ADULT ROLE PLAYING RESPONSES
TO VARYING CHILD COMMUNTCATIONS

- o r

Thesis for the Degree Of M A
MECHTGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EDWARD CHARLES TEYBER

' 197 5 ‘ ' -

ooooo
o

 

gussm

‘ ‘ h J.
V \
A _ r‘
L r "
. x ‘ "-
I 5 “315358

 

 
 
 

a : 31$.» 3? “
HUAB & SBNS‘
800K BINDERY'INB.

-. LIBRARY BINDWS
msmrmcum
v , E a

I ‘ 7
. LE...»—

 
 
    
    

 

 

ADULT ROLE-PLAYING RESPONSES TO VARYING
CHILD COMMUNICATIONS

BY

Edward Charles Teyber

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology
1975

ADULT ROLE-PLAYING RESPONSES TO VARYING
CHILD COMMUNICATIONS

By

Edward C. Teyber

The purpose of this study was to provide additional
information relevant to how adults respond to varying types
of child communications. More specifically, the present
research examined the extent to which types of adult responses
and their communication of acceptance and rejection are
affected by child communication sequences involving loving,
neutral, and/or hostile messages.

In an attempt to gain information about adult responses
to these types of emotion-laden child communications that
would be reflective of actual social behavior, the present
research had subjects role play a parent and verbalize their
immediate response to two sequences of tape recorded child
communications. A global rating of acceptance/rejection was
used in conjunction with 26 scoring categories that assessed
the specific and concrete responses used by adults in their
communications to the child. The scoring categories utilized
were designed to describe adult responses along affective
and behavioral dimensions indicative of either theoretically
sensitive adult responding to children (Stollak et a1, 1973)

and insensitive behavior (Gordon, 1970). These measures

Edward C. Teyber
were used to test the hypotheses that 1) various child
communications would elicit reciprocal or similar adult
responses, and 2) initial child communications of a positive
and negative nature would establish a response "set" and
influence the adult's response to a second sequential child
cue.

Subjects for the experiment included 180 (90 male and
90 female) undergraduates who responded to the role-play
tape. Adult behavior was scored by raters into 26 categories.
The mean frequency of category usage was factor analyzed and
six composite variables were generated. These factors
described the following modes of responding: I) teaching-
lecturing; II) control dominance; III) adult expression of
their own experience and child's influence upon them;

IV) empathy; V) intimidation-interrogation; and VI) instru-
mental control. These factors, along with a global acceptance-
rejection scale, served as dependent variables which were
examined in relation to the independent variables by means of

a multivariate analysis of variance.

Results confirmed the initial hypothesis where adults
were found to respond in_§ind to child messages with reciprocal
acceptance and rejection. Concerning specific modes of
response given, Factors I, II and V were elicited in response
to negative-rejecting child cues, and Factor III was elicited
in response to positive-loving child cues. A sex difference
was obtained where males were both globally rated as being

less accepting and demonstrated greater usage of the punitive-

Edward C. Teyber
rejecting Factors II and V than did females. The very low
frequency of the child-centered Factor IV mode of response
was also noted.

These results were discussed in terms of their implica-
tions for education and training in child-care-giving. The
methodology used in this study was discussed as a useful
instrument for studying the adult-child communication process,
and finally, an explanation for the failure to confirm the

second hypothesis was proposed.

/

7W

./ ‘ /
r
f
I"
I

w 4 " /.

/ 734%5

To my parents, Kate and Ed

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to "acknowledge" and thank Dr. Gary E.
Stollak both for teaching me much about children and for
being with me as a mutually respected friend--his guidance
in this thesis being just one manifestation of these things.
I want to acknowledge and thank Dr. Lawrence A. Messe' for
saying things like "well; cross that bridge when we come
to it" and then following through with an extra amount of
very patient time and work. Also, I wish to thank him for
allowing me the pleasure of sharing time with his family.
My appreciation to Dr. Elaine Donnelson for stepping in at
a last minute's notice. And finally, to my companion Marta

who shared a lot with me.

iii

TEBLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . .
LITERATURE REVIEW. . . . . . . . .
Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . .
Specific and Global Measurement

Child Communications . . . .
Interaction Sequences . .

DireCtion Of EffeCtS o o o o 0
Theoretical Formulation . . . .
Sensitive Adult Responding . .
Methods of Study . . . . . . .
Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . .

METHODoooooooooooooo

Subjects and Design

HeaSIlreS o o o o o o o o o o
AdIHiniStI‘ation o o o o o o -o o
Scoring the Dependent Variable

msmTS O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O

Inter Rater Reliabilities . . .
Relations Between Categories .
Category Usage 0 o o o o o 0
Factor Analysis . . . . .
Multivariate Analysis of Varian
Summary of Results . . . . . .
Factor Analysis Results . .
Summary of Manova Results .

DISCUSSION SECTION . . . a . o . .

Reciprocal Adult Responding .
Empathyooooooooooo
Sequence Effects . . . . . .
PIGthOdOlogy o o o -E

o
o
o
o
O

Generalizing to Other Popula i n

iv

00.000000

.

ooomoooo o

o
o
o
o
S

00...... O O... O OOOOOOOQJ.

5:3

oooooooI—lo

d”

O O... O 0......

Page

Vi

C ONC LUS I OTIS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

BIBLIOGRJQPEEY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

APPENDICES
Appendix
A. scoring; Guide to PCIPT . O o o o o o o o o o
B. Instructions to Subject . . . . . . . . . .
Rehearsal Dialogues. . . . . . . . . . . . .
PCIPT script 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
C. Rater Instructions for PCIPT Equality . . .
D. Table I: Inter Rater Reliability for
Scoring Categories and Acceptance-
Rejection Measure . . . . . . . .
E. Table II: Mean Category Usage and Standard
Deviation for the 25 Scoring
Categories Utilized . . . . . . .
F. Summary of Factor Loading . . . . . . . . .
G. Tests of Simple Effects . . . . . . . . . .

69
72

76
82

82
83

87

9O
91
93

Table

l.
2.

3.

9.

10.

ll.

12.

LIST OF TABLES

Inter Rater Reliabilities . . . . . . . . . .

Mean Category Usage and Standard Deviation
for the 25 Scoring Categories Utilized . .

Summary of Significant Multivariate Results
Reflecting Significant Univariate
Comparisons Not Qualified by Higher
Order EffeCtS o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Mean Factor IV Responses Emitted in Situation
I as a Function of Treatment I . . . . . .

Mean Factor II Responses by Males and Females
in Situation II as a Function of Treatment

Mean Factor III Responses Within Conditions
of Situation Order as a Function of
Tre atment I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Mean Factor V Responses Within Conditions of
Sex as a Function of Treatment I . . . . .

Mean Factor VII Responses Within Situation I
as a Function of Treatment I . . . . . . .

Mean Factor VII Responses Within Situation II
as a Function of Treatment I . . . . . . .

Mean Factor II Responses Within Response I
as a Function of Treatment I . . . . . . .

Mean Factor III Responses Within Response I
as a Function of Treatment I . . . . . . .

Mean Factor VII Responses Within Response I
as a Function of Treatment I . . . . . .

vi

Page

28

30

38

39

4o

41

42

43

43

44

45

45

Table Page

13. Mean Factor I Responses for Response I in
Situation I Within Conditions of Situation
Order as a Function of Treatment I . . . . . 46

14. Mean Factor I Responses for Response I in
Situation II Within Conditions of
Situation Order as a Function of
Treatmentl0000000000000... 47

15. Mean Factor IV Responses for Response I
Within Conditions of Situation Order
for Treatment I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

16. Mean Factor V Responses for Response I
Within Conditions of Situation Order
for Treatment I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

17. Mean Factor I Responses for Response 2
IEli'I'.;h..‘I.1'l Treatment 2 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 50

18. Mean Factor II Responses for Response 2
Within Treatment 2 o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 50

19. Mean Factor III Responses Within Response 2
for Treatment 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

20. Mean Factor I Responses in Situation I
Within Conditions of Situation Order
for Treatment 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

21. Mean Factor I Responses in Situation II

Within Conditions of Situation Order
forTreatmentZ00000000000000 52

vii

INTRODUCTION

In each moment, followed by another, we experience our
own existence through our consciousness. From the base of
‘this constant, individuals acknowledge the behavior and
(experience that constitutes their lives to different degrees

and with varying intensities. Some find their moments more
differentiated and wholly integrated into their point of
experiencing than others, and each finds more or less of
happiness-sadness, meaningfulness, and companionship. Early
learning and childhood experiences no doubt play an important
part in understanding the determinants of these differently
labeled intrapersonal experiences and interpersonal behaviors.
These critical and significant learning experiences of child-
hood are most likely to occur in parent-child encounters.

Acknowledging this important role early parent-

C=hild interaction plays in psychological development,

62 ducation in child-care—giving may offer us leverage in
enhancing mental health on a national scope. In the past
Our society has reflected the attitude that innate guidance
Provided by "maternal instinct" and such self-satisfying
adult statements as "That's the way I was raised and it
dlL dn't hurt me," would provide the necessary guidelines for

effective parenting. Indeed, that "professionals" perpetuated

this attitude is exemplified by Baldwin, Kalhorn, and Breece
(1945) who concluded that "...emotionally mature parents will
be able to derive for themselves satisfactory methods for
handling children." A softening of this attitude of lay
responsibility and expertise for parenting is demonstrated
in the growing child rearing literature. Clinical child
psychologists such as Axline, Moustakas, Ginott, and Gordon,
have presented to therapists and parents attitudes and "modes
of encountering" from a Rogerian theoretical base. The need
exists, however, for behavioral science to validate and refine
the directives put forth and provide data furthering our
understanding of the paramenters of sensitive and effective
adult child-care-giving.

Among the many researchers responding to this need,
Stollak, Scholom, Kallman, and Saturansky (1973) investigated
the responses of undergraduates to problem situations with
children. The authors found that written adult responses to
the projective problem situation demonstrated a general lack
of sensitivity to child needs, conflicts, and impulses as
determined by scoring categories assumed indicative of
effective responding designed by the authors, and usage of
ineffective/destructive categories taken from Gordon (1970).
Focusing on "problem ownership" (Gordon, 1970) when the
adult's needs were the ones primarily being thwarted in the
problem situation, the Ss' responses were both more ineffective
and destructive than when the confrontation centered around

primarily the child's needs. In this latter case §s did

focus their communications significantly more often on the
child's feelings and how he or she can express them.

In a further study, Kallman and Stollak (1974)
presented similar hypothetical need arousing situations to
both mothers and their first, third or fifth grade children.
The written responses of the parents and verbal responses of
their children were coded along categories similar to the
previous research. The average mean usage for the summation
of the "ineffective" and "effective" responses over the
projective situations was virtually identical for college
adults and mothers. For both groups there was noticeably
less usage of "effective" than "ineffective" responses
overall, and significantly more "ineffective" responses were
again found for parental need arousing situations. Thus,
college students and mothers rarely focused their messages
to children on their own needs or the needs of the children
in situations that strongly involved feelings, needs, and
wishes. The most frequently reported "ineffective" responses
for both college adults and mothers were the use of logical
persuasion, questioning, providing answers, and ordering.

Following from this format and the study of "problem
ownership," the purpose of the present study was to provide
additional information relevant to how adults respond to
varying types of child communications. More specifically,
the present research examined the extent to which types of
adult responses and their communication of acceptance and

rejection are affected by child communication sequences

involving loving, neutral, and/or hostile messages. Little
information is available in the important area of hgw_adults
respond to children in intimate encounters. I believe, and
a number of theorists (cited below) assert, that it is in these
especially critical moments of adult-child interaction where
adult messages that significantly affect the child's feelings
toward himself and others occur. Rather than obtaining
thought-out written responses to hypothetical situations,
data were more spontaneous Spoken responses to tape recorded
child scenarios which simulated real life encounters.

Becker (1964) states, "In many instances it is possible
that making the parent more aware of how his or her behavior
is having an impact on the child, can motivate a change in
the parent's handling of the child (p 208)." In this regard,
it was hOped that the results obtained would provide informa-
tion concerning the nature of adult responses to children that
can be utilized by parents and child rearing educators in
deve10ping more effective and sensitive interaction with

children.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Accgptance

One of the most basic aims of this study was to provide
information concerning the nature of adult acceptance. Al-
though it has been theorized to be a fundamental and
necessary parent-child construct, the conditions under which
it is expressed have not been investigated through the study
of adult responses to varying types of child communication.
Data from the present study provides insight into whgg and
hgw acceptance and rejection is elicited and withheld. In
particular, information was gathered concerning where in the
communication process do rejecting adult responses occur
that may lead to anxiety, guilt, escape-avoidance mechanisms,
and constricted expression and awareness for the child.

Carl Rogers (1961) defined unconditional positive
regard as valuing the person irrespective of the differential
values which one might place on his specific behaviors. This
is the concept of accepting the whole person. Rogers
theorized that when the self experiences of the young child
are discriminated by significant others as being more or
less worthy of positive regard, then self-regard becomes
selective - that is, you have conditions of worth. For

Rogers, this is the basic estrangement of man, "...for the

5

sake of preserving the positive regard of others the child
has now come to falsify some of the values he experiences and
to perceive them only in terms based upon their value to
others." The child's concept of self is based on a distorted
symbolization where the child learns "I perceive this
behavior as unsatisfying" rather than as parental attributes.
His/her feelings get mixed up and values that the child
attaches to his/her experience become divorced from his/her
own organismic functioning and, in this manner, the capacity
for self-differentiation is impaired.

There is a history of empirical support for this funda-
mental weighting of an acceptance dimension. Parental
acceptance has been correlated with a wide set of child
attributes such as self-acceptance, adjustment, peer accept-
ance, positive affective orientation, and cooperation (Medinus
& Curtis, 1963; Symonds, 1939; Sommers, 1952; Hoffman, 1963;
Newirth, 1971). Acceptance has also been studied as a global
process occuring in interaction with other dimensions.
Coopersmith (1967) concluded that unconditional parental
acceptance is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
high self esteem. Similarly, Baumrind (1967) found high
parental warmth and acceptance to be one of several dimensions
necessary for the pre-school aged child's display of behaviors
indicative of instrumental competence. Becker (1964) noted
in his review of parent discipline that the same behavior
has different effects on the child depending on the context

of warmth-hostility in which it occurred.

The present study included a global measure of

acceptance/rejection that complemented the specific behavioral

and content categories that were utilized.

Specific and Global Measurement of
Adult-Child Communication

One purpose of this study was to provide descriptive
:information about how adults respond to various types of
(sommunications that children commonly express in their day
-1:o day lives. Information needs to be gathered about what

(floss occur in adult-child encounters before we can teach
‘nlhat should occur. Eschewing specificity, most parent-child
ssstudies utilize global dimensions of interaction variables
ssruch as warmth-hostility, restrictive-permissive, and
eagxxious emotional involvement vs. calm detachment (Becker,
21.964). Observational studies such as Baumrind (1967)
cziluster discrete behaviors into broad dimensions such as
"'self control" or "maturity demands." Thus, general factors
‘tleat bear some empirical relationship to each other have been
<5L<3veloped but they tend to obscure the specificity of the

C: ontent of exchange.

Syntonic with the focus on measurement of specific
a—<3L1m1t responding in this study psychological speculation has
'b<E><en shifting towards an emphasis on the specification of

t2l:14<3 content and mode of communication in interaction rather

fhlaEIn relying upon general attitudes or intent. Gordon (1970)

Cl—észinmd.that "A parent must learn how to demonstrate his

ac ceptance so that the child feels it." Similarly, Linden

and Stollak (1968) stated "Whether or not one can project of
"put himself into another's shoes" is only part of inter-
personal sensitivity. Another major variable is the
communication of whatever empathy one feels. (p 216)
Information on how parents communicate acceptance and empathy
or interest or any feeling and attitude to their children is
needed. As Haley (1963) noted that it is necessary to develop
a classification of the patterns and modes of communication
acted out between family members for us to increase our
understanding of family life.

A significant movement in the direction of investiga-
ting specific and concrete adult responses has been given by
Stollak et. a1. (1973). Scoring categories (also utilized
in the present study) were designed that described adult
responses along affective and behavioral dimensions indicative
of theoretically sensitive adult responding to children
(see Appendix A). The categories refer to the adult's
awareness and concern about childs' feelings (categories 1,
10, 11, and 12), relating the child's feeling and/or behavior
'to adult's feelings and/or behavior (categories 2, 3, 4, 5,
and.6), and communicating directions to the child regarding
ILLS behavior (categories 7, 8, 9, and 13). These three
(limensions are presumed to relate to the development and
Jhaintenance of the child's feeling of self esteem and worth,
'to the child's development of interpersonal skill and

competence (how one person affects another), and to the

child's ability to master his environment through the
socialization process (learning what he can do and how he
can do it).

Another twelve categories refer to "insensitive" or
"destructive" behavior taken from Gordon's (1970) work. He
claims that these responses are used most frequently by
parents in problem situations and have undesirable effects
upon the child.

Three categories were added to the previous scoring
systems for this research that were seen as potentially
frequent occuring adult responses (Kallman and Stollak, 1974).
Whether the adult attempted to find a mutual compromise or
alternative for a child, offered him a reward contingent
upon his behavior, or used compliance or appeasement toward
child requests, suggestions, or problems was scored where
apprOpriate.

Thus, this study was designed to provide information
on patterns of specific adult responses to varying child
communications.

With these scoring categories, the specific responses
that adults use in their child communications may be assessed.
This specific accounting of what and hgg,parents respond is
complimented with a global rating of acceptance/rejection.
One possible criticism of the scoring systems previously
used by Gordon (1970) and Stollak et a1. (1973) is that
adult intent such as concern or involvement may not be differ-

entiated in the scoring system where the content of feeling

lO

expressed is not accounted for. In this research, this
scoring system was considered descriptive rather than evalu-
ative of adult responding and a separate rating of child
acceptance or rejection by the parent was used. This
instrument is a 1-5 scale reflecting adult responses of
acceptance (moving towardsltneutral, and rejecting (moving
against) the child. The instrument demonstrates face
validity, and this type of global measure of acceptance/
rejection has been successfully used in previous research

(e.g. Guerney, 1971).

Interaction Sequences

Therapists and people in general have often noted the
importance of whgg something is said as well as Ehgt.is said.
The appropriate response is rendered ineffective if poorly
timed. The effects of timing are also evident in establishing
a "set" to respond - an initial reaction mayinfluence or
color an entire exchange between peOple. The sequential
impact that current behavior has on subsequent response
patterns in chain response interactions can be exemplified.
Rausch (1959, 1960) found a complimentary relationship
between friendliness and hostility within two groups of
normal and emotionally disturbed preadolescent boys. In
jpeer interaction episodes there was a significant tendency
for the type of behavior communicated by one boy to be
received from the other child in interaction. A child

communicating anger in approximately 50% of his interaction

received reciprocal communications of anger in very close

ll

approximations to his matched percentage. The author noted
that passive aggression evokes dominant aggression and
dominant aggression evokes passive aggression. As the group
of institutionalized boys improved over the course of one
and one half years of treatment, their anger communications
and matched responses both decreased in a parallel fashion.
In child to adult interactions in the residential setting,
it was found that the adults also had a tendency to respond
in kind to the communications of the child but that the adults
had a therapeutic disposition to temper or balance the
interaction sequences toward a more positive point of
equilibrium (42-52%). In a later study Rausch and Sweet

' (1961) concluded that healthy children had a prOpensity to
"rescue" interactions and prevent a disintegrating cyclic
exchange that disturbed children did not possess. Regarding
this, Rausch (1963) stated that the development of psycho-
pathology occurs in the context of chronically poor communi-
cation.

In the description of modes of adult responses involved
in this study it was necessary to investigate communication
sequences, that is, changes in the content and affect expressed
as the interactants move through different types of sequence
dialogues. In this manner, the cumulative effects of initial
communications on subsequent adult-child interactions could
be investigated. In order to study these effects, two
sequence child communication scenarios were tape recorded

reflecting all combinations of a loving, neutral, and hostile

12

nature. Subjects then responded to these simulated adult-
child exchanges as if they were interacting with their own

seven year old son in the situation described.

Direction of Effects

Through using child communications as an independent
variable, this study addresses the important issue of
direction of effects. Bell (1968, 1971) has noted the need
to move beyond the one-way effects model where the parent has
been viewed as the agent transmitting cultural codes to the
receptive child. He stated that an emphasis on sources of
control in the child "are not now represented in customary
ways of looking at parent child interaction (p 84)". Several
reviewers (Becker & Krug, 1965; Bell, 1968; Caldwell, 1964;
Orlansky, 1964; Sewell, 1963; and Yarrow, Campbell, & Burton,
1968) have noted that research that omits the study of the
child's effects on parents is not as informative or as useful
as including the study of reciprocal effects. For example,
Yarrow et a1. (1968) concluded that the case for positive
findings when only partial effects are studied can only be
maintained by relying on studies in which both parent and
child behavior was reported by the same informant, by inter-
preting consistency in nonsignificant correlations, or by
ignoring contradictory data. The child's contribution to
parent-child interaction has often not been recognized.
Genetic, congenital, experiential, or maturational contribu-
tions and their differential weights affect the child as a
stimulus for parent and other adult behaviors. The child

13

continually integrates experience and continually manifests
new products of this integration. He/she presents the adult
with emergent behavior which in turn can modify subsequent
adult behaviors. The purpose of this different conceptual
focus and weighting is to open up for consideration, along
with the specific parental effects, a variety of ways in
which stimuli from the child control and guide adult behavior.
Studies that have questioned the "parent's effects"
model have dmonstrated on a broad basis how innate differences
in the child control and guide parental behavior; parents do
not necessarily have fixed techniques for socializing
children. In his earlier article Bell (1968) theorized that
parent behavior is organized hierarchically involving the
area of social response and control. Child behaviors activate
these repertoires and affect the level of response within
hierarchies, and they differentially reinforce the parent
behavior which has been evoked. Individuals have different
repertoires of behavior available to them, some more organized,
flexible, and differentiated. This acquired repertoire is
a function not only of the acknowledged cultural demands and
parental belief systems, but also a result of stimulation
from the child and reinforcement received from him or her.
Parental responses will differ for high activity, impulsive,
demanding and assertive behavior in children, as well as
lethargic, inhibited, and unresponsive child behaviors
(Schaffer & Emerson, 1964; Pasamanick, Robers, & Lilienfeld,
1965). The parent effects model that has been cited as

l4

inadequate and characterizing child development research
assumes a fixed and invariantly applied repertoire. Bell
(1968) has cited several studies which emphasize the manner
in which characteristics in the child influence parental
behaviors. For example, Etzel and Gewirtz (1967) manipulated
levels of crying and smiling behavior in 6-20 week old
infants. Observation showed that increases in smiling/happy
behavior through stimulation in an experimental room affected
the behavior of several caretakers resulting in increased

time they spent with the happier infant.

Theoretical Formulation

A more general theory of interpersonal relations than
Bell's specific parent-child interaction provides additional
information relevant to the proposed study. With the inter-
personal theory proposed by Sullivan (1953) and later
operationalized by Leary (1955), parent-child relations are
viewed as a series of interactions between adult and child
where each, by his/her own behavior, exerts some impact on
the subsequent behavior of the other. Communication is seen
as a circular process of elicitation, feedback, and reinforce-
ment rather than a linear cause (parent)-effect (child) model.

Interpersonal theory posits a self system in which the
motivating force of all behavior is the avoidance of anxiety
in interpersonal relations and the maintenance of self-
esteem. Mental health is viewed as a continuum on which the
maturity or health of the individual is measured by the degree

to which security operations aimed at maintaining self-esteem

15

in anxiety arousing interpersonal relations restrict or
inhibit the range of interpersonal behaviors available to an
individual. Interpersonal theory has also focused upon the
reciprocal effects or complimentary "pull" of one person's
actions on another in an interpersonal situation. Leary
(1957) maintains that the most important single aspect of
personality is "the reflex manner in which human beings react
to others and train others to respond to them in select ways."
In this regard, he posits a principle of reciprocal relations,
a general probability principle which holds that "inter-
personal reflexes tend with a probability greater than chance
to initiate or invite reciprocal interpersonal responses

from the other person in interaction that leads to a repeti-
tion of the original reflex" (p 125).

The reciprocal principle (Sullivan, 1953; Leary, 1957;
Carson, 1969) proposes that behavior has both an eliciting
value (i.e. the tendency for Ss' behavior to stimulate or
"pull" behavior from the other person) and a reinforcing
value (i.e. the tendency for Ss' behavior to confirm or
disconfirm the preceding behavioral stance of the other
person). A circumplex model composed of two orthogonal
dimensions of dominance-submission and love-hate has been
posited (Leary, 1957). Reciprocity occurs on the dominant
submissive axis (dominance compliments-elicits and reinforces,
submissiveness and submissiveness, in turn, compliments
dominance); and on the basis of correspondence on the love-
hate axis where friendliness elicits friendliness and hostility

is complimentary to hostility. The general assumption that

16

all interpersonal behavior is governed in part by the principle
of reciprocity of emotions also results in the specific
assumption that the child, as a result of his varying be-
havioral productions, has the ability to influence (elicit and
reinforce) the subsequent behavior of the adults he/she
encounters. In the process of development the child comes

to learn and perform a series of behaviors which may be

viewed as both eliciting and reciprocal in relation to his/
her parents and significant others. With his/her own set of
eliciting behaviors the child is stimulating certain responses
from his/her environment from the very beginning of life;

for example, both the activity level of the infant and
momentary tension states will tend to pull certain responses
from others. In the present study, significant child com-
munications served as an independent variable, while the
adults' responses to these behaviors were the dependent
measures. The adults' responses to the various child communi-
cations were coded in terms of both specific content categories
and broader ratings of acceptance-rejection rather than
following the circumplex system which yields only global
descriptions of interactive behaviors. In addition, an
attempt was made to investigate the critical points in adult
to child communication sequences in which meaningful changes

in the sensitivity of the adults' response occurred.

TL.

fix

an

I!
H

eyyrr

 

 

 

17

Sensitive Adult Responding

The purpose of this study was to provide information
that hOpefully would help in the development of more appro-
priate and sensitive child-relating through education and
training. Determining what are "effective" and "ineffective"
responses remains a theoretical issue within which a wide
range of potentially appropriate responses still exists.
Research has demonstrated that parents directly influence
the child's pro-social development and suggest that optimal
levels of certain parental behaviors are most effective. For
example, the implications of parental warmth for the emotional
growth of the child have been studied (Sears, Maccoby, and
Levin, 1957; Becker, 1964). Too much parental warmth or
indulgence tends to develop an inhibiting dependency in the
child, while too little warmth or rejection develops insecurity
and is related to delinquency and anti-social behavior.
Hoffman (1963) found that children who were more considerate
of others, more friendly, and who had greater impulse control
had parents who scored low on reactive, unqualified power
assertion. Children of parents who used high degrees of
power assertion and less acceptance were found to be more
hostile and less accepting of others. More comprehensive
evaluations of effective parenting have been reported by
COOpersmith (1967), for example, who found the conditions
conducive to high self-esteem in preadolescent boys to be
'based upon general indices of parental warmth and acceptance,

clearly defined and enforced limits, and respect and latitude

within those limits.

18

The results of these and other empirical studies can
be combined with the formulations of theorists and clinicians
previously cited in an attempt to specify the adult behaviors
that are most conducive to pro-social development of the
child. "Effective" responses to children, for example, should
indicate awareness of the child's feelings, should help the
child understand the relationship between his feelings and
behavior and the feelings and behavior of the adult, and
should help him/her find appropriate outlets for his/her
feelings, needs, and wishes (Stollak, 1973).

These theoretically "effective" adult responses were
utilized to score adult responses in this study. Baumrind
(1967, 1971) has provided some empirical support for evalu-
ating the effects of both "effective" and "ineffective" adult
responses to children. In her research, the behavior of
parents of the most instrumentally competent children-~highest
self control, self-reliance, self-assertion, competence, and
contentment-~was labeled "authoritative." When compared to
"permissive" and "authoritarian" parent groups, these most
effective parents used less withdrawal of love, less ridicule,
less negative sanctions, and less moralizing in their com-
munications to their children. These types of messages are
typical of Gordon's (1970) "ineffective" responses which also
were scored in the present research. The "authoritative"
parents also "solicited and respected the child's feelings
and opinions, communicated more clearly in terms of expected

behavior, expressed warmth through empathy, and exercised

l9

firm control with reason for their children's behavior"
(Baumrind, 1967, pp. 77-81) to a greater extent than other
parent groups. These characteristics of the effective,
"authoritative" parent are syntonic with the "effective"
response categories utilized in the present study.

Under varying circumstances, however, the "effective-
ness" of these categories may be weighted differentially.
For example, Baumrind (1971) reported, "The effective parent
used reason, power, and shaping by reinforcement to achieve
her objectives." These types of adult responses may be
similar to what Gordon has labeled as "ineffective." For
example, supporting, interpreting, or logical persuasion
could, under certain circumstances, be considered a character-
istic of effective adult responding. Thus, further research
assessing the effects of a wide range of specific adult
responses in varying situations upon child behavior is needed
before we can fully understand the wide range of effective
child-relating behavior and thereby evaluate the relative

validity of these somewhat contrasting theoretical positions.

Methods of Study
In a study that used a similar methodology to that
employed in the present research, Jackson (1955) had mothers
and fathers write responses to hypothetical problem situations
that involved a child who behaved unacceptably. Jackson
coded these responses along a comprehensive "coercion"
continuum. Results indicated that the mothers balanced their

severity with additional, milder methods of control. One

20

important finding was the multiplicity of parental responses--
parents did not threaten, scold, or spank; they threatened,
scolded, gag spanked.

In choosing this method of study, Jackson noted that
previous approaches to studying parental responses frequently
have employed retrospective reports of past action by parents
and assessment of parental child rearing attitudes. The
assumed relationship between verbal report and actual behavior
in the home had received general, but not conclusive, support
(Mannino et al., 1968). These methods of study, however,
have been classified by Bell (1958) as postdictive rather than
predictive since they tended to be exploratory in nature and
not based on any well-formulated theoretical perspective.

Another methodology frequently used has been direct
behavioral observation. Although this method allows for
descriptive observation of parent and child interaction
effects typically there is a limitation of the types of
behavior displayed. Jackson noted the spontaneous character

of many events and Stollak et a1. (1973) cited the infreggengy

 

of need arousing and conflictful situations as well as of
more intimate sharing moments in which adult responses to
children probably are most critical.

The present study used the methodological framework of
these previous investigations by presenting hypothetical
situations in which adults responded to important but less
frequent and available child communications. Child messages

of a loving and hostile nature are received by adults in

21

their day-to-day child encounters. Adult responses to these
emotion-laden encounters may be particularly influential in
establishing the nature of the adult-child relationship and
the child's feelings toward himself and his social world.

In an attempt to gain information about adult responses to
these types of child communication sequences that would be
most reflective of actual social behavior, subjects role-
played a parent and verbally emitted their immediate responses
to two tape-recorded sequences of child communications.
Unlike the previous studies, subjects' responses were not
carefully thought out written responses, but immediate spoken

responses to a child's expressive communications.

Hypotheses

1. (a) The quality of adult response for "positive-
loving" child communrzations will be more effective/sensitive
than adult responses to "negative" child communications. This
hypothesis will be supported if there is greater usage of
what may be termed positive categories and fewer usage of
negative categories and higher global acceptance-rejection
rating for positive than for negative child communications.

(b) The quality of adult response for "Negative-
rejecting" child communications will be less sensitive/
effective than adult responses to positive child communica-
tions. This hypothesis predicts greater usage of negative
categories and lesser usage of positive categories and a
lower acceptance-rejection rating for negative than for

positive child communications.

22

2.(a) Child communications of a "positive-loving"
nature, followed by a positive, neutral, or negative state-
ment will generate less destructive and more sensitive
responses that have a higher global acceptance-rejection
rating than will positive, neutral, or negative statements
that were preceded by a neutral or negative child statement.

(b) Child communications preceded by a "negative-
rejecting" child communication will be less effective as
determined by fewer positive and more negative categories and
a lower global acceptance/rejection rating than will dialogues

begun with a positive or neutral child statement.

METHOD

Sggjects and Design

Subjects for the experiment were 180 (90 male and 90
female) undergraduates. There were 5 subjects in each of the
18 cells of a 2 (sex of subject) X 2 (situation order) X
3 (type of child communication 1) X 3 (type of child communi-
cation 2) X 2 (situation, a repeated measure) X 2 (response,
a repeated measure) design.

Measures

Parent-Child Interaction Projgctive Tape: The PCIPT
is a verbal or role playing interaction sequence designed by
the author in which the S responds to tape recorded child
communications as if he or she were actually in the situation
described and responding to his or her seven-year-old son
(instruction to S and script located in Appendix B). The
PCIPT consists of two different situational contexts each of
which are followed by nine two—sequence child communications
that represent all permutations of an adult-enhancing positive
child statement, a neutral-commentary child statement, and
a hostile adult-rejecting communication. Each S responds to
one of the nine ("a" through "i") interaction sequences for
both situations giving a total of four responses.

In order to insure that the quality of parental
response is a function only of type of child communication,

23

24

several factors have been controlled for in the PCIPT.

To insure that each child response was positive,
neutral, or negative, as intended, independent coders rated
the child statements. Agreement on the nature of the child
communication was perfect. The criteria for this rating and
detailed results are located in Appencix C.

It also was necessary to determine that the positive,
neutral, and negative child statements were of equivalent
stimulus intensity both acrOss situations I and II and for
each of the positive, neutral, and negative statement within
the (a) through (i) dialogues that comprised each situation.
Within the nine (a-i) dialogues of each situation there were
six positive, six neutral, and six negative statements.
Attempts at generating stimuli of equal intensity were made
by using the same core phrases in each statement. Five of
the statements were repeated exactly and the sixth was changed
slightly for reasons of syntax. Equality of stimulus intensity
for the (a) through (i) dialogues between the two situations
was attempted by again using similar themes or child state-
ments such as "I need you," "I hate you," "I want to go
outside and play now" in both situations. The degree of
equality of the intensity of the various stimuli was
determined by interjudge agreement (see Appendix C).

To control for the possible confounding influence that
the environmental situation may exert on parental response,
two different situations were used that are similar in

parental need arousal, privacy, and general environmental

25

setting. These two situations were presented to every subject,
with the order of their presentation counterbalanced over
subjects (i.e., Situation I given first; Situation II given
first) and it was expected that no differences in quality of

parental response would be found for the two situations.

Administration

Each subject was given two practice dialogues so that
he or she could become familiar with the role-playing task.
These practice situations and the subject respond to an
adults' recorded voice as if he were a friend. Following
this rehearsal, the subject was given the PCIPT. The subject
was told (fecticiously) that the second child-communication
would be selected contingent upon his or her response to the
first statement, and it would be selected from one of the
several tapes the experimenter had available to him for this
purpose. Instructions to the subject rehearsal situations
and dialogues, and the PCIPT script are presented in Appendix

B.

Scoring_the Dependent Variables
The PCIPT was designed to obtain the projective verbal
response of adults to three different types of child communi-
cation (Positive, Negative, and Neutral) and their response
across interaction sequences. The adult responses to the
two sequence dialogues were scored into revised categories
previously used by Stollak et a1. (1973). Thirteen categories

of "effective" adult responding were used, but because of low

26

usage and difficulty in obtaining rater reliability, three
categories, which were concerned with giving directions to
the child in the present or future, were combined into one
category. Gordon's (1970) 12 "ineffective" categories,
previously discussed, also were used, as were three categories
taken from Kallman and Stollak (1974) which were described
as frequently occuring adult responses. Each subject
responded to four child communications (two interaction se-
quences for both environmental situations) and each response
was scored for these 26 categories. All categories were
scored for each PCIPT item as being present or absent in that
item. Each item could be scored for more than one category,
but a category could only be scored once each item. Reliabi-
lity estimates for this study were obtained for each category.
In addition to the specific scoring categories, each
of the subject's four responses were also coded for a global
measure of acceptance/rejection, and interrater reliabilities

for this 1-5 scale also were obtained.

RESULTS

Inter Rater Reliabilities
Independent Variable: PCIPT

Three raters were asked to describe each of the 18
statements comprising the PCIPT as being a positive (moving
towards), neutral, or a hostile (moving away) statement.
Perfect agreement was obtained (3 = 1.00).

Two raters then were asked to listen to the audio-tape
and score the stimulus cues, on a scale of 1-5, in terms of
the intensity and strength of the statements as a function
of both verbal content and tonal expressions. A correlation
(p) of .92 was obtained for the rater pairs. Instructions
to raters and detailed results of the reliability checks are

located in Appendix C.

Dependent Variables

Scoring Categories. Six raters were trained in the
scoring procedure for approximately 15 hours. Three pairs
of raters were formed who independently scored the PCIPT
responses along 26 categories descriptive of adult responding.
Each rater-pair scored responses from one-third of the subjects.
Correlations (gs) for each pair across the 26 categories,
combined, were .92, .88, and .93. The overall mean was .91,
with reliabilities ranging from .63 to 1.0. Table 1 presents

27

Table l.

28

Inter-rater Reliability for Scoring Categories.

 

 

Rater Pairs

Mean Category

 

 

Category, I II III Reliabilipy
l .86 .95 .83 .88
2 " 093 071 .82
3 .96 .94 .94 .95
4 .86 .96 .96 .93
5 .95 .91 .83 .90
6 .64 .89 1.00 .84
7 .94 .96 .97 .96
8 .93 1.00 1.00 .98
9 .82 .89 .86 .86
10 1.00 .81 .89 .90
ll .90 .88 .94 .91
12 1000 .92 "' 096
13 .92 .66 1.00 .86
14 .92 .94 .99 .95
15 .91 .70 .94 .85
16 1.00 "’ 1.00 1.00
17 1.00 .97 .95 .97
19 .92 1.00 .97 .96
20 "' 065 "' 063
21 - - - -
22 1.00 .90 1.00 .97
23 .96 .87 .92 .92
24 090 ’ 095 093
25 1.00 .63 .86 .83
26 .86 1.00 1.00 .95
Mean Reliability
for Rater Pair .92 .88 .93 p91

 

Inter Rater Reliability for Acceptance-Rejection Measure

Rater Pairs

I
.86

II
.88

III
.93

Mean Reliability
.89

 

 

29

these correlation coefficients across raters and categories
(see Appendix D).

Acceptance-Rejection Measure. The same six coders*
also were trained for approximately five hours to score the
PCIPT responses along a 1-5 scale measuring global acceptance
or rejection. Three rater pairs each independently rated
responses from one-third of the subjects; inter-rater
reliabilities (gs) were .86, .88, and .93, with a mean of
.89. Specific instructions to the raters and sample scorings

are presented in Appendix A.

Relations Between Categories

CategprygUsage

The most frequently obtained response was Category 14
(T = 1.76), "statement of adult feelings," and least frequently
scored were Categories 18, "relating child behavior to adult
behavior," and 20, "child given specific directions regarding
present feelings" (ES = .02),for both categories. One
category, "child given specific directions regarding future
feelings," was not used. Table 2 (Appendix E) presents the
mean category usage and standard deviations for the 25 scoring
categories in order of frequency of their usage.
Factor Analysis

Relations between the 25 categories were explored via
a principal axis factor analysis--R_2 was used as the estimate
of communality; factors were rotated to a varimax solution.

*The author would like to thank Denise Ballnik, Ross Fleurry,
Mary McCaslin, Juanita Solis, David Solomon, and Jennifer

Walters.

30

Table II. Mean category usage and standard deviation for the
25 scoring categories utilized. 25 scoring
categories ranked by mean usage with std. dev.

 

 

 

Rank Category Mean STD. DEV.
l) 14 1.7611 1.9242
2 3 .9611 1.4887
3 19 .8389 1.3167
4 17 .7778 .8861
5 22 .7778 1.3184
6 11 .7500 1.3573
7 7 .7278 1.2633
8 1 .6611 1.2779
9 5 .6662 1.1144

10 4 .5500 .8861

ll 23 .4778 .9656

12 21 .4611 .9766

13 25 .2611 .7040

14 15 .200 .6964

15 8 .1833 .7128

16 13 .1389 .4931

17 24 .1278 .5596

18 6 .1056 .4546

19 9 .1056 .4786

20 10 .1056 .6118

21 2 .0944 .5563

22 12 .0667 .3441

23 16 .0500 .2851

24 18 .0222 .1478

.1817

 

31

The categories generated six somewhat independent factors
that accounted for .50 of the cumulative, proportionate
variance. Loadings for five of the 25 categories were so low
or diffuse on the factors that the categories were excluded
from further examination. The highest loading for Category
6, "judging negatively, disproving," was .2438, and was found
with equivalent strength across three factors (I, V, VI).
"Praising, Approving, Agreeing" (7) had a highest loading of
.2493, and was also found to load about equally on factors

I, III, and VI. Category 10, "Supporting, Reassuring,
Agreeing" had a highest loading of only .2074. Category 19's
("child given directions") most substantial loading was .20,
and Category 25 ("compliance, appeasement") also had a maximum
loading of .22. Table 2 indicates that categories 6, 10,

and 25 were infrequently used, and, while Categories 7 and

19 were frequently used, a consistent pattern could not be
found for them. Thus, there appeared to be reasonable grounds
for not examining any of these variables further. A more
detailed discussion of the results of the factor analysis

for the remaining categories is presented below, and a
complete summary of the factor loadings can be found in
Appendix F.

Fgctor I: Instructing_e Lecturing. The strongest
factor (.1012 of variance) is comprised of three categories
that form a conceptual unit. (See Table 2 for their mean
frequencies of usage.) Category 4 tells the child how to

solve a problem, gives him advice or suggestions, or provides

32

answers or solutions for the child. Category 5 tries to
influence the child with arguments, logic, or adult opinions.
Category 22 is loaded negatively on factor 1 in that it
measured the extent to which the adult systematically
attempts to obtain more information or understanding from
the child regarding his behavior.

Thus, this most common form of adult response is an
instructional, instrumental act in which the adult directively
provides solutions or argues for them--and systematically
avoids seeking more information. Helpful intent and construct-
ive direction may be proffered in this mode of responding,
but encouragement of the child's own developing problem
solving abilities and mastery strivings are stifled. Simi-
1ar1y, respect that may be communicated through a style of
mutual interaction, encompassing listening and shared
exploration of the child's experience is thwarted with this
response.

Faptopgjlitlgw Authoritarian Control, ngchological
Dominance. The second most prominent factor (.0993 of
variance) was comprised of five categories. (Again, see
Table 2 for a presentation of the mean frequencies and ranked
order with which these responses were emitted). The first
four categories represent responses that establish adult
ppggg_or dominance over the child through several different
modes. Category 1 ("ordering, directing, commanding") is
a reactive/assertive stance that controls the child from an

authoritarian position. Category 2 ("warning, admonishing,

33

threatening") reflects a challenging/punitive orientation to
child control that is also authoritarian based power assertion.
With Category 3 ("exhorting, moraling, preaching"), power and
dominance is not expressed over the child in a harsh and
intimidating fashion as in l and 2, but through a more
passive manner utilizing guilt or shame inducement. The
fourth category that loaded substantially on Factor II
extends the theme of dominance to intellectual control.
Category 9 ("diagnosing, interpreting, reading-in") leaves
the child's motives and feelings vulnerable to adult intrusion.
In all four categories, the child is subordinated to adult
power, which implies, in large part, attitudes of threat and
inferiority. These categories clearly do not establish
defined, non-judgemental, or behavior-focused limits and
control on child behavior. The final category, 12 ("with-
drawing, distracting, avoiding"), does not continue the
directive theme of control, but is an Opposite type of
response, one that moves away from active confrontation and
avoids or de-emphasizes the situation. This act may reflect
either an attitude of rejection similar to category 3, or
perhaps a good-willed attempt to make things "go better."
Factor III: Adult Expression of Child's Interpersonal
Influence. Factor III (.073 of variance) is made up of three
related categories that, from a theoretical perspective, are
effective responses. Category 14 ("statement of adult
feelings") communicates to the child his/her reactions to

their encounter. This was the most frequently given adult

34

response, which may partially be accounted for as a reciprocal
emotional response to the strong affectively received child
cues. Category 15 ("relating child feelings to adult feelings")
takes the child directly into consideration for the first

time, as does Category 1? ("relating child behavior to adult
feelings"). Categories 15 and 17 serve as an educational

input for the child that teaches him the interpersonal impact

of his feelings and behavior upon others. Factor III is made

up of categories that addreSs adult and child "feelings";
however, it is interesting to note from Table 2 that usage

of Category 15, which concerns child feelings, is much lower

(2
(T = .77). In all three categories, the adult is responding

.20) than Category 17, which concerns child behavior

with the feelings aroused in Sim by the child behaviors,
feelings or situations, which makes this an adult_centeped
response.

Factor IV: Empathy. Factor IV (.0719 of variance) is
made up of four child-centered responses. Category 13
("statement of child feelings") generally communicates an
awareness and acceptance of the child. Category 18 ("relates
child feelings to adult behavior") teaches the child about
the interpersonal sources and consequences of his feelings.
Category 20 is also geared toward helping the child under-
stand himself and his social world by giving him "specific
directions regarding expression of present feelings." In
this way, the child maintains his feelings, but learns

appropriate channels of expression for them. All three of

35

these categories, which reflect a child-centered responsiveness,
were found to be used very infrequently (see Table 2). Cate-
gory 23 offers the child a "compromise or alternative" which
again reflects a responsiveness to the child that expresses
concern with his needs and teaches him an appropriate or
mutually satisfying outlet for them. This group of adult
responses does not focus on adult feelings as did Factor 3,
but instead takes the point of view of the other--the child.
Factor V: Ridiculingllnterrogating. Factor V (.0776
of variance) is made up of two categories that may be seen
not merely as insensitive or ineffective but as potentially
abusive in a psychological sense. Category 8 ("name calling,
ridiculing, shaming") actively moves against the child with
strong critical rejection that portends harmful psychological
consequences. This is the most severe of the 26 categories
utilized. This category is coupled with 11 ("questioning,
probing, cross-examining, prying, interrogating"), which does
p23 seek further understanding but rather puts the child on
the spot. This response often expresses adult anger,
superiority, and distrust; and it seeks motives, blame, and
fault in the child. Category 11 is less intensely attacking
than 8, and although it could possibly express a more neutral
or positive attitude, it also reflects to some extent an
aggressive approach toward the child. Table 2 shows that
Category 8 was used substantially, and it tended to occur
more frequently than any of the four categories of Factor IV.
Moreover, Category 11 is the sixth most commonly used mode

of adult response.

36

Factor VI: Instrumental Contrgl. Factor VI may be
viewed as an attempt to direct or control child behavior.
Category 18 ("relating child behavior to adult behavior")
is a constructive category, helping to make the child aware
of the behavioral consequences of his actions. Category 21
("attempt to gain more information about child feelings")
loaded negatively on factor 6. Category 24 ("bribe or
contingency established") sets up conditions of approval or
reinforcement that do not involve the adult directly or
attempt to work with the child, as is done in Category 23,
("offers alternative or compromise"). Although the first
category of Factor VI may be an educational, child-centered
response, the second category is inimical to listening and
exploring with the child, as is the third category, which
attempts to control the child without personal involvement.
This is the least influential factor (.0772 of variance) and
its categories are used with very low frequency (see Table 2).
Acceptance - Rejection Measure

The six factors discussed above were generated through
quantitative, multivariate analysis of the 26 scoring cate-
gories. One additional variable, identified for convenience
as Factor VII, also was examined further. This variable is
the global measure of acceptance or rejection of the child,

discussed previously.

Multivariate Analysis of Variance
The results of the factor analysis served as the basis

for generating composite dependent measures that then were

37

examined in terms of possible relations with the independent
variables. Composite variables were produced by calculating
the mean frequency of usage across the categories that loaded
substantially on a factor (see above). In this way, six
composite "factors" were generated; the global acceptance-
rejection scale was the seventh dependent measure.

The seven dependent variables were subjected to a 2
(sex) X 2 (situation order) X 3 (treatment 1) X 3 (treatment
2) X 2 (situation) X 2 (response) multivariate analysis of
variance, with the last two factors repeated within subjects.
When a multivariate F ratio exceeded a confidence level of
.05, associated univariate 3 ratios for each of the seven
factors were examined. Findings are reported for univariate
results which (a) were significant at p’c .01, and (b) were
not qualified by significant higher-order effects. A simple
effects analysis further investigated any significant inter-
actions, and individual comparisons between the positive,
neutral, and negative child stimuli of Treatments 1 and 2
were completed where apprOpriate.

The multivariate analysis revealed a large number of
significant effects (17 out of 31). Table 3 Presents the nine
3 ratios for those multivariate comparisons which reflected
at least one significant univariate result that was not
qualified by any higher-order effect. Presented below is a
detailed statement of these findings including, where appro-
priate, the final results of the simple effects analysis.

38

Table 3. Summary of Significant Multivariate Results
Reflecting Significant Univariate Comparisons Not
Qualified by Higher Order Effects.

 

 

 

Source E? p

1. Sex 2.9890 .0006
2. Sex X Treatment 1 X Situation 1.898 .0266
3. Sex X Treatment 1 X Situation Order 1.829 .0345
4. Sex X Treatment 1 X Response 1.9795 .0194
5. Sex X Treatment 1 X Situation Order

X Treatment 2 X Situation 1.6264 .0237
6. Treatment 1 X Response 26.34 .0001
7. Treatment 1 X Response X Situation

X Situation Order 4.883 .0001
8. Treatment 2 X Response 26.346 .0001

9. Treatment 2 X Situation Order X
Situation 2.963 .0004

 

S; for the comparisons were always 7/144.

This overall finding indicated that males responded with less
acceptance (X'= 6.57) than did females (X = 7.0).
Sex Main Effect

The significant multivariate main effect for sex
reflected, in part, a significant univariate comparison
(2 = 11.10; p .002) for Factor VII (acceptance-rejection),
which was not qualified by any significant interactions.
Sex X Treatment 1 X Situation Interaction

The obtained multivariate Sex X Treatment 1 X Situation
interaction reflected a significant (F: = 8.738; p‘.OOO3)

39

univariate effect for Factor II (dominance-control). The
interaction was explored further via simple effects analyses
(see Appendix G for a more complete presentation of these
findings). These tests indicated that individual comparison
between the conditions of Treatment 1 for Situation I, and
for males and females separately within Situation II were
appropriate. These comparisons for Situation I (see Table

4 for condition means) revealed no significant differences
in adult response between positive and neutral child stimuli
(1510(1) but a significant difference between neutral and
negative child stimuli (£0 = 31.68).

Table 4. Mean Factor 2 Responses Emitted in Situation I as
a Function of Treatment 1.

 

 

 

 

Situation I Treatment I Stimuli
Positive Neutral Negative
.33 _f .35 .85

 

Within Situation 11, simple effects analyses revealed
a sex difference for Treatment 1 where females did p23
significantly differ in response usage (3 = 2.98); however,
males SSS differ significantly (E.= 17.28). Individual
comparisons showed no significant difference in positive to
neutral cues (S41), but a significant increase in Factor 11
usage for negative child cues (S = 28.62) was revealed.
Table 5 presents the cell means that are relevant to these

findings. Note, however, that the general pattern of means

40
is the same for males and females in Situation II and for

responses in Situation II (compare Tables 4 and 5).

Table 5. Mean Factor 2 Responses by Males and Females in
Situation II as a Function of Treatment I.

 

 

Treatment 1 Conditions - Situation II

 

 

Sex Positive Neutral Negativg_
Males 063 043 2033
Fgmales .30 .63 1.13

 

Sex X Treatment 1 X Situation Order Interaction

The multivariate Sex X Treatment 1 X Situation Order
interaction was associated with a nonqualified, significant
(3 = 5.52; p -‘0050) univariate effect for Factor III. (adult
expression of child's interpersonal effect). This interaction
was explored further by means of a simple effects analysis
(see Appendix G for a more complete presentation of this
procedure). These tests indicated that individual comparisons
between the conditions of Treatment 1 within each condition
of Situation Order were appropriate. The comparisons for
Situation I given first reflected a significant difference
in adult response between positive and neutral child cues
(F_= 56.18), and a non-significant difference for neutral
to negative cues (S = 1.95).

With Situation II given first, individual comparisons
for Treatment 1 positive to neutral child cues reflected a
significant difference (E.= 70.45), but, again, no difference

between neutral to negative child cues (2.4:1); were found.

41

Again, the general pattern of results was the same across
Situation Order, although minor differences did generate a
significant interaction.

Table 6. Mean Factor 3 Responses Within Conditions of
Situation Order as a Function of Treatment 1.

 

 

Treatment 1 Conditions

 

Situation Order Positive Neutral Negative
Situation I Given First 9.60 3.53 4.66
Situation II Given First 10.46 3.66 3LOO

 

Sex X Treatment 1 X Response

The multivariate Sex X Treatment 1 X Response inter-
action reflected a significant (E = 9.2; p¢<;.0002) univariate
effect for Factor v (ridiculing-interrogating). This inter-
action, which demonstrates a response pattern similar to that
for Factor II above, was investigated further via simple
effects analysis (see Appendix G for complete presentation).
These tests indicated that individual comparisons for Response
1 within Treatment 1 were appropriate for males (3.: 20.37)
but not females (2 = 4.19). The comparisons for Treatment 1
males revealed a non-significant positive to neutral response
usage (3 = 1.38) and a significant neutral to negative child
cue difference (3 = 23.46). Sex differences are established
for both factors 2 and 5 where males, unlike females, signifi-
cantly respond to negative-rejecting child stimuli with these

two types of reciprocally rejecting responses.

42

No significant results were obtained for Response 2
which, contrary to prediction, was not effected by the
conditions of Treatment 1. The means relevant to the Treat-
ment 1 finding are presented in Table 7 below.

Table 7. Mean Factor 5 Responses Within Conditions of Sex
as a Function of Treatment 1.

 

 

Treatment 1 Condition

Sex Positive Neutral Negative

 

Males 003 033 1.56
Females .03 .76 .46

 

Sex X Treatment 1 X Treatment 2 X Situation X Situation Order
The significant multivariate Sex X Treatment 1 X Treat-
ment 2 X Situation X Situation Order interaction reflected a
significant (E = 3.45; pa<;.0100) univariate effect for
Factor VII (acceptance-rejection). This complex interaction
was explored further by means of a simple effects analysis
(see Appendix G for complete presentation). The results of
these tests indicated that individual comparisons between
the conditions of Treatment 1 within each condition of
Situation Order were appropriate. Looking within Situation
I given first, individual comparisons reflected a significant
difference between positive and neutral stimuli (S = 13.88)
but no differences between neutral and negative cues (E<l).

Table 8 presents the means relevant to these findings.

43

Table 8. Mean Factor VII Responses Within Situation I as
a Function of Treatment 1.

 

 

Situation I - Treatment I Condition

 

Positive Neutral Neggtive
_Z.38 6.35 6.2

 

Within Situation II given first, individual comparisons
revealed a significant difference between positive and neutral
cues (S = 6.07); and between neutral and negative child cues
(S = 25.48). Table 9 presents these cell means. Although
to different degrees, both situations demonstrate the same
pattern of decreasing adult acceptance as subjects progress
through positive, neutral, and negative child messages.

Table 9. Mean Factor VII Response Within Situation II as
a Function of Treatment 1.

 

Situation II - Treatment I Condition
Positive Neutral Negative
7.8 7.2 g5.8

Tpeatment 1 X Response

The multivariate Treatment 1 X Response interaction
reflected three significant unqualified univariate effects:
Factor II (3,: 33.28; pg¢:.0001), dominance-control; Factor
III (E = 103.94; 94:..0001), adult expression of child's
interpersonal impact; and Factor VII (15: = 74.66; p< .0001),
global rating of acceptance-rejection. These three inter-

actions each were explored further via simple effects analysi'

44

(see Appendix G for complete presentation of these results).
These tests revealed that individual comparisons between the
conditions of Treatment 1 within Response 1 were apprOpriate
for all three univariate effects. Contrary to Hypothesis 2,
there were no significant results obtained for Response 2,
which, apparently, was not effected by Treatment 1. The
relevant cell means for each factor are presented in Tables
10, 11, and 12 below.

For Factor II within Response 1, individual comparisons
revealed no significant differences in adult response between
positive and neutral child cues (E< 1), and a significant
increased usage for negative stimuli (E = 66.91).

Table 10. Mean Factor II Responses Within Response 1 as a
Function of Treatment 1.

 

 

Treatment 1 Condition
Positive Neutral Negative
0.0 .11 2.28

Within Response 1 for Factor III, the individual
comparisons reflected a very significant difference between
positive and neutral child cues (E = 301.49), and a non-
significant difference between neutral and negative stimuli
(E = 2.68). The obtained means for Factors II and III (see
Tables 10 and 11) demonstrate that these particular types of
adult responses are elicited virtually exclusively by their
respective negative and positive child cues, and are rarely

used elsewhere.

45

Table 11. Mean Factor 111 Response Within Response 1 as a
Function of Treatment 1.

 

Treatment 1 Condition
Positive Neutral Negative

3.75 .21 L25

Individual comparisons between the conditions of
Treatment 1 within Response 1 for Factor VII also revealed
a clear pattern of significant results. Significant differences
between both positive and neutral (F’= 58.86), and neutral and
negative (F = 73.66) child cues were obtained. There was a
significant decrease in adult acceptance (i.e., movement
toward the child) as his communications moved from positive-
loving to neutral to negative-rejecting. These means are
presented in Table 12 below.

Table 12. Mean Factor VII Responses Within Response 1 as
a Function of Treatment 1.

 

 

Treatment 1 Condition
Positive Neutral Nggative

8p41 6.89 5.1§_

Treatment 1 X Situatign Order X Situation X Repponse

The significant multivariate Treatment 1 X Situation
Order X Situation X Response interaction also reflected three
significant lowest-order univariate effects: Factor I

(_F_‘ = 23.12; p< .0001), instructing-arguing; Factor IV

46

(E = 4.99; p< .0080), empathy; and Factor V (S = 5.54;
pw<:.0048), ridiculing-interrogating. This interaction was
investigated further via simple effects analysis for each
univariate effect (see Appendix G for a complete presentation
of these results). These tests revealed that the following
direct comparisons involving the conditions of Treatment 1
were appropriate. In all three univariate cases, significant
results were found pply for Response 1, since Treatment 1
did not affect Response 2. The cell means relevant to these
findings are presented below in Tables 13 through 16.

Simple effects analysis for Factor I indicated that
individual comparisons between the conditions of Treatment
1 within each condition of Situation Order were apprOpriate.
Factor I usage was found to increase in a step-wide fashion
across positive, neutral, and negative child cues for Situ-
ation l occurring first or second. The increase in factor
usage was sufficient to reach statistical significance,
however, BREE for the condition of positive to neutral child
cues when Situation 1 was given second (3 +0 = 5.69).
Table 13. Mean Factor I Responses for Response 1 in Situa-

tion I Within Conditions of Situation Order as a
Function of Treatment 1.

 

 

Treatment 1 Condition

Situation Order Positive Neutral Negative

Situation 1 Given

First 1.7 2.03 2,43
Situation 1 Given

Second 1.7 2.2 2.4 __

47

A slightly different trend was observed within
Situation II. Mean usage of Factor 1 decreased from positive
to neutral child cues (Situation II first: E_+o = 2.54;
Situation 11 second: 3 +0 = 7.31) and increased very
significantly in response to negative stimuli (Situation II
first: 30- = 124.05; Situation II second: So- = 91.08)
within both Situation II order conditions. Again, however,
Table 14 indicates that highest usage of Factor 1 occurred
in response to negative child communications.

Table 14. Mean Factor I Responses For Response 1 in Situ-

ation II Within Conditions of Situation Order as
a Function of Treatment 1.

 

Treatment 1 Conditions

 

Situation Order Positive_f Neutral Nggative
Situation II Given

First 1.46 1.13 3.47
Situation II Given

Second 1.86 1.30 g3.30

 

Simple effects analysis for Factor IV revealed a
Treatment 1 X Situation Order X Situation interaction signifi-
cant at the .01 level (E,= 7.67). Further investigation
revealed that no simple effect was significant at the .01
level so that individual comparisons between the conditions
of Treatment 1 were not apprOpriate. The obtained means are
presented in Table 15; note the very low mean usage of this

sensitive—empathic mode of response in all of the conditions.

48

Table 15. Mean Factor IV Responses for Response 1 Within
Conditions of Situation Order for Treatment 1.

 

—— vi

 

 

 

Situation Treatment 1 Conditions
Situation Order Positive Neutral Negative
Situation I Given
I FiI‘St .13 033 .16
Situation I Given
Second .6 0.0 .33
Situation 11 Given
II First . 0.0 .36 .13
Situation II Given
Second .13 0.0 .26

 

 

Simple effects tests indicated that individual compari-
sons between conditions of Treatment 1 and each situation
condition were appropriate for Factor V within Response 1.
These comparisons for Situation I demonstrated significant
differences between positive and neutral stimuli (§.= 9.57),
but not between neutral and negative child cues (S4 1). The
individual comparisons within Situation II reflected no sig-
nificant differences between positive and neutral child cues
(S = 1.6), but significant differences were obtained between
neutral and negative stimuli (g = 10.47). Although sigpifi-
ggpt increments in factor usage differed between Situations
I and II, in both cases there was a step-wise increase
towards highest usage of Factor V in response to more negative

child communications.

49

Table 16. Mean Factor V Responses for Response 1 Within
Conditions of Situation for Treatment 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment 1 Conditions

 

_Situation Positive Neutral Neggtive
Situation I 0.0 .36 .45
Situation II .03 .18 .56

 

Treatment 2 X Response

The significant multivariate Treatment 2 X Response
interaction reflected three lowest-order significant uni-
variate effects: Factor I (E = 39.08; p4:,.0001), instructing-
lecturing; Factor II (15: = 33.28; p‘ .0001), dominance-
controlling; and Factor III (_F_‘ = 103.9; 24.0001), expression
of adult's experience and child's interpersonal effect. This
interaction was explored further via simple affects analysis
for each of the three univariate affects (see Appendix G for
a complete presentation). These tests revealed that individual
comparisons between the conditions of Treatment 2 were appro-
priate for all three factors within Response 2--which, of
course, was when Treatment 2 was given. The cell means
relevant to these findings are presented in Tables 17 through
19, below.

Factor I comparisons revealed no significant response
differences between positive and neutral CE +ol<:l) child
cues; and a significant difference in factor usage between
neutral and negative stimuli (30- = 35.92). Again, Factor I

is most strongly elicited in response to negative child cues.

50

Table 17. Mean Factor I Responses for Response 2 With
Treatment 2.

 

Treatment 2 Conditions

Positive Neutral Negative
3.95 3.75, 5.10

Individual comparisons for Factor II reflected no sig-
nificant differences between positive and neutral stimuli
(F +0 = 1.14), but showed a Eggy significant increase in
factor usage between neutral and negative cues (10- = 87.84).
This type of adult responding is found to occur almost
exclusively in reply to negative child stimuli.

Table 18. Mean Factor 11 Responses for Response 2 Within
Treatment 2.

 

Treatment 2 Conditions
Positive Neutral Negattve

£11 ,__ .40 2.88

The individual comparisons between Treatment 2 condi-
tions for Factor III revealed a highly significant result.
Positive to neutral child cues reflected a highly significant
difference in factor usage (2 = 281.96), but no significant
difference was obtained between neutral and negative child
cues (Ey<:l). Factor III was found to occur frequently and

selectively in response to positive-loving child cues.

51

Table 19. Mean Factor III Responses Within Response 2 for
Treatment 2.

 

 

Treatment 2 Conditions
Positive Neutral Negative
3.65 .23 .33

Treatment 2 X Situation Order X Situation

The final significant multivariate effect, a Treatment
2 X Situation Order X Situation interaction, reflected a
nonqualified significant univariate effect (3 = 10.10; p<
.0001) for Factor I (instructing-lecturing). Tests of simple
effects explored this interaction further (see Appendix G
for complete presentation of tests). The results of these
analyses indicated that individual comparison between the
conditions of Treatment 2 within each situation order condi-
tion were appropriate.

Within Situation 1, given either first or second, there
were no significant Treatment 2 effects. The means, which
are presented in Table 20 below, demonstrate the pattern of
slight increases in factor usage across positive, neutral, a
and negative stimuli.

Table 20. Mean Factor I Responses in Situation I Within
Conditions of Situation Order for Treatment 2.

 

 

Treatment 2 Conditions
Situation Order Positivet_ Neutral Negative

Situation I Given
First 4.16 4.26 4.20

52

Table 20 (cont'd.).

Situation I Given
Second 4.13 4.23 4.60

‘—

Within Situation II, presented first or second, how-
ever, individual comparisons within Treatment 2 were
appropriate. Significant differences between positive and
neutral child cues were found when Situation II was presented
second (Situation 11 first: F_+04‘11; Situation 11 second:

F +0 = 15.64), while significant differences between neutral
and negative child cues, irrespective of presentation order,
(Situation II first: So- = 21.33; Situation 2 second: Eo- =
18.36), were also obtained. The relevant means are presented
in Table 21, below.

Table 21. Mean Factor I Responses in Situation II Within
Conditions of Situation Order for Treatment 2.

 

 

Treatment 2 Conditions

 

Situation Order Positive Neutral Negative
Situation II Given
FirSt 3080 3073 5013
Situation II Given
Second 4.5 3A3 4.6

 

Summapy_of Results
Factor Analysis Results
Adult behavior was scored into twenty-six specific
categories. The mean frequency of category usage was factor
analyzed and six composite factors were generated. These

factors described the following modes of responding:

53

I) teaching-lecturing; II) control-dominance; III) adult
expressions of their own experience and child's impact;

IV) empathy; V) intimidation/interrogation; and VI) instru-
mental control. These factors served as dependent variables
which were examined in relation to the independent variables.
Summary_of Manova Results

Sgg, Three significant results reflected male-female
differences. Females had a significantly higher mean rating
of global child acceptance than did males across all types
of child cues. Males used both Factor II (power assertion/
manipulative dominance) and Factor V (intimidating/interro-
gation) significantly more often than did females in response
to negative child stimuli. These three results support the
more threatening-punitive male stereotype.

Situation, Situation Order, and Response. In order to
account for environmental setting and need arousal of the
adult, two different settings and script dialogues were
designed. These two different situations (I and II) which
were designed to be of equal stimulus intensity were given
in alternate order (Situation I or II first). Response (1
or 2) concerns which of the four adult responses obtained are
being investigated for a particular analysis. These three
independent variables produced two general results.

Concerning situation and situation order, it was
consistently found that the Situation II dialogue elicited
stronger responses. The results for Situations I and II

followed the same general patterns, except Situation II

54

pulled more extreme high and low means and obtained higher
significant 3 ratios than Situation I. The obtained E
ratios for Situation II were often sufficiently larger than
those of Situation I to effect a situation order interaction.
The actual order in which the two situations were given did
not seem to be an important effect.

Within this pattern of similar but more intense
responding for Situation II, one difference was occasionally
noted. Trends toward differential usage of Factors IV and
V for the neutral child stimuli between Situations I and II
were sometimes observed but generally pet to a significant
degree. Further exploration of this minor variation in an
otherwise consistent pattern of results is presented in the
discussion section.

Response 1 was only affected by Treatment 1, and
Response 2 only by Treatment 2. In all cases, only the
appropriately paired results (e.g. Factor VII for Treatment
1 and Response 1) were significant. This indicates that no
other variables than Treatment 1 or 2 were influencing adult
response. In sum, the effects of these three independent
variables are only tangential to the overall results of the
study.

Treatment 14_Treatment 2. Positive-loving, neutral,
and negative-rejecting child statements comprise the two
treatment conditions. Hypothesis 2 predicted that the type
of initial Treatment 1 cue received by the adult would

influence his/her response to the second Treatment 2 cue.

55

Significant results were pgt obtained for this hypothesis
although a trend was suggested through two Treatment 1 X
Treatment 2 interactions that approached significance at the
.05 level only. This finding will be explored further in the
discussion section. The results for each of the positive
neutral, and negative stimuli comprising the two treatment
conditions clearly confirmed hypothesis I and are presented
below.

Positive Child Stimuli. Two significant results were
obtained that characterize how adults responded to loving-
approaching child stimuli. Factor VII is the global rating
of acceptance-rejection. Adults responded to positive child
cues with reciprocal acceptance and warmth. Within the
context of this global evaluation, only one specific mode of
response was elicited in response to positive child stimuli.
Factor III—-an Sgplt statement of how thy felt or of
identifying the impact the specific child behavior or feeling
had upon 3222 was used. Thus, although the child emitted
strong affective cues that were both positive and negative
in nature, the adults tended to reSpond with statements of
their own feelings only when the child's communhzations were
of the positive, loving, moving towards type.

Neutral Child Stimuli. Subjects also responded to a
non-emotional child statement that did not move towards or
against them. Significant results were obtained for Factor
VII (acceptance/rejection) only where the adult again

responded with a reciprocally neutral affective reply. A

56

slightly different pattern of responding between neutral
Situation I and II cues was obtained and will be explored in
the discussion section, as noted earlier.

Npgative Child Stimuli. Four factor results were
obtained descriptive of adult response to angry-rejecting
child communications. Factor 1 represents a lecturing or
instructing mode of response to child communications that
emphasize the adult's answer or viewpoint to the exclusion of
seeking more information from the child. The results indicate
this to be the most frequent adult response to negative child
statements for all treatment conditions.

The Factor II mode of adult response indicates control
of the child through reactive power assertion and threat or
with a less overt psychological control of shame or belittle-
ment of the child's self. The child receives a punitive/
rejecting message of inferiority and experiences the adult
moving against him/her in their interpersonal relationship.
Anova's across five different treatment levels revealed the
same pattern of highly significant results: Factor II usage
changes in a step-wise fashion from slight to almost non-
existent presence in positive and neutral child statements
and then increases dramatically to very high usage in response
to negative child communications. A sex difference, noted
earlier, revealed that female usage increased in a step-wise
fashion across positive, neutral, and negative cues but there
was not the dramatic increase for negative cues that males

expressed. Simply, adults, and especially males, responded

57

in kind to the hostile-rejecting child statements with anger
or manipulative control.

Factor V was described as the most harmful category
because of the psychological abuse evident in Category 8--
shaming, name calling, ridiculing. The second category (11)
was less severe but complementary in attacking or moving
against the child through interrogation. A sex difference
result was obtained where mglgg significantly responded in
this manner to negative child cues while females did not.

A somewhat different pattern of responses was also obtained
for Situations I and II within this factor. A stepped
increase in Factor V usage occurs across positive, neutral,
and negative cues for both situations, as expected. However,
the largest factor usage occurs in the neutral cue for
Situation I and in the negative cue for Situation II. A
possible explanation of this variation in response patterning
is explored in the discussion.

Significant results were also obtained for the Factor
VII measure of acceptance-rejection with negative child cues.
The adults' response to these stimuli fell to a mildly
rejecting score that was a significant increase in the
rejection-moving away score from neutral stimuli. The child's
rejecting communication was significantly met with a
reciprocal response from the adult that was hostile-rejecting.

Thus, the results for Factor VII clearly confirm
Hypothesis 1 where adults are found to respond to varying

child communications in a reciprocal or like manner. Specific

58

modes of response show Factors 1, II, and V to occur signifi-
cantly more often in reSponse to negative child cues and
Factor III in response to positive child stimuli. No
significant results were obtained with Factor VI. Finally,
the reader is alerted to the very low frequency with which
the most sensitive and empathic Factor (IV) was utilized

throughout the study.

DISCUSSION SECTION

The purpose of this study was to provide information
concerning how adults respond to children. In their day-to-
day activities, young children present the adults that they
encounter with a wide array of communications that could be
broadly described as avoiding, approaching, or attacking.
Thus, the role that these positive-loving, neutral, and
negative-rejecting child communications play in the kinds

and characteristics of adult response was investigated.

Reciprocal Adult Responding

Acceptance-Rejection. The major hypothesis of this
study that predicted adults would respond $3.3l29 to the
varying affective child communications was confirmed. These
results and their implications are elaborated below.

Parental acceptance was one of the most basic issues
addressed in this study. Reviewing theoretical and empirical
studies, Reif and Stollak (1972) cited adult acceptance,
warmth, or positive regard as the single most important
dimensions of the adult-child relationship. The results
obtained here demonstrated that the important quality of
acceptance was conveyed by adults pply_when in response to
similar loving-accepting child messages. Child statements

of a positive affective nature elicited reciprocal loving-

59

6O

accepting adult statements; affectively neutral child cues
elicited a significant drop in adult acceptance and "moving-
towards" the child to a neutral rating; and negative-rejecting
child cues pulled rejecting "moving-away" from the child
responses. In addition to adult acceptance being communicated
only in response to similar positive child stimuli, the

adults used in this study did not mediate their role-play
replies to negative child cues, but, again, responded
reflexively with counter child-rejecting responses.

Davis (1965) reports that the most widely held child-
rearing belief in America today is in the importance of
parents acceptance or love of the child. However, the results
obtained here point up the delimited conditions within which
adult acceptance is actually expressed to the child. The
reciprocal rejecting responses which were obtained may
diminish the child's eXperience or expression of many
"negative" affects. Here, the possibility arises that making
adults awagg of their propensity to respond reflexively in
a reciprocal fashion, and of the potential influence these
types of responses may exert on the child, could, through
training, result in an enlarged repertoire of available and
more effective responses.

Specific Modes of Response. Within the context of the
global finding concerning acceptance and rejection, the
specific manner in which the adult responded to the varying
child cues was investigated. When the adult received a

positive child statement that expressed love, care, or need

61

of them, a very specific mode of response was obtained. All
factor usage was very low in response to the positive cues
except for Factor III, which was used to a very significant
degree. Adults responded to the approaching child communica-
tion with a statement of how they felt or identifying the
child's impact upon them. This could be considered an
effective mode of adult response that teaches the child an
interpersonal awareness of how one person affects another

and provides a model of affective communization.

Two distinctions further characterize this mode of
response. First, within this factor, the most frequently
used category was adult expression of their own feelings.
Less frequently used was the educative response of communica-
ting the effects of the child's behavior upon the adult and
the least emitted response related child feelings to adult
feelings. This pattern of results confirms the earlier
findings of Stollak, Scholom, Kallman and Saturansky (1973)
that adults tend to focus their responses on child behavior
and not on the child's feelings. Further, theorists have
stressed the importance of acknowledging or reflecting the
child's inner life. However, it is important to note the
adult-centered responsiveness of Factor III. In contrast to
Factor IV, for example, the adult is not expressing the
child's experience but their 23g. Although this could be
considered an appropriate response, it is noteworthy that the
capacity for child-centered responsiveness is not evidenced.

Subjects also responded to a non-emotional child

statement that did not move "toward" or "against" them. A

62

slightly different patterning of results between Situations
I and II was noted for the neutral stimuli. Within Situation
I, a stepped increase across positive, neutral, and negative
child cues was obtained with Factor I, while for Situation
II, there only was a drop in Factor 1 usage from positive
to neutral cues. In accounting for this inconsistency,
there is a notable difference between the dialogues of
Situation I and II. The dialogue for Situation I places the
adult in the kitchen unpacking packages onto the table and
the neutral child cue is that she can "almost reach the
cupboards" but is going outside to play. Here, the possi-
bility that the child could assist the adult in his/her
chores is suggested. There is no such relatedness of adult
and child activities in Situation II, it is not implied or
suggested that the child has the ability to help the adult.
Thus, Situation I may elicit more child direction and
instruction concerning how he may help put the groceries
away than Situation II. The same pattern also occurred for
Factor 5 where higher usage was obtained for neutral Situation
I than Situation II cues. Here it is possible that the adult
responds to the child's ability to help him put the groceries
away and his intention to go outside and play with an angry
questioning (Category 11) or criticizing resentment (Category
8). No factor usage was elicited significantly highest in
response to the neutral child stimuli.

Three different modes of response occurred in reply

to the hostile-rejecting child communications. Factor I

63

was used highest in response to negative child stimuli.

The effectiveness of this response may be evaluated differ-
ently. Baumrind (1967) describes the most effective parent
as authoritative--one who "uses reason, power, and shaping
by reinforcement to achieve her objective (p 80)." Although
this may be similar to Categories 4 and 5 of Factor I, they
are incompatible with Baumrind's further stress on maturity
demands, warmth, and independence, all of which must occur
concurrently in responding to the child. Hilton (1967)
found mothers of dependent preschoolers to be significantly
more involved and interfering than mothers of independent
children. These results lend support to the evaluation of
Factor I as an ineffective adult response, in which the
child's own mastery skills are thwarted. Although a helpful
intent may be implied and necessary guidance provided in
particular circumstances or in conjunction with other adult
communications, greater respect for the child's autonomy
would be more effective.

Factor II was found almost exclusively in response to
negative child communications. With this factor, control
was exerted over the child through authoritarian power
assertion or psychological manipulation. Becker (1964)
has noted the relationship between power assertive discipline
and externalized sources of control in the child. There is
a communication of parental rejection inherent in this mode
of response which has been found to be related to both

dependence (Winder & Ban, 1962) and aggression (McCord,

64

1961) in preadolescent boys. The delectrious psychological
effects of guilt which may also be imparted with this factor
response have been widely acknowledged in clinical lore.

Similarly, Factor V occurred in response to negative
child cues and communicated a challenging-rejecting stance.
This response reflected the most directly rejecting-shaming
attitude which serves to intensify the potential dependency
or rebelliousness cited above. For all three, the adult
responses given tend to diminish the child's positive self
perceptions and sense of effectance.

Sex Differences. Cohesive sex differences were
obtained for Factors II, V, and VII, which confirm previous
findings. In the Jackson (1956) study of parental control
cited earlier, females were found to take responsibility for
child discipline but also to be considerably less severe and
harsh than males in their mode of control. Becker's (1964)
review of parental discipline noted that fathers were stricter,
more punishing, and more fear-arousing than females, who were
more nurturant in their discipline. This conclusion was
confirmed in this study, since females did 293'significantly
increase their usage of controlling/dominating (Factor II
responses) and shaming and interrogating (Factor V responses)
as a function of negative child cues as did males. Further,
the responses of females to all child communications were
rated as being significantly more accepting and responsive to
the child than were male responses. In part, these results

lend support to the role stereotype of punitive, harsh males

65

and more nurturant, less aggressive females. However, although
significant differences are obtained with Factor VII (accept-
ance-rejection), examination of the means indicates a small
absolute difference. Notably, neither males or females
responded with a high acceptance, even to the positive child
stimuli.

Empathy

The categories that clustered together to form Factor
IV represent a very important interpersonal construct. Four
categories that focused on child feelings and their communica-
tion reflected an ability of the adult to be apppg of the
psychological state of the child and express that recogni-
tion or understanding to the child. This awareness of the
pppgp in interaction has been theorized to be a critical
element of healthy relationships and has received strong
empirical support in psychotherapy research (Bergen &
Garfield, 1971). This study revealed that adults tended not
to behave in this manner since these categories were among
the least frequently used modes of responding.

Factor III, which also was posited to be an effective
response of adult expression and communication is notably
different from Factor IV because it acknowledges the child's
experience rather than taking their ppp adult point of View.
The subjects in this study were able to utilize these Factor
III categories with a very high frequency, but only in
response to positive child stimuli. Two mechanisms are

suggested here: (a) adults infrequently respond to the

(D k)

66

experience of the child, and (b) they can only experience
and express their own internal processes but even in this
case, only when in response to an initial eliciting positive-

loving child communication.

quuence Effects

The second hypothesis, that an initial child communica-
tion would influence adult responses in a cumulative fashion,
was not confirmed. Two interactions were obtained that
approximated significance for this hypothesis, but only at the
.05 level. A possible explanation for this lack of support
can be found in the administration procedure. Two sequence
dialogues were designed to simulate an actual conversation:
Child Statement 1 - Adult Response 1, Child Statement 2 -
Adult Response 2. However, to make the second child state-
ment appear to be contingent on the adults' response the
experimenter had to insert a second cassette tape between
the first and second response, a procedure that caused a
several second time delay and an intervening event. This
lag and interruption may have served to break the attempted
continuity of the conversation such that the subject felt
that he/she was reSponding to a more independent second event.
The emotional impact or cognitive set experienced from the

first cue may have been lost or sufficiently diminished.

Methodology
To observe adult responses to important, but frequently

unavailable child communications tape recorded scenarios were

67

deveIOped. This was found to be an effective means of ob-
taining seemingly natural or genuine responses. In having to
respond immediately to an affectively charged child cue with
their own verbalized response, relatively spontaneous and
unpremeditated replies were obtained. Future experimentation
with this projective technique might continue to find it
effective; however, two slight problems arose in this study.
To control for situational effects, two different but similar
environmental settings and child scripts were developed
(Situation I and Situation II). Although they were designed
to be of equal stimulus intensity--and raters scored them as
nearly identical--Situation I obtained responses that were
less intense or extreme than Situation II. Also, the neutral
cue for Stimulus I elicited some differences from the same
cue in Situation II, as was discussed earlier. Equality of
stimulus type and intensity generally were obtained in this
study, but small variations were observed that could and
should be controlled in future research that uses this
technique.

A second problem in the administration procedure was
hypothesized to have accounted for the failure to confirm
hypothesis two. Further studies that attempt both to simulate
a sequential conversation and to convince the subjects that
the second response of the child is contingent upon the
meaning of their first response must have an audio tape set-
up such that the recording of subjects' response and the

playing of child cue operate with a minimum of experimenter

68

activity and time delay. If this were done more efficiently,
a different pattern of results might be obtained concerning
the effects of sequences or chains of communication on adult
modes of response. In sum, this role-play projective tech-
nique deserves further attention as a potentially effective

instrument for studying specific communication processes.

Generalizing to Other Populatiops

What inferences can be made from the results obtained
with this under-graduate sample to other parent populations
or to the future parenting of these same adults? It is
hypothesized that the immediate verbal responses obtained from
these subjects are similar to the responses available to
them in their real-life interaction with children. Evidence
supporting this is provided in one study that obtained
thought-out and written adult responses to parent-child
problem situations. Kallman and Stollak (1974) found that a
sample of well-educated mothers of elementary school children
responded in a nearly identical fashion as a similar sample
of undergraduates on this projective test. This lends
support to the notion that actual parent populations respond
to their children in a similar fashion to the undergraduates
that were observed in this study and that the parenting
responses of these undergraduates probably will not change
over time as they raise their own children. However, the
results of this study must be viewed only as responses to a
projective test and not absolutely predictive of actual

adult-Child behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this paper, as stated earlier, was to
provide information descriptive of the adult-child communica-
tion process. Findings were obtained here that provide
insight into how adults hypothetically respond to different
types of important child messages. Hopefully, the informa-
tion obtained here may be utilized to help educate adults to
respond more effectively to children. Subscribing to the
statement cited by Becker (1964) earlier, making adults
gpgpp of their behavior toward the child and of its impact
on the child can serve to motivate a change in adult res-
ponding to children.

Through a program of education in child-care-giving,
adults could be informed of the very strong propensity they
will have to respond in.a reciprocal manner to child communi-
cations. Particularly, hostile-rejecting messages that
children will communicate to them will have a very strong
tendency to elicit a similar rejecting response from them.
Adults may be trained to "mediate" their responses and draw
from a wider repertoire of alternative responses which may
not continue the cycle of antagonistic-rejecting interaction.
Concerning the finding of reciprocal rejecting responding,

the three specific modes of negative response obtained

69

70

could also be revealed to adults who interact with children.
Theoretically, each of these three modes of response has
specific harmful or inhibiting influences upon the developing
child. These potential effects could be discussed and the
empirical research findings supporting these evaluations,
such as those cited earlier, presented. Finally, the
propensity for more severe rejecting, ridiculing, shaming,
and threatening evidenced by males in this study could also
be noted in order to facilitate their learning more effective
modes of responding.

While the findings discussed above are relevant to
the communication of ineffective responses, other findings
concern adult responses and their influence on positive mental
health. The adults in this study were not able to take the
point of view of the child. Adults could express their own
experience in response to positive—loving child cues, but
they could not de-center and focus on the child in response
to any type of communication. This ability for child-
centered responding and empathy has been linked to healthy
interpersonal relations. The low-usage of this sensitive
form of response points up the need for training and skill
development of this theoretically "effective" response.

Clearly, adults were found to respond in several
particular ways. An awareness of these responses and their
potential effects on the child could, through education,
enable adults to respond more effectively. However, the

fundamental question still remains unanswered. The effects

71

of these various modes of response on the personality and
social development of the child have not yet been determined.
The behavioral responses scored are indicative of theoretic-
ally sensitive and ineffective responding. Although these
dimensions are supported with a broad set of empirical
findings, the actual effects of these types of adult response
on the child have not been established. The results of

this study do provide descriptive information about hypo-
thetical adult responding to children, but it leaves future
research to answer--what do adults do to facilitate the

rearing of loving, competent, and happy children?

B IBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baldwin, A., Kalhorn, J., and Breece, F. Patterns of parent
behavior. Psychological Monograph, 1945, 2a.

Baumrind, D. Child care practices anteceding three patterns
of pre-school behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs,
1967, 22, 43-88.

Baumrind, D. Current patterns of parental authority.
Developmental PsyghologyMonograph, 1971, i: No. 1,
part 2.

Becker, W.C. Consequences of Different Kinds of Parental
Discipline, in M. Hoffman and L. Hoffman (Eds.),
Review of Child Development Research, Vol. I.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964, I69-208.

Becker, W.C. and Krug, R.S. The parent attitude research
instrument: A research review. Child Development,
1965, éé, 329-3650

Bell, R.Q. Direction of Effects Revisited. Psycholpgical
Review, 1968, 12, 81-95.

Bell, R.Q. Stimulus control of parent. Child Development,
1971, A, 63-72.

Bergin, A.F. & Garfield, S.L. The evaluation of therapeutic
outcomes. In Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior
Change: An Empirical AnalySis, ed. A.E. Bergin,
S.L. Garfield, 217-70, 1971. —New York: Wiley.

 

Caldwell. The effects of infant care. In M.L. Hoffman and
H.L. Hoffman (Eds.) Review of Child Develppment
Resesrch Vol. I. New York: Russell Sage

Foundation, I§6Z.

Carson, R. Interaction Concepts of Personality. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing co., 1969.

Coopersmith, S. The Antecedents of Self Esteem. San
Francisco: WZH. Freeman andICo., 1967.

72

73

Davis, J. Educatiop far Positive Mental Health, 1965.

Etzel, B. and Gewirtz, J. Experimental modification of care-
taker-maintained high rate operant crying in a 6- and
a 20-week old infant. Journal of Experimental Child
PsychOlpgx. 1967. 2. 303-517.

Glidewell, J.C. (Ed.) Parental attitudes and child behavior.
Springfield, Ill}: Charles Thomas, 1961.

Gordon, T. Parent Effectiveness Training. New York: Peter
Wyden, Inc 0 9—1970 0

Guerney, Band Fluman, A. Teacher as Psychotherepeutic agents
for withdrawn children. Journal of School Psychology,
1971.

Haley, J. Family Experiments: A new type of experimentation.
Family Process, 1962, l, 265-295.

Hoffman, M. Power assertion by the parent and its impact on
the child. Child Development, 1960, ll, 129-145.

 

Jackson, P. Verbal solutions to parent-child problems.
Child Develppment, 1956, g1(3), 554-549.

Kallman, J. and Stollak, G.E. Maternal behavior toward
children in need arousing situations. Paper presented
at the 1974 meeting of the Midwestern Psychological
Association, Chicago, Illinois.

Leary, T. Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality, New York:
RonaldPress, 1957, p.I125.

Levy, D. Behavioral Analysis: Analysis of clinical observa-
tions of behavior as applied to mother-newborn rela-
tionships. New York: Thomas, 1958.

Linden, J. and Stollak, G.E. The training of undergraduates
in play techniques. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
1969, 22, 215-218.

Mannino, F., Kisielewski, J., Kimbro, E., and Morgenstean, B.
Relationships between parental attitudes and behavior.
The Family Coordinator, 1968, 257-240.

Misty, A. Parent-child relations and self esteem. Unpublished
M.A. London University, 1960.

Newirth, J. Self esteem and family interaction patterns.
Dissertation Alnt. Int., 1971, April Vol. 31 (lo-B)
6265.

74

Orlansky, H. Infant care and personality. Psychological
Bulletin, 1949, g9, 1-48.

Pasamanick, K., Robers, M. and Lilienfeld, A. Pregnancy
experience and the development of behavior disorders
in children. American Journal of Psychiatpy, 1956,
.];_];_2_9 615-180 --—

Rausch, H.L. Interaction sequences. Journal Person. Soc.
PSIChOlOEX, 1965, _2_, 487-4990

Rausch, H., Dittman, and Taylor. The interpersonal behavior
of children in residentical treatment. J. Abnorm.
Soc. ngcholpgy, 1959, 2Q, 9-26.

Rausch, H., Farbman and Wewellyn. Person, setting, and change
in social interaction. Human Relations, 1960, 13,
305-3330 if

Reif, T. and Stollak, G. Sensitivity to Young Children:
Trainipg and Its Effects. East Lansing: MSUIPress,
1972. If

Reusche, J. Synopsis of the theory of human communication.
Psychiatpy, 1953, lg, 216-143.

 

Rogers, C. "On Becoming a Person: A Therapists View of
Psychotherapy." Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, Co.,
19 l.

Schaefer, E. A circumplex model for maternal behavior.
J. of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, pg, 226-255.

Schaefer, H. and Emerson, P. Patterns of response to physical
contact in early human deve10pment. J. of Child
Psychol. and Psychiatry, 1964, l5, 1-15.

Sears, R., Maccoby, E., and Levin, H. Patterns of Child
Rearing. Evanston, 111.: Row, PetErson, 1957.

Sewell. Some recent developments in socialization theory and
research. Annals of the Amer. Academy of Political
and Social Science, 1965, 549, 163-181.

Stollak, G., Scholom, A., Kallman, J., and Saturansky, C.
Insensitivity to children: Responses of undergraduates
to children in problem situations. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 1975.

 

Stollak, G. "What Happened Today," 1975.

75

Stott, L.H. Parent-adolescent adjustment: Its measurement
and significance. Character and Personality, 1941,

la, 140-150.

Symonds, P. The Psychology of Parent-Child Relationships.
New York: Appléton Century, 1939.

Sullivan, H. Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. New York:
Norton and Co.,’1955.

Tiller, T.W. Response Patterns of Parents as They Effect
Child's Self System. Dissertation Abst. Int., 1971

(Sept.) Vol. 3213-31, 1827.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

SCORING GUIDE TO PCIPT

APPENDIX A

SCORING GUIDE TO PCIPT

Responses on the PCIPT are scored for the following categories:

1.

3.

Ordering, Directing, Commanding

Telling the child to do something, giving him an order
or a command. This does not include telling him "You
may do..." or giving him alternatives.

Example phrases: "You must. . . , " "You have to. . . , "
"You will..."
Examples: "I don't care what other parents do, you have
to do the homework."
"Don't talk to your mother like that!"
"Now you go back there and play with Ginny
and Joyce."
"Stop complaining."
"Stop doing that."
"Stop it now."

Warning, Admonishing, Threatening

Telling the child what consequences will occur if he
does something.

Example phrases: "You had better...," "If you don't,
then. 0 o H
Examples: "If you do that you'll be sorry."
"One more statement like that and you'll be
sorry."
"One more statement like that and you'll
leave the room."
"You'd better not do that if you know what's
good for you."

Exhorting, Moralizing, Preaching

Telling the child what he should or ought to do.
Example phrases: "You should...", "You ought...",
"It is your duty...", "It is your responsibility...",

"You are required..."

76

3.

5.

77

(Cont'd.)

Examples: "You shouldn't act like that."
"You ought to do this."
"You must always respect your elders."
"Don't ever interrupt a person when he's
reading."
"You have to learn to share."
"Always clean up after yourself."
"That's not a nice way to talk."

Advising, Recommending, Providing Answers or Solutions

Telling the child how to solve a problem, giving him
advice or suggestions, providing answers or solutions
for him.

Example phrases: "What I would do is...", "Why don't
you...", "Let me suggest...", "It would be best for you
to..."

Examples: "I suggest that you talk to your teacher

about it."
"Can't you put each thing away after you use
it."

Persuading with Logic, Arguing, Instructing, Lecturing

Trying to influence the child with facts, counter-
arguments, logic, information, or your own opinions.

Example phrases: "Do you realize...", "Here is why you

are wrong." "That is not right...", "The facts are...",

"Yes, but..."

Examples: "College can be the most wonderful experience
you'll ever have."
"Children must learn to get along with others."
"Let's look at the facts about college graduates."
"If kids learn to take responsibility around the
house, they'll grow up to be responsible adults."
"Look at it this way--your mother needs help
around the house."
"When I was your age, I had twice as much to
do as you."

Evaluating/Judging Negatively, Disapproving, Blaming,
Cricizing

Making a negative judgment or evaluation of the child.

Examples: "You are bad."
"You are lazy."
"You are not thinking straight."
"You are acting foolishly."
"You're very wrong about that."

9.

IO.

78

Praising, Judging/Evaluating Positively, Approving,
Agreeing

Offering a positive evaluation or judgment of the child,
agreeing.

Examples: "You are a good boy."
"That's good."
"I approve of...".
"Well, I think you're pretty smart."
"I agree with you."
"That's more like it."

Name-calling, Ridiculing, Shaming, Using Sarcasm, Making
Light of

Making the child feel foolish, putting the child into a
category, shaming him

Examples: "You're a spoiled brat."
"Look here, Mr. Smarty."
"You're acting like a wild animal."
"Okay, little baby."
"Get up on the wrong side of bed this morning."
"Cat got your tongue."

Diagnosing, Psycho-analyzing, Interpreting, Reading-in,
Offering insights

Telling the child what his motives are or analyzing why
he is doing or saying something; communicating that you
have him figured out or have him diagnosed.

Example phrases: "What you need is...", "What's wrong
with you is...", You're just trying to get attention
to...". "You don't really mean that...", "I know what
you need." "Your problem 18...".
Examples: "You're just jealous of Ginny."
"You're saying that to bug me."
"You don't believe that at all."
"You feel that way because you're not doing
well in school."
"You always want to play when I'm working."
"You must love to see how far you can go before
I get mad."
"You're trying to get my goat."

Supporting, Reassuring, Excusing, Sympathizing, Consoling,
Making Light of

Trying to make the child feel better, talking him out of
his feelings, trying to make his feeling go away, denying
the strength of his feelings

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

l4.

l5.

l6.

17.

79

(Cont'd.)

Examples: "It's not so bad."

"Don't worry."

"You'll feel better."

"That's too bad."

"You'll feel better tomorrow."

"All kids go through this sometime."

"I used to think that too."

"You could be an excellent student with your
potential."

Questioning, Probing, Cross-examining, Prying, Interro-
gating

Trying to find reasons, motives, causes; searching for
more information to help you solve the problem

Example phrases: "why...", "Who...", "Where...",
"pfhen. . 0 ll ’ "HOW"
Examples: "Why do you suppose you hate school?"
"Do the other kids tell you why they won't
play with you?"
"Who put that idea in your head?"
"What will you do if you don't go to college?"

Withdrawing, Distracting, Avoiding, Ignoring, Bypassing

Trying to get the child away from the problem; withdrawing
from the problem yourself; distracting the child or
pushing the problem aside.

Examples: "Let's not talk about it now."
"Not at the table."
"Just forget it."
"That reminds me..."
"We can discuss it later."
"We've been through all this before, let's not
go through it again."

Is there a statement of the child feelings?
"You seem sad." "You look happy."

Is there a statement of the adult feelings?
"I feel sad." "I am happy."

Is there a relating of child feelings to adult feelings?
"When you look upset, I become sad."

Is there a relating of child feelings to adult behavior?
"When you look upset, I try to cheer you up."

Is there a relating of child behavior to adult feelings?
"When you yell, I get angry."

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

80

Is there a relating of child behavior to adult behavior?
"When you yell, I tell you to stop."

Child given directions to change behavior now or in the
future.
"You must stop hitting your sister and apologize."

Is the child given specific directions regarding present
feelings-~the way to handle feelings now?
"If you are angry at your sister, tell her so, right now."

Is the child given specific directions regarding future
feelings--the way to handle feelings in the future?
"Whenever you get angry at your sister, you must tell
her so."

Is there an attempt to obtain more information regarding
child feelings?
"Can you tell me what you're upset about?

Is there an attempt to obtain more information regarding
child behavior?
"Tell me what happened."

Child given an alternative or compromise solution based
on mutual respect and cooperation.

"Next time we go shopping, we'll bring some fruit or
raisins with us that you may eat while we shop."

Control of the child exerted through a bribe or con-
tingency demand without mutual reciprocity.
"If you're good maybe I'll let you go."

Unrestricted compliance to child's needs, wishes, and

demands.
"I'll take you to the zoo right now.

Acceptance-Rejection Measure

1-5 Scale reflecting responses of Acceptance-Moving Towards,
Neutral, and Moving Against-Rejection.

5.

Very strong affective approach to child-~strong communica-

tion of acceptance moving towards.

a) Strong statement of adult feelings in a positive
manner. "I love you."

b) Verbal recognition and acceptance of child feelings.
"That really makes you feel good."

c) Questioning attempt to understand child feelings in an
accepting way. "I'm wondering if you're angry with me
for leaving?"

2.

81

Positive approach oriented response to child.

a) request for mutual interaction. "Let's watch TV
together." "Let's go outside and play as soon as we
finish the dishes." "Maybe we can go shopping together."
b) support, approval, comfort, consoling, encouragement.
"I hope you had a good day."

c) Questioning child about his behavior in an attempt to
understand "How was your day today?"

d) permission, compliance "I'll buy you one and let you
put it together." "You can have one later."

Neutral

a) information seeking "Will you help me put these
groceries away?" "What's on TV?"

b) opinions, explanations, reasons, facts, statements
that are not evaluative of child "You can't have a yo—yo
every time you ask for one."

o) limits controls, directions "Put the puzzle away until
after dinner." "Leave the puzzle alone."

Moving Away, against, mild rejection or unacceptance
a disapproval of child "You're wrong."

b unacceptance of child's feelings "You shouldn't be
angry at her."

cg moralizing

d criticism, withdrawal punishment, threatening

Statement of hate, condemnation, shaming, abusive
language, rejection of child

a) You're an idiot", "I'm going to stop feeding you."
"I hate you."

APPENDIX B

INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECT

APPENDIX B

INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECT

A series of adult-child interaction sequences are tape
recorded here. You are to imagine or pretend that you are the
parent (mother or father) of the child involved, who will be
a seven year old boy.

Your task is to respond exactly as you would if you
actually were in each of the situations. Imagine yourself
in the situation described and verbally respond to the child
as if you were in that situation and were having that dialogue
with him. Say the exact words that you would say to the child
and the experimenter will select an appropriate second child
response to which you are also to respond as if in a continu-
ing dialogue. Again, respond to the child as if you are
both actors in a play or movie. For example, do not say,
"I would help him with his homework", instead, for example,
say "I will help you with your homework for thirty minutes,
Bobby, then you can go outside to play until dinner."

Please feel free to make each response as long and
complete as you would like or feel you would naturally
respond. The tape will only take about five minutes for you
to complete. You are encouraged to role play and reflect the
same emotions and intensity in your voices as you might be
feeling in the actual encounter.

Rehearsal Dialogues

In order to become comfortable with the role playing
situation we will begin by practicing with two dialogues.
In these two rehearsals please respond to the person on tape
as if he were a friend of yours. Respond exactly as you think
you would if encountering this situation in real life. Make
each response as complete as you naturally would, expressing
the same feelings and thoughts you might be having if that
encounter were actually taking place.

82

83

1. It's a Saturday morning and you are walking through the
sporting goods dept. of Sears Roebuck when you see your
friend David looking over the bicycles. As you walk up to
greet him, he says to you:

Friend: Hi, look at these bikes. I'd sure like to get a new
one for this spring.

Subject:

Friend: My old one isn't much good anymore. I've been
looking bike stores over for a couple weeks now. It's fun
to shop around.

Subject:

2. You and your friend Don are just sitting down to eat
dinner. You've been working together all day and your friend
Don says to you:

Friend: "Boy, it sure does feel good to sit down, I'm really
tired and hungry."

Subject:

Friend: "It'll be good to just relax here for awhile. Gosh,
I've got a lot of things to do tonight when I get home."
Subject:

Parent-child Interaction Projective Test Script
SITUATION 1.

You have just returned home from an unhurried afternoon
of shopping. As you are standing in the kitchen and unpacking
the last packages onto the table, your seven year old son
comes in and says:

A.)

C. "Oh boy, I'm really glad you're home, I missed you lots
and lots. It always feels so good to be with you."

A.

C. "I'm going to stay here and help you put the groceries
away. It's fun to be with you because I love you."

B.)

C. "Oh boy, I'm really glad you're home, I missed you lots

and lots. It always feels so good to be with you."

A.

C. "Hey, pretty soon I'll be tall enough to reach up to the
cupboard and put the packages away. Well, I guess I'm going
to go outside and play for awhile now."

A.

84

C.)

C. "Oh boy, I'm really glad you're home, I missed you lots
and lots. It always feels so good to be with you."

A.

C. "Hey. There's not a Duncan yo-yo in here anywhere and
you know that I wanted one. I don't like you anymore, I
hate you, I hate your guts."

A.

D.)

C. "Hey, pretty soon I'll be tall enough to reach up to the

cupboard and put the packages away. Well, I guess I'm going

to go outside and play for awhile now."

A.

C. "You know, I'm really glad you're home, I missed you lots
and lots. It always feels so good to be with you."

A.

E.)

C. "Hey, pretty soon I'll be tall enough to reach up to
the cupboard and put the packages away. Well, I guess I'm
going to go outside and play for awhile now."

C. "My friend Bobby got a new bicycle and he's going to
ride over and show it to me. It's really neat."
A.

F.)

C. "Hey, pretty soon I'll be tall enough to reach up to the
cupboard and put the packages away. Well, I guess I'm going
to go outside and play for awhile now."

A.

C. "Hey, there's not a Duncan yo-yo in here anywhere and you
knew that I wanted one. I don't like you anymore. I hate
you. I hate your guts."

G.)

C. "Hey, there's not a Duncan yo-yo in here anywhere and
you knew I wanted one. I don't like you anymore, I hate
you. I hate your guts."

A.

C. "Oh I don't really care about that. I'm glad you're
home, I missed you lots and lots. It always feels so good
to be with you."

A.

H.)

C. "Hey, there's not a Duncan yo-yo in here anywhere and
you knew I wanted one. I don't like you anymore, I hate
you. I hate your guts."

A.

C. "Oh well, I guess I'll just go outside and play. My
friend Bobby got a new bicycle and he's going to ride over
and show it to me. It's really neat."

A.

85

I.)

C. "Hey there's not a Duncan yo-yo in here anywhere and you
knew I wanted one. I don't like you anymore, I hate you.

I hate your guts."

A.

C. "I told you I hate you and I mean it."

SITUATION 2.

You have been upstairs doing bookwork and hear your
seven year old son coming home from school. As you are
walking down the stairs to greet him, you see him standing in
the hallway and he says to you:

A.)

C. "Hi, it really feels good to see you. I like it when
you're here to see me when I get home. I love you so much."
A.

C. "I'm glad I have you. You're the most important person
to me in the whole world."

A.

B.)

C. "Hi, it really feels good to see you. I like it when
you're here to see me when I get home. I love you so much."
A.

C. "We played basketball at noon today. Well, I think I'm
going to watch TV for awhile now."

A.

C.)

C. "Hi, it really feels good to see you. I like it when
you're here to see me when I get home. I love you so much."
A.

C. "Hey, that's my puzzle on the living room floor. You
let my sister put it together and you knew I wanted to do

it alone. Get out of here, I hate you. You make me sick."
A.

D.)
C. "Hi, we played basketball at noon today. Well, I think
I'm going to watch TV for awhile now."

C. "You know, it really feels good to see you. I like it
when you're here to see me when I get home. I love you so
much."

A.

5:) "Hi, we played basketball at noon today. Well, I think
I'm going to watch TV for awhile now."

A. .
C. "Our class is going to go to the zoo with the first graders

86

E.) (Cont'd.)

next Monday. We're all going to go together on the big
county busses."

A.

F.)

C. "Hi, we played basketball at noon today. Well, I think
I'm going to watch TV for awhile now."

C. "Hey, that's my new puzzle on the living room floor.
You let my sister put it together and you knew I wanted to
do it alone. Get out of here, I hate you. You make me
sick."

A.

G.)

C. "Hey, that's my new puzzle on the living room floor.

You let my sister put it together and you knew I wanted to

do it alone. Get out of here, I hate you. You make me sick."
A.

0. "Oh, I don't really care about that. It really feels good
to see you. I like it when you're here to see me when I get
hcme. I love you so much."

H.)

C. "Hey, that's my new puzzle on the living room floor. You
let my sister put it together and you knew I wanted to do it
alone. Get out of here, I hate you. You make me sick."

A.

C. "Oh, I don't really care about that. I think I'm going
to watch TV for awhile now.

A.

I.)

C. "Hey, that's my new puzzle on the living room floor. You
let my sister put it together and you knew I wanted to do it
alone. Get out of here, I hate you. You make me sick."

A.

C. "I don't want you to talk to me. I hate you."

APPENDIX C

RATER INSTRUCTIONS FOR P.C.I.P.T. EQUALITY

APPENDIX C

RATER INSTRUCTIONS FOR P.C.I.P.T. EQUALITY

Describe each of the following statements as being
positive-loving (+), neutral-interfering (0), or negative-
hostile(-).

A positive-loving statement is a communication of
moving towards the other person - an affective approach
sta ement of love, care, need that would be positive or
enhancing to the recipient.

A neutral-interfering communication is a bid for
attention or acknowledgment, an interactive statement that
does not express either strong love, care, need or hate,
rejectIEn, anger to the recipient. It is rather a statement
of fact or intention.

A hostile-rejection statement is a moving away from
the other person in interaction. It is an Effective statement
of anger, dislike, hatred, or rejection, a "negative" communi-
cation.

 

Three rates obtained perfect agreement, r = 1.0.

On a scale of 1-5 rate how intense or strong the
statement is based on both its verbal content and tonal
expression.

Positive statements:

1. 2. 3. 4.

slightly more like or clear statement
positive than attraction of love, basic
neutral or no caring, or strong
affective-approach personal involve-
to other ment as expressed

in enthusiasm
towards or missing
and needing of
person

87

Neutral: no rating

Negative statements:

1. 2.
slightly more
negative than
neutral or no
affective
rejection of
other

88

'5.
displeasure
dislike

4.

5.
clear statement
of hatred, disgust,
rejection

Two rates obtained an agreement of (r) = .92 for Situation 1

and 1.0 for Situation 2.

PPEND IX D

TABLE I

89

APPENDIX D

Table 1. Inter-rater Reliability for Scoring Categories.

 

 

 

Rater Pairs Mean Category
Category I II III Reliability
1 .86 .95 .85 .88
2 - .95 .71 .82
5 .96 .94 .94 .95
4 .86 .96 .96 .95
5 .95 .91 .85 .90
6 .64 .89 1.00 .84
7 .94 .96 .97 .96
8 .95 1.00 1.00 .98
9 .82 .89 .86 .86
10 1.00 .81 .89 .90
ll .90 .88 .94 .91
12 1.00 .92 - .96
15 .92 .66 1.00 .86
14 .92 .94 .99 .95
15 .91 .70 .94 .85
16 1.00 - 1.00 1.00
17 1.00 .97 .95 .97
19 .92 1.00 .97 .96
20 " 063 " 063
21 - - - -
22 1.00 .90 1.00 .97
23 .96 .87 .92 .92
24' 090 "' 095 093
25 1.00 .65 .86 .85
26 .86 1.00 1.00 .95

 

Mean Reliability
for Rater Pair .92 .88 .93 .91

Inter Rater Reliability for Acceptance-Rejection Measure
Rater Pairs I II III Mean Reliability,
.86 .88 095 .89

APPENDIX E

TABLE II

90

APPENDIX E

Table II. Mean Category Usage and Standard Deviation for
the 25 Scoring Categories Utilized. 25 Scoring
Categories Ranked by Mean Usage with Std. Dev.

 

 

 

Rank Categopy Mean STD. DEV.
1 14 1.7611 1.9242
2 3 .9611 1.4887
3 19 .8389 1.3167
4 17 .7778 .8861
5 22 .7778 1.3184
6 11 .7500 1.3573
7 7 .7278 1.2633
8 l .6611 1.2779
9 5 .6662 1.1144

10 4 .5500 .8861

11 25 .4778 .9656

12 21 .4611 .9766

13 25 .2611 .7040

l4 15 .200 .6964

15 8 .1855 .7128

16 15 .1589 .4931

17 24 .1278 .5596

18 6 .1056 .4546

19 9 .1056 .4786

20 10 .1056 .6118

21 2 .0944 .5563

22 12 .0667 .3441

23 16 .0500 .2851

24 18 .0222 .1478

25 20 .0222 .1817

 

APPENDIX E

SUI-MARY OF FACTOR LOADING

91

samw.
mbbd.
meme.
hmOm.
dmoa.
omHm.
ammo.
eHwH.
mmmm.
mnem.
Omms.
mmOd.
wmee.
damm.
.2200

mNHN.I
m¢m0.|
OmOH.I
osmo.l
POOH.I
#mOH.I
mHNo.
mmHN.
momm.
N¢mo.l
ommo.
wm¢o.
VMHH.
¢Hmo.

w moeo<m

POHN.I
mon.
amma.l
#800».
hwwo.
NOMN.
*mbmm.
mOmO.I
*mm¢N.I
Nmmo.
N¢ooo
hmmH.I
mNmH.
mfldm.
m moeofim

Homo.l

*Pamm.l

oboe.
hwmo.
mwwa.
mmbo.
hmMH.I
ommo.l
meH.I
wao.l
memo.
mmm0.l
H580.
wemfi.l

¢ moao<m

*mfldm.

smmH.I
¢NNH.I
mmoo.l
5080.:
OOHO.

>HHH.I

*mmdm.|

Hemo.
dmmo.l
mHOH.I
ome.l
NSHO.
mmmo.

m moeo<m

wzHQ<OH moeo<m mo Mm<zzbm
m NHQmem<

mmmm.|
mmmO.I

*svmm.

mmmo.
mmHH.

*mem.

more.
NHOH.I
omma.
owHH.
mmma.l

*mmmw.
*mmmw.
*mmmm.
N moao<m

Hw¢H.I
>¢mH.I
bmmo.l

Omoo.
*ebom.
mmoa.
omma.

mbma.l

M¢NN.
*mmflr.
*mmmw.

ommm.

vmma.l

HHOm.

H moeoxm

Or-INM'd'
Hr-ir-ir-ir-i

r-INMd'LOKOL‘COm

.m<>
.m¢>
.m<>
.m<>
.m¢>
.m<>
.m¢>
.m¢>
.m¢>
.m¢>

.m«>
.m<>
.m4>

HNrfid'mKOPCDm

mGZHQ<OH MOEO<@ mme<eom

2
9

meo.
mmow.
momm.
¢m>m.
mmmw.
mwbm.
have.
mHNm.
when.
mmmm.
Hmwm.
. 220 0

HOOm.
tho.
Hmdb.
#mm0.I
*Hm¢r.
mH¢H.I
mOHN.I
*mmmm.l
NmH0.I
ommo.
*mmmm.
abHH.I
HmHo.I
HHmO.
m m080<@

mmmv.
mbho.
boon.
¢MHH.
ammo.l
mmNH.I
wmhl.
bmmo.l
m>m0.I
HM0H.I
mmmo.n
HmN0.I
vao.
hmm0.I
m MOBU<M

mmem.
meo.
hHmm.I
maHH.I
mm00.
*momm.l
ammo.
00m0.l
*Hmmd.l
@000.
meO.
mmmo.
*Hmmm.l
Hammol
H Moeo<m

hmbm.
NMPO.
0¢wm.
*¢¢NN.I
mmbH.I
mmom.l
mmmN.l
HwNH.I
Hrom.
*boom.t
0N¢0.l
*0¢mm.
meoo
*mmmm.
m m080<m

moom.
mmmo.
Nwmm.
emHo.
>m¢0.l
mwwo.
mNMH.I
mmmm.l
0m¢0.l
mbmo.l
mmmo.l
mmmH.I
mMH0.I
bemo.
m moaogm

NHOH.
NHOH.
mme.
mmaH.
owOH.I
ammo.l
*mOmm.I
mmmm.|
bwwH.
NmOO.
mmmo.
Hmmo.u
¢Hm0.
¢¢m0.I
H m090<@

.>.m

.200

.m¢> .momm

.040H .Hm

mm
¢N
mm
mm
HN
0N
mH
0H
NH
0H
mH

.m<>
.m¢>
.m<>
.m¢>
.m<>
.m¢>
.m¢>
.m<>
.m¢>
.m¢>
.m<>

mm
hm
mm
mm
em
mm
mm
Hm
0N
mH
mH
PH
0H
mH

A.e.psoov a aHazmaaa

APPENDIX G

TESTS OF SIMPLE EFFECTS

APPENDIX G

TESTS OF SIMPLE EFFECTS

Sex X Treatment 1 X Situation. The multivariate
analysis of variance reflected a significant (p.¢=.0260)
Sex X Treatment, X Situation interaction which was associ-
ated with a significant univariate effect for Factor II
(p<.0003). Tests of simple effects explored this inter-
action further.

The data were initially divided into each condition
of Situation and a two-way simple anova for Sex X Treatment
1 was performed. Looking within Situation 1 first, a
Treatment 1 main effect was established (F = 10.96*). The
reader is referred to the main body of the text where
individual comparisons between levels of the Treatment 1
effect are completed.

Looking within Situation II next, a significant
Treatment 1 X Sex interaction was obtained (3 = ll.88*).
This interaction was further broken down by dividing the
data into each condition of Sex. The results of this anova
revealed a nonsignificant Factor II usage for females (F =

2.78); but a significant usage for mates (F = 17.28*).

*significant at .01 level

93

94

No further analyses were then appropriate for female
responding, and the reader is referred to the text where
individual comparisons between Treatment 1 conditions for
males are completed.

Sex X Treatment 1 X Situation Order Interactiop. The
multivariate analysis of variance revealed a Sex X Treatment
1 X Situation Order interaction (p 4:.0345) which was
associated with a significant univariate effect for Factor
III (p<: .0005.) This complex interaction was explored
further via simple effects tests.

The data were first divided into each condition of
Situation Order and a two-way simple effects anova for Sex X
Treatment 1 was performed. Looking within Situation I Given
First, a Treatment 1 main effect was obtained (F = 51.75*).
A follow-up explanation of individual differences within
levels of Treatment 1 is presented in the text.

Within Situation II Given First, a Treatment 1 main
effect was again established (F = 52.05*). This significant
effect is further investigated in the main body of the
results.

Sex X Treatment 1 X Response. The multivariate analy-
sis reflected a significant Sex X Treatment 1 X Response
interaction (p4:,.0194) which was associated with a signifi-
cant univariate effect for Factor V (p<:1.0002). This complex
interaction was investigated further via simple effects

analysis.

95

The data were first divided into each level of Response
and a two-way simple effects anova for Sex X Treatment 1 was
performed. Within response 1, a significant Sex X Treatment
1 interaction was obtained (2 = 9.64*). The data from this
interaction were then divided into each condition of Sex.

The two-way anovas for sex revealed a significant Treatment
1 effect for males (3 = 4.19). No further analyses were then
appropriate for females, and individual comparisons between
Treatment 1 conditions for males are completed in the text.

No significant results were obtained within Response
2 as noted in the text.

Sax_X Treatment 1 X Treatment 2 X Situation X Situation
Qpaap. The multivariate analyses of variance revealed a
significant Sex X Treatment 1 X Treatment 2 X Situation X
Situation Order interaction (pa<1.0237) which was associated
with a univariate effect for Factor VII (p< .01). This
complex interaction was explored further via simple effects
analysis.

The data were first divided into each condition of
Situation and a four-way simple effects anova was then
computed. Looking within Situation I, the only significant
result was a Treatment 1 X Situation Order interaction (E =
5.41*). This result was investigated further by performing
a two-way anova within each condition of Situation Order.
There tests reflected a significant Treatment I effect for

both Situation I Given First (34 10.79) and for Situation

96

II Given First (F = 29.33*). The reader is referred to the
main body of the text where further investigation of within
Treatment 1 differences are given.

Looking within Situation II, no significant effects
are obtained as reported in the text.

Treatment 1 X Response. The multivariate analysis of

 

varience reflected a Treatment 1 X Response interaction
(p¢:..OOOl) which was associated with three unqualified uni-
variate effects: Factor II (p .0001), Factor III (p4
.0001*) and Factor VII (pg: .0001). These three interactions
were each explored further via simple effects analysis.

For all three univariate effects, the data were
divided into each condition of Response and a two-way anova

was performed. Within Response 1, a Treatment 1 main effect

was found for Factor 11 (F 47.15*), Factor III (2.:

185.82*) and Factor VII (F l52.58*). The reader is referred
to the main body of the text where direct comparisons between
Treatment 1 levels are presented.

No significant results were obtained within Response
2 as noted in the text.

Tpeatment l X Sitpation Order X Situation X Response.
The multivariate analysis of variance revealed a significant
Treatment 1 X Situation Order X Situation X Response inter-
action (p4c..0001) which was associated with three unqualified
univariate effects: Factor I (p4: .0001*), Factor IV (pp;
.0080), and Factor v (p4 .0048). These three univariate

effects were explored further via tests of simple effects.

97

For Factor I, the data were initially divided into
levels of Response. A three-way Treatment 1 X Situation Order
X Situation anova was performed and found significant (F =
21.98*). This result was then divided within each level of
Situation Order. This two-way anova found a significant
Treatment 1 effect for both Situationl (F = 6.15*) and
Situation II (E = 72.56*) Given First. The reader is
referred to the main text, where further investigation of
the Treatment I effects are presented.

Within Situation II, a two-way anova was again performed
for the Treatment 1 X Situation Order interaction. This
interaction was found significant (F = ll.46*) and the data
were further investigated within each condition of Situation
Order.

This two-way anova again reflected a significant
Treatment 1 effect for both Situation I (F = 48.59*) and
Situation II (F = 6.9*) Given First. There Treatment 1
effects are further investigated in the main body of the
text.

No significant results are obtained for Response 2,
as noted in the text.

For Factor IV, the data were divided into each level
of Response and a three-way anova was performed. Within
Response 1, a significant Treatment 1 X Situation Order X
Situation interaction (F = 7.67*) was obtained. This inter-
action was further broken down by looking within each

Situation condition. No significant results were obtained

98

for the Treatment 1 X Situation Order interaction for either
Situation I (g = 3.04) a Situation II (a = 1.73). No further
analyses are appropriate and any further statements about
Treatment 1 cannot be made appropriately, as noted in the
text.

Within response 2, again, no significant results were
obtained.

For Factor V, the data again were initially divided
into each level of Response, and a three-way anova was
performed. Within Response 1, the Treatment 1 X Situation
Order X Situation interaction was significant (F = 5.55*).
This result was further broken down by looking within each
condition of Situation.

Looking within Situation I, a Treatment 1 main effect
was found (3 = 8.16*). Within Situation II, a Treatment 1
main effect was also found (F = 10.78*). The reader is
referred to the text where individual comparisons between
levels of Treatment 1 are presented for both Situations
Conditions.

No significant results were obtained for Response 2
as noted in the text.

Treatment 2 X Response. The multivariate analysis of
variance reflected a Treatment 2X Response interaction (p4.
.0001) which was associated with three univariate effects:
Factor I (p4 .0001), Factor II (p4 .0001), and Factor III
(p<: .0001). Each of these results was investigated further

via simple effects analysis.

99

For all three Factors, the data initially were divided
into each Response condition and a two-way anova was per-
formed. Looking within Response 1, no significant Treatment
2 effects were found, as noted in the text.

Within Response 2, a Treatment 2 main effect was
found for Factor I (F_= 20.92*), Factor II (F = 66.0*) and
Factor III (F= l82.6*). The reader is referred to the main
body of the text, where individual comparisons between each
Treatment 2 level for all three Factors is presented.

Treatment 2 X Situation Order X Situation. The multi-
variate analysis of variance reflected a Treatment 2 X
Situation Order it Situation interaction (2‘: .0001) which
was associated with a univariate effect for Factor I (p4
.0001). This interaction effect was explored further via
simple effects analysis.

The data initially were divided into each condition
of Situation and a two-way anova computed. Within Situation
I, this test found the Treatment 2 X Situation Order inter-
action significant (F = 6.99*).

This result was further broken down by looking at the
data within each level of Situation Order. No Treatment 2
effect was found for Situation I Given First (F41), but
a significant effect for Situation II Given First was found
(F = l3.97*). The reader is referred to the text where

further investigation of this Treatment 2 effect is presented.

lOO

Within Situation II, the two-way anova again found
the Treatment 2 X Situation Order interaction significant
(F = 4.86*). This result was further investigated by
dividing the data into each condition of Situation Order.
A Treatment 2 effect was established for Situation I Given
First (F = ll.72*), but not for Situation II Given First
CF41 l). The reader is referred to the text where the

significant interactions are explored further.

31293 31

 

mum/Hum;nmummy!)111114131144u