A STUDY OF THE RELATEONSHlPS
BE‘IWEEN FAMILY COMMUNlCATWN
PATTERNS AND ADOLESCENT AUTONOMY‘

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNWERSlTY
DANEEL E. COSTELLO
1989

*' "flw7
, LIBRA Rt

 

 

 

 

   
     

mHWflflIWFMLNMIflt Mb. 3
may;

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN‘
FAMILY COMMUNICATION PATTERNS AND
ADOLESCENT AUTONOMY

presented by

Daniel E. Costello

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

P h .D. degree inmmation I

//

-/,\ //a//////

Date May 16 ’ ‘ ‘

0-169

 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 
  
   
    

amounts av " d
HOAG & SUNS’
T 800! BRIBERY INC.
--' ..l ‘ LIBRARY Btu-Beg: fl

 

ABSTRACT
STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
FAMILY COMMUNICATION PATTERNS AND ADOLESCENT AUTONOHY

by Daniel E. Costello

This study focused on the question as to whether or not there are
characteristics of the communication between family members that are
associated with the child's autonomy in his thoughts and actions.

The respondents were 25 families in the Holt, Michigan area. Personal
interviews were conducted with the mother, father, and their son, who was
between 11+ and 16 years-of—age. A tape recording was made of the family
mettbers discussing various topics that dealt with adolescent problems.

The child's interaction with both his mother and father was analyzed.
In addition each child was asked to select the one parent from whom he
generally preferred to seek advice. The chosen parent's responses were then
analyzed in a "primary parent" index.

Each discussion was analyzed using a modified form of Bales' inter-
action process-analysis categories. In the discussion, interaction was
divided into statements that concerned the parents' support of the child's
ideas, the child's support of his parents' ideas, and the relative con-
tribution made by the child to the total family discussion.

The purpose was to check the relationships between these communication
Variables and other measures of the child's level of autonomy. After

c“Illupletion of their discussion, each family member was asked to make

judgments concerning the child's autonomy.

Daniel E. Costello

Pour measures of adolescent autonomy were investigated: the child's
perceived influence on his parents' decisions; the child's perceived self-
confidence in his own decision-making; the extent to which the parents
let their child make his own decisions; and the child's claimed use of
personal and mediated sources for ideas.

A correlational approach was used in testing the hypotheses. Of the
twelve hypotheses tested, five were partially supported. It turned out
that the most consistent predictor of the child's perceived autonomy was
his communication style with his primary parent. Sole reliance on the
child's relationship with either his mother or father did not point up any
recurrent communication patterns.

0f the remaining seven hypotheses, two were not in the predicted
direction, and the other five were not supported at all. Most of these
hypotheses were concerned with the percentage of the child's contribution to
the family discussion, which turned out to be a very poor predictor of the
child's perceived autonomy.

The data indicated that the primary parent's support of the child
during the discussion consistently explained more of the variability in the
child's level of autonomy than did the lack of agreement shown by the child
of his primary parent's ideas during the discussion. The primary parent's
support of the child in a discussion explained 21 percent of the variability
in the child's perceived influence on his primary parent, while the child's
lack of agreement with his primary parent's ideas accounted for 18 percent
of the variability. Similarly, in explaining the child's perceived self;

confidence, primary parent's support of the child's ideas during the discussion

Daniel E. Costello

accounted for 26 percent of the variability in this behavior, while the child's
lack of agreement with his primary parent's ideas explained about 19 percent.
Furthermore, the primary parent's support of the child in a conver-
sation explained as percent of the variability in the primary parent's
judgment whether to let the child make most of his own decisons. In addition,
primary parent's support of the child's ideas during the discussion accounted
for 29 percent of the variability in the child's claimed use of television,
magazines, and radio for ideas and about 16 percent of the variability in the
child's indicated use of his mother, father, and relatives as sources of

information.

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN

FAMILY COMMUNICATION PATTERNS AND ADOLESCENT AUTONOMY

By{\
of
Daniel E. Costello

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Communication

1969

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Completion of this study involved the guidance, labor, and goodwill of
a number of people. My deepest appreciation and most sincere thanks go to
all of them.

My mother and father, first and utmost in my thoughts, gave me the love
and support so necessary for all my life's endeavors.

To Dr. Verling C. Troldahl, my thesis advisor, I extend my great
appreciation. Dr. Troldahl has been instrumental in guiding this study from
the beginning to the very end. The rest of my Guidance Committee also lent
support and assistance to the study: Dr. Erwin P. Bettinghaus, Dr. Santo F.
Camilleri, Dr. Bradley S. Greenberg, and Dr. Randall P. Harrison.

My friend and colleague, Mr. Duane Pettersen, was very helpful in the
phases of questionnaire construction and data collection.

Technical help was kindly provided by Mrs. Teresa Shen at the Mass
Communication Research Bureau, University of Iowa. The bureau secretary,
Miss Marcia Hamilton, was very helpful in the typing of drafts; while
Mrs. Shirley Sherman was instrumental in the completion of the final manuscript.

I am thankful to Dr. Malcolm S. MacLean, Jr., director of the School of
Journalism, University of Iowa, who allowed me to finish this dissertation
while on the job.

Finally, I must emphasize that this study is a commencement of research
experience made possible with the scientific training and theoretical orienta-
tion provided to me by the Department of Communication during the past four
years. To Dr. David K. Berlo, chairman, who provided both financial and

inspirational support, I am very grateful indeed.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I THE RESEARCH PROBLEM . . . . . . . .

An Approach to Family Study

A Theoretical Interpretation of the Problem

HYPOtheses eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

II RESEARCHDESIGN.........

General Study Design . . . . . .
Sampling Procedure . . . . . . .
Operationalization of Variables
Data Collection . . . . . . . .

III FINDINGS O O O O O O C O 0

Description of Sample . .
Analytic Scheme . . . . .
Tests of Hypotheses . . .

IV CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . .

Interpretation of Findings
Contributions of the Study

Suggestions for Future Research

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0

iii

19

19
19
22
35

37
37
38
39
59
59
65
76
79

81

TABLE

1.

2.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

1“.

LIST OF TABLES

Description of Sample on Several Social and
mmographi c Attributes O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Average (mean) Rating and Variability on
Parents' Support of Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Average (mean) Rating and Variability on Child's
Support of Parents' Ideas (N=25) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Average (mean) Rating and Variability on a Child's
Perceived Influence on His Parents (N=25) . . . . . . . . .

Average (mean) Rating and Variability on Parents'
Control of Child's Decisions (N=2S) . . . . . . . . . . . .

Average (mean) Rating and Variability on Selected Mediated
and Personal Source Usage of Child (N=25) . . . . . . . . .

Average (mean) Rating and Variability on Newspaper and
Peer usage Of Child (N=25) . O O C C . C C C C C . C C O O .

Test of Hypothesis l—-Re1ationship Between Parents'

Support of Child and Child's Perceived Influence on Parents

Test of Hypothesis 2--Relationship Between a Child's
Support of His Parents and a Child's Perceived
Influence on His Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Test of Hypothesis 3--Relationship Between the Percentage
of a Child's Contribution and a Child's Perceived
Influence on His Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Test of Hypothesis u—-Relationship Between Parents'
Support of Child and a Child's Self-Confidence . . . . . . .

Test of Hypothesis 5--Relationship Between a Child's
Support of His Parents and a Child's Self-Confidence . . . .

Test of Hypothesis 7--Relationship Between Parents' Support
of Child and Parents' Control Over Child . . . . . . . . . .

Test of Hypothesis 8--Relationship Between a Child's Support
of His Parents' Control Over Child . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

21

27

28

29

31

33

3H

#1

#2

an

#5

H7

H9

50

c-

.11

TABLE

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Test of Hypothesis 9--Re1ationship Between the Percentage
of a Child's Contributions and Parents'

Over Child . . . . . . . . .

Control

Test of Hypothesis lO--Relationship Between Parents'
Support of Child and a Child's Use of Mediated Sources . . .

Test of Hypothesis lO--Relationship Between Parents' Support

of Child and a Child's Use of Personal Sources . . . . . . .

Test of anothesis ll--Relationship Between Child's Support
of Parents and a Child's Use of Personal Sources .

Test of Hypothesis ll--Relationship Between Child's Support
of Parents and a Child's Use of Mediated Sources .

Test of'Hypothesis l2--Relationship Between the Percentage

of a Child's Contribution and a Child's Use of Both

Mediated and Personal Sources

51

53

SM

56

57

58

Figure

1.

LIST OF FIGURES

The Interrelationship of the Three Predictor
Variables and One of the Four Criterion
Measums O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 1'+

Bales' System of Observational Categories . . 23

vi

APPENDIX A:

APPENDIX B:

APPENDIX C:

APPENDIX D:

APPENDIX E:

APPENDIX F:

LIST OF APPENDICES

LETTER SENT TO RESPONDENTS

DEFINITIONS OF INTERACTION
ANALYSIS CATEGORIES . . .

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS . . .
MOTHER'S QUESTIONNAIRE . .
FATHER'S QUESTIONNAIRE . .

TABLE 22 O O O O O O O 0

vii

86

9Q

99

102

105

CHAPTER I
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

An Approach to Family Study

In the study of the family, scholars from several disciplines and
from a number of schools within disciplines have done and are doing
research, theory-building, and counseling. Hill and Hansen (1960),
Stryker (1959, 196u), and Nye and Berardo (1966) present detailed delineations
of conceptual frameworks in family analysis. For purposes of this study,
an interactionist approach which has contributed a great deal to an under-

standing of the family will be briefly described.

Kirkpatrick (l955) describes the interactionist framework as one in
which the child observes the roles played by family members and incorporates
these roles into his own personality structure. In the dynamic process of
family members living together, there is interaction of roles. The concept
of the family as a unity is a bridge between the family institution and the
individual actor as a member of a family.

The unique, differentiating characteristic of the interactional
approach is that it is based on the action of the family resulting from the
communication process. It views family behavior as an adjustive process
where cues are given and individual members respond to these stimuli. The
primary focus of the framework has not been with external or environmental

factors as such, but with the action of the family members in constant flux.

Within the internal workings of the family, the areas receiving
considerable attention have been dating, mate selection, marital adjustment,
parent-child relationships, and personality formation within the family
context. Thus, the major concerns have been with the processes of socializa-
tion of the child and development of personality. Adults define for the child
the meaning of events, values, and norms. This process is illustrated by
Waller and Hill: "The child comes into the world to find an interactive
system of the adults of his society." (1951, p. 39). The personality in the
child develops slowly over time. A certain type of personality emerges or
becomes stabilized to a degree by the interactive process of defining acts of
others and thus becoming aware of one's own actions. This results in a
persistent or stable pattern of behavior.

Burgess and Locke (1953) refer to the source of social control for
the family unit as one of the major distinctions between the institutional
and interactionist frameworks. In the institutional approach, the control
of behavior is derived from the social structure outside of the family. In
contrast, social control in the interactionist approach is viewed as stemming
from mutual affection and compatibility of the family members. It may be
said that the institutional approach is more community oriented while the
interactionist approach is based on interpersonal relationships among family
nmmbers.

It should be pointed out that the framework also differs from the
structural-functional approach in sociology. Under the perspective of
interaction, social action comes from acting individuals who fit their

respective types of action to one another through a process of interpretation.

Family interaction is the collective action of such individuals. As opposed
to this view, structural-functional conceptions generally lodge social action
in the action of society or in some unit of society.

As a research framework the interactional approach addresses itself
to a study of the internal workings of the family. In the study of the
internal processes of family, the focus has been on husband-wife relation-
ships or parent-child interaction. These processes consist of role-playing,
status relations, communication problems, decision-making stress relations
and.socia1ization processes. There seems to be a scarcity of studies which
view mother-father—child interaction patterns. Also, most of the family
studies have dealt with testimonial descriptions of family communication
furnished by its members. These studies have not attempted to analyze the

nature of the communication behavior that occurred.

A Theoretical Interpretation of the Problem

One of the primary functions of the family is the preparation of a child
to leave home. (Douvan and Adelson, 1966). The interaction of parent and
child is conditioned by their mutual knowledge of the child's eventual
departure. The family's task is to rehearse the child for it and to help
him rehearse himself.

The direction of adolescent growth is clearly toward emancipation
from the family. The period begins with the child almost entirely dependent
on the family, needing its say-so for what he can and cannot do, still
clinging to their ideas and ideals. It ends with the child reaching into

adulthood, freer to make up his mind about what he will and will not do,

holding his own beliefs and values, and, if necessary, looking elsewhere
than the family for love and support.

One of the key concepts in the growth and development of a child
is the notion of autonomy. Autonomy is particularly important at
adolescence, more so than at any other time since early childhood. Above
all, at adolescence, autonomy becomes important for itself; it acquires a
meaning beyond the particular, concrete issues at hand. The specific
issues--what time to be in at night, or to buy one's own clothes--are
important not only in themselves but also because they carry such high
symbolic value. .The particular freedoms the child is given are the visible
part of a larger conversation between parent and child, having to do with
the child's need for later independence.

Adolescent autonomy focuses on behavior and decisions. What can the
youngster do on his own? What decisions can he make for and by himself?
To give this concept meaning we have to know its antecedent, its sources.
In the case of the adolescent, these are probably to be found in parental
values. What the youngster is free or unfree to do and decide probably
tells us less about him than it does about his parents; it tells us about
him indirectly, through what it may suggest about the family milieu and
the parents' ideology of socialization.

I The parental value system is a complex notion. A variety of terms
have been used to describe various types of value systems; however, the
terms most often used to designate the opposing poles of this continuum
are autocratic and democratic. (Lewin, Lippitt, and White, 1939). In all

the value systems, interpersonal communication is an essential element.

 

 
 
 
 

- .uw \

 

Given that family members are involved in face-to-face communication, the
question can be raised as to whether or not there are characteristics of
the interaction among the family members that are associated with other

behaviors and decisions of the child.

Focus of Study

 

The present study extends the analysis of interaction to include:
(I) a description of the relationship between family communication patterns
and those behaviors of a child which are indicative of a child's growth
toward emancipation from the family; (2) a breakdown of parent-child
interaction into mother-father—child interaction patterns; and (3) the
actual monitoring of family communication instead of the more typical use
of testimonial reports furnished by family members. A modification of the
Bales interaction process analysis categories (1950) will be used to
analyze the interaction structure in the family groups. Since the family
is one of the oldest and most influential learning contexts, surely a more
detailed study of family communication should yield valuable clues to the

etiology of such typical modes of interaction.

Family Communication Patterns

The following interaction patterns will be analyzed, in order to
determine the nature of the communication behavior that occurs between
family members.

1. Relative child support by mother.

2. Relative child support by father.

3. Relative child support by primary parent.

u. Relative child support by non-primary parent.
5. Relative mother support by child.

6. Relative father support by child.

7. Relative primary parent support by child.

8. Relative non-primary parent support by child.

9. Percentage of child's contribution to family discussion.

Indices of Adolescent Autonomy,

 

The following variables are somewhat indicative of the child's growth
toward emancipation from the family.

Child's perceived influence on parental decisions. One of the ways
in which parents can encourage independence on the part of their child is
by permitting the child to express himself on the daily decisions made by
them. If the parents act with understanding and generally tend to support
the child's ideas, the child may start to feel that his ideas are acceptable
solutions. This should result in the child's perception of himself as
affecting decisions made by his mother and father.

Child's self-confidence in decision-making, The degree of self-
confidence that a child has in his own decision-making ability seems to be
crucial to his development. How 3232.3 child is of his own judgments should
indirectly indicate whether he is prepared to break his dependency on his
parents for making decisions.

Parent control over child's decision-making, Another indicator of
whether a child has achieved a certain degree of independence is when the
parents perceive the child as capable of making his own decisions. The amount
of control the parents exert should indirectly indicate how well a child is

prepared to make decisions on his own.

up...

Child's information-seeking, Some parents encourage a child to
explore new ideas. The more often a child exposes himself to varied ideas
from many sources, the better he should become at evaluating and using in-
formation. With more sources of advice open to him, the child should

become less dependent upon his parents for answers to his problems.

The Relation of Small Group Research to Families

Although studies of the processes of interaction in small groups
provide an increasingly firm basis for making generalizations about behavior
in the family, gaps in our knowledge still remain. For example, much of
the empirical work has been confined to ad hgg_laboratory groups, often
groups of the same sex, and frequently groups of college students. Without
minimizing the value of these studies, questions can be raised concerning
the generalizability of these findings and calling for research replications
utilizing groups of differing composition.

A concept which might help bridge this inductive gap is that of group
attraction or cohesiveness. The forces affecting group attraction are
usually hypothesized to be a function of the degree to which members of a
group find the group experience actually or potentially need-satisfying.
Attraction has been associated with formal and informal group goals and
activities (Schachter, 1951), with the prestige position of the group
(Back, 1951), with affectional ties to group members (Festinger, Schachter,
and Back, 1950), with opportunities for free emotional expression (Festinger,
Pepitone, and Newcomb, 1952), and with protection against external threat
(Gerard, 1953). Cartwright and Zander (1960, p. 70) point out some additional

ways of viewing group attraction when they state:

A cohesive group might be characterized as one in which

the members all work together for a common goal, or where

everyone is ready to take responsibility for group chores.

The willingness to endure pain or frustration is yet another

possible indication of its cohesiveness. Finally, we

might conceive of a cohesive group as one which its members

will defend against criticism or attack.

Before the findings in small group research can be applied to family
groups, an assumption must be made. The assumption is that groups high in
attraction, whether ad hoc groups or family groups, have some common
correlates. If this is so, the correlates of group attractiveness found

in small group research should say something about the characteristics of

attractive or cohesive families.

Review of the Literature

 

The democratic-authoritarian concept has been found to apply to both
task-oriented small groups and family groups. Some of the characteristics
that are commonly associated with democratic-authoritarian value systems
should provide insights into family interaction patterns.

The parents' allowance of some form of expressed conflict seems a
crucial variable for the comfort and development of the adolescent child.
Douvan and Adelson conducted two national studies based on interviews with
some 3500 children. Their studies include both boys and girls in grades
6 through 12, with no age limits. They found that boys and girls who report

.ga high rate of disagreement with their parents come from more democratic
or equalitarian homes. Also, children from equalitarian homes indicate a

high level of participation in family decisions.

e :JJfl

' -_
-,‘VY(<’A'.

9".

fl.\1'v-
..

”(I n

Thus, another important variable is whether the parents give the
child an opportunity to participate in decisions which concern the family.
The basic question here seems to be whether the parents hold the power for
all decisions affecting the child or do they permit the child a degree of
self-determination? It seems that the authoritarian parent will neither
explain his act nor permit the child to question it. On the other hand,
the parent who assumes a rational base for power treats the child as an
understanding being, explaining his own acts and responding to the child's
questions and arguments.

The interpretation of their results relies less on the notion of
conflict than on a picture of relatively easy relationships in a family
pattern where the parents encourage independence, permit the child to feel
and express his differences and disagreements, and exercise moderate
authority which they both explain and allow to be questioned.

Sargent (1967) conducted a study to determine whether democratic
and authoritarian leaders differ systematically in certain communication
behaviors. He classified 4-H Club leaders as democratic or authoritarian,
and then, tape recorded their discussions with club members. The communi-
cation behaviors of the leaders were content-analyzed according to the major
categories used by Bales.

He found that authoritarian leaders made more attempts to offer
answers to the discussion questions; while the democratic leaders phrased
more of their contributions to the group in the form of questions. In other
words, authoritarian leaders more frequently offered solutions to the

problems; while democratic leaders more frequently assisted the group in

finding a group solution.

.e-

 

n».-

 

 

10

Sargent also found that authoritarian leaders made more negative Social-
Emotional (non-supportive) comments than did the democratic leaders. There
was also a tendency for democratic leaders to make a higher ratio of positive
Social-Emotional (supportive) statements.

In addition, democratic leaders made more attempts to encourage
participation in the discussion by group members. They offered more con-
tributions to the group in the form of questions, alternatives, or Speculations.

Furthermore, authoritarian leaders, according to Lippitt and White
(1960), attempt to make all decisions themselves. Gibb (1951) found that
democratic leadership was associated with freedom of expression. Also,

riLikert (1961, p. 171) states that a democratic leadership style involves
"giving the group members ample opportunity to express their thoughts with-
out being constrained by the leader pressing his own views."

In a democratic family system, then, one might expect parents to give
a great deal of reinforcement to their children; while at the same time
allowing the child to disagree with their ideas. On the other hand, an
authoritarian family system might be characterized as giving the child very
little support; while showing very little tolerance for expressed disagree-
ment on the part of the child. This type of family system would tend to
discount or limit a child's views, especially if these views were perceived
as antagonistic to those of the parents. In addition, a child from a
democratic family system would probably be encouraged to participate in
family discussions; while a child from an authoritarian system would have

little freedom to contribute his own ideas.

11

Participation and support have also been found to be related to
group attraction or cohesiveness. Costley (1964) investigated the relation-
ships between interaction characteristics in small group communication and
sources of group attraction. The subjects were assigned to three-man groups
and participated in a thirty minute discussion of civil rights issues. A
modification of Bales interaction process analysis was used to content
analyze the discussion.

He found a negative relationship between the percentage of negative
social-emotional reactions and each of the following variables: (a) personal
attraction, (b) coordination of effort, and (c) satisfaction with group
decisions. In addition, he found a positive relationship between frequency
of interaction and the percentage of attempted answers in the task area.

Cartwright and Zander (1953, p. 89), in their summary of research
on group cohesiveness, indicate a number of correlates. They report that
attracted members, while willing to listen to others, also try readily to
influence others. In addition, attracted members are reported as usually
accepting of others' opinions, and often change their minds to take the
views of fellow members.

These findings are similar to the previous description of a democratic
family system. The democratic family pattern is where the parents encourage
independence, permit the child to feel and express his differences and
disagreements, and exercise moderate authority which they both explain and

allow to be questioned. Thus, it would seem that a democratic family system

would be defined as a cohesive group.

12

In an attempt to handle the oversimplification of the authoritarian-
democratic dichotonomy, McLeod, Chaffee, and Wackman (1967, p. 2) devised
a two-factor model of family types. They indicate that parents emphasize
either or both of these two kinds of structural relations in raising their
children.

The first kind of relation is called socio-oriented, in which the
child is encouraged to maintain harmonious personal relations with his
parents and others. The second is called concept-oriented, in which the
child is encouraged to express his ideas and to challenge others' beliefs.
The division of each dimension into high and low yields a fourfold typology
of family types.

"Laissez-faire families emphasize neither type of relation.
Children are not prohibited from challenging parental views,
but neither are they exposed to information relevant to
expressing independent ideas."

"Protective families stress socio-relations at the expense of
concept-relations. The child is encouraged to get along with
others by steering clear of the controversial realm of ideas.
Not only is be prohibited from expressing dissent, but he is
given little chance to encounter information on which to
base his own views."

"Pluralistic families emphasize the development of strong

and varied concept-relations in an environment comparatively
free of social restraints. The child is encouraged to explore
new ideas and is often eXposed to controversial material;
thus, he can make up his own mind without fear that reaching

a different conclusion from his parents will endanger social
relations in the family."

"Consensual families stress both types of relations. While
the child is exposed to controversy, he is constrained to
develop concepts that are consonant with the existing socio-
relations--i.e., to learn his parents' ideas and to adopt
their views."

13

The investigators then studied the relationship between family communi-
cation patterns and the political behavior of the family members. They found
that both the pluralistic parents and children appear to be more politically
informed and active, and more often use the media for information. The
pluralistic children are also the most active in the politically-relevant
school activities of publication, speech and debate, and student government.
In contrast, protective parents and their children tend to be low in public
affairs competence. Both are heavy viewers of entertainment shows on
television, but tend not to view public affairs television or read "hard"
news in the newspaper. The children have low grade point averages, spend
relatively little time with homework, and are the group least likely to
participate in school activities.

McLeod, Chaffee, and Wackman also investigated the relationship be-
tween family communication patterns and the way people react to more specific
situations. They devised an imbalanced situation of a liked person having
a negative opinion of something the respondent favors. The respondent was
then read a list of ten alternative reSponses, for which his subjective
evaluation of the likelihood of each was recorded.

They found for parents raised in a pluralistic home, there is a
strong likelihood of communication as a response coupled with an unwillingness
to withdraw directly or indirectly from the situation. This type of parent-
is particularly likely to tell the neighbor why he is wrong, but believes
he can do this without becoming angry. They also found that parents who
establish protective or consensual communication environments with their

children are relatively unlikely to give communication as a response to imbalance.

1'4

They are more likely than other types of parents to withdraw by forgetting

the situation and by seeking authority.

Hypotheses

 

According to the findings just reviewed, the predictor variables in
this study should maintain a consistent relationship with one another. If
the predictor variables of "parent support of child," "child support of
parents," and "child's contribution to the family discussion" are all re-
lated to one of the dependent variables, such as, "child's influence on

parents," the total set of relationships can be illustrated in Figure 1.

 

 

 

 

Child's
Influence
on Parents
(-) (+) (+)
(-) (+)

Child's Child's Parents'
Support of Contribution Support of
Parents Child
I (_a I

I

Figure 1. The interrelationship of the three predictor variables and one
of the four criterion measures.

15

Since the previous findings also suggest that the four dependent
variables in this study are all positively related to one another, the
above set of relationships should apply equally well to the other three
dependent variables. The following sets of hypotheses are categorized

separately for each dependent variable under study.

Child's_perceived influence on parents

Costley indicates that, the fewer negative social-emotional (non-
supportive) statements made to group members, the greater a member's personal
attraction to the group. Cartwright and Zander state that attracted members
are more accepting of others' opinions and more often change their minds
to take the views of fellow members. If it can be assumed that parents who
make few non-supportive statements to their children will be inclined to
make more supportive statements, the findings suggest:

H1: The more support parents give their child's ideas,

the more the child will perceive that he influences
his parents.

Both Gibb and Likert suggest that a democratic leadership style
involves giving the group members ample opportunity to express their thoughts
without being constrained by the leader pressing his own views, implying
a high tolerance for disagreement. Douvan and Adelson report that demo-
cratic families tend to tolerate disagreement, while also having a highly
attracted members. Since attracted members are more accepting of others'
opinions and more often change their minds to take the views of fellow

members, the findings suggest:

16

H2: The less support that a child gives his parents'
ideas, the more the child will perceive that he
influences his parents.
Douvan and Adelson found that children from democratic homes indicate
a high level of participation in family decisions. Since, in a democratic
family, support and participation are related to personal attraction,
and attracted members more readily try to influence others, the findings
suggest:
H3: The more a child contributes to the family

discussion, the more the child will perceive
that he influences his parents.

Child's self-confidence in decision-making:

 

The findings used in support of the first three hypotheses would
also seem to reflect upon the development of a child's self-confidence.
Thomas and Burdick (195”), and Cohen (1956) found that persons of high
selféesteem exerted more influence attempts than persons of low self-
esteem. With the relationship between self-esteem and influence suggested,
similar hYPOtheSGS seem tenable for the development of a child's self-
confidence can be equated.

H4: The more support parents give their child's ideas,

the more the child will have confidence in his own
judgment.

H5: The less support that a child gives his parents'
ideas, the more the child will have confidence in
his own judgment.

H6: The more a child contributes to the family discussion,
the more the child will have confidence in his own
judgment.

17

Parents control over a child's decision-making.

Since perceived influence and self-confidence have been suggested
as factors in the make-up of a democratic system, similar hypotheses seem
tenable for the concept of parental control. Parental control, or actually
the lack of it, is defined as the parent trusting the child to make the
most of his own decisions.

Costley reports fewer negative social—emotional (non-supportive)
statements made, the greater the satisfaction with group decisions, suggesting
that parents with democratic values might indicate greater satisfaction
with the child's decisions. Sargent indicates that democratic leaders tend
to make a high proportion of positive social-emotional (supportive) state-
ments. He also found that democratic leaders phrased most of their con-
tributions in the form of questions, implying a greater satisfaction with
others' decisions. If it can be assumed that parents who make few non-
supportive statements to their children will be inclined to make more
supportive statements, then:

H7: The more support parents give their child's ideas,

the more the parents will let their child make his
own decisions.

As long as the relationship between perceived influence and parental
control has been suggested, the findings used in support of the hypotheses
concerning perceived influence would also seem to apply to the concept of
parental control. Thus, the findings suggest:

H8: The less support that a child gives his parents'

ideas, the more the parents will let their child make
his own decisions.

18

H9: The more a child contributes to the family discussion,
the more the parents will let their child make his
own decisions.

Child's information-seeking,

 

Democratic families emphasize, among other things, that a child can
make up his own mind without fear that reaching a different conclusion
from his parents will endanger social relations in the family. McLeod
states that pluralistic families exhibit the same characteristics, which
suggests that both types have some behaviors in common.

McLeod, Chaffee, and Wackman found that children from pluralistic
homes are well informed and use the media for information. They also point
out that pluralistic families encourage a child to explore new ideas and
controversial material. It would seem that the rational used with per-
ceived influence, selfeconfidence, and parental control might also apply
to a child's information-seeking. Thus, the findings suggest:

H10: The more support parents give their child's ideas,

the more often the child will seek information from
personal and mediated sources.

Hll: The less support that a child gives his parents'
ideas, the more often the child will seek information
from personal and mediated sources.

H12: The more a child contributes to the family discussion,
the more often the child will seek information from
personal and mediated sources.

CHAPTER II

RESEARCH DESIGN

General Study Design
Data pertinent to the present study were collected in 25 personal
interviews with families in the Holt, Michigan, area. Thus, an experimental
situation in which experimental variables could be manipulated was not set
up. Consequently, a correlational approach is used to test the hypotheses,
based on measuring instruments derived from the responses obtained in the

interview schedules.

SamplinggProcedure

 

The respondents selected to test the present hypotheses were 25
families with the following characteristics:

(1) each family has a boy between in and 16 years-of-age;

(2) each family consists of the boy's natural parents; and

(3) that the boy and his parents have been living together, as a

family.

For families with more than one boy within the specified age limits, the
youngster was selected at random before the interview. This procedure
had to be used for only three families in the study. The sample was
limited to boys and their parents for control purposes, since it would
require a much larger sample to make adequate comparisons between boys

and girls on the major variables under study.

19

20

Listings of families based on the above criteria were obtained from
school census records. A final list was compiled of approximately 100 families
which met the qualifications established by the investigator. A personal
letter was sent to each family, explaining the purpose of the study and
asking for their cooperation. (See Appendix A). After two or three days,
the letter was followed by a phone call, to set up an appointment-time for
the interview.

Of the 100 families, one out of every four indicated that they would
take part in the study. Four call backs were made on the remaining 75
families, with approximately 20% of the families not being contacted. 0f
the remaining 60 families who were reached, most refusals were due to a
conflict with summer vacation schedules and a general inability to get
three family members together for the interview. Interviews were conducted
over a seven-week period in the months of July and August, 1968. A

description of the sample is given in Table 1.

21

 

 

Table 1. Description of Sample on Several Social and
Demographic Attributes.
Personal Characteristics Mother Father
Age:
35 years or under 20% u%
36 - #0 years 32 #8
ul - #5 years 16 20
#6 - 50 years 29 20
51 years or over 8 8
100% 100%
Median age for both mother and father - no years
Education:
Post- graduate work 0% 8%
College graduate 8 u
l - 3 years college 8 16
High school graduate 6H 56
9 - 11 years completed 20 8
8 years completed 0 u
1 - 7 years completed 0 u

100% 100%

Median education for both mother and father - 12 years

Total Annual Income for Family:

$7,000 or less 9%
$7,000 - $9,000 20
$9,001 - $11,000 16
$11,001 - $13,000 19
$13,001 - $15,000 25
$15,001 or over 16
100%

Median income $12,500

Number of Children:

1 H%
2 29
3 16
u 20
5 16
6 l2
7 or more 8
100%
Birth order:
First 32%
1219916 as

22

Operationalization of Variables

 

Interaction Measurement

 

A modified version of Bales' interaction-process analysis system was
used in this study. The twelve categories are shown in Figure 2. Perhaps
the simplest way to conceive of an ideal problem-solving sequence is in
terms of the four sections labeled A, B, C, and D. Section A contains
several types of positive reactions, and Section D contains a similar
group of negative reactions. Section B constitutes a group of attempted
answers, while Section C constitutes a group of activities which can be
characterized as questions. Using this conception, it can be suggested
that the interaction process consists of questions, followed by attempted
answers, followed by either negative or positive reactions.

Unit of Analysis. The unit scored was the smallest discriminable
segment of verbal or nonverbal behavior to which the coder could assign
a classification under conditions of continuous serial scoring. This unit
is referred to as an act.

Often the unit was a single simple sentence expressing or conveying
a complete thought. Complex sentences always involved more than one score.
Dependent clauses were scored separately. Compound sentences joined by
"and", "but", etc. were broken down into their component simple parts,
each of which was given a score.

The categories used are all-inclusive, in the sense that every act
can be classified into a defined category. The method requires the coder
to make a classification of every sequential act he observes. This is

especially important since acts are interpreted according to the context in

Social-Emotional
Area: Positive
Reactions

Task Area:
Attempted
Answers

Task Area:
Questions

Social-Emotional
Area: Negative
Reactions

23

1 Shows solidarity, raises other's

 

status, gives help, reward

Shows Tension Release jokes,
laughs, shows satisfaction

Agrees, shows passive acceptance,
understands, concurs, complies

 

Gives suggestions, direction,
implying autonomy for other

Gives inion, evaluation, analysis,
expresses feeling, wish

 

Gives orientation, information,
repeats, clarifies, confirms

 

Asks for orientation, information,

repetition , confirmation

Asks for gpinion, evaluation,
analysIs, expression of feeling

Asks for saggestion, direction,
possiBIe ways of action

 

10

11

12

Dis recs, shows passive refection,
formality, withholds help

Shows tension, asks for help,
withdraws out of field

Shows ant onism, deflates other's
status, defends or asserts self

Figure 2. Bales' System of Observational Categories.

24

which they occur. Save for possible error, no acts are omitted from
classification. The definitions of the interaction categories used by the
coders in this study are provided in Appendix B.

Coders. Two coders were trained to record the interaction in the
family groups. The coders went through a series of training sessions
conducted by the investigator in which they read and discussed the theoretical
framework of the Bales' interaction process analysis system, read and
discussed the definitions of the categories, and recorded the interaction
on two pre-test tapes. For the final analysis, five tapes were selected at
random from the 25 tapes used in the study. Agreement scores were computed
between the two coders and between each coder and the investigator for these

five tapes. Scores were obtained for the ibllowing three categories:

Coder l Coder l Coder 2

with with with

Coder 2 Investigator Investigator
Support 78% 83% 8u%
Contributions 86% 87% 84%
Non-support 80% 79% 79%

Since the agreement scores are fairly high, it seems reasonable to consider

their use in constructing the indices of support.

Indices of Support

Bach act is scored in sequence according to Bales' method of inter-
action process analysis. This score shows, first, who initiates the act
and to whom it is directed. In addition, it indicates the relevance of
the act either to the solution of the problem confronting the family or to

the state of intergration of the family. Acts classified as relevant

25

primarily to the family problem (categories four through nine) are combined
and called "contributions". Positive acts (categories one through three)
directed specifically to other members in the family are called acts of
"support"; negative acts (categories ten through twelve) directed specifically
to others are called acts of "nonsupport." In this manner, interaction

is divided into items offered to the family's solution and into positive or
negative responses to what is offered.

More precisely, the rates indicate the preponderance of supportive
versus non-supportive acts, for the calculation of the rate of support takes
into account both classes of acts. Support is assumed to range from positive
(where supportive acts outnumber non-supportive) through zero to minus
(where non-supportive acts outnumber supportive). Details in the calculation
of rates of specific members in the family are given in the following formula.

The rate at which member 1 supports member 2 (R312) is
given by the equation:

Agreement (support)

Number of answers given
Number of questions initiated
Disagreement (non-support)

R512 = 100 x A12 - D12
B2 + C2

UOW>

Where: A12 refers to the frequency of supportive acts
initiated by member 1 and directed to member 2.

D12 refers to the frequency of non-supportive acts initiated
by member 1 and directed to member 2.

B2 and C2 combined refer to the frequency of "contributions"
initiated by member 2 regardless of the recipients of the acts.

For input into the above formula, the following measures of interaction were

obtained:

1. Frequency of mother's support of child.
2. Frequency of father's support of child.
3. Frequency of child's support of mother.

 

.u—

 
 
 
 

26

u. Frequency of child's support of father.

5. Frequency of mother's non-support of child.

6. Frequency of father's non-support of child.

7. Frequency of child's non-support of mother.

8. Frequency of child's non-support of father.

9. Frequency of mother's contributions.

10. Frequency of father's contributions.
11. Frequency of child's contributions.

In addition to mother, father, and child support patterns, indices
of support for primary and non-primary parent were calculated. Each child
was asked to respond to the question:

"On matters such as jobs and clothing, if you could ask for

ideas from only one of your parents, which parent
would you ask?"

Thus, the child was given an opportunity to express a preferred interaction
pattern. It was reasoned that the primary parent index might give a more
reaistic picture of the actual parent-child interaction that occurs in the
home. The primary parent index is composed of 15 mothers and 10 fathers.
The average (mean) ratings and the variability of each support index are
shown in Tables 2 and 3.

Furthermore, the percentage of the child's contribution to the total
family discussion was computed. The responses ranged from u% to 32%, with

a mean response rating of 20%.

Indices of Adolescent Autonomy

The conceptual and Operational definitions along with some samples
of the items used are:

Child'sgperceived influence on parental decisions: The extent to
which a child perceives himself as affecting decisions made by his mother
and father. Operationally, it is the sum of scores a child obtains from

his responses to questions dealing with whether his parents ask for his

opinion on family decisions.

"About how often would you say your parents ask
you for your opinion on family decisions?"

About once a week

27

For example,

Less than once a month

Once or twice a month

Several times a week

 

 

 

Table 2. Average (mean) rating and variability on parents' support
of child.

Parent Mother's Father's Primary Parent Non-primary Parent
Support of Support Support Support of Support of
Child Index of Child of Child Child Child
+.u1 to +.50 -% -% -% -%
+.31 to +.uo - - 4 -
+.2l to +.30 - u u -
+.ll to +.20 l2 l2 l2 8

.00 to +.10 nu N8 52 no
-.01 to -.10 2H 2H 12 36
-.11 to -.20 20 8 12 16
-021 to -030 "' '4 ll -
-.31 to -.HO - - - -
-.ul to -.50 - - - -

100% 100% 100% 100%

Average Rating .00 .03 .03 .00
A score of .00 is equal to "no support".

 

28

 

 

Table 3. Average (mean) rating and variability on child's support of
parents' ideas. (N = 25)

Child's Child's Child's Child's Child's
Support of Support of Support of Support of Support of
Parent Mother Father Primary Non-primary
Index Parent Parent
+.u1 to +.50 -% -% -% -%
+.31 to +.'+0 - - - -
+.2l to +.30 u - 1+ -
+.ll to +.20 u 1+ 8 -

.00 to +.10 an 56 56 HQ
-.01 to -.10 118 32 32 #8
-.11 to -.20 - - - -
-.21 to -.30 - 8 - 8
-.31 to -.H0 - - - -
-.ul to -.50 .- - - -

100% 100% 3.60% "160%

Average Rating .03 -.Ol .03 -.01

A score of .00 is equal to "no support".

 

There are five items on which the child was asked to respond. For the "child's
influence on mother" index, all ten of the inter-item correlations were in the
right direction and ranged from .19 to .59, with a median correlation of .91.
The inter-item correlations for the "child's influence on father" index were
also in the right direction and ranged from .25 to .68, with a median corre-
lation of .I+6. The average (mean) ratings and the variability of each in-
fluence distribution are shown in Table It.

Child's self-confidence in decision making: The extent to which a

 

child feels that he has the ability and willingness to rely on his own strengths.

Operationally, it is the sum of scores a child obtains from his responses to

28a

questions dealing with how sure he is that he has made the best possible
choice in a decision situation. For example,
"If you had just joined a new club at school,
how sure would you be that you had made the
best choice possible?"
Now sure
Sure

Very sure

29

Table 8. Average (mean) rating and variability on a child's perceived
influence on his parents. (N = 25)

 

 

Child's Child's Child's Child's Child's
Influence Influence Influence Influence Influence
on Parents on on on Primary on Non-Primary
Index Mother Father Parent Parent
1? (high) 8% 8% 8% 8%
16 8 8 l2 -
15 8 8 l2 8
l8 - 8 - 8
l3 8 8 8 8
l2 8 - 8 -
ll l2 l2 l2 12
10 20 8 16 12
9 - 8 - 8
8 12 12 8 20
7 8 - 8 -
6 8 8 8 8
5 - 8 - 8
u - - _ -
3 - - 8 -
2 8 8 8 -
1 - - - -
0(lmn 8 8 8 8
W9. E69. 1669. 3'69.

Average Rating 9 . 7

(D
O

(I)
H
O
O

.f.‘
(D
O

N

 

30

"If your son needed new clothes for school...
does he usually choose his own, or do you
decide for him?"

I always decide

I often decide

 

Every now and then

I seldom decide

 

I never decide

 

Four items were used, and both mother and father responded separately

to them. For the "father-child index of control," the six inter-item
correlations ranged from -.02 to .65, with only one in the wrong direction.
The median correlation was .08. The six inter-item correlations for the
"mother-child index" ranged from -17 to .52, with only one in the wrong
direction. The median correlation was .32. The average (mean) rating

and the variability of each control distribution was shown in Table 5.
Although the father-child control index has no homogeneity, findings
pertinent to it will be reported. This problem will be discussed further
in the last chapter.

Child's information-seeking; The extent to which a child seeks
ideas from both mediated and personal sources. Operationally, it is the
sum of scores a child obtains from responses to questions dealing with
how often he would look for ideas from both personal and mediated sources.

e.g., "If you needed to buy clothes for school

and uncertain as to what choice to make,
how often would you look for...
$3222 from newspapers?

Often
Now and then
Seldom

Never

 

 

 

 

 

31

Table 5. Average (mean) rating and variability on parents' control
of child's decisions. (N = 25)

 

 

Parent Mother's Father's Primary Non-primary
Control of Control Control Parent Control Parent Control
Child of of of of
Index Child Child Child Child
18 (low control) 8% 8% 8% 8%
13 - 8 - 8
12 12 8 8 8
11 2O 8 8 2O
10 8 8 - 8

9 8 20 12 12

8 28 8 12 20

7 12 16 12 16

6 8 12 16 8

5 8 8 8 -

8 8 8 8 8

3 - 12 12 -

2 - - - -

1 - - - -

0 (high

control) 100% 100% 150% 150%

Average Rating 7.6 9.1 7.8 9.2

32

The information sources used can be classified as personal vs.
mediated, on the basis of whether or not face-to-face contact is involved.
Thus newspapers, television, magazines and movies fall into the mediated
category and all direct contacts with mother, peers, father and relatives
fall into the personal category.

However, upon closer analysis, the data do not warrant differential
predictions for these two types of sources. The six inter-item correlations
for the four mediated sources ranged from -.30 to .62, with three negative
cxarrelations. The median correlation was only .07. The three negative
correlations were the relationship of newspapers to the other three
mediated sources. Similarly, the six inter-item correlations for the
four personal sources ranged from -.30 to .60, with three negative
correlations. The median correlation was .18. This time, however, the
three negative correlations were the relationship of peers to the other
three personal sources.

The data seem to suggest a somewhat different grouping of variables.
For the mediated sources, it would seem to make sense to combine magazine
television and movie usage into a single index. The three inter-item
correlations are .36, .59, and .62. The average (mean) rating and
variability of this index are shown in Table 6. Since newspapers were
negatively correlated with the other three sources and accounted for a
great deal of source usage, a separate index was constructed for news-

papers. The average (mean) rating and variability of the newspaper

index are shown in Table 7.

33

Table 6. Average (mean) rating and variability on selected mediated
and personal source usage of child. (N = 25)

 

 

Child's Child's Child's
Combined Combined use Combined use
Usage of Magazines, of Mother,
Index TV and Movies. Father and Relatives
18 (high use) --% --%
l7 -- --
l6 8 8
15 8 8
18 -- 8
13 -- l6
l2 8 --
11 -- 8
10 8 8
9 l2 8
8 8 l6
7 12 8
6 12 8
5 l2 8
8 16 8
3 8 --
2 -- --
l 8 --
0 (low use) 8 8
100% Té'cT%

Average Rating 6.8

to
o
O

38

Table 7. Average (mean) rating and variability on newspaper and

 

 

peer usage of child. (N = 25)
Child's Child's Child's
Usage Use of Use of
Index Newspaper Peers
6 (high use) 28% 88%
5 12 16
8 12 16
3 l2 l6
2 28 --
l 16 8
0 (low use) -- --
100% 100%
Average Rating 3.5 8.8

 

In regards to the personal sources, a separate index was constructed

which included mother, father, and relatives.

The inter-item correlations

are .56, .57, and .60. The average (mean) rating and variability of this

"family index" are shown in Table 6.

Similarly, since peer usage was

negatively correlated with the other personal sources, a separate "peer

index" was constructed.

this index are shown in Table 7.

The average (mean) rating and variability of

For an explanation of these usage

35

patterns, the work of Riley and Riley (1951) would suggest this difference,

based upon whether the child is "family oriented" or "peer oriented."

Data Collection

Personal interviews were carried out in the home of each family.
After some preliminary remarks to place everyone at ease, the interviewer
introduced the family to the immediate task at hand, namely, their dis-
cussion of various topics dealing with adolescent problems.

The discussion topics selected were designed to meet several criteria.
They had to be sufficiently interesting to the subjects to insure motivation
for communication. They had to involve questions of social reality for
which there were no "correct" answers. They had to permit several
defensible solutions and to allow for differences of opinion among family
members. They had to be topics on which all subjects would have adequate
infermation to carry on a discussion.

The interviewer read the following instructions:

"Below are a series of situations which are discussed in

most families at one time or another. Families seem to

handle the problems in different ways. We would like

for you to discuss among yourselves as many points of

view that you are familiar with. From these different

views, select a view which represents the thinking of
your family.

"Please spend some time with each of the situations.
There is no right or wrong answer...only what your
family feels is the most appropriate answer fer the
situation. You will have 30 minutes to discuss all
four situations below. Don't worry about the time;
we will inform you when the half hour is up."

The list of suggested discussion questions given to the subjects is reproduced

in Appendix C.

36

After reading the instructions, the interviewer answered any
questions that the subjects asked. At this point, the interviewer turned
on the tape recorder and indicated that he would leave the room until
they finished their discussion, or until the 30 minutes for discussion had
elapsed. Actual discussion time ranged from 8 to 32 minutes, with an
average (mean) time of 19 minutes. Upon completion of their discussion,
the interviewer handed out a brief questionnaire to each member of the
family. The complete questionnaires given the respondents are presented
in Appendix D. After respondents had filled out the questionnaire, the
interviewer again answered any questions that they had. This completed

the respondent's participation in the study.

CHAPTER III

FINDINGS

Description of Sample

As previously stated, the original sample consisted of names and
addresses of 100 families in the Holt, Michigan area. The interviewers
were able to complete 25 interviews with families in the sample before
field work halted late in August, 1968.

No attempt was made to get a representative sample of Holt families.
The objective of the study was not to obtain estimates of what the whole
population of Holt families is like. Rather, it was to come up with a
sample of families which had specific characteristics so that they could
be compared on the behaviors under study.

Half of the families reported an annual family income of at least
$12,500. Families at this particular stage seem to be fairly well
established; thus, the variability on the income figures did not seem to
be wholly unrealistic.

On age, mothers and fathers both averaged 80 years old. About
20 percent of the mothers were 35 or under, while only one of the fathers
fell in this age bracket. In addition, only two of the mothers and
fathers were over 50 years of age. This would be expected because parents

of teenagers are likely to be under 50 years of age.

37

38

As for education, at least half of the mothers and fathers had
finished high school. A sixth of the mothers had some college training,
while a fourth of the fathers had been to college. On the other hand, none
of the mothers, but two of the fathers never reached high school.

Half of the mothers had at least four children. Bight percent
reported families of seven or more children. The boys used in this study
split fairly evenly in regards to birth order, with first and last born
each representing about a third of the sample.

By design, the boys in the sample ranged from 18 to 16 years of age,
with the modal age being 15. Furthermore, they had all completed either

their eighth or ninth year of school.

Analytic Scheme

As already mentioned, a correlational approach was used in testing
the hypotheses. First, a simple index of relationship between each predictor
variable and each criterion measure was obtained. This index indicates
the zero-order correlation between two variables without potential con-
ta minating factors being held constant.

Before drawing conclusions from these findings, a check was made
to determine whether the predictor variables were themselves interrelated.
In regards to parental support patterns, the correlation between "mother's
support of child" and "father's support of child" is relatively small (.15).
In addition, "primary parent support of child" has only a slight correlation
with "non-primary parent support of child" (.16). .‘.

Furthermore, an analysis of the child's support patterns shows the
correlation between the "childés support of mother" and the "child's support

of father" to be moderate and in a negative direction (-.38). The same

 

39

relationship holds between the "child's support of primary parent" and
the "child's support of non-primary parent" (-.38).
In order to check on spurious relationships, partial correlation
analysis was used to hold variables constant while the relationship
between two other variables was studied. Thus, it was possible to partial
out the influence attributable to "father's support of child" while checking
on the relationship between "mother's support of child" and the "child's
perceived influence on mother." Also, this approach was used to control
out the influence attributable to the "child's support of non-primary parent."
The stability of the relationship also had to be determined.* With
a sample size of 25, a correlation coefficient of .80 would occur simply
because of sampling error only five in one hundred times and a correlation
coefficient of .51 would occur by chance only once in one hundred times.
In addition, the zero-order correlations were checked to determine whether

the assumption of linearity was reasonable..

Tests of Hypotheses
The findings are categorized according to the four criterion measures

under study. Thus, there are four sets of findings with each set containing

three hypotheses.

Child's perceived influence on_parents.

Parents' support of child. The first hypothesis was concerned with

 

*The formula of the test can be found in McNemar (1952, p. 167). The null
hypothesis tested was that the true, i.e., the population r equals zero.

 

 

80

the parents' support of child during a conversation and the child's per-
ceived influence on them:

H1: The more support parents give their child's ideas,

the more the child will perceive that he influences
his parents.

Data pertinent to this hypothesis are presented in Table 8. It
would seem that, the more support the child receives from his 223233.
or designated primary parent, the greater his perceived influence on
his parents (.56, .80, .66, and .58). Before drawing such a conclusion,
partial correlation coefficients were computed for each predictor variable.
Support by his father or his non-primary parent did not significantly
affect his judgment of influencing his parents.

The partial correlation indices are almost the same as the zero-order
correlations for mother and primary parent. (.58, .38, .65, and .58).
As Table 8 shows, three of the partial correlation coefficients were greater
than would be expected from sampling error. The fourth was close to
significant. In other words, the findings were in the predicted direction
with three correlation coefficients reaching the .01 significance level.
Thus, the hypotheses was supported for mother and primary parent support,
but was not for father and non-primary parent support.

Child's support of parents. The second hypothesis was concerned
with the child's support of parents and.his perceived influence on them:

H2: The less support that the child gives his parents'

ideas, the more the child will perceive that he
influences his parents.

Iain-n-—.l

I

- re,-o..-
-

0......)

his.

en-

.—eL-e-,-

M

shy. lit

n.

-\

‘ Vxnfiufi uses-\f\§

.L

. TN-‘.~

[.0 !.

a§I\

~,

Ho.VQ «a.

mo.v.a «
cameo mo anomosn panama hamsfinm so.t so. sawed mo uncoonn panama sensauotcoz
pawgo mo pnooosm panama hamemotcoz «awn. eemm. oawno mo unooosm panama hnmsanm

 

”can panama hnmenmtco: co

endurance n.oaw£o
consume ofinmcofiumaom

cameo mo Macadam panama hhMEwnm no.1 mo. pawno mo phoneme panama runawnotcoz
oawno mo uncooam panama mumeHnotcoz sumo. «amp. oawno mo phonon» panama seesanm

"one posh—em Nuns—rum co

endurance n.pafino
consume ofizmcofipmaem

.o pawns mo Phaedra m.nonuoz am. em. pawno mo whooosn n.90numm
cameo mo “scoops n.no£uem mm. «as. pawns mo uncoosn c.902uoz

81

 

”one ponumm co
oocesamcfi m.eawno
consume manmcowpeaom

eases mo pnoaaam e.aoeuoz as. ea. cases no enemas» m.noeuaa
oaweo mo phonon» n.90nymm seam. «eon. oaweo mo phoneme n.no£poz

 

”one nonuoe co
oocuaamcm m.odmno
escapee owsmooHumaom

 

mammmec< cowumaonnoo cowweaonnoot cowpmaonnoo
Hewpnom cm uempmcoo Hmwpnem nonmetonou

odor enouuum

.muconmo co.oo:osamc« oo>fioonoo n.oaweo one
peace we woodman .mpconoo consume nanncoapmaontta nanonwoosm mo woos .m magma

82

H O .V 9.3.»

mo.u.c e
panama macawno mo whooorm w.oaw£o seem. same. panama
kanHnatao: mo whooosm m.oH«£o
HN.I Roz... Magma
sausage mo uncoosm m.oawzo

panama humesotcoo mo upooosm m.oawno

"can panama
hamsmpotco: so mucosamcw
m.pawno consume ownmcowpmaom

panama hhmeno mo phooasm m.oawno seam. seam. panama
hemefinotcoc mo upcooom m.pamno
m.odwno em:.t eemm.t panama
message mo phoneme m.oawno

panama macawpotcoc mo whooosn

”new unused mum5wpo
co ooaosamcfi m.oaw:o
consume ownncowpmaom

nogvmm mo uncoosn n.oawzo

servos mo pecans» m.eaaeo mm. «as.
Hm.t nuance mo anemone m.oawno

nosumm mo «nooosm u.oHHno oa.t
”one nonumm

co cocosamcm m.oawno

escapee ownmcofiumaom

 

sonuom mo uncoosm m.eaa£o

 

 

fiQSHOE m0 Pfioagflm m.UHH£U flamm. flflom.
nonumm mo whooosm n.oawno mm.t mm.t nonuos mo uncoorn m.eawno
”new nuance
co cocosamca m.oawso
consume ownncofipmaom
mwmswmc< cowumaonnou coaumaonnoo cowumaonwoo
Hmwvnmm nonfictonoN

Huapnma as nempmeoo
can: enouomm

 

.nuconeo was no codename“ oesfioonoo n.oa«co a cam
m.eafigo m sweeper afiemeofipwaonsum mamwnuoasz mo paws .m wanes

museums was mo woodman

83

Six out of the eight zero-order correlations were stable estimates
(Table 9). Out of the six correlations, only two were in the predicted
direction, while the other four are in the wrong direction to support the
hypothesis.

As Table 9 shows, the partial correlation indices are somewhat
different from the zero-order correlations. The data indicate that, the
'more the child supports his father or designated non-primary parent, the
greater his perceived influence on his parents (.53, .39, .51, and .60).
It would also seem that, the l£§§_a child supports his primary parent, the
greater his perceived influence on the primary parent (-.83). Four of the
eight partial correlation coefficients reached the prior-set significance
level. However, the hypothesis was not confirmed, since three of the four
significant correlations were in the wrong direction.

Child's contribution. The third hypothesis was concerned with the

percentage of the child's contribution to the family discussion and his

perceived influence on his parents:

H3: The more the child contributes to the family
discussion, the more the child will perceive
that he influences his parents.
The four zero-order correlations were not greater than would be

expected from sampling error (Table 10). All the relationships were also

in the wrong direction. Thus, the hypothesis was not confirmed.

Child's selfeconfidence in decision-making.

Parents' support of child. The fourth hypothesis was concerned with

a parents' support of child and the child's self-confidence in his own
judgments :

88

Table 10. Test of Hypothesis 3--relationship between the percentage of a
child's contribution and a child's perceived influence on his parents.

 

 

Zero-order
Correlation
Relationship between the
percentage of child's
contribution and:
Child's influence on mother -.32
Child's influence on father -.18
Child's influence on primary parent -.l8
Child's influence on non-primary parent -.29

 

H8: The more support parents give their child's ideas,

the more the child will have confidence in his own
judgments.

The zero-order correlations between the variables are presented in
Table 11. Three out of the four relationships are stable estimates. The
data indicate that mother's support of child, father's support of child,
and primary parent support of child have moderate bearing on the likeli-
hood that the child will have self-confidence (.68, .80, and .65).

A comparison between the zero-order correlation and the partial
correlation indicates only a negligable reduction in the simple correlations
(.68, .80, and .68). Again, with a sample size of 25, the three correlation
coefficients did not fall within the expected range of sampling error. Thus,

the hypothesis was supported for mother, father, and primary parent support.

85

Ho.Vm «a
mo.uva «

 

cameo mo whoaosm panama humefipm bu. om. paago
mo whooosm panama sensanotcoz
cameo mo
whoooam panama aNMEwnotaoz seem. eemm. pawno mo whooosn panama hamswnm
adage mo scones. u.nmepoz «as. «as. adage mo unease. m.amepma
320 mo Eocene 9858 «.30. 33¢. 3% mo Eocene $86.02
”new
cocooameootmaon n.oaweo
consume ownncOMHMHom
mwnwamcc coHumaonemm-t --cmmwoaoenoo cofipmaohnoo
Hmwvnmm cm ecmumcoo Hmaunmm noonouonou

can: nnouomm

.ooeoeameooumaoo m.eaaeo a sea adage so

whooosn .nuccneo escapee manncowueaontt: manoeuomhm mo pros .HH earns

86

Child's support of parents. The fifth hypothesis was concerned with
a child's support of his parents and the child's self-confidence in his own

judgments:

H5: The less support the child gives his parents' ideas,
the more the child will have confidence in his own

judgment.

Again, three out of four zero-order correlations were stable estimates
(Table 12). Two out of three of the correlations were, also, in the pre-
dicted direction. However, when partial correlation coefficients were
computed, only one correlation coefficient reached the prior-set
significance level.

As in the previous cases, the primary parent concept remains a
fairly consistent predictor of the child's behavior. It would seem that the
less a child supports his primary parent, the more the child will have
confidence in his own judgments (-.51). The data suggest support of the
hypothesis only when phrased in terms of the primary parent.

Child's contribution. The sixth hypothesis dealt with the percentage
of the child's contribution to the family discussion and the child's self-
confidence in his own judgments:

H6: The more the child contributes to the family

discussion, the more the child will have confidence
in his own judgments.

A simple index of relationship between the percentage of the child's
contribution to the family discussion and the child's selfeconfidence was
obtained. The data indicate that there was virtually no relationship

between these two indices (-.02). Thus, the hypothesis was not confirmed.

87

Ho .V new
mo.v as

 

panama hamswno mo encoder n.oafino on. «we. panama
samefinotcoc.mo “sconce m.oawno
panama
humewnotcoc mo Raccoon n.oawno seam.t eeom.t panama znmEHao mo phonon» m.pH«no
852. .8 Home... 9320 as. mm. 88.8 no €883 .836
nozumm mo phonon» n.pawno om.t «33.: nonuoe mo unooosn m.oawno
”one
cocooamcootmaon n.oafino
coozpontownchMumaom
mwmsmwc< newumaonnoo .1 cowumaonnoo cowumaonnoo
Hmwupmm cw pompmcoo ammunmm aspectonon

can: muouomm

.oooeofimcooamaom m.eaaco m can unsound can no
woodman n.oawno o coospon ownmcoaumaonttm nwmcnpoobm mo Home .NH canoe

88

Parent control over a child's decision-making,

Parents' support of child. The seventh hypothesis was concerned
with the parents' support of child and the degree of control parents exert
over their child's decisions:

H7: The more support parents give their child's

ideas, the more the parents will let their
child make his own decisions.

Data pertinent to this hypothesis are presented in Table 13. Only
two of the eight zero-order correlations were stable estimates. When the
partial correlations were analyzed, both relationships remained greater
than would be expected from sampling error. The findings suggest the more
support the father gives his child, the more the mother will let the child
have a say in his own decision-making (.83). Furthermore, the data
indicate that primary parent support of child has a fairly strong bearing
on the likelihood that the primary parent will let the child have a say
in his own decision-making (.71). Thus, the hypothesis received partial
support.

Childs support of parents. The eighth hypothesis was concerned with
the child's support of his parents and the degree of control parents exert
over their child's decisions:

H8: The less support the child gives his parents'

ideas, the more the parents will let their
child make his own decisions.

The zero-order correlations between the variables are presented in
Table 18. Only one out of the eight relationships was greater than would be

expected from sampling error. A comparison between the zero-order correlations

89

Hoo.nvaee

 

 

 

mo.V aw
oawno mo uncoorm panama hhmEanm Ha. mo. pawco mo unooonu panama znmeaaotaoz
pawno mo “wooden «comma hnmsanotooz Hm.t om.t pawns mo whooosm panama humeapm
”new neoHnfiooo n.paweo po>o
achucoo ucoamolwmesfinmtcoc
consume ownchwumaom
cameo mo uncoosm penned sneewpm ma. mm. oawno mo uncoosm pounce sprawnotcoz
sawed mo phonon» panama zhmefiaotcoz «ear. «ems. pagan mo whooosm panama mneawnm
”one meow» one 9323
no>o Hosanna pecan San
cassava owemcoaumaom
refine mo phonon» n.90cpoz «me. «3:. peace we uncoosm m.eeeumm
pawno mo phonon» n.90numm mo. Ha. pawno mo uncoorn n.nonvoz
”one macamwooo n_mam:o
no>o Hosanna n.9ozuoe
coospon ownncowpmaom
oafino mo phonon» n.noeuoz mo. oa. pawns mo uncoosn n.noepmm
pawno mo phonon» m.nonumm mm. em. pawso mo woodman m.aonuoz
”one acoamwooo n_mamwo
no>o Honvcoo n.posumm
consume owechMHmHom
ownsamcc cowueaonaoo cofivmacnaoo coaumaonnoo
Howupmm cw panamcoo Hewunem neoAOtouoN

ea»: maouoeu

mo uncoosm m.uconmo presume oasecowuoaontns mwmccuoozm mo pace

.eafizo no>o Honucoo .muccsmo one oafigo

.ma manna

50

monUvmw

 

panama massage mo uncoorm n.oawno mo. mo. panama
unrefinotaoc mo unooosm n.oaw:o
panama
mNMEwaotco: mo pnooosn n.pa«£o so. no. panned hpmswno mo whooosm m.oawno
”one moowmwooo m.oawno ho>o
Honucoo panama unusahotco:
consume ownncowumacm
panama unusaao mo whooorm m.pdfino on. sun. panama
sueEMAQIcoc mo uncoorn n.odwzo
unease
macawnotcoc mo phoneme m.pafico mm.t e::.t panama sausage mo phonodn n.oawno
”one ecownwoeo n.oawgo
no>o Houpcoo panama unnamed
censure ownmcoHumaom
859. no Home; 3320 8.- 2.- possum mo Home... 9320
assume no Home; 9320 3. S. 8:6... .8 p.883 3320
"can uncanwooo p.320
nmso Honucoo m.no:uoe
consume magmcowpmaom
servos mo pecans». 9320 mm. «as. 83.3 we Home.» 9320
eunuch mo phonosn n.oaweo 50.: Hm.t nonvoe_mo pnomosm u.pawzo
”one maowmwooo m.oawno
no>o Hoppcoo n.aonpmm
consume ofismcowumaom
ownsmec< cowpmaesaoo ----.,mmwvmaonuoo cowvmaonnoo
Hmwuamm cw unmanaoo Hmaunom noonononow

odor unapomm

was mo phonon» e.oaano e consume

.eawgo no>o donpcoo .muconeo
oasecowueaoeutm mfimonuoomz mo pace .za magma

51

and the partial correlations suggests that the child support patterns have
only a slight influence on the degree of control parents exert over decisions
affecting a child. Thus, the hypothesis was not confirmed.

Child's contribution. The ninth hypothesis was concerned with the
percentage of the child's contribution to the family discussion and the
degree of control parents exert over their child's decisions:

H9: The more the child contributes to the family

discussion, the more the parents will let their
child make his own decisions.

The zero-order correlations were not greater than would be expected
from sampling error (Table 15). The data indicate virtually no relationship

between the variables. Thus, the hypothesis was not confirmed.

 

Table 15. Test of Hypothesis 9--relationship between the percentage of
a child's contributions and parents' control over child.

 

 

Zero-order
Correlation
Relationship between
the percentage of
child's contributions and:
Mother's control over child .01
Father's control over child -.01
Primary parent control over child -.11

Non-primary parent control over child .15

 

52

Child's information-seekipg,

Parents' support of child. The tenth hypothesis was concerned with a

 

parents' support of child and the child's use of personal and mediated
sources for ideas:

H10: The more support parents give their child's ideas,

the more often the child will seek information
from personal and mediated ’sources.

The zero-order correlations for the personal source variables are
presented in Table 17. Two out of the eight correlations were stable
estimates. However, when the partial correlations were computed, only one
correlation coefficient reached the prior—set significance level. The data
suggest that the greater the primary parent support of the child, the more
the child will use his mother, father, and other relatives in obtaining
information (.60).

Similarly, the zero-order correlations for the mediated sources are
presented in Table 16. Again, two out of eight zero-order correlations
were stable estimates. A comparison between the zero-order correlations
indicates only a slight reduction in the simple correlations. The data
suggest that father's support of child and primary parent support of child
have a moderate bearing on the likelihood that a child will use television,
movies and magazines as sources of information (.50 and .57). Thus, the

hypothesis received partial support.

53

HO.V.A¢¢

 

 

mo.V.A¢
pawso mo uncoosn panama macawnm 00. ca. pawno mo phonon» panama unmefinotgoz
cameo mo
uncoosm panama sausanotcoz seem. eemm. sawed mo «wooden unease sausage
pawno mo uncoosm m.nonpoz «om. seam. sawed mo “sconce m.nonumm
cameo mo whooosm n.9ozumm ma. ma. pawso mo phonon» m.nonuoz
”can nocwnmmoa one .mo«>oa
.>e mo and cesarean u.oawno
m censure awcmcoHumHom
pawco mo
whooosn panama hAMEahm mH.t Ha.t pawno mo uncoosn panama mumefinotcoz
pawno mo
uncoozm uconmo hnmsapotcoz ea. ma. pawno mo phonon» panama seesaam
oafico mo whooonm n.nonuoz :H.t oa.t adage mo phonon» n.aogumm
cameo mo «hoods» n.9onumm hm. mm. oaano mo «accuse n.90npoz
”new randomness
mo on: 93.on
m comrade owemcowueaem
manmwmcc coaumaehhoo .. coupeaonnoo cofipnaonhoo
Hewunmm a“ ucmuncoo defiance neonatonoN

can: naouoom

 

.uoonrou oouemoos no on: m.paano n can padre

mo woodman .npeoneo consume ownmoofiunaosttoa nfiuonuoohz mo Home .oa manna

su

pauco mo
ucooocn uconmo mnmauum

pause mo
ucooocm ucocmc scrawcotcoz

peace mo ucooocm m.cocuoz
pause mo ucoooc» m.cocumm

pause mo
uncoocn ucecmo zumeucm
cause mo

uncoocm ucocmm macawcotcoz

sauce mo uncoocm u.cocuoz
pause mo uncoocn n.cocuew

Ho.Vcea

move.

«0.: mo. sauce mo uncoocn ucocmo succucotcoz
aeoo. «com. sauce mo uncomcn uconeo sarcasm
mm. «as. pause mo ucooocw m.cocucm
am. so. cause mo uncoocn m.cocuoz

coco no>wumaoc ecu
.cocumm .cocuoa no can n.oawco
m coosuoc oucncofiumaom

ma. on. cause mo uncoocm ucocmo humeucotcoz
mo. NH. pawco mo ucooocn uconmo humEucm
mm. :m. pause mo unococn m.cocuom
mH.t Ha.t cause mo uncomcn m.cocuoz

“ecu 0mm cso

mac mcocuo mo on: m.pawco
e consume oucmcowumaom

 

nwmudmc< cowumaoccoo
Homucmm cw ucmumcoo
can: acouomh

MO

acuumwvccou ecuueaoccoo
Heuucem concatocou

.nooccom Hmconcoo mo and m.oauco o ecu sauce
uncoocn .mucoceo consume oucmcouucaocttoa manocuoosm mo umoa .ba manna

55

Child's support of parents. The eleventh hypothesis dealt with the
child's support of his parents and his use of personal and mediated sources
for ideas:

H11: The less support the child gives his parents'

ideas, the more often the child will seek
information from personal and mediated sources.

In regards to the personal-source variables, two out of eight zero-
order correlations were stable estimates, but not in the right direction to
support the hypothesis (Table 18). The partial correlations are only
slightly smaller than the zero-order correlations. The data indicate that
the greater the child's support of father and his support of the non-
primary parent, the more the child will use his mother, father, and other
relatives as sources of information (.81 and .51).

The zero-order correlations concerning the mediated sources were
not greater than would be expected from sampling error (Table 19). The
data suggest only a slight relationship between the variables. The
hypothesis was not confirmed, since the only two significant relation-
ships were in the wrong direction.

Child's contribution. The twelfth hypothesis dealt with the per-
centage of the child's contribution to the family discussion and his use
of personal and mediated sources for ideas:

H12: The more the child contributes to the family

discussion, the more often the child will seek
information from personal and mediated sources.

The four zero-order correlations were not greater than would be
expected from sampling error (Table 20). Three out of four of the relation-

ships were in the predicted direction, however. The hypothesis was not confirmed.

lulaI-ll-I-I-

e..-

I-l-.eu: U El~

Pi N

-. Ian I!!-

OI...-

U‘ u ltltvus cave-\fus

b It'ue.~

Uli

.NI.

\

Hogv 92s

mo.V ca
ucocmo znmauco mo uncoocm o.oauco seam. eemm. ucocoo auosacotcoc mo uncoocm m.oauco
ucmcoa
mascucctcoc mo uncoocn o.oawco mm.t mm.t ucocoo sausage mo uncoocm m.oauco
859.. .3 Home: ”.320 «3. «S. 85.3 so Home... ”.320
cocumm mo ucooocm m.oawco mo.t :m.t cocuos_mo uncoocm o.paaco
coco mo>uumamc oco .cocumu
.cmcuoe no on: o.oa«co
m cmosuoc oucmcowumaom
ucocmo
"w succeed mo ucooocm m.oawco mo.t mo.u ucoceo scmeucotcoc mo uncooom n.oaaco
ucocoo
Resonances mo 3.83:» 9320 so. 2. page >853 mo Haas; Page
86.8 .8 Home; «.320 3... 3... assume no Home; «.320
cocuom mo uncooco m.oauco ma. wm. cmcuoc mo ucooocm o.odmco

coco owe czo mac
ococuo we on: m.oauco
o cooxuoc oucncowumamm
onNHmc< cowumaoccoo ocuumamchoo coHumaoccoo
Heuuhmm cu ucmuocoo Hmuucmm coonouocou
odor ecouomm

.omoccom Heconcoo no on: m.oauco o ocm mucocmo
mo uncoocm m.oauco comsuoc oncchuuoHocttHH oumocuooum mo uoou .ma oacmu

.01-11.naa’6

1.800.050 D

II.-

.h’t-n.

'O\~

t 5

...C.§ un.-.§\A.-

crew

57

uconmo

ucmcmo

ucmcmo unscacotcoc mo uncoocn m.pawco
ucmcoo suoeuco mo uncoocm o.cawco

canyon mo unease» u.eaceo
85% so «some.» .636

”com nocwnowoe ocm

.oow>oe .>u no on: n.oHHco

m cmosuoc oucmcowuoaom
ucocmo hcoeucatcoc mo uncoocm m.oawco
ucmnmo anosaco mo usages» m.oauco

cocuom mo uncoocm o.oawco
cocuoe mo uncoocm m.pa«co

coco commomsoc

no one o.oauco
o comsuoc oucocOwumHom

 

sausage no unease. m.scaeo so. ma.
ucocmo hnoEHco
neon mo unease. m.ecaeo mm.- sm.-
mosses no phones. a.eaceo ~o.t so.
assume mo aromas. m.eaceo am.u mm.u
mum5w9o_mo ucooocm m.eawco mm. mm.
ucmcoo sarcasm
neon mo ucoaasm m.eaaeo mm. ma.
segues mo unease» o.ecaeu cm. «a.
assume no unease» m.ecaeo mm. as.
mmmwwoc< coaumamccoo .Lcowumaoccoo cowuoaoccoo t
Hosanna ea ueepmeoo finances cacao-ones

odor mcouoom

 

.mooccom oouowome.mo on: m.oafico m vcm mucocmo
mo uncooco m.oaaco coosumc oucmcoauoaocttaa mwmocuoo>r mo umme .ma manna

58

Table 20. Test of Hypothesis l2--relationship between the percentage of a
child's contribution and a child's use of both mediated and
personal sources.

 

Zero-order
Correlation
Relationship between the
percentage of a child's
contribution and:
Child's use of newspaper -.ou
Child's use of TV, radio, and
magazines -.16
Child's use of others his
own age .21

Child's use of mother, father,
and relatives -.22

 

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSIONS

Sumary ,;
One of the primary functions of the family is the preparation of a
child to leave home. This study focused on the question as to whether or

not there are characteristics of the communication between family members

 

that are associated with the child's growth toward emancipation from -
the family.

In order to determine the characteristics of the communication behavior
that occurs between family members, personal interviews were conducted in the
home of each family. The child's interaction with both his mother and father
was analyzed. In addition each child was asked to select the one parent from
whom he generally preferred to seek advice. The chosen parent's reaponses were
then analyzed in a "primary parent" index. It was felt that the interaction
between the child and his primary parent would be a good predictor of the
child's development, since this parent would have more of an opportunity to
influence the child's behavior.

A tape recording was made of the family members discussing various
topics that dealt with adolescent problems. Bach discussion was analyzed using
a modified form of Bales' interaction process-analysis categories. The
interaction indices showed, first, who initiated the communication and, second,

to whom it was directed. In this manner, interaction was divided into statements

59

60

offered to the family's solution of the problem and into positive or negative
responses to what was offered by each member. After completion of their dis-
cussion, each family member was asked to make judgments concerning the child's
level of autonomy.

Douvan et. al. states that one of the key concepts in the growth and
development of the child is the notion of autonomy. Adolescent autonomy
focuses on behavior and decisions. How much perceived influence does the 4
child have on his parents' decisions? 'How selfeconfident is he in his own i

decision-making ability? What decisions can he make for and by himself?

 

How often and from what sources does the child seek advice? The child may
show his growth in a number of ways but these four criterion measures were
investigated in this study.
The respondents selected for this study were 25 families which have
the following characteristics: (1) each family has a boy between 1n and
15 years-of-age; (2) each family is composed of the boy's natural parents;
and (3) the boy and his parents are living together in the same household.
The findings were grouped according to the four criterion measures
under study. In order to check Spurious relationships, partial correlation
analysis was used to partial out the influence attributable to one
variable while the relationship between two. other variables was studied. For
example, it was possible to partial out the influence attributable to "father's
support of child" in a discussion while checking on the relationship between
"mother's support of child" in a discussion and the "child's perceived in-

fluence on mother."

61

Child's perceived influence on parents

Parents' support of child. The first hypothesis concerned the relation-
ship between the parents' reinforcement of their child's ideas when discussing
family problems and the child's judgment as to his influence on his parents
in general. The analysis showed the more support the child received from his
umnher’in a discussion, the greater the child's perceived influence on her.
Alfihough not statistically significant, a similar trend was found between the
child and his father. Furthermore, the primagy parent's support of the child's
ideas (i.e., the parent from which the child prefers to seek advice) explained
more of the child's perceived influence on his parents than did the mother's
or father's support, when they were studied separately. The hypothesis was
supported as it pertains to mothers and primary parents.

Child's support of parents. The second hypothesis stated that, the
less the child supports his parents' ideas in a discussion, the more the
child will perceive that he influences his.parents. The findings suggested
the less the child supports his primagy parent in a discussion, the greater
his perceived influence on this parent. However, the data also indicated
that the l£§§_the child disagrees with his father, the more he will perceive
himself as influencing both his mother and his father. There seems to be a
trend for the child to find it easier to show disagreement with his mother's
ideas, while showing moderate support of his father's ideas in a discussion.
Therefore, the evidence only supports the hypothesis as it pertains to primary
parents.

Child's contribution. Also hypothesizid has the notion that, the more
the child contributes to a family discussion, the more the child will perceive

that he influences his parents. The hypothesis was not confirmed by the data.

 

62

Child's self-confidence in decision-making

Parents' support of child. The first hypothesis concerned the relation-

 

ship between the parents' support of their child's ideas in a discussion and
the child's indication of his perceived self-confidence in his own judgments.
The analysis suggested the more the mother, father, or primary parent support
the child in a discussion, the more the child will indicate that he is self-
confident in his own decisions. The hypothesis was supported as it pertains
to mother , father, and primary parents.

Child's support of Jarents. The second hypothesis stated that, the
less the child supports his parents in a conversation, the more the child will
indicate that he has self-confidence in his own judgments. The findings
indicated the less the child supports his primagz parent in a discussion, the
more the child perceives that he has self-confidence. A similar negative
relationship was found in regards to the child's support of his mother in a
discussion; while the relationship was slightly positive in regard to the
child's support of his father in a discussion. The data suggest support of
the hypothesis as it pertains to mothers and primary parents.

ghéild'sgcontribution. The final hypothesis of the series. suggested
themore the child contributes to the family discussion, the more the child

will indicate that he has self-confidence. It was not confirmed by the data.

Parent control over a child's decision-making

Parents' support of child. It was hypothesized that, the more support
parents give their child's ideas in a discussion, the more the parents claim
that they let their child make his own decisions. The data indicated that

the primafl parent's support of the child in a conversation has a fairly

 

63

strong bearing on the likelihood that the primary parent perceives that he

lets the child have a say in his own decisions. Also the data suggested that
the more a mother claims that she lets her child make his own decisions, the
more the father tends to support the child's ideas in a discussion. Similarly,
the more a father perceives that he lets his child make his own decisions, the
more the mother supports the child's ideas in a discussion. Only in the case r
of the primary parent was there a strong positive relationship between the
control exerted by a particular parent and the amount of support given to the

child by that same type of parent. The hypothesis was supported as it pertains

 

to primary parents.

Child's support of parents. The less support the child gives his parents'

 

ideas in a discussion, the more the parents perceive that they let their child
make his own decisions. There was a slight tendency toward this hypothesized
relationship between the primary parent and the child. However, since the
correlation coefficient did not reach the pre-defined significance level, the;
hypothesis was not confirmed.

Child's contribution. The third hypothesis in this series stated the
more the child contributes to the family discussion, the more the parents

perceive that they let their child make his own decisions. It was not supported.

Child's information-seekipg'

Parents' support of child. The hypothesis stated that, the more support
parents give their child's ideas in a discussion, the more often the child
claims that he seeks information from personal and mediated sources. News-
papers, television, magazines and movies fall into the mediated category and

all direct contacts with mother, father, others his own age, and relatives fall

61+

‘.

into the personal category. The analysis suggested that, the greater the

primary parent support of the child in a discussion, the more the child per-

ceives that he uses his mother, father, and other relatives for information.

In addition, the data indicated father and primary parent support of the child

in a discussion have a moderate bearing on the likelihood the child uses television
movies, and magazines as sources. On the other hand, the child's use of news-

papers and peers for ideas showed only a very slight relationship with parental

uni—-

support of the child's ideas in a conversation. The hypothesis was supported

as it pertains to primary parents. 3

 

‘V'l‘.

Child's support of parents. It was next hypothesized that, the £3
support the child gives his parents' ideas. in a discussion, the more often the
child claims that he seeks information from personal and mediated sources. The
findings suggested the greater the child's. support of his father's ideas in
a discussion, the more the child indicated his general use of mother, father,
and the other relatives as sources of information. However, the relationship
was not in the hypothesized direction. Furthermore, there were no significant
relationships concerning the mediated sources. Actually, the child's use of
newspapers showed a slight positive relationship with an increase in the child's
support of his parents' ideas in a discussion; while an increase in the child's '
use of television, movies, and magazines varied inversely with support of his
parents' ideas in a discussion. Thus, the hypothesis was not confirmed.

Child's contribution. The final hypothesis stated the more the child
contributes to the family discussion, the more often the child claims that he
seeks information from personal and mediated sources. The hypothesis was not

confirmed.

6S

Interpretation of Findings

The direction of adolescent growth is clearly toward emancipation from
the family. The period begins with the child almost entirely dependent on
the family, needing its say-so for what he can and cannot do, still clinging
to their ideas and ideals. It ends with the child reaching into adulthood,
freer to make up his mind about what he will and will not do, holding his
own beliefs andgvalues. ”The particular freedoms the child is given are the
visible part of a larger conversation between parent and child, having to do
with the child's need for later independence. It was the purpose of this study
to analyze the relationships between parent-child communication in family
conversations and the degree to which the child claims to have achieved inde-
pendence in his thoughts and actions.

A number of findings supported the hypotheses growing out of the ex-
ploratory framework. Some did not. Of the twelve hypotheses tested, five
were partially supported (H: l, u, 5, 7, 10). In regard to these hypotheses,
it turned out that the best predictor of the child's~perceived indpendence
was his communication style with his primagy parent. 'Of the remaining seven
hypotheses, two were not in the predicted direction (H: 2 and 11), and the
other five were not supported at all (H: 3, 6, 8, 9, 12). Most of these
hypotheses were concerned with the percentage of the child's contribution to
the family discussion, which seems to be a very poor predictor of the child's
perceived independence. In this situation, the researcher can ask whether it
was the theory or his Operationalization of the theory that led to non-significant

results.

66

Conceptual Evaluations

A basic consideration here is the assumed interrelationship of the
concepts in this study. Lack of earlier empirical evidence utilizing these
concepts in similar circumstances forced the hypotheses to be dram in such a

manner that the relationships assumed had only indirect support from existing

...v~I

literature. However, data from this study should provide some insight into

the assumptions underlying the conceptual framework used. Are all of these

A...

indices of a child's increased feeling of independence from his parents related

to a fair degree?

 

[FT ,

Interrelationship of the criterion measures. Implicit in the formulation
of the hypotheses was the assumed positive relationship between the child's
perceived influence on his parents, the child's perceived self-confidence,
parents' perceived control over the child, and the child's claimed information-
seeking behavior.

The relationship between the child's perceived influence and his self;

confidence can be shown as follows:

 

Zero-order
Child's self-confidence and: Correlation
Child's perceived influence on mother .69
Child's perceived influence on father .68
Child's perceived influence on primary parent .78

The finding of Thomas and Burdick (1951;), and Cohen (1956) that persons of
high self-esteem attempt to exert more influence has received additional
support. The assumption that the concepts of self-esteem and self-confidence

have some overlapping behavioral characteristics seems reasonable.

67

The relationship between the child's perceived influence on his parents
and the control parents indicate they exert over their child is somewhat
tenuous at this time, due to the weak measures of parental control. However,
fer the index which tapped the extent of control exerted by the primary parent
over the child, the six inter-item correlations ranged from .0“ to .65, with
the median correlation being .36. The relationships are as follows:

The degree to which the

 

primary parent lets the child Zero-order
make his own decisions and: Correlation
Child's perceived influence on mother .su
Child's perceived influence on father .75

Child's perceived influence on primary parent .80

The data reflect this in the finding that primary parent support of the child's
ideas in a discussion has a fairly strong bearing on the likelihood that the
primary parent will let the childhave a say in decisions that concern him.
Also, as would be expected, the more the primary parent indicates that he would
let the child make his own decisions, the greater the child's judgment as to
hiw own selfeconfidence in decision-making (.76).

Finally, the relationship between the child's perceived influence on
his parents and the child's use of various sources for ideas is presented.
The data indicate only a slight relationship between the child's claimed
use of either newspapers or peers for ideas and his perceived influence on
his parents. In contrast, however, the child's use of mother, father, and
relatives or his use of television, magazines and movies for ideas seems to

show a moderate relationship to the child's perceived influence on his parents.

68

Child's me of TV,

 

movies and magazines Zero-order
for ideas and: Correlation
Child's perceived influence on mother .3“
Child's perceived influence on father .33
Child's perceived influence on primary parent .142

Actually, only the relationship between the child's claimed use of television,
movies, and magazines for ideas and the child's perceived influence on his
primary parent is greater than would be. eXpected from sampling error. A much
stronger relationship is indicated between the child's claimed use of mother,
father, and relatives for ideas and the extent to which the child feels he

influences his parents .

Child's use of mother,

 

father, and relatives Zero-order
for ideas and: Correlation
Child's perceived influence on mother .65
Child's perceived influence on father .77
Child's perceived influence on primary parent .76

In addition, the extent of the child's self-confidence is positively
related to his use of television, magazines and movies (.60) and his use of
mother, father, and relatives (.65) for ideas. Similarly, the extent to
which a parent lets the child make his own decisions is positively related to
the same sources, reSpectively (.62 and .53).

In summary, it is noticeable with a few exceptions, the criterion measures
were related to each other in the assumed direction. Actually, the child's
indicated use of newspapers and peers for ideas were the only variables

negatively correlated with the other criterion measures under study. Also,

69

the concept of parent control over the child and its relationship to other
criterion measures could not be fully evaluated due to the lack of the in-
ternal consistency of the scales.

Relative predictive value of communication variables. The most con-
sistent predictors of the child's behavior were the primary parent's sup-

port of the child's ideas in a discussion and the lack of agreement shown by

{-.16-n fl

the child of his primary parent's ideas during the discussion. The relative

;!

predictive value of each of these communication variables was also calculated.

It was possible to partial out the influence attributable to the "non—

 

primary parent's support of the child" in a discussion, the "child's support
of his primary parent" in a discussion, and the "child's support of his non-
primary parent" in a discussion, while checking on the relationship between
the "primary parent's support of the child" in a discussion and the "child's
perceived influence on his primary parent." This procedure was followed for
each of the criterion measures under study.

Only in the case of the child's perceived influence on his primary
parent and the child's perceived selfeconfidence was it possible to compare
the relative predictive value of the communication variables. The reason was
that in regards to the primary parent's indicated control over the child and
the child's claimed information-seeking, the primary parent's support of the
child in a discussion was the only variable significantly related to these
criterion measures.

The data indicated that the primary parent's support of the child during
the discussion consistently explained more of the variability in the child's

behavior than did the lack of agreement shown by the child of his primary

70

Inuent's ideas in the discussion. The primary parent's support of the child
in a discussion explained 21 per cent of the variability in the child's per—
ceived influence on his primary parent, while the child's lack of agreement

with his primary parent's ideas accounted for 18 per cent of the variability.
Similarly, in explaining the child's perceived self-confidence, primary t
parent's support of the child's ideas during the discussion accounted for j
26 per cent of the variability in this behavior, while the child's lack of

agreement with his primary parent's ideas explained about 19 per cent.

 

Furthermore, the primary parent's support of the child in a conversation
explained #5 per cent of the variability in the primary parent's judgment
whether to let the child make most of his own decisions. In addition, primary
parent's support of the child's ideas during the discussion accounted for
29 per cent of the variability in the child's claimed use of television,
magazines, and radio for ideas and about 16 per cent of the variability in the
child's indicated use of his mother, father, and relatives as sources of
information.

Interrelationship of the_predictor measures. The initial assumption
was that in a discussion, parental support of the child's ideas would be
inversely related to the child's support of his parents' ideas (see page 38
for findings). The notion being, the more parents encourage their child to
express his own ideas, the greater'the probability that the child's ideas will
be in disagreement with that of his parents. A child that continually
receives reinforcement from his parents should not feel reluctant to express
mmtroversial ideas in a discussion with them.

The data, however, point out somewhat of a different trend. The assumed

71

./
inverse relationship holds between ,the child's support of his mother or

primary parent and their support of him in a discussion. On the other hand,
the relationship between the child's support of his father, and the mother

or father's support of the child in a discussion is strongly positive. The
original theoretical framework did not take into account that the child would
relate to his parents in different ways, but these data strongly suggest a
revision. Also, this could account for the reversed significant relationships
in Hypotheses 2 and 11.

The relationship between the concept of the child's contribution in a
discussion and the concepts of parent and child support in a discussion would
be difficult to analyze, since the data indicate that the range of former
concept was restricted. The restricted range of the child's contribution in
a discussion could be one factor which leads to lower correlations between it
and the other predictors. The magnitude of the correlation coefficient varies
with the degree of heterogeneity of the sample.

Furthermore, one of the most important findings of this study was that
neither the child's relationship with his mother or father explained the child's
behavior with any consistency. Only the child's relationship with his primary
parent seemed to be a regular predictor of the child's actions. Therefore,
the Split into mother-child and father-child interaction patterns does not
seem to be the most fruitful approach to the study of family communication.

Generalizability of the study. The present study concerned itself with
the process of building into a teen-agar the values that will enable him to
depart from a family subsystem into the larger social system. To extricate
himself from his irmnediate family, while teaching himself the norms of the

larger social system he must move into, he must break a number of existing

72

dependencies and acquire a certain independence in his own thoughts and
actions. The present study was designed to explore the patterns of communi-
cation within his immediate family which might aid him in learning how to
operate functionally in other social systems.

In other words, this study focussed on the general process of training
persons in the skills they need to know so that they can move from one system
to another without much difficulty. They are trained to "get along" within
the norms of the larger social system. The concern here, of course, is the
process by which they learn how to overcome the narrow norms of their family
subsystem, so that they can Operate effectively in other subsystems within the
larger social system.

This study dealt only with family communication. Whatever findings are
borne out by this analysis, however, should apply to the communication behavior
of persons in a wide variety of social situations. How strongly these findings
apply to diverse social situations is subject to future research of course.
However, it seems worth checking how strongly the socialization patterns
designed to create perceived independence of thought and action in the family
subsystem might alter a persons ability to adapt his behavior in other social
systems. For example, laborers and foreman in small work groups, if they have
management potential, tend to be trained to deve10p "independence" from the
norms of their immediate subsystem so that they can manage persons to be
productive in the goals of the larger social system. Through the process of
communication a person acquires a level of independence that enables him to
move with relative ease through social systems that vary in their norms and

goals.

 

 

ulna
,., y:-

to: ‘

vb.

.0”
l,-
-o u

a
' v
a

'.

-,.‘

u‘pu
-|\~

‘L!

y'a-

Ire.
I.”

’J

73

Methodological Evaluations
Better instrumentation. Several scale construction problems appeared.
Four out of five hypotheses not supported (H: 3, 6, 9, 12) dealt with the
percentage of the child's contribution to the total family discussion. If
the family members contribute equally to the discussion, each member would
have given one-third of the total contribution. Yet, one-third represented
the upper-limit of the child's contribution, with a mean response rating of
20 percent. This restriction of the range could have been partially responsible

fer the low correlations. However, it may not be reasonable to assume that a

 

child could contribute equally with his parents in a discussion. If this be
the case, the findings indicative virtually no relationship between the amount
the child contributes in a discussion and the rest of the variables under
study. Also, some scales that appeared in the questionnaire had reliability
problems. Two of the hypotheses not supported (H: 8 and 9) included indices
of parental control over the child. Two indices of control consisting of
four items each, were constructed to measure the amount of control the mother
and father exerted over their child. In both indices, one item correlated
negatively with the other three, resulting in very weak measures. Further-
more, the median correlations for the father and mother control indices were
.ou and .32, respectively, indicating a lack of unidimensionality of the
measures. Thus, the final analysis might have been confounded. Only in the
case of the primary parent did the scales meet acceptable standards.
Methodological alternatives. This study was limited to the extent that
only one question was used to find out the child's preference for one parent

or the other. In future studies, it might prove interesting to measure the

7'4

intensity of the child's feelings toward his parents. Also, instead of
forcing the child to pick one "primary" parent over the other, he should have
the alternative of selecting neither or pepp_parents as possible choices. Thus,
there are the problems of giving the child more meaningful choice-alternatives
and also determining how strongly he feels about the chosen parent.

In addition, whether the child prefers the same parent across a number of
different problem areas is another question which needs to be explored. As
the child's problems change, so might his choice of primary parent, which
suggests a need for a study which takes into account children at various ages
and the problems they encounter at various stages of life. One of the reasons
that only boys were included in this study was because girls do not tend to be
confronted with the same problems that boys do for a given age. A concern for
independence in boys, as earlier studies suggest, seems to take place at an
earlier age than a similar concern on the part of girls. This is an empirical
question, however, and needs further explication.

Also, in order to verify the child's choice of primary parent, each parent
should be asked the extent to which the child seeks information from either
his mother or father. Actually, relationships outside of the immediate family,
such as, peers and teachers should probably be taken into consideration since
the basic conceptual notion deals with people who exert influence on the child.
Are there distinct communication patterns between the child and his "primary"
source of information?

Discussion topics. Actual discussion time for the families ranged from

 

8 to 32 minutes, with an average (mean) time of 19 minutes. The "support

patterns" constructed from the discussion, in some cases, could have been somewhat

75

restricted in variability. Theoretically, the potential range of the patterns
was from +1 to -l, but none of them approached the limits. For example, primary
parent support of the child ranged from +.u0 to -.30, with an average (mean)
response of +.03. This pattern exhibited more variability than any of the
others. Possibly, increased variability on the measures would be obtained by T.
using a greater number of or more salient tOpics for discussion. I)
Assumption of linearity. As mentioned previously, the zero-order
correlations were checked to determine whether the assumption of linearity was

reasonable. The data shown in Appendix F indicated that only a very few of

 

the relationships might be suspect. On the whole, linearity did not seem to
be a factor in the low correlations in this study.

Sa_1_npling frame. Instead of the correlational approach used in this study,
another type of analysis could have been performed on the data. When dealing
with relationships between individuals and not the individual as the unit of
analysis, a conditional probability analysis could be performed on the data.
For example, the sequence of communicative utterances could be counted and the
probability of who talks to whom and in what order could be estimated. With
a mother, father, and a child in a discussion situation, the mother can either
talk to her husband or the child, the father can talk to his wife or his child,
and the child can either talk to his mother or father. Thus there are six
possible combinations of communication sequences and when these are analyzed
over an entire discussion, a "style" or a number of communication patterns
could be established for that family. In a similar manner, it was the intent
of this study to explore recurrent communication relationships between family

members and the extent to which these relationships are common across families.

76

Contributions of the Study

The evidence from this study suggests that family communication patterns
are important in explaining a child's development. Sole reliance on the child's
relationship with either his mother or father does not seem to point up any
recurrent communication patterns. Only when the child's interaction with his
primary parent is analyzed does a consistent pattern become apparent.

The child who perceives himself as influencing his primary parent re-
ceives encouragement and support of his ideas from that parent. This finding
fellows from two theoretical propositions and one basic assumption. Costley
(196%) indicates that the fewer non-supportive statements made by the group
members, the more a member's personal attraction to the group. In addition,
Cartwright and Zander (1953) state that attracted members are more likely to
accept others' opinions and more often change their minds to take the views of
fellow members. In order to tie the propositions together, it is necessary to
assume that parents who make few non—supportive statements to their children
will also be inclined to make more supportive statements. Therefore, the
finding not only supports the hypothesis drawn from these propositions but adds
greater specificity to the relationships within the family to which it applies.

Both Gibb (1951) and Likert (1961) suggest that a democratic leadership
style involves giving the group members ample opportunity to express their
thoughts without being constrained by the leader pressing his own views. In
the same manner, Douvan and Adelson (1966) report that democratic families
tend to tolerate disagreement, while also having highly attracted members. As
suggested before, attracted members are more accepting of other's Opinions and

more often change their minds to take the views of fellow members. In this study,

77

the finding that the less the child supports his primary parent in a discussion,
the more his perceived influence on this parent follows from the above prOpo-
sitions.

Douvan and Adelson furthermore suggest that children from democratic
homes indicate a high level of participation in family decisions. Also, in a
democratic family, support and participation are related to personal attraction;
and attracted members more readily try to influence each other. However, from
monitoring family discussion, the hypothesis that the more the child con-
tributes to the discussion, the more the child will perceive that he influences
his parents, is not confirmed.

The rationale used in the development of the propositions dealing with a
child's perceived influence is the same one used in explaining the development
of a child's self-confidence. It has been shown that the child's perceived
influence on his parents and his self-confidence are highly related. The
findings suggest that the child who indicates that he is fairly self-confident
in his own ability to make decisions also receives support of his ideas from
his primary parent. Again, the child who can openly disagree with his primary
parent seems to develop self-confidence in his own judgments. A parent who
listens with attentiveness, communicates to his child that his ideas are valued
and that he is respected. Such respect gives the child a sense of self-con-
fidence. The feeling of personal worth might enable the child to deal more
effectively with his own problems.

Since perceived influence and self-confidence are suggested as important
factors in the child's development, a similar rationale seems tenable in regards
to parents' allowing their child to make most of his own decisions. Costley

(1964) reports fewer non-supportive statements made by group members, the more

 

.Q

on. ‘

5‘s

.4‘

Ms"

1:;

¥

 

“in ,
V. y

78

the group members are satisfied with group decisions. Sargent (l96u)
indicates that democratic leaders tend to make a high proportion of supportive
statements, while phrasing most of their contributions in the ferm of questions,
suggesting that parents with democratic values might indicate greater satisfaction
with the child's decisions. The findings from this study indicate that primary
parent support of the child in a discussion varies directly with the parent's
judgment whether to let the child make hisown decisions.

Unlike the relationship between a child's support of his primary parent
in a conversation, and the child's perceived influence and self-confidence,
the child's support of his primary parent in a conversation has only a slight
influence on whether the parent lets the child make his own decisions. Similarly,
the child's contribution to the family discussion has virtually no influence on
the primary parent's decision.

Finally, McLeod, Chaffee, and Wackman (1967) indicate that children
from democratic homes are well informed and use the media for infermation.
They also point out that democratic families encourage a child to explore new
ideas and controversial material. The findings here indicate that support by
the child's primary parent in a discussion has a direct bearing on the child's
use of his mother, father, and relatives for ideas and his use of television,
movies, and magazines as sources of information. As before, the child's
support of his primary parent in a discussion is not related to his use of
these personal and mediated sources for ideas. In addition, the child's
interaction with his primary parent does not influence the child's claimed
use of newspapers or peers as sources of ideas. Also, the amount the child

contributes to the family discussion is not related to his use of these sources.

79

In the long-run the significance of these findings lies in the fact
that usually the child observes the behavior of his parents and incorporates
these behaviors into his own personality structure. The personality in the
child develops slowly. A certain type of personality emerges or becomes
stabilized to a degree by the interactive process of defining acts of others
and thus becoming aware of one's own actions. This results in a persistent

or stable pattern of behavior.

Suggestions for Future Research

In light of the findings of the exploratory study, attention now can be
given to the consideration of future attempts in this direction.

The findings dealing with the primary parent's relationship with the
child seem to be a most fruitful area for further study. The concept of
primary parent consistently aided in explaining the child's behavior. For
example, primary parent support of the child during the discussion, explained
u2 percent of the child's perceived influence on his primary parent.

A question that presents itself is, what is the nature of the communi-
cation between the child and his primary parent, regardless of parent's sex?
Also, what other factors in the child's development are nourished by the
child's interaction with this parent? A greater understanding of the child's
preference for one parent or the other may be a promising area for communi-
cation research.

The group leader in the small group research may be compared with the
concept of primary parent in the family, since both tend to encourage and
support their members. However, the authority of the group leader stems from

his position, whereas, this notion does not necessarily hold for the primary parent

 

 

 

 

80

This might lead one to ask about the relationship between family communication
patterns and the nature of the power structure within the family.

Also, the child's use of personal and mediated sources for information
might be studied more closely. Why was the child's use of peers and news-
papers for ideas negatively correlated with his use of the other sources?

Are his use of television and movies a means of maintaining social relations
within the family? Or better still, what are the functions served for the
child by his use of various personal and mediated sources?

It would be desirable to study a group of boys and girls over time as
they move up to, and then through, one or more of these stages in their develop-
nent. Not only should such a longitudinal study shed further light on this
communication process and the factors involved, but it also would serve as a
check on how well the present technique estimates the state of the relation-

ships between family members.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

‘ .

Back, K. "Influence Through Social Communication," Journal of Abnormal
Social Psychology, No. #6 (1951), 9-23.

Bales, R.F. Interaction Process Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley, 1950.

Burgess, E.W., and Locke, H.J. The Family From Institution to Companionship.
New York: American Book Company, 1945.

Cartwright, D. and Zander, A. Group Dynamics: Research and Theogy.
Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson and Company, 1953.

Cohen, A.R. "Experimental Effects of Ego-Defense Preferences on
Interpersonal Relations," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology,
No. 52 (1956), 19-27.

Costley, Dan Lanier. "A Study of the Relationships Between Selected
Factors in Interpersonal Communication and Group Attraction."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Communication,
Michigan State University, 196%.

Douvan, Elizabeth, and Adelson, Joseph. EmergLing Conceptual Frameworks
in Family Analysis. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1966.

 

Festinger, L.; Pepitone, A.; and Newcomb, T. "Some Consequences of
De-individuation in a Group," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology,
No. #7 (1952), 382-389.

Festinger, L.; Schachter, 8.; and Back, K. Social Pressures in Informal
Gropps. New York: Harper, 1950.

Gerard, H.B. "The Effects of Two Dimensions of Disagreement on the
Influence Process in Small Groups," Human Relations, No. 6 (1953),
2u9-271. ) .

Gibb, C.A. "An Experimental Approach to the Study of Leadership,"
Occupational Psychology, No. XXV (1951), 233-2u8.

Hall, Calvin S.; and Hill, Rueben. The Family: A Dynamic Interpretation.
New York: John Wiley 8 Sons, Inc., 1957.

Hill, Rueben, and Hansen, Donald A. "The Identification of Conceptual
Frameworks Employed in Family Study," Marriage and Family Living,
No. 22 (November, 1960), 299-311.

Huntington, Robert M. "New Approaches in Family Research: A Symposium;
the Personality-Interaction Approach to Study of Marital
Relationship," Marriage and Family Living, No. 20 (February, 1958),
"’3" 1+6 0

81

82

Kenkel, William F. The Family in Perspective. 2nd ed. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1961.

 

Kirkpatrick, Clifford. The Family: As Process and Institution. New York:

7 \ The Ronald Press Company, 1945.

Iewin, K.; Lippitt, R.; and White, R.K. ‘"Patterns of Aggressive Behavior
in Experimentally Created 'Social Climates'," Journal of Social
Psycholggy, No. X (1939), 271-299.

 

Iikert,Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

 

McLeod, Jack M.; Chaffee, Steven H.; and Wachman, Daniel B. "Family
Communication: An Updated Report," Paper presented to the Theory
and Methodology Division Association for Education in Journalism,
University of Wisconsin, 1967.: i

r I!

McNemar, Quinn. Psychological StatiStics. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley

and Sons, Inc., 1949, p. 167. _g g

'1‘

 

, ,.,
Nye, F. Ivan; and Berardo, Felix M. Eme in Conce tual Frameworks in
Family Analysis. New York: ‘Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1955.

Riley, Matilda White; and Riley, John W. Jr. "A Sociological Approach to
Communications Research," Public Opinion Quarterly, (1951), 445-460.

 

Rogers, Carl R. ‘Qn Becoming a Person: A Therapist's View of Psycho-
therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961.

Sargent, James Franklin. "Differences in Communication Behaviors of
Authoritarian and Democratic Leaders," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Communication, Michigan State University, 1964.

Schachter, 8. "Deviation, Rejection, and Communication," Journal of
Abnormal Social.P§ycholpgy, No. 46 (1951), 190-207.

 

 

Strodtbeck, Fred L. "Family Interaction, Values and Achievement,"
Talent and Sociegy. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1958.

Stryker, Sheldon. "The Interactional and Situational Approaches,"
Handbook of Marriage and the Family. Chicago: Rand McNally 8
Company, 1964, 125-170.

"Symbolic Interaction as an Approach to Family Research,"
Marrigge and FamilyLiving, No. 21 (May, 1959), 111-119.

 

Terman, Lewis M. Esychological Factors in Marital Happiness. New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1938.

Thomas, E. and Burdick, H. "Self-esteem and Defense Preference as Related

to Social Behavior." Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan,
1954.

Truxal, Andrew G.; and Merrill, Francis E. Marriage and the Family.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1953.

 

83

Vogel, Ezra R.; and Bell, Norman W. "The Emotionally Disturbed Child as
the Family Scapegoat," A Modern Introduction to the_Family.
New York: Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1960, 382-397. \

Waller, Willard; and Hill, Rueben. The Family: A Dynamic Interpretation,
rev. ed. New York: The Dryden Press, Inc., 1951.

Winch, Robert F. Mate Selection: A Study of Complimentary Needs. New York:
Harper 8 Row, Pub., 1958.

White, R.K.; and Lippitt, R. Autocracy and Democra_y. New York: Harper
8 Harper, 1960.

 

tin-av .z. .

 

APPENDIX A

 

LETTER SENT TO RBSPONDENTS

85

July, 1968
Dear Mr. 8 Mrs.

Most of us recognize that what we say to others is pretty important. We
are interested in the important communication within families; that is,
what do families talk about and how do they talk about certain tapics.
We would, therefore, like to study the communication which goes on between
members of a family. meq
E

We are graduate students in the Department of Communication at Michigan
State University. Our interests are in looking at patterns of discussion
within families as they relate to other kinds of social activity, such as,
where you go to look for ideas about particular topics, and how you go
about making decisions about things of concern to the family. ~-,_

 

Your family (father, mother, and teen-age son) would be asked to participate I
by sitting and discussing a few topics, such as school activities, dating, "“'
and so forth. This discussion would take about one half hour followed by

a short questionnaire concerning how you make the daily decisions of

concern to your family. You can be assured that the answers of any

specific family will not be made public. We are interested in groups

of families only, and in their patterns of discussion.

In two or three days we will be contacting you by phone to ask for your
c00peration in discussing among yourselves, topics concerned with areas
of interest to you and your family. We hope that you will agree to help
us in our graduate programs.

Thank you for your time in reading this letter. We hope that you will be
interested in our research and find an hour in your day in which to help .us.

Sincerely ,

Daniel E. Costello Duane D. Pettersen
Graduate Assistant Graduate Assistant

APPENDIX B

DEFINITIONS OF INTERACTION ANALYSIS CATEGORIES

 

87

I. POSITIVE SOCIALPEMOTIONAL REACTIONS

Acts of Active Solidarity and Affection. Includes greeting another
kw saying "hello" or in some other friendly manner, welcoming another,
was in return to a friendly gesture, accepting an offer of help or
assistance, thanking another, indications of mannerly considerations,
indications of good will, indications that the actor is friendly. A
:fidendly comment on the weather or some other matter of common interest
n>"break the ice." The expression of sympathy - "I can see how you feel."
Any indication in the course of interaction that the relationship is
becoming intimate or familiar. Any act of adherence where the actor
chooses to be a fellow member with another.

Status-Raising Acts. Includes all acts which have the specific

 

afim or effect of raising or enhancing the other's status. Including
praising, rewarding, boosting the other, giving approval or encouragement.
Examples: "That's fine," "That's a good idea," "Swell," "You've covered
a lot of ground today." Complimenting, congratulating showing approval
of another, giving credit to another, showing enthusiasm for another's
_views. Expressing gratitude or appreciation, showing admiration or
respect.

Responses to Shows of Tension. Includes any behavior in which the
actor offers assistance to another. Any act of sharing. Any behavior in
which the actor defends another. Giving support, reassurance, comfort,
encouragement, showing of sympathy.

Responses to Disagreements. Includes acts which may appear after

 

a situation of difficulty, such as interceding, mediating, or moderating
in a difficulty between two others. Any act where the actor urges unity

or harmony, agreement, cooperation, or expressed other values of solidarity.

 

88

In cases of disagreement or antagonism between members, the suggesting of
a compromise.

Indications of Relief. Includes exPressions of fieling better

 

after a period of tension, any manifestation of cheerfulness, satisfaction,
enjoyment, pleasure, delight, joy, happiness. Positive responses to a
compliment. Includes the making of friendly jokes, trying to amuse or
entertain. Positive responses to joking, such as smiling, grinning, or
chuckling.

Regaonses to Acts of Decision with Agreement. Includes any con-
currence in a proposed course of action. Examples: "I second the motion,"
"Let's do that." Includes any act in which the actor either verbally or
overtly complies with a request or suggestion. Agreement with an obser-
vation or report, or analysis which another has made. Examples: "That's
the way I see it too," "I think you are right about that," "Yes, that's
true." Similarly includes agreement, approval, or endorsement of an ex-
pression of value or feeling. Examples: "I feel the same way you do ,"

"I hope so too," "That's right." Includes giving any sign of recognition,
interest, receptiveness, readiness, reaponsiveness. Includes giving specific
signs of attention to what the other is saying by nodding or saying "I see,"
"Yes." Includes showing comprehension, understanding, or insight. Examples:
"Oh," "I see," "Yes ," "Sure, now I get it." Includes admitting an error or
oversight, admitting that some objection or disapproval is valid, conceding
a point to the other, giving way, withdrawing politely. Examples: "Now I
may be wrong about this. . ." "This is not an important point perhaps . . ."
Includes any indication of a permissive attitude, where another is led to
understand that he is accepted "as he is ," so that the incorrectness of

his solution to any problem or the quality of his performance does not

 

89

adversely affect his status, so that he can "make mistakes without blame."
Includes any act in which the actor submits passively, accepts coercion,
criticism, without retaliation, rebuttal, rebellion, or complaint.

II. ATTEMPTED ANSWERS: TASK AREA

 

Giving Suggestions or Direction Related to Task. Includes all acts

 

which suggest concrete ways of attaining a desired goal by attacking or
modifying the outer situation, or by adapting activity to it, proposing

a solution, indicating or suggesting where to start, what to do, how to
c0pe with a problem in terms of action in the near future. Includes
giving instructions or making proposals, showing where, when, how, why,
something is to be done. Examples: "We will have to stop at the end of
one-half hour." "Consider for a moment what would happen if..." "Suppose
we set up the following situation..." "Go right ahead." Includes direct
attempts to guide the others regarding some activity, to persuade someone,
to urge or to inspire someone.

Giving Opinions, Evaluations, or Analysis. Includes all indications

 

of thought-in-process leading to an understanding, such as reasoning,
thinking, or concentrating. The actual statement of a hypothesis or ex-
pression of understanding or insight. Includes logical elaboration,
exploration, or testing of a hypothesis, whether by example, analogy,
analysis of cause and effect relations, categorical labeling or any sort
of conjectural process. Includes any expression of desire, want, liking,
wishing, any expression of moral obligation, any affirmation of values,
any statement of intention, referring to a broad and indefinite future
time perspective, as yet unimplemented as to ways and means. Examples:
"I think we ought to be fair about this." "I hope we can do something

about that." "That seems to be the right thing to do." Includes activity

T’“”‘

 

1%,,” A .
A) “‘zflie.

90

in which the actor attempts, by inference or reasoning, to understand or
interpret his own motivation or the "why" of his own behavior in relation
to the prdblem being discussed. Examples: "I can see now that I mis-
judged the situation." "I think I behave that way because..." Includes

activity in which the actor attempts to understand the motivation or

activities of others in relation to the problem situation. Includes all T"ޤ
statements about the nature of the outer situation in relation to the nnf
group.

Giving Orientation, Information or Clarifying, Includes all acts

 

which are intended to focus attention on the problem to be discussed,
calling attention to what one is going to say, or pointing out the relevance
of what one is saying. Examples: "There are two points I'd like to make."
"In the first place..." "Now with regard to our problem of..." "Going

back for a moment..." "What I am about to say relates to..." Includes
efforts to prevent or repair breaks in the flow of communication, such as,
repeating, clarifying confusion about something said, explaining, summarizing,
restating. Includes any account of one's own private experience where the
actor tells what he felt, what was done, how it was done, the position he
took on some issue. Includes showing an understanding of the other or
something the other has said by restating or reporting the essential
content of what has been said. Includes statements of fact about the nature

of the outer situation facing the group.

III. QUESTIONS: TASK AREA

 

Asking for Orientation of Information. Includes acts which indicate
or express a lack of knowledge, confusion or uncertainty about the position

of the group with regard to its task, about what has been said or is going

91

on, about the meaning of a word or phrase. Includes the appearance of any
attitude the observer would describe as puzzled, bewildered, or baffled.
Examples: "What?" "What was that?" "I don't quite get what you mean."
"Where are we?" "Where do we stand now?" Includes direct or outright
questions which require the giving of a factual answer. Also includes
more indefinite expressions of a lack of knowledge. Examples: "I don't
know about this." "It isn't clear to me." "It may be true, or it may not
be."

ASE£2§,f°P Opinion, Evaluation, or Analysis. Includes any kind of
question which attempts to encourage a statement or reaction on the part
of another without limiting the nature of the response. Examples:

"Tell me more about it." "Tell me more about..." "What do you think?"
"What should our policy be?" Includes inferences or evaluations requested.
Examples: "How long do you suppose it will be?" "I can't figure out

how long it would take." "I wonder if there are any other possibilities?"
"Why do you think you feel that way?"

Asking for Suggestions or Direction. Includes requests for suggestions
as to what should be done in terms of finding ways, means, and solutions,
requests for suggestions as to where to start, what to do next, what to
decide. Examples: "I wonder what we can do about this?" "I don't know

what to do." "What do you suggest?"

IV. NEGATIVE SOCIALPEMOTIONAL REACTIONS

 

Disagree or Shows Passive Rejection. Includes passive forms of re-

 

jection such as remaining immobile, rigid, silent, uncommunicative,
responseless, in the face of overtures of others. Working at something

other than the problem with which the group is concerned. Includes

 

92

disagreement, disbelief, incredulity regarding reports and observations
made by others. Includes failure to give requested repetition, ignoring a
request of any kind or a complaint. Examples: "I don't think so." "I'm
not going to repeat it."

Showing Tension, Asks for Help, Includes all manifestations of

 

impatience, indications that the subject feels strained, on edge, restless,
agitated. Includes any manifestation or indication to the observer that
the actor is startled, alarmed, dismayed, or has misgivings about something
he has done or intends to do. Any show of anxious emotionality, such as

lesitation, speechlessness, trembling, blushing, stammering. Includes

nervous or apologetic acts where actor admits his own ignorance or incapacity.

Acts of blaming, belittling, accusing, condemning, scorning, humiliating.
Includes expressions of unhappiness, discouragement, despair, brooding,
distress, discomfort, fatigue. Showing any kind of need to be supported,
forgiven, consoled. Includes any behavior which indicates that the actor
is unattentive, bored, or psychologically withdrawn - slouching, yawning,
daydreaming.

ShowinglAntaggnism. Includes the arbitrary assignment of a role,

 

a defining or restricting of another's power by demands or commands such

as "Come here!" "Stop that!" "Hurry up!" "Get out!" Includes acts that
are assertive, inconsiderate, repressive. Includes any act in which the
actor rejects, refuses, or ignores directions, shrugging the shoulders,
avoiding or quitting activities. Includes aggressive acts such as griping,
nagging, annoying, disturbing, or pestering others. Includes attempts

to override the other in conversation, interrupting the other. Active
attacks on another's status, any implication of inferiority or incompetence
on the part of another. Includes making charges against another, blaming,

imputing unworthy motives, denouncing. Includes any acts of disapproval

 

93

of self, or of others. Includes any behavior in which the actor appears
to be provoking or irritating. Includes threats, attacking and challenging

others.

 

APPENDIX C

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

 

 

95,,

Below are a series of situations which are discussed in most families at
one time or another. Families seem to handle the problems in different

ways. We would like for you to discuss among yourselves as many points

of view that you are familiargwith. From these different views, select

a view which represents the thinking of your family.

Please spend some time with each of the situations. There are no right
or wrong answers...only what your family feels is the most appropriate
answer for the situation. You will have 30 minutes to discuss all four
situations below. Don't worry about the time; we will inform you when
the half hour is up.

 

(1) It has been proposed that the minimum age for getting a drivers'
license be raised from age 16 to age 18. Discuss the different
points of view that you are familiar with on this topic, and select
one which represents the thinking of your family.

(2) Some parents feel that if their teen-age son or daughter wants to
smoke, the choice should be left up to the teen-ager. Other parents
insist that their teen-age son or daughter may smoke only when the
parents consider them ready to smoke. Discuss the different points
of view that you are familiar with on this tapic, and select one
which represents the thinking of your family.

(3) Some parents allow their teen-age son or daughter to go to movies
based on violence, sex, and other adult themes. Other parents regard
films recommended for adults only as strictly off-limits, until the
teen ager is older and more mature in his thinking. Discuss the
different points of view that you are familiar with on this topic,
and select one which represents the thinking of your family.

(4) Some parents feel that their teen-age son or daughter should be
allowed to wear their hair or clothes in keeping with the current
fads. Other parents insist that conformity to teen age fads is
unnecessary and that teen-agers should leave the final decision up
to their'parents. Discuss the different points of view that you are
familiar with on this topic, and select one which represents the
thinking of your family.

 

97

CHI LD' S QUEST IONNAI RE

_I

To begin with...what specific topics ”are discussed m_o_s_t often in your family
at meal-time?

 

 

 

I‘d like you to read each of the following questions carefully...then place
an "X" in the blank in front of the answer you consider most appropriate.
Please choose only one answer for your father...and gn_e_ answer for your
mother for each ques_t-i-0n.

 

11-12 About how often would you say your parents ask you for your opinion

 

on family decisions? L j;
MOTHER FATHER
Several times a week Several times a week
About once a week _About once a week
—Once or twice a month —Once or twice a month
:Less than once a month :Less than once a month

13-14 If your parents said that they depended a great deal on your
judgment regarding family decisions, would you believe them?

MOTHER FATHER
Yes Yes
I guess so --_I guess so
:Probably not :Probably not
___No ___NO

15-16 Compared with other teen-agers...are you more likely, or less likely...
to be asked by your parents for Opinions on family decisions?

MOTHER FATHER

_More likely _More likely
:Less likely :Less likely
__About the same :About the same

17-18 In regards to family decisions, would you like to think your parents
consider your opinions?

MOTHER FATHER

__Yes _Yes

__I guess so :I guess so
__Probably not :Probably not

No —No

97

CHI LD' S QUESTIONNAIRE

in!

To begin with...what specific topics are discussed m_o_s_t Often in your family
at meal-time?

 

 

 

I'd like you to read each of the following questions carefully...then place

an"X" in the blank in front of the answer you consider most appropriate.
Please choose only one answer for your father. .and O_n_e answer for your
mother for each quest1on.

ll-12 About how Often would you say your parents ask you for your Opinion
on family decisions?

MOTHER FATHER
Several times a week _Several times a week
_About once a week _About once a week
Once or twice a month Once or twice a month
:Less than once a month :Less than once a month

13-14 If your parents said that they depended a great deal on your
judgment regarding family decisions, would you believe them?

MOTHER FATHER
_Yes _Yes
—I guess 80:1 guess so
_Probably not :Probably not
___No ___No

15-16 Compared with other teen-agers...are you more likely, or less likely...
to be asked by your parents for Opinions on family decisions?

MOTHER FATHER

_More likely _More likely
:Less likely :Less likely
_About the same :About the same

17-18 In regards to family decisions, would you like to think your parents
consider your Opinions?

MOTHER FATHER

_Yes Yes

_I guess so :1 guess so
__Probably not :Probably not

_No :NO

 

98

19-20 When you discuss family decisions with your parents, what part do
you usually play?

MOTHE R FATHER

I talk mostly I talk mostly
I mainly listen I mainly listen
A little of both A little of both

Now, I would like for you to read about some problems that teen-agers your
age sometimes face. Listed below are some of the possible ways of finding
answers to these problems.

If you were concerned about finding a part-time job and uncertain as to what
choice to make, how often would you look for ...

OFTEN NOW 8 THEN SELDOM NEVER

 

 

 

21. IDEAS for newspapers
22. IDEAS from your mother
23. IDEAS from television

24. IDEAS from others your age

 

25. IDEAS from magazines
26. IDEAS from your father
27. IDEAS from movies

28. IDEAS from other relatives

 

 

 

 

If you needed to buy clothes for school and uncertain as to what choice to
make, how often would you look for ...

 

 

OF'I‘EN NOW 5 THEN SE LDOM NEVER

 

29. IDEAS from newspapers

30. IDEAS from your mother

 

31. IDEAS from television

 

32. IDEAS from others your age
33. IDEAS from magazines

34. IDEAS from your father

 

35. IDEAS from movies

 

36. IDEAS from other relatives

 

 

 

 

37. On matters such as jobs and clothing, if you could ask for ideas from
only one of your parents, which parent would you ask? Mother Father

 

98L

Ikw here is a different kind of question. Place an "X" in the blank in
:fixmt of the answer'you consider most apprOpriate.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

l«‘3.

an,

45.

47.

If you had just bought new clothes for school, how sure would you be
that you had made the best choice possible?

Very sure
Sure
Not sure

If you had just joined a new club at school, how sure would you be
that you had made the best choice possible?

Very sure
Sure
Not sure

If you had just accepted a part-time jcb for this summer, how sure
would you be that you had made the best choice possible?

Very sure
Sure
Not sure

Finally...just a few more questions about yourself...what is your age?

And what was the last grade you completed in school?

 

Are you taking or going to take a college prep or vocational or business
training courses in high school?

College prep.
Vocational
Business

What Subject is easiest for you?

What subject is hardest for you?

 

For the first 10 years of your childhood, what state or country did
you live in for most of these years?

 

Did you live primarily in a rural (farm) or urban (city) area during
this time? rural urban

Do you speak a language other than English? Yes NO

What language ?

 

Does anyone else in your family Speak it? Mother Father

Is it used frequently in the home? Yes NO

APPENDIX D

MOTHER'S QUESTIONNAIRE

100

To begin with...what specific topics are discussed most often in your family
at meal-time?

 

 

 

I'd like you to read each Of the following questions carefully...then
place an "X" in the blank in front of the answer you consider most
appropriate. Please choose only one answer for each question. .

In general, how are most decisions made between you and your teenage son
on the following Situations . . .

11.

12.

13.

14.

 

If your son needed new clothes for school...does he usually choose
his own, or do you decide for him?

I always decide for him

I often decide for him

Every now and then I decide for him
I seldom decide for him

I never decide for him

 

 

 

 

In regards to your son's friends...does he usually choose his own,
or do you suggest who they should be?

I always suggest to him

I Often suggest to him

Every now and then I suggest to him
I seldom suggest to him

I never suggest to him

 

 

 

 

When your son goes out with others his own age..does he usually come
home when he wants to, or do you usually remind him of what time to
be home?

I always remind him

I often remind him

Every now and then I remind him
I seldom remind him

I never remind him

In regards to your son's dating...does he usually determine how
often he goes out, or do you tell him when he is allowed to date?

I always tell him

I often tell him

Every now and then I tell him
I seldom tell him

I never tell him

 

 

 

 

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

101

Finally...a few questions about yourself...what is your age?

And what was the last grade you completed in school or college?

How many children do you have living?

 

What are their ages?

Does anyone else live with your family? Who?

 

Do you speak a language other than English? Yes No
What language ?
Does anyone else in your family speak it? Husband Teen-age son

Is it used frequently in the home? Yes No

For the first 10 years of your childhood, what state or country
did you live in for most of these years?

Did you live primarily in a rural (farm) or urban (city) area during
this time? rural urban

What is your family's religion?

Protestant
Catholic
Jewish
Other

 

 

 

 

I

APPENDIX E

FATHER'S QUESTIONNAIRE

103

To begin with...what Specific tOpics are discussed most often in your
family at meal-time?

 

 

 

I'd like you to read each of the following questions carefully...then place
an "X" in the blank in front of the answer you consider most appropriate.
Please choose only one answer for each question.

In general, how are most decisions made between you and your teenage son
on the following situations. . .

11.

12.

13.

14.

 

 

If your son needed new clothes for school...does he usually choose his
own, or do you decide for him?

I always decide for him

I often decide for him

Every now and then I decide for him
I seldom decide for.him

I never decide for him

 

 

 

 

In regards to your son's friends...does he usually choose his own,
or do you suggest who they should be?

I always suggest to him

I often suggest to him

Every now and then I suggest to him
I seldom suggest to him

I never suggest to him

 

 

 

 

When your son goes out with others his own age...does he usually
come home when he wants to, or do you usually remind him of what
time to be home?

I always remind him

' I often remind him

Every now and then I remind him
I seldom remind him

I never remind him

 

 

 

In regards to your son's dating...does he usually determine how Often
he goes out, or do you tell him when he is allowed to date?

I always tell him

I often tell him

Every now and then I tell him
I seldom tell him

I never tell him

 

 

 

 

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

104

Finally...a few questions about yourself...what is your age?
And what was the last grade you completed in school or college?

What kind Of work do you do or usually do?

 

What type of business or industry do you work for?

What was your family's approximate total annual income for last
year (1967)?

 

DO you Speak a language other than English? Yes No

What language ?

 

Does anyone else in your family Speak it? Wife Teen-age son

Is it used frequently in the home? Yes No

For the first 10 years of your childhood, what state or country did
you live in fOr most of these years?

 

Did you live primarily in a rural (farm) or urban (city) area during
this time? rural urban

APPENDIX F

TABLE 21

Table 21. A check on the assunption of rectilinearity:

106

Pearson product-moment r with Eta

Comparison of the

 

 

Criterion Predictor 2 2
Variables Variables r Eta
INFLUENCE INDEX
Child's influence on Mother's support .40 .46
mother... Father's support .04 .05
Support of mother .05 .10
Support of father .15 .26
Child's contribution .08 .17
Child's influence on Mother's support .23 .47
father. . . Father' s , support . 0 8 . 16
Support of mother .02 .13
Support of father .03 .20
Child's contribution .02 .11
Child's influence on Primary parent support .66 .67
primary parent... Non-primary parent support .02 .18
Support of primary parent .12 .12
Support of non-primary parent .27 .32
Child's contribution .03 .10
Child's influence on Primary parent support .49 .52
non-primary parent... Non-primary parent support .01 .07
Support of primary parent .02 .03
Support of non-primary parent .23 .38
Child's contribution .07 .20
SELF-CONFIDENCE INDEX
Child's self-confidence Mother's support .44 .56
in his own judgments... Father's support .10 .10
Primary parent support .55 .71
Non-primary parent support .14 .23
Support of mother .14 .26
Support of father .01 .04
Support of primary parent .21 .23
Support of non-primary parent .12 .17
Child's contributions .00 .06

107

 

Criterion Predictor 2 2
Variables Variables r Eta
CONTROL INDEX
Mother's control over Mother's support .04 .08
child... Father's support .05 .13
Support of mother .00 .18
Support of father .11 .20
Child's contribution .00 .00
Father's control over Mother's support .09 .15
child... Father's support .06 .08
Support of mother .00 .23
Support of father .08 .09
Child's contribution .00 .01
Primary parent control Primary parent support .51 .51
over child... Non-primary parent support .05 .25
Support of primary parent .09 .09 '
Support of non-primary parent .20 .27
Child's contribution , .01 .07
Non-primary parent control Primary parent support .00 .02
over child... 7 Non-primary parent support .00 .10
Support of primary parent .02 .03
Support of non-primary parent .01 .07
Child's centribution .01 .09
INFORMATION-SEEKING INDEX
Child's use of Mother's support .03 .07
newspapers... Father's support .00 .08
Primary parent support .08 .10
Non-primary parent support .01 .04
Support of mother ‘ .04 .13
Support of father .01 .03
Support of primary parent .06 .06
Support of non-primary parent .02 .10
Child's contribution .00 .03

108

 

Criterion Predictor
Variables Variables r2 Eta
Child's use of magazines, Mother's support .08 .22
television, and movies... Father's support .12 .18
Primary parent support .18 .23
Non-primary parent support .00 .10
Support of mother .07 .12
Support of father .01 .15
Support of primary parent .15 .16
Support of non-primary parent .02 .05
Child's contribution .02 .05
Child's use of persons Mother's support .02 .05
his own' age. . .. Father's support .08 .14
Primary parent support .00 .20
Non-primary parent support .01 .22
Support of mother .03 .14
Support of father .00 .04
Support of primary parent .00 .00
Support of non-primary parent .03 .05
Child's contribution .04 .06
Child's use of mother, Mother's support .18 .36
father, and relatives... Father's support .09 .10
Primary parent support .45 .48
Non-primary parent support .02 .13
Support Of mother .01 .03
Support of father .03 .18
Support of primary parent .02 .03
Support of non-primary parent .20 .33
Child's contribution .03 .19

 

"Immm