‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ E. I“ g ‘ § ‘ fi —‘ ~ * C‘ ~ MALE - FEMALE DIFFERENCES IN CHILD REARENG ATTITUDES Thesis for the Degree of M. S. "““ITY MICHIGAN STATE UNEVnna CARME ~32; MENESES 1970 - """i’1293 10573 252/ - W mun-W DIFFERENCES IN CHILD me ATTITUDES By Carmenza Manes es ATHESIS Su‘mitted to Michigan State University in partial fizlfillment of the requirements for the degree of 5 MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1970 6:373:22 ABSTRACT MALE-FEMALE DIFFERENCES IN CHILD HEARING ATTITUDES By Carmenza Meneses The child rearing attitudes of 77 college males were compared with those of 132 college females on the basis of the answers to the ”Sensiti- vity to Children Questionnaire” (S. T. C.) developed by Stollak. Nineteen items of the questionnaire were divided into three areas: 1) On establish- ing rules, 2) On the child‘s breaking of rules and 3) 0n understanding of the child's feelings and moods. The answers in each area were studied ac- cording to different categories established by the analysis of content. 1. On establishing rules: Suggestions, Directions, Reasoning, Emphatic Commands, Self-esteem, Permissiveness, Reward and Punishment. 2. 0n the child's breaking of rules: Permissiveness, Reasoning, Ignoring, Punishment. 3. On understanding of the child‘s feelings and mOOdBI Hostility—Rejection, Acceptance-Warmth, Indifference-Coldness, and Fals ifying the SituatiOn. Differences between men and women for each category in each are were studied using the 1:2 test. The significant differences lead to the following conclusions: 1. ‘Wbmen use more Directions in establishing rules for the child than men. 2. There are no differences between the two sexes in relation to the use of Suggestions, Reasoning, Emphatic Commands, Self-esteem, Reward and Punishment, in establishing rules for the child. 3. 14'. 5. 6. 7. 8. Women reports more Punishment than men when the child breaks rules. Men and women do not differ in Permissiveness, use of Reasoning or Ignoring the child's behavior when he breaks rules. Women show much more Warmth-Acceptance than men insofar as understanding the child's feelings and moods is concerned. Women's scores are also higher than men‘s scores in Indifference- COIdness in understanding the child's feelings and moods. Hen falsify the situation more than women in the understanding of the child's feelings and moods. There were no important differences in the degree of Hostility-Rejection shown by men and women in understanding the child's feelings and moods. The possibility of differences between potential parents and actual parents in responses to the instrument was noted. Further experiments are necessary to validate the observations made here and to elucidate the exact nature of the differences in child rearing between men and women. To my Parents ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Gary Stollak for his positive advise and the critical reading of my paper. The same to Dr. Lucy Fergusson and Dr. Lawrence Messe. To Dr. Anne Hardesty who always found time available for commenting upon my work and giving significant suggestions. To Dr. Ruben Ardila for his kind cooperation. To Mr. and Mrs. Hernando Arevalo for their helpful and oppotune collaboration. I also would like to thanks Mrs. Luz Clara de Garcia for her interest and careful work on correcting and typing the material. To Miss Margarita Vargas for her efficiency. To the friends who helped to improve my writing in a foreing language. iii 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I Introduction Purpose 1 Hypothesis 2 Theory 3 Principal Factors in Child Rearing 14 Summary 5 II Related Research 6 Acceptance 6 Rejection 7 Overprotection 10 Autonomy 11 Control 12 Discipline 1‘ Summary 17 III Design of the Study 19 Sample ' 19 Procedure 19 Summary 22 IV Results 23 Summary 24 V Discussion 25 .iT Page Summary 28 Appendices A. S. T. C. ‘ 38 B. Definitions “4 LIST OF TABLES hel Sex Differences on Establishing Rules fer the Child. 34 "'2 .12 Used to Test Sex Differences on the Child‘s Breaking of Rules. 35 u.3 :2 Used to Test Sex Differences on Understanding the Child's Feelings and Hoods. 36 "1 1. LIST OF FIGURES Circumplex of Maternal Behaviors 37 Male-Female Differences in Child-Rearing Attitudes. .IRTRODUCTION Knowledge about child-rearing helps tociarify the nature of the factors influencing the relationship between parent and child. ‘ A study of the variables operating on one side of the interrelationship would help to advance in the knowledge of the factors affecting the child in the process of child-rearing. Since the parental side involves two sources of influence, the mother and the father, the examination of the differences or similarities between them would provide light about the nature of the stimuli affecting the child. There might be characteristics that would be strengthened by coincidence of the two parents in the same trait, or an attribute on one of the parents weakened by the opposite quality shown in the other. There also might be contradictory tendencies between the parents that would lead to conflicting forces affecting the child. Certain parental attitudes or traits might be assigned either to a masculine approach to child rearing or to a feminine viww of the same process. The effects of the integrated actions of the parents can also be examined. Purpose This study intends to obtain additional information about the differences between men and women in their interaction with children. Several categories related to disciplinary actions and understanding of the child were studied. Three different kinds of situations were chosen to be analyzed: 1) The establishment of rules, 2) The breaking of rules, 3) Understanding the child’s l feelings and moods. This was not a study of a method of training and its effects on specific situations, rather it was an analysis of the potential parental responses to the reactims of the child in different situatims. The diversity of approaches to the situations can be observed, as can the persistence of one style, or oval the mitency or inconsistency in the way of interacting with the child. The possibility of a "f-inine" or ”masculine" approach to the child could be ascertained. The coincidence, divergence or conflicting tendencies between potential parents could also be observed. gmtheeisc It was hypothesised that there are significant differmicee between men and when in their responsee to differut items relating to: 1) establishing rules, 2) the child‘s breaking of rules, 3) understanding the child's feelings and moods. £22!!! Ferguson (1970), discussed the way that parents (or caretakers) shape behavior. The caretakers select the type of stimuli received by the child and hence the type of associations he might form. They also provide the verbal eymbole that facilitate the discrimination of perceptions, associations, cae tegoriee and gueraliaatione made by the child. Parents, or caretakers also stimulate or inhibit the child‘s responses by rewarding or punishing specific acts. Parents mediate the satisfaction of biological and social needs, control of divironmmit, and developmt of affects. Therefore, the child‘s whole motivation in its biological, social, environmental and affective components, is influenced by the parent's attitude and behavior. "f'V I -‘ N 3 r __ .'.' ,f. ru" i -- 4". yt‘ ‘ h a .A t -I '1' ~ - ’3, . ‘Vr"q" l n -* 'N " r‘, .- I ..__l s H 0 "3 -1 '- .' ,r-rq AL 'I I '5 n“ s I q r‘ ' n 1‘ 'r' \ ‘ v ‘ ’;‘ \ ‘ 7' -L - .),- r'. r . J. ‘ - --) ‘ Lg.) ; .- ':'\ x ) x} )‘ g 3. ‘.—‘ O ,1. ‘I ' ‘r- . ,LA - x r— . s . —\ l l .'. "3 3 In the influence of parents on the child, another phenonenon plays an inportent roles observational learning or imitation. Bandura (1963) has observed the great influence of initation on behavior fornatiu. Sen roles, patterns of social interaction, and models of authority, can be internalised without awareness through the process of initation. The socioeconomic status of the fanily also. influences the type of pet- toms acquired by the child. Differences in methods of discipline, attitudes toward aggressim and patterns of parental authority have be. observed betwun middle and lower class. fanilieS. 1+. has been indicated a... that not only the motherPs role is crucial for the child‘s personality forlation, but that the fathom-Po role is also inth in two ways: a) directly, by contact with the childrm, b) indirectly, by the influmco on the nother through the marital relationship. (Ferguson, 1970). Hethods The principal methods of stocking parent-child relatims have been direct observation, interview and questionnaire. All three methods are open to the possibility of distortion of results by interference of the observer (or the instrument) with the spontaneous reaction of the child or the parents when . they have to state their opinions or express attitudes or behavior. ”mat is supposed to be done“ can change the nanifestations of the true nature of the relationship. This fact light explain the heavy influmoo of social class label-ship and educational level observed in questionnaires. However, paper- endopmcil questionnaires have shown some predictive value (Ferguson, 1970). In this study the Sensitivity to Children questionnaire, developed by Stollak, (Appendix 1) will be used. ’w ‘0 i r. (N Principal Factors in Child Rearing Two principal dimensions , Autonomy-Control end Love-Hostility, have boa: found as com in many studies about child rearing. More specific variables within these general fact“. are also possible. Schaefsr‘s conceptualisatien (1959) seen in Fig. 1. shows the differmxt possibilities. Four principal types of child rearing can also be localised in its 1) Duocratic, characterised by Love and Anton” (upper right quadrant). 2) Autocratic, characterised by Hostility and Control (letter left quadrant). 3) ”W170, with Warmth and Control al wincipal trait! (lower right quadrant). #) "Iaisses-bfaire' or negligent, with Rejection and Antone-y as its character- istics (upper left quadrant). £932! The inportenee of interpersonal relationships in the personality formation has been well ufiusised. Parent—child relations expressed through child-rearing, largely influmoe the child‘s development because parents represent the closest and nest permanent social figures for the child. They select environmental stimuli, provide the verbal synbols necessary for the differentiation of perceptions and conceptualiaations and give reward or mishnent to the child for his responses to biological, environentel and social stimuli. Parents also establish the necessary bonds for the developnent of affects. Therefore, the whole process of socialization and the principal sources of activation are affected by the type of relation established by the permts with the child. The type of influence exerted is a function of the stage of development in which it appears. Each stage has specific needs leading to specific directions in \ .l C J.-. n .‘L _'. K -I- o r-‘. " . l "1 , _ '. L I Q n 5 VI —‘- '- \ L; _ ‘l .L ._ L1 LL —. \; ~J- ’ u ' ‘0 r',. rm ‘ \\r- ,. O .. "\ l -l. ’4. VI \ -- - P "\ LA. . \ ‘l 3 I V ._-, _ r. . ._‘_ . A ‘ F '1 L ‘nr \ —-. r.. f—n ). I.“ '.,‘ - I \" " ‘ [— I f" ‘D "\ . n f‘) ') r. ‘W -A. I”. e ,- ‘.L l‘} A I} I‘ «-\ .L' \ l C -"".- k I "i -‘_l_ . . s r" ' " ‘\ 7‘". (vs I x r \ social develop-exit. Study of child rearing gives us light on the nature of the parental interaction with the child and of its influence on the child‘s personality . fornation. This study foused on the differences between son and men in response to it. reflecting: l) The establishment of rules, 2) The child‘s breaking of rules, and 3) The understanding of the child‘s feelings and moods. Most studies about child rearing have focused on two principal dimensions a AceeptanceoReJection, and Love-Hostility. On tn. basis of on. four poles that compose these two dimensions, four principal types of child rearing can be established: democratic, autocratic, overprotective and negligent. Pertinent literature will be reviewed in the next chapter. 2. Related Research Maternal and paternal child rearing attitudes and behavior clearly affect the child's personal and social developnent. Most of the studies about child rearing have considered two dimensions: Acceptance-Rejection and Autonomy-Control. Accgptance Acceptance has been described (POrter, 1954) as having four principal characterixtics in relation with the child. a) He is seen as a person with feelings and rights to express them. b) He is recOgnized in his uniqueness and is stimulated to develop his potentialities. c) His autonomy is recOgnized. d) He is loved unconditionally. In BaldWin, Breese and Kalhorn, (l9h5) acceptance of the child was described as composed of the following factors: rapport with the child, affection, child- centeredness of the home, direction of criticism (approval), effectiveness of policy, democracy in the home, and indulgence. In Maccoby, Levin and Sears (1957), acceptance was defined as the giving of love without reservation. The effects of acceptance are described by Symons (1939). He says that accepted children engage predominantly in socially acceptable behavior. They are good natured, they show consideration for others, they are friendly, cooperative, cheerful, interested in work, and emotionally stable. The characteristics of indulged children in the Fels Studies were both high friendliness and quarrelsomeness during preschool period, and more shyness and less sociability during school age. In Sears et al. (1957) it was observed that acceptance promotes the wholesome development of independent behavior and of independence. Love oriented child rearing tends to correlate with internalized reactions to transgression: guilt, confession, self-responsibility (Becker, 1961+). Patterns of child rearing which combine warmth, adequate control and definition of limits, as well as permissiveness for expression and exploration, seem to promote good social development in the preschool period (Ferguson, 1970). Anastasiow, Mlodnosky and Han (1961+) found that maternal attitudes expressive of warmth and positive demands for self-sufficiency were related to social maturity and academic success. Boy's achievement was related to the degree of paternal closeness and involvement with the son. Baldwin, Breese and Kalhorn (19145) linked maternal acceptance or love with increase in children's I. Q. Academically successful boys show a familial background characterized by mutual self-esteem among the family members, warmth, absence of anxious restriction of impulse-expression and high. evaluation and support for achievement (Ferguson, 1970). Furthermore, Anastasiow (1965) predicted that parental attitudes facilitating sex role would be high reward and high warmth. Rejection Rejection in Symons Study (1939) includes certain parental behaviors such as lack of interest in the child, non support, criticism and verbal or physical pmishment. In Baldwin et al. (19145) rejection is seen in a relation between parent and child characterized by hostility. In Sears et a1. (1957) rejection is considered as a withholding of love. The effects of rejection observed by Symons were described as atten- tion-getting behavior, problems in school and delinquency. It seems that the child who is rejected developes feelings of insecurity and inferiority probably because he feels that if he is not worthy of paternal love he is himself'worthless. A low parental view of the child would lead to a child‘s low'selfbesteam. Symons (1939) says that whereas rejection might lead to close identification with peers and good social relations outside home, more frequently it produces feelings of inadequacy and inferiority, isolation, humiliation, worthlessness and anxiety. A persistent pattern of rejection affects the child’s adult personality and adjustment. In Baldwin et a1. (l9h5) it was observed that rejected preschool children were characterized by high emotionality and low emotional control (Baldwin, 1949). They were more active physically than accepted children. At school age, rejected children show marked sibling hostility and quar- relsomeness. Sears et a1. (1957) reported that rejection seemed to influence the child negatively. The rejected child, insecure in the parental support, looks for constant reassurance of nurturance creating a continuing need for dependency. Also rejected children were seen as slightly retarded in the developnent of conscience, since the extent of acceptance of parental norms and values by the child is greatly influenced by the extent of parental warmth and acceptance. Rejected children would suffer from insecurity and lack of self-ac- ceptance. Basic trust in the relatinn with parents in a condition for the development of a ”healthy” personality. The trust in the world, in the universe, in other people and in oneself, would emerge from the basic trust in parental figures} The rejected child is hostile and aggressive against' an unfriendly world. He never was understood so he also fails to understand others. Lack of parental acceptance has been found to contribute to the poor adjustment of first grade children (Medinnus, 1961). Failure to satisfy infantile needs for dependency has also been considered to influence the development of aggressive behavior in adolescence (Bandura and Whlters, 1959). Intellectual developnent in girls is impaired by hostility and intrus ive- ness and is improved with favorable maternal involvement. Help and criticism hsve been observed as characteristics of mothers of high verbal children (Ferguson. 1970). 'Maternal attitudes are significantly correlated with early social adjustment in school. Rejection and extreme restrictiveness are associated with poorer functioning (Anastasiow, Mlodncsky and Rau, 1964). Baldwin. Breese and Kalhorn (l9h5) associated maternal rejection to decrease on intelligence scores. Kagan (1964) feund that maternal restrictive- ness, ccerciveness and criticism between two and seven years correlated nega- tively with the same children's Stanfbrd Binet I. Q. when they were nine years old. An.inverse relationship between rejection scores and children's I. Q. was found by Hurley (1965). Father‘s and mother's acceptance-rejection scores were not differently related to the intelligence scores, but daughter's I. Q. see-ed to be more affected by'the parental attitude. Hurley (1965) suggested that parental acceptance-rejection differences may account for'more than the thirty per centof the variance in the daughter's I. Q. Different studies have shown that parental rejection is inversely related to school achievement and that demands for mastery are also associated with high achievement (Ferguson, 1970). It was found that high sexeanxiety r L er“ I L J. l0 and rejection would have .1 negative effect on achievement (Anastasiow, Hlotinosky and Ran. 196,4)o Overprotection Acceptance and rejection may both be envolved in the phenomenon of overprotoctisn. Levy (1916) point out four aspects within it: a) Excessive contact. b) Infantiliaation, that 1., to treat, the child as a baby. c) Prevmtion of independent behavior. d) Lack or excess of maternal control. “he: there is a lack of maternal control and domination of the mother by the child, he is poorly adapted to discipline in the school. and to the authority of the teacher. He experiences difficulties in establishing relationship with friends duo to the limitation in social life created by the overprotection. Sometimes cverportected children rebel and act agrese aivaly towards mothers who are sulnissive to then. They are also selfish, undisciplined, disobedient, very demanding and prone to temper tantrums. Overprotoctod children dominated by their mothers were cut-issive and dependent. Later. th. behavior of overportected children improves. It looks as if overprctection would be has detrimental than rejection, especially in relation to the self-concept of the child. Overprotection must not be confused with the policy of ”laissesfaire" under which the child may do anything he wants. The latter indicates more negligmca of the parents to assume control, rather than responsible permis- sivenass (1m. 19%). Hatemal overindulgmce is more detrimental to bans, interfering with the capability of self-mastery (Ferguson, 1970). r ¢ f’ f". 3 7 ,7" ‘ r- ,a‘ 4.. n ‘ I 1‘ ‘ , r1 ' ~ I f‘w _ . r‘ A ' - l t j ' V lfl ' P l V ‘ A t I 7 "t ) h r . .7 , . n ' ‘ qr ‘ . - ifi ' , J 7 w ‘ a I A D ’l \a n A ‘,.__ r ,‘(e‘ " ,L ‘ i O a ‘(\ \ I n , _ ' "y ll Autonomy In talking about autonomy, Symons (1939) refers to the extreme case in which the child has his own way, the parents do not have control, and they let the child disrupt the home by having a lax and inconsistent dis- ciplinc. In Baldwin et a1. (l9b5) autonomy would be included in what is called “democracy in the home”,-the principal trait being the practice of consulting the child in the decisions made in the family, giving him.a voice in the policy of the home. Symons (1939) found that the personality of children with parents who have little or no control over them, shows tendencies toward obstinacy, defiance of authority, irresponsibility and disobedience, but these children display ability to express themselves effectively. Their personality is characterized by aggressiveness, disrespect, antagonism, but also independence and selfhconfidence. Children from democratic homes showed increases in intelligence scores over a period of time (Baldwin, Breese and Kalhorn, l9h5). They showed high ability in planning, curiosity and originality (Baldwin, 19MB). At the nursery school they were active, aggressive, leaders, non-conformists and disobedient. ‘Natson (1957) found that children from permissive homes display more friendliness, cooperation, and, at the same time, more independence and creativity than those from strict homes, who showed greater hostility. Permissiveness, according to Becker (1964), would facilitate socia- lization, intellectual striving and assertiveness, although with a lack of POrSistence and increased aggressiveness. 12 Control Control, used by dominant parents, is described by Symons (1939) as characterized by demands of complete obedience, excessive supervision, care- ful training and concern over trifles and criticism of the child. In Baldwin et a1. (l9h5) control is related to autocratic or dictatorial homes in which all decisions are made by the parents, with little participation or choice from the child. Sears et a1. (1957) talk about restrictiveness to the establishment of strict control for the child without freedom of behavior. Symons (1939) found that children of dominating parents were better socialized and more conforming to the group, and were also interested in school work. They were more sensitive, seclusive, shy, selfhconscious and submissive than children who enjoyed more autonomy. Their personality showed traits of courtesy, loyalty, honesty, politeness and submissiveness. Becker (196“) suggest that the effort of parental restrictiveness or permissiveness depends, in part, on the warmth of the parents, but that, in general, restrictiveness festers well controlled behaviors, often tending toward fearfulness, dependency and subnission. Bronfenbrenner (1961) mentions that at any given age there is an op» timum of parental control ranging from excessive to deficient. The former would produce submissiveness and timidity with perhaps later rebellion to immaturity and irresponsibility. Hoffman (1966) postulated that parental coerciveness not only arouses hostility in the child, but, expecially in boys, evokes needs for self- assertion. If such needs are met by an adequate degree of independence, the result is successful assertive behavior outside the home. However, there was no empirical evidence about this point. 13 Strict control in the home decreases ability to plan, aggressiveness, persistence and fearlessness. It leads to a well behaved, but constricted child (Baldwin. 19‘49). Overly restrictive or punitive socialization would produce anxiety and sons to interfere with the developnent of ”initiative”, according to hikson (1963). A restrictive parentQ-child relationship might arouse fearfulness (Ferguson, 1970). Freeman and Kagan (1963) found that early maternal restrictiveness and coerciveness were negatively related to I. 0. scores for children of both sexes. They suggest that the anxiety generated by reprisals and hostility to adults impaired the performance. There was an inverse relationship between girls' I. Q. and maternal criticism The reason might be a marked sensitivity of girl to maternal punishment observed in different studies (Hurley, 1965). Bayley and Schaefer (Ferguson, 1970) studied the correlation between maternal behavior observed during the firm-,three years of life of the child and the I. Q. at successive ages. They found closer relations for boys than those for girls. A negative relation between anxious, irritable, strict, ignoring and punitive maternal behavior and the I. Q. scores in el-entary years was observed. Platt (1962) found that suthoritarian control scores for fathers were significantly higher than those for mothers of adolescents with behavioral and adjustment problems. Authoritarian attitudes stimulate in the child undesirable traits like lack of security and independence, sutmissiviness and unpopularity with his peers (Read, 19155: Radke, 19%: Anderson, 1916). They show more tendency to fight and quarrel and to be more inconsiderate. l1 l‘r\ m (‘1 A "(W F , . W p . . 4 -e . V i \ a I , . W ‘ , n) x 0 I . . n in h . \r _ n ‘ i A . e \ ’r —.. _ . v K) 'W ’\ J n, a. . e ,) I . l‘ I. NI; y F: n A _ a s x . r1 t l . i I n . J 14 They are more insensitive to praise and blame than children who come from a democratic environment. Their unpopularity in a group placed in a permissive atmosphere would come from the adoption by the child of the same attitudes of his parents. His behavior involves belligerence and inconsiderateness (Radke, 1946). Emotional instability has been observed in children from autocratic homes. Uncertainty and confusion might be produced in face of the difference between non-permissive homes and permissive schools. Authoritarian parental attitudes are related to shyness and with- drawal and to truancy and stealing among kindergarteners. (Peterson, Becker, Hellmer, Luria and Shoemaker, 1961). Remy (1964) says that maternal overpossessiveness is related more closely to the child's fantasy dependent behavior, than to the child's overt dependent behavior. The anxiety experienced earlier by the child will tend to inhibit expression of dependency needs on an overt level. Discipline Discipline would have as a purpose the provision of cues to the child for appropriate behavior, leading to long term effects, and also to get conformity to parental demands, producing short-term effects. Discipline is concerned with behavior, but the feelings of the child are frequently forgotten. It is the child as the whole who is responding to a disciplinary situation. The behavioral accomplishment expected may be distorted or nullified by feelings and attitudes aroused by the method of discipline used. Radke (l9h6) in an study of preschool children found that 63% of them felt sad, unhappy and pained by punishment and only lbfi had feelings of penitence and resolution for change in behavior. 15 Harsh, inconsistent and arbitrary discipline originates resentment, hostility and anxiety in the child. Anger and crying are observed after disciplinary measures have been taken (Clifford, 1959). Sears et a1.(1957) report that mothers who were warmer and pleased with their role as mothers and wives used praise and reward more, in comparison with other techniques, such as physical punishment, deprivation of privileges, withdrawal of love and isolation. Positive correlations were found between college students attitudes and type of discipline used by their parents during their childhood (Itkin, 1955). College students were more critical of their parents when the type of discipline was basically negative (Nakamura, 1959). Hoffllan and Hoffman (1966) indicated two types of disciplinary tech- niques c 1. Induction that leads the child to take responsability and creates an internal standar for misbehavior. 2. Sensitization based on fear of punishment. Love-oriented techniques would be associated with induction and po- wer-ass ertive technique with sensitization. Becker (1961!) indicates that punitive discipline is related to aggres- sion in children. If the type of punishment is psychological, the expression of aggression is indirect, if physical there is overt aggression. Consistency and time in the application of power-assertive techniques would produce inhibition. sear. et .1 (1957) say that continuing punishment of an action might reinforce the undesired behavior. Physical punishment results in slow developeent of conscience, but might be effective if it is associated with reasoning and incations of 16 substitutive behavior. Punitive methods are related to high demands for nurturance and attention (Hoffman and Hoffman 1964). Sears (1961) showed that low permissiveness-high punishment leads to maximun selft-aggress ion. Combination of restrictiveness and hostility fosters considerable resentment with some of it being turned against the self, or more generally experienced as internalized turmoil or conflict (Hoffman and Hoffman, 1961+). Booker (1961+) observed a positive relation between punitive type of discipline and child aggression. Hoffman (1964) in studies of nursery school children found strong correlation between mother's reactive power assertive behavior and child's resistance to influence from the teacher and from other children and assertive power, as well as hostility in re- lation to children. A study of third grade children showed that the aggression scores in children increased as the number of physical punishment items chosen by parents increased, whereas confession scores, the measure of identification, decreased (Lefkowitz, Md Eron, L. and Welder, L. 1963). In the laboratory it is observed that punishment of strongly motivated animals provokes anxiety. In a naturalistic setting inhibition seems to take place after the use of punitive approaches over a period of time (Becker in Hoffhan and Hoffluan, 1961!). Aggressive parents seem to produce aggressive children. Three hypo- thesis have been invoked: 1. Physical punishment produces anger. 2. Aggressive parents condemn aggression, but at the same time show an example of an aggressive model. 3. Direct reinforcement of aggression by hostile-punitive parents. r ‘ ‘ " s ' -r““ " " . r {\e‘ n F‘ Q {1 1? Dollamd and Miller (1959) formulate the hypothesis that the punish- ment of acts of direct aggression serves as additional frustration, which instigates aggression against the punishing agent. Bondura (1959) shows that children exposed to an aggressive model display more aggression than those exposed to passive models. It has also been found that boys with deviant parental models tend to participate more in criminal activities. Also that the background of aggressive children shows a lack of a model of inner control. The notion that lax discipline can contribute to aggressiveness is supported (Hoffman and Hofman, 1964). It has been observed in aggressive children that mothers stimulate or pemit aggression to peers but are less permissive of aggression towards parents. The contrary is observed in fathers (Becker in Horn-en and 1131mm, 1964). Malevolent parental behavior described as punitive, aggressive and rejecting, has a negative relation with children's I. Q. (Hurley, 1965). Susana}: The parent-child relation clearly influences the personal and social develoment of the child. Two general factors are considered important in that relations ac- ceptance-rejection and autonomy-control. Acceptance can be characterized by love and respect of the individuality of the child and should produce satisfactory individual and social adjustment, intellectual growth and conscience development. Rejection can be characterized by little or no love, nor interest in the child, or by hostility, and could produce insecurity, feelings of inferiority, dependency, hostility, problems of personal and social adjustment, and im- pairment of intellectual developnent and achievement. 18 The mixture of acceptance-rejection found in the phenomenon of over- protection would lead the child to alternate between tyranny submissiveness with social adjustment difficulties. Autonomy can be characterized as including independence and responsible participation of the child in the family. Control is optimum with an adequate degree of restriction of childs behavior. Excessive control implies demands fOr complete obedience, with criticism, and with no participation of the child in the decisions in the home and with no respect for his personality. 3. Design of the Study era}: The subjects were two hundred and nine undergraduate college students of Michigan State University, seventy-seven males and one hundred and thirty-two females, age ranging from 19 to 20, generally from the middle or upper middle socioeconomic classes. Procedure The instrument used was the Sensitivity to Children Questionnaire (S. T. C.) developed by Stollake It consits of twenty questions or items each presenting a different situation for the child and his reaction to it. Parents (or potential parents, as in this study) must write what would be their immediate response when facing the child's described behavior. Instruct- ions are as follows 3 "A series of situations will be found (:1 the following pages. You are to pretend or imagine that you are the parent (mother and father) of the child described. All the children in the following situations are to be considered between five and eight years old. Your task is to write down how _you would respond to the child in each of the situations. Z_[n_a word, sentence or short flragraph. Write down your exact words or actions. It is not necessary to explain why you said or did what you described. Please be as honest as possible in describing what mu would (and not what one ideally should) do or say.” (See Apprendix A for copy of the S. T. 0.). After obtaining the responses, the items were classified on the basis of analysis by content in three different areas: I) On establishing rules II) On the child's breaking of rules III) 011 understanding the child's feelings and moods 19 20 These three areas were chosen because of the.” importance of disci- pline and understanding in the parent—child relationship. Items 1, 2, 3. 9 and 11 were chosen as representative for studying parental behavior on establishing rules. Items 5, 7, 10 and 12 for analyzing their behavior when rules are broken. Items h, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15,17, 16, 18, and 19 for studying their understanding of the child‘s feelings and moods. Item 20 was discarded because it did not seem to fit in any of these three areas. Each item-area was analyzed according to representitive categories of the distribution of responses. For the first area, On Establishing Rules, the following categories were chosen after analyzing several questionnaires : 1. Suggestions 2. Directions 3. Reasoning 1:». Emphatic Conmands 5. Permisareness 6. Self-esteem 7. Reward 8. Punishment For the second area, On the Child Breaking of Rules, the categories were: 1. Permissiveness 2. Reasoning 3. Ignoring ll. Punishment 4 ea "; r“ A x {\1 . ‘ . ' (“j I" , 1‘ I. ,1 i Y ; [a ‘ F I I I» _. 7 r“ I” I n ,L i . i \ ‘ ' n ’1‘ . s a ,— —.. L _ u k , \ < 0 f} 21 For the third area, On understanding the Child's Feelings and Moods, the categories were: 1. Rejection-Hostility 2e Acceptance-Warmth 3. Indifference-Coldness he Fals ifying the Situation The analysis of the responses to the items was made by the experimenter, without knowkedge of the sex of the respondent. Following the criteria based on the description of each category (Apprendix B) each response was classified. Since each category is not exclusive in re- lation to the others, it is possible that for each response several categories might be recorded. The score of each category goes from absence to presence, that is, from 0 to l. The analysis was made independently for each sub-area, in order that scores given in one category do not influence scores in another, so that the ”halo effect" could be avoided. The first area, On Establishing Rules, was analyzed for all the subjects, and then the other two successively. (After having classified the responses, the sex of the subject filling out the questionnaire was identified and separate frequency distributions were obtained for the responses of men and for the responses of wornen for each category. Taking each of the three ares separately, the total for each catego- ry was obtained 1. e. the total of suggestions was summed By adding the suggestions in item 1, item 2, item 3, item 9 and item 11: these are the items considered fer the first sub-area, on establishing rules. The same calculations 'were made for the other categories: directions, reasoning, etc. Thus, the total of each category in each area was the basis fer analysis. Testable Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: For each category, in each area, no difference will be found between men and women, as measured by the average number of responses. Analysis The method of analysis is the x2 test for significant differences at the 0.05 level. Summagy The Sensitivity to Children Questionnaire (s. T. c.) was administered to two hundred and nine college students, seventy-seven makes and one hundred and thirty-two females, age ranging from.l9 to 22. Nineteen of the items of the Questionnaire were classified in three areas: 1) The establishment of rules, 2) The breaking of rules, and 3) understanding of the child's feelings and moods. A subset of categories was established by the investigator for each area. Differences between men and women fer each category in each area were tested using the 12 test and the chosen level of significance for rejection the null hypothesis was 0.05. r7 f\ 9+ V' I (T. ’ r, VA) a; .i A. .- Y e {‘2 i f K, ‘ Q L ~ n +‘ ‘r. I -\ a h. Results To ascertain whether differences exist between men and women on child rearing in the different categories studied, the X2 test was applied to differences on frequency of response. Results given in Table “.1 show the following values of X2 for the first area, The Establishment of Rules, for each category: Suggestions = 3.2: Directions = 5.1: Reasoning = .88: Permissiveness 8 .31 Selfresteem = .6h: Reward = .30: Punishment = l.h Only the value corresponding to Directions is significant at the .05 level. Results given in Table 4.2 show the following values X2 fer the second area, The Child's Breaking of Rules, for each category: Permissiveness a .02: Reasoning = 2.2: Ignoring 8 .18: Punishment = 5.6 Only the value corresponding to PUnishment is significant at the .05 level. Results given in Table h.3 show the X2 values found for the third area. On Understanding the Child's Feelings and Meods, for each category: Hostility-Rejection 8 1.2: Warmth-Acceptance 8 #3: Indifference-Coldness 8 4.9: Falsifying the Situation = 8.6 The values corresponding to three categories: ‘Warmth-Acceptance, Indifference-Coldness and Falsifying the Situation, were significant at the 0.05 level. Summagy 1. ‘meen use more directions in establishing rules for the child than men. 23 2. 3. a. 5. 7. 8. 2h There are no differences between the two sexes in relation to the use of suggestions, reasoning, emphatic commands, self-esteem, re- ward and punishment. on establishing rules for the child. 'Wbmen use more punishment than men when the child breaks rules. Men and women do not differ in permissiveness, use of reasoning or ignoring of the child's behavior when he breaks rules. There is a significant difference between men and women in warmth- acceptance in the understanding of the child. 'women show more warmth- acceptance than men. ‘meen's scores are significantly higher than men's scores on indif- ference coldness in understanding the child's moods and feelingS. Men falsify more the situation in the understanding of the child's feelings and moods than women. There were no significant differences in the degree of hostilitybre- jection shown by mothers and fathers in understanding of the child's feelings and moods. Discussion Women seem to be more directive than men in establishing rules for the child, and when facing the child's breaking of rules, women use more punishment than men. These results are in some agreement with previous studies that show that the father is seen as more interfering and punitive than the mother (Hoffman and Hoffman, 1966). The finding of more warmth on the part of females than males in child rearing agrees with the results reported in different studies (Gardner, 19147: Harris and Tseng, 1957: Kagan, Hosken and Watson, 1961), which say that children perceive the mother as more friendly and nurturant than the father: this also concurs with the children's view of the mother as source of nurturance and discipline indicated by Hoffman and Hoffman (1966) and with the results of Gardner‘s study (19h?) that indicate that children attribute a more understanding nature to the mother in relation to the father. Indifference-Coldness in this study could be seen as similar to what is‘ often called Rejection in other studies (Sears et a1... 1957 8 Symons, 1939). The female has strong to show much more warmth and acceptance and indifference-coldness than the male. It seems that the female tends to be more defined, or may be more ”extremist” in her emotional involvement or lack of notional engagement with the child. Men seem to be less involved emotionally with the child or may be less inclined to emotional poles. Men, according to the results, would falsify the emotional situation of the child more than women when they are dealing with the child‘s moods 25 -.a,fi 26 and feelings. It is possible to speculate that men are perhaps more interested in "handling the situation" than in understanding the child. In relation to the method used in this tudy, the questionnaire, it should be noted that there is always the possibility of distortion by future parents through their interest in giving a good impression of themselves. This might be particularly true about college students who intellectually might know or can guess what would be the most adequate response. The intent to defend selfhesteem on the part of college students could affect all responses, but the differences found would probably persist if that condition were to be removed. In other words, the questionnaire as a whole would be affected, but the relation among the parts would remain. It is necessary to note that in this research, potential parents have ' been studied. The results need to be compared with those obtained from : actual parents. It is questionable to what degree attitudes predict behavior, but if attitudes reflect beliefs, and behavior must agree with beliefs, or viceversa, in order to keep psychological consistency (Rokeach, 1968), the beliefs expressed through attitudes in the questionnaire probably have some predictive value about the future parental behavior of the subjects considered in this study. Implications for future research. Questions arise about: What are the effects in the child of the dif- ference of emotional involvement with him between the mother and the father? Is the‘WhrmtheAcceptance of the mother excessive for the child‘s needs? Does it create over-dependency in the child? Does the father need to be warmer, closer, and more realistic about the feelings of his children? Is 27 the woman too emotional in her relation to children and the man too uninvolved? How does the difference in Warmth-Acceptance, in favor of the mother, affect children's sex typing, particularly boys' sex role acquisition? Future research might answer these questions and especially those related to what will be the most suitable characteristics of the mother- father combination for the child. Of course, the sex of the child as well as the type of the child's personality will affect the answer, giving rise to the problem of individual differences in child rearing. A broad field for studies is open. Summary The child rearing attitudes of 77 college males were compared with those of 132 college females on the basis of the answer to the “Sensiti- vity to Children Questionnaire" (S. T. C.) developed by Stollak. Nineteen items of the questionnaire were divied in three areas: 1) 0n establishing rules, 2) 0n the child's breaking of rules, and 3) 0n understanding the child ‘s feelings and moods. The answers in each area were analysed ac- cording to different categories, as follows: 1. 0n establishing rules: Suggestions, Directions, Reasoning, Emphatic Con-lands, Solo-esteem, Permissiveness, Reward and Punishment. 2. 0n the child‘s breaking of rules: Permissiveness, Reasoning, Ignoring and Punishment. 3. 0n understanding of the child's feelings and moods: Hostility-Rejection, Acceptance-Warmth, Indifferencee-Coldness and Falsifying the Situation. Differences between men and women for each category in each area were studied using the 12 test. The significant differences lead to the following conclusions: 1. ‘Holen use more Directions in establishing rules for the child than men. 2. There are no differences between the two sexes in relation to the use of Suggestions, Reasoning, mmatic Comands, Self-esteem, Reward and Punishment in establishing rules for the child. 3. ‘Hbmon use more Punishment than men when the child breaks rules. ll. Men and women do not differ in Pemissiveness, use of Reasoning or Ignoring the child’s behavior when he breaks rules. 5. Women show much more Warmthe-Acoeptance than men insofar as understanding the child's feelings and moods in concerned. 28 29 6. 'Nomen's scores are also higher than men's scores in Indifference- Coldness in understanding the child's feelings and moods. 7. Men falsify the situation more than women in the understanding of the child's feelings and moods. 8. There were no important differences in the degree of Hostility-Rejection shown by men and women in understanding of the child's feelings and moods. The possibility of differences between potential parentsand actual parents in the results of the studies was noted. Further experiments are necessary to validate the observations made here and to elucidate the exact nature of the differences in child rearing between men and women. BIBLIOGRAPHY References Anastasiow, N. Success in school and boys' sex role patterns, Child De- velo ent, 1965, 36, lO53-1066. Anderson, J. E. Parants' attitudes on child behavior: A report of three studies, Child Developnent, 1946, 17, 91-97. Baldwin. A. Le. Breese, F. H. & Breese, J. Patterns of parent behavior, 3170110103911 Monograph. 1945. 58 (3). 3.1m, A. L. Socialization and the parente-child relationship, Child Development, 19148, 19, 127-136. Baldwin. A. I... Breese, F. He. & Kalhorn, J. The appraisal of parent behavior, Psychological MonOgraph, 1945, 63 (1:). Baldwin, A. L. The effect of home enviralment on nursery school behavior, ghild Develggnent, 1949, 20, uoé-ol. Bandura, A. 8: Walters, R. Adolescent aggression, New York: Ronald Press, 1959. Bandura, A. 8: Huston, C. Identification as a process of incidental learning, Journal of Abnormal and Social ngchology, 1961, 63, 311-318 Bandura, A. & Walters, R. Social learning and personalitldevelgjment, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963. Becker, U. C. Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline. In L. H. Hoffman 8: M. L. Hofflnan (Eda), Review of child develggnent research, Vol. I. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964. Pp. 169-205 Bronfenbrener, U. The changing Anerican child: A speculative analysis, Journal of Social Issues, 1961, 17, 6-18. 30 31 Clifford, E. Discipline in the home: A controlled observational study of parental practices, Journal of Genetic Peychology, 1959, 95, “5—82 Dollard, Jo, DOOb, Le We, Miller, Ne Ea, Mowrer, 0. He 8c Sears, Re Roy Frustration and aggression. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1959. Erikson, E. H. Childhood and Society (2nd. ed.). New Yerk: Norton, 1963. Ferguson, L. R. Personality Development. Belmont, California: Broohs/California, 1970. Gardner, L. P. An analysis of Children's attitudes toward fathers, Journal of Genetic PSychology, 1947, 70, 3-28. Harris, D. B. & Tseng, S. C. Childrenis attitudes toward peers and parents as revealed by sentence completion, Child Development, 1957, 28, #01-411. Hoffman,L. W. & Hoffmanm M. L. Review of child development research, v01. I, 196“, 182-195. Hoffman, L. W. & Hoffman, M. L. Review of child development research, Vol. II. New Yurk: Russell Sage Foundation, 1966, 29—h1. Hurley, J. R. Parental malevolence and children’s intelligence, £93553} of Consulting PSychology, 1967, 31, l99-20h. Hurley, J. R. Parental acceptance-rejection and children's intelligence, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1965, 11, 19-31. Itkin, W. Relationship between attitudes toward parents and parents' at- titudes toward children, Journal of Genetic PSycholOgy, 1955, 86, 339-352 32 Kagan, J.. Hosken, B., & Watson, 8. Child's symbolic conceptualization of parents, Child Development, 1961, 32, 625-636. Kagan, J. & Freeman, M. Relation of childhood intelligence, maternal be- haviors and social class to behavior during adolescence, Qh_i_l_d__D_9_- veloment, 1963, 34, 899-912. Kagan, J. Ratum. Child Developnent, 1964, 35, 1397. Lef'kowitz, Mu Eron, L., 8: Welder, L. Punishment, identification and ag- gression, Merrill-Faber Quartegly, 1963, 9, 159-17“. Levy, D. M. Maternal overportection. New York: Columbia University Press, 1943. McNemar, Q. Psychological £35m (nth Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969. Medinnus, G. R. The relation between several parent measures and the child's early adjustment to school, Journal of Educationalmngghglogy, 1961, 52, 153-156. Nakamura, C. The relationship between children's expressions of hostility methods of discipline exercise by dominant of the retective parents. Child Development, 1959, 30, 109-117. Platt, R., Chorost, S. B., & Jurgensen, G. Comparison of child rearing attitudes of mothers and fathers of emotionally disturbed adolescents, CflwDeveloment, 1962, 33, 117-122. Peterson, D. R., Becker, Wu Hellmer, I... Luria, 2., & Shoemaker, D. Child behavior problems and parental attitudes, Child Development, 1961, 32, 151-162. Porter, B. M. Measurement of parental acceptance of children, iouinglfl Rome Economics, 1951+, 14-6, 176-182. 33 Redke, J. The relation of parental authority to children's behavior and attitudes. Minneapolis: University of Minn. Press, 1946. Ran. L.. Mlodnosky. Bo. & AnastasioW. N. .Qhildzzsarins_anisasdsnls_af achievement behaviors in second-zrgde bovg. U. S. 0. E. Cooperative Research Project No. 1838. Stanford, California: Stanford University, 1964, 243-246. Read, K. H. Parents' expressed attitudes and children's behavior, Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1945, 9, 95-100. Remy, J. H. Possessiveness and punishment. One mother-son configuration, Psychiatric Quaterly, 1964, 38, 27-41. Rokeach, M. Beliefs, attitudes and values. San Francisco: Jossey B03. 1968. ' Sears, R. R. Relation of early socialization experiences to aggression in middle childhood, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 466-492. ,Sears, R. R., Levin, H., 8: Maccoby, E. E. Patterns of child reging. Evanston. Ill: Row Peterson, 1957. Symons, P. M. The szchology of Jarent-child relationships. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1939. Watson, G. Some personality differences in children related to strict or permissive parental discipline, ml of Psmhology. 1957, 44, 227-249. 34 TABLE 4. 1 Sex Differences on Establishing Rules fur the Child Category: Suggestions Directions Reas oning - + - + - + Men 346 39 385 284 101 385 229 '156 385 Women . 568 92 660 527 133 660 412 248 660 914 131 1045 811 234 1045 641 404 1045 x2 3.2 5.1 0.88 P . 10 < . 05 . 50 Category: Emphatic Commands Permiss iviness Self-es teem — + - + - + Men 350 35 385 318 67 385 381 4 385 women 586 74 660 554 106 660 652 8 660 936 109 1045 872 173 1045 1033 12 1045 x2 1.17 0.31 .64 P .30 .70 .50 Category: Reward Punishment - + - + Men 374 11 385 361 24 385 Women 637 23 660 630 30; 660 1011 34 1045 991 54 1045 X2 .30 1.41 P .70 .30 Note.- Includes 209 Ss, 77 males and 132 females. 35 TABLE 4.2 X2 Used to Test Sex Differences on the Child's Breaking of Rules Category: Permissiveness Reasoning - + - 4- Men 266 42 308 143 165 308 women 454 74 528 217 311 528 720 116 836 360 476 836 x2 0.02 2.2 P ' .90 .20 Category: Ignoring Punishment - + - 4- Men 291 17 308 299 99 308 ‘Women 495 33 528 398 130 528 786 50 836 607 229 836 x2 .18 5.6 P .70 <1 0.02 Note.- Includes 209 Ss, 77 males and 132 females. 36 TABLE 4.3 12 Used to Test Sex Differences on Understanding the Child's Feelings and Moods Category: Hostility-Rejection 'WarmtheAcceptance - + - + Men 667 103 770 379 391 770 ‘Women 1163 157 1320 215 1105 1320 1830 260 2090 594 1496 2090 x2 1.2 43.0 P .30 <‘ 0.01 Category: Indifference-Coldness Falsifying the Situation - + - 4- Men 638 132 770 746 24 770 WOmen 1141 179 1320 1299 21 1320 1779 311 2090 2045 45 2090 x2 4.9 8.6 P .05 <: .01 Note.- Includes 209 Ss. 77 males and 132 females. 1:205 tility 37 FIGURE 1* Circumplex of Maternal Behaviors Autonomy Detached Indifferent Democratic Neglecting Cooperativ Rejecting Demanding Over-indulgent Antagonistic Authoritarian Protective-indulgent Dictatorial Over-protective Possessive Control *From Schaefer, E. S. A Circumplex model for maternal behavior, Journal Of Abnormal and Social Peychology, 1959, 59, 226-235, p. 232. V‘"-w~~ ’-. Aw“ “1 r A J -JaoH-nd'. /’ STC a ‘ Name W Age 2Q Sex (M or F) 5 Date 276,67 Instructions A series of situations will be found on the following pages. You are to pre- tend or imagine that you are the parent (mother or father) of the child'described. All the children in the following situations are to be considered between five and eight years old. Your task is to write down how you would respond to the child in each of the SLtLuations, in a wordL sentence or short paragraph. Writ; dowLyour exact words or act__i_o;.g. It is not necessary to explain why you said or did what you described. Please be as honest as possible in describing what: you would (and not what one ideally should) do or say. 5. While visiting Aunt Jane, your son, Jimmy, starts jumping up and down on the sofa. ggQgAfi ’éépt4fi;/ ‘Zii‘ (<7Q5§;&:2 4:44 QWK/x a ZZQYS {266/ (27W /2W2¢6&/ (4.967%... 6. Your daughter, Barbara has just come home from school; silent, slow and dragging her feet. You can tell by her manner that something unpleasant has happened to her. WM - mmWMZ/Ze /C. wwwméww 4?:er M/ MW /Zé’4//Zx//‘ é flx/ //"7 WWMZI /)//WM %&C 592% M027 - c297 cwé 408/ yrs/2e. " dome? 45‘ 1% 5:5: ”5,, .2594 d . 7. You are absolutely sure that your son, Bob, has stolen some money from your pocketbook (wallet). W 5%? W 21», Mam/Lg <1/4 f/i? We? 5,662.24? / K r fl/zx/nyx’f 557 MT” {.1}? //?¢C.) 450/45»; 3’ 56700 (2. J55, (yaw 433$ ” “4}” -- «294/ W? 425/537”- ,. / ,6/ 544/677 / ”24%) A§§2145‘/ ”'17é: x425¢1L i/ZéWLC/J «A: (hpgfieéxf £190CCL 45/9/29 01 W 55 5446/ C25 35%; aMy/ 4/ /£‘ WJ 56 Wm 45W wW//?/% 8. ‘You.have just come upon your daughter, Susan, pinching and throwing checkers at her six month old baby sister. ,4 ‘ . fi/ ./ 43:53 W A“, W 5915/51,th j/ .. M , 42-“ QW/O é: /’Q /2)5&¢C4 66$ 292/ r, 722 5 [/1747 / ka/ ”/2375 466%?" -‘.<:é7a!7 #0 "Q, n L “ r-‘ I .“ fl... . 5 [.2 ~..__ .. P I / .’ .y‘ 1. Your son, Robert, has just been handed a wrapped Christmas gift by Aunt Patricia. He begins to open it without saying "Thank you." s/Wwwam 'Xaéa/ W.067%m'_ ,, AW M sf/flc V WM%@¢ mayMézfiz/xéécomm/QL 2. You are talking to your friend who is visiting you. Your son, Carl, rushes in and begins to interrupt your conversation with a story about a friend in school. o/WM m Mcéaézw s/a/W MAM/MAME“ m 5:is Wowa/J/I M Mair/(3:55, éz/¥Aa/§'\ W4/ AM” 6 , Qg/MW MILL C 3. Your daughter, Mary, doesn't like to get out of bed in the morning. Every day she tries to stay in bed for a few endless minute more. //€;V?¢g¢}il <fiQfE§2a/‘ CQK&62§623?’ cfZZLéflfikdxfj ,_ /7 ‘jfli’ my ULW é’r/gzzo/t #690 61/! /f944: é;a7%jjflyz, (W// 629%ZXle' /é:2%y:: ’//'45’ /’/éi/t? /4%2__ {/czfijz: %/ QZJ/ go ”a fl @3152: <9: 55/ [5% 524254682, .4951.“ 4- You and your husband (wife) are going out for the evening. You both say "Good-night" to your son, Frank. He begins to cry and plead with you both not to go out and leave him alone even though there is a babysitter. CV// d2929txélzj7/élkfaé4Z¢. 432g94k; ,d:}zgflg4é 4fit22;A¢/ c 3.: M «Lo-02c» fl) (2rd /J/9aJ 4:52,, / ac 5.155., 7:6“ :2 @442 "/ 40W W7 /’ ’5‘“ Lot’ /’f 67314)}! ("X / 357-)(Aee’w M flail/M— .. ’./»é?3'0 t/w A;% (W jpwy (4:) Wflw Cs/ éW' cud/ft. (:x 7:“ 4&41» c..¢/;;;.;;/ C2€Q9494777 . 1:67, '1’ 3 9 9. You want your son, Gary, to go to bed at 7:30 PM. He wants to stay up and play. 4" [w/ ‘22} #3”wa My?» :jz’éu, 4 5&(‘« fi/fl/ L/ (M «6,7 s2% W 14%;? / I5“ 10. You notice that there is a mustache of sugar on the face of your daughter, Judy. After checking, it becomes clear that she has eaten cookies from the forbidden jar. . ’7 . c/ W” Jan? 4% 62/3“; s22 MQ-L.7 5 isms/f! 4:292 Iain» /W 0 ya Icy/21» sew sis}, /’;.// 47/ was W jx/x‘ Me M¢M4 49,11“ ’ @M1g/c/ (4," /W2- /£;‘C€_a (— 11. John and Lisa are visiting your son, Larry, in your home. You have just noticed how quiet it has become, and that the door to Larry's room where they have been playing is closed. You open it and find John and Larry with their pants down, Lisa with her dress up and the children fondling each others sexual parts. VQWJ 62¢! s22 éé‘V/d %/ 20¢ ZZM/JmZ/é/ 5% /¥% fl’até‘c/ fl} MC 4625‘ {zoo oil/stag.) / V/de ZZ/L/ 453%;on 5&4 Jadfz/gldé ("é/2‘42» so 5, \ Iciiz‘g' x/9élfl C/Z- J¢§3§ZL¢ C9CA99( ///(37'?“229¢LQZ;-. CV<2i¢Qacé2}r’ 43¢;AK cpa/vuaggg,/ (4%x11J65:‘ /€ZM;( cg) ,/5?L21€4’ CA1}! 15z34L/<<fli/ /7 61‘ 07 //-5' ~ {4'25 fi/ K’s/52% (Kr/14 07%? I/émw Lita-C”), 12. While cleaning out the basement you come upon the broken remains of a toy you had given your son, David, two weeks ago. ://% /Z'/47o / /Z/e MkaC/V 494;, 2:3; 1,:va /I7/z/¢ //7”‘;r§ ,I/J‘z . Q1 l3. The family is eating dinner and your son, Martin, has just accidentally spilled his glass of milk on the table. yJWJ/‘(évc/Cyw Air/:25, i W4 dz)1/ / W 14. You have been ill with a cold for a few days and your daughter, Alice, gives you a get-well card she has made in school. V%&/¢é’ am ”'7 4.75516» clot/j Wag/M23. (1:2;6' 272;C' /429£4/r' \;;4;?‘/’ x4?7t3gu>/ /4;,4 <122Q/2/Cjzrfw/y/CZCC/fl (5,4 (495? (yulaééhf \ZLégé' (ZZQQI7 .5L4J<"¢) saw/222.1 .722... )3: f)" . i” I") Appendix B Definitions I) On establishing rules l. 2. 3. 4. 5. Suggestions - Suggest or remind the desired behavior. It implies trust in the ability of the child to respond in the appropriate way. "What do you say to aunt Pat, BOb?" "He has fergotten to say "Thank you,“ aunt" Directions - Indicating with words or actions what to do, or how to behave in the situation without explaining why. "Tell him that he must go to bed" "Take him by his hand and put him in bed" Reasoning - Use of logics or reason in some way. "It is polite to say"Thank you' when you receive a gift" "I will buy an alarm clock so that he can fix the time fer getting up" Emphatic commands - Emphatic orders or emphatic attitudes. "Get those pants up" "Get in bed right now" Permissiveness - Flexibility in the setting of the rule or in front of the situation. "If he is not tired, I will let him stay half an hour more" "I would listen to him and then I would ask my friend to excuse him" Selfbesteem - Praise related to his character and personality. It includes pointing to his future good traits if he behaves in the 241* 7. 8. “/5 right way. "Since you are so good, you are not going to cry" "Yen will be healthy and strong if you go to bed early" Reward - Offering advantages or giving prizes for good behavior. "Get up now. YOur friends are all waiting to play with you at school? "If he goes to bed at 7:30, I will read a story fer him" Punishment - Physical harm or psychological injury or deprivation. Direct or indirect. "I scold him" "I will tell her that I feel disappointed because she is doing such kind of things" "I let him arrive late to the school and in this way he will learn to get up early" II) On the child's breaking of rules 1. 2. 3. Permissiveness - To permit the breaking of the rule without too much worry and without pressure fer having the rule kept. "Tell him that it is not a sensible way to react like that: then I will kiss him.and push him to play off" Reasoning - Use of logics or reason in some way. It includes demanding reasoning from the child. "Why do you think you can do that?" "I would ask him to stop because he can damage the furniture" Ignoring - Do not pay attention to the incident or do not give importance to the point as an issue for molding child's behavior. "I would throw it away" (on finding a broken toy)o 4. III)On 1. 2. 3. 4. #6 "Nothing" Punishment - Direct or indirect physical or psycholOgical injury or deprivation. "No sports fer a week" "Showing that I am disappointed" "S panking" understandinggof the child's feelings and moods. Rejection-Hostility - Showing dislike fer the child, rejection of him, making direct or indirect aggressive comments. Punishing. "Martin, would you please get up and get a rag to wipe up the milk that you spilled" Acceptanceéwarmth - Accept the feelings of the child, show interest in him, express love or reassurance. Accept the situation created by the child (1. e. an accident). Reasoning with the child. "Treat her gently. ask her if anything went wrong and relieve her from her duties for that moment" Indifference-Coldness - Lack of interest in the child's feelings, lack of understanding of the child's emotional situation. "Now. don't cry Frank. We'll be back soon. Nancy is here to read you some stories. Don't you want to show her your trucks?" Falsifying the situation - Interpret the situation for the child. Try to change the emotional meaning of the situation for him. Giving reasons for different emotional reactions instead of recognizing the real feelings or moods. Lying. "Yen wouldn't have liked the zoo in the rain" lire 2 $73 lltlllimlllllllIllHWIWIIWIIIIHWJIIUHHIHNHI 293105732527