DESCiPLlNE PROCEDURES USED BY COLLEGE STUDENTS lz‘l BESPQ‘RSE T0 FARM? «CEELD PROBLm SlT‘UA‘ElGNS ‘0? H19 Deqveo a; M. A. MlCHiGAN STATE UNWERSITY Kallman '"I/g/x/flIgI/gg/xy/rlgmx/j/y/w/flWM ”/7 4298 ~"« N ' '7 WW (‘1. Aflfif 2‘ 1; A I ‘ ABSTRACT DISCIPLINE PROCEDURES USED BY COLLEGE STUDENTS IN RESPONSE TO PARENT-CHILD PROBLEM SITUATIONS By James Robert Kallman The purpose of the present investigation was to study how adults (college students) respond to children in hypothetical problem situations and to provide data in the area of adult effectiveness in dealing with children. The types of responses used most often by males and females 'were examined as well as whether adults are more ineffective handling problems with children when the child's behavior is interfering with the adult's needs, or when the child's behavior is only a problem to himself. The study was made to provide information on adult reSponses to children, especially in the area of parent owned versus child owned problems, that would be useful in helping parents and prospective parents to be more effective with children. One hundred male and one hundred female college students were administered the Sensitivity to Children questionnaire, which is a sixteen item projective device which requires the subject to read a short description of an incident concerning a six year old child. The subject responded to these situations by writing down the exact action and/or words he or she would use in resPonse to the child in each situa- tion as if he or she were the parent. Two me responses t nificantly med? 2) responses 1 situation? The U reSponses ‘ responses ' items were both avera is almost Males the twelve females us Parent, (:1 amum of Child (mm or Parent. It w (1970) 11 Sena-ally students) males and they “Sec advautagG QuestiOn: felt the. James Robert Kallman Two major questions concerning this data were studied: 1) Do adult reSponses to hypothetical problem situations with children differ sig- nificantly depending on whether the problem is child owned or parent owned? 2) Do males and females differ significantly in the type of responses they use with children in the same hypothetical problem situation? The two STC items that scored the highest frequency of ineffective reSponses were Child Denouncing Self and Sibling Fighting. The responses used most frequently by males and females across all STC items were Questioning and Persuading with logic. Males and females both averaged close to 23 ineffective responses for 13 STC items, which is almost an average of two ineffective reaponses per STC item per person. Males and females did not differ significantly in their usage of the twelve responses except for Providing Answers or Solutions,_which females used significantly more often than males. The type of problem-- parent, child, or parent-child-owned--had a significant effect on the amount of ineffective responses that were elicited from adults. Generally child owned problems elicited more ineffective responses than parent or parent-child owned problems. It was concluded that if one agrees that the behaviors Gordon (1970) lists could be seen as "ineffective" behaviors, then Gordon is generally correct in stating that the majority of adults (college students) used ineffective responses in dealing with children. Also, males and females are similar in the amount of ineffective responses they used in communicating with children with neither sex having an advantage. The two responses which adults used most often were Questioning, and Persuading with Logic. It seemed that when adults felt they didn't have enough information about a problem they would question th tion and P9 elicited no problems, t more effect James Robert Kallman question the child and follow the questioning with a logical explana- tion and persuasion. Since the results showed that child owned problems elicited more ineffective responses than parent or parent-child owned problems, this information should be useful in training parents to be more effective in dealing with children. DISCIPLINE PROCEDURES USED BY COLLEGE STUDENTS IN RESPONSE TO PARENT-CHILD PROBLEM SITUATIONS By James Robert Kallman A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1971 Dedication To Tory JOhn ii I wisl Ellen Stron thesis. A E. Stollak, and continu An add Princeton U in the stat ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to eXpress my appreciation to Dr. Martha Karson and Dr. Ellen Strommen for their advice and guidance in the writing of this thesis. A special word of appreciation and thanks is due to Dr. Gary E. Stollak, my committee chairman, for his insight, guidance, patience, and continued assistance in all areas of this study. An additional word of thanks is expressed to Thomas L. Corwin, Princeton University, for the dedication of his time and knowledge in the statistical analysis of the data. iii INTRODUCTIC HWIEW OF L Cons The Inef Prob Summ Impl: nmmmmnr 0] METHOD. . . Subje Sensi Trait msmrs . . Relia Frequ Total Analy Pa Analy TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 . REVIEW OF LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Consequences of Discipline . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . 6 The Importance of Being an Effective Parent. . . . . . . . .- l4 Ineffective Methods of Dealing with Children . . . . . . .-. 21 Problems of Methodology in Studying Parental Discipline. . . 23 Summary. . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . 24 Implications of Present Study. . . . .'. . . .>. . . . . . . 25 SIAIEMENI 0F HYPOTHESIS s s s s s s's s s s s s s s e s s s's s s s 26 “won. . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LO 0 O O O O O O '0 O O 27 SUbJGCta O O O O O O O '0 O I O '0 O O O O O 0 O '0 O O 0 I. O O 27 Sensitivity to Children Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Training Procedures for Raters . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . 29 RESULTS 0 O O O O I O O I O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 30 Reliability of Scoring Responses . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . 30 Frequency of Responses for Individual STC Items. . . . . . . 32‘ Total Usage of Response Categories . . . . . . . .*. 36 Analysis of STC Items and Responses by Problem Ownership: Parent, Child or Parent-Child Owned Problems. . . . . . . 38‘ Analyses of Variance: Sex of Subject x Ownership Of ProblmO O 'O O O O O O O O .0 O O O O O 0 O I O O O '0 O 40 DISCUSSIONs s s s s s s s s s s e s s s s s s ... s s s s s s s s s 54 Hyp°the8es s s s s s s s s's s s s s s s s s s s s s s 0 0'0 54 MbthOdOlogy--sample’-stati.t1C‘l ADElYliflo s s s s s s s s's 60 Implications for Future Research . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . 61 SMARYANDCONCLUSIONS.......'............... 63 Background and Purpose of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Procedure. . . . .‘. . . .-. . . .'. . . . . . . .‘. . . . . 64 Results. . . . . .-. . . .-. . . .,. . . .-. . . .-. . . .‘. 65 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . 65 BIBLIOGMPHY C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ‘ O O O O O O O O I O O 67 APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 72 iv Table 7A 73 BA BB 9A 93 10A 103 11A 118 Table 7A 73 BA 8B 9A 93 10A 108 11A 113 LIST OF TABLES Inter-Rater Rel iabfl 1ty O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I Inter-Rater Reliability. . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . Frequency and Percentages of Responses for Males and leea 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .0 O O O O O O O I 0 Total Frequency of Responses for Individual STC Item . . . . Meaansage of Responses.Across Each STC Item . . . . . . . . Frequency of Responses for Males and Females for Parent, Child and Parent-Child Owned Problems. . . .~. . . .‘. . . . Response l-Ordering, Directing, Commanding: Analysis of variance Table 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Response l-Ordering, Directing, Commanding: Mean Frequency per Item for 100 Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . .'. . Response 2-Warning, Admonishing, Threatening: Analysis Of variance Table 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I O O O 0 O 0 Response 2-Warning, Admonishing, Threatening: Mean Frequency per Item for 100 Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . Response 3-Exhorting, Moralizing, or Preaching: Analysis of Variance Table. . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . .p. . . . Response 3-Exhorting, Moralizing, or Preaching: Mean. Frequency per Item for 100 Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . Response 4-Persuading with Logic, Instructing, Lecturing: Analysis Of variance T8131. s s sis s's s_s s s s s s s s s s Response 4-Persuading with Logic, Instructing, Lecturing: Mean Frequency per Item for 100 Subjects . . . . . . . . . .- Response 5-Providing Answers or Solutions, Advising: Analyai.°f variance-Table s e s s s 's s s s s s s s s s s s' Response S-Providing Answers or Solutions, Advising: Mean Frequency per Item for 100 Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . Page. 30 31 32 37 38 39 40 4O 41 41 42> 42 43 43 44 44 Table 12A 12B 13A 13B 14A 143 15A 15B 16A 163 17A 17B 18A 188 19A 193 20 Response 6-Eva1uating Negatively, Criticizing: Analysis of Variance Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response 6-Evaluating Negatively, Criticizing: Mean Frequency per Item for 100 Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . Response 7-Positive Evaluation, Praise: Analysis of Variance Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘. . . . Response 7—Positive Evaluation, Praise: Mean Frequency per Item for 100 Subjects. . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . Response 8-Supporting, Reassuring: Analysis of Variance Table 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O '0 O O O O O I O O 0 Response 8-Supporting, Reassuring: Mean Frequency per Item for 100 SUbjectBO O O O O O O O 0 O O O O I. O O O 0 Response 9-Diagnosing, Interpreting: Analysis of Variance Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response 9-Diagnosing, Interpreting: Mean Frequency per Item for 100 SUbj acts. 0 O O O O O O O O V. O O O O O O 0 Response lO-Questioning, Frying: Analysis of Variance Tables s s s s s s s s s .. s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s . Response lO-Questioning, Frying: Mean Frequency per Item for 100 SUbjeCtss O O O 0 O O O O I. O O O O O O O I. Response ll-Avoiding, Shifting: Analysis of Variance Table. 0 O O O O O O O '0 O O O '0 O O O '0 O O O O O O O 0 Response ll-Avoiding, Shifting: Mean Frequency per Item for 100 SUbjeCtB O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Response 12-Sarcasm, Teasing: Analysis of Variance Table. Response 12-Sarcasm, Teasing: Mean Frequency per Item for 100 SUbJ ec t8 0 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 0 Responses 1 through 12: Analysis of Variance Table. . . Responses 1 through 12: Mean Frequency per Item for 100 SUbJ.Ct. O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ' Summary of Significant or Marginally Significant Results for Analysis of Variance Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 51' 51 51 52 52 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A STC O O O O O I O O O O O O O O I O O C O I O O O O O O O 72 B Scoring Guide to Twelve Responses to Child Behavior . . . 75 vii INTRODUCTION Gordon (1970), like Ginott (1967), Guerney (1964, 1969) and Stollak (1971), are representative of‘a group of psychologists who are concerned with training adults to be sensitive and effective in their encounters with children. Gordon assumes that most.parents are floundering in their attempts to react properly to children and their problems. He stated that: "It is not an exaggeration that 99 out of 100 parents...use ineffective methods of communicat- ing when their children's behavior is interfering with the parent's lives." (p. 108) The purpose of the present investigation was to study how adults (college students) respond to children in problem situations. It was hOped that the data would provide results which indicate whether adults are more ineffective handling problems with children when the child's behavior is interfering with the adults' needs, or when the child's behavior is only a problem for himself. This study also attempted to provide additional information on how males and females respond to children in problem situations with respect to the repeated findings that fathers are more punitive, restrictive, and authoritarian than mothers, who are more warm and permissive (Jackson, 1956; Becker, 1964). It was also hOped that the study would provide information that could be used in the training of parents and other non-professionals in the area of effective interaction with children. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Observation of children even for a short period of time will COD? firm that all children encounter situations which can be disappointing, frustrating, painful, or shattering; whether they are situations that involve their.friends, siblings, teachers, parents, or themselves. Gordon (1970) stated, "Children who find help in solving such problems maintain their psychological health and continue to acquire more strength and self-confidence. Children who do not, deve10p emotional problems." (p. 63) He feels that there are three types of situations which arise when dealing with children. In the first kind of situation, the child owns the problem. This situation is characterized by the child having a problem because he is thwarted in satisfying a need. It is not con- sidered to be the parent's problem because the child's behavior in no tangible way interferes with the parent satisfying his (the parent's) own needs. In the second kind of situation, the child is satisfying his own needs and his behavior doesn't interfere with the parent's needs. Therefore, there is no problem in.this relationship. In the third kind of situation, the parent owns the problem. In this situation the child is satisfying his own needs, but his behavior interferes in.a tangible way with the parent satisfying his needs. Gordon (1970) defines the term "active listening" as the most effective way in dealing with parent-child relationships. It is a method of influencing children to find their own solutions to their 2 3 problems. Active listening is similar to the approach used by client- centered therapists in their dealing with adults_as well as children (Axline, 1947; Moustakas, 1959). Gordon claims that active listening is beneficial in helping the parents understand the feelings and needs of the child, in helping the child Open.up and reveal his real needs and true feelings, in allowing the parent and child to release feelings and dissipate them, in letting the child know that his proposed solu- tions are understood and accepted, and that their thoughts and evalua- tions concerning all proposed solutions are wanted and accepted. He‘ states that active listening is most appropriate when the child reveals he has a problem; that is, when the child owns.the problem. Gordon also claims that a parent owned problem results in ineffective methods of dealing with children. He feels there are about a dozen different categories into which typical parent's verbal responses fall. With slight modification, the twelve general categories are listed below. 1. Ordering, Directing, Commanding 2. Warning, Admonishing, Threatening 3. Exhorting, Moralizing, Preaching 4. Persuading with logic, Arguing, Instructing, Lecturing 5. Advising, Recommending, Providing answers or solutions 6. Evaluating/Judging negatively, Disapproving, Blaming, Criticizing, Name-calling 7. Praising, Evaluating/Judging positively, Approving 8. Supporting, Reassuring, Excusing, Sympathizing 9. Diagnosing, Psychoanalyzing, Interpreting, Reading-in, Offering insights 10. Questioning, Probing, Cross-examining, Prying, Interrogating ll. Diverting, Avoiding, By-passing, Digressing, Shifting 12. Kidding, Teasing, Making light of, Joking, Using sarcasm (Gordon, 1970) Gordon claims that all twelve types of responses can have a destruct- ive effect on the relationship of the parent and the child. To summarize his views: 1. Ordering, directing, and commanding tell the child that his feelings, or needs, are not important and that he must comply to his parent's feelings or needs. They may communicate unacceptance of 4 the child at that moment, or produce fear of the parent's power. They may make the child feel resentful or angry and communicate to the child that the parent does not trust the child's judgment or competence. 2. Warning, admonishing, or threatening may.make.the child_fee1,fear- ful and submissive and can evoke resentment and hostility. They can. communicate that the parent has no respect for the child's needs or_ wishes and also invite the child to test the firmness of the parent's threat. 3. Exhorting, moralizing, and preaching force the child to bow to the power of external authority, duty, or obligation. They may make the child feel the parent does not trust his judgment and they may cause feelings of guilt. Number 4, persuading with logic, arguing, instructing, or lectur- ing, may make the child feel inferior, inadequate, or defensive. Often the child is aware of the facts and resents the implication that he is uninformed, as well as hating to hear.lectures. S. Advising, recommend- ing, or providing answers or solutions may make the child fear that the parent does not have confidence in the child's ability to find his own. solutions. This type of answer may influence the child to become dependent on the parent. Advice sometimes communicates parental attitudes of superiority to the child as well as making the child feel the parent has not understood him. 6. Judging negatively, blaming, and name- calling, more than others, make the child feel inadequate, inferior, stupid and unworthy. A child's.self-concept is in part determined by the parent and this type of response has a devastating effect on the self-image of the child. Evaluation.strong1y.influences children to withhold their feelings and negative evaluations make some children feel they are no good and that their parents don't love them. 5 Number 7, praising, judging positively, or approving, often has negative effects including the following: The child feeling the parent is being manipulative, the child inferring that parents don't understand them‘when they praise, or the child growing to depend on or demand praise. Sometimes children infer that ifla parent judges positively, he can also judge negatively at some other time. 8. Supporting, reassuring, excusing, and sympathizing can stOp further communication, or be seen as an attempt to change the child's behavior and thereby develop distrust toward the parent. Other parents console because they are not comfortable with the child's feelings and this type of message tells the child you want him to stop feeling the way he does. 9. Diagnosing, interpreting, or offering insights tell the child that the parent has him figured out and this can become threatening to the child. If the interpretation is accurate, the child may feel embarrassed or eXposed. If the interpretation is inaccurate, the child may become angry. This type of response may also stop further communication and make the child feel inferior. 10. Questioning, probing, and.interrogat- ing may convey a lack of trust to the child as well as placing the child in a threatening situation. This questioning may lead the parent to solving the problem for the child and each question tends to limit the child's freedom to talk about whatever he wants.l ll. Diverting, avoiding, and shifting communicate to the child that the parents are not interested in him or it may put aside feelings that will crOp up later and still not be dealt with. Avoiding the issue may teach the child to take his problems and feelings elsewhere. 12. Kidding, teasing, joking, or using sarcasm may make the child feel hurt or rejected when he is serious and needs to talk about something. (Gordon, 1970) 6 Gordon does not provide research evidence to support these specula- tions. However, a review of the literature on the consequences of parental discipline and differing child care practices does provide relevant information. Consequences,g£.Discipline According to Becker (1964) the first studies to deal with the effects of discipline began in the 1910's and 1920's with studies of delinquents. In the 1930's the studies began to deal with strictness, permissiveness, consistency, and type of reinforcement. In the next decade behavior theorists focused their attention on the consequences of child-rearing practices. The studies of the 1950's began to include the father as an influential force in.child-rearing, although even to the present many studies fail to include both parents in.their analyses. Becker (1964) cited three variables which have been dealt with in research on child rearing which have a bearing on all studies in this area. They include (1) social class, (2) sex of the parent and child, and (3) the child's age. Becker in summarizing the results on social class pointed out that upperdmiddle class families seem to provide more warmth, and use more reason, isolation, disappointment, or guilt arousing appeals in disciplining the child than do lower class parents. The middle class also seems more permissive in certain areas of disci- pline as in demands for attention from the child, sex behavior, neat- ness, aggression to parents, and general obedience. Lower and lower- middle class parents are more likely to use ridicule, shouting, or physical punishment in their.discipline and are more restrictive overall (Sears, Maccoby, Levin, 1957; Bronfenbrenner, 1958; Kohn, 1963; Miller 7 and Swanson, 1960). Bronfenbrenner (1958) and Kohn (1963) account for these disciplinary differences by pointing out the differences among the classes' education levels, life conditions, and values to which each class attempts to conform. In examining studies that deal with the sex of the parent as well as the child's sex, results.are often significant for only one sex, suggesting separate evaluations for sex groups. In summarizing the results of several studies, Becker (l964)-noted that the mother seems to be more nurturant and loving than the father and the father, stricter. While mothers use more psychological approaches in discipline, especially with girls, fathers are more physical in punishing, especially with boys. The opposite sexed parent grants greater autonomy than the same sexed parent, boys feel they get punished more than other members of the family, the same sex.parent is less benevolent, and the father is more fear arousing.’ In discussing the consequences of discipline, it is important to recognize that the nature of affectional relations between parent and child is correlated with the use of certain types of discipline. Becker (1964) pointed out that even though some research suggests discipline and affectional relations have similar consequences for child behavior, another considerable body of research studies "types of discipline without considering the possibility that the results could also be attributed to differences in affectional relation." (Becker, 1964, p. 176). In other words, differences in affectional relations could cause differences in the child's behavior, even with the same action or discipline of the parent. In his review, Becker (1964) emphasized the consequences of discipline along two major dimensions: Love-Oriented versus Power- 8 Assertive techniques, and Restrictiveness versus Permissiveness. Love- Oriented techniques include positive methods such as praise and reason, and negative methods include isolating the child, withdrawing love, and showing disappointment. Power—Assertive techniques range from physical punishment to yelling, shouting, commanding, and verbal threats. The consequent variables in the child focus on expression of aggression by the child, the child's reaction to transgressions, and the child's resistance to temptation. Sears, Whiting, Nowlis, and Sears (1953) studied maternal punitive- ness and its effects on aggressive behavior in children. The results showed a positive relationship between punitiveness and overt aggression. in school for boys, but the relationship for girls was curvilinear. Other studies in this area showed a positive relation between parental power assertion and child aggression, although aggressive effects.are not apparent in all situations (Becker, 1962; Kagan and Moss, 1962). There appears to be a large number of studies which substantiate the hypothesis that there is a positive relationship between a punitive approach to discipline and child aggression. Hoffman (1960) found a strong relationship between mother's reactive power assertion and (1) the child's hostility toward other children, (2) power assertion toward other children, and (3) resistance to influence by other children and the teacher. A study by Lambert, Triandis and Wolf (1959) used a projective type test for children which resulted in the children's perceptions of gods being more aggressive than benevolent in families 'where power-assertive techniques were used by the parents. Another explanation for the relationship of power-assertion techniques by the parent and aggression in children is the importance of modeling effects. Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) reported that nursery school children who 9 had been exposed to an aggressive model showed more aggression than a control group, while those exposed to a passive model displayed less aggression than the control group. Becker (1964) reviewed studies which supported a relationship between love-oriented discipline and signs of guilt. Whiting and- Child (1953) reported that in.a cross-cultural study, higher guilt scores were found in cultures in which the use of praise, isolation, and withdrawal of love were the predominant techniques of discipline. Heinicke's (1953) study of five year old boys supported Allinsmith's and Greening's (1955) studies of middle class college students. Both studies showed a positive relationship between infrequent use of physical punishment and high guilt. Studies by LeVine (1961), Sears, Maccoby, and Levin (1957), and Burton, Maccoby, and Allinsmith (1961) all reported that the use of reason and praise resulted in confessions and remorse in children-after the transgression.. Aronfreed (1963) provides further evidence that criticism by the parent is adopted by the child if the parent's responses are associated with the termina- tion of anxiety caused by the transgression. Self-criticism then.is a reproduction of the parent's criticism which signals the end of anxiety.' Becker (1964) summarized the findings of love-oriented methods to power—assertive methods of child rearing: "Power assertive techniques of discipline tend to be used by hostile parents...,tend to promote aggression in young children, power assertion to other children, resistance to authority, and external? ized reactions to transgression. Consistent use of power assertive techniques lead to an inhibition of overt aggression, but the hostility generated is still detectable in the form of prosocial aggression and self-aggression. .. .Love oriented techniques in. this context tend to promote acceptance of selfe responsibility, guilt, and related internalized reactions to transgressions." (p. 189) the pel p31 res are orc' sit 196 the V8] in pl: hi] co to ) i: 10 A second area which has been dealt with extensively in studying the consequences of discipline is the difference in restrictive and permissive approaches to discipline. This global description of the parent role was found as a factor which included both the level of restrictiveness and degree of strictness in enforcing rules in the areas of sex play, modesty, table manners, toilet training, neatness, orderliness, care of furniture, noise, and aggression to peers, siblings, and parents (Becker, Peterson, Luria, Shoemaker, and Hellmer, 1962; Sears, Maccoby, and Levin, 1957). Becker (1964) reported that there is a "strong tendency for parents who are strict or restrictive in one area to be so in other areas of child rearing" (p. 190). Becker warns, however, that there is room for individual parents to be flexible in different areas of discipline. The results from studies in this area show that restrictive disci— pline fosters inhibited behavior and permissive discipline more unin- hibited behaviors. Symonds.(l939) reported that parents who use much control, strictness, severe punishment, criticism, or excessive planning for the child's needs tended to have children who were better socialized, more neat, polite, generous, and courteous. But these children were also more sensitive, self-conscious, shy and retiring.- Children of "permissive" parents were more disobedient, irresponsible, disorderly in the classroom, and had short attention spans. A longitudinal study by Kagan and Moss (1962) reported the follow- ing conclusion: There appear to be complex interactions between age and sex variables. Early restrictiveness has greater inhibiting power than later restrictiveness, while restrictiveness at later ages is likely to develop more controlled or uncontrolled hostility in the child. In later ages, the child may be aware of the unfairness of an 11 excessively controlling parent and is capable of retaliating with aggression. However, the influence of the father was not studied. The consequences of restrictiveness and permissiveness in child rearing have also been studied with the additional factor of warmth versus hostility in the home. Permissiveness combined with hostility seems to maximize aggressive, poorly controlled behavior. Restrictive- ness combined with hostility maximizes self-aggression, social with- drawal, and signs of internal conflict (Becker, 1964). Studies with delinquents (Healy and Bronner, 1926; Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Bandura. and Walters, 1959) showed parents of delinquents to have poor affectional- relations with their children and to use poor disciplinary techniques. Bandura and Walters (1959) report that "maximum.generation of noncoms pliant, aggressive, and poorly controlled behavior occurs largely under lax-hostile or hostile—permissive type discipline." The delinquency. studies and a study on control of mothers, by McCord, McCord and Howard (1961), suggest that high aggression and nonconformity are likely to be found in children whose parents are overly strict or overly.per- missive. Meyers' (1944) study of nursery school children and their parents lends additional support to these findings. Again the results showed that parents who were high on rejection and permissiveness had children who were more non-compliant, while parents who were rejecting and restrictive had compliant children. Studies on restrictiveness versus permissiveness in a warm context home showed that children in a warm permissive home were more independent, cooperative, creative, and.showed less hostility on projective tasks. 0n the other hand, children reared in.warm—restrictive homes were more dependent, unfriendly, less creative, less persistent and showed more fantasy hostility (Watson, 1957; Kagan and Moss, 1962). Becker (1964), 12 in his summary of the results of the permissive versus restrictive discipline studies, warned that both methods involve certain risks. "Restrictiveness, while fostering well-controlled, socialized behavior, tends also to lead to fearful, dependent, and submissive behavior; a dulling of intellectual striving; and inhibited hostility. Permissiveness, on the other hand, while fostering outgoing, sociable, assertive behaviors, and. intellectual striving, also tends to lead to less persistence and increased aggressiveness." To summarize and extend the review of consequences of discipline by Becker (1964), Baumrind (1966) discussed seven dimensions of parental control and the effects these techniques of discipline had on child behavior. The first dimension studied was punitive versus non-punitive disciplinary practices. Punitive parents used threats, hostile remarks, severe punishment, ridicule and/or strong disapproval in.an attempt to control the child and to motivate him to obey.‘ Research findings reported that physical punishment in the home led to higher delinquency rates, more aggression, and conduct problems in boys and girls (Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Bandura and Walters, 1959; Becker, Peterson, Luria, Shoemaker, and Hellmer, 1962). Punitiveness was associated with dependence upon peers and aggression for boys and dependency for girls (Sears, Whiting, Nowlis, and Sears, 1953). 2. Withdrawal of Love: Parents using this dimension of control punished their children by withholding or withdrawing love as a method of obtaining compliance with a parental directive. Sears at al. (1953) reported that withdrawal of love was associated with dependency, and also with high conscience develOpment when the mother was warm. Bandura and.Walters (1959) reported that use of this discipline was correlated with resistiveness in both aggressive and control groups. 13 3. Explanations offered and give and take encourgged versus rigid_ maintenance of status distinctions:' In comparing parents who used reason to impel obedience, explained policy, and allowed dissent, to parents who did not, the results reported that use of reasoning was.used more by-parents in nondelinquent groups compared to delinquent groups (Glueck. and Glueck, 1950), and in control groups compared to aggressive groups, of children (Bandura and Walters, 1959). Rigidity was associated-with covert hostility (Finney, 1961), while equalitarianism and open communica- tion by parents were associated with positive, friendly, and mature behavior in their children (Shaefer and Bayley, 1963; Baumrind, 1966). 4. High;versus low demands for household responsibilities and orderly behavior: Parents who make high demands are characterized by making and enforcing demands for socially desirable behavior, neatness, orderliness,.and performing household chores. While Sears at al. (1953) and Becker at al. (1962) reported no significant findings between these two types of control, Glueck and Glueck (1950) reported that delinquent groups had higher parental control (physical punish- ment, threatening, etc.) than non-delinquent groups whose parents were rated higher in supervision than control. Bandura and Walters (1959) reported that children rated aggressive had parents who had many. restrictions for the child or who were permissive-of,aggression toward the mother. McCord at al. (1961) added support to these findings. They-reported that least hostile boys were supervised most and that the most hostile boys were either under or over-controlled. . 6. Uses high versus low power assertion: Initial unqualified power assertion.was.associated in middle class homes with resistance' toward teachers while reactive unqualified power assertion was associated with assertiveness in both middle.and working class children, and with hostility in only working class youths. 14 7. Firm versus lax control: Parents classified as firm enforced rules firmly, resisted child's demands, and believed in directing the child. Baumrind (1966) reported high parental control to be associated with mature (self-assertive and self-reliant) children and low parental control to be associated with immaturity. Firm.but kindly discipline was higher in non-delinquent groups than delinquent groups (Glueck and Glueck, 1950), and control was.negatively related to quarrelsome— ness, resistance, and disobedience (Baldwin, 1948). 'McCord.et a1. (1961) reported that parents-characterized by consistency in their discipline had the least hostile children in group comparisons. Baumrind (1966) preposed eight statements concerning consequences of discipline which will serve as a summary for this section. Baumrind proposed: 1. Punishment has inevitable harmful side effects and is an ineffective means of controlling child behavior. 2. Close supervision, high demands, and.other manifestations- of parental authority provoke rebelliousness in children.. 3. Firm parental control generates passivity and‘dependence. 4. Parental restrictiveness decreases normal self-assertiveness and‘buoyance. 5. Permissiveness frees the child from the presence and authority of the parent. 6. Controlling parents are motivated by the authoritarian personality syndrome and therefore are compelled, by fear of loss of control, to restrict the child's self-directed, autonomous efforts. 7.- Firm control inhibits the child's creative thrust. 8. -Similar patterns of child rearing affect boys and girls differently. (Baumrind, 1966) The Importance of Being_an Effective Parent Since this study is indirectly concerned with helping to develop effective parents, it seems important to relate the characteristics of the effective therapist to parenthood. A review of the literature in. this area shows the importance of behavioral manifestations of warmth, sympathy, and genuineness on the part of the parent. According to 15 Guerney (1964), Axline (1947), Moustakas (1959), and Ginott (1966), the genuine parent is one that accepts his role in a secure and comfort- able manner. He relates to the child the authority and control that- accompanies that role in a manner that is beneficial to the child's concept of himself. In summarizing these studies, Reif and Stollak (1971) note that the control of the genuine parent is not a display of his authoritarianism, but a genuine control the parent exercises over the child for the sake of the child. It is a kind of influente that. enables the child to master his environment with an understanding of his limitations and the consequences of his actions. A genuine parent is concerned with the development of the child and communicates this caring by setting reasonable limits and goals for the child. Sears, Maccoby, and Levin (1957), as well as other-studies (Becker, 1964), have studied the importance of parental warmth in terms of its implications for the emotional growth of the child. Generally, the, studies indicated too much warmth or indulgence on the part of the ~parent tends to develop dependency in the child, while too little warmth or a cold, rejecting parent, appears to develop insecurity in the child. Therefore, it seems important for the effective parent tO' convey warmth at an Optimal level which indicates to the child that he is accepted, but doesn't allow him to develop a strong dependency on. the parent.* This extreme dependency may deter the child from functioning as an individual.* As Becker (1964) has pointed out in his review of the effects of warmth versus hostility, warmth as a single variable has shown little consistency in its relationship to child behavior and is therefore examined in the general atmosphere of the home. In a study of social compliance as an aspect of adjustment, Crandall, Orleans, Preston and Rabson (1958) suggest that either extreme of 16 conformity or nonconformity may be detrimental to self-integration. The amount of social compliance was related to the age of the child and not sex or intelligence differences. Maternal rewards for compliance were better predictors of children's compliance outside the home than were maternal punishments, especially in older children. In a study of nursery school.children by Baldwin (1949), three dimensions of the home environment created by the parent-dwarmth, democracy, and indulgence—dwere studied in regard to child behavior in school. Democracy in_the home proved to be the most important of these three factors which accounted for variations in school behavior. Children from democratic homes were 1) active, socially outgoing, both in hostile and friendly ways, 2) favored-in groups (aggression and bossing being generally successful), and 3) rated high on activities demanding intellectual curiosity, originality, and constructiveness. Indulgent parents fostered physical apprehension and lack of skill in muscular endeavors in their children. From these studies it appears that parents directly influence the child's behavior and suggest that optimal levels of certain parental behaviors are most effective in the development of.successfu1 behaviors of the child. "An optimal level of parent behavior seems to imply moderate and reality-oriented behaviors, or some degree of control by the parents in regard to the child's appropriate expression of impulses and general socialization." (Liberman, 1970) Hoffman (1963) also studied the effects of parental discipline in relation to the child's consideration for others. The results reported that in examining the overall disciplinary atmosphere of the home, Children who were significantly more considerate of others, more friendly, and had‘greater impulses control, had parents who. scored low 17 on reactive unqualified power assertion. Children of parents who used high degrees of power assertion and less acceptance were found to be more hostile and less accepting toward others. Also, children who are allowed to vent feelings and be accepted with-these feelings, who are given reasonable limits by their parents, and who have parents who pro- vide models for consideration to others, appear to express spontaneous, altruistic concern for others. Dreyer and Haupt's (1966) study of kindergarten age children examined the variable of parental control in respect to standards for evaluation of competence. Standards for evaluation were divided.intoh internal.self—evaluations and reflective (external) evaluations. Results indicated children with more autonomous self—evaluations manifested more independence and achievement and more affiliative behavior, while over-control of impulses and less stable levels of aspirations were found in reflective (external) self-evaluative children. Baumrind (1966, 1971) studied patterns of parental authority and the effects each pattern had on child behavior. She presented three prototypes of adult control, each of which has greatly influenced the child-rearing practices of parents as well as child development.experts. The first prototype is the-permissive parent, characterized-as one who "...attempts to behave in a nonpunitive, acceptant, and affirmative manner toward the child's impulses, desires, and actions. She (the parent) consults with him about policy decisions and gives explana- tions for family rules. She makes few demands for household responsibilities and orderly behavior. She presents herself to the child as a resource for him to use as he wishes, not as an ideal for him to emulate, nor as an active agent responsible for shap- ing or altering his ongoing or future behavior. She allows the child to regulate his own activities as much as possible, avoids the exercise of control, and does not encourage him to obey externally defined standards. She attempts to use reason and manipula- tion, but not overt power to accomplish her ends." (Baumrind, 1966, p. 889) 18 The second pattern of parental authority is termed the authoritarian parent. "The authoritarian parent attempts to shape, control, and evaluate the behavior and attitudes of the child in accordance with a set standard, theologically motivated and formulated by a higher authority. She values obedience as a virtue and favors punitive, forceful measures to curb selfdwill at points where the child's actions or beliefs conflict with what she thinks is right conduct. She believes in keeping the child in his place, in restricting his autonomy, and in assigning household responsibilities in order to inculcate respect for work. She regards the preservation of order and traditional structure as a highly valued end in itself. She does not encourage verbal give and take, believing that the child should. accept her word for what is right." (p. 890) Although this type of control was.more prominent in earlier American culture when the parental discipline was directed at teaching the child to do the will of God and the authoritarian parent was stern because he cared, the characteristics associated with authoritarianism.continue- to be found in present parental discipline (Baumrind, 1966). The third prototype defined by Baumrind (1966) is the authoritative parent. In this pattern of discipline, the parent "...attempts to direct the child's activities in~a rational, issue-oriented manner. She encourages verbal give and take, shares with the child the reasoning behind her policy, and solicits his objections when he refuses to conform. Both autonomous selfdwill and.disciplined conformity are valued by the authoritative parent. Therefore, she exerts firm control at points of parent-child divergence, but does not hem the child in with restrictions. She enforces her own perspective as an adult, but recognizes the child's individual interests and special ways. The authoritative parent affirms the child's present qualities, but also sets standards for future conduct. She uses. reason, power, and shaping by regime and reinforce- ment to achieve her objectives and does not base her decisions on group consensus or the individual child's desires." (p. 891) 19 Baumrind (1967) contrasted three groups of normal children differ- ing in emotional and social behavior in order to classify the child rearing methods of their parents. 1. Parents who were controlling and demanding, but at the same time warm, rational, and receptive to the child's communication, had children who were the most self-reliant, self-controlled, explorative and content. These parents used authori- tative parental behavior, consisting of high control and positive encouragement of the child's autonomy and independence.. 2. Parents labeled authoritarian were controlling but detached and less warm than- other parents. Their children, relative to others, were discontent, withdrawn, and distrustful. 3. The least self-reliant, explorative, and.selfecontrolled children had parents who were relatively warm, but non-controlling and non-demanding. These parents were labeled permissive parents. In a recent study, Baumrind (1971) extended her prototypes to four with the addition of the category Non-Conforming parent. This study extensively explored characteristics of each prototype and the results. were examined on a two dimensional scale: 1. Responsibility versus Irresponsibility. Baumrind (1971) defines responsible behavior as "the conforming, accommodating, socialized component of competent behavior" (p. 91). 2.‘ Independence versus Suggestibility. Independent behavior is described as "the independent, creative, assertive, individualistic component of competent behavior" (p. 91). Baumrind's (1971) findings can be summarized: l. Daughters of. authoritarian parents were significantly less independent than.daughters of authoritative parents, while sons of authoritarian parents were some- what less independent than sons of nonvconforming parents. Sons of authoritarian parents were less socially responsible.than sons of 20 authoritative parents and there was less achievement orientation for daughters of authoritarian than.authoritative parents. 2. Sons of both authoritarian and permissive parents were significantly less socially responsible than sons of authoritative parents. Daughters of authoritarian parents were less achievement oriented than daughters of authoritative parents. 3. Sons of-permissive and authoritarian parents lacked social responsibility compared to sons of authoritative parents, and sons of permissive parents were much less achievement oriented than sons of non-conforming parents. While daughters of per- missive parents were not lacking in social responsibility, they were less independent than authoritative daughters, but not less independent than daughters of authoritarian or non-conforming parents. Sons of permissive parents were less purposive than authoritative sons, and significantly less independent than sons of non-conforming parents.' 4. Children of non-conforming parents were not lacking in social responsibility relative to any of the other prototypes. Daughters of non—conforming parents were less resistive than daughters of authori- tative or permissive parents. Sons of non-conforming parents'were more achievement oriented and independent than sons of permissive parents, but daughters of non-conforming parents were less independent than daughters of authoritative parents. Generally, the results stated that authoritative parents are most likely to.facilitate the deve10pment of competence via responsible behavior and competence via independent behavior in young children (Baumrind, 1971). To summarize the studies reported in this section on the importance of being an effective parent, the reviewed literature indicates.that the three qualities of non-possessive warmth, empathy, and genuineness are effective variables in the parentwchild relationship. The studies 21 suggested that when reasonableness and warmth accompany parental authority, the child toward whom these qualities are directed exhibits more than adequate emotional adjustment.‘ Authoritarian control and permissive non-control may affect the child so that he is not given the Opportunity to engage in effective interaction with peOple. The find- ings support the characteristics of the authoritative parents as being the most effective atmosphere to develop positive mental health characteristics in children. Ineffective Methods of Deali234with Children‘ Gordon's list of twelve kinds or classes of ineffective responses of parents and their effects on the parent-child relationship was mentioned earlier in the review of the literature, with subsequent studies mentioned that lend some support to his claims. A brief dis- cussion of ineffective methods will not only continue to support Gordon's ideas, but will be a guide and contrast-to effective parent- child interaction. In discussing parental discipline, everyone from psychologist to layman seems to agree that inconsistency is "bad" for the child. Con sistent behavior by the parent would seem to increase the degree of predictability of the child's environment and lead to more stable behavior patterns. Inconsistency is multifaceted and difficult to define since it includes permission of some behaviOrs but not others, or permission at specific times, permission of one parent but not the other, the presence or absence of the parents, threatening punishment without a follow—up, or punishment for a particular behavior at one time and not another. Becker's-(1964) review of inconsistency in discipline studies stated that inconsistency,.both within and between 22 the parents, contributes to anti-social behavior (Bandura and Walters, 1959; Glueck and Glueck, 1950). Read's‘(1945) study provides evidence that when one parent of nursery school children is strict and.the other is permissive, more unfavorable behavior is displayed by the child than when both parents are strict or permissive. Terman (1938) and Sanford, Adkins, Miller and Cobb (1943) found people that reported irregular discipline in their upbringing scored low on a marital happiness scale. Thus it appears that "inconsistent discipline contributes_to maladjust- ment, conflict and aggression in the child" (Becker, 1964, p. 200). There are also more specific discipline methods which have been termed deleterious to positive mental health development in children. Although praise appears to be a positive aspect of discipline, Ginott. (1966) warns against associating the quality of the child's productions with the quality of his being. He claims that praise can be both helpful and unhelpful.‘ Helpful praise would be "Your letter brought. me great joy," since the child infers from this statement that he can make others happy. Therefore, this represents a realistic assessment. of himself. Unhelpful praise, such as "When it comes to letter writing you are wonderful", gives the child an unrealistic perception of his capabilities. Disapproval, rejection, or dislike of the child as a person are behaviors which are contra-indicative of warm feelings toward the child. Client-centered therapists stress the difference-between disapproval of the child's behavior and disapproval of the child's self, the latter being detrimental to the child. Client-centered play therapists also hold the common attitude that "the therapist does not attempt to direct the child's actions or conversations in any manner.- The child leads the way, the therapist follows" (Axline, 1964). This 23 suggests that the therapist would tend to ask few questions, provide minimal solutions for the child, and would comply to the child's requests. Problems of Methodology in Studying Parental Discipline A serious limitation exists in studying parental reactions to a child's misbehavior. As Jackson (1956) points out, this difficulty is the unpremeditated or spontaneous character of these events. Researchers have used reports of parents.concerning past parental action (Radke, 1946;.Stott, 1940) or an assessment of the parental attitudes toward children (Block, 1955; Shoden, 1949; Cutts and Moseley, 1952). The techniques used to accumulate this information range from survey questionnairestx>clinical interviews. Conclusions based on this data assume that some relationship exists between the parent's verbal report and his action in the home. Although several studies have attempted to deal with the relationship between expressed parental attitudes. toward child rearing and the actual behavior of the parents with their. children, as Mannino, Kisiclewski, Kimbro and Morgenstern (1968) point out, the results have been inconclusive. Brody (1965) investigated the relationship of maternal attitudes toward child rearing and the observed interaction of the mother and child in the playroom. She found only seven out of fifteen behavioral indices showed a significant relationship between respective attitude and behavior measures.. On the other hand, Block (1955) compared a group of fathers who expressed restrictive attitudes toward child rearing, with a group who expressed permissive attitudes, and found significant differences when the groups were rated on a number of individual and group behavior situations. Guerney, Shapiro, and Stover (1968) found that checklist 24 type measures yielded significant correlations between parental per- ceptions of the child and.observed parent-child interaction. Hart (1957) investigated the degree of maternal authoritarianism in the mother's personality in relation to preferences in techniques used in controlling the child and found a clear correlation between maternal personality and reported behavior. The studies mentioned show the inconsistency of connecting parent reports and attitudes studies with actual parental behavior. Observa- tional studies in the home or playroom do not yield, for many reasons, enough disciplinary.or need arousing episodes, to allow for data analysis. One alternative method to the methods used in the above studies was suggested and used by Jackson (1956). This alternative presents the parent with a hypothetical problem.and need arousing situation to which he is asked to respond. The present study employs this alternative method in studying parental discipline. Summary. Gordon (1970) claims that parent's responses to problem situations with their children can be classified into twelve general categories. He distinguishes between two general types of problems that exist in. parental interaction with children, which he labels parent owned and child owned problems. He also believes that 99% of the parent responses to hypothetical problem solving situations with children are ineffective when the parent owns the problem. In reviewing the literature on the consequences of discipline it became apparent that the consequences of disciplinary practices are multifaceted and must be viewed in the context of the warmth exhibited- by the parent, prior history of disciplinary practices and emotiOnal 25 relations, the role structure of the family, and the social-economic conditions under which a particular family is living. In general, the importance of warmth and permissiveness in facilitating the growth.of sociable, independent children has found repeated support (Baumrind, 1967, 1971; Coopersmith, 1967), and the debilitating effects of parent hostility in many forms is apparent. Implications of Present Study The need for training non-professionals, especially parents, to be more effective in dealing with children in order to help them develOp positive mental health, is becoming increasingly apparent in the field of mental health. "In many instances it is possible that making the parent more aware of how his or her behavior is having an impact on the child, can motivate a change in the parent's handling of the child." (Becker, 1964, p. 204) Hopefully the results of this study will provide information on adults' responses to children, especially in the area of adult-owned versus child-owned problems, that will be useful in helping train parents and prospective parents to be more effective with children. STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS Gordon (1970) has stated that differences in parental responses to hypothetical problem situations with children occur in regard to parent owned versus child owned problems. He states that parents use more ineffective responses in parent owned problems than child owned problems. Gordon, however, cites no research to substantiate his. claim. Nor does he speculate about male—female differences. This study then is concerned with two questions: Do adult responses to hypothetical problem situations with children differ significantly depending on whether the problem is. child owned or parent owned? Do males and females differ significantly in the type of responses they give to children in the-same hypothetical problem situations?v 26 METHOD Subjects In the fall of 1970, an advertisement was placed, by Stollak (1971), in the Michigan State University newspaper to solicit sophomore and junior level volunteers who were_interested in learning about and practicing play techniques to increase their sensitivity and ability to communicate.with children. Of the approximately 425 students who attended discussion meetings, 395 completed three inventories, including a Sensitivity to Children projective questionnaire (STC). The STC was developed by Stollak and designed to assess adult behavior toward children in problem situations. Of the 395 respondents, 285 were females and 110 were males. One hundred male and 100 female questionnaires were randomly selected from the total number and scored for the.cate- gories noted below. Sensitivity togChildren Questionnaire The Sensitivity to Children questionnaire (STC) is a sixteen item. projective device which requires the subject to read a short description of an incident concerning a six year old child. To respond to this situation, the subject is asked to put himself or herself into the role of the parent, and to write down the way in which he or she would respond to the child in each situation, using the exact words and/or. actions as if it were a script for a play or movie. (A copy of the STC may be found in.Appendiwa.) 27 28 Of the sixteen STC items, items 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 16 were, on face value, considered indicative of child owned problems; items 3, 7, and 8 were considered indicative of parent owned problems; and items 2, 5, and 11 were indicative of parent and child equally owned problems. These items were divided in accordance with the rules for identifying child owned or parent owned problems set by Gordon (1970) and discussed earlier in the review of the literature. It was decided that items 1, 10, and 13 did not fit into one of the above categories and were therefore not included in the data analysis. Each test was scored once by one of four independent raters, who scored each situation for the twelve categories. More than one category might be scored on an STC item, but a category could only be scored once on a specific STC item. These twelve categories are a slight modification of Gordon's twelve and were: 1. Ordering, Directing, or Commanding 2. Warning, Admonishing, Threatening 3. Exhorting, Moralizing, Preaching 4.- Persuading with Logic, Arguing, Instructing, Lecturing 5. Advising, Recommending, Providing Answers or Solutions 6. Evaluating/Judging Negatively, Disapproving,-Blaming, Name—Calling, Criticism 7.‘ Praising, Judging/Evaluating Positively, Approving 8. Supporting, Reassuring, Excusing, Sympathizing 9. Diagnosing, Psychoanalyzing, Interpreting, Reading-in,. Offering Insights 10. Questioning, Probing, Cross-Examining, Prying, Interrogating 11. Diverting, Avoiding, By-Passing, Digressing, Shifting 12. Kidding, Teasing, Making light of, Joking, Using sarcasm 29 A complete copy of the scoring guide may be found in Appendix B. Training Procednre for Raters In a three hour training session, at least one example for each of the twelve responses and at least one example of each STC item was scored independently by the four raters.1 The experimenter acted as the expert. Scores were then compared and discrepancies were discussed by the expert and any questions were answered. In addition to the fifty STC's that each rater scored, five addi- tional STC's were chosen at random from the remaining 200 STC's and scored independently and without discussion by each rater to determine interrater reliability. The proportion of agreement.for each response and item for these five STC's may be found in the Results,'Tables. 1 and 2. 1Appreciation is due to Deletha Crum, Eli Karimi, Lewis Barman, and Kathy Barrie for their time and effort. RESULTS Reliability of Scorinngepponses As stated in the methodology, four raters were trained by the experimenter, who acted as the expert rater. In addition to the fifty (50) STC's that each rater scored, five additional STC's were chosen. at-random from the remaining two hundred (200) STC's and scored inde- pendently and without discussion by each rater. The proportion of agreement for each response and item for these five STC's with the expert's judgment are listed in Tables 1 and 2. The percentage of agreement over all thirteen categories for each response ranged from 802 for Response 4 to 982 for Response 12. Table l: INTER-RATER RELIABILITY- Percentage of égreementhetween.Four Raters and an Expert_Rater For Twelve Response Categories Response Categg£y_ Percentage ongreement . 1. Ordering, Directing, Commanding 95 2. Warning, Admonishing, Threatening 97 3. Exhorting, Moralizing, Preaching 91 4. Persuading with logic, Arguing, Instructing. Lecturing 80 5. Advising, Recommending, Providing answers or solutions 84 6. Evaluating/Judging Negatively, Disapproving, Blaming, Criticizing, Name-calling 94 30 31- Table 1 (Cont'd.) Response Category Percentageof~Agreement 7. Evaluating/Judging Positively, Praising, Approving 95' 8. Supporting, Reassuring, Excusing, Sympathizing 88 9. Diagnosing, Psychoanalyzing, Interpreting, Reading-in, Offering insights’ 95 10. Questioning, Probing, Cross-examining, Prying, Interrogating 96 11. Diverting, Avoiding, By-passing, Digressing, Shifting 96 12. Kidding, Teasing, Making light of, Joking, Using sarcasm 98 Table 2: INTER-RATER RELIABILITY Percentage of Agreement Between Four Raters and an Expert Rater _ *a* For Each Response Category and Each STC Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 E 2 90 100 100 75 95 100 85 85 95 100 75 100 92 3 100 100 95 80 75 90 100 100 85 85 95 100 92’ 4 100 100 100 95 95 100 100 85 85 85 95 95 94 5 95 95 95 65 80 90 100 90 100 95 100 85 91 6 95 95 85 70 100 80 95 85 100 100 100 100 92~ 7 100 80 80 90 80 100 100 95 95 95 100 100 93 8 100 100 100 85 90 100 100 80 100 90 95 100 95 9 95 100 85 90 90 100 100 90 95 100 95 100 95 ll 80 90 95 80 70‘ 90 100 100 95 100 95 100 91‘ 12 100 100 95 80 75 100 70 85 90 100 95 100 91 14 95 95 70 55 80 80 100 85 100 95 100 100 88 15 95 100 95 90 85 100 90 100 95, 95 100 100 95 16 95 100 85 90 70 95 100 85 95 100 100 100 93 i) 95 97 91 80 84 94 95 88 95 96 96 98 92 *** The five STC questionnaire used for this inter-rater relia- bility were randomly chosen from the remaining 195 STC's that were not used in this study. Frequency of Responses for Individual STC Items 32 The first step in examining the results was to study which responses males and females used most often for each individual STC item (Table 3). Table 3 Frequency and Percentages of Responses for Males and Females Response \OGDNO‘U'I-l-‘WNH Response ‘DWVO‘UI-bUJNl-I' 10 ITEM 2 f x M F M F 14 8 7 6 2 2 1 1 8 4 4 2 62 72 32 41 16 19 8 11 1 3 1 2 1 o 1 o 20 18 1o 10 2 o 1 o 47 4o 25 23_ 14 7 4 2 ._11 ._JE ._Jl ._:L 191 172 100 100 ITEM 5 f x M F M F 16 13 8 s 5 4 2 1 36 41 17 18 32 36 15 16 28 39 14 17 6 6 3 2 1 o 1 o 2 o 1 o 2 . 1 1 1 74 81 36 39 ‘ s 3 2 1 o #2 o 1 207 226 100 100 ITEM 3 f M F M, F 40 43 20 22 l 1 .5 .5 27 25 14' 13 34 30 17 15 20 19- 10 10 l 3 .5 2 0 0 0 0 6 6 3 3 2 1 1 .5 41 34 20 17 24 31 12 16 _3__.2.'__2._1; 199 195 100 100 ITEM 6 f 2 M F M F 42 44- l9 l8 8 5 4 2 26 29 12 12 33 46 15 19 21 30 10 12 6 3 3 l 2 1 1 1 6 6 3 2 2 2 1 1 66 73 30 30 1 2 1 1 4. 1 2 1 217 242 100 100 ITEM 4 f I M F M F 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 9 9 5 6 19 20 12 12 0 0 0 0 2 1 1' 1 18 20 11’. 12 5 2 3 1' 93 90 56 57 6 8 4 5 _1__8_1_4. 163 157 100 100 ITEM 7 f 2 M F M F 30' 16 19 11 1 6 l 4 17 11. 11 8 59 57 37 39 15 .26 9 ' 18 1 0 l 0 O 2 0 l 3 2 2 1 1 1 l 1 23 l7 14 12 6 2 4 1. 3 6 2 4 159 146‘ 100 100 3 3 Table 3 (Cont'd.) ITEM 8 f 2 Response M. F M F l 0 l 0 1 2 2 1 l l 3 4 3 3 2 4 19 34 13 22 5 21 28 15 18 6 1 O 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 8 9 l3 6 8 9 2 0 1 0 10 54 49 38 31 ll 31 24 21 15 12 _..1_ .__2 __1_ ___1. Total 144 155 100 100 - ITEM 12 f 2 Response M F M F 1 8 4 3 2 2 0 0 O 0 3 4 3 2 1. 4 57 49 25* 21 5 46 46 20 20 6 l 3 0 l 7 34 48 15 20 8 50 56 22 24 9 2. 3 1 1 10. 19 20 8 9 11 4 2 2 1 12 5 .1 2 0 Total 230 235 100 100 ITEM 16 f 2 Response M F M F l 1 0 1 O 2 l l 1 1, 3 9 10 6 8 4 49 44 33 33 5 26 20 17 15 6 0 0 0 0 7 2 3, l 2 8 10 2 7 1 9 3 1 2 l 10 42 49 28 37 ll 4 3 3 ‘2 12 __2. 0 __1.._Jg F6“: 149 153’ 100 100 ITEM 9 f M F M 6 6 4 1 1 1 16 9 10 35 17 22 10 10 6 0 0 O 1 2 1 14 22 9 3 2 2 29 27 18 42 51 26 _2___1_1 159 148 100 ITEM 14 f M F M 18 25 10 5 6 3 27 31 15 51 52 29 ll 11 6 1 5 .5 1 4 .5 21 17 12 3 3 2 33 24 19 5 0 3 1 1 .5 Z :11 l-' p.- l—‘U'Il-‘ONl-‘ml-‘b OOH I'd-Fm 100 X F 14 3 17 29 6 1 o __l 177 179 100 100 3 2. 9 2 3 f M. 33 16 6 37 5 hi on no h‘\l saa~uwu>c>u>c>u>oxa~hiUI 182 ITEM.11 F M F 35 22 22 7 11 4 12 4 8 38 25 24 ll 3 7 23 9 15 1 0 1 1- l l 0 2 0 9 5 5 .18 13 11 __3._2._.2_ 158 100 100 ITEM 15 2 F M F 3 3 2 l 1 .5 2 2 1 78 42 43 24 10 13 l 0 .5 3 2 2 22 11' 12 4 2 2 32 19 18 5 . 2 3 .5 6 3 180 100 100 34 For STC item 2, Parents leavingpchild with babysitter, males used Response 4, Persuading with logic (322) and Response 10, Questioning (252) more often than any other response. Response.8, Supporting (102), scored the third highest response, with the remaining responses seldomly used. The same held true for females, using 4-Persuading with logic (412), 10-Questioning (23%), and 8-Supporting (10%). STC item 3, Group sex-plsy, was responded to mainly with five responses: 1-Ordering (Mh201, F-ZZZ); lO-Questioning (M5202, F-17Z); 4-Persuading with logic (M-l7z, F-lSZ); ll-Avoiding (MP122, F-16Z); 3-Moralizing and Preaching (Fl-14%, F-lBX) . For a Silent, sad-faced dapghter, STC item 4, more than half the male and female responses were Response 10, Questioning (MP56Z, F-572). When the child obviously had a problem but didn't mention it, both males and females responded by asking questions. The other two responses that both males and females used most often in this situation were 5-Providing answers.(Mh121, F-lZZ) and 8-Supporting (M-llZ, F-lZZ). STC item 5, Stealing, was responded to most often by both males and females with Response lO—Questioning (Mb36Z, F-39Z). Three other responses by both males and females accounted for the rest of the majority of responses:; 3-Moralizing and Preaching (Mel7Z, F-l82), 4-Persuading with logic (MP15Z, F-16Z), 5-Providing answers (M-l4Z, F-17z). Approximately one third of the males and females responses was Response lO-Questioning (MhSOZ, F-302) in reply to STC item 6, Sibling fighting. Approximately one fifth of the responses for both males and females_was Response l—Ordering (MP19Z,-F-182). The two additional responses used to any significant degree were Response 4ePersuading with logic (M9151, F-192) and Response 3dPreaching and Moralizing (M9122, F-lZZ). 35 For STC item 7, Bedtime dissggeement (Contract breaking), males responded with 4-Persuading with logic more than one third of the time, as did females (M9372, F9391). Response 1-0rdering was used by males (19%) more often than females (11%) for this item, with females using Response S-Providing answers (F9182) almost twice as often as males did (M991). Response lO-Questioning once again was another response-used with some regularitbey both males and females (M9142, F9122). STC item 8, Hiding an Accident (Broken toy), produced more diversi— fied answers for both males and females. While Response lO-Questioning carried approximately one third of male and female responses (M9382, F-3lZ), three other responses were also used by both sexes with some regularityzq Response llquoiding (M9212, F9152); Response 4-Persuading with logic (M9132, F9222); Response S-Providing solutions (M9152, F9182). The Masturbation item, STC 9, yielded an avoidance response, Response 11, more than.any other item for both males and females (M9262, F9341). Questioning (Response 10) again drew many responses for males and_fema1es (M9181, F9182), but the third highest ranked response for males and females differed with this STC item. ‘Males used Response 4- Persuading with logic (M9222) twice as much as females (11%), while. females used Response 8-Reassuring more often than males (M992, F9152). STC item 11, Temper tantrum in public, was responded to most often by males and females with Response 1-0rdering (M9222, F9222), and Response 4-Persuading with logic (M9252, F9242). Response lleAvoiding was used equally by both sexes (M9132, F9111), with male and female. differences occurring with Response ZAWarning (M9112, F942) and Response 6-Judging negatively (M991, F9152). The majOrity of responses to STC item 12, Child denouncing self, fell into four categories for both males and females. Equally used by 36 both sexes were: Response 4-Persuading with logic (M9252, F9212); Response 5-Providing solutions (M9202, F9202); Response 8-Reassuring (M9222, F9242); and Response 7-Judging positively (M9152, F9202). Response 4-Persuading with logic, was the predominant response used by both males and females for STC item 14, Punished child-Parent- coogeration (M9292, F9292). The remainder of responses for both sexes was diversified and included four additional responses: Response 1- Ordering (M9102, F9142); Response 3-Preaching (M9152, F9152); Response 8-Supporting (M9122, F992); Response lO-Questioning (M9192, F9132). Almost one half of the responses used by both males and females for STC item 15, Angry child, was Response 4-Persuading with logic (M9422, F9452). An additional 402 of the responses to this item was found in three responses for both males and females: Response lO-Questioning (M9192, F9182); Response 8-Reassuring (M9112, F9122); Response 5- Providing solutions (M9102, F9132). STC item 16, Frightened child, was responded to by both males and females with Response 4-Persuading with logic (M9332, F9332) and Response' lO-Questioning (M9282, F9372). Response S-Providing solutions ranked third with males (172) and females (152). Total Usage of Response Categgrigg_ In examining the total number of responses for both male.and female across all STC items, item 16, Egightened child, was scored for the lowest number of responses (282) and therefore was answered "best" by eliciting the least amount of insensitive behavior from college students. Second to this item in lowest number of responses for both males and females was STC item 8-Hiding an accident (299). The two STC items scoring highest on the twelve typical responses were STC item 12-Child 37 denouncing self (465) and STC item 6-Siblingrfighting_(459). Examining the totals of responses scored by sex for all twelve typical responses across items, females scored highest for item 6-Sibling fighting (242) and item 12-Child denouncingiself (235) and so did males (217 and 230, respectively.) (See Table 4.) Table 4 Total Frequency of Responses for Individual STC Item f STC mm g g " Total 2 191 172 363 3 199 195 394 4 163 157 320 5 207 226 433 6 217 242 459 7 159 146 305 8 144 155 299 9 159 148 307 11 151 158 309 12. 230 235 465 14 177 179 356 15 182 180 362 16 149 133 282 Table 5 contains the mean number of times each response was used across all STC items for males and females. For males, Response 10- Questioning had the highest mean (5.53) across all STC items, and Response 4-Persuading with logic was second highest (5.42). The least frequently used responses for males across all items were Response 6- Evaluating negatively (0.30) and Response 9-Diagnosing (0.32).' For females, Response 4-Persuading with logic had the highest mean (5.73) across all STC items and Response lO-Questioning was second highest (5.56). The responses used least often by females were Response 9- Diagnosing (0.20) and Response lZ-Sarcasm (0.32). (See Table 5 for ranking of other responses.) 38 Table 5 Mean Usage of Responses Across Each STC Item MALES FEMALES Respgnse MEAN ST. DEV. MEAN ST. DEV. l 2.12 1.65 2.02 1.61 2 .42 .72, .36 .66 3 1.82 1.74 1.85 1.39 4 5.42 2.55 5.73 2.44 5 2.52 2.18 3.09 2.25 6 .30 .67 .48 .78 7 .46 .59 .66 .72 8 1.76 1.64 1.89 1.35 9 .32 1.06 .20 .54 10 5.54 2.47 5.56 2.18 11 1.63 1.60 1.56 1.49 12 .50 .89 .33 .71 Analysis of STC Items and Responses by Problem Ownership: Child or Parent-Child Ownengroblems Parent, The next step in the analysis of the data was to examine the STC items and the twelve typical responses in regard to problem ownership. As previously mentioned, the thirteen STC items used in this study were divided into three groups: Parent owned problems (STC items 3, 7, 8); Parent-child owned problems (STC items 2, 5, 11); Child owned problems (STC items 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16). Response \OmNO‘UI-FUNH Response 0mVO‘U#UNl-' Frequengy of Responses for Males and Females for Parent, Child and Parent-Child Owned Problems 39 Table 6 Parent Owned Problems (3,7,8) Parent-Child Owned Problems.(2,5,11) 1.1. 70 4 48 112 56 3 0 18 5 118 61 7 f E 60 8 39 121 73 3 2 21 2 2 100 57 10 g 63 23 50 131 49 20 2 23 7 130 39 12 Child Owned Problems (4,6,9,12,14,15,16) g 83 16 88 310 152 8 45 139 21 317 66 32 f g 82 14 85 295 161 12 62 145 17 315 71 15 E 56 13 57 146 69 32 1 19 1 130 28 7 With the STC items divided into parent, child, and parent-child owned problems, an examination of Table-6 shows that in_parent owned problems for both males and females, Response lO-Questioning and Response 4-Persuading with logic were used most frequently. In parent-child owned problems, Response 4-Persuading with logic was followed by Response-10- Questioning in highest usage by both males and females. Responses 4 and 10 were also the most frequently used responses by both males and females in child owned problems. 40- Analyses of Variance: Sex of Subject X Ownership of Problem The next area of data analysis was concerned with the_differences that occurred in the way males or females used the twelve responses in responding to the STC items, the differences in how adults (male and female combined) responded to the different types (parent, child, and parent-child owned) of STC items, and the sex and problem type inter- action effects. An analysis of variance (Winer, 1962) was performed for each individual response as well as an analysis of variance.over. all twelve responses. The main effects for sex, type of situation, and the interaction effects of these factors were examined. Table 7A Respgnse.l-Ordering, Directing, memandigg_ Analysis of Variance Table Source Sum of Squares Di Mean 89. - F Ratio 2 A Sex 0.0226 1 0.0226 0.5459 .46 B Type of 1.0981 2 0.5491 13.2901x .001. Situation AB Interaction 0.0203 2 0.0101 0.2455 .78 Error 24.5401 594 0.0413 Table 7B Responsepl-OrderingiLDirecting, Commanding Mean Frequency per Item for 100 Subjects. Item Ownership Parent Parent—Child ' Child Total Males 23.3 21.0 11.9 56.6 Females 19.3 18.7 12.0 50.0 Total 42.6 39.7 23.9 The results indicate there is no significant difference in the way males or females use Response 1, Ordering, Directing, or Commanding, in 41 all types of hypothetical problem situations. There was also no sig- nificant difference in the way males or females used Response 1-in each of the three types of situations. HoweVer, there was a significant dif- ference (p < .001) in the way adults (males and females) used Response 1 in the particular type of problem. The Newman-Keuls method (Winer, 1962) was used to determine interegroup significance. The results showed that adults used ordering, directing, or commanding significantly more often (p < .01) in parent and parent-child owned problems than in child owned problems.‘ (Table 73) Table 8A Response Z-Warning, Admonishing, Threatening Analysis of Variance Table Source Sum of Squares 23 Mean 89. F Ratio 2 A Sex 0.0059 1 0.0059 0.6053 .44 B Type of 0.2019 2 0.1010 10.3684 .001 Situation AB Interaction 0.0522 2 0.0261~ 2.6780 .07 Error 5.7844 594 0.0097 Table 88 Response 29Warning, Admonishing, Threatenigg Mean Frequency per Item for 100 Subjects Item.0wnership Parent Parent—Child” ’ Child Tota1* Males 1.3 8.0 2.3 11.6 Females 3.0 4.3 2.0 9.3 Total 4.3 12.3 4.3 There was no significant difference in the way males or females used Response 2, Warning, Admonishing, or Threatening, in all the STC situa- tions. Once again, there was a significant difference (p < .001) in the 42 way adults (males and females) responded with Response 2 to the different types of situations. The Newman—Keuls analysis showed that adults used warning significantly more often (p < .01) in parent-child owned problems than in parent or child owned problems. There was also a reported level of significance of p < .07 for the difference in the way males or females used Response 2 in each of the three types of STC situations. The Newman— Keuls analysis indicated that males in parent-child owned problems used warning significantly more often (p-< .01) than in any other sex and prob- lem type combination (Table 88). Table 9A Response 3-Exhorting, Moralizing,.or Preaching_ Analysis of Variance Table Source Sum of Squares _D_f_ Mean 89. F Ratio 2 A Sex 0.0008 1 0.0008 0.0226 .88 B Type of 0.3081 2 0.1541 4.3542~ .01' Situation AB Interaction 0.0749 2 0.0375 1.0589 .35 Error 21.0183 594 0.0354 Table;98 Response3-Exhortingl Moralizing, or Preaching_ Mean Frequency per Item for 100 Subjects Item.0wnership Parent Parent-Child Child. Total Males 16 17 12.6 45.6 Total 29 36 24.7 There was no significant difference in the way.ma1es or females used Response 3, Exhorting, Moralizing, or Preaching, to respond to all three types of STC items and no significant difference in the.way males or 43 females used preaching in a parent, child, or parent-child owned situa- tion (Table 9A). There was a significant difference in the way adults (male and female combined) used Response 3 in a particular type of situa- tion (p < .01). The Newman-Keuls analysis indicated that adults used preaching significantly more often (p < .01) in parent-child owned problems than in child owned problems (Table 9B). Table 10A Response 4—Persuading with Logip1 Instructing, Lecturing Analysis of Variance Table Source Sum of Squares D_f_ Mean Sq. F Ratio 2 A Sex 0.2012 1 0.2012 2.6357 .10 B Type of 0.5467 2 0.2733 3.5806 .03 Situation AB Interaction 0.1378 2 0.0689 0.9026 .41 Error 45.3464 594 0.0763 Table 103 Response 4-Persuading with Logic, Instructing, Lecturigg. Mean Frequency_per Item for 100 Subjects Item.Ownership Parent Parent-Child Child Total Males 37.3 43.7 44.3 125.3 Females 40.7 48.7 41.9 131.3 Total 78.0 92.4 _ 86.2 There was no significant difference in the way males or females used 'Response_4, Persuading with Logic, in a particular type of situation, but there was a significant difference (p < .03) in the way adults (male and female combined) used this response in a particular type of situation. The Newman-Keuls analysis indicated adults used persuading with logic. significantly more often-(p < .05) in parent-child owned problems than.in 44 parent owned prdblems (Table 103). There was also a reported sex dif- ference (p < .10) in the way males or females used Response 4 in all of the STC items, with females using the response of persuasion somewhat more often than males across all STC situations.‘ Table 11A Response 5-Providinngnswers»or Solutions, Advising Analysis of Variance Table Source Sum of Squares _l_)_i_:'_' Meansh F Ratio 2 A Sex, 0.4354 1 0.4354 7.9038 .01< B Type of 0.0730 2 0.0365 0.6628 .52 Situation AB Interaction 0.0793 2 0.0397 0.7199 .49 Error 32.7210 594 0.0551 Table 11B Response 5-Providing Answers or Solutions, Advising Mean Frequency per Item for 100 Subjects ItemVOwnership Parent Parent-Child Child Total Males 18.7 16.3 21.6 56.6 Females 24.3 23.3 23.1 70.7 Total 43.0 39.6 44.7 For Response 5, Providing Answers or Solutions, the results indicated a significant difference (p < .01) in the way males versus females used this response. The frequency table (Table 11B) showed males using this response of providing the child with answers significantly less than females over all STC situations. 45 Table 12A Response 6-Eva1uating,Negstive1y, Criticizisg Analysis of Variance Table Source Sum of sqsares Q£_ Mean Sq. F Ratio p_ A Sex 0.0419 1 0.0419 3.3595 .07 B Type of 0.7500 2 - 0.3750 30.0389 .001 Situation AB Interaction 0.0545 2 0.0273 2.1847 .11 Error 7.4151 594 0.0125 TableglzB Response 6-Evaluating Negatively, Criticizing_ Mean Frsquency per Item for 100 Subjects, Item Ownership Parent Parent-Child Child Total Males 1 6.6 1.3 8.9 Females 1 11.0 2.1 14.1 Total 2 17.6 3.4' For Response 6, Evaluating negatively, there was a significant dif- ference (p < .001) in the way adults used this response in a particular situation. The Newman-Keuls analysis indicated that adults used judging negatively significantly more often (p < .01) in parent—child owned prob-t lems than in child or parent owned problems (Table 123). The way males used this response as compared to females showed females using negative evaluation more often than males (level of significance, p < .07). Also ,there was some difference (p’< .11) in the way males versus females used this response in a particular type of situation. Females used negative evaluation of the child more often in parentvchild owned situations than any other combination of sex and problem type. Both males and females used negative evaluation similarly for parent owned.and child owned problems.‘ Males used negative evaluation in parent-child owned problems 46 more often than any other sex and problem type combination except females in parent-child problems (Table 12B). Table 13A Response 7-Positive Evaluation, Praise Analysis of Variance Table Source Sum'of Squares Df_ Mean 89. F Ratio 2 A Sex 0.0160 1 0.0160 4.2950 .04 B Type of 0.7015- 2 0.3507 93.9396 .001 Situation AB Interaction 0.0242 2 0.0121 3.2372 .04 Error 2.2177 594 0.0037 Table‘l3B Response 7-Positive Evaluation, Praise Mean Frequency per Item for 100 Subjsots Item Ownership Parent ParentéChild Child Tota1~ Males 0.0' .7 6.4 7.1 Females .7 .3 8.9 9.9 Total .7 1.0 15.3 There was a.reported level of significance of p < .04 for the dif— ference.in the amount that males used Positive Evaluation as opposed to female.usage of this response. 'Females tended to use this response more often than males across all STC items.- There was a significant-difference (p‘< .001) in the ways adults used positive evaluation in a particular 'type-of problem. The Newman-Keuls analysis indicated that positive evalua- tion or praise was used significantly more often (p < .01) in child owned problems than in parent-child owned problems. There was also a significant difference (p < .04) in the way males or females used this response in.a particular type of situation. The Newmanrxeuls analysis indicated that 47 females in child owned problems used praise significantly more often (p < .01) than any other combination of sex and problem type. Also, males in child owned problems used praise significantly more often (p < .01) than any other combination of sex and problem type except for females in child owned prdblems. Table 14A Response 8-Supporting, Reassuring_ Analysis of Variance Table Source Sum of Squares p_f_ Mean Sq. F Ratio 2 A Sex 0.0059 1 0.0059 0.2631 .61 B Type of 2.4506 2 1.2253 54.9993 .001 Situation AB Interaction 0.0216 2 0.0108 0.4837 .62 Error 13.2333 594 0.0223 Table 143 Response 8-Supporting,_Reassurigg’ Mean Frequency-per Item for 100 subjects Item.Ownership Parent Parent-Child Child Total Males. , 6.0 7.7 19.9 33.6 Females 7.0 6.0 20.4 33.4 Total 13.0 13.7 40.3 For.Reeponse 8, Supporting and Reassuring, there was no significant difference in the way males used this response compared to females, nor was there any significant difference in the way males or females used this response in a particular type of situation (parent, child or parent- child owned). There was a significant difference (p < .001) in the way adults (male and female combined) used supporting in parent, child, or parent-child owned problems. The Newman-Keuls analysis indicated that 48 adults used supporting significantly more often (p < .01) in child owned problems than in either parent or parent-child owned problems (Table 14B). Table 15A Response 9-Diagnosing, Interpretisg Analysis of Variance Table Source Sum of Squares E Mean 89. ‘ F Ratio 2 A Sex 0.0189 1 0.0189 3.0199 .08 B Type of 0.0292 2 0.0146 2.3409 .10 Situation AB Interaction 0.0057 2 0.0029 0.4578 .63 Error 3.7087 594 0.0062 Table 153 Response 9-Diagnosing, Interpreting. Mean Frequenoy per Item for 100 Subjects Item,0wnership Parent Parent-Child Child Total Males 1.7 2.3 3.0 7.0 Females .7 .3 2.3 3.3 Total 2.4 2.6 5.3 Although there was no significant difference in the way males or females used this response in a parent, parent-child, or child owned problem, there was a reported level of significance of p < .08 (Table 15A) for the difference of the amount males versus females used this response over all STC items, with males using interpreting twice as ‘often as females (Table 158). Likewise, for adults (male and female combined) in a particular type of situation, there was an indication that child owned problems yielded somewhat more Interpreting and Diag- nosing than parent or parent-child owned prdblems (p < .10) as determined by the analysis of variance and the Newman-Keuls methods for determining inter-group significance. 49 Table 16A Response lO-Questioning, nging Analysis of Variance Table Source Sum of Squares 2;; Mean 89. F Ratio 2. A Sex 0.0028 1 0.0028 0.0408 .84 B Type of 0.8785 2 0.4393 6.4090 .01 Situation AB Interaction 0.1272 2 0.0636 0.9281 .40 Error 40.7124 594 0.0685 Table 163 Response lOeguestioning, Frying Mean Frequency per Item for 100 Subjects Item.Ownership, Parent Parent-Child Child Total' Males 38.3 42.7 46.0 127.0 Females 32.3 42.7 45.7 120.7 Total 70.6 85.4 91.7 For Response 10, Questioning, both sexes used this response frequently with no significant difference between,sexes across all STC items. The same-held true for sex and problem type interaction. There was a reported significant difference (p < .01) for the way adults used questioning in- a particular type of problem. The Newman9Keuls analysis indicated that adults used questioning significantly more often (p K .01) in child and parent-child owned situations than in.parent owned situations (Table 16B). 50 Table 17A Response ll-Avoiding, Shifting_ Analysis of Variance Table Source Sum of Squares 2;. Mean Sq, F Ratio B Type of 1.2452 2 0.6226 16.4709 Situation AB Interaction 0.0754 2 0.0377 0.9972. Error 22.4529 594 0.0378 Table 17B Response lleAvoiding,Shifting Mean Frequencylper Item for 100 Subjects Item.0wnership Parent Parent-Child Child Males 20.3 12.7 9.4 Females 19.0 8.3 10.1 Total 39.3 21.0 19.5 .53 .001 Total 42.4 37 .4 There was no significant difference reported in the way males-or females used Response 11, Avoidance, in all STC situations, nor was. there a significant difference in the way males or females used avoidance in a particular type of STC-problem. There was a significant difference (p < .001) in the way adults (male and female combined) used avoidance. for a particular type of STC item. The Newman-Keuls_ana1ysis indicated that adults used avoidance significantly more often (p < .01) in parent downed problems than in parent-child owned or child owned problems (Table 17B). 51 Table 18A Response lZ-Sarcasm, Teasing_ Analysis of Variance Table Source Sum of Squares E» MeanSg. F Ratio 2 A Sex 0.0123 1 0.0123 1.3275 .24 B Type of 0.0025 2 0.0012 0.1320 .88 Situation AB Interaction 0.0321 2 0.0160 1.7228 .18 Error 5.5253 594 0.0093 Table 18B Response lZ-Sarcasm,,Teasiqg_ Mean Frequencylper Item for 100 Subjects Item.0wnership Parent Parent-Child Child- Total Males 2.3 4.0 4.6 10.9 Females 3.3 2.7 2.3 8.3 Total 5.6 6.7 6.9 There was no significant difference in the way Response 12, Sarcasm, was used by males versus females, by adults in a particular type of STC item, or in the way males or females used this response in any particular type of STC item.’ Table 19A Responses 1 througq_12- Analysis of Variance Table Sourcg Sum of Sgggggs ‘c2£_ Mean Sq. F Ratio .2 A Sex 0.0056 1 0.0056 2.4287 .12 B Type of 0.0261- 2 0.0131 5.6857 .001 Situation AB Interaction 0.0005 2 0.0003 0.1091 .90 Error 1.3654- 594 0.0023 52 Table 19B Responses 1 through 12 Mean Frequency per Item for 100 Subjects Item.Ownershlp Parent Parent—Child Child Total Males 166.2 182.7 183.3 532.2 Females 164.3 185.3 182.9 532.5 Total 330.5 368.0 366.2 The analysis of variance for the combined twelve responses showed no significant difference in the way males versus females used these responses. There was also no significant difference in the way males- or females used these responses in a particular type of STC situation. A significant difference was found (p < .01) in the way adults used these responses in a particular type of STC situation. The Newman-Keuls. analysis indicated that adults used these responses significantly more often (p < .01) in parent-child and child owned problems than in parent owned problems (see Table-19B). Table 20 Summary of Significant or’Marginally Sigglficant Results for Analysis of Variance Tables Responses Factors 1 2 3 . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total SEX- .10‘ .01 .07 .04 .08 ‘ TYPE OF SITUATION .001 .001 .01 .03 .001 .001 .001 .10 .01 .001 .001 INTERACTION .07 .04 Table 20 summarizes the significant findings for the analysis_of variance tables. For the factor of Sex, males versus females for all types 53 of STC problems, Response 4-Persuading with Logic, Response 6-Judging Negatively, and Response 9-Diagnosing, showed a marginally significant difference with p 9 .10. Response 7-Judging Positively showed a marginally significant difference with p < .05. Response 5-Providing Solutions had a significant sex difference with p < .01. For the factor of situation type: Parent, Child, or Parent-Child- owned situations as answered by adults (combined male and female scores) showed significant differences with p < .001 in the way adults answered each particular type of situation for Response 1-Ordering; Response 2- Warning; Response 6-Judging Negatively; Response 7-Judging Positively; Response 8-Supporting; Response ll-Avoiding; and Response 12-Sarcasm. Also included in this group is the total of Responses 1 through 12. Response 4-Persuading with Logic showed a significant difference with p < .05 in the way adults answered certain types of situations.. Response 3-Moralizing and Response lOrQuestioning showed a significant difference with p < .01 for this factor, and Response 9-Diagnoaing showed a marginally significant.difference with p 9 .10. Response 5-Providing Solutions was the only response that didn't show a significant difference in the way it was used by adults in a particular type of situation. For the interaction of.these two factors--ma1e versus female differences in a particular type of situation--Response 2-Threatening had a marginally significant difference (p < .07) and for Response 7- Judging Positively with p < .04. Response 6-Judging Negatively showed some difference in the interaction of these two factors with p < .11. DISCUSSION gypotheses Gordon (1970) stated that 99 out of 100 parents use ineffective methods of communicating with their children, especially when the child's behavior is interfering with the parent's lives. GordOn, however, cited no research to substantiate this claim nor did he speculate abOut male and female-differences. The results of this study provide some evidence for the first part of Gordon's statement, that 992 of parents use ineffective or "insensitive" means of communication with their children. This study was concerned.with twelve responses that were considered ineffective in dealing with children. The results showed that.the average number of ineffective responses used by adults for thirteen hypothetical problem situations was slightly over 23. That means that- in each prOblem situation, an adult used an average of approximatelthwo out of twelve ineffective responses in responding to the pr0b1em. Even though these tests were not scored for effective responses in this study, the average amount of ineffective responses recorded in the results appear to be large enough to agree with Gordon that a very high _percentage ofadults use ineffective or "insensitive" methods in dealing with parent—child hypothetical situations. Although Gordon did not discrimdnate between the ineffectiveness of males compared to females, this study did. The results provide some evidence to answer one of the main exploratory questions of this study. stated in the hypothesis: Do males and females differ significantly in 54 55 the type of responses they use in response to parent-child hypothetical problem situations?« In examining the STC items individually for all twelve ineffective responses, males used somewhat more ineffective responses for items: 2-Leaving child with babysitter, 7-Bedtime disagreement-Contract breaking, 9+Masturbation, and 16-Frightened child. Females used more ineffective responses for items: 5-Stealing, 6-Sibling fighting, 8-Hiding an accident (broken toy) (See Table 1). For the remaining items, males and females used approximately the same number of ineffective responses. Over all STC items, however, males used an average of 22.81 while females used an average of 23.73. This would indicate that over all types of parent-child hypothetical problem situations, females contrary to expectations are as ineffective as males. These results do not seem to be in complete accord with what was reported earlier. The reviews of discipline by Becker (1964) and Jackson (1956) noted that fathers were stricter, more punishing, and more fear arousing than females who were more loving, nurturant, and psychological in their discipline. From these reports it would seem that females should have been less ineffective than males in dealing with their children. However, the characteristics mentioned above by. Becker and Jackson do not really relate to the exact responses of the parent but more to the nature of the affectional relations between parent and child. Even though the nature of affectional-relations between parent and child is correlated with the use of certain types of discipline, some research fails to recognize that the results of. certain types of discipline could also be attributed to the differences in affectional relations. This presents a possible weakness in this study, in that it is a possibility that differences in affectional 56 relations could cause differences in the Child's behavior even with the same-action or discipline by the.parent. This study did not concern itself with the affectional relations between adult and child, but merely with the amount of ineffectiveness used by adults in communicating with children. Therefore, the same response by.a male or female may have. different results in the child's behavior, depending on the affectional relationship of the child with this particular adult. This raises another important point when examining male-female differences and problem-type (parent, or child, or parent-child owned) differences. Becker (1964) pointed out three variables which have a bearing on studies in the areas of discipline--1) Social class, 2) Sex of the parent and sex of the child, 3) Child's age. (Social class and child's age will be dealt with later in the discussion.) Since the sex of the parent and the sex of the child are important factors in looking at the results, it is important.to remember that these sex differences may account for some of the differences found between male versus female responses and the amount of ineffective responses in each of the three types of_situations. These issues should be considered throughout the discussion of thecresults. In examining the use of specific responses by males and females for all STC items, once again it appears that males and females used the twelve responses with approximate equality. Both males and females used V 4-Persuading with logic and 10-Questioning more.than any of the other responses. Both males and females seemed to require more information from the child in order for him to feel competent in helping solve the problem. Then, when enough information was present, both sexes felt that a logical explanation solved the problem. Thirdly, both males and females used 5-Providing answers or solutions often. Apparently, adults felt 57 that_it was their job as parents to give solutions to the problem for the child. Gordon (1970) claims this is a misconception that most parents work under and accordingly is one of the difficult.areas to overcome in training parents how to be more effective in talking toa their children. Examining the individua1.responses and how they were used across all the STC items by males and females showed that males and females did not differ significantly in the way they used Ordering, Warning, Moralizing, Supporting, Questioning, Avoiding, and Sarcasm. Persuading with logic, Judging negatively and positively, and Diagnosing showed: some differences in the way males versus females used these responses across all STC items. Females used Persuading with logic, Judging negatively and positively somewhat more often than males. This pattern may fit in with the expectations of the mother's role in our culture. The mother is seen as someone who solves the everyday problems of the‘ child while the father is seen as the authority. The male does not, need logic to explain his action for the authority attributed to his roles gives.him all the logic he needs. The second question which this study dealt with asked if adults responded significantly differently depending on whether the problem was child owned or parent owned. The STC situations were divided into child, parent, and parent-child'owned problems, according to the rules , of ownership that Gordon describes. All of the twelve responses except Response S-Providing answers and Response 12-Sarcasm showed some significant differences in the way adults used these responses in the three different types of STC situations. Gordon (1970) claimed that parent owned problems would elicit more_ineffective responses-than.child owned problems._ Response l-Ordering and Response ll-Avoiding were the 58 only two responses that showed significant difference in the way adults used these responses in different types of situations, with the 295335 owned situations eliciting more ineffective responses than child or. parent-child owned problems.‘ This would provide some evidence to oppose Gordon's view that parent owned problems are handled less effectively than child owned problems. Four responses-Warning, Mbralizing, Persuading with logic, and Judging negatively-mwere used significantly more often in parent-child owned problems by adults than in other types of situations. Four other responses--Juding positively, Supporting, Diagnosing, and Questioning-- were used significantly more often in child owned problems than in other types of situations. For the combined twelve responses over all STC items, adults used significantly more responses in parent-child and child owned problems than in parent owned problems. The results indi- cate that parent owned problems do not elicit more ineffective responses than child or parent-child owned problems. There are several possible explanations for the above.findings which relate to Gordon's speculations. One possibility is that these STC situations were not divided into the proper problem.awnerahip cate- gories. Although Gordon's rules for problem ownership were followed when determining the category into which each STC item would be placed, it is possible that needs of.the parent were seen where they might.not _ necessarily exist. In child owned~prob1ems.it is possible that parent's needs were not seen where they did exist.' It is also possible that Gordon is mistaken in trying to divide problems by problem ownership. Every problem for a child may infringe on,parents' needs and therefore every child owned problem.may in reality be a parent-child owned problem. There may be no such thing as a solely 59 child owned problem. For example, if-a child shows by his actions or words that he has a problem (those which this study considered child- owned problems) this problem may also be a parent—child owned problem. The "normal" parent wishes his child to be healthy and happy and if his child has a problem, it may not only arouse parental needs but the; parent may also assume some of the responsibility to solve this problem. As Gordon indicates, this is a misconception of parents, but it may be a mistake for Gordon to claim that a problem for a child can be separated from a problem for the parent. If, however, we assume that problems can in fact be divided into parent-child, parent, or child owned problems, the results indicate that child and parent-child owned problems elicit significantly more ineffect- ive responses than parent owned problems. This might be explained in, that a parent owned problem, the parent's needs are affected and there- fore must.search and question because he feels he must help the child solve the problem. Since the child has a problem and apparently cannot find an immediate solution, the parent assumes the responsibility of finding the solution. He then proceeds to respond to the child with what-Gordon has labeled ineffective responses. On the other hand, Baumrind (1971) defines the "authoritative" parent as the most effective one. She describes this type of_parent as one who "uses reason, power and shaping by reinforcement to achieve her objectives....She encourages verbal give and take" (p. 891). With this in mind, it is possible that some of the responses which were scored as ineffective, such as Response 9-Interpreting, Response 4— Persuading with logic, and Response 8-Supporting, may be the types of responses used by an authoritative or "effective" parent as defined by Baumrind. 60 Finally, in examining the results there were two responses which were used somewhat differently by males versus females in a particular type of STC item. Response 2-Warning was found to be used most often by males in parent-child situations and least often by males in parent owned situations. Response ll-Avoiding was used most often by males and females in parent owned problems andleast often by females in parent-child owned problems. Methodology--Samp1e--Statistical Analysis Although the method of collecting data for this study, that of using written reports of adults in response to hypothetical situations, has the advantage of providing enough need arousing situations to study parental reactions, there is inconclusive evidence (Mannino.et aZ., 1961; Brody, 1965) that these responses will correlate highly with responses in real life situations. Another problem is that the.unpre- meditated or spontaneous character.of the response might be lost by giving the subject time to think before writing his response. However, due to the.1ack of alternatives for collecting data in this area, the present method.was used with minor reservations. The sample was chosen from.the student body of a state university which presents the problem of-social class and educational class bias. In addition to this,.the subjects were solicited by asking for volun- teers interested in learning about and practicing play.techniques to I increase their sensitivity to children» The respondents, therefore, may have a positive bias toward children. Due to this positive bias toward children, the sample of this study would then be expected to yield less ineffective response than an unbiased sample. If this is true, then the results on the frequency of ineffectiveness should be.' even greater for an unbiased sample, especially for males. 61 The use of analysis of variance is justified after the explanation of an assumption which was made prior to analysis. An assumption is' necessary to satisfy anyone who feels that-an effect in the data due to the fact that the same person is used in_each of the three STC cate- gories must.be taken out. This assumption that a person's'response‘ in.a child owned situation is essentially independent of what he would say in a parent-child or parent owned situation. This does not mean that his responses are unrelated. He_may be consistently better in a parent-child owned situation than in a child owned situation, but the errors he makes in each-situation are independent (Corwin, 1971). Implications for Future Research The results of this study indicate that most adults (college students) use ineffective responses in communicating with their children. This study also presents responses and types of problems that yield the most ineffective methods in dealing with children as well as discussing some methods and responses that are considered to be effective ways of. dealing with children. Since it is possible to motivate a change in. the parent's disciplinary techniques by making him aware of the impact his behavior is having on the child (Becker, 1964), by informing the parent of his ineffective areas of discipline and providing him with effective substitutes, the training of parents and prospective*parents can be made more efficient. Future research in this area may be concerned with differences in responses of parents from different socia1_and educational classes as well as examining the differences that the age and sex of the child might, have on parents' responses. In addition to this, future studies may concern themselves with-the effect raising children has on the effectiveness 62 of parental responses to problem situations. Another area of considera— tion would be to train parents by pointing out the types of ineffective responses adults use as reported in this study and supply these parents‘ with more effective responses. Post-training examination might indicate- a decline in the use of these ineffective responses. Researchers may also wish to devise another method of obtaining and/or observing parental responses to children other than paper and pencil type test, such as videotaping in the playroom or real life situations. Finally, a comparison might be made between the amount of "good" responses versus "bad" responses that a parent uses on STC type tests, also including social and educational class differences. Perhaps a» verbal STC type test might be devised for children in order to study developmental aspects of parental discipline as it affects and/or is ingrained in children. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Bacgggound and Purpose of the Study A group of psychologists have devoted their interests to training parents, teachers, and other noneprofessionals to be effective in dealing with children (Gordsa¢~l970;"Ginott, 1967; Guerney, 1969; Stollak, 1971). With the lack of'a sufficient amount.of experts in the mental health field, it becomes increasingly apparent that parents and prospective parents, teachers and prospective teachers must be trained to be effective in their communication with children. Although” these psychologists agree that parents are generally ineffective in dealing with children and need training in how they respond to children, little research has been directed to discuss which ineffective parental responses are used most frequently, if these responses are used dif- ferently by males or females, what specific effects different types of responses actually have on children, or if the ineffectiveness of the parent's response depends in.part on the type of situationpor problem. Sines parents can be motivated to change their behavior and responses toward children if they are made aware of the consequences of their discipline, it seems important to study the frequency of specific parental responses.and the factors of sex and problem type.that.affect' the types of.responses that adults use. With additional data in this area, parent effectiveness training can be made more efficient. It was the purpose of the present investigation to study how adults (college students) respond to children in hypothetical problem 63 64 situations and to provide data in the area of adult effectiveness in dealing with children. The types of responses used most often by males and females were examined as well as whether adults are more ineffective handling problems with children when the child's behavior is inter— fering with the adult's needs, or when the child's behavior is only~ a problem for himself. The study was made to provide information on adult responses to children, especially in the area of parent owned ver- sus child owned problems, that would be useful in helping-parents and prospective parents to be more effective with children. Procedure One hundred male and one hundred female college students were admdnistered the Sensitivity to Children questionnaire, which is a sixteen item projective device which requires the subject to read a short description of an incident concerning a six year old child. The subject responded to these situations by writing down the exact action or words he or she would use in response to the child in each situation as if he or she were the parent. Of the sixteen STC items, thirteen items were used and divided into three types of problems in accordance with Gordon's (1970) rules of problem ownership--parent, child, and parent9chi1d owned problems.' Each item was then scored for twelve ineffective responses most commonly used by adults in dealing with children. Two major questions concerning this data were studied: 1) Do adult responses to hypothetical problem situations with children differ significantly depending on whether the problem is child owned or parent owned? 2) Do males and females-differ significantly in the type of responses they use with children in the same hypothetical problem situation? 65 Results The two STC items that scored the highest frequency of ineffective responses were Child DenounclggLSelf and Sibling Fighting. The responses used most frequently by males and females across all STC items were Questioning and Persuading with logic. Males and females both averaged close to 23 ineffective responses for 13 STC items, which is almost an average of two ineffective responses per STC item per person. Males and females did not differ significantly in their usage of E the twelve responses except for Providing Answers or sclutions, which females used significantly more often than males. The type of problem—- parent, child, or parent-child owned--had a significant effect on the amount of ineffective responses that were elicted from adults. Generally, child owned problems elicited more ineffective responses than parent or parent-child owned problems. Conclusions It is concluded that if one agrees that the behaviors Gordon.lists could be seen as "ineffective" behaviors, then Gordon is generally correct in stating that the majority of adults used ineffective responses in dealing with children. Also, males and females are similar in the amount of ineffective responses they used in.communicating with children with neither sex having an advantage.. The two responses which adults used most often were Questioning and Persuading with Logic.- It seemed that when adults felt they didn't have enough information about a problem they would question the child and follow the questioning with a logical explanation and persuasion. Since the results showed that child-owned problems elicited more ineffective responses than parent or parent-child 66 owned problems, this information should be useful in training parents to be more effective in dealing with children. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Allinsmith, W., Greening, T. C.“ Guilt over anger as predicted from parental discipline: A study of superego development. American' Psychologist, 1955, 10, 320. Aronfreed, J. The effects of experimental socialization paradigms upon two moral responses to transgression.- Journal of Abnormal and Social. Psychology, 1963, 66, 437-448. Axline, V. ML Play Therapy. New York: Ballantine Books, Inc., 1947. Axline, V. M. The eight basic principles. In M. R. Haworth, Ed. Child Psychotherapy. New York: Basic Becks, 1964. Bladwin, A. L. Socialization and the parent-child relationship. Child Development, 1948, 19, 127-136. Baldwin, A. L. The effect of home environment on nursery school behavior. Child Development, 1949, 20, 49-61. Bandura, A., Ross, D., Ross, 8. A. Transmdssion of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal.of'Abnormal and Social‘ Psychology, 1961, 63, 575-582. Bandura, A. and Walters, Bu H. Adolescent Aggression. New York:. Ronald Press, 1959. Baumrind, D. Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child.DeveZopmsnt, 1966, 37, No. 4, 887-907. Baumrind, D. Current patterns of parental authority. DeveZOpmental Psychology Monograph, 1971, 4, No. 1, Part 2. Baumrind, D. and Black, A. E. Socialization practices associated-with; dimensions of competence in preschool boys and girls. Child Development, 1967, 38, 291-327. Becker, W. C. Consequences-of different kinds of parental discipline. In M. L. Hoffman and L. W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of’Child Development Researbh (Vbl.-l). New York: Russell Sage Founda- tion, 1964, 169-204. Becker, W. 0., Peterson, D. R., Luria, 2., Shoemaker, D. J., Hellmer, L. A. Relations of factors derived from parent-interview ratings to behavior problems of fivesyear-olds. Child Development, 1962, 33, 509-535. 67 68 Block, J. Personality characteristics associated with father's attitude toward child rearing. Child Development, 1955, 26, 41-48. Brody, G. Relationship between maternal attitudes and behavior. Journal of'Personality and social Psychology,.1965, 2, 317-323. Bronfenbrenner, U. Socialization and social class through time and space. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, and E. L. Hartley (Eds.),' Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, 1958, 400-425. Burton, R. V., Maccoby, E. E., and Allinsmith, W. Antecedents of resistance to temptation in fourdyear-old children. Child Development, 1961, 32, 689-710. Coopersmith, S. Antecedents of'SelfLEsteem. New York: Random.House, 1967. Corwin, T. L. Personal communication. Princeton University, 1971. Cutts, N. E. and Moseley, N. Better. Home Discipline. New York: Appleton—CenturyvCrofts, 1952. Crandall,-V. J., Orleans, S.,-Preston, A., and Rabson, A. The develop- 'ment of social compliance in young children. Child.Development, 1958, 29, 429-443. Dreyer, A. S. and Haupt, D. Self-evaluation in young children. Journal of'Gsnetic Psychology, 1966, 108, 185-197. Finney, J. C. Some maternal influences on children's personality and character. Genetic Psychology Mbnographs, 1961, 63, 199-278. Ginott, H. Group Psychotherapy With Children. New York: MtGraw- Hill, 1961. Ginott, H. Between Parent and Child. New York: Macmillan, 1966. Glueck, S. and Glueck, E. T. Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1950. GordOn, T. Parent Effectiveness Training. New York: Peter H. Hyden, Inc., 1970. Guerney, B. G.1 Filial therapy: Description and rationale. JOurnal of'Consulting Psychology, 1964, 28, 304-310. Guerney, B. G.~ Psychotherapeutic Agents. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, Inc., 1969. Guerney, B. G., Shapiro, E., Stover, L. Parental perceptions of.malad- ’ justed children:h Agreement between parents and relation to mother-child interaction. Journal.of'Genetic Psychology, 1968, 113, 215-225. 1 69 Hart, 1. Maternal child-rearing practices and authoritarian ideology. Journal of Abnormal and .9cial Psychology, 1957, 55, 232-237. Healy, W. and Bronner, A. F. Delinquents and Criminals:r Their Making and Uhmaking. New York: Macmillan, 1926. Heinicke, C. M. Some antecedents and correlates of guilt and fear in young boys. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1953. Hoffman, M. L. Power assertion by the parent and its impact on the, child.’ Child Development, 1960,.31, 129-143. Hoffman, M. L. Parent discipline and the child's consideration for others. Child Development, 1963, 34, 573-588. Jackson, P. W. Verbal solutions, to parent-child problems. Child Development, 1956, 27, 339-349. Kagan,.J. and Moss, E. A. Birth to Maturity: The Fels Study of’ Psychological Development. Nevaork: Wiley, 1962. Kohn, M. L. Social class and parent-child relationship: An interprev tation. American Journal of’Sociology, 1963, 68, 471-480. Lambert, W. W., Triandis, L. M., Wolf, M. Some.corre1ates of beliefs in the malevolence and benevolence of supernatural beings: a cross-societal study. Journal of'Abnormal-andISocial Psychology, 1959, 58, 162-169. LeVine, B. B.“ Punishment techniques and the development of conscience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1961. Liberman, M. Behavioral assessmentof parent—child spontaneous play interaction. Unpublished master‘s thesis, Pennsylvania State: University, 1970. Mannino, E., Kisiclewski, J., Kimbro, E., and Morgenstern, B. Relation- ship between parental attitudes and behavior. The Family- Cbordinator, 1968, 237-240. McCord, W., McCord, J., and Howard, A. Familial correlates of aggression in non-delinquent male.children. Journal of'Abnormal andISocial Psychol0gy, 1961, 62, 79-93. Meyers, C. E. The effect of conflicting authority in the child. Uni- versity of'Ibwa Studies of'Child welfare, 1944, 20, No. 409, 31 "98 0 Miller, D. R. and Swanson, G. E. Inner Cbnjlict and.Defense. New-York: Holt, 1960. Moustakas, C. E. Psychotherapy With Children. New York: Ballantine Books, Inc., 1959. 70 Moustakas, C. E., Sigel, 1., and Schalock, H. An objective method for the measurement and analysis of child-adult-interaction.. Child Development, 1956, 27, 109-134. Radke, M. Relation of parental authority to children's behavior and attitudes. University of Minnesota Institute of Child Welfare Mbnographs, 1946, No. 22. Read, K. H. Parent's expressed attitudes and children's behavior. Journal of'Cbnsulting Psychol0gy, 1945, 6, 95-100. Reif, T. and Stollak, G. Sensitivity to children: Training and its effects. Unpublished manuscript, 1971. Rogers, C. Client-centered Therapy. Boston: HoughtonéMifflin, 1951. Sanford, R. N., Adkins, M. M., Miller, R. B., and Cobb, E. Physique, personality and scholarship: A cooperative study of school children. Mbnograph of’Sbcial Research in Child Development, 1943, 8, No. 1. Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E. E., Levin, H. Patterns of’Child Rearing. Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson, 1957. Sears, R. R., Whiting, J. W. M., Nowlis, V., and Sears, 'P. S. Some‘ child-rearing antecedents of aggression and dependency in young children. Genetic Psychology Mbnographs, 1953, 47, 135—234. Shaefer, E. S. and Bayley, N. Maternal behavior, child behavior, and their intercorrelations from infancy through adolescence. Mbno- graphs of'Social Research in Chilthevelopment, 1963, 28, No. 3, (Whole No. 87). Shoben, E. J. The assessment of parental attitudes in relation to child adjustment. Genetic Psychology Mbnographs, 1949, 39, 101-148. Stollak, G. E. Undergraduates as play therapists. Paper presented at October 22, 1971, meeting of the Michigan Psychological Association, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Stott, L. H. Home punishment of adolescent.- J0urnal_of’Genetic Psychology, 1940, 57, 415-428. Symonds, P. M. The Psychology of'Parent-Child.Relationships. New York: Appleton Century, 1939. Terran, L. M. Psychological Factors in Marital Happiness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1938. Truax, C. B. and Mitchell, K. M. Human encounters that change behavior. In Feldman, M. (Ed.), Buffalo Studies. New York: State Uni- versity of New York at Buffalo, 1968, 55-81. 71 Watson, G. Some personality differences in children related to strict or permissive parental discipline. Journal oj’Psychology, 1957, 44, 227-249. Whiting, J. W. M. and Child, I. L. Child Training and Personality. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953. Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1962. APPENDICES APPENDIX A STC NAME: . ‘ AGE: SEX (M or F): Telephone No.: DATE: Instructions A series of situations will be found on the following pages. You are to pretend or imagine you are the parent (mother or.father) of the. child described. All the children in the following situations are to be considered between fgu£_and gig years old. Your task is to write down exactly how you would respond to the- child in each of the situations, in a word, sentence or short paragraph. Write dqyn your exact words and/or actions, but please do not.exp1ain ghy_you.said.or did what you described. Again, write down your exact- words or actions as if you were writing a script for a play or movie (e.g., do not write "I would reassure or comfort him," instead, for example, write "I would.smile at him and in a quiet voice say,"Don't- worry, Billy, Daddy and I love you.'"). If you have children, their.names and ages: Name £333 72 3. 10. 11. 73 You are having a friendly talk with a friend on.the phone. Your son Carl rushes in and begins to interrupt your conversation with a story about a friend in school. You and your husband (wife) are going out for the evening. As you are leaving.you both say "good night” to your son, Frank.. He begins to cry and pleads with you both not to go out and leave him alone even though he doesn't appear sick and the babysitter is one he has previously gotten along well with. After hearing a great deal of giggling coming from.your daughter Lisa's bedroom, you go there and find her and her friends Mary and Tom under a blanket in her-room with their clothes off. It appears that they were touching each other's sexual parts before you arrived. Your daughter Barbara has just come home from school; silent, sad- faced, and dragging her feet. You can tell by her manner that something unpleasant has happened to her. You walk into your bedroom and find your son Bernie putting your wallet (pocketbook) down with a $10.00 bill in his hand.. It is clear from his actions (looking shocked at your arrival, putting his hand with the money behind his back) that you have caught~ him stealing. "1-4% -_', . ~ After hearing some screaming in the family room, you go there and. find your daughter Susan hitting her two year old baby sister. It is 8:00 p.m., and that is the time you and your sonXGary.have. previously agreed is his bedtime-for that evening. But he wants to stay up and play. When emptying the garbage can, you find at its bottom the broken- remains of a toy you had given your son David two weeks_ago. It is clear that he didn't want you to find out about its being broken. Before going to bed at 10:00 p.m., you go into your son Bert's bedroom to see if he has the blanket over him and to tuck him in, if necessary. You find him awake and masturbating. He sees you looking at him and as you‘approach.him he stops and pulls the blanket up to his chin. Bill and Joan are visiting your son Art in your home. You have just noticed how quiet it has become in the family room where they are playing. You go there.and find them smoking a cigarette. You have completed shopping in a local super market, and as you are‘ checking out your son Lee says he wants a candy.bar. It is close to dinner time, so you say "No" to his request. He then lies down and begins screaming and-kicking at you. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 74» You-are helping your daughter Ruth with an arithmetic problem and she seems to be having difficulty. She suddenly exclaims: "I am so stupid! I never know the answers to any of the questions the teacher asks me. I don't want to go to school anymore." While you are sitting and watching television, your son Fred comes over to you and asks in a quiet, concerned voice: "Do you,love‘ me?" ’ Your spouse has just punished your daughter Lillian for some.ru1e. infraction. Lillian becomes hysterical and runs to you crying. Your son.A1bert has come home from school full of anger. His class had been scheduled to go to the zoo for weeks and he was very eager to go. However, it rained today and the trip had to be rescheduled. He angrily exclaims:' "I hate that school. Just because it rained we couldn't go." Upon returning home from school your son Joe excitedly tells you about how his friend Mark was pushed into a rainfilled puddle by some older boys. Joe says that they were just walking home from ethnol when all of a sudden three sixth graders ran up from behind and shoved Mark into the puddle and ran away laughing. 1. 3. APPENDIX B Scoring Guide gto Twelve Responses to Child Behavior Ordering, Directing, or Commanding Telling the child to do something, giving him an order or a command. This does not include telling him, "You may do..." Example phrases:a "You must...", "You have to...", "You will..." Examples: "1 don't.care.what other parents do, you have to do the homework." "Don't talk to your mother like that!" "New you go back there and play with Ginny and Joyce;", "Stop complaining." ‘ Warning, Admonishing, Threatenigg. Telling the child what consequences will occur if he does something.- Erample phrases: "You had better...", "If you dOn't, then..." Examples:. "If you do that you'll be sorry." "One more statement like that and you'll leave the room." "You'd better not.do that if you know what's good for you." Exhorting, MoralizingLPreachigg Telling the child what he should or ought to do. Example phrases: "You should...", "You ought...", "It is your duty...", "It is your responsibility...“, "You are required..." Examples:; "You ~ shouldn ' t act like ,that . " "You.ought to do this." "You must always respect your elders." Persuading with logic, Arguing, Instructing, Lecturigg' Trying to influence-the child with facts, counterarguments, logic, information, or your own Opinions. Example phrasesz’ "Do you realize...", "Here is why you are.wrong.",. "That is not right...", "The facts are...", 'Yes . but 0 O O n 75 6. 7. 8. 76 Examples: "College can be the most wonderful experience you'll ever.have." "Children must learn to get along with others." "Let's look at the facts about college graduates." "If kids learn to take responsibility around the house, they'll grow up to be responsible adults." "Look at it this way--your mother needs help around the house." Advisiug, Recommending, Providing_answers or solutions Telling the child how to solve a problem, giving him advice or suggestions, providing answers or solutions for him. Example phrases: "What I would do is...", "Why don't you...", "Let me suggest...", "It would be best for you to..." Examples: "Why don't you ask Ginny and Joyce to play down.here."‘ "Just wait a couple of years before deciding on college." "I suggest you talk to your teachers about that." "Go make friends with some other girls." Evaluating/Judging negatively,iDisapproving, Blaming;g Nameecalligg, Criticizing Making a negative judgment or evaluation of the child: Examples: "You are bad." "You are lazy." "You are not thinking straight." "You are acting foolishly." "You're very wrong about that." "You're_a spoiled brat." Praising, Judginglevaluatingpositively, Approving Offering a positive evaluation or judgment, agreeing: Examples: "You are a good boy." "That's good." "I approve of..." "Well, I think you're pretty smart." "I think you're right." "I agree with you." Supporting, Reassuring, Excusing, Sympgthizing Trying to make the child feel better, talking him out of his feel- ings, trying to make his feelings go away, denying the strength of his feelings. 9. 10. 11. 77 Examples: "It's not so bad." "Don't worry."' "You'll feel better." "That's too bad." "You'll feel different tomorrow." "All kids go through this sometimes." "I used to think that too." "You could be an excellent student with your potential." Digggosing, Psychoanalyzing, Interpreting, Readini-in, Offeriug. insights Telling the child what his motives are or analyzing why he is doing or saying something; communicating that you have him figured out or have him diagnosed. Example phrases: "What you need is...", "What's wrong with you is...", "You're.just-trying to get attention...", "You donYt really mean that...", "I know what you need.", "Your problem is..." Examples: "You're just jealous of Ginny." "You're saying that to bug me." "You don't believe that at all." "You feel that way because you're not doing well in school." Questioning, Probigg, Cross-examinin , Pryigg, Interrogating Trying to find reasons, motives, causes; searching for more informa- tion to help you solve the problem. Example phrases: "Why...", "Who...", "Where...", "When...", "How..." Examples:. "When did you start feeling this way?" "Why do you suppose you hate school?" "Do the other kids tell you why they won't play with you?" "Who put that idea in your head?" "What will you do if you don't go to college?" Diverting, Avoiding, By-passing,.Shiftggi Trying to get the child away from the problem;‘withdrawing from the problem yourself; distracting the child or pushing the problem aside. Examples:‘ "Let's not talk about it now." "Not at the table." "Just forget it." "That reminds me." "We can discuss it later." "We've all been through this before, let's not go through it again." 78 12. Kiddigg,_Teasing,_Making light of, Joking, Using sarcasm Kidding the child out of the problem." Examples: "Get up on the wrong side of bed this morning?" "Cat got your tongue?" "Do you think you're superman?" "Okay, little baby." "Why don't you try burning the school building down?" 293 1 0485429