ANTECEDENTS OF GENEROSITY
IN NURSERY SCHOOL CHILDREN:
PRESCRIPTIVE VALUE ORIENTATION
IN THE FAMILY

Thesis for the Degree of M., A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ANTHONY B. OLEINIK
1971

 

 

 
  

 
  
 

 

I 1" em‘t‘nnc av ":1

. unAs & suns
. -. 0W omnrnv INC.
- Ii- 2v 8 osnc.
‘1 a

    

I.

 

ABSTRACT

ANTECEDENTS OF GENEROSITY IN NURSERY SCHOOL
CHILDREN: PRESCRIPTIVE VALUE
ORIENTATION IN THE FAMILY

BY

Anthony B. Olejnik

Generosity, value orientations, (prescriptive-
proscriptive) and discipline emphasis (reward-punishment)
were studied in 78 four year old children (44 girls) and
their parents in a university community in the midwest.
Generosity was measured by the number of M&M candies the
children gave away to fictitious "needy children." An
interview technique was used to measure the value orien-
tation of the children, while a questionnaire was adminis-
tered to the parents to measure value orientation and dis-
cipline emphasis. The finding of no significant sex dif—
ferences in generosity scores supports earlier research.
Significant main effects were found for the value orien-
tation of the children, mothers, and fathers. Children
with a prescriptive value orientation were more generous
than children with a proscriptive value orientation, and
mothers and fathers with a prescriptive value orientation

had children who were more generous. While the data

Anthony B. Olejnik

revealed that fathers who were more rewarding had more
generous children, there was no significant effect on gen-

erosity for mother's discipline emphasis.

./.
Approved g;€gé?éflé;g%aay

 

Date {J /: /§7/
7 f a

ANTECEDENTS OF GENEROSITY IN NURSERY SCHOOL
CHILDREN: PRESCRIPTIVE VALUE

ORIENTATION IN THE FAMILY

BY

Anthony B. Olejnik

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1971

To Shirley and Matthew

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the members of my thesis

committee, Drs. Hiram Fitzgerald and William Crano for

' their assistance in planning this research. I would like

to especially thank Dr. John McKinney, chairman of the
thesis committee, for the advice, time, and encouragement
he offered during the entire course of the research and the
masters degree program.

I would also like to thank the directors and teach-
ers at the Edgewood United Church Nursery School, Wesley
Foundation Nursery School, Mt. Hope Day Care Center, First
Church of the Nazarene Day Care Center, Kendon Drive Day
Care Center, Jack 'n Jill Playhouse, and the PeOple's
Church Nursery School for their c00peration and assistance
in this research. My deepest thanks go to the parents and
their children who volunteered to participate in the
research.

A special thank you to Shirley for her patience,

love and understanding.

iii

LIST OF TABLES

INTRODUCTION .

METHOD . . .

RESULTS . .

DISCUSSION .

REFERENCES .

APPENDIX . .

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

iv

Page

14
26
31
34

Table

1.

10.

Analysis
sex of
of the

Analysis
sex of
of the

Analysis
sex of
of the

Analysis
sex of
of the

Analysis
sex of
of the

Analysis

LIST OF TABLES

of variance of generosity scores:
the child and value orientation
mothers. . . . . . . . .

of variance of generosity scores:
the child and value orientation
fathers. . . . . . . . .

of variance of generosity scores:
the child and discipline emphasis
mothers. . . . . . . . .

of variance of generosity scores:
the child and discipline emphasis
fathers. . . . . . . . .

of variance of generosity scores:
the child and value orientation
Child. O I O O O O I O

of variance of generosity scores:

discipline emphasis of the parents and
value orientation of the parents. . .

Number of givers or non-givers whose
parents had prescriptive or proscriptive
value orientations on reward items. .

Number of givers or non-givers whose
parents had prescriptive or proscriptive
value orientations on punishment

items.

Number of givers or non-givers whose

parents emphasized rewards or punishments

on prescriptive items. . . . . .

Number of givers or non-givers whose

parents emphasized rewards or punishments

on proscriptive items. . . . . .

Page

19

19

20

20

21

21

22

23

24

25

INTRODUCTION

In an early general study of morality, Osborn
(1894) asked the following questions about the "ethical
contents of children's minds": What kind of moral ideas do
children have? How do they come by them? How are they
determined by their environment? And are they developed by
the direct instruction of parents and teachers, or do they
arise through the observation of their own conduct and that
of their associates? Today, seventy-five years later, many
investigators are phrasing the same questions. Since
OsbornIs study, a great deal of research has been done on
the develOpment of moral values. The research on the
development of moral character has been reviewed by Kohl-
berg (1964) and Hoffman (1970) while the measurement of
moral values has been reviewed and critiqued by Pittel and
Mendelsohn (1960). Much of the research on moral values
has been done with paper and pencil tests, and few attempts
have been made to relate moral reasoning or judgment to
moral behavior. The reviews of this research have indi-
cated that there are still unanswered questions on the
develOpment of moral values and that there is a need to

improve the methodologies for studying moral develOpment.

The research on moral development has been
concerned with children's conscience, strength of charac-
ter, moral characteristics, and judgment; and the theoreti-
cal impetus has come primarily from the works of Piaget
(1932) and Freud (1959). Psychologists have devoted far
more attention to the issues of anti-social behavior than
to the factors affecting the acquisition and performance of
pro-social behaviors. Emphasis has been placed on the pro-
hibitions, the proscriptive, "thou shalt not" aspects of
morality, such as cheating, stealing, and lying. Guilt
about transgressions and resistance to temptation have been
the primary aspects of prohibitions studied (Aronfreed,
1961, 1963, 1970; Burton, MaCcoby & Allinsmith, 1961;
Grinder, 1962; Hartshorne & May, 1928-1930; Sears, Rau, &.
Alpert, 1965). Hoffman (1963) has suggested that the
reason research has focused on prohibitions is that most
.research on the parental antecedents of moral development
has been inspired by psychoanalytic theory, which stresses
the importance of repression in the internalization of moral
standards.

Although in the past relatively little research
attention has been given to behaviors that reflect the
altruistic aspects of morality, recent research has revived
the interest in studying generosity, kindness, cooperation,
and sharing behaviors in children (Baldwin & Baldwin, 1970;

Bryan & Walbek, 1970 a, b; Elliot & Vasta, 1970; Harris,

1970; Rosenhan & White, 1967; Rutherford & Mussen, 1968;
Staub & Sherk, 1970). Two recent reviews on altruism have
summarized the revived interest in this area of research
(Bryan & London, 1970; Krebs, 1970). In the 1890's, altru-
ism was a pOpular and widely discussed topic as a social
panacea and a religious ideal, but the interest in it
quickly passed away. The current revived interest in
studying altruism may be due to some of the current social
problems facing our society.

Research on altruism has been primarily interested
in eliciting altruistic acts rather than the learning or
antecedent conditions of altruism. Aronfreed (1968) and
Rosenhan (1969) argued that the acquisition of altruistic
responses requires a history of reinforcement and the
development of a self-reward mechanism. The research on
parent-child relations and altruism suggests that warm and
nurturant parents tend to facilitate altruism in children.
Rettig (1956) found that altruism in parents was positively
correlated with scores made by college students on an altru-
ism scale. There was some evidence that the effects of
direct reinforcement of altruistic behavior by parents dis-
sipates over time, whereas modeling effects were more
enduring. Hoffman (1963) found that consideration for
others in children was positively related to the mothers'
use of an other-oriented induction type of discipline.

Peck and Havighurst (1960) observed that parents of

altruistic children typically were warm, nurturant, and
relatively non-punitive; and in his review, Becker (1964)
concluded that warmth, use of love-oriented discipline
techniques, and consistency of parental control facilitate
learning of guilt or moral expectations. Rosenhan (1967)
found that a group of active civil rights workers had a
close relationship with at least one altruistic parent. In
a study by Rutherford and Mussen (1968), generosity in
nursery school boys was positively related to warm and
nurturant fathers: generous boys saw their fathers as
being more nurturant. More recently, Mussen, Rutherford,
Harris, and Keasey (1970) found that both boys and girls
who were altruistic in their relationships with others were
the children of generally permissive, democratic, affection-
ate and nonpunitive parents. They also found that parental
emphasis on high standards of behavior for the child,
including acceptance of personal responsibility and elevated
achievement goals, appear to be prominent antecedents of
altruism. Similar findings have been reported by Whiting
(1969). He found that children in six cultures in which
mothers report that they assign important tasks to them
(such as baby tending), behave more altruistically as meas-
ured by offers of help, support, and responsible sug-
gestions, than children in cultures in which they are
assigned fewer or less responsible tasks. Staub (1970)

suggested that learning to take responsibility for others'

welfare may often begin through assignment of responsibility
to children by socializing agents. It appears that families
which are warm, nurturant, and non-punitive, which provide
models of altruistic behavior, which support the expression
of affect by the child, and which assign responsibilities

to young children are most likely to raise children who are
altruistic and concerned for others.

While Rutherford and Mussen (1968) studied gener-
osity of boys in nursery school and found that the boys'
generosity was related to perceptions of their fathers as
warm and nurturant, they also found that generosity was
part of a pattern of moral behaviors. Rutherford and
Mussen suggested that parents and other agents of social-
ization may have many Opportunities to "teach" children
proscriptive rules, by rewarding approved responses and by
punishing behaviors that violate such rules. They felt
that proscriptive rules are "taught" by means of reward and
punishment, while more positive--perhaps more complex char-
acteristics--are acquired by means of developmental identi-
fication with a model.

Hill (1960) has suggested that the psychoanalyti-
cally derived terms of "identification, introjection, and
internalization" be replaced by detailed analyses in learn-
ing theory terms of the acquisition of values. According
to McKinney (1971), in both psychoanalytic theory and

learning theory, there is the implication that children's

values develop as children are punished for doing what is
wrong and rewarded for doing what is right. A recent
modification of this two-fold process has been suggested

by McKinney as instrumental in the development of moral
behavior. McKinney pointed out that while learning theory
and psychoanalytic theory have dealt with both positive

and negative behaviors in the develOpment of values,
another consideration involves the possibility that chil-
dren might be punished for "not doing" good, that is, what
they should; or they might be rewarded for "not doing"
wrong, or what they shouldn't. A four-fold model was sug-
gested by McKinney with a reinforcement dimension (reward
or punishment) and a behavioral dimension (right doing or
wrong doing). According to McKinney's model, the child
learns a prescriptive value orientation when he is rewarded
for doing what is good and punished for not doing good (sin
of omission); and he learns a proscriptive value orien-
tation when he is punished for doing wrong and rewarded for
not doing wrong. The difference in the two value orien-
tations is the result of emphasis being placed on either
doing right (prescriptive) or doing wrong (proscriptive).
McKinney's (1971) research has indicated that individual
values do develop on a prescriptive-proscriptive dimension
and that college students with a prescriptive value orien-
tation perceived their parents as being more rewarding and
less punitive, while the proscriptively-oriented subjects

perceived the opposite.

The present study was concerned with generosity in
nursery school aged children and its relationship to the
value orientation "taught" by parents to their children.
While Rutherford and Mussen (1968) studied the effects of
parental reward and punishment to doing good and doing
wrong and explained their findings in terms of a child's
identification with the parent, the present study attempted
to apply the four-fold model suggested by McKinney (1971)
to study the antecedents of generosity in nursery school
children, and thereby eliminate the need to use the concept
of identification in describing the acquisition of values
as suggested by Hill (1960).

Some behavior-contingent learning takes place when
socializing agents use their rewards and punishments with
the intention of modifying the child's behavior. Concrete
rewards and punishments, praise and blame, and various
other explicit indicators of approval or disapproval are
the most obvious and direct channels of behavior-contingent
socialization. Since more information is needed on the
child rearing practices which influence the develOpment of
children's altruistic behaviors, the purpose of the present
study was to discover antecedent conditions of value orien-
tations acquired through behavior-contingent learning and
to find the relationship between these value orientations
and generosity. The child who was guided by a prescriptive

value orientation was expected to be more generous as

emphasis has been placed on doing good behaviors in the
home. Emphasis is placed on doing good behaviors when
parents either reward their children for sharing their
toys, helping their friends, or doing household chores or
punish children for not sharing their toys, not cleaning
their room, or not being kind to friends. Since Rutherford
and Mussen (1968) found that warmth and nurturance were
related to generosity, and McKinney found that subjects
having a prescriptive value orientation perceive their
parents as being more rewarding, it was expected that
generosity would be related to the prescriptive value
orientation in the family.. The empirical evidence suggests
the following hypotheses: (a) the value orientation
(prescriptive-proscriptive) can be measured and that there
is a reliable difference between people holding prescrip-
tive (ought to) values and those holding proscriptive
(ought not to) values; (b) children will be more generous
in those families in which the mothers and fathers have a
prescriptive value orientation; (c) children with a pre-
scriptive value orientation will be more generous; and

(d) parents who are more rewarding than punitive in their
discipline emphasis will have children who are more gener-

ous .

METHOD

Subjects
The parents of 34 boys and 44 girls between the

ages of 4-0 and 4-11 enrolled in nursery schools and day
care centers in a university community in the midwest

agreed to be subjects and allowed their children to partici-
pate in the experiment.

While previous research on prescriptive and pro-
scriptive value orientations has been primarily based on
college students, nursery school aged children were chosen
for this study because this age was most appropriate to
measure the relationship between parent-child interactions
and the acquisition of moral values; it was assumed that
during these early years parental influences predominate

over peer influences.

Procedure

 

There were two phases in the experiment. In the
first phase, the children were observed for twenty minutes
individually in a structured situation designed to determine
the child's value orientation (either prescriptive or pro-
scriptive) and the child's generosity to fictitious "needy

children." While the child was at either a day care center

10

or nursery school, the teacher introduced the experimenter
(E) to the child. The subject (S) was asked if he or she
would like to play a game with E in another room. In the
experimental room, E spent a few minutes developing rapport
with 83 before the interview. Each S was asked to answer
two questions: what makes a bad boy (girl) and what makes
a good boy (girl)? Alternative questions such as when or
why is a boy (girl) called a good boy (girl) were asked to
make the questions clear and to obtain responses. Questions
were asked in a random order. Subjects were then given a
bag of 18 M&M candies which were poured out on a table.
Subjects had an opportunity to give away some of their
candy to "needy children," whose parents couldn't afford to
buy them any candy. Two pictures of "needy children" (one
boy and one girl) and a donation can were placed in front
of the child on the table. Subjects were able to give some
of their candy by placing it through a slot in a partially-
filled donation can the contents of which were invisible to
the Ss. Midlarsky and Bryan (1967) found that there were
virtually no differences among 33 of varying grades regard-
ing their tastes for M&M candies and that the differential
preferences for M&Ms did not account for the variation in
eight self sacrifice responses or donations exhibited by
children. Each S was told that the size of the donation
was his decision and that he did not have to give any candy

if he did not want to do so. Subjects were told to put the

11

candies they wanted to give in the donation can and the
ones they wanted to keep for themselves back into the plas-
tic bag. In order to create anonymity for the donor, E
left the room for a few minutes. Subjects were free to
make their own choice without any additional pressure.
Since all the M&M candies in the donation can were brown
and Ss received other colored M&M candies, the amount
donated by each S was easily obtained after S left the
room. The generosity score was simply the number of candies
S gave away. Each S was told that he could pick up his bag
of M&Ms from the teacher at the end of the day. All 85 and
teachers were satisfied with this procedure. Regardless of
the amount of candy donated, all 83 received a bag of 18

M&Ms to take home.

Value Orientation Measures

 

The value orientation of the child was determined
by scoring the responses to the two questions. The respon-
ses were scored prescriptive when they included either
doing good or avoiding good behaviors, and proscriptive
when they included either doing wrong or avoiding wrong be-
haviors. Responses which could not be classified as either
prescriptive or proscriptive were not scored. The number
of prescriptive and proscriptive responses were added
separately and the differences between the number of pre-
scriptive and proscriptive responses determined the child's

value orientation.

12

In the second phase of the experiment, a question-
naire which measured the value orientation of the parents
was sent home with each child. The questionnaire consisted
of a list of 24 behaviors a child might do or avoid (see
Appendix), and the mothers and fathers were asked how much
they would either punish or reward the suggested behaviors.
The behaviors included the four types suggested by the
four-fold model of McKinney (1971). There were six exam-
ples of each of the following types of behaviors: doing
wrong (items 3, 6, 8, 15, 17, 20), avoiding wrong (items 4,
7, 10, 12, 16, 24), doing good (items 2, 9, l3, 14, 21,
22), and avoiding good (items 1, 5, 11, 1e, 19, 23). These
were listed in a random order, and the parents were asked
to circle one number from 1 to 5 (very little to very much)
as to how much they would reward or punish their child.

The value orientation of the parents was determined by
adding separately the punishments and rewards for the 12
prescriptive items and the punishments and rewards for the
12 proscriptive items and taking the difference between the
two scores. If there was a stronger emphasis placed on the
prescriptive items, then that parent was considered pre-
scriptive in his value orientation. If there was a stronger
emphasis placed upon the proscriptive items, then that
parent was considered proscriptive in his value orientation.
Similarly the emphasis on rewards versus punishments was

measured by adding the scores on the 12 reward items and

13

then adding the scores on the 12 punishment items. There
were an equal number of prescriptive and proscriptive value
orientation items within the punishment-reward dimension,
that is, there were 6 prescriptive-reward items and 6
prescriptive-punishment items. The difference between the
punishment and reWard scores was used as a measure of dis—
cipline emphasis.

In addition, standard scores were computed for the
prescriptive-reward items, the proscriptive-reward items,
the prescriptive-punishment items, and the proscriptive-
punishment items. These scores were computed so that the
prescriptive items could be separated from the proscriptive
items in analyzing the discipline emphasis (reward-
punishment). Conversely, the reward items could be sepa-
rated from the punishment items in analyzing the value

orientation (prescriptive-proscriptive).

RESULTS

There were no significant sex differences (t<l,
df=76) in the number of candies given away by the children;
the mean number of candies given by boys was 4.29 M&Ms and
by girls was 3.84 M&Ms. Among these, 21 boys and 23 girls
gave from 1 to 18 M&Ms while 13 boys and 21 girls gave none
away.

The reliability of the questionnaire was obtained
by using the split-half technique corrected with the
Spearman-Brown Formula. Reliabilities were obtained for
each of the four types of scores: prescriptive (r=.83);
proscriptive (r=.82); reward (r=.82); and punishment (r=.74).
Since difference scores were used to determine both value
orientations and discipline emphasis, a reliability was
obtained for the prescriptive-proscriptive difference score
(r=.49) and for the reward-punishment difference score
(r=.60). According to Guilford (1954), it is important to
know the reliability of the difference score because it
comes from two fallible scores and the error variances from
them summate. The reliabilities for the difference scores
are lower than the reliabilities for each type of score

since the number of items used to obtain them is smaller.

14

15

There was agreement between mothers and fathers in
terms of both value orientation and discipline emphasis.
In 41 pairs, both parents were considered as having a pre-
scriptive value orientation; in 27 pairs, both parents were
considered as having a proscriptive value orientation,
while in 10 pairs, the parents differed in their value
orientations. The following correlations were obtained
between mothers and fathers: prescriptive scores (r=.33,
t=2.7l, p<.005); proscriptive scores (r=.23, t=2.55,
p<.025); reward (r=.l4, t=2.25, p<.025); and punishment
(r=.30, t=2.36, p<.025).

Six different 2x2 factorial analyses of variance
were carried out. The dependent variable was the number
of M&M candies the children gave away. The independent
variables were the sex of the child, the value orientation
of the child, the value orientation of both mothers and
fathers, and the discipline emphasis (either reward or
punishment) of both mothers and fathers. While there were
no significant differences due to main effects for the sex
of the children nor any sex of child X value orientation
interactions in any of the analyses, significant main
effects were revealed for the value orientation of the
mother [F=91.3 (l, 72), p<.01] (see Table 1); value orien-
tation of the father [F=35.1 (l, 68), p<.01] (see Table 2);
and the value orientation of the child [F=7.4 (l, 28),

p<.05] (see Table 5). The children gave away more candy if

16

they themselves, their mothers, or their fathers had a
prescriptive value orientation rather than a proscriptive
value orientation. Only 32 children were considered in
this analysis on the value orientation of the child because
a large number of children did not make any responses to
the questions asked. Therefore, it was decided prior to
analysis to use only those subjects who responded to both
questions concerning good and bad boys (girls) rating their
responses as either prescriptive or proscriptive.

The analysis did not reveal any significant effect
for the discipline emphasis of the mothers (F<l). There
was a significant main effect for the discipline emphasis
of the fathers (F=9.0 (l, 64), p<.01], as the fathers who
were more rewarding than punitive had children who were
more generous.

In the 2 x 2 factorial analysis of variance for
discipline emphasis of parents X value orientation of
parents (see Table 6), there was a significant main effect
for the parents' value orientation [F=32.2 (l, 74), p<.01];
but no significant effect for discipline emphasis of parents
(F=3.09) and no significant interaction between the disci-
pline emphasis and value orientation (F=3.37). Parents who
were prescriptive in their value orientation had children
who were more generous.

Since there were both reward items and punishment

items on the arents' uestionnaire and since McKinney
q

17

(1971) found an interaction, the effects of value
orientation on generosity were analyzed separately for both
types of items. Children were classified as either givers
(donated at least 1 M&M candy) or non-givers (did not give
away any candies), and the value orientation of the parents
was either prescriptive or proscriptive. Standard scores
were obtained for the 6 prescriptiveireward items and 6
proscriptiveereward items, as well as for the 6 prescriptive-
punishment items and 6 proscriptive3punishment items for
both mothers and fathers. The value orientation of the
parents was determined by using the higher standard score
between their prescriptive and proscriptive scores. This
was done for both reward and punishment items separately.
Conversely, the discipline emphasis of the parents was
determined by taking the higher standard score between
their reward and punishment score. This was done for both
prescriptive and proscriptive items separately.

When the value orientation of the parents was ana-
lyzed for the reward items, there were significant findings
(see Table 7) for: mothers of girls (x2=7.94; p<.005);
mothers of boys (x2=8.56; p<.005); fathers of girls
(x2=4.61; p<.05); and fathers of boys (x2=6.10; p<.025).
When the boys and girls were combined there were signifi-
cant findings for mothers (x2=15.07; p<.001) and for
fathers (x2=9.18; p<.005). Parents whose value orientation

was prescriptive had children who tended to be givers,

18

while parents whose value orientation was proscriptive had
children who tended not to be givers.

When the value orientation of the parents was
analyzed for the punishment items, there were significant
findings (see Table 8) for: mothers of girls (x2=10.93;
p<.001); mothers of boys (x2=4.15; p<.05); and fathers of
boys (x2=4.52; p<.05). There were no significant findings
for fathers of girls (x2=l.59). When the boys and girls
were combined, there were significant findings for mothers
(x2=12.78; p<.001) and for fathers (x2=3.84; p=.05).
Parents whose value orientation was prescriptive had chil-
dren who tended to be givers, while parents whose value
orientation was proscriptive had children who tended to be
non-givers. The relationship between the value orientation
of the parents and the child's generosity was therefore
consistent for both reward items and punishment items
except in the case of fathers of girls.

When the parents' discipline emphasis was analyzed
separately for the prescriptive items and proscriptive
items, there were no significant findings (see Tables 9 and
10). Therefore, whether the children were givers or non-
givers was not related to the discipline emphasis of the

parents.

19

Table 1

Analysis of Variance of Generosity Scores:
Sex of the Child and Value Orientation

of the Mothers

 

 

 

 

 

Source df MS F P
Sex of child (A) 1 2.5 .25 ns
Value orientation

of mother (B) 1 895.5 91.38 <.01
AxB - l .5 .05 ns
Error (between) 72 9.8
Table 2
Analysis of Variance of Generosity Scores:
Sex of the Child and Value Orientation
of the Fathers

Source df MS F P
Sex of child (A) l 2 .10 ns
Value orientation

of fathers (B) 1 671.5 35.16 <.01
AxB l .5 .03 ns

Error (between) 68 19.1

 

20

Table 3

Analysis of Variance of Generosity Scores:
Sex of the Child and Discipline
Emphasis of the Mothers

 

 

 

Source df MS F P
Sex of child (A) 1 1 .04 ns
Discipline emphasis

of mother (B) 1 22.5 .88 ns
AxB 1 6.5 .25 ns
Error (between) 70 25.5
Table 4

Analysis of Variance of Generosity Scores:
Sex of the Child and Discipline
Emphasis of the Fathers

__._.—.-——....

 

Source df MS F P
Sex of child (A) l .25 .01 ns
Disc1p11ne empha51s 1 19.0 8.99 (.01

of father (B)
AxB 1 27.0 1.17 ns

Error (between) 64 24.4

 

21

Table 5

Analysis of Variance of Generosity Scores:
Sex of the Child and Value Orientation
of the Child

 

 

 

Source df MS F P
Sex of child (A) l 2 .12 ns
Value orientation

of child (B) l 128 , 7.39 <.05
AxB l 0 -- ns
Error (between) 28 17.3
Table 6

Analysis of Variance of Generosity Scores:
Discipline Emphasis of the Parents and
Value Orientation of the Parents

 

 

Source df MS F P
Discipline emphasis l 42 9 3 09 ns
(A) ° '
Value orientation 1 448 4 32 19 < 01
(B) o o ’
AxB 1 46.9 3.37 nS

Error (between) 74 1022

 

22

Table 7

Number of Givers or Non-givers Whose Parents
Had Prescriptive or Proscriptive Value
Orientation on Reward Items

 

REWARD ITEMS

 

 

 

 

Prescriptive Proscriptive x P
Givers Non- Givers Non-
Givers
mothers-girls l4 9 17 7.94 .005
mothers-boys l7 4 9 8.56 .005
fathers-girls l4 9 15 4.61 .05
fathers-boys 14 7 10 6.10 .025
mothers—girls
and boys 31 13 26 15.07 .001
(combined)
fathers-girls
and boys 28 16 25 9.18 .005

(combined)

 

23

Table 8

Number of Givers or Non-givers Whose Parents
Had Prescriptive or Proscriptive Value
Orientation on Reward Items

 

REWARD ITEMS

 

 

 

 

Prescriptive Proscriptive x P
. Non- . Non-
Givers Givers Givers Givers
mothers-girls 18 6 5 15 10.93 .001
mothers-boys l4 4 7 9 4.15 .05
fathers-girls 12 7 ll 14 1.59 ns
fathers-boys ll 2 10 11 4.52 .05
mothers-girls
and boys 32 10 12 24 12.78 .001
(combined)
fathers-girls
and boys 23 9 21 25 3.84 .05

(combined)

 

24

Table 9

Number of Givers or Non-givers Whose Parents
Emphasized Rewards or Punishments
on Prescriptive Items

 

PRESCRIPTIVE ITEMS

 

 

 

 

Reward Punishment x2 P
. Non- . Non-
leerS Givers Givers Givers
mothers-girls 11 9 12 12 .10 ns
mothers-boys 12 7 9 6 .03 ns
fathers-girls 12 7 11 14 1.47 ns
fathers-boys l3 5 8 8 1.77 ns
mothers-girls
and boys 23 16 21 18 .05 ns
(combined)
fathers-girls
and boys 25 12 19 22 2.93 ns

(combined)

 

25

Table 10

Number of Givers or Non-givers Whose Parents
Emphasized Rewards or Punishments
on Proscriptive Items

 

PROSCRIPTIVE ITEMS

 

 

 

 

Reward Punishment x2 P
. Non- . Non-
Givers Givers Givers Givers
mothers-girls 13 10 10 ll .29 ns
mothers-boys 10 4 ll 9 .94 ns
fathers-girls l4 8 9 13 2.10 ns
fathers-boys 12 4 9 9 2.24 ns
mothers-girls
and boys 23 14 21 20 .55 ns
(combined)

fathers-girls
and boys 26 12 18 22 3.44 ns

(combined)

 

DISCUSSION

The hypotheses of the present study appear
substantially confirmed. The data revealed that:

(a) there was a reliable difference between people holding
prescriptive values and those holding proscriptive values;
(b) children were more generous when their parents had a
prescriptive value orientation rather than a proscriptive
value orientation; (0) children with a prescriptive value
orientation were more generous than children with a pro—
scriptive value orientation; and (d) fathers but not
mothers who were more rewarding than punitive had children
who were more generous.

The finding that there were no significant sex
differences in generosity supports earlier research on
altruism with nursery school children (Fischer, 1963) and
elementary school children of both sexes (Handlon & Gross,
1959; Harris, 1968; Ugurel-Semin, 1952).

While the reliabilities obtained for the four types
of scores were respectable for this kind of instrument, the
reliability of the difference scores were lower. These
reliabilities are lower because they each come from two

fallible scores and the error variances from them summate

26

27

and the number of items is smaller. It is advisable that
further analysis and research be done to improve the relia-
bility of the instrument (see Appendix) used to measure
value orientations. The agreement between mothers' and
fathers' scores suggests some consistency within the homes
of the children in terms of value orientations which are
being taught by the parents.

Several major findings supporting the hypotheses of
the study were obtained from the data as mothers and
fathers who were considered prescriptive in their value
orientation had children who gave away more candies to the
fictitious "needy children." This relationship between the
value orientation of the parents and the generosity of the
children was also demonstrated in the separate analysis of
the reward items and punishment items. Also, the children
who had a prescriptive value orientation were more generous
than those children who had a proscriptive value orientation.
These results suggest that the emphasis in the home on doing
good is one antecedent of generosity in nursery school aged
children.

The finding that fathers who were more rewarding
than punitive had children who were more generous, supports
earlier research on parent-child relationships and altruism
which found that parents who are warm, nurturant, and non-
punitive most likely raise children who are altruistic and

concerned for others (Hoffman, 1963; Peck & Havighurst,

28

1960; Mussen, Rutherford, Harris, & Keasey, 1970; Ruther-
ford & Mussen, 1968). It is not clear why there was no
significant effect for mothers on this dimension. It is
possible that mothers spending most of the day at home with
the children may perceive themselves as much more punitive,
while fathers perceive themselves as more rewarding and
less punitive. The tendency toward an interaction between
value orientation and discipline emphasis supports earlier
research by McKinney (1971) in which college students hav-
ing a prescriptive value orientation perceived their parents
as being more rewarding. Further research in this area
should also study how the child affects the value orien-
tation of the parents.

The results of this study suggest that generosity
is related to a prescriptive value orientation in the
family as well as to a discipline emphasis using rewards
rather than punishments for fathers. A principle of
parent-child interaction which may improve the parent-child
dynamic might be to avoid prohibiting behavior like "don't
touch that" and practice positive behavior guidance like
"while I'm doing this keep your hands at your side." It
seems that the emphasis on positive behaviors provides much
more information to the child as to exactly how he should
behave while emphasis on negative sanctions such as not
doing something wrong provides little information to the

child as to what he should be doing.

29

Future research on the antecedents of altruistic
behavior involving the value orientation of the parents
taught to children should consider either a longitudinal or
cross-sectional study which would measure the relationship
between prescriptive and proscriptive values and altruistic
behaviors for children between nursery school and college.
Observational studies in the home seem appropriate to
actually measure the kind and amount of parent-child inter-
actions and the values which are being taught. The influ-
ence of peers would seem to become more significant as the
child grew older; and therefore their value orientations
and influence would be necessary to consider. It is pos-
sible that when a child is younger the more effective value
orientation is the proscriptive orientation; but, as he
gets older, a prescriptive value orientation becomes more
meaningful. There are many questions which might be asked.
Is the type of value orientation also related to a pattern
of moral characteristics including kindness, cooperation,
sharing and aiding behaviors? Are there any cross-cultural
or socio-economic differences with respect to the prescrip-
tive and proscriptive value orientations? It is possible
that there may be socio-economic class differences between
the lower and middle classes with respect to the type of
value orientation taught by the parents. The parents in
the present study were primarily middle class. According

to Becker's (1964) comprehensive review of parental

3O

discipline techniques, middle class parents score higher
than lower class parents on the amount of warmth, use of
reasoning, isolation, show of disappointment and use of
guilt-arousing appeals. It might be predicted that lower
class children and their parents would be more proscrip-
tively oriented, while middle class families would be more
prescriptively oriented. Future research might also con-
sider the experimental manipulation of prescriptive and
proscriptive values in a game or puzzle situation prior to
some measure of altruism.

In summary and conclusion, it is clear that gener-
osity in nursery school aged children is related to the
prescriptive value orientation of the parents as well as a
rewarding rather than punitive discipline emphasis, but
there is a great deal of future research needed on the
child rearing practices which influence the development of
children's altruistic behaviors. Research studies should
address themselves to the question of how humans acquire
the social responsiveness for their dispositions to be
generous, to share, or to give aid. The prescriptive—
proscriptive value orientation placed in an expanded learn-
ing theory model appears to be a viable approach to the
study of the development of moral values and altruistic

behavior.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Aronfreed, J.

The nature, variety, and social patterning
of moral responses to transgression.

Journal of
Abnormal and Social PsychongY: 1961, 63, 223-241.
Aronfreed, J.

The effect of experimental socialization
paradigms upon two moral responses to transgression.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66,
437-448.

Aronfreed, J. Conduct and Conscience: The socialization
of internalized control over behavior. New YorE:
Academic Press, 1968.

Baldwin, C.P., & Baldwin, A.L. Children's judgments of
kindness. Child Development, 1970, 41, 29-47.

Becker, W.

Consequences of different kinds of parental
discipline. In Hoffman, M.

and Hoffman, L. Review
of child development research, Vol. I. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1964.

 

Bryan, J.H., & London, P. Altruistic behavior by children.
Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 13, 200-211.
Bryan, J.H.,

erosity:

Preaching and practicing gen-
children's actions and reactions.

Child
Development, 1970. 41, 329-353.(a)

Bryan, J.H., & Walbek, N.H. The impact of words and deeds
concerning altruism upon children. Child Development,
1970, 41, 747-757.(b)

Elliot, R., & Vasta, R.

The modeling of sharing: effects
associated with vicarious reinforcement, symbolization,
age, and generalization.

Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology: 1970, 1Q, 8-15.

Fischer, W.F.

Sharing in preschool children as a function
of amount and type of reinforcement.

Genetic Psycho-
logical Monographs, 1963, 68, 215-245.

31

32

Freud, S. Collected papers. Vol. 4. Papers on metapsy-
chologY, Papers on applied psycho-analysis. New York:
Basic Books, Inc., 1959.

 

Gore, P.M., & Rotter, J.B. A personality correlate of
social action. Journal of Personality, 1963, 11,
58-64.

 

Grinder, R. Parental child rearing practices, conscience,
and resistance to temptation of sixth grade children.
Child Develppment, 1962, 11, 802-820.

 

Guilford, J.P. Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1954.

 

Hanalon, B.J., & Gross, P. The development of sharing
behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholggy,

 

Harris, M.B. Reciprocity and generosity: some determinants
of sharing in children. Child Development, 1970, 51,

 

Hartshorne, H., & May, M.A. Studies in the nature of
character: Vol. I, Studies in deceit; Vol. II,
Studies in self control; Vol. III, Studies in the
organization of character. New York: Macmillan,
1928-1930.

 

 

'Hill, W.F. Learning theory and the acquisition of values.
Psychological Review, 1960, 11, 317-331.

 

Hoffman, M.L. Parent discipline and the child's consider-
ation for others. Child Development, 1964, 13, 573-
588.

 

Hoffman, M.L. Moral Development. In Mussen, P.H. (Ed.)
Carmichael's Manual of Child Psychology, Vol. II,
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1970.

 

Kohlberg, L. Development of moral character and moral
ideology. In Hoffman, M., & Hoffman L. Review of
child development research, Vol. I, New York: Russel
Sage Foundation, 1964.

 

 

Krebs, D.L. Altruism--an examination of the concept and a
review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin,

 

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

 

33

Midlarsky, E., & Bryan, J.H. Training charity in children.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 1,

Mussen, P., Rutherford, E., Harris, 8., & Keasey, C.B.
Honesty and altruism among preadolescents. DevelOp-
mental Psychologyp 1970, 1, 169-194.

Osborn, F.W. The ethical contents of children's minds.
Educational Review, 1894, 1, 143-146.

Peck, R.F., & Havighurst, R.S. The psychology of character
development, New York: Wiley, 1960.

 

Piaget, J. The moral judgment of the child, New York:
Harcourt, Brace and World, 1932.

Pittel, S.M., & Mendelsohn, G.A. Measurement of moral
values: a review and critique. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 1966' 66’ 22-350

 

Rettig, S. An exploratory study of altruism. Dissertation
Abstracts, 1956, 16, 2229-2230.

 

 

Rosenhan, D., & White, G.M. Observation and rehearsal as
determinants of pro-social behavior. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 1967, 1, 424-431.

 

Rutherford, E., & Mussen, P. Generosity in nursery school
boys. Child Development, 1968, 11, 755-766.

Sears, R.R., Rau, L., & Alpert, K. Identification and
ghild rearing. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University
Press, 1965.

 

Staub, E., & Sherk, L. Relationship between need approval
and children's sharing behavior. Child Development,
1970, 11, 243-252.

 

Ugurel-Simen, R. Moral Behavior and moral judgment of
children. Jourpal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1952, 11, 463-474.

Whiting, J.W., & Whiting, B. Children in six cultures,
Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, 1969.

APPENDIX

(COPY OF PARENTS' VALUE ORIENTATION

QUESTIONNAIRE)

APPENDIX

(COPY OF PARENT'S VALUE ORIENTATION

QUESTIONNAIRE)

Instructions for Parents' Questionnaire

Dear

 

We are interested in learning how parents teach their chil-
dren at home by using rewards and punishments. We are not
interested in the kinds of rewards or punishments used, as
we realize that parents use a variety of techniques. We
would like to know how much you feel you would either
reward or punish the following behaviors. After each
behavior, please print the letters 3 (punish) or R (reward)
and circle a number (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5)--from very little to
very much--the amount you feel you would either punish or
reward that behavior. We would also like you to answer the
questions on the back side of this questionnaire. If you
are a father, be sure you use the questionnaire for fathers.
If you are a mother, be sure you use the questionnaire for
mothers. Each parent Should work on the questionnaires
separately. You may compare responses but please do not

make any changes in your responses.

34

10.

11.

12.
13.

14.

15.
16.
17.
18.

19.

20.

35

Value Orientation Questionnaire

 

not listening to parents when
spoken to

behaving well when out shopping
fighting with friends

not bothering mother when she
is busy

sharing his toys
telling lies
not running into the street

leaving toys scattered around
the house

cleaning up his room
not being a poor loser in games

not behaving when visiting
relatives

not cheating in school
playing nicely with friends

helping mother around the
house

purposely breaking toys

not getting new clothes dirty
playing with harmful objects
not doing well in school

not coming to the dinner table
when called

tracking dirt into the house

acre

1 2
very
little
1' 2
l 2
1 2
l 2
l 2
l 2
l 2
l 2
l 2
l 2
1 2
l 2
l 2
l 2
1 2
1 2
l 2
l 2
l 2
l 2

4 5
very
much
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5

21.

22.

23.

24.

36

doing well at a new task
sharing his toys with friends
not keeping room clean

not taking toys away from friends

or R 1 2
very
little
1 2
l 2
1 2
l 2

3 4 5
very
much

3 4 5

3 4 5

3 4 5

3 4 5

NOV 1 0 :37:

llIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

 

3104580554