; THE RELATION 0F PARENTAL
VALUE ORIENTATSON T0 SELFv-ESTEEM.
OF THE CHILD -

§Wtion for the Degree of M; Ag. _
MICHEGAN STATE UNNERSITY.
VINCENT JOSEPH HOFFMAN .
1973

ABSTRACT

THE RELATION OF PARENTAL VALUE ORIENTATION
TO SELF-ESTEEM OF THE CHILD

BY

Vincent Joseph Hoffman

McKinney (1971) suggests that in addition to the
parental discipline dimension (reward and punishment)
affecting the child's acquisition of moral values, the
parent's value orientation also has an effect on the
child's formation of values. He describes two components,
prescription and proscription, of this parental value
orientation. Prescriptive value orientation stresses the
"thou shalts" of parental demands on the child's behavior,
what the child should do; and proscriptive value orienta-
tion stresses the "thou shalt nots" relating to the
child's behavior. One might compare the prescriptive
orientation to the New Testament councils given in the
Sermon on the Mount, while the proscriptive value orienta-
tion would correspond to the Old Testament's Ten Command-
ments. The prescriptive parent rewards the child for
dgigg'what he should and punishes the child for not doing

what he should. The proscriptive parent rewards the child

Vincent Joseph Hoffman

for avoiding doing what he should not do, and punishes the
child for g2i2g_what should not be done

Coopersmith (1967) showed that the child's self-
concept is affected by the parent-child interaction, and,
more specifically, that the parent as disciplining has an
effect on the development of the child's self-esteem.

The present study investigated the relationship
of parental value orientation to the child's self-esteem.
It was hypothesized that prescriptively value oriented
parents would tend to have high self-esteem children,
while proscriptively value oriented parents would tend to
have low self-esteem children. To test the hypotheses,
parents of 84 suburban-urban public school children (9-11
years old) completed a value orientation questionnaire,
and their children were tested on Coopersmith's Self-
Esteem Inventory.

The major findings of this research were: 1) Par-
ental value orientation showed no significant relationship
to the child's self-esteem, either when the parents were
prescriptively rewarding or punishing, or when they were
proscriptively rewarding or punishing; 2) sex of the child
had no bearing either on value orientation of the parent
or on variation in the children's self-esteem scores;

3) the parent as rewarding had a significant relationship

to self-esteem in the child, there being a negative

Vincent Joseph Hoffman

correlation between the parent as rewarding and the
child's self-esteem.

It was concluded that though the use of the
present value orientation instrument did not bring out
the hypothesized relationship between parental value
orientation and the child's self-esteem, a variation of
the value orientation questionnaire as well as the age
variable of the child could possibly show conclusive
results in line with the hypotheses. In addition, the
research pointed to further study of the effect of par—
ental reward on self-esteem in the child, as well as the

direction of this effect.

Approved:

 

Date:

 

THE RELATION OF PARENTAL VALUE ORIENTATION

TO SELF-ESTEEM OF THE CHILD

BY

Vincent Joseph Hoffman

A DISSERTATION

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1973

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Dr. John McKinney

Dr. Lawrence Messé
Dr. Jean Gullahorn
Dr. Anthony Olejnik

Mary

Thank you for your interest, guidance, and patience.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I V
INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O O 1

Parental Intervention and Moral Development
of the Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Psychoanalytic Theory Explanation . . . . .
Learning Theory Explanation . . . . . . . .
Cognitive-Developmental Theory Explanation

Parental Effect on the Child's Self-Concept .

Parental Discipline Techniques as Promoting
Moral DevelOpment, and Their Effect on
Self-Esteem of the Child . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Prescriptive-Proscriptive Value Orientation . . . 16

The Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
The Relationship Between Parental

Prescriptive-Proscriptive Value Orienta-
tion and Self-Esteem of the Child . . . . . . 18
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

o o o o o
O‘LUMNN

METHOD 0 C O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 1

Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Child's Self-Esteem Measure . . . . . . . . . . 23
Parent Value Orientation Measure . . . . . . . 23
Statistical Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . 24

RESULTS 0 O C O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 6

Return Rate . . . .‘. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Relation of Paired Parent (Both Parents)
Covariates to Child's Self-Esteem . . . . . . 27
Relation of Mother Variables Alone to the
Child's Self-Esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Sex of Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

iii

DISCUSSION O O I O O O O O O O O O O O

The Value Orientation Measure . . .

Age of Child Subjects . . . . . . .

The Reward-Self-esteem Relationship

Implications for Future Research .
APPENDIX

A. COVER LETTER TO PARENTS . . . .

B. SELF-ESTEEM INVENTORY . . . . .

C. VALUE ORIENTATION MEASURE . . .

REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O 0

iv

Page

38
39
41
42

Table

1.

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Intercorrelation Matrix for Paired
Parent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Intercorrelation Matrix for Mother
Variables Alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

INTRODUCTION

The function of the parent-child interaction as
being a direct and critical factor in the child's
acquisition of moral values has been substantiated by a
great deal of research, such that this factor is almost
a "given” in most psychological theories which attempt to
explain moral development. It would seem too that the
child's formation of self-concept, more specifically of
his self—esteem, is at least indirectly affected by
parental methods of imparting values to the child.
Perforce, because of the rapid social changes in the past
25 years and the resulting tensions within the family and
on the individual in society, continued research in the
areas of (l) moral development in the child, and (2) the
parental role as affecting this development are issues of
more than academic concern. Such research is of extreme
importance not only to the mental health of the individual
child but to his general development and to that of

society as a whole.

Parental Intervention and
MoraI Development of tHe Child

 

 

Psychoanalytic Theory
Explanation

Psychoanalytic theory has provided the main theo-
retical inspiration and over-all direction for most of
the research on the role of the parent in shaping and
determining moral character (Freud, 1959; Hoffman, 1970).
Basically psychoanalytic theory proposes that the child in
experiencing environmental frustrations, especially with
the parent, vents his frustrations in unacceptable behavior.
The parent attempts to control such behavior and bring it
in line with accepted social norms. The child reacts to
the control with hostility but, for fear of punishment
and/or loss of love, he represses his hostility. In order
to receive the parent's love the child continues to
repress his hostility. The result of such repression is
the adoption by the child of the parent's rules and pro-
hibitions. A generalized motive is formed in the child
to emulate and adopt the inner state of the parent (inter-
nalization). The child experiences guilt feelings (super-
ego functioning) when he has broken the parent-imposed
rules, or he feels satisfaction (ego-ideal functioning)

from following parental rules. These concepts, superego

and ego-ideal, are the components of conscience in modern

psychoanalytic theory.

Learning Theory
Explanation

Learninggtheory also concentrates on the parent-

 

child interaction in explaining the acquisition of moral
values (Bandura & McDonald, 1963). Learning theory asserts
that certain conditions of parental punishment bring about
feelings of anxiety and inhibition of deviant responses
from the child. Appropriate responses are reinforced,
and through habit generalization the conditional learning
from the parent will be generalized by the child outside
the home. This carry-over to parent-absent activities
denotes internalization of parental moral standards, i.e.,
conscience formation (Bandura & Walters, 1963; Hill, 1960;
Kohlberg, 1963). Some investigators question the validity
of the internalization construct (Hartshorne & May, 1938),
and even the need for it (Reis, 1966; Sanford, 1953).
Cognitive-Developmental
Tfieory Explanation

The cognitive-developmental approach to moral
development is exemplified by the work of Piaget (1932)
and Kohlberg (1963). Unlike the aforementioned theories,

Piaget places no great stress on the parent-child

interaction dimension, but as Piaget notes: "In order
to remove all traces of 'realism' [in the child], one
must place one's self on the child's own level, and give
him a feeling of equality by laying stress on one's own
obligations and deficiencies [p. 133]." Piaget makes it
clear that the parent could play a signifiCant role in
the child's moral development if the parent would provide
the means for interaction with the child in a less
authoritarian fashion. Through this more peer-like
parent-child interaction the parent might have a more
salient role in moving the child from the condition of
moral heteronomy toward that of moral autonomy (Hoffman,
1970). As can be interpreted from the following outline
of Piaget's theory, authoritarian parental interaction
with the child seems to have the effect of keeping the
child in the stages of pre-moral development (Havighurst
& Neugarten, 1955). It might be said that at least by
default the parent affects moral development by the lack of
peer interaction with the child. Consequently the child
forms moral values through a process of peer relationships
with his playmates. It seems appropriate for these rea-
sons to include Piaget's theory here.

Piaget suggests that moral development arises
from a combination of maturity of cognitive faculties and

an action process on the part of the child. As the child

is exposed to new and different social experiences there
is a development of certain cognitive capacities. The
cognitively undeveloped child is hampered by egocentrism
and by "realism" (confusion of subjective and objective
aspects of experience). As a result of egocentrism the
child perceives everyone as viewing a particular act the
same way as he. "Realism" causes the child to perceive
rules as rigid and unchangeable in all situations. His
love, respect, and dependence regarding his parents (a
heteronomous relationship) compel him to obey parental
rules as absolute and fixed. As the child develops
(biologically and cognitively) decentration takes place.
He begins to see himself as a separate individual from
others whom he later perceives as separate individuals.
"Realism" yields to reciprocity. The child begins to put
himself in the place of another and realizes that others
may perceive an event differently from himself. His con-
ception of authority broadens and heteronomy is replaced
by autonomy. This cognitive change affecting moral
development is facilitated by interaction with peers.

The social experience thus stimulates and challenges the
child to reorganize pre-existing patterns of moral thought.
Change in moral orientation is the result of this reorgani-

zation of cognitive structures and not something imposed

from without (e.g., the parent) as proposed by psychoanalytic

and social-learning theory.

Parental Effect on the
m

Evaluative self-attitudes are significant deter-
minants of several social behaviors, and there seems to be
an important association between self-attitude and the
person's values (Coopersmith, 1967). Coopersmith suggests
that persons who regard themselves negatively will be
inclined to be intropunitive and passive in adapting to
environmental demands and pressures; while those who place
a higher value on themselves will adopt a more active and
assertive position.

James (1898) made some of the first and clearest
generalizations about self-esteem. He held that human
aspirations and values are essential in determining whether
we regard ourselves favorably, and he understood the
importance of one's own values and the value placed on the
extensions of self, as important to a positive self-concept.
The sociologist, Mead (1934), also dealt with self-esteem,
and suggested that it is largely derived from the reflected
appraisal of others. Among the neo-Freudians, Horney
(1945, 1970) focused on interpersonal processes and ways

of warding off these self-demeaning feelings which are

sources of low self-esteem. She held that a disturbance
between parent and child is a common antecedent of the
conditions surrounding negative self-concept. Adler (1927)
cited three antecedent conditions which negatively affect
the development of self-esteem: organ inferiorities and
differences in size and strength; lack of acceptance, sup-
port, and lack of encouragement by parents and immediate
friends; and (the opposite extreme of non-support) over-
indulgence and pampering of the child.

g.Rosenberg (1965) made one of the first empirical
studies of self-esteem and showed that while broader social
forces have little impact on the development of self-
esteem in children, parental attitudes and behaviors do
influence self-esteem. Carlson (1963) tested pre-adolescents
and cited Ausubel's satellization theory (1952) as a valid
model of identification of the child with the parent as a
source of value development. She concluded that when the
child is able to use parental support as a basis for iden-
tification, such support contributes to the development
of self-esteem in the child.

The above citations seem to show that from the very
beginning of self-esteem formation, the child's perception
of himself is determined by others' perceptions of him.
His perception of personal worth is a "mirror image" of

the response by others to him, whether these others be

parents, teachers, or peers (Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934;
Sullivan, 1953). But because of the child's dependency on,
and constant interaction with the parent, the latter is
of over-riding importance in determining the child's self-
esteem (Brickenridge & Vincent, 1968; Coopersmith, 1967).

Coopersmith's work, The Antecedents of Self-Esteem,
is the most comprehensive empirical research done to date
on self-esteem.1 His subjects, fifth grade school children,
were tested on a specially developed Self-Esteem Inventory
which gave a subjective measure of self-esteem. The
research considered the following: (1) general conditions
affecting development of self-esteem; (2) how persons dif-
fering in self-esteem relate with other individuals;
(3) the relationship between self-esteem and various
parental characteristics; (4) the characteristics of the
child himself; (5) parent-child relationships along four
dimensions of acceptance, permissiveness, democratic
practices and independence, as affecting the child's self-
esteem.

Coopersmith found that mothers of children with
high self—esteem were more accepting of the child, and

this acceptance was expressed in daily manifestations of

 

1For purposes of this study self-esteem is defined
as: ”. . . a personal Judgment of worthiness that is
expressed in attitudes the individual holds toward himself.
. . . a subjective experience which the individual conveys
to others by verbal reports and other overt expressive
behavior [Coopersmith, 1967, p. 5]."

concern, affection, and a general close relationship
between parent and child. These mothers consistently
enforced rules, used appropriate punishment, as opposed
to harshgtreatment or withholding of love; and the child
perceived these punishments as just. Parent's treatment
of the child was non-coercive and took into account the
rights and opinions of the child. Independence of the
child was respected but consisted of a balance between
protectiveness and encouragement of autonomy for the child.
In contrast, the mothers of low self-esteem
children were withdrawn from the child, inattentive,
neglectful, and depreciated the child. These mothers were
less affectionate and accepting (and their child saw them
as such), were less likely to fondle or caress their
infants, set poorly defined and few limits on behavior
for the child.

1 The high self-esteem child himself showed indepen-
dent judgment, social independence, creativity; considered
novel ideas and showed assertion and vigorous action. Such
a child seemed to form friendships more easily, was not
over-self-conscious and was less preoccupied with self.

The low self-esteem child showed lack of self-
trust, did not wish to expose himself in a group or attract
attention, and feared angering others. He preferred with-

drawal, was passive in a group, was very self-conscious

10

and preoccupied with his own problems, and as a result
was less attentive of others, less friendly and supportive
of relationships.

Related to the above, Coopersmith states:

. . . families of children with high self-esteem not only
establish the closest and most extensive set of rules, but
are also the most zealous in enforcing them. This estab-
lishes the authority of the parent, defines the environ-
ment, and provides standards by which the child can judge
his competence and progress. Parental treatment within
these limits is noncoercive and recognizes the rights and
opinions of the child. His views are sought, his opinions
are respected, and concessions are granted to him if dif-
ferences exist. . . . the pattern for the low esteem group
included in this study [shows] parents do not express their
authority to their children or express it_so vaguely that
it lacks clarity and force. This may reflect uncertainty
about their own standards or immaturity, or a neglectful
attitude toward their children. . . . they do not provide
the external standards from which inner controls are farmed.
. . . the lack of standards and the accompanying disrespect-
ful treatment that prevail in these families cause their
children to feel uncertain of whether and when they have
succeeded and to feel insignificant and powerless [Cooper-
smith, 1967, pp. 214-215]. ’

It is clear that parental control over the child
is an important factor in promoting self-esteem. In
addition, a greater degree of freedom for the child does
not correlate with high self-esteem in the child. Here
independence seems related to lack of parental concern or

inability to cope with the demands of child raising.

11

Parental Discipline Techniques as
Promoting Moral Development! and?
Their Effect on_Se1f-Esteem
of the Child

 

 

 

Having suggested that the parent is directly
involved in the child's development of values and that
the parent is likewise important in the child's develop-
ment of self-esteem, it seems that the parent by inter-
vening in the child's formation of values may at the same
time affect the child's self-esteem.

In general, theories of moral development hold
that at one stage or another of the child's moral develop-
ment the parent uses discipline techniques to promote moral
behavior with the hoped for result that the child will take
on the values of the parent and become morally "indepen-
dent," i.e., the child will come to act in a morally
acceptable way in all situations he encounters. This
internalization of moral values is accomplished on the
parent's part through reward and punishment. As noted
above, the psychoanalytic model defines conscience as an
internalization of the rewarding parent (ego-ideal) and
the punishing parent (superego), and learning theory
employs the concepts of positive and negative reinforce-
ment, i.e., reward and punishment.

On the part of the parents several factors are

involved in moral development, and all have an effect on

12

the child. The parent's emphasis on rewarding and
positive techniques, or their opposite which emphasize
punishment and negative orientation in discipline, make
up the components of one factor. The negative, always—
punishing parent not only does not furnish a sufficient
base for internalization of values, but affects the
child's self-esteem negatively. The child is sensitized
to the "necessity of anticipating the responses of adult
authority in order to avoid punishment, thus making his
developing system of controls responsive to external
rather than internal forces [Hoffman, 1970, p. 330]."
Regarding self-esteem Coopersmith concluded that mothers
of children with high self-esteem favored a positive
approach to discipline and believed that reward is more
effective than punishment (1967, p. 190).

Allied with this factor of discipline emphasis
of punishment and reward are the techniques parents

utilize in enforcement. Induction (Hoffman, 1967) or

__‘H_-
W”.

management (Coopersmith, 1967) techniques are those in
which the parent takes time to explain toCt‘l'child at

his own level the human consequence: - -s actioi:.

 

Oh: same \
es needed

tie parent

 

 

 

13

is seen as an appropriate model with whom to identify and
recognition of the child as an individual capable of
independent action is sustained. Such procedures employed
by parents of children with high self-esteem facilitate
the development of independent and effective behavior, and,
finally, these procedures are most effective in achieving
the desired goal of discipline (Coopersmith, 1967,

pp. 191-192).

Power assertion as a means of discipline is the
second factor which could affect moral development. It
includes physical punishment, deprivation of material
objects or privileges, the direct use of force. #The
parent controls the child by use of physical power or
control over material resources. Power assertion has a
highly punitive quality and physical punishment or threat
of it is central. Sears (1965) and Hoffman (1970) found
that power assertion did not promote identification with
the parent: figower assertion, especially in the absence
of compensating affection, fosters the image of the parent
as an arbitrary, punitive, and unrewarding person--some-
one to be avoided rather than approached and emulated
[Hoffman, p. 331]."

Coopersmith found that power assertion not only
negatively affects self-esteem, but that parents who used

this technique were less restrictive with their child,

l4

and that the lack of restrictiveness is interpreted by
thexchild as a lack of concern for his welfare (Cooper-
smith, 1967, p. 197).

A third type of parental discipline is loves
withdrawal in which the "parent simply gives direct but
“non-physical expression to his anger or disapproval of
the child for engaging in some undesirable behavior, e.g.,
turning his back on him, explicitly stating a dislike for
the child, and isolating or threatening to leave him
[Hoffman, 1967, p. 285]." In some ways this technique is
more devastating to the child's self-esteem than power
assertion, since power assertion ends when the punishing
act is over, while love-withdrawal may be prolonged,
variable, or unpredictable. As a result the child may be
embued with an unhealthy sense of guilt, an over-dependency
on the parent, and an overwhelming anxiety, all of which
militate against promoting self-esteem in the child
(Lipsit, 1958; Doris, 1959; Bruce, 1958; Bandura et al.,
1961).

Coopersmith found that mothers of children with
low self-esteem used love withdrawal techniques three times
more often than_mothers of children with high selffesteem.

Cognitive developmental theory of moral develop-
ment would seem to be in line with the inductive method

of discipline since induction stresses the importance of

15

cognitive developmental processes. Apparently no research
has been done to discover whether present day democratic
practices of parents toward children tend to foster a
”peer”-type interaction, but it would seem a logical out-
come of these practices. If autonomous morality develops
through peer interaction (Piaget, 1932), then an early
peer-like interaction with one's parents should promote
autonomous morality in the child. As noted earlier,
Piaget allows for the increase of importance of the
parent-child interaction as positively affecting moral
growth in the child if the parent would interact more at
the level of the child.

Regarding the effects of punishment there appears
to be no difference between parents of high and low self-
esteem children as to the frequency of punishment and
reward. The type of punishment and its severity, as well
as consistency (Sears et al., 1957) of discipline, seem
to be factors affecting self-esteem. The child's belief
that parents are fair in their actions and that they do
not exercise their power and strength in an unwarranted
and abusive manner has important implications for the child.
If parents are fair in their disciplinary techniques the
child feels more personal significance, and this should con-
tribute to heightened self-esteem (Radke, 1946; CoOpersmith,

1967).

Afltf“ 16

A))¥- xi"
,../ — ; r——l'

//”"fiu‘\"ax MW"; ““‘“”‘\\
gPrescriptiyeiProscriptivejValue Orientation
1; "Elle \ f/l

Hth .4
WM

 

As was suggested above, parents have an effect on
the moral development of their child through their control
of his behavior. Further, reward and punishment in
enforcing controls over the child is an important factor
in the child's internalizing moral values (MacRae, 1954;
Johnson, 1962; Gutkin, 1973). McKinney (1971) suggested
that in addition to the reinforcement dimension of reward-
punishment there is also a behavioral orientation dimen-
sion of right-doing and wrong-doing in parental discipline.
McKinney's conceptualization of this dimension parallels a
distinction made by sociologists concerning the norms
which guide the behavior of individuals in any organiza-
tion, namely, the "thou shalts," or standards of behavior
to which all members of the organization mg§t_subscribe
(prescribed norms), and the "thou shalt nots," or behaviors
which are forbidden (proscribed norms) (Mott, 1965). The
behavior orientation dimension proposed by McKinney com~
prises two factors, proscription and prescription.

McKinney's behavioral dimension as applied to moral
development in the child suggests that: (l) a parent who
emphasizes proscriptive behavior tends to reward the child

for the avoidance of wrong doing and punish the child for

 

doing wrong; (2) a parent who emphasizes prescriptive

behavior tends to reward the child for doing what should

17

be done, and punish the child for ngt doing what he
should. The proscriptive factor has a negative valence,
and.emphasizes passivity, and the prescriptive factor has
a positive valence, and emphasizes activity. In pro-
scription the avoidance of behavior is rewarded and its
commission is punished, while in prescription the com—
mission of an act is rewarded and its omission is
punished.

Having developed a measuring instrument which
elicited information about prescriptive and proscriptive
behaviors, McKinney (1971) found that there are reliable
differences among individual college students, i.e.,
there are individuals with a prescriptive value orienta-
tion and others with a proscriptive value orientation.
Olejnik (1973) used a different measure in testing parents
of nursery school aged children. He found clear evidence
of the prescriptive-proscriptive orientation in the
parents, and that parents who emphasized prescriptive
values tended to have altruistic children while parents
who emphasized proscriptive values tended to have less

altfuistic children at school.

18

The Present Study

The Relationship Between
Parental Prescriptive-
Proscriptive Value Orientation
and Self-Esteem of the CEIId—_'

Studies of the reward-punishment dimension in
moral development show that parental reward and punishment
relate to the child's self-esteem. The present study \
attempts to evaluate the prescriptive-proscriptive value
orientation of the parent insofar as it too may relate to
the child's self-esteem. V

The prescriptive-proscriptive dimension implies
a certain behavioral quality as present in the parent-
child interaction which initiates in the parent and has
possible effects on the child's behavior, e.g., altruism
(Olejnik, 1973). The prescriptive parent would seem to
be more positive in his behavioral expectations of the
child in stressing what should be done, while the pro—
scriptive parent's expectations of the child would seem
more negative in stressing avoidance behavior in the child.
Olejnik's study reported that prescriptive parents were
more rewarding than the proscriptive parents, and this
too implies a more positive atmosphere created by the
parent. The generally rewarding and positive environment

contributes to the growth of self-esteem in the child as

was shown above.

19

The child whose parents are prescriptive perceives
that he is rewarded for dging_something and punished for
what he does not do. Here there is an element of activity,
a tendency to action. The child of a proscriptive parent
perceives that his rewards proceed from non-doing, avoid-
ing doing wrong, and punishment comes from gging (the
wrong thing). The rewarded child of prescriptive parents
would see himself as having an effect on his environment
to a much greater extent than the child of proscriptive
parents who is rewarded for avoidance behavior. Such feel-

ings of effectiveness or competence may play a part in

the child's formation of self-esteem.
Hypotheses

From this background of information there seems

to be enough evidence to test the following hypotheses:
General Hypothesis

Prescriptively value oriented parents will tend
to have high self-esteem children; proscriptively value
oriented parents will tend to have low self-esteem chil-

dren.

20

Specific Hypotheses

l. The prescriptively rewarding parent will tend to
have a high self-esteem child.

2. The prescriptively punishing parent will tend to
have a high self-esteem child.

3. The proscriptively rewarding parent will tend to
have a low self-esteem child.

4. The proscriptively punishing parent will tend to

have a low self-esteem child.

The specific hypotheses derive from the unique
breakdown of the independent measure, the value orienta-

tion measure, as explained below in the Method section.

METHOD

Subjects

Contact was made in person with the district
school superintendent and grade school principals of an
urban midwestern school district for the necessary per-
mission to conduct the study. Parent school committees
as well as individual teachers of the students involved
were also consulted, since the self-esteem measure is
a sensitive one, and school authorities are anxious that
there be no ill effects to the student.

All subjects in the study were kept anonymous by
means of a numbered code system, the code number on the
parent questionnaires matching that of the child's. Each
teacher kept a list with the child's name and correspond-
ing parent code number, and when the experimenter handed
the appropriately numbered questionnaire to the child,
the list of children's names was destroyed.

.Children of both sexes in the 9-11 age group were
selected as subjects (potential) as it was felt that they
had developed to the point of being able to assess their

self-esteem, were well along in developing some personal

21

22

values, and were relatively free of the stresses and
disequilibrium which characterize adolescence. Their
parents' values and control would still have a major
influence over the child at this age even as the child is

interacting with his expanding environment.

Procedure

With the cooperation of the teachers, each child
carried home a letter (see Appendix A) to their parents
asking each parent to participate in a study on parent-
child interaction. Along with the letter were copies of
the Value Orientation Measure which each parent was asked
to fill out separately and return to the school, either by
their child or through the mail. Also a slip to be signed
was enclosed with the other material which would authorize
the child to complete a questionnaire at school. The
parents were advised to keep their 9-11 year old child in
mind when completing the questionnaire. A total of 250
parent couples (paired parents) were contacted.

At a later date, when all parents who agreed to
participate had returned the materials, their children
were gathered during school hours as a group in their
respective schools. The children were asked by the experi-
menter to aid him in helping children like themselves by
completing the questionnaire. No other mention was made

about the questionnaire (the Value Orientation Measure).

23

Instruments
Child's Self-Esteem Measure

Coopersmith's (1967) Self-Esteem Inventory was
used to evaluate the self—esteem level of the child sub-
jects. A sample of this measure may be seen in Appendist.
The measure consists of 58 items which tap several aspects
of self-esteem: general self, social self-peers, home-
parents, and school academics. There is a lie scale (five
items). One total score is used to measure self-esteem.
The child simply checks "like me" or "unlike me" as a
response to the written statements presented him. The
measure is scored by giving points for each "correct
answer," i.e., for each statement checked which reflects
high self-esteem. Scores may vary from 0 to 100. Cooper-\
smith found that the mean for both sexes did not vary sig-
nificantly (Mean: Boys, 71.5; Girls, 70).

Parent Value Orientation
Measure

This measure (see Olejnik & McKinney, 1973) con-
sists of a questionnaire with 24 behaviors obtained from
parents regarding good and bad boys and girls. The parent
checks off on a scale of one to five how much he (she)
would reward or punish a particular behavior. The items

to be checked are listed in random order with six items

24

for each of the following behaviors: (1) prescriptive
punishment, (2) prescriptive reward, (3) proscriptive
reward, and (4) proscriptive punishment. This division

is necessary because the measure as presently made up
employs discipline emphasis (reward and punishment) in
bringing out the value orientation emphasis (prescription-
proscription). The division attempts to control for
potential confounding of the two dimensions of value
orientation and discipline emphasis. Four scores are

thus obtained from the measure and consist of total points
on the scales for each of the four groups of behaviors.

A sample of the Value Orientation Measure may be seen in

Appendix C.1
Statistical Design of the Study

Multiple regression (linear) analysis was used to
measure the relation between the dependent measure, self-
esteem of the child, to the four covariates of the
independent measure, value orientation of the parents.

An analysis was done on both parents together, and on
mothers alone, as it was assumed that in some instances

only the mother would participate. Possible sex

 

1For the reader's information the different
behaviors are identified in the margin by a "PR" for
prescriptive reward, "OR" for proscriptive reward, "PP"
for prescriptive punishment, and "OP" for proscriptive
punishment.

25

differences for the child subjects as affected by the

value orientation were computed.

RESULTS

Return Rats

Of the 500 questionnaires sent to the parents,
in 65 cases both parents (paired parents) replied. In
addition 19 individual mothers sent back completed ques-
tionnaires. Thus a total of 84 mothers and 65 fathers
were involved in the final stages of the study, and the
corresponding 84 children of these parents were measured

on self-esteem.
Analysis of the Data

Multiple regression analysis results. The fol-
lowing results were obtained using self-esteem (SE) as
the dependent variable with the following independent
variables (covariates): Prescriptive-reward mother (PRM),
prescriptive-punishment mother (PPM), prescriptive-reward
father (PRF), prescriptive-punishment father (PPF),
proscriptive-punishment mother (OPM), proscriptive-reward
mother (ORM), proscriptive-reward father (ORF),
proscriptive-punishment father (OPF), and sex of child

(SEX).

26

27

Relation of Paired Parent
(Both Parents) Covariates
to C 11 s Seif-Esteem (n = 65)

 

Table 1 shows the correlation matrix for the
paired parent covariates and self-esteem. Observation
of the matrix shows that prescriptive orientation of the
parents, either as rewarding or punishing (PRM, PPM, PRF,
PPF) showed no positive relationship to the dependent
variable (SE), offering no support for the hypotheses
relating to prescription of parents. Proscription of
parents, both as rewarding and punishing (ORM, OPM, ORF,
OPF), did show a negative relation to the child's self-
esteem, but the strength of the relationship comes pri-
marily from the parents as rewarding. Subsequent linear
regression analysis showed this reward effect. No support
was indicated for the hypotheses relating to proscription
of parents.

An unexpected finding revealed that parents as
rewarding, regardless of value orientation (PRM, ORM, PRF,
ORF), had a negative relationship to self-esteem in the
child. The linear regression analysis showed this to be
significant at the .022 level (P = 3.1). No significant
result appeared when value orientation was controlled for
parents as punishing, which gives added significance to

this peculiar finding on the reward dimension.

28

mm

HH.I

Nmm

MH.I em.l NH.I

ma. mm. ma.

I Ah. cm.
I mm.

mmo mmo SAC

moanmwum> sconce omuflmm How xwuumz coaumaounoonmucH

ZMO

mH.I

mm.
mm.
mm.
Hm.

mmm

Ame H av

a manna

hmm

mo.l
HA.
mm.
mm.
vb.
we.
mm.
Hm.

2mm

mm.l
co.
pm.
be.
me.
mm.
mm.
om.

mv.

ZMm

mm

xmm

hmO

mmO

2&0

hmm

mmm

2mm

moanmwum>

29

Relation of Mother Variables
Alone to thgighiIdTE-SEIf:—_'
Esteem (n = 84)

Since more mothers than fathers participated in
the study, they presented a larger sample of parent-
child relationship, offering an opportunity to look at
a larger body of data. Table 2 shows the correlation
matrix for the four "mother" variables (covariates),
self-esteem, and sex of child.

Observation of the matrix shows similar findings
to the paired parent sample, that is, no significant
relationship of the mother's value orientation to the
child's self-esteem. Though proscriptivity of the
mother, regardless of reward or punishment (ORM, 0PM),
was significant, linear regression analysis revealed that
the strength of the relationship came predominantly from
the reward dimension. The "mother" sample thus offered
no support for the hypotheses.

Similar to the paired parent sample, the negative
relationship of reward to self-esteem was significant at
the .035 level (F = 3.5) for the mother as rewarding, with
no relationship to the value orientation dimension (PRM,
ORM). The mother as punishing, regardless of value
corientation (PPM, 0PM), showed no significant relationship

with the child's self-esteem.

30

Table 2
Intercorrelation Matrix for Mother Variables Alone
(n = 84)
Variables PRM PPM ORM OPM SEX SE
PRM -
PPM .49 -

ORM .84 .55 -

0PM .45 .71 .47 -

SEX .01 .10 .10 .01 -

SE -.21 -.08 —.28 -.09 -.05 -

31

Sex of Child

Boys (n = 32) and girls (n = 52) did not differ
significantly on the self-esteem measure, the mean for
the boys being 72.3, and that for the girls being 71.5.
No sex difference appeared on the value orientation
dimension. There was a significant relationship of
father to daughter as regards reward (P < .023; F = 40),
i.e., the father as rewarding had a negative relationship

to the daughter's self-esteem (ORF, SEX).

DISCUSSION

Some comments should be made about why the
study's hypotheses were not upheld. The experimenter
learned a great deal about the value orientation dimen-
sion and self-esteem while doing the study, which would
lead him to believe that there is relevance in pursuing

further research on the subject.
The Value Orientation Measure

Several parents noted on the questionnaire that
they would neither reward nor punish certain behaviors,
while others commented that the behaviors did not apply
to their child. The forced choice format of the measure
left the parent no option but to mark on the reward or
punishment dimension. A "neither" option in addition to
the reward and punishment choices would have lessened the
number of behaviors checked on the latter two choices, but
would have given more salience to those which were checked.

Additional notes made by the parents, as well as
phone calls made to the experimenter by parents complet-
ing the measure, made it apparent that the parents might

not‘have a clear idea on the meaning of their own behaviors

32

33

as affecting the child regarding reward and punishment.
This in turn would affect the value orientation measure-
ment. A parent can be perceived by the child as rewarding
or punishing, for example, by facial movements, a nod,
turning away from the child. In such cases the parent
would judge his behavior as neither rewarding nor punish-
ing, when in actuality the child would interpret such
actions, subtle as they might be, as rewarding or punish-

ing.
Age of Child Subjects

Following the cognitive—developmental explanation
of moral value acquisition which predicates a cognitive
maturation sequence and action (experience) process on
the child's part, the child is still in the process at
this age of leaving the heteronomous stage of relationship
with the parent. Authority figures are still a major con-
trolling factor in the life of the child. The child is as
yet in an objectively dependent relationship to his parents,
still unquestioning, by and large, of authority. This
situation would seem especially apropos to the sample of
the present study which consisted of children of families
which experience relatively routine experiences in their
life-style. Thus his interaction with the environment

outside his family may not have affected the child to such

34

an extent as yet, for him to be affected enough to sense
acute differences between the negative and positive con-
notations of parental reactions or reactions as are seen
in the value orientation measure. In brief, there may
not be the cognitive (and accompanying moral) development
in the child at this age which would be needed for the
child to be affected by the real but subtle and fine
discrimination which is posited in the prescriptive-
proscriptive dimension. As a result the child's self-
esteem may well not be affected by this dimension. More
salient to the child at this age would be the reward-

punishment dimension.
The Reward-Self-esteem Relationship

The significant relationship between the parent
as rewarding and self-esteem of the child showed that as
the child's self-esteem was lower, the parent was more
rewarding.

Assuming there may be a cause-effect relationship
here, and though there is no hard and fast data to
reinforce the explanation-~or the cause-effect assumption
--it seems that the child's self-esteem might be having
an effect on how much the parent rewards, i.e., as the
parent perceives the child's self-evaluation, this is

taken into account as to how much the parent rewards the

35

child. Bell (1968) reviewed research related to the
direction of effects in studies on socialization of the
child by the parent and others. He notes, for instance,
studies showing how infant behavior affects the parent's
reaction to the infant, or how aggressive behavior in the
child can have a controlling effect on the reaction of
the parent to the child's behavior.

The self-esteem scores for the children can be
divided into high, medium, and low groupings, as the
measure was conceived by Coopersmith. The present study's
sample can be broken down into high (n = 33), medium
(n = 37), and low (n a 7). The background information
presented on self-esteem showed that the higher the self-
esteem of the child, the more concerned and interested were
the parents of such children. It can be assumed that the
parents of the children in the study's sample were thus
concerned about their children, both because of the scores
the children in general obtained on the self—esteem
measure and because the parents took the time and trouble
to participate in the study. School officials and parent
groups with whom the experimenter met in order to initiate
the study were concerned about the self-esteem of their
children, and interested in what the outcome would be as

regards the self-esteem measure.

36

The above comments give no hard information from
which to make conclusions, but seem to at least show some
cause for the following comment, namely, that these con-
cerned parents are anxious about the selfvimage of their
child. This concern might well be shown in their per-
ceptions of their child's self-image. If such perceptions
lead the parent to the conclusion that the child needs a
boost in self-esteem, one very natural way to give the
perceived needed boost would be to be more rewarding to
the child. Those parents with children of high self-

esteem reward less than those with parents of children with

——/~

low self-esteem, since they perceive the child's need for

\
RH

positive reinforcement (reward) is less.

..,...-'

Implications for Future Research

It seems a valid point that parents through their
disciplinary methods do have an effect on the child's self-
esteem, at least on the reward-punishment dimension. The
present study as done on the limited sample of parents and
the particular age group of children showed no results on
the value orientation dimension. Future studies along this
line of research would profit by varying the age group of
the children, e.g., testing 11-12 age group children. Also
the study could be designed to obtain a better cross-section

of parents and children in a given sample, with other data

37

being collected from both groups in addition to the
value orientation and self-esteem information. This
additional information might include parent perception
of the child's self-esteem, parental expectations of the
child in the area of achievement, and an evaluation of
parental disciplinary methods. From the children, in
addition to the self-esteem measure, a teacher or
counselor's evaluation of the child's home environment
as affecting the child's self-image could be obtained.

The relationship of the parent as rewarding to
self-esteem of the child offers possibilities of research
in testing whether in fact the parent's perception of the
child's self-esteem does match the child's subjective self-
concept; and whether such parent perceptions are affecting

his attitude and behavior toward the child.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

COVER LETTER TO PARENTS

38

February 29, 1972

Dear Parents,

This is a request for your assistance, and at the same time
we hope it will be a help to you and your children. These are days
when all of us are concerned about how best to guide our children
so that they may develop in a healthy and happy way.

Some of the personnel in the Child Developmental section at
Michigan State University feel that we have found something which
is important to the parent-child relationship. We would like to
check it out in a large representative population of parents and
children, and fit it into other facets of the parent-child relation-
ship--with the hope it will be an aid to all of us parents in rais-
ing our families.

For the past several weeks we have discussed this study with
parent groups, principals, and teachers in the ,
and schools. Most everyone agrees that something good
can come of this effort. All insist that the parents and teachers
involved should be informed of the results of the information
gathered, as a means of helping all those connected with the study.
We intend to give this feedback by meetings with interested persons
and through a write-up to the parents.

 

For you parents we ask that each of you answer the enclosed
questionnaire (it takes only a few minutes), and that you allow your
child (the one who brings you this letter) to fill out a short ques-
tionnaire at school which also takes about 10-15 minutes.

You may place your completed forms in the enclosed envelope
and send them back with your child where they will be placed in a
sealed box which we will pick up; or mail the forms directly to us.

Anonymity: We are looking for information on the parents and
children, and so need to connect each parent to his particular child.
But we are using a code number to identify individuals, and thus all
parents and children will remain completely anonymous.

Of course you are free to participate or not in the study. We
ask only that if you decide to help us and fill out the questionnaire,
that you also give permission for your child to fill out the child
questionnaire at school . . . by returning the completed material to
the school as soon as possible.

Thank you for reading this. If we all do a little bit, per-
haps our combined efforts will promote the growth of not only this
group in the three schools involved, but also families in other
places.

Sincerely,
Vincent J. Hoffman
Child Development Psych.

Michigan State University

P.S. If only one parent is able to fill out the parent questionnaire
it is all right, but we would like both to do it where possible.

APPENDIX B

SELF-ESTEEM INVENTORY

39

APPENDIX B

SELF-ESTEEM INVENTORY
(58 Items)

Please mark each statement in the following way:

If the statement describes how you usually feel, put a check (/) in
the column "Like Me."

If the statement does not describe how you usually feel, put a check
(/) in the column "Unlike Me.

Like Me Unlike Me

I spend a lot of time daydreaming.

I'm pretty sure of myself.

I often wish I were someone else.

I'm easy to like.
My parents and I have a lot of fun together.

I never worry about anything.

. I find it very hard to talk in front of the
class.

\lO‘UlobLUNl-d
O

8. I wish I were younger.

9. There are lots of things about myself I'd
change if I could.

10. I can make up my mind without too much
trouble.

11. I'm a lot of fun to be with.
12. I get upset easily at home.
13. I always do the right thing.
14. I'm proud of my school work.
15. Someone always has to tell me what to do.

16. It takes me a long time to get used to
anything new.

17. I'm often worried about the things I do.
18. I'm popular with kids my own age.

19. My parents usually consider my feelings.
20. I'm never unhappy.

21. I'm doing the best work that I can.

22. I give in very easily.

23. I can usually take care of myself.

lllllllll llllll ! ll llllll
IIIHIIII llllll I ll llllll

24. I'm pretty happy.

25.

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

36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

41.
42.
43.
44.
45.

46.
47.
48.
49.

50.
51.
52.
53.
54.

55.
56.
57.
58.

40

I would rather play with children younger
than me.

My parents expect too much of me.

I like everyone I know.

I like to be called on in class.

I understand myself.

It's pretty tough to be me.

Things are all mixed up in my life.

Kids usually follow my ideas.

No one pays much attention to me at home.
I never get scolded.

I'm not doing as well in school as I'd
like to.

I can make up my mind and stick to it.
I really don't like being a boy (girl).
I have a low opinion of myself.

I don't like to be with other people.

There are many times when I'd like to
leave home.

I'm never shy.

I often feel upset in school.

I often feel ashamed of myself.

I'm not as nice looking as most people.
If I have something to say, I usually say
it.

Kids pick on me very often.

My parents understand me.

I always tell the truth.

My teacher makes me feel I'm not good
enough.

I don't care what happens to me.

I'm a failure.

I get upset easily when I'm scolded.
Most people are better liked than I am.

I usually feel as if my parents are push-
ing me.

I always know what to say to people.
I often get discouraged in school.
Things usually don't bother me.

I can't be depended upon.

Like Me

Unlike Me

APPENDIX C

VALUE ORIENTATION MEASURE

PR
OF
OR
PP
0P
0R
0P
PR
0R
PP
0R
PR
PR
0P
0R
0P
PP
PP

0P
PR
PR
PP

41

APPENDIX C

VALUE ORIENTATION MEASURE

FATHER ( ) MOTHER ( ) Your age CODE #
(Please check oneY

We would like to know how you feel about the child behaviors listed
below: Would you punish or reward them; and how much would you re-
ward or punish them? After each behavior, please print the letter
2 (punish) or R (reward), and circle one of the numbers (1, 2, 3, 4,
5)--from very little to very much--the amount you feel you would
either punish or reward the behavior. Please keep in mind your
child (the one who brought home this questionnaire) when working on
this questionnaire.

EACH PARENT PLEASE FILL OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE SEPARATELY

--PLEASE DON'T COMPARE YOUR RESULTS!

 

 

 

CHILD'S BEHAVIORS g or 5 1 2 3 4 5

very very

little much

(SAMPLE: Climbing a tree P (:) 2 3 4 5)
PP* 1. not listening to parents when spoken to 1 2 3 4 5
2. behaving well when out shopping 1 2 3 4 S
3. fighting with friends 1 2 3 4 5
4. not bothering mother when she is busy 1 2 3 4 5
5. not sharing his (her) toys 1 2 3 4 5
6. telling lies 1 2 3 4 5
7. not running in the street 1 2 3 4 5
8. leaving toys scattered around the house 1 2 3 4 5
9. cleaning up his (her) room 1 2 3 4 5
10. not being a poor loser in games 1 2 3 4 5
11. not behaving when visiting relatives 1 2 3 4 5
12. not cheating in school 1 2 3 4 5
13. playing nicely with friends 1 2 3 4 5
l4. helping mother around the house 1 2 3 4 5
15. purposely breaking toys l 2 3 4 5
16. not getting new clothes dirty 1 2 3 4 S
17. playing with harmful objects 1 2 3 4 5
18. not doing well in school 1 2 3 4 5

19. not coming to the dinner table when

called 1 2 3 4 5
20. tracking dirt into the house 1 2 3 4 5
21. doing well at a new task 1 2 3 4 5
22. sharing his (her) toys with friends 1 2 3 4 S
23. not keeping room clean 1 2 3 4 5
24. not taking toys away from friends 1 2 3 4 5

0R

 

*See page 24 for explanation.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Adler, A. The practice and theory of individual
psychology. New York:PTHarcourt, l9

Ausubel, D. P. Theory and problems of child develop-
ment. New Yofk: Grune & Stratton, I958.

Bandura, A., & McDonald, F. The influence of social
reinforcement and the behavior of models in
shaping children's moral judgment. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, E2, 274—281.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, 8. A. Transmission of
aggression through imitation of aggressive models.
Journal of Abnormal and Social PsycholOgy, 1961,
E3, 575. P

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. Social learnin and er-
sonality development. New York: HoIt, Rinehart,
and Winston, 1963.

 

Bell, R. Q. A reinterpretation of the direction of effects
in studies of socialization. Psychological Review,
1968, 15(2), 81-95.

Brickenridge, M. R., & Vincent, E. L. Child develo -
ment. New York: Saunders, 1968 (vol. 115.

Bruce, P. Relationship of self-acceptance to other vari-
ables with sixth grade children oriented in self-
understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology,

1958, 49, 229- 238‘.

Carlson, Rae. Stability and change in the adolescent's
self—image. Child Development, 1965, 39, 659-666.

Cooley, C. H. Human nature and the social order. New
York: Scribner' s, 1902.

Coopersmith, S. The antecedents of self-esteem. San
Francisco: Freeman & Co., 1967.

42

43

Doris, J. Test anxiety and blame assignment in grade
school children. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Freud, S. Collectedppapers, Vol. 4. Papers on meta-
psychology. Papers on applied psychoanalysis.
New York: Basic Books, 1959:

Gutkin, D. C. An inquiry into the development of moral
intentionality. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Michigan State University, 1973.

Hartsborne, H., & May, M. A. Studies in the nature of
character. V0l;,13 Studies in deceit. New York:
Macmillan, 1928.

Havighurst, R., & Neugarten, B. American Indian and white
children. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1955.

Hill, W. F. Learning theory and the acquisition of values.
Psycholpgical Review, 1960, 61, 317-331.

 

Hoffman, M. L. Moral development. In P. Mussen (Ed.),
Carmichael's manualipf child psychology, VOl. II.
New York: Wiley 8 Sons, 1970:

Hoffman, M. L., & Salzstein, H. D. Parent discipline and
the child's moral development. Journal of Per-
sonalitypand Social Psychology, 1967, 3, 35-57.

D Horney, K. Our inner conflicts. New York: Norton, 1945.

 

Horney, K. Neurosis and human growth. New York: Norton,
1950.

James, W. Princi les of psychology (2 vols.). New York:
Holt, 1890.

Johnson, R. C. A study of children's moral judgments.
Child Development, 1962, 33, 327-354.

 

Kohlberg, L. The development of children's orientations
toward a moral order. I. Sequence in the develop-
ment of moral thought. Vita Humana, 1963, 6, 11-
33.

44

Kohlberg, L. Development of moral character and moral
ideology. In Hoffman, M. L., & Hoffman, L. W.

(Eds.), Review of child develo ment research,
Vol. I. New York: Russell Sage Foundation,

1964, 383-431.

 

,.Lipsit, L. P. A self-concept scale for children and its
relationship to the children's form of the
manifest anxiety scale. Child Development, 1958,
22, 463-472.

Mott, P. C. The organization of society. Englewood
Cliffs, N.Y.: Prentice-Hall, 1965.

MacRae, D., Jr. A test of Piaget's theories of moral
development. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1954, 49, 15119. fl

McKinney, J. P. The development of values-~prescriptive
or proscriptive? Human Development, 1971, 11,
71-80 0

Mead, G. H. Mind, self and society. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1934.

Olejnik, A. Parental value orientation and generosity in
children. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan
State University, 1972.

Olejnik, A., & McKinney, J. P. Parental value orientation
and generosity in children. Developmental Psy-

chology, §_(2) , 311.

Piaget, J. The moral judgmept of the child. New York:
Harcourt & Brace, 1932.

Radke, M. J. The relationship of parental authority to
children's Behavior and gptitudes. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1946.

Reis, A. Social opganization and socialization: varia-
tions ofiwa theme aboutlgenerations.' Mimeographed
paper. Department of Sociology, University of
Michigan, 1966.

Rosenberg, M. Society and the adolescent self-image.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965.

45

Sanford, R. N. Individual and social change in a
community under pressure: the oath controversy.
Journal of Social Issues, 1953, 2, 25-42.

Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E., & Levin, H. Patterns of child
rearing. Evanston, 111.: Row-Peterson, 1957.

Sears, R. R., Rau, I., & Alpert, K. Identification and
child rearing. Stanford, Calif}: Standafdeni-
vers1ty Press, 1965.

 

Sullivan, H. S. The inteppersonal theopypof psychiatry.
New York: Norton, 1953. '

HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

31293101751547