'v-L-.' —--

IHHIHH

I

j I

144
994

 

THS-

A iONGITLHDZNA& STUDY OF pARENTAL
fiJ‘TI‘YU-DES TCWARD CHYLDREN

Thesis §oa fins ”Degree; 05 M. A.
itilCi'ifii‘éM‘é STATE UHEVE‘: SSETY
Rabat? 1.. Hahn
@964

IIIIIIIII

umammwmx'mmwflxguxxjm

g -, 3‘ 1293 1978i

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

FEB 2 6 2007

i) « u' 1‘3
L.’ 1.— !

~_-‘\——.

 

A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF PARENTAL

ATTITUDES TOWARD CHILDREN

by

Robert L. Hohn

A THES IS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology
1961;

a 1.2: 04k
"Cc [Ia/1.0+

ABSTRACT

No previous research dealing with the impact of children
upon the child-raising attitudes of parents is known to the author.
Longitudinal investigation extending from before marriage and parent-
hood to a point beyond, was seen as a means of detecting any changes that
occurred. Three scales of the Child Behavior Inventory measuring the
indices of manifest rejection, overprotection, and achievement pressure
were mailed in questionnaire form to 127 former students. The
individuals contacted had all responded to the self—ratings as under-
graduates before taking a college child psychology course.

Sixty-seven replies, representing 52.8 percent of the total
pOpulation were obtained, markedly below the 88 percent return rate
found in a pilot study. The findings of our pilot study that mani-
fest rejection increased and overprotection decreased were confirmed.
Also substantiated was the observation that parents of two children
or more contributed most significantly to these changes. Persons
still single 6 years after taking a child psychology course expressed
heightened achievement pressure attitudes toward children, perhaps
effecting their own immediate goals. Area of occupation proved to
be a differentiating factor in considering the changes; those
engaged in educational and mental health fields decreased in rejection
and overprotection in comparison to workers in other occupations.

The over all increase in rejection and decrease in over-
protection was attributed to a more realistic appraisal of the

parental role. Occupational differences were seen as depending

upon the amount of transfer of ones ideas about children from the
working environment to the home.

Provisions for the attitude scales to make more specific
which child is being considered in the self ratings,and further
investigation of those individuals who did not appreciably change or
changed in an opposite direction were suggested. The desirability
for direct study of prospective parents before and after childbirth,

including observation of critical incidents in the home,was stressed.

///7 72, MM gZz/%

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to Dr. John R. Hurley
whose interest, encouragement, and instruction were inestimably
valuable to this research. I would also like to express my gratitude
to the members of my committee: Drs. Bertram P. Karon and Paul

Bakan who provided of their time and effort.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .

INTRODUCTION

PILOT STUDY .

METHOD

RESULTS .

DISCUSSION

SUMMARY .

TABLES

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

. iii

lO
13
18

20

.27

3O

TABLE

LIST OF TABLES

ORIGINAL MEANS OF NON-RETURNEES AND RETURNEES
ON 3 ATTITUDE SCALES.

T - TESTS OF DIFFERENCE SCORES FOR REJECTION,
OVERPROTECTION AND ACHIEVEMENT PRESSURE .

T - TEST COMPARISONS OF DIFFERENCE SCORES OF
PARENTS AND NON-PARENTS .

T - TEST COMPARISONS OF PARENTS WITH TWO, ONE,
OR NO CHILDREN-

T - TEST OF DIFFERENCE SCORES BETWEEN MEN AND
WOMEN WITH 2 OR MORE CHILDREN

T - TEST COMPARISONS OF SINGLE VS. MARRIED
RESPONDENTS .

T - TESTS OF DIFFERENCE SCORES--MEN AND WOMEN
RESPONDENTS .

T - TESTS FOR DIFFERENCE SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGICAIIY
RELATED AND NON-PSYCHOLOGICALLY RELATED

OCCUPATIONS .

PAGE

2O

21

22

23

2h

25

25

26

INTRODUCTION

Much research in recent years has centered around parental
attitudes toward children, particularly those influencing the child‘s
intellectual, social, and emotional growth. Although it is almost
universally accepted that parental behavior is significantly related
to the success or failure of child adjustment, the extent to which
this behavior is determined by relatively permanent and fixed attitudes
or by more transient feelings, moods and convictions remains largely an Open
question.

Certainly the advent of children of ones own might crystallize
the underlying attitudes of the new parent. Indeed, this occurrence
seems likely to precipitate a re-evaluation of ones beliefs. If
this is in fact the case, then longitudinal investigation, extending
from before marriage and parenthood to a point beyond these events,
should reflect the changes in attitudes, if any, that have transpired.
Such studies would shed much needed light on the issue of temporary
or fixed attitudes. Although it would be incorrect to assert that the
differences obtained reflect factors pertaining to the advent of
children only, these differences could not be ignored. The use of
proper control groups would more definitively clarify this issue.

Sewell, Mussen and Harris (1955) could find no evidence in
their data which would indicate a general, pervasive attitude which
was reflected in specific child training practices. HOwever,
several clusters of consistent child-rearing practices were revealed

1

2
by factor analysis. This secondary finding seems to be more in accord
with most research; the work of levy (l9h3), Baldwin, Kalhern, and
Breese (lgus), snchen (l9u9), Mark (1953), Block (1955), and Schaeffer
and Bell (1957; 1958) points to patterns of beliefs about which
parental behavior is organized.

Rejection, overprotection and achievement pressure have been
postulated in various forms, by various authors, as important dimensions
of these beliefs of parents about children. Their interaction, or
the relative acuteness of one or the other, seems to contribute
significantly to the formation of the child's personality (Read, l9h5;
Mark, 1953; Drews and Toahan, 1957; Hurley, 1959).

The rejection-acceptance continuum seems to be characterized
by the parent's degree of reliance upon coercive techniques such as
intimidation, punishment and fear, in his responses to the express-
ive actions of his child (Hurley, 1963). The rejecting parent has
been described as being consistently hostile, unaffectionate,
disapproving and emotionally distant. The pattern of behavior
ranges from nonchalance, or a general unconcern for the child's
welfare to an active dominance or conspicuous hostility (Baldwin,
et al., 19h5). Whether the attitude is expressed in the more
subtle and indirect form, or it is manifested by specific behaviors;
it would still appear to convey unpleasant affective meaning for
the child.

The overprotective parent tries to make the child excessively
dependent upon parental advice and guidance, and fails to perceive

the child as a distinct individual with a right to ideas, values

and feelings of its own (Hurley and Laffey, 195T). Warmth does

not seem to be accompanied by an appreciable amount of under-
standing. In the same light, achievement pressure can be seen

as a dominating pattern of interaction with the child in which heavy
emphasis is placed upon education and SOphistication as primary goals.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to explore the question of
whether these three modes of child rearing stem from the same basic
dynamics of the individual parent.

The measurement and assessment of these attitudes as well
as their development and variability has represented a major challenge
to psychologists. Early interest seems to have been spurred by work
at the Fels Research Institute (Baldwin, et al., 19h5), where direct
methods of attitude evaluation were employed extensively. The speed,
efficiency, and objectivity of the questionnaire form of survey
soon made it a natural and valuable tool in attitude assessment.

One such questionnaire, used largely by Shoben (19h9) for
research purposes, has been the Parental Attitude Survey (PAS);
however, this instrument has been criticized for lack of item validity
(Gordon, 1957; Leton, 1958). The Parental Attitude Research Instru-
ment (PARI) developed predominantly by Schaeffer and Bell (1957;

1958) and extensively used by Zuckerman (1958; 1960) has been
extensively used in research. The 23 scales of this instrument
emphasize items stating attitudes contrary to socially approved
child-rearing opinions, as well as more conventional statements, in
order to increase discrimination among parents. Its major purpose
is to differentiate between pathogenic and normal parents; a task

the instrument has met with mixed success (Zuckerman & Oltean, 1959).

The Child Behavior Inventory (CBI) as described by Mark
(1953), and modified by Hurley and Laffey (1957), and Hurley (1962)
has been recently used, more as a research tool than as a predictive
instrument. It is at present a 178 item inventory of statements
about child—raising practices; the vast majority of which were
taken from Shoben (19h9) and Mark (1953).

Questionnaire methods are subject to serious weaknesses
which can be controlled only to a moderate extent. Primarily,
respondents' verbal descriptions of their behavior and attitudes
may be somewhat discrepant from their actual practices and beliefs
(Zuckerman, Barrett, & Bragiel, 1960). Taylor (1961) has been
quite cognizant of this defect and has emphasized the effect of
"social desirability” upon questionnaire responses. Although
social desirability norms do exist for attitude scale items, the
author presents evidence showing persons differ in their willing-
ness to endorse socially undesirable statements. This difference
accounts for much of the variance of scores on attitude items as
well as personality tests, and may produce spurious interscale
correlations. In viewing attitudes as a ”readiness to respond
in a certain way,” Taylor would prefer to conceive of social desir-
ability as a prevailing state in the majority of respondents. As
an underlying condition, we must take its effects into consideration
when labelling and interpreting attitude scale scores.

In an attempt to control and measure response sets such as
social desirability, Zuckerman (1959) has proposed the use of

reversed items in attitude scales. The reversed statements used

should constitute an adequate sample of the main factors in the
test and should exhibit high correlations with their non-reversed
counterparts. Zuckerman had discovered earlier that factors on

the PARI were reflecting tendencies to agree with positive sounding
generalizations rather than a genuine response to test item content
(Zuckerman & Oltean, 1959). These authors seem to feel reversed
items would adequately control for both social desirability and

general acquiescence response sets.

Pilot Study

 

Many of the problems of longitudinal, questionnaire research
were experienced on an earlier pilot study of parental attitudes.
This preliminary survey, containing only manifest rejection (MR)
and overprotection (OP) scales taken from an earlier version of the
CBI, was mailed to 9h former students at Michigan State University.
The individuals contacted had all reacted previously to the questionnaire
of #5 items as students. The primary purpose of the pilot attempt
was to obtain some idea of what rate of return could be expected in
attempting to reach students eight years removed from their under-
graduate days. Kelly (1953) had reported this as an important factor
in longitudinal research, warning of the existence of a selective
bias in assuming that those who do not respond possess similar
opinions to actual respondents. His staff recorded an 86% return of
questionnaires after keeping in contact with their subjects for a
minimum of 16 years. Croty (1953) cites a 78% return of the PARI
with a less mobile, partisan group of mothers of clinic cases. Our

pilot questionnaire was returned by 79 individuals, with five unable

to be delivered, for a rate of return of 88.8%.

Tbst-retest correlations were .19 for the OP index and .30
for the ma scale. Previous research (Hurley and Larrey, 1957) had
revealed OP to have a .75 retest correlation after a ten-week lapse
of time, and the corresponding MR value was .68. The possibly
transient nature of these attitudes, so dependent upon the life
experiences of the individual, would lead one to expect a significant
reduction in positive correlation after eight years.

No significant changes between the early and later administration
for these two indices was found by correlated tftest analysis. However, the
data revealed certain trends, barely missing significance, which seemed
interesting enough to warrant further study. Manifest rejection scores
increased for our total sample, both for men and women. Parents
who had had two or more children since the initial inventory rose
more sharply in MR than other 83. The few single 83 available also
increased on this index.

Overprotection decreased on the second administration, with
men showing more downward charge than women. Parents with two children
decreased in OP responses.

The occupational alignment of the Ss seemed to relate directly
to attitudes toward children. Individuals employed in "non-psycho-
logical areas of occupation" increased in MR and displayed less of
a decrease in OP when compared to psychologists, teachers, social
workers and other individuals in psychologically related fields of

endeavor.

7

The 1955 questionnaire that was employed did not make effective
use of reversed items, and neglected to intersperse the items of
each scale. A respondent concerned with making a good impression
might discern the direction and tone of the items quite easily. No
provision for a neutral response was made; the respondent was faced
with a forced choice of either agreeing or disagreeing with the
statement. In addition, the items were grouped in fives for appearance
sake; inspection revealed similar responses occurred in each group.
The possibility that some 85 were reacting to this grouping, rather
than the pull of the items themselves, cannot be overlooked.

With the correction of these defects, the main study was
initiated. It was hOped that a more precise, definitive picture of

the observed changes in attitudes would emerge.

METHOD

Subgects

The participants were all students enrolled in the course

in Child Psychology at Michigan State University during the Winter,
Spring and Summer terms of 1957. The course was structured according
to familiar lecture—discussion procedures and covered approximately
the same academic material for each class. A version of the Child
Behavior Inventory was administered to the three groups comprising a
total of 136 students. Birthdates and five digit numbers chosen by
the students were used to identify the questionnaires. In all other

respects the anonymity of the respondents was maintained, until the

8
end of the term when almost all of the students voluntarily identified
themselves.

The same version of the CBI was readministered in the summer of
1963 in the form of a postal questionnaire. To efficiently reach the
widely diSpersed individuals involved, the most recent addresses
available to the Michigan State Alumni Office were used. Addresses
for 127 of the original 136 students were obtained.

A special letter explaining why the respondent was contacted
and the purpose of the research was enclosed with the questionnaire
form. In addition to the items of each scale, the inventory provided
space for information relevant to personal history of the respondent.
The letter and the questionnaire itself are set forth in Appendices

A and B.

Questionnaire

 

The questionnaire itself consisted of 93 items in the form of
declarative statements. Items comprising each of the three indices
7f manifest rejection (MR), overprotection (OP), and achievement
pressure (AP), were intermingled in an order known only to the E.
The MR index consisted of 36 items while the OP scale contained 30
statements and AP 29. Two of the statements were scored for more
than one scale.

The use of reversed items, as suggested by the findings of
Zuckerman (1959) and an examination of the responses to the pilot
questionnaire, was adopted. Within this framework, a respondent to
obtain a high score would not only have to agree with certain items,
but also would be required to disagree with other statements on the

same scale.

The content of the MR index, in accord with our previous
definition, can be readily seen in the following items: (20) A good
way to make a child behave is to shame him in front of his friends.
(50) If small children refuse to obey, parents should whip them for
it. (86) Most children need more discipline than they get. (91) Babies
rarely cry ”just to get attention.“ In order to obtain a high
rejection score, a respondent would have to show greater than average
agreement with all but the last item.

The OP scale is exemplified by the following items: (7) When
the father punishes the child without good reason, the mother should
take the child's side. (21) Older children are more fun than babies.
(5h) A child should be protected from hearing about sex. (78) Children
who are several years old should not be babied. The overprotective
parent would be distinguished by greater than average acceptance of
items 7 and 5% and by greater than average disagreement with items
21 and 78.

The following items provide a general picture of the content of the
AP scale: (22) Early weaning and toilet training are important in pre-
paring a child for life. (31) For his own sake a child should be
pressed to excel in school. (49) A child should be trained early to
keep his toys in order. (58) Most children are able to do very little
talking by the age of 12 months. For an individual to score high on
the achievement pressure index, agreement with all but item 58 is
necessary.

Five response alternatives were offered for all CBI items:

strongly agree, mildly agree, neutral, mildly disagree, and strongly

lO
disagree. Four points were allotted for responses strongly endorsing
the attitude in question, three points for responses mildly agreeing
with the attitude, two points for neutral reactions, one point for
mildly disapproving responses and no credit for reSponses strongly
Opposed to the statement. An individual's final score on an attitude
index was derived from the total points accrued by responses to the
relevant items. To obtain a high score on a particular index, one
would have to agree consistently with certain statements while

disagreeing with others.
RESULTS

Of the 127 questionnaires placed in the mail, 67 were eventually
returned, or 52.8% of the total sample. The original (1957) responses
of both returnees and non-returnees were compared in order to determine
if those individuals failing to respond held aberrant views. Table 1
shows that the means and standard deviations of the two groups were
quite similar, and tftest analysis revealed no significant differences.
The conclusion that our return sample is not a materially biased one
seems quite tenable.

The stability of the three indices as revealed by test-
retest correlations is more substantial than the pilot study, yet
still quite discrepant from the ten week retest correlations cited

by Hurley and Laffey (1957). Over the six-year interval for our

11
study, the Pearson r's were .30 for the MR scale, .23 for OP
and .50 for AP.*

As shown in Table 2, an increase of 3.h6 MR scale points
occurred over time in the group as a whole. Analysis of the difference
between correlated pairs of means (McNemar, 19h9) found this difference
score to be significant at the .05 level. A reduction in overprotection
of 5.13 points was highly significant (p<( .001), while achievement
pressure decreased non-significantly.

Since the major variable in our consideration of attitude
change toward children is parenthood itself, this was our primary
concern. As portrayed in Table 3 no significant differences were
found in a comparison of parents and non-parents. Ebwever, in
agreement with our preliminary research, MR scores did seem to
increase within the parental group, although not enough to be
statistically acceptable.

length of parenthood and the increase in the number of
children in the family seemed necessary to be considered as possible
factors in parental attitude change. The major comparisons among
male and female parents possessing two, one or no children are re-
corded in Table h. Although no attitude shows clear differentiation

in relation to number of children, parents with two or more

 

*It should be noted that these correlations were substantially
effected by the atypical responses of a female S who admittedly used
the questionnaire for purposes other than the frank report of her
attitudes. For example, her difference score on the MR index of 57
was extremely deviant from any of the other Ss in the sample. To
preserve the validity of the sample however, her responses have
been included in all relevant comparisons.

12
children showed increases in MR when compared to parents with one child
or those responding who had no children of their own. In analyzing
this result more definitively, it was found that differences between
men and women, both possessing two children were non-significant,
however (Table 5).

Our results do not permit a firm conclusion concerning the
trend indicated in the pilot study that overprotective attitudes
would decrease substantially with the advent of parenthood. Although
the expression of this attitude did in fact show some reduction (Table 3)
the non-parental group evidenced an even larger decrease in overprotection
change over the six year interval.

Although only 9 of the 61 respondents for whom we could
compute difference scores were single, inspection of the responses
of this group was quite provocative. Table 6 summarizes the comparison
of single and married 83. Unmarried individuals showed a significant
increase in achievement pressure, which was in Opposition to the
direction of change in the married group.

The pilot study had suggested possible sex differences in
attitude change, especially in regard to OP. Men had decreased
significantly more than their female counterparts on this scale.
However subsequent comparisons without consideration of the number
of children revealed no significant sex differences. Achievement
pressure tended to decline more perceptibly in women than in men.

These comparisons are given in Table 7.
Analyses in Table 8 of the difference scores of individuals

employed in psychologically related areas of employment revealed

13
large differences when compared to those engaged in other occupational
pursuits. The teachers, psychologists and social workers for example
decreased in MR in contrast to a large increase on this index by other
83. Although both groups decreased in scorable overprotection
responses, the "psychological group” tended to a marked reduction.

These findings are in accord with the pilot study results.
DISCUSSION

The percent of returns proved to be somewhat disappointing;
52.8% is considerably below the excellent 88.8% return of the pilot
study concerned with a group of similar composition. waever,
several factors in combination should account for the difference.
Because of the increased length and difficulty of the second questionnaire,
which included the achievement pressure scale and more carefully
disguised, complex items, the inventory may have been deferred until
a later time and then lost in the process. The 93 item questionnaire
was more than twice as long as the preliminary one, covering two sides
of a legal-sized sheet, and probably required nearly 30 minutes to
complete. Busy individuals may have viewed this as too much time to
devote to something related to a course they had taken in college 6
years previously. Secondly, the questionnaire was placed in the mail
in mid-summer and may have conflicted with vacation periods. TEmporary
changes in address and long absences from permanent residences could
have resulted in the loss or mislaying of the inventory. Mbreover,
a group composed mostly of young adults in the chaotic process of

raising families, completing their education, and establishing themselves

1k
in a chosen field of endeavor, seems liable to a constant fluctuation
of address, making the delivery of the letters that much more difficult.
With these intervening factors complicating matters, a 52.8% return
may be quite reasonable.

The higher reliability noted in comparison to the pilot study
may attest to the greater discrimination power of the more recent
scales. Yet the wide departure from the six-week correlations cited
by Hurley and Iaffey, (1957) would be expected also. Longitudinal
correlation studies inevitably show declining correlations or attitude
scales with the passage of time (Bell, 1958). KelLy (1955) reported
retest correlations on attitude measures as low as .15 after twenty
years.

Our basic hypothesis. . . that children do have an effect on
parents' attitudes toward them, appears confirmed by examination of
our data. The over-all increase in MR largely exists due to the
contribution by the parents of two or more children to this scale.
Perhaps by the time a parent has undergone two childbirths or more
or has found oneself restricted socially by the demands of an increas-
ing family, a reassessment of the parental role may have occurred.

The problems of supporting and caring for a growing household are
difficult ones, both emotionally and financially.

This "realistic appraisal" does not necessarily imply a decrease
in warmth toward the child. More accurately the younger siblings
may eXperience less of a child-centered atmosphere, with independence
being encouraged and emphasized. Indeed the rejection index might

be conceptualized as a measure of child-centeredness rather than

15
the more negatively-toned hostility. The importance of the child-
centered concept and some empirical support for its reduction in
"non-first'children were expressed by Lasko (1952) of the Fels
Institute.

A reduction in overprotection would also correspond to a decrease
in child—centeredness. The parent learns from experience that children
do not always need their constant vigilance. Treatment of the second
child is more dependent upon what is right for the child, rather than
the parent's emotional reactions. The environment is correctly
perceived as not so threatening to one's child after all. The
implication is drawn that mistakes are made, rec0gnized, and rectified
as the parental role continues and broadens.

The AP scale was the least variable of the three indices.

Total change in any particular direction was slight, except for single
individuals. The unmarried respondents expressed higher achievement
desires in relation to children. Certainly achievement is a powerful
motivating force in their own lives; of the 9 individuals in this
sub-sample, 7 were working on or had attained advanced degrees. The
reflection of pressure to achieve in their views of children would
certainly agree with their present value system. The finding that
achievement pressure declines more in women than in men would appear
commensurate with this observation, when one considers the male

and female roles in our highly competitive culture. The male provider
and household head is expected to possess this attitude; indeed it

is ingrained through middle-class social pressure. Females, however,

are preconditioned to achieving only secondary successes; they are

16
trained for the maternal role as their eventual position. longitudinal
research delving into the question of what modifications of attitudes
toward children are provoked when women are denied a maternal role and
are forced to achieve a modicum of career success, would clarify some
of our vague ideas as to the nature of achievement pressure. Un-
fortunately this group is not well-represented in our sample and it
remains for future investigations with a larger N to reassess these
findings.

Although not directly related to the effect of children on
parental attitudes, the intervening effects of ones' occupation may
also aid in determining attitude change. The contrasting patterns
of change observed among those former students employed in areas of
occupation not allied to psychological thought vs. those employed
in fields more relevant to psychology is quite interesting. Learning
theory suggests that one adheres to those ideas and actions which he
has found to be accepted (or emphasized) by his environment. The
reinforcement or extinguishment provided by one's occupational
group seems to be a potent factor in the molding and perpetuation
of adult attitudes. Mbreover, the extent of transference from the
business world to the home is often great. If one is actively engaged
in the pursuit and encouragement of educational and mental health
goals, as are our teacher and psycholOgist respondents, then it would
follow that thinking in these terms would carry over into the family
situation. 0n the other hand, occupations which have other, more
material, utilitarian goals than mental health or the well being of

children, may provide less reinforcing feedback for these views.

17

In considering future research needs, one must remember that
an attitude questionnaire does not refer to the specific child which
the parents may be considering in their responses. Parents are
capable of reacting quite differently to various children in the
same family. In particular, factors such as the sex of the Child
may precipitate a preference for one child over another. Failure to
determine the referent may obscure or contaminate the differences
noted in parents of two or more children. We may need more expansive
scales and sets of items to measure attitudes toward daughters as
well as sons, older children as well as younger ones. Adults who
vary greatly in attitudes toward different offspring may be either
highly sensitive to the needs of their various children or may be
overinvolved with one and are working through internal conflicts
with him. Knowledge of this difference in attitudes would better
evaluate the contribution of each individual parent to a group
picture.

Before we can state with any degree of certainty that children
do precipitate attitude changes in parents it would seem instructive
to further study those who did not vary, or changed very little in
their attitudes. In examining the individual responses of our Ss,
the great variability of each person's response is evident. Not
only are there several individuals who remained remarkedly stable
in their responses but each sub—group in Table A contained at least
one S who altered his attitude significantly in direct opposition to

the group's direction of change. These deviations further emphasize

18
the importance of considering individual cases when theorizing as to
the child's effect on adults.

Direct methods concerned with what the expectant parent feels
and expresses before the birth of his child and after he has become
accustomed to his new role, would seem to be a valuable supplement
to any elaboration of our findings. Such a short-term longitudinal
study, if properly conceived, could provide firsthand information
on the nature of the feelings and convictions of the parent. Moreover,
direct observations (actually made in the home) of critical incidents
involved in parent-child interaction would further link the verbalized
attitudes of parents with behavioral correlates. Further research
with larger samples is needed to berify the findings pertinent to
achievement pressure. With the use of prOper control groups,

temporary restrictions on parenthood could be studied longitudinally.

SUMMARY

No previous research dealing with the impact of children
upon the child-raising attitudes of parents is known to the author.
Longitudinal investigation extending from before marriage and parent-
hood to a point beyond, was seen as a means of detecting any changes that
occurred. Three scales of the Child Behavior Inventory measuring the
indices of manifest rejection, overprotection, and achievement pressure were
mailed in questionnaire form to 127 former students. The individuals
contacted had all responded to the self-ratings as undergraduates before

taking a college child psychology course.

l9

Sixty-seven replies, representing 52.8 percent of the total
population were obtained, markedly below the 88 percent return rate
found in a pilot study. The findings of our pilot study that mani-
fest rejection increased and overprotection decreased were confirmed.
Also substantiated was the observation that parents of two children
or more contributed most significantly to these changes. Persons
still single 6 years after taking a child psychology course expressed
heightened achievement pressure attitudes toward children, perhaps
effecting their own immediate goals. Area of occupation proved to
be a differentiating factor in considering the changes; those
engaged in educational and mental health fields decreased in rejection
and overprotection in comparison to workers in other occupations.

The over all increase in rejection and decrease in over-
protection was attributed to a more realistic appraisal of the
parental role. Occupational differences were seen as depending
upon the amount of transfer of ones ideas about children from the
working environment to the home.

Provisions for the attitude scales to make more specific
which child is being considered in the self ratings and further
investigation of those individuals who did not appreciably change or
changed in an Opposite direction were suggested. The desirability
for direct study of prospective parents before and after childbirth,

including observation of critical incidents in the home,was stressed.

20

Table 1

Original Means of Non-Returnees and
Returnees on 3 Attitude Scales

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-returnees Returnees
N:6O ‘EZEI¥_”
Rejection
g X 29611 i X 3029
‘i h9.#o ‘i h9.66
S.D. 10.hh S.D. 13.59
Overprotection
itx. 266a iLX 2697
'2 hh.ho 'i hh.21
s.o. 8.19 S.D. 8.02
Achievement Pressure
ix 2887 {.x 2996
'i u8.12 ‘i h9.11
S.D. 9.21 S.D. 11.08

 

* 6 as DrOpped--No data on first CBI administration.

Table 2

T - Tests of Difference Scores for Rejection,
Overprotection and Achievement Pressure (N:6l)

21

 

 

 

Index 5' S.D. t
Rejection 3.16 16.05 1.69 p* < .05
Overprotection -5.l3 10.62 3.80 p* < .001
Achievement
Pressure -l.51+ 11.00 1.09 p* ) .05

 

*l-tailed test

Table 3

T - Test Comparisons of Difference Scores

of Parents and Non-Parents

22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(N:57)*
Index N 5. S.D. t
P 38 5.h2 1h.95
Rejection 161‘ P) ~05
Non-P 19 -2.95 18.98
P 38 -3.8h 10.75
Overprotection .8h p ).05
Non-P l9 -6.h7 ll.h2
P 38 -1.7h 11.30
Achievement .09 p) .05
Pressure Non-P 19 -2.05 12.01

 

*# S3 with children born prior

eliminated.

to the 1957 administration were

Apmmp emaaap-av Hm>oa mo. anoamn unwoaaanmam 9*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3
n. Adm Hz cases .mm "2 nmzv am ”2 Hapoea
mm. *m».a mm. ma. m». *om.a p
\x I: \\ .I \\ ,1 \x I: \\ I: .\ /.
Ho.ma mm.ma ao.m ma.aa so.aa ma.oa mm.ma mm.ma am.ma .a.m
mo.m- mm.m- a». >a.o- Hm.m- oa.:- mm.m- oo.a am.m .m
ma ma ma ma ma ma ma ma ma 2 .III
Haa
mm. mo.a oo.a ow. Hm.a am.a p
\x I. \x .I \x I. .\ I. .\ I. \\ I
mm.aa ma.:a mm.oa ww.> mm.m 0m.aa mm.mm mm.ma mm.ma .a.m
mm.m- mm.m- mm.- sm.a- 0.0- mm.m- am.oa- ma.m ma.ma .m
0 ma ma m ma ma m ma ma 2
c0803
8. 8. am: a. V 3.. o: u.
xx .1 .\ .1 \x 1c \x .I I. x. 1:
:m.oa om.> ma.m mm.ma we.» mm.m mm.:a oa.oa mm.ma .Q.m
Hm.a- om.m sm.m mm.m- pa. H>.:- mm. am.m- m:.m .m
ma 0 a ma m a ma m a z 11:.
no:
0 H m o a m o H m
ma mo .fimm
aflamuzv

cohdaflno 02 Ho «one «039 Spas
mpcoaam mo mqomHMMQEOU pmoa I B

: manna

Table 5

211

T - Test of Difference Scores Between
Men and women with 2 or more Children

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Index N '13 s .D. t

M 7 5.h3 13.28

Rejection 1.03 p).05
W 12 12.h2 15.92
M 7 4-71 9-32

Overprotection .19 p) .05
w 12 -3.83 11.50
M 7 2.57 5.72

Achievement .76 p) .05

Pressure

14 12 - .25 10.36

 

Table 6

T - Test Comparisons of Single vs.

Married Respondents

25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(N261)
Index N '13 S.D. t
S .6 11.111
Rejection M 53 35; 16.82 .90 p) .05
- . 6.08
overPrOteCtion bsd 53 _g.gg 12.72 .08 p ) .05
1.1.1. .61
Achievement r84 52 -2.58 13911— 2.89 P (.01
Pressure
Table 7
T - Tests of Difference Scores--
Men and Women Respondents
(N=61)
Index N TS S.D. t
. . M 0 1. 0 12.8
ReJeCtlon w 31 H.31- 1.8.63 .69 p ) .05
. M 0 - . 10. 6
Overprotection W 31 ~23; 10.38 .611 p ) .05
M 30 -.10 8.85
Achievement W 31 -3.06 12.51— 1.06 p ) .05

Pressure

 

26

Table 8

T - TEStS for Difference Scores of Psychologically Related
and Non-Psychologically Related Occupations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(N:61)
Index N 5' S.D. t
P 21 -2 90 1u.u8
Rejection 2.18 p<.05
Non-P ho 6.10 16.87
P 21 -9.93 6-19
Overprotection 2.82 .p{<.Ol
Non-P ho -2.92 11.h8
P 21 -1.90 12.07
Achievement .09 p).05

Pressure Non-P ho -1.h5 10.h5

 

27
References
Baldwin, A. L., Kalhorn, Jean, & Bre‘se, Fay, Patterns of Parent

Behavior, Psychol. Monogr., 19h5, 58, No. 3 (Whole No. 268).

 

Bell, Richard Q., Retrospective Attitude Studies of Parent—Child

Relations. Child Developm., 1958, 29, 323-338.

 

Block, J., Personality characteristics associated with father's

attitudes toward child-rearing. Child Developm., 1955, 26,

 

h1-h8.

Croty, C. J., Maternal Attitudes and their relation to son's achievement
motivation. Unpublished Master's thesis, Catholic University,
1957-

Drews, E. M. & Teahan, J. E., Parental attitudes and academic achieve-

ment. g, Clin. Psychol., 1957, 13, 328-332.

 

Gordon, J. E., The validity of Shoben's Parent Attitude Survey.

J; Clin. Psychol., 1957, 13, 15h-156.

 

HUrley, J. R., Maternal attitudes and children's behavior. J, Clin.
Psychol., 1959, 15, 291-292.
Hurley, J. R., Achievement Pressure: An attitudinal correlate of

college course grades. Payphol. Reports, 1962, 10, 695-702.

 

Hurley, J. R., Parental Acceptance-Rejection and children's intelli-
gence. Paper read at Amer. Psychol. Assoc., Philadelphia,
September, 1963.

Hurley, J. R., & Iaffey, J. J., Influence of a conventional child
psychology course upon attitudes toward children. Papers of

the Mich. Acad. of Sci., Arts, Letters, 1957, Vol. XLIV.

28

Kelley, E. L., Consistency of the adult personality. Amer. Psychol.,

 

1955) lo) 659‘681-
baton, D. A., A study of validity of parent attitude measurement.

Child Developm., 1958, 29, 515-520.

 

Levy, P. M., Maternal Overprotection. New York: Columbia University
Press, 19h3.
Iasko, Jean, Parent—Child Relationships--A Report from the Fels

Research Institute. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat., 1952, 22,

 

300-30h.

MoNemar, Q., Psychological Statistics. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, 19h9.

Mark, J- C., Attitudes of mothers of male schiZOphrenics toward

child behavior. 9, Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1953, M8, 185-189.

 

Read, Katharine H., Parents eXpressed attitudes and children's

behavior. g, Consult. Psychol. 19u5, 9, 95-100.

 

Schaeffer, E. S., & Bell, R. Q., Patterns of attitudes toward child

rearing and the family. J, Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1957,

 

391-395-
Schaeffer, E. S., & Bell, R. Q., Development of a Parental Attitude

Research Instrument. Child DevelOpm., 1958. 29, 339-361.

 

Sewell, W. H., Mussen, P. H., & Harris, J., Relationships among

child training practices. Amer. Socio. Rev. 1955, 20, l37-1u8.

 

 

Shoben, E. J., The assessment of parental attitudes in relation to

child adjustment. Genet. Psychol. Monggr. 19h9, 39, 101-1h8.

 

Taylor, J. B., What do attitude scales measure: the problem of social

desirability. g, Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1961, 62, 386-390.

 

Zuckerman, M., Reversed scales to control acquiescence response
sets in the parental Attitude Research Instrument. Child
Developm., 1959, 30, 523—532.

Zuckerman, M., Barrett, B. H., & Bragiel, R. M., Parental attitudes

of parents of child guidance cases. Child DevelOpm., 1960,

 

31, h01-hl7.
Zuckerman, B., & Oltean, M., Some relationships between maternal
attitude factors and authoritarianism, personality needs,

psychOpathology, and self-acceptance. Child DevelOpm. 1959,

 

30) 27-36-
Zuckerman, B., Ribback, B. B., Monaskin, I., & Norton, J. A., Jr.,
Normative data and factor analysis on the Parental Attitude

Research Instrument. J, Consult. Psychol., 1958, 22, 165-171.

 

APPENDICES

3C

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY wrumsmc

 

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

OHICIOFCBILDRISEARCH
OldsIhll Recalls

my 21, 1963

Dear

Because you responded to similar materials several years ego es an
380 student, the Office of Child Research is soliciting your Opinions
concerning the enclosed list of questions about children. Comparing
your present views (several years after taking various Psychology
courses) with the opinions which you expressed earlier will, we trust,
yield informtion about significant charges.

In the intervening years, perhaps you have become a parent, en carpe-
rience which probably has had considerable impact upon your opinions
about children's behavior. However, the responses of those persons
who have chosen to postpone the not-umdxed blessings of parenthood
are of equal priority for research and critical for appraising the
impact of parenthood per se upon shifts in viewpoints on children.

we are interested in your present opinions, and we hope that you will
feel free to express yourself candidly. Thus, responses frankly indic-
ative of your current views will be of greater value then information
demonstrating that you can accm'etely recall what psychologists or
other experts hold that "good persons should believe . "

The ultimte purpose or this research is to contribute to e. fuller
understanding of how young adults perceive and think about children.
Present informtion in this area is very sparse, and we believe that
our findings will shed some new light upon an unexplored area.

The enclosed questionnaire will probably take you less then 10 minutes
to complete, and we hope you will return it soon in the self-addressed
envelope also enclosed. Your time and cooperation ere very much
appreciated.

Sincerely me,

John R. leey, Ph.D.

Project Director

JRH:m

Enc.

'OIONe

s
a
.
.
.
s
.
.
b .
~
.
l
I.
e .
u.
.
e. l
.r
...
s ‘
. O
o
. 9
s
\.
..
h
w
-
0
an
n
s A
.
-

Tlnk . fl

.
.. . .
v a u.
u .
. "A .
p . o u
.
. .
c.
s . . . . e o
. .’ a K .
cl I
- . I ~
. a
A
. .
. e- a
. .-
s
.
a .
er s .. s .I
n .‘I .
l
.t
a
. a . n
’
n .
. . 0
v
.
u o
l . a
a
_
.-
w.
.
s'
e e
u
_
s
. | .
n e
h.
11¢. ..
.
nos
4
. - .
. n '
S .
f
A
I
i
.
o . L.
. .
w x u
n ‘ e
. O.
. .
.
u . a
I . . t
I
Q n i
. s I
. Qw .a s n
v \
\ v. r.
a . l
L .
. I 1
u. u (as
o
a
, ea
.1 .
-\
. . .
. ‘ a .
5 . a
. u .
I .
I
. 54
Or I.
..
h . .
C
D . .. ..
n
I n — . e
.n n
V
. n
. u|
.. ’u .
e
a.
.
.

 

 

Name: Date of Birth:

 

 

Mhiden name (if different from above): Highest educational level completed:

Years of College: 1 2 3 N 5 6 7 8

 

Marital Status (Shack—apprOpriate term) Highest earned degree:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Single Divorced> Jidowed Present Occupation:
Married Remairied Spouse 8 Occupation:
Children s age and. sex {inlicate adopted by A, foster by F): ,
, , . How many additional children do you plan?
o
The following statements are both agreed with and disagreed o g
with by many people, so in this sense there are no ”right” 8 a E?
or Hwrong“ answers. Please read each statement carefully §>$ N’fl
and then indicate your opinion by encircling the letter(s) :: g) :E f:
lmmt representing your personal view. It is very important Et;.?§>.ét
to the study that all questions be answered. g EligEi g
Mr4 514 :4
It is better for children to play at home than to visit other 33'§:%'§ 33
children. SA a N d SD
A child should be neat and orderly at all times. SA a N d SD
It is hard to make some children really ”feel bad. " SA a N d SD
Women who like lots of parties o1ten make good mothers. SA a N d SD
Children will walk when 1eady 1or it, whether they are trained or not. SA a N d SD
The sooner a child is toilet trained: the better. SA a N d SD
When the father punishes the child without good reason, the mother
should take the child‘s side. SA a N d SD
Parents should not take it upon themselves to decide exactly when and
how much a child should eat. SA a N d SD
Talking back to parents is one of the worst things a child can do. SA a N d SD
A child should never keep a secret from his parents. SA a N d SD
By the time children are four-years-old, they should know enough to
keep their clothes clean. SA a N d SD
A child should not be permitted to play in the living room. SA a N d SD
It is very important that young boys and girls not be allowed to see
each other completely undressed. SA a N d SD
Too much freedom will make a child wild. SA a N d SD
No child‘ acts lazy” without some good reason. SA a N d SD
Children who are continuously "kept a1ter” seldom get anywhere in life
when they grow up. SA a N d SD
Sneakiness in children is usually the result of faulty parental
training. ' SA a N d SD
Children should be taken to and from school until the age of eight to
make sure there are no accidents. SA a N d SD
Children will neglect their school work if parents don‘t keep after
them. SA a N d SD
A good way to make a child behave is to shame him in front of his
friends. SA a N d SD
Older children are more fun than babies. SA a N d SD
Early weaning and toilet training are important in preparing a child
for life. SA a N d SD
Children need some of the ”natural meanness“ taken out of them. SA a N d SD
Most reports which parents hear from others about their child’s
misconduct are exaggerated. SA a N d 35
Pei ents shouldn't ask children to do things that are too hard 1or them. SA a N d SL
An older child who wets the bed should be ashamed. SA a N d SE
A child's friends usually do more good than harm. SA a N d SD
It is the parent‘s duty to see that their child plays with only the
right kind of children. ' SA a N d SD
Children should not be punished for their sex play. SA a N d SD
A mother should never be separated from her child. SA a N d SD
For his own sake a child should be pressed to excel in school. SA a N d SD
Strict discipline often ruins what might have developed into a fine,
strong character. SA a N d SD
It is all right for a neighbor to occasionally discipline another
parent‘s child. SA a N d SD
Children who do not keep up with their classmates in school usually
need special tutoring more than anything else. SA a N d SD
Children should be allowed to nurse from the bottle or breast as long
as they like. SA a N d SD
Even a watchful mother cannot keep her child out of accidents. SA a N d S:
It is of little importance whether or not a child does well in club
activities, like the Boy or Girl Scouts. SA a N d SD
Often it is a mistake to punish the child who has done something
very bad. SA a N d SD
Few mothers are fearful that they might hurt their babies in
handling them. SA a N d SD
Children should not be expected to take very good care of toys. SA a N d SI
It is a healthy sign for children to sometimes show anger toward
their parents. SA a N d Sf
If children are quiet for a little while, a mother should not try
to find out what they are thinking about. SA a N d SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any child who is not plain lazy can do well in school work.
Even older children should be allowed to play with their food during
meals
Only a foolish mother will try to make sure that she knows her child's
innermost thoughts.
When a child won't eat you should tell him how nicely other children
eat.
It is a good thing for children to sometimes "talk back” to parents.
Whenever a child is slow in dressing, the parents should help him.
A child should be trained early to keep his toys in order.
When children misbehave it is their parents who are responsible.
It is all right for a parent to sleep with a child because it gives
the child a feeling of being loved and wanted.
Even if the child is slow in dressing, the parent should not do it
for him.
A wise parent will teach the child early just who is boss.
A child should be protected from hearing about sex.
The sooner a child realizes it must fight its own battles, the
better.
If small children refuse to obey, parents should whip them for
A devoted mother may still have time for an active social life.
Most children are able to do very little talking by the age of
Firm and strict discipline makes for strong character in later life.
After punishing a child a parent naturally wants to make up for it by
giving the child everything it wants.
A child should be weaned away from the bottle or breast as soon as
possible.
Some children have ways of making parents lose their temper.
Parents often worry that people playing with the baby might be too
rough.
Four—year—olds are too young to keep their toys in order.
Most children like to help their parents.
Children should do nothing without the consent of their parents.
There is little point in encouraging the child to stand on its own feet
as soon as possible.
It takes a lot of reminding to get children to do things right.
Children seven years of age are old enough to spend summers away from
home in a camp.
It’s foolish to expect three—year-olds to eat everything on their plate.
Slapping a child immediately after getting into mischief is the best
way to step it.
Young people should choose jobs they really like, regardless of what
their parents say.
The earlier a child is weaned from its emotional ties to its parents
the better it will handle its own problems.
It is normal for children to occasionally disobey their parents.
A parent‘s greatest fear is that in a forgetful moment they might let
something bad happen to the baby.
Children should have music or dancing lessons.
Most children need more kindness and sympathy than they get.
Children who are several years old should not be ”babied.”
Constructive after school activities help the child to develop a
better character than just playing.
A naughty child sometimes needs a good slap in the face.
A mother should make it her business to know everything her children
are thinking.
Few children are toilet trained by 15 months of age.
Spanking children usually does more harm than good.
Children who always obey do not grow up to be the best adults.
An intelligent child who does poorly in school should not be
ashamed.
Most children need more discipline than they get.
No child is just naturally bad.
Young people should 1 not marry without their parents' approval.
Children are actually happier under strict training.
Children who have temper tantrums should be spanked.
Babies rarely cry “just to get attention.”
Making a child feel wanted and needed is the best way to get good
behavior.

it.

Children must be kept after continuously if they are to get somewhere
in life later on.

12 months.

SA a N
SA a N
SA a N

SA
SA
SA
SA
SA

m m m m m

SA

£13
2

SA a
SA a
SA

a:
222

SA
SA
SA
SA
SA

m m m w e
212122212:

SA

a:
2

SA
SA

9393
22

SA
SA
SA
SA

93939393
2222

SA
SA a

SD
22

SA a N
SA a N

SA a N
SA a N

SA a N
SA a N

SA
SA
SA
SA

939393511

SA
SA a N

m

21
9494
0393

SA
SA
SA
SA

m m m m
:2:z:z:z
9:949:94

SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA

{DWSDQJQJSDSD
zzzzztztztztz

SA a N

SA a N

How much impact upon your potential to be an effective parent do you think your

college Psychology courses had?
Considerable

None Little

Quite a bit

Q.
0)
L11

9:9:
010:
r N

91919192
meme

H

U)
f4F-4r4

9: 9apJ9:@im¥l‘l
(O cnc0c091020393
(A! 0&4 \JK"[1L)\I

:2.
CO
*“1

If your present address is different than the one we have used to send this material,

please indicate:

 

 

 

 

 

JRHz92 enc.

 

 

APPENDIX C

I. Comparisons of MR Changes For All 88 Pbssessing
2, 1, or 0 Children (N=57)

A. Analysis of Variance

 

 

Sguggg Sum of Squares df. Mean Square E
Between 17A8.AO 2 87h.20 3.32*
Within 1h269.6o 5h 263.51
*p<.09'

B. Duncan's Multiple Range TESt

 

 

No. of Children (2) (l) (O)
(N;l9 for each group)
A B C Shortest
Significant

Means 49.8h 1.00 -2125 Ranges

A 9.8L 8.8h 12.79 R238.79

B 1.00 3.95 R3z9.29

C -2.95

d 3.05 A B C

The.twe children group is greater in MR changes than the l or 0 child
group, but the 1 child group is not significantly different from the 0
group.

II. Comparisons of MR Changes For WOmen Ss
- 2, l, or 0 Children

A. Analysis of Variance

 

 

Source Sum of Squares d3. Mean Square .E
Between 2133 2 1016 3.26
Within 905h 29 312

pJ’ ~05

B. Duncan‘s Multiple Range Test

 

 

No. of Children (2) (1) (o)
(11:12) (11:13) (N=6)*
A B C Shortest
Significant

Means 12.h2 3.15 -lO.57 Ranges

A 12.h2 9.27 22.99 Rezlh.73

B 3.15 13.72 R3:15.h8

c - 10.57
¢x 3.05 A B C

The only significant difference for women respondents was between the

2 child group and the 0 child group.

*See Kramer (1956) for cases of unequal Ns applied to Duncan's test.

HICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

31293107895272