree 5. Strongly disagree
2. 141le agree 1;. Mildly disagree
3. Uncertain
Remember, there are no "right" or "wrong“ answers from our viewpoint. So please do
not hesitate to express your personal opinions. It will be especially helpful to us
if you will give an opinion for each one of these statements even though we realise
that this will not always be a very adequate expression of your views. ~

" 1.”.
'sdicate our o inicns on the accoapsnying answer form by checking spat:
if you sticnglypsgree with the statement of the same number; space 2... if you
mildly agree; space 3---- if you neither agree nor disagree 3 etc.

I» It 16 better tor chum to play at 11.. Children should usually be allowed
home than to visit at the homes of others. to have their own way.

2. Children should be totem that pmnto 15. "Talking back“ to parents is about
"know best." the worst thing that a child can do.

A*3o It in hard to make some children really - 16. Children should not keep secrets
"feel had." from their parents.

h. Children should be neat and orderly at 17. It 19 very important that young boys
all times. and girls not be allowed to see each

- other comletely made.
5. Children will begin walking when ready

for it whether given special training or 18. Ordinarily argumnts and fights
not. ' V breaking out among children are best

handled by the children without adult
6. Women who like parties are often good intervention.
mothers.

19. Children should not be permitted to
7. Parents should not take it upon then- play in the living room.
selves to decide exactly how such a child

is to eat. 13* 20. Children do not "act lazy" without
some important reason.

8. Four-year-olds should know enough to

keep their clothes clean. 21. Much freedom tends to make children
"wild."

9. If a father punishes a child without

good reason, the mother should stand up Ds22. Sneakiness in children is usually
for the child's rights. the result of faulty training methods
used by their patents.
10. Parents should sacrifice everything
for their children. 23. A good mother regularly shelters her
children from life ' s little difficulties
11. Children should generally be encour-

md to choose their om playmates. D e214. If an infant dislikes a certain food,
the parent should not insist that it be
12. The comer children are toilet-trained, eaten.
the better.

25'. Sheeting children in front of their
13. Parents should protect their children friends 1. ‘ good W to m then be-
from exposure to extremely difficult have.
tasks.

r

 

30

26. Children should be taken to and from
school by parents until about age 8 just
to make certain that they avoid accidents.

-2-
Mt. host reports which parents hear from
other about a child's misconduct are
exaggerated.

27. Boys should be allowed to play with pins. Very strict discipline can destroy

dolls and carriages if they desire to.

26. Parents should not closely follow a
policy of siding with their own child in
its disputes with other children or
“ult’e

what might have developed into a fine
”moan-it"s

b6. Children should be allowed to nurse
from the breast or bottle as long as they
like.

29. A mum should not shower her child D*h?. Often it is a mistake to punish the

with praise at all time.

as 30. Most children need some of the natu-

ral meanness taken out of them.

child who has Just done something very
bad.

hfi. Children should be permitted to keep

' secrets from their parents.

31. Parents should close their eyes to the
faults of their own children.

32. Children should occasionally be al-
lowed to try out new things without
parental supervision.

33. Children who are continuously “kept
after" rarely amount to much as adults.

3);. An older child who wets the bed
should be shamed.

35. A child should not be protected from
, jobs which might be very tiring or tax-
ing.

36. Spanking very little children is about
the only way that they can be taught not
to run into the street.

37. Older children are more fun than
babiaae

38. Children should be encouraged to think
for themselves even though this may create
more problems for their parents.

39. Physical punishment of children should
be avoided.

ho. Parents should make sure that their
own children win at games.

hl. Children will neglect their school-

D*h9. It is healthy for children to some-

teimes express anger toward their parents.

50. when parents are entertaining, chil~
dren should be "seen but not heard."

51. Even older children should sometimes
be allowedtoplaywith focdduring
family male.

52. In raising children, one's feelings
are generally a better guide than are a
carefully thought-out set of rules.

53. If it is avoidable, a mother should
never be separated from her child.

51;. It is good for neighbors to reprimand
or mildly punish children who are misbe~
having.

55. Early weaning and toilet-training are
important in preparing children for life.

56. Parents should not require their chil-
dren to undertake very difficult tasks.

5?. It is the duty of parents to make
certain that their children play only
with the ”right kind" of youngsters.

58. Jealousy among brothers and sisters
is a very comcn thing.

work if parents do not keep after them. D*59- It is good for children to sometimes

D* 1.2. Children should not be punished for

their exploratory sex plw.

A"‘10. Children shouldncthe allowedto

-JLL LL-..“ ‘4.”n“-

- #‘_‘-‘

”talk back” to parents.

60. For their om sake children should be
pressed by parents to excel in school.

 

q
a
i ,.
.
a
..
‘ a
a a
i .
s
. a .
i
. . r
u r . a
u v
. e e .
v-
. v
t .
o .
I n.
e .‘ v v
. n
. a
o .9
A. . . |. .
. i . ,
.
, . A a
.
o n
. \
. v
. .
a . .
s
a .
s a . a w
. . a
. .
a
s a o
. a a
.
. I
a a u
f . .
‘
.- a
a a a
"l at! W." . . a .
'\ I V
a‘\ A. l y a
v
ax. ‘ . A I.x .
'ua .
a .
a .. a v r O ,
a. .
u...
can a -
. .. ‘ u. .
a la a
n I a Q
. v. a l a .
. a a s . a . .
v .I. r. c n . .
a .
. i .
u .. e i .
n -
en.- av w .
. .Ia . . . .
..., . .
v
a 1. .
.‘ u I a
I a l
a
a .
Cu. .
.
a
.c
a . I A
v

3* 61. When children Msbehave it is their
parents who are really at fault.

62. Even the best parents sosetines feel
very angry toward their children.

63. Children who do not keep up adth their

classmates usually need special tutoring
more than anything else.

611. Children should be allowed to scan-

times make a real ness of things Just for
the run or it.

A #65. A wise parent will teach the child

early Just who is boss.

66. Children are nest lovable when they
are small and helpless.

67. It is not of such importance that a
child canal in club activities, such as
the Girl or Boy Scouts. .
68. The good parent never become angry,
with children.

69. Children should be given a chance to

try out as many things as possible on
their own.

A*70. Ioung children who simply refuse to

obey should be whipped.

71. Children should be given such freedom.

72. The children of even a very watchful
parent will have any accidents.

73. Children should not be expected to
take very good care of their toys.

5*?!» Fire and strict discipline makes for

a strong character in later life.

75. Some children have ways of making
parents lose their temper.

13* 76. Eat children enjoy helping their

parents.

77. Children should have the right to pig

with whom-so-eve'r they please .

78. Children should be given the inroa-
sion that their parents know "most every-
thing.

31

-3-
80. Almost any child who is not plain
lasy can do well in schoolwork if they

really try.

2.. Parents should permit children
asdirtyastheywishonce‘inavanile.

get

82.0nereasonwhyitisssdtoseechil-
drengrowup is thattheyneedyoumre
when they are babies.

83. than children do not eat well it
helps to tell than how nicely other chil-
dren eat.

8h. It is unwise for parents to adadt
their own Metakea to children.

85. Few parents worry about hurting their
babies while handling them.

66. If children are quiet for very long,
it is a good idea to check up on then.

87. A child should be encouraged to pro-
test if it feels that it has been treated
unfairly.

88. It is very isportmt for parents to
feel that their own children are well-
dressed and attractive .

89. Children should be trained early to
keep their toys in order at all times.

90. Parents should watch their children
closely at all times.

91. Only the foolish parent will attempt
to make sure that they know their child's
innermost thoughts.

92. A good parent intercedes immediately
if other children start picking upon
their child.

93. It is unreasonable to enact that a
child will stick up for parents when the
parents are in the wrong.

91;. Even when children are very slow in
getting dressed, parents should not do

95. Parents should not "gin until it
hurts" to their children.

Air 96. A great deal of discipline is neces-

79. It takes a lot of "reminding" to get
children to do things right.

sary for the proper training of children.

2
97. The sooner children realise that they3

must fight their own battles, the better.

98. Most children can talk very little by
the age of 12 months.

99. It would be better if school teachers
were less strict.

100. The best children are those who show
great affection for their parents.

101. Two-year-olds are easier to manage
than are six-year-olds.

102. A child should be weaned away from
the breast or bottle as soon as possible.

103. It is all right for a parent to
sleep with a child because this gives the

child a feeling of being loved and wanted.
A* 122. A naughty child sometimes needs a

10’... Four-year-olds are too young to be
expected to keep their toys in order.

105. Children should be protected from
learning about sex.

106. It is foolish to push children to
stand upon their own feet in life at the
earliest possible age.

107. Even very good children will fight
with others upon occasion.

A" 121.

4,-
116. Sometimes it is best to coax chil-
dren into doing things.

11?. ‘Children who always obey their par-
ents do not grow up to become the more
desirable kind of adults.

11* 118. Children should be spanked for

temper tantrums.

119. Even the best parents make new
mistakes in the handling of their chil-
dren.

13* 120. It is normal and healthy for chil-

dren to occasionally disobey their
parents.

Most children get more kindness
and sympathy than is good for them.

good slap in the face.

DIt 123. Spanking children generally does

more harm than good.

121:. By the age of 7 most children are
old enough to spend part of the smear
away from home in a camp.

125. Young people should choose employ-
ment which they really like regardless
of their parents' views.

108. Devoted parents may still have time A* 126. When parents speak, children should

for an active social life.

109. Slapping children imadiately when
they get into mischief is the best way to
end it quickly.

110. Children should believe whatever
their parents tell them.

obey a

127. Parents should expect to give up
their own happiness for that of their
children. -

129. Good parents never feel disgusted
toward their children.

111. After punishing a child. parents flat-DelBO. An intelligent child who does poorly

urally want to make up for it by giving
the child everything it wants.

112. Parents often worry that others may
play too roughly with their little ones.

113. It is foolish to expect three-year-
olds to set everything on their plates.

111;. Children should never undertake some-

thing new without the consent of parents.

115. Most good parents will occasionally
strike a child for misbehavior.

in school work should not be shamed.

131. Parents should not prevent children
from playing in common games and sports
even though they think that the young-
sters might get hurt.

132. Children should not annoy parents
with \miaportant problems.

133. Children who are several years old
should never be "babied."

11*

131;. The sooner that childreh wweaned
from emotional ties with their parents,
the better they will handle their own
problems.

135. Children must learn to do things

without alwws waiting for their parents'

approval.

136. Most children need more discipline
than they get.

137. Good parents should do their best to

guard their children against disappoint-
manta.

138. It is a mother's duty to know Just
about everything that her children are
thinking about.

139. Ioung people should not marry with-
out the approval of their parents.

1M). No child is Just naturally bad.

lhl. Most children should hm msic or
other special lessons.

A”11.142. Children are actually happier under

strict training than they are under more
lenient training.

Form SA, September 1958 .

-5.

11.3. Special after-school activities are
of greater character-building value to
the child than is ordinary neighborhood
play.

lhh. Children should seldom he expected
to be neat and orderly.

1115. Very few children complete bowel
training by the age of 15 months.

A*1h6. Babies rarely cry Just "to get

attention."

D*1h7. Making a child feel wanted and

loved is the surest way to obtain good
behavior.

1148. Shaning a child before friends is
likely to cause more trouble than it
dOOB SOOde

As 1149. Children met be continuously "kept

after" if they are to get somewhere in .
life later on.

150. Children should not be permitted
to leave toys strewn about the house.

Items of MR scale scored for agreement.
Items of MR scale scored for disagreement.

#61: JRH

APPENDIX B
RESEARCH FEEDBACK MATERIAL

34
BRIEF SUMMARY OF CHANGES (1958—1969) ON CHILD-REARING ATTITUDE VARIABLES
John R. Hurley, Dept. of Psychology, Michigan State University

This is a brief overview of how the respondents, as a group, generally shifted
in their 1969 responses to the items of the child—rearing questionnairEfrom the
responses made by these same persons as MSU undergraduates in 1958-59. Many
individuals shifted in directions opposite to these general trends, although
this summary will deal only with these major trends.

Generally there was a clear shift toward lower scores on all four attitude dimensions
This trend was sharpest on variables I (Achievement Pressure) and II (Over-
protection), as the typical respondent shifted toward lessened Achievement

Pressure and lowered Overprotection by about 10 points. A less dramatic but
similar change occurred on the shorter (23 items versus 30 items on all other
attitude scales) scale IV (Overindulgence), where the typical respondent shifted
downward by 3+ points. The changes on all three of these scales were statistically
significant, or of such magnitude and consistency that they are unlikely to
represent chance differences. No identifiable linkages between the number of
children produced by the respondents over this lO-1l year interval and shifts

on scales 1, II, and IV occurred.

A less consistent and less reliable downward shift also occurred on variable

III (Manifest Rejection). While the typical respondent shifted about 3 points
downward on this measure, so manyindividuals shifted in the opposite direction
that this overall downward trend was not statistically reliable. Another aspect
of shifts on Manifest Rejection was that changes on this measure were linked

to number of children produced over this 10-11 year interval. Thus, the 25
respondents producing 3 or more children showed an average increase of 1.9 points,
while all other groups showed average decreases. Also the 36 producers of 2
children decreased an average of 3.2 points, the 16 parents of one child decreased
an average of 4.8 points, and the 14 non-parents dropped an average of 5.2 points.

This atypical shift of Manifest Rejction confirmed a similar trend in preliminary
studies (Hurley & Hohn, in press). With many individual exceptions, it

appears that persons who produce larger numbers of children over this 10-11

year interval tend to swing toward more strict disciplinary policies than do
those who have fewer children.

In summary, notable changes were observed on all four variables. Respondents
generally shifted toward a more permissive and relaxed stance toward child-rearing
-- at least according to these questionnaire measures -- since undergraduate days.
Manifest Rejection scores constitute a major exception to this trend, as respond-
ents who produced three or more children, especially mothers, shifted in the
opposite direction of adopting a stricter disciplinary policy.

REFERENCES
Hurley, J. R., & Hohn, R. L. Shifts in child—rearing attitudes linked with parent-
hood and occupation. Deve10pmental Psychology, in press.

 

Hurley, J. R., & Palonen, D. J. Marital satisfaction and child density among
university student parents. Journal g£_Marriage and the Family,l967, 29,
483-484.

 

Hurley, J. R. Parental malovelence and children's intelligence. Journal 2:
Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31, 199-204.

Hurley, J. R. Parental acceptance-rejection and children's intelligence,
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1965, 11, 19-31.

33::‘r13v T E Anhirztramnnl- Drnaanrno an ol-l-4rouAJnn1 nave-n1 nan-n A: nn‘l1 nnnnnnnnn a

35
THE CHILD-REARING ATTITUDE VARIABLES

Measures of four specific facéts of child-rearing attitudes were deveIOped

from the CHILD BEHAVIOR INVENTORY which you completed both as a student at MSU

in 1958-59 and again in late 1969. Each item in this inventory was given with
five alternative response choices: Strongly agree, Mildly agree, Uncertain,
Mildly disagree, and Strongly disagree. The mix of items included in each of
these four specific variables was such that respondents had to tend to agree with
half of the items in each measure and to disagree with the remaining items in
that measure to receive either unusually high or unusually low scores. These
four variables were:

I. A set of 30 items dealing with acquisition of a broad variety of social

skill. Items representative of this series included: Early weaning and
toilet training are important in preparing children for life; For his own
sake a child should be pressed to excell in school; Parents should not take

it upon themselves to decide exactly how much a child is to eat; and It ‘
would be better if school teachers were less strict. High scores on variable

I tended to go with agreement with the first two of these sample items but
with disagreement with the latter two items. The opposite pattern tended
to hold for low scorers. The term used to characterize this series of 30
items was Achievement Pressure.

II. Another set of 30 items dealt with how inclined the respondent was to view
the environmental as threatening and dangerous to young children. Represent—
ative items from this series were: Parents should watch their children
closely at all times; It is very important that young boys and girls not be
allowed to see each other completely nude; Children should be permitted to
keep secrets from their parents; and Children must learn to do things without
always waiting for their parents' approval. Disagreement on these last two
items, but agreement with the first two tended to go with high scores on this
variable. Low scores tended to be linked with disagreement with the last
two items, but agreement with the first two. The term Overprotection was
used to characterize this measure.

III. Thirty items also constituted this variable. This series of items were concern-
ed with general strictness in disciplinary orientation toward children. Items
representative of this series included: When parents speak, children should
obey; Most children need more discipline than they get; Often it is a
mistake to punish the child who has just done something very bad; and Spanking
children generally does more harm than good. High scores on this measure
tend to be associated with disagreement with these last two items and agreement
with the first two items. Low scores follow the contrary pattern. The term
employed to characterize this series of items was Manifest Rejection.

IV. Twenty-three items constituted this series. These items concerned how highly
indulgent and affectionate the parent acted toward the child. Representative
items were: ‘Sometimes :it is best to coax children into doing things;
Parents should sacrifice everyting for their children; Four year-olds should
know enough to keep their clothes clean; and A child should be protected from
jobs which might be very tiring or taxing. As before, low scores tended to
go with disagreement with the first two items, but agreement with the last
two items. High scores tended to reflect agreement with the first two items
but disagreement with the last two. The label attached to this set of items
was Overindulgence.

36
MEAN+ CHANGES IN CHILD-REARING ATTITUDE VARIABLES BY RESPONDENTS' SEX & NO. OF

 

CHILDREN
CHILD-REARING ATTITUDE VARIABLES

E” No. of Children _I_ I_I _I__I_I T!

19 3 or more -9.8 —9.3 3.7 -3.6

18 2 -ll.4 —lO.2 -3.5 -2.8

WOMEN: ll 1 ~13.6 --7.6 —5.2 0.4
.19 0 -9 O -13.2 —4 7 —2 4

58 -10.9 -9.9 -l.7 -2.4

6 3 or more -lO.7 -9.0 -3.7 -3.3

18 2 -9.4 -lO.4 -3.1 -6.7

MEN: 5 1 -lO.8 —lS.6 -4.0 —7.4
.3 0 -9.0 ~12.8 ~11 0 -12.8

33 «9.6' —10.9 -5.5 -5.0

25 3 or more -l0.0 -9.2 1.9 —3.5

36 2 —10.3 -l0.0 -3.2 -4.9

WOMEN & MEN l6 1 -12.7 -10.2 -4.8 -2.1
14 p 0 -9.0 ~12.8 —5.2 -3.2
91 -10.4* -lO.3* ~3.0 -3.3*

*The probablility that this mean change is attributable to chance is less than 1
in 100.

+The mean is the toal sum divided by the number of persons.
the "general average.”

Thus, it represents

iIN symboizes "Number" thus, 19 former students had produced 3 or more children,etc.

APPENDIX C
FAMILY CONCEPT INVENTORY

37
#112 FAMILY CONCEPT INVENTORY

Instructions: Indicate the degree of your agreement or dis-
agreement with each of the following items as it applies to
your immediate family (husband or wife and children) and
encircle the letter(s) representing the appropriate response.
First impressions are satisfactory, and most people are able
to complete this inventory in ten minutes. It is quite impor-
tant that you give a response to each item, even though it

may

KDCDNGUI#WNH

...a
O

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.

38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.

sometimes be difficult to make a decision.

We usually can depend on each other.
We have a number of close friends.
We feel secure when we are with each other.

We do many things together.

Each of us wants to tell the others what to do.
There are serious differences in our standards and values.
We feel free to express any thoughts or feelings to each other.

Our home is the center of our activities.
We are an affectionate family.
It is not our fault that we are having difficulties.

Little problems often become big ones for us.
We do not understand each other.

We get along very well in the community.

We often praise or compliment each other.

We do not talk about sex.

We get along much better with persons outside the family
than with each other.

We are proud of our family

We do not like each other's friends.

There are many conflicts in our family.

We are usually calm and relaxed when we are together.
We respect each other's privacy.

Accomplishing what we want to do seems to be difficult for us.
We tend to worry about many things.

We are continually getting to know each other better.
We encourage each other to develop in his or her own
individual way.

We have warm, close relationships with each other.
Together we can overcome almost any difficulty.

We really do trust and confide in each other.

The family has always been very important to us.

We get more than our share of illness.

We are considerate of each other.

We can stand up for our rights if necessary.

We have very good times together.

We live largely by other peOple's standards and values.
Usually each of us goes his own separate way.

We resent each other's outside activities.

We have respect for each other's feelings and opinions
even when we differ strongly.

We sometimes wish we could be an entirely different family.
We are sociable and really enjoy being with people.

We are a disorganized family.

We are not really fond of one another.

We are a strong, competent family.

We just cannot tell each other our real feelings.

We are not satisfied with anything short of perfection.
we forgive each other easily.

We usually reach decisions by discussion and compromise.
We can adjust well to new situations.

Our decisions are not our own, but are forced on us by

circumstances.

I?
In:

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
g g a» :> > 2» MM» >>>>>>z> 'Strongly Agree

aauaaaaaaauaaau:
>’>->’>’>'>h>'>'

SA
SA
SA

SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA

SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA

SA

owwmmmmonommmm. lTend to Agree

mmmmmmummmmw mbflbbflflflfl

mummmmommmm

m

[2

222222222 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz [Neither Agree

22222222222 222222222222

2

Nor Disagree

gunman-ann- O-O-D-D-O-O—D-O-O-O—D-D-O-O-p-l'rend to Dosagree

IO-

O-Q-O-O-O-O-O-O-D-D-O- CLO-OaG-D-G-G-G-D-Oafiafin

D-

:33 IStrongly Disagreelg

SD

APPENDIX D
GENERAL INFORMATION FORM

38
GENERAL INFORMATION FORM

Your name: Date(s) of marriage:
Birthdates of your children: 1. 2. 3.
4. 5. 6.

Your religious denomination:

Please characterize your church attendance by checking one of the

following: Regular Occasional Seldom Rare Never

SINCE UNDERGRADUATE COLLEGE DAYS, HOW DO YOU THINK THAT YOU HAVE
CHANGED, IF AT ALL, IN YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARD..........

l. The utility of strictness in disciplining children:
What do you think has led to these changes (if any)?

2. The amount of parental protection and supervision which
children need?

What has led to your changes in this area?

3. The amount of freedom in such areas as verbal expression,
choice of activities, and spending money that children can
be allowed:

What has led to your changes in this area?

OVER, PLEASE

 

4.

The amount of parental affection and time which should be
given to children.

What has led to your changes in this area?

The importance of urging a child to excel in school and in _
physical and social development.

What has led to your changes in this area?

At what age do you think it is best for a person (of your sex)
to marry? ~ I

If you were newly married and planning your family, how many
children would you want to have?

If you desire more specific information about how your own scores
changed over this 10 - 11 year interval on the Child Behavior
Inventory scales, please check here:

APPENDIX E
LETTER ACCOMPANYING QUESTIONNAIRES

39
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING . MICHIGAN $8825

 

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY ° OLDS HALL

Dear

Your response to the ISO-item Child Behavior Inventory was
very much appreciated. Enclosed you will find a short summary
of the principal findings.

 

Our findings appear to be the only firm information yet
available concerning how young adults shift their attitudes
toward children between college days and ensueing years.

This line of research has proven exceptionally fruitful, and
we now feel a need to better understand the clear and interest-
ing changes observed.

Toward this goal, three additional information forms are
enclosed with which we again seek your assistance. These
include the Family Concept Inventory, the Attribute Preference
Inventory, and the related General Information Form. The
pre—addressed envelope may be used to return these. These
instruments should require less time to complete, probably
about 30 minutes, than the previous 150-item questionnaire.

I want to express my gratitude for your help. Without it,
and especially withoutthe candid expression of your views,
research in this important but previously neglected sector
of parent-child relations would be impossible for me.

Sincerely,

John R. Hurley
Professor

 

 

u
a
.. . .
. I u
u. . . . .
u
I
\.
a . .
a .
. . . o
v
. .l .
s l
. . .. ; .
. n . .
1..
.
.
... I
. a I
. s. .
C I
a
r n a.
u . . ...
no u .
C u. .
I I ..
. v
C In . n
. y
n.
. u
I .
u A
.
. u
.u
n a .
. . .
n r
.
t I .
. . n
I i. l.
\

APPENDIX F
RETURN POSTCARD

4O

 

Dear H 6/ I70

Enclosed with the brief report of the findings of our research
on how child-rearing attitudes have changed since college days
was a copy of a new follow-up questionnaire. Because returns
have been somewhat slow over the past month. this note is
intended as a reminder.

The attached return postcard has also been phrased so that you
night provide me with some ”feedback" on that questionnaire.
with niniaal effort. The number on your return postcard sakes
it unnecessary for you to add your name.

Your generous assistance with the 10 year follow-up study of
last summer was most helpful. I also appreciate whatever
the and attention you can give to this more recent request.

Cordially.
John R. Hurley. Professor of Psychology. Michigan State U.

 

 

 

Hessage portion of double postcard

 

m CHECK ALL ITEMS REIEVANT T0 mm mm QUESTIONNAIRE
__ I recently nailed it for return.
__ I intend to return it soon.
__ It nay take acre tiae. but I wil return it.
__ My copy was misplaced. but I would like a replaceaeut.
I MAY NOT COMPIETE THE QUESTIONNAIRE BECAUSE:

I found the report of prior findings unsatisfactory__.

The following aspects of the questionnaire see-ed
objectional: Family Concept Inventory__. General Intonation
For:__. Attribute Preference Inventory__. Overall Package_.

Responding to it would be too time consuliL.
THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR IELP

 

 

 

Return portion of double postcard

S
E
R
A
R
al.
L
V.
.II.
s
R
E
w

TE UN

Ill(lllllllillllllllluullIllllllll

llllillllllllllflmé

31293 03169 7216