'w— ,— A COMPARISON or THE . ommmon BEHAVIORS 0F MOTHERS AND THEIR PRESCHOOL CHILDREN m AN ummum smzmou Démrtatian f0! the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MARILYN A. OLSON 1975 1111111111 1111111111111 r—wz 31293 00643 6418 ; Midfigan State University Adm-*3... PLACE IN RETURN 80X to remove this checkout from your mood. To AVOID FINES mum on or before duo duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU Is An Alfirmotive ActioNEqual Opportunity Institution L. 1 '11:. ‘1".- L’. ' ' ..._ tau—I, 4‘ t 3‘7" fl ”1731,:- .' m:‘.m-: 1 . “the :t»-« 1* 2‘ CM ome ' .1 :M'sm-‘10r C‘ ', 1 ‘O‘t’t remoct - .4 m dorm-v.11" ' . voter-nor _. i f ' ."JQRT-wunm L... 1 '1; -.~ "~ ~.,¢ I 3., 'WL‘WI)‘ (John - ‘ “ {baud-um; 1 ,. fl mh(':u* :r‘d 0‘?! k, I ,‘nf-t ' '. .n 1" .yr ‘1‘- _ I “‘3”. 1h“ fin“ In u'd' '4‘ — VQI"IO‘*S «are tut ,m- ‘ . wn “’13?!th cf 2!!! WNW” a- ,. - .- JON! fluid- Ordmai ‘Astt',’ - I'! of the CNN were mm;- 1 1-» av» u'm % WU ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF THE ORIENTATION BEHAVIORS 0F MOTHERS AND THEIR PRESCHOOL CHILDREN IN AN UNFAMILIAR SITUATION By Marilyn A. Olson The purpose of this study was to compare the orientation behaviors of mothers and their preschool children in an unfamiliar situation. The specific objectives were to compare mothers' verbal, nonverbal. and affective orientation behaviors and the affective orientation behavior of their preschool children in an unfamiliar situation with respect to socioeconomic status, race, and/or sex of the child and to determine if there was a relationship between age of the mother or ordinal position of the child and the verbal, nonverbal, and affective orientation behavior of the mother. A completely crossed and balanced 2 x 2 x 2 orthogonal design was employed, the independent variables being sex of the child (male and female), race (black and white) and socioeconomic status (middle class and lower class). The unit of analysis was the mother-child dyad, and the dependent variables were the verbal, nonverbal, and affective orientation behaviors of the mothers and the affective orientation behaviors of the child. Ordinal position of the child, age of the mother and age of the child were covariates. Regression Op; 'IlooOg - u " . *2 C ”no . -- , an... F ",* "- rut-JE llJ'l . .' lq“ '?-l- I ‘ r, ”1.3.: “1,; [t val. ' 1 . '7" .IPD f. r" ’ .ATI'I "‘ I . u an: p~np .' " 1 . "531.1, ;". ‘ n ‘ .. J 'l» '1‘. A . .5 A. v V U I . W" Marilyn A. Olson analyses were also performed on the dependent variables, the independent variables being ordinal position of the child and age of the mother. A sample of forty-eight preschool children and their respective mothers was randomly chosen through a stratified sampling procedure from the sample for a larger study. Only subjects having 'complete data were selected and where siblings existed in the subject pool, only the first one randomly selected and his mother became part of the sample; the second child from the same family was eliminated from the pool. Both subjects in each parent-child unit were either both Afro-American (black) or Anglo—American (white); any subject units not meeting this criterion were eliminated. Data were collected through a videotaped situation where the mother was instructed to familiarize her child to the new environment and then left alone with her child in the situation for five minutes. The resultant behaviors of interest were rated using an observational rating procedure. The specific dependent variables of interest were: l) Verbal orientation behavior—-verbalization, verbal focus, verbal fantasy, time orientation, voice affective tone, verbal . initiation-response mode, verbal support, and verbal independence promotion; 2) Nonverbal orientation behavior-~affective physical behavior, neutral physical behavior, nonverbal initiation-response mode, non- verbal support, and nonverbal independence promotion; 3} if“: .,., 3' ;, tryfl’:a"} t n I... . c1913“. C9351 " no. 5;- ‘ 'zl. I.“ P ’ ‘ 'hv . v“: c. Nb. 1’ - ’; a; 4". ’ _ 'UI:‘ i p a t '. “N 9 ‘ """~I Vt'Cé l ”Carine DTOT .I: C. :vie mthe ira‘de 1" p. _., fig ,‘ “'5 DER: us: 1| 27:. 1‘ R (1:35 fire I"; ‘. ' 3.? I «J'. Eiger/ 11;“ Marilyn A. Olson 3) Affective orientation behavior of the mother—-hostility, warmth, and anxiety; 4) Affective orientation behavior of the child--anxiety and child dependency. Based on the results of the preliminary analyses a regrouping of maternal dependent variables based upon the total maternal affective orientation behavior was determined. These variables were: verbal focus, voice affective tone, verbal initiation—response mode, verbal support, verbal independence promotion, affective physical behavior, nonverbal initiation-response mode, nonverbal support, nonverbal independence promotion, hostility, warmth, and anxiety. A multivariate analysis of variance was used to test the hypotheses pertaining to sex, race, and/or socioeconomic status after a covariance procedure indicated that ordinal position of the child, age of the mother, and age of the child were nonsignificant. Regression analyses were used for the other two related independent variables of interest--ordinal position of the child and age of the mother. The hypotheses pertaining to change in child behaviors over time had a repeated measures dimension. Preliminary results indicated that the only differences in maternal orientation behaviors rested in social class. Middle-class mothers were more verbal, used more affective physical behaviors, and were less hostile to their children than were lower-class mothers. Middle-class mothers engaged in more fantasy verbalizations, talked more about every aspect of the trailer environment, were more supportive, and did more verbal independence promotion than the .. -‘--' -fi‘l'yf ' :)) N. _ n ‘ (AVON-Hr "3' 3" rrrim ' " ‘ U Hi :51 "fiery-a] a; . T... p) - ' ~"': . - ..S in tr‘l “3‘ r‘ . "‘:."aSS mr a, V»: ‘?::.Jn than d1- .D'u I ‘ :") {Z'I‘ ‘ ' hive, Marilyn A. Olson lower-class mothers did. Lower-class mothers, on the other hand, talked more about other school environments and used more neutral physical behavior than middle-class mothers. No differences were found in maternal orientation behaviors with respect to race, sex of the child and the interactions of race, sex of the child, and/or socioeconomic group. In addition, age of the mother and ordinal position of the child were not found to be related to any maternal orientation behaviors. The results based on the regrouping of variables related to _ total maternal affective orientation behavior indicated that the only differences in these behaviors were with respect to social class. Middle-class mothers were less hostile and did more verbal independence promotion than did lower-class mothers. Middle-class mothers were more supportive, verbally and nonverbally, than were lower-class mothers. Middle-class mothers used more affective physical behavior, more pro- active physical behavior, and more nonverbal behavior which was independence-promoting than did lower-class mothers. No differences were found in total maternal affective orienta- tion with respect to race, sex of the child, and the interactions of race, sex, and/or socioeconomic group. Results indicated that the only differences in child affective behavior rested in sex of the child differences. Over time, boys increased in emotional dependency, while girls decreased; also over time, girls increased in total quantity of dependency shown, while boys decreased or stayed the same. In a separate analysis, significance was ‘15:: erst for 9‘2“ ‘:‘.‘:":-:;g for incr» Marilyn A. Olson found to exist for girls for increased quantity of dependency, but not for boys for increased emotional dependency. r f. 51 1J in: A COMPARISON OF THE ORIENTATION BEHAVIORS OF MOTHERS AND THEIR PRESCHOOL CHILDREN IN AN UNFAMILIAR SITUATION By Marilyn ATOOlson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family Ecology 1975 fl 1 , _m"‘~“mort. p-JrSIS :1? m husband, KeTma-I‘ . W"tuw)eti~ih of th- 3. { w‘mfl‘u‘ei‘hhf" '. w' I' ' ‘1 “ ‘mmw to fiDl'ih in 3'!" """fi' .11 i; m.‘fl 4‘2‘. ; '1 Nicole. u’ur L ‘. R‘ 1 {3 ' I i it complete TH . 313%“ “a" -. 3 'zr I T ‘ N, _ Wul parent: “M my very A 0D!" . w. .13.! Copyright by MARILYN A. OLSON 1375‘ ‘ A . Giff-I‘M} 3"- ar'. veer? the mat of all my u-"- :1 .‘ 1.1 DEDICATION To my loving husband, Kenneth, who truly deserves equal credit for the completion of this work, for without his constant support, persistence, encouragement, technical assistance and tolerance I would not have been able to maintain the drive to finish my education while being wife and mother as well; To my daughter, Nicole, who endured many "motherless" hours so that I might complete my education; And to my wonderful parents, George and Sally Jenks, whose encourage— ment from my very early years instilled in me the desire to make the most of all my educational opportunities. ii Can‘eticn 2F :*=.:a".a‘.‘.en Such as .3.- |‘ ‘. - , .‘ "‘5‘ 3“. re brcr ‘ ...... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Completion of any graduate program culminating in a dissertation such as this is not the result of a single individual's efforts, but rather due to the continual advice, assistance, sug- gestions and encouragement from many people along the way. To all who have helped in various capacities toward the progression and completion of this thesis and my entire education, thank you. I wish to mention those who played integral parts in helping me with this dissertation. Above all, I wish to thank Dr. Robert P. Boger, my major academic advisor, guidance committee chairman and codirector of my dissertation research. During the past four years he has not only provided advice and suggestions concerning the many various intel- lectual and academic opportunities available, but has done much to assist in the refinement, conduction and completion of this particular research problem. For all of his help, advice, and friendship, I am truly grateful. Secondly, I wish to thank Dr. Jo Lynn Cunningham, codirector of my dissertation research. Although she was added to my committee in the last year of my program, Specifically to help guide and analyze my dissertation research, her advice and friendship throughout my graduate program has been a most valuable asset. She has iii :It".::.s‘:y Show" ’. Ie'::.'2:erent ai . :e‘JI 'Ieasxe cf I I aTsc HISI. | :Tr't‘w WT. "r '\y‘ “My ‘0 'h- \ '.o - u . I}? Dona‘d ‘ " I .g t, ‘ 9P. “LENS .~ ,1. ‘ Hit . ‘L. I continuously shown tolerance and understanding toward me and has given me encouragement all along the way. Words cannot express adequately the full measure of appreciation I have for her efforts. I also wish to thank the other three members of my academic committee, both for their guidance in the formulation of my graduate program and for their advice and feedback concerning my thesis research. They are: Dr. Donald Melcer, the "on-call" member of my committee, has always been a willing listener. His wise suggestions concerning my program and research have been greatly appreciated. Dr. Beatrice Paolucci has been a continuous source of intel- lectual stimulation throughout my four years at Michigan State Uni- versity. She has provided me with the insight to investigate theories and problems from many perspectives. I appreciate her interest in my work and pursuits. Dr. Ellen Stommen representing my minor area, developmental psychology, deserves special recognition. I thank her for her friend- ship, advice, and the giving of herself "above and beyond" in reacting to the first drafts of this dissertation. Many of the staff of the Institute for Family and Child Study at Michigan State University have helped in the mechanics of this research. I extend special thanks to them. Caroline Vose Smith spent countless hours viewing videotapes to assist in the development of the instrument and in the rating of the tapes. Without her diligence and desire to do the best job possible, plus her warm friendship, I would have been lost. iv 2:. 3'1] St?“ ”W ..... I ”P I ...:.e Team's RHHHDSEV . o‘- "’ .zrkr‘ “ .‘in. 11 ol:l' 3:3! Pfaff’ C31 6337' H91”: :.:aa:.en‘. enaIySIS -| Ir. addItICna Gayle Swanbeck keypunched and verified at all hours of the day while Sally Trapp coded and quality-checked countless cards so that my deadline might be reached. I appreciate their special efforts. Jim Respress and Connie Lisiecki saw to it that the videotape, - videotape recorders and television sets were in working order through- out the taping sessions and the many long hours of rating. Without their technical assistance the research might never have been done. For their assistance in the computer analysis of this research I thank Judy Pfaff, Verda Scheifley, and Mary Andrews. Judy par— ticularly spent many long hours working on the computer program and subsequent analysis. I truly appreciate her efforts in my behalf. In addition, there are several of my friends and acquaintances who have assited in evaluating my research during the weeks of its development. Special thanks to Bonnie Morrison, Beverly Eubank, Alberta Dobry, Susan Parrish and Tito Reyes for their frequent feed- back and "pep talks" throughout. This project was part of a larger study conducted at the Institute for Family and Child Study at Michigan State University and was funded by the Office of Economic Opportunity. I appreciate the many opportunities given by these grants. Last but not least I wish to thank my husband, Ken, for all his technical assistance in the forms of graphs, figures and tables and for all his mechanical assistance to help prepare the committee copies of the preliminary draft of this dissertation. But most of all ..,o ’- n ‘ I I 2' him for his loving patience, understanding and self . --Mari lyn Olson ., ‘ INTRODUL' ")1": ‘23.“. I sutmw '1. “ 9." {Lsuuww vtw‘ . 'L 1., 1 ._. {0'1 2. . ‘. 1““ J _‘ Echcoptu. Assunpmm' . '9 (IF ' ‘ I‘ o ‘ I?! #umunm "it" ~41 E1. adic "e‘ .1 we {1; AV” firitwn .11 ‘ 19.6munic.‘ I3: ' emIC‘ 11-} Le) l1.‘: Evin-ti) 1. .~ _ . .«CIIIO R.,I.;. ,. ‘ ; wraphic 5-:1..,~ . ‘ ‘ "We Tour-1911:. m . 3. g ,1. f _ ~_ , ~‘Child m... ra'tm . '7 Inmate-To..- . . , . . ? 3’0? fipprt’lai. he; find '.._‘p.‘«_- i .. £3 ! VWOI (citsisteno .1 . . . , 35 r .. ”To? end/or Unfais i1; Sn...:--...-~s . . .7 .. Wfiehaviar . , . 3 , , . , 4-!) II- V Mientatir-n I‘m-it‘ll)” . . . . , no [7 NHMQRCG'.”' Behuvmr - - - 52 I. ' gflientatfioza Behavior . . . . 55 b" wv‘ TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .......................... LIST OF FIGURES ......................... Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ....................... Statement of the Problem ................ Statement of the Objectives .............. l. Verbal Orientation Behavior of the Mothers . . . 2. Nonverbal Orientation Behavior of the Mothers 3. Affective Orientation Behavior of the Mothers 4. Affective Orientation Behavior of the Children . Conceptual Definitions ................. Assumptions ...................... 11. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................. Interaction Theory ................... Dyadic Relationships ................ Definition of the Situation ............ Communication ................... Role and Role-taking ................ Socialization and Interaction Theory ........ Parent-Child Relationships ............... Demographic Influence ............... Influence Techniques and Discipline ........ Mother-Child Interactions ............. Research Methodology .................. Types of Approaches and Considerations ....... Behavioral Consistency ............... Stressful and/or Unfamiliar Situations ....... Orientation Behavior .................. Verbal Orientation Behavior ............ Nonverbal Orientation Behavior ........... Affective Orientation Behavior ........... Overall Summary .................... vii Page XV 1L llllllll The ‘41] - RESULTS The Desi; Tue SJ:j£ Fthher L Tue Fafif The Fari‘kl U\ Statistics Verbal Or~ S". gn i1 Three. TWO-Hi Test: RQSFEt Chapter III. RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGN ............... The Design ....................... The Subjects ...................... Further Description of the Sample ........... The Familiarization Task Session ............ The Familiarization Task Rating Procedure ....... The Null Hypotheses .................. Verbal Orientation Behavior of the Mothers . . . 2. Nonverbal Orientation Behavior of the Mothers 3. Affective Orientation Behavior of Mothers . 4. Affective Orientation Behavior of Children . . . Operational Definitions ................ Data Reduction and Analysis .............. Statistical Analysis .................. IV. RESULTS ......................... Verbal Orientation Behavior .............. Significance of Covariates ............. Three-Nay Interaction ............... Two-Nay Interaction ................ Test of the Main Effects .............. Regression Analyses ................ Nonverbal Orientation Behavior ............. Significance of the Covariates ........... Three-Nay Interaction ............... Two-Nay Interaction ................ Test of Main Effects ......... ' ....... Regression Analysis ................ Maternal Affection Orientation Behavior ........ Significance of Covariates ............. Three-Nay Interaction ............... Two-May Interaction ................ Test of Main Effect ................ Regression Analysis ................ Child Affective Orientation Behavior .......... Three-Nay Interaction with Repeated Measures . . . . Two-Way Interaction with Repeated Measures ..... Test of Main Effects with Repeated Measures . . Separate Analyses for Males and Females ...... Subsequent Analyses for Total Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior ................. Significance of Covariates ............. Three-Hay Interaction ............... Two-Nay Interaction ................ Test of the Main Effects .............. viii SJTer! I u. ‘ 0 “vi. 1'; vrlib Int" ”(in Uvn‘.‘v' ‘ _, , 315:133‘ Srr “2*; Mb. Chi? Iota The Liri Ifipiicat SUQQESti Chapter Summary of Results ................... Multivariate Comparisons .............. Univariate Comparisons ............... Verbal Orientation Behaviors .......... Nonverbal Orientation Behaviors ........ Maternal Affective Behaviors .......... Child Affective Behaviors ........... V. CONCLUSION ........................ Discussion ....................... Summary of Results ................. Maternal Orientation Behaviors ........... Social Class Differences ............ Race Differences ................ Sex of the Child Differences .......... Age of the Mother ............... Ordinal Position of the Child ......... Child Orientation Behavior ............. Socioeconomic Class Differences ........ Race Differences ................ Sex of the Child ................ Total Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior . The Limitations of This Study ............. Implications ...................... Suggestions for Future Research ............ Appendix I. A. THE FAMILIARIZATION TASK ............... B. FAMILIARIZATION TASK RATING PROCEDURE ........ II. CELL MEANS OF VARIABLES FOR THE DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS . . . . A. CELL MEANS OF VERBAL ORIENTATION BEHAVIOR VARIABLES B. CELL MEANS OF NONVERBAL ORIENTATION BEHAVIOR VARIABLES ...................... C. CELL MEANS OF MATERNAL AFFECTIVE ORIENTATION BEHAVIOR VARIABLES .................. D. CELL MEANS OF CHILD AFFECTIVE ORIENTATION BEHAVIOR VARIABLES .................. BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................... Page 177 200 204 219 219 232 240 244 251 ('— D I- .- 0 ‘1' - . mgr. F15:- " UTIIMI P33 I 1—,“. .- Socioeccr: ?4;:frler5' Cl "C1FEFS‘ E; :39 of $.32; 3"szber of g Presence of Quantifica. T TESES of VI SO. : "WY of Table 3-l. 3-2. 3-3. 3-4. 3-5. 3-6. 3-7. 3-8. 3-9. 4-1. 4-2. 4-3. LIST OF TABLES Design Matrix ..................... Socioeconomic Group Determination ........... Mothers' Occupation .................. Mothers' Educational Level .............. Age of Subjects .................... Number of Siblings of Sampled Children ........ Ordinal Position of Sampled Child ........... Presence of Fathers in Homes of Sampled Children Quantification of FTRP Variables Used in Analysis . . . . Tests for Significance of Covariates in Multivariate Tests of Verbal Orientation Behaviors of Mothers Summary of Multivariate Tests on Verbal Orientation Behavior ....................... Analyses of Variance for Race x Sex x SES Interaction: Verbal Orientation Behavior .............. Analyses of Variance for SES x Race Interaction: Verbal Orientation Behavior .............. Analyses of Variance for Race x Sex Interaction: Verbal Orientation Behavior .............. Analyses of Variance for SES x Sex Interaction: Verbal Orientation Behavior .............. Analyses of Variance for SES Main Effect: Verbal Orientation Behavior ................. Analyses of Variance for Race Main Effect: Verbal Orientation Behavior ................. Page 72 74 76 77 79 80 81 82 93 108 110 111 112 113 114 116 119 on. .- O I\. J o I J- o .5"' , ' Cit) er 3 fl-) LII "‘ . inai , . 55311595 2‘. q- . 'Oq9‘- $181.6»... «Oraersal i Arra'iyses 51 NOT. {6 rta] f4 Ana‘ !. ‘/SES 0 [lurv’erza] Q 1 . ”161,353 0‘ 'qu'i'erba] C :39 ‘ u emUDr . $37595 04! 1 - inai r . ms 0' OHM" . ““3110! Table 4-9. 4-10. 4-11. 4-13. 4-14. 4-15. 4-16. 4-17. 4-18. 4-20. 4-21. 4-22. 4-23. 4-24. Analyses of Variance for Sex Main Effect: Verbal Orientation Behavior .................. Regression Analysis for Age of the Mother: Verbal Orientation Behavior .................. Regression Analysis for Ordinal Position of the Child: Verbal Orientation Behavior ........... . Tests for Significance of Covariates in Multivariate Tests of Nonverbal Orientation Behaviors of Mothers . . . Summary of Multivariate Tests on Nonverbal Orientation Behavior ........................ Analyses of Variance for Race x Sex x SES Interaction: Nonverbal Orientation Behavior ............. Analyses of Variance for SES x Race Interaction: Nonverbal Orientation Behavior ............. Analyses of Variance for Race x Sex Interaction: Nonverbal Orientation Behavior ............. Analyses of Variance for SES x Sex Interaction: Nonverbal Orientation Behavior ............. Analyses of Variance for SES Main Effect: Nonverbal Orientation Behavior .................. . Analyses of Variance for Race Main Effect: Nonverbal Orientation Behavior .................. Analyses of Variance for Sex Main Effect: Nonverbal Orientation Behavior .................. Regression Analysis for Age of the Mother: Nonverbal Orientation Behavior .................. Regression Analysis for Ordinal Position of the Child: Nonverbal Orientation Behavior ......... Tests for Significance of Covariates in Multivariate Tests of Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior Summary of Multivariate Tests on Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior .................. xi Page 120 121 122 124 126 127 128 129 130 132 134 135 136 137 139 141 .\p t o I In: \‘D a ‘.-l . E l, A,- '\..’ t, I (A. a 1A. (1‘ I Q‘ .D. " '. «3:...ch iaternai Analyses ”Eternal iaternai #‘ If“ r;- "315:5 C' Vetemal A" If V 5181759 a: 1:3‘ . H- e.tive -r- 0 n1 . ‘. "a '- .;l- 34.6.1335 V 1-() v 0 bICr 5”?7Yses 0‘ A MD] , ‘ C #21375 0‘ luyb11 D Table Page 4-25. Analyses of Variance for Race x Sex x SES Interaction: Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior ......... 142 4-26. Analyses of Variance for SES x Race Interaction: Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior ......... 143 4-27. Analyses of Variance for Race x Sex Interaction: Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior ......... 144 4-28. Analyses of Variance for SES x Sex Interaction: Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior ......... 146 4-29. Analyses of Variance for SES Main Effect: Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior ............. 147 4-30. Analyses of Variance for Race Main Effect: Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior ............. 148 4-31. Analyses of Variance for Sex Main Effect: Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior ............. 149 4-32. Regression Analyses for Age of the Mother: Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior ............. 150 4-33. Regression Analysis for Ordinal Position of the Child: Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior ......... 151 4-34. Summary of Multivariate Tests on Child Affective Orientation Behavior .................. 153 4-35. Analyses of Variance for Race x Sex x SES Interaction: Child Affective Orientation Behavior .......... 154 4-36. Analyses of Variance for Race x Sex of the Child Interaction: Child Affective Orientation Behavior . . . 156 4-37. Analyses of Variance for SES x Race Interaction: Child Affective Orientation Behavior .......... 157 4-38. Analyses of Variance for SES x Sex of the Child Interaction: Child Affective Orientation Behavior . . . 158 4-39. Analyses of Variance for SES Main Effect: Child Affective Orientation Behavior ............. 159 4-40. Analyses of Variance for Race Main Effect: Child Affective Orientation Behavior ............. 160 .;. xii i 'zl‘l‘; ‘ .\‘p A. -..-T:.;SES t 14:. Sm. of ’— LA ' a a. l #5 .AnaszIS L‘ "a SUTary 0‘7 1 "'-i‘31i5is :' ' .Tests for . . Smary 0f ' Wises o ‘ ifinime SU '3‘..o;p W3C..Iie . '1 ‘. , "_ LIYECZEZ. l urientati: F. ‘ ‘ .. JTlET.at1:' fl. - . tTlE'ZIBIli' Tests of T Eiavior '5iective . Maternai A may of for Indivi F5311iariz ~2. . - f‘i’éraaui am 1 1M2. 1'.) .4. Table 4-41. 4-42. 4-47. 4-43. 4-49. II-1. II-Z. II-3. II-4. II-S. Analyses of Variance for Sex Main Effect: Affective Orientation Behavi Summary of Multivariate Tests for Affective Orientation Behavior of Boys . Analysis of Variance for Gra Orientation Behavior of Boys Orientation Behavior of Girl . Analysis of Variance for Gra Orientation Behavior of Girl . Tests for Significance of Co Tests of Total Maternal Affe Behavior Summary of Multivariate Test Affective Orientation Behavi Analyses of Variance for SES Maternal Affective Orientati Summary of Significance and for Individual Variables . Minimum Suggested Observer R Familiarization Task Rating Demographic Group Means for on the Familiarization Task Demographic Group Means for Familiarization Task Rating Demographic Group Means for on the Familiarization Task Demographic Group Means for Familiarization on Task Rati Demographic Group Means for the Familiarization Task Rat xii . Summary of Multivariate Tests for Affective Page Child or ............. 162 .............. 166 nd Mean: Affective .............. 167 s .............. 168 nd Mean: Affective s .............. 17O variates in Multivariate ctive Orientation ............... 172 s on Total Maternal or ............. 174 Main Effects Total on Behavior ......... 176 Marginal Significance ............... 180 eliability Indices for Procedure .......... 213 Verbalization Categories Rating Procedure ...... 220 Verbal Focus on the Procedure .......... 224 Fantasy Verbalization Rating Procedure ...... 226 Time Orientation on the ng Procedure ........ 227 Voice Affective Tone on ing Procedure ........ 228 i v I \k' . - A u l . 4 LA) I _ -- LX‘) - a ( i . ' 89200 ' - 3573:39'a3ti in" ' ' “PS-”aim P. - irrlh ,1 - U9 erai’n‘i R I ’5'“ HI I I.“ 'erapn‘li “A ' Jefio a , . PUFF! "nr‘- x ‘v;r:yi 1». “Ad fr 0, I036 Ur . . |I G'cf‘rzrr~' Uh U:I‘,. .. ‘riliariz: Ppaa a, . J: V‘rsflyr. ' 'rr-rei, . pJM-‘Dn _ . P'GCESJe , :--~r:—+: “'V< I5. ;. . fina‘HOF C Pr . A ID‘VEHUPE . 0“ the Far " Reasonse 1'; P"Diedure . FIE-111N125 Pr070t10n ( . "m‘mn . J"f3r53§71i tharize ,JreDhi( Famhar1z‘. . iracni: “‘3 Farm. Table II-6. II-7. II-8. 1 — at" Ami-3' II-10. II-11. II-12. II-13. II-14. II-15. II-16. II-17. II—18. II-19. Demographic Group Means for Verbal Initiation-Response Mode for the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure Demographic Group Means for Verbal Support on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure .......... Demographic Group Means for Verbal Independence Promotion on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure ........................ Demographic Group Means for Affective Physical Behavior on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure ........................ Demographic Group Means for Neutral Physical Behavior on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure ...... Demographic Group Means for Nonverbal Initiation- Response Mode for the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure ........................ Demographic Group Means for Nonverbal Support on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure .......... Demographic Group Means for Nonverbal Independence Promotion on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure Demographic Group Means for Hostility on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure .......... Demographic Group Means for Warmth on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure .......... Demographic Group Means for Maternal Anxiety on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure ........ Demographic Group Means for Child Anxiety for Each Minute Interval on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure ........................ Demographic Group Means for Quantity of Dependency Shown for Each Minute Interval on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure .................. Demographic Group Means for Emotional Dependency Shown for Each Minute Interval on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure .................. Page 229 230 231 233 235 237 238 241 242 243 245 247 249 (an 0 Q~p . “In. PF” '- 1.. at... 1.3?“ J l - . 1".“ “rt , u Man‘” He re;ee: Figure 4-1. LIST OF FIGURES Page Interaction effect between sex of the child and the repeated measures dimension for quantity of dependency ....................... 163 Interaction effect between sex of the child and the repeated measures dimension for relative amount of emotional dependency ............. 164 Closed arrangement of familiarization task blocks . . . . 201 Arrangement of familiarization task blocks ....... 203 Rating frame for the familiarization task rating procedure ........................ 206 Format of rating frame for the familiarization task rating procedure .................. 207 Assignment of points for rater reliability for the familiarization task rating procedure ....... 210 XV CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem One of the primary functions of today's family is the socialization of the child. Socialization is here defined as the process whereby an individual learns the ways of a given society or group and then acquires the skills necessary to make him a function- ing, adequate member of society. This process can be viewed as being comprised of many different and related goals. One of the goals of the socialization process is to teach the child to cope with new and unfamiliar situations. While some of the learning may come about through channels other than the child's imediate family (e.g., neighbors, peers, individual self-discovery), in our culture it is assumed that a child's parents have primary responsibility in this area. How a parent orients his child to a new and unfamiliar environment and how the child responds to this situa- tion are the primary foci in this study. Frequently one parent, more than the other, has a greater hand in helping the child learn certain behaviors. Even today, in 1973: the "husband-father" is still the primary wage-earner, and the i wife‘mother" still has primary caretaking responsibilities. It is . ‘ w‘ 93:61 that the i I .5.§{:grr10 a 3";'ew EXP9r1er“ 235316-31 with .I In our SM] 5 7; 35 this ta I grows. "I :ifiiguith an VT‘ I?21,nonverba1. 5"ECZ116 behavior- ‘3‘123 of socioeccr {m ‘ . 1, and ordinai T‘f‘lt 3r . ea cou1d .mzation prOC .raziiiar surr Parents ar -1 aren to new era 1'3: time is 61191 -~.3erent wants I so, aiong with '1‘! 3‘1’1 ‘ .ctan (H11 9 . "5 J oer-30 Surgery 2 i assumed that the mother, then, has more opportunities in the course of a day to help a child cope with new happenings and new experiences. Dager (1964) supported this notion. This is not to underestimate the importance of a father's role in also teaching the child coping strategies. It is only to recognize the probability that, in most daily new experience situations, it is the mother who will be avail- able to deal with them. In our society it is assumed that by whatever means mothers accomplish this task, these means will differ across different demo— graphic groups. The purpose of this study is to determine how, in dealing with an unfamiliar situation, each of the following--materna1 Verbal, nonverbal, and affective orientation behavior, and the child's affective behavior—-varies with respect to the demographic character- iStics of socioeconomic status, race, age of the mother, sex of the Child, and ordinal position of the child. Acquisition of information in this area could lead to increased understanding about the child Socialization process and particularly about mother-child interactions in unfamiliar surroundings. Parents are concerned about how to go about orienting their children to new environments. A child entering nursery school for the i first time is apprehensive, and the parent is usually aware of this; the Parent wants the child to have a good "first impression“ of school, and 50. along with the teacher, will try to put him at ease in the new Situation (Hildebrand, 1971). A child about to enter a hospital 4°" undergo surgery is understandably anxious; the child's parents 1"‘ent to know ' .215, 7953}. HOn a 'esearehebie This stat; ‘2‘22139C or. a s; I'D'is sense this 2": tier. the sum 151;. 'u'hiie the if: assumed that ":2." the pieces ' 'i'reased underste Freicaiiy show ""5 N a child's ‘zfiif. . '1} Sr maiizm ..:".S and Ch11dr The . CONCe; '12:: {at hers to a 5 ice: ...s the €th :3 71' H‘ 1 Md leaIns t rfifieh "~~€r - _ e15 evi 1"“31311: I u. . .\ "’1“??- ’ 1- mt '5 She L 13 reCOn . 3 Us "NP' . 11Cn tOE‘y ar Olz will want to know how to prepare him for this stressful situation (Levy, 1959). How parents prepare their children for new experiences is a researchable question. This study was designed within an interactional framework and it focused on a specific interactional dyad-~the mother and her child. In this sense this study (unlike the framework) is limited in its understanding of total family dynamics since a relationship represents more than the sum of the personalities that make it up (Ackerman, 1954). While the focus of this study does limit its familial relevance, it is assumed that the parts do contribute to the whole. Understand- ing of the pieces may increase understanding of the whole. Thus, increased understanding of the interactions of the mother-child dyad (empirically shown to be a closely interacting unit in the first few .Years of a child's life) may contribute to the understanding of total family socialization patterns as well as to the understanding of how parents and children interact. The concept of role is particularly relevant to this study. Role refers to a set of expectations (Styker, 1959). The parent i expects the child to behave in certain ways because he is a child, and the child learns to expect the parent to behave in certain ways. While there is evidence to assume that the mother follows some sort of consistent pattern with her child in dealing with a situation (Lafore, 1945)--that is she plays her role as she and her child have defined ”‘41: “is recognized that these patterns may vary with the situation ”1th Which they are confronted (Maccoby, 1961). While many of the :e'a.‘::.'s exh‘hits :‘tetisn specifi. 1": 3.11 occur 2'325'23 of beta-1 ",4...” ‘ .\ .‘ . r I u o .5: 5] cc IFIC . The OVEra’; .5243} yew“, n :"iii's affect A“: i' . " "1‘3 reIatmhr J o p. . ‘ A In ”a ’ ‘-lv GWIDEV or of the m H I ‘‘‘‘‘ behaviors exhibited by mothers and children may be completely situation specific, there may be some global behaviors exhibited which could occur in completely different situations. Thus, con- sistency of behavior may be assumed for some types of behavior, while consistency cannot be assumed for some other types of behavior. Statement of Objectives The overall objective of this study was to determine if maternal verbal, nonverbal, and affective orientation behavior and the child's affective behavior in a Familiarization Task Session very wi th respect to socioeconomic status, race, and/or sex of the child with the relationship of age of the mother and ordinal position of the child to the verbal, nonverbal, and affective orientation behavior of the mother also being ascertained. The general and Specific objectives of this study were as follows: 1 . Verbal Orientation Behavior of the Mothers General Objective : To determine if there is a difference in the verbal orientation behavior of mothers with their preschool children in a Familiariza- tion Task Session with respect to race, socioeconomic status (SES), and/or sex of the child, with the relationship of age of the mother and the ordinal position of the child to the verbal orientation behavior of the mothers also being ascertained. Specific Objectives: 7- 7) To determine if there is a difference between the verbal orientation behavior of middle-class mothers and lower- class mothers with their children in a Familiarization Task Session. V‘\ l I . L I I ‘_-~A “I [\3 \_/ I To dete 10 ietev oriertai With Us Sessizn 10 detei orientai girls w Sess:cn Tc ietei tion hei in a Fa: interac To dete 0f the i hcthers Task Se .tsitic behavio a Fanil 1.2) To determine if there is a difference between the verbal orientation behavior of black mothers and white mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. 1.3) To determine if there is a difference between the verbal orientation behavior of mothers of boys and mothers of girls with these children in a Familiarization Task Session. 1.4) To determine if there is a difference in verbal orienta- tion behavior of mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session with respect to the interaction of race, SES, and/or sex of the child. 1.5) To determine if there is a relationship between the age of the mothers and the verbal orientation behavior of these mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. 1.6) To determine if there is a relationship between ordinal positions of the children and the verbal orientation behavior of the mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. 2. Nonverbal Orientation Behavior of the Mothers General Objective: 'To determine if there is a difference in the nonverbal orientation behavior of mothers with their preschool children in a Familiariza- tion Task Session with respect to race, SES, and/or sex of the child vvith the relationship of age of the mother and the ordinal position of the child to the nonverbal orientation behavior of the mothers also being ascertained. Specific Objectives .- 2.1) To determine if there is a difference between the nonverbal orientation behavior of middle-class mothers and lower- class mothers with their children in a Familiarization Task Session. 2-2) To determine if there is a difference between the nonver- bal orientation behavior of black mothers and white mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. '3 ieter*i" wer‘JO 3r rth I793? :3 Tc ieterct' ' fish beta.- aFa1‘21iar' action of To deterrtv nethers ar miners u: Task Sess‘ 35: To deterr~ 5031:1135 DEhavior j a Familiar ' a ‘;-"‘y I i ' 14.19 finer. \‘ , . . ”‘3.” . :- “'. 'lr. .wa‘v J:"1'63' (JV. :EtE‘P'jn 19 1f tn; :‘i' UT 0f mot uhEI‘EI h $331Qn V1th rf ‘2' .‘5t10hsh1p‘51 0 10 he Offer I ll) 10 deter'l beiaijr Nth the 8933107] To dEIEr behailw p7e$cho£ 10 deter behaV1Cr V1639 p] To dete~ DENaij F61111115 I10” 0f 2.4) 2.5) 2.6) 3.1) fit 6 To determine if there is a difference between the nonverbal orientation behavior of mothers of boys and mothers of girls with these children in a Familiarization Task Session. To determine if there is a difference in nonverbal orienta- tion behavior of mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session with respect to the inter- action of race, SES, and/or sex of the child. To determine if there is a relationship between the age of mothers and the nonverbal orientation behavior of these mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. To determine if there is a relationship between ordinal positions of the children and the nonverbal orientation behavior of the mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. 3. Affective Orientation Behavior of the Mothers General Objective : TY) determine if there is a difference in the affective orientation behavior of mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization 11isk Session with respect to race, SES, and/or sex of the child, with 'the relationship of age of the mother and the ordinal position of the Clrlld to the affective behavior of the mother also being ascertained. Specific Objectives : To determine if there is a difference between the affective behavior of middle-class mothers and lower-class mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. To determine if there is a difference between the affective behavior of black mothers and white mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. To determine if there is a difference between the affective behavior of mothers of boys and mothers of girls with these preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. To determine if there is a difference in the affective behavior of mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session with respect to the interac- tion of race, SES, and/or sex of the child. "r opr, 3.3; 10 56:. ' of n:.re their pr’ . ,g‘;f n:; is or... pCSitior_ T’Ctriers r Task Sea. . . ;_' 1 *‘Kf‘ve JT 5 K - -.~ _ r 5‘ I Hi, Ezaerfine if tr ?3?gfl Chi1drer 'aa E3.sex of 41:?m ( (V\ 111 10 dEtEr bEhaVlQr C1655 pr I TO deter affECtiv Dres:ho: 1° dEter 11Ve beh 1° dEtEI bEhaVlm SeSSlon or sex #5 To deteu diffErs Familia Orientati '1: m. .' . 3.5) To determine if there is a relationship between the age of mothers and the affective behavior of these mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. 3.6) To determine if there is a relationship between the ordinal positions of the children and the affective behavior of the mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. 4. Affective Orientation Behavior of the Children General Objective : TI) determine if there is a difference in the affective behavior of prweschool children in a Familiarization Task Session in relation to race, SES, sex of the child, and/or the elapsed time spent in the session. Specific Objectives : 4.l) To determine if there is a difference between the affective behavior of middle-class preschool children and lower- class preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. 4.2) To determine if there is a difference between the affective behavior of white preschool children and black preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. 4.3) To determine if there is a difference between the affec- tivebehaviorofnmlepreschool children and female preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. 4.4) To determine if there is a difference in the affective behavior of preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session with respect to the interaction of race, SES, and/ or sex of the child. 4.5) To determine if the affective behavior of preschool children differs with respect to the elapsed time spent in the Familiarization Task Session. Conceptual Definitions Orientation behavior involves the dual processes of orienting and "‘3<2£aiving orientation. For the purposes of this research study, rezrentiig beta' :3 end to be i :teeztc be insi nu. . . .a :E, e\ :hve bee: ierbal cr~ R of benavi verbal fa' verbal ir: 1159P€nde' HOH'JErba] A1f9ct' ~.l.'o ‘-—..i;, LN p I H'iHS. ‘ U VETK . 1°”lunica 119 quali 811116110r parent cc the orienting behavior of mothers in an unfamiliar situation was considered to be indicated by verbal behavior, nonverbal behavior, and affective behavior. Child orientation to the situation was con- sidered to be indicated by affective behavior. The breakdown within each set of behaviors is as follows: a) Verbal orientation behavior: verbalization, verbal focus, verbal fantasy, time orientation, voice affective tone, verbal initiation-response mode, verbal support, and verbal independence promotion. b) Nonverbal orientation behavior: affective physical behavior, neutral physical behavior, nonverbal initiation-response mode, nonverbal support, and nonverbal independence promotion. c) Affective orientation behavior of the mother: hostility, warmth, and anxiety level. d) Affective orientation behavior of the child: anxiety level and level of dependency. Conceptual definitions of each of these variables are as fol lows: 7 ) Verbalization is both the quality and quantity of the verbal communication which occurs during an unfamiliar situation. The quality of parental verbalization behavior in such a situation might take one of several directions. Either the laarent could talk about the immediately present situation (8.9., tie situation pietely r1 of each 3 if the fa situation occurs), in genera other phi atmosphe. the nurgg teacher, nursery 3 If the f; C1115916m- Parent mi p1dceg’ % r)». W 11111112a 0th6r.CEr 10”» anc “Wang 110” teci relateS 1 2) 3) (e.g., the testing environment), extensions of the present situation (e.g., the nursery school per se), or factors com- pletely removed from either of these. The specific aspects of each of these directions are important also. For example, if the focus of the verbalization has to do with the testing situation (the environment of the trailer in which the session occurs), the parent might refer to the furniture, the blocks in general, the blocks in specific, the experimenter, the other physical attributes of the trailer, or the emotional atmosphere. If the focus of the verbalization has to do with the nursery school, the parent might refer to the program, the teacher, the building or materials, other children in the nursery school, or the child himself in the nursery school. If the focus of the verbalization has to do with factors completely removed from the trailer or nursery school, the parent might refer to the home environment, other school places, or miscellaneous items. Verbal focus is defined as the person or persons to whom the verbalization is directed or oriented. Child-centered versus other-centered or mother-centered approaches are important considerations in looking at maternal orientation techniques. Verbal fantasy is the degree to which dramatization, imagina- tion, and/or statements which supersede the reality of the situation are used. Utilization of fantasy as a familiariza- tion technique may be an indicator of a particular way a parent relates to his child. .l 1:] ’1 Tine orient reference i The tense c tion; but a SitJation t "after the of present tion.“ 1119. neat during a V verbal cor. reactive, Proactive materna] . "e11 malter 19111119 be Peacthn 11 1erbal 5. \b 111111Cati0 e Child as 1’1 lerL % £0111“”lca AA; 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 10 Time orientation is defined as the degree to which verbal reference is made to events in the past, present, or future. The tense of the verb may be an indicator of time orienta- tion; but a more definitive statement of past is "before the situation occurs," a more definitive statement of future is “after the situation is over," and a more definitive statement of present is "anything referred to within the ongoing situa- tion." Voice affective tone is defined as the extent to which posi- tive, neutral, or negative emotion is conveyed in the voice during a verbal ization. Verbal initiation-response mode is defined as the degree to which verbal comunication by the parent is either proactive, reactive, or retroactive in nature. Brophy (l970) introduced proactive and reactive as terms indicative of differing maternal teaching styles. Proactive is verbally initiating new material and reactive is verbally responding to the pre- ceding behavior of the child. Retroactive is a delayed reaction to the child's behavior. Verbal support is defined as the extent to which verbal com- munication by the parent shows psychological acceptance of , encouragement of , empathy for, and/or understanding of the Child as a person or the child's behavior. “Verbal independence promotion is the extent to which verbal coflitmnication by the parent encourages self-reliant behaviors as opposed to encourages cii the parent for (1973) views 1' indicators of have an effec \‘13 V 0f affective i affective phyg several direci across two dir 13) Physical . 90ries of neg. (Positive-cor] {negativemo W) W neutrai PhYSi thsicai beha directicmS ar 01 111° mUtual C , - Mchatjor 111119 the bl 110115 On 0th A 9 14C!) ll as opposed to the verbal communication by the parent which encourages clinging behaviors or expects the child to rely on the parent for help, direction, or overprotection. Osofsky (l970) views independence or dependence promotion as useful indicators of the extent to which maternal and child behaviors have an effect on one another. Affective physical behavior is both the quality and quantity V of affective physical behavior which occurs. The quality of affective physical behavior of the parent might take one of several directions and is best described by a matrix approach across two dimensions: (1) positive or negative quality, and (2) physical contact or no contact--yielding the four cate- gories of negative physical (negative-contact), social physical (positive-contact), approach (positive-no contact), and defense (negative-no contact). Neutral physical behavior is both the quality and quantity of neutral physical behavior which occurs. The quality of neutral physical behavior of the parent might take one of several ciirections and is here described as the presence or absence (If two mutually exclusive behavior categories related to <2ld support. The receiver can seek support, and, if it is forthcoming, can accept it, reject it, or ignore it. One of the perceived characteristics of the parenting role is that of supporter (Klemer, 1970) in psychological as well as physical maintenance terms. Nursery schools also stress the importance of Parental support for the child in his new environment and a reciprocal SUPPOY‘t relationship between parents and teachers in meeting the needs of the child (Hildebrand, 1971; Christianson, 1961). |.ack of maternal support as evidenced by a highly rejecting mother (Overt nonsupport) has resulted in children who show less information seeking and interactive play and more attention, approval, and Praise-seeking (Brody, 1969). On the whole, however, mothers were ShOW“ ‘10 be more nurturant and supportive than fathers (Emmerich, "962)- Kohn (1963) looked at social class differences and found that the mlddle-class parents felt obliged to be more supportive than did workin9-c1ass parents, while working-class parents felt more obliged to 1'mPOst constraints and restrictions on their children than did mick”ti-class parents . K5} D U) 1" 1!; v J 4!- v (:3; 52 The presence of support or lack of it (e.g., nonsupport behaviors) appears to be a useful indicator of the kind of parent- child relationship that exists. Also, specific support behaviors related to social class background and sex of the parent depend on perceived parenting roles. A parent who perceives his role in a sup- portive light would act supportive, while a parent who perceives his role as one who sets limits and rules, no matter what, would frequently show incidents of nonsupport in favor of eliciting compliance (Kohn, 1963). Mverba 'l Orientation Behavior Nonverbal Z Communication When thinking about communication, there is a tendency to think only about verbal behavior or language. But, according to Campbell and H991 er (1970), "we need to concern ourselves with every aspect of communl'cation [p. 256]." The cliche, "actions speak louder than words" may “01d an important, but often neglected, message: nonverbal com- mu“lilat‘ion is at least as important a part of interaction as verbal CWDICation. Harrison (1970, p. 258) reported that it has been e“imilttm that in face-to-face communication no more than 35 percent Of the Social meaning is carried in the verbal messages. This means that UP to 65 percent of social meaning is carried nonverbally. Harrison (1970) made three points relevant to nonverbal conmunication: 1) Nonverbal comnunication goes on all around us. 2) Nonverbal communication is important; we make decisions based on it. m 73 :r’nonverba] “it“ m\\§3 Q §;>T\‘.§\\ K\\ 53 3) Frequently, nonverbal communication is at a low awareness level; we may not realize that we are sending or receiving [p. 257]. Birdwhistell (l955) has done a great deal of work in kinesics, which is defined by him as “the study of visually sensible aspects of nonverbal interpersonal communication . . . [p. l2]" (i.e., how human beings communicate through body movement and gestures). Bird- whistell cited the importance of recognizing the interdependent relationship between visible and audible communication. Smith and Trager (l95l) advanced the idea of meta-incongruence to mean a situation which occurs when the meaning carried by the words in an utterance are contradicted by the voice intonation or inflexions used in it. Birdwhistell (1955) extended the concept of meta-incongruence to include a communication where the verbal "utterance has one con- textual meaning while the accompanying body motion conveys a different meaning [p. 17].“ This might be analogous to the "double bind" situation where a person gets two conflicting orders at the same time and he cannot obey one without disobeying the other. Studies of Nonverbal Physical Behavior Some studies have attempted to deal with nonverbal behavior. Walters, Pearce, and Dahms (1957) looked at affectional and aggres- sive verbal and physical behavior of young children. A rating scheme was developed which included behaviors classified into four broad categories: 1) physical affection, 2) verbal affection, 3) physical aggression, and 4) verbal aggression. Some important findings were: iii/5, c ”55:16? I) .4 ‘3‘.) E’\\\\QX\ \‘\ ‘ \ “«\g\ 5 - Kb ‘5“ \‘\ . lby!‘ 54 l) at three, four, and five year levels, the children were more verbally than physically affectionate; 2) there was little difference in the frequency between physical and verbal aggression; 3) at all age levels, children were more affectionate than aggressive in their response to others and more frequently employed affection than aggression in initiating contacts; and 4) aggression tended to increase with age from two through four years of age, with boys more aggressive than girls, and then to decrease thereafter. Schmidt and Hone (1970) dealt with the nonverbal behavior (touching, leaning toward, and mutual glances) of low and high social status mothers and children. Higher socioeconomic status mothers (but not children) had more actual initiations to physical contact. There were no differences between groups in body closeness, and there were more glances in the high social status group. Boger and Cunningham (1970) have done an extensive study to look at the social behavior of children--verbal and nonverbal. To look at nonverbal aspects of social behavior, they used a rating scheme involving a multiple classification approach across two dimen- sions: "(a) presence or absence of physical contact; and (b) positive or negative quality. The resulting categories were labeled social physical, negative physical, approach gesture, and defensive posture [p. 78].“ Sex differences were found to exist in amount of physical behavior shown, males showing far more than females, particularly with negative physical, with both sexes showing decreases during the year. More social physical and approach gestures were shown by .Ev 'l_'l 44 .RVWI'. 56399!) sari; Mam i ‘13. W“ ‘ \Q‘\ \ “xv. *\ \\\\\ 1 55 females than by males. No great differences in physical behavior were shown between black and white subjects; both groups increased in amount of positive nonverbal behavior and decreased in negative nonverbal behavior. No major differences in physical behavior were shown to exist between social class groups, although lower-class children revealed more physical contact behavior than middle-class subjects at the end of the year. Both groups increased in amount of positive nonverbal behavior and decreased in negative nonverbal behavior during the year. The multiple classification system used by Boger and Cunning- ham (1970) to look at physical behavior of children was also useful in looking at interactions between parent and child. Cunningham (l972) looked at the nonverbal behavior which occurs in a parent-child inter- action session and found no significant differences between parents (mothers versus fathers) in relation to either race or sex of the child, but there were indications that overall differences in nonverbal com- munication did exist in relation to the interaction of socioeconomic status group and the sex of the parent (p. 127). Affective Orientation Behavior wanmth and HOstiZity Warmth and hostility have been viewed as the opposite ends of the same continuum. Schaefer and Bayley's (l963) model is a matrix of two dimensions--a love-hate dimension (warmth and hostility) and a control-autonomy dimension. Applied to parental behavior, the Schaefer and Bayley model, according to Ferguson (l970), suggested a "typology .é'fl’fdfdt :56 anthem): mm mm same “3 \_ . \ “Visas: 56 of parental influence: democratic indulgent child-rearing practices would fall in the quadrant characterized by high warmth and high granting of autonomy to the child; the overprotective parent would be characterized by the combination of high warmth and high control; the authoritarian parent would seem best described by a combination of high control and hostile rejecting attitudes; the parent who combines rejection with autonomy might be described as 'laissez-faire' or neglecting [p. 26]." In their longitudinal study comparing con- sistency of maternal behavior during infancy and later at preado- lescence, Schaefer and Bayley (l963) found high consistency in the love-hate dimension, and low consistency on the dimension of autonomy- control. These findings might be expected when viewed in light of current American child-rearing practices. Milton (1958) conducted a factor analysis of child rearing behavior and found the warmth factor to be highly consistent over time. Warm mothers were characterized as more demonstrative in their relationship to their children; they spent more time with the children just for pleasure and tended to use praise and reasoning rather than punishment as a means of control. Measures of warmth of the parent-child relationship have been enormously useful in social behavior studies. Warmth is important because of its role in producing identification. According to the principles of learning theory, "before a parent can socialize a child, he must have established a relationship with the child such that the child will play in the vicinity of the parent and orient WW} .' 935.! 13%! \V\ m Wifiulxb ‘ ‘1? “.15? "‘\p. i). C .“fii‘ 'o It 57 himself toward the parent [Maccoby, l96l, p. 364]." Warmth in the parent—child relationship was associated with socially positive out- going behavior and adaptive behavior in the child (Ferguson, 1970), whereas parental rejection tended to be associated with hostile or fearful and generally maladaptive behavior. In the Fels scales (Baldwin et aZ., 1949), five variables were found to be related to warmth: l) acceptance-~the degree to which parents' emotional life includes or excludes the child (extreme exaggerated love to overt rejection); 2) direction of criticism (approval versus disapproval, or praise versus criticism); 3) affec- tionateness (love versus antagonism); 4) rapport--a reciprocal rela- tionship between the parent and child, and 5) child centeredness--a concept of self-sacrifice on the part of the parent (the degree to which the home revolves around the child. The amount of warmth varied with the age of the child (Maccoby, l96l). With the infant and the young child, there was a great deal of contact warmth, but with the older child, warmth was exhibited by showing interest in the child and what he was doing. Hostility has been viewed in terms of lack of warmth or rejection, coldness, and over-restrictiveness (Dager, l964). Baldwin et al. (l949) found low ratings on warmth, democracy, and indulgence to be indicative of a cold, rejecting, ignoring home. Studies have been done which look at the effects of such homes on the children. Dager (l964) has said that rejection and punishment by parents is associated with aggressive children. Where there is fear, hostility l :17 of 5 Ba: Jamar NV. ‘4“ bfixfiq 58 is likely to follow for feared things (people or other) are actual or potential sources of frustration (Coleman, 1956). Faulty family relationships, evidenced by rejection, indifference, inconsistency, lack of warmth, and punitiveness, “prevent the degree of identification that permits children to internalize those norms and values necessary for the development of normal self-control [Dager, l964, p. 768]." Parental behavior which was overboard in either extreme, warmth (per- missiveness or overprotection) or hostility (restrictiveness or rejection) seemed to have deleterious effects on the development of the personality of the child (Dager, l964). While Lafore (l945) reported all parents in his study to show underlying affection for their children, at many times they seemed also to show hostility; few parents can be found to be virtually "all warm" or "all hostile" in every situation. Maccoby (1961) believed trait behavior to be situation specific. Different situations or precipitating events might mean differences in reaction and resultant behavior including, for instance, a mother's hostility and warmth levels. Even a most loving, warm, affectionate mother might have her moments of hostility toward the child. Thus at two consecutive points in time, both opposing poles of the hostility- warmth continuum might be shown due to differences in the situation. Hostility and warmth, because they are two ends of the same continuum, cannot occur simultaneously, but both behaviors can be shown in a short span of time due to changes in the environmental or organismic stimuli. fill 1” 59 Anxiety Nearly all theories of socio-emotional and/or personality development incorporate at least some discussion of anxiety. The concept of anxiety is important for understanding the emotional life of both the child and the adult. Freud (1936) recognized three types of anxiety: reality, neurotic, and moral. Reality anxiety, the basic type of anxiety, is the fear of real dangers in the external world. Neurotic anxiety is the fear that the person will do something wrong and be punished due to loss of instinctual control. Moral anxiety is fear of the conscience. From this psychoanalytic point of view, Hall and Lindsey (1957) viewed anxiety as "a state of tension produced originally by external causes. When the ego cannot cope with the anxiety by rational methods, it has to fall back upon unrealistic ones (defense mechanisms) [p. 45-46]." Basic anxiety, Horney's (l945) primary concept in her theory of personality, was defined as "the feeling a child has of being isolated and helpless in a potentially hostile world. A wide range of adverse factors in the environment can produce this insecurity in a child . . . [p. 4l].“ Sullivan (l950) believed anxiety to be transmitted to the young child or infant by the mothering figure as the first educative influence. Tension, an integral part of Sullivan's theory of anxiety, has two sources--tensions that arise from the needs of the organism, and tensions that result from anxiety. His definitions are somewhat . gum aid-'1" 45%?! W If?" .a' ems-m u ’l a. - m \ u - ‘ as. °.\\\“\R \\\\§\ \\§T\\ \ ‘V\‘§($‘\: . e; V; \ \ \\\ 6O cyclical because he goes on to define anxiety as the experience of tension that results from real or imaginary threats to one's security. Anxiety has a motivating component (Brown, 1953) in that some- how anxiety must be dealt with. Two opposing points of view were upheld by Inglis (l96l) and by Kessen (l96l). Kessen has discussed the elimination of anxiety producing responses in terms of the more or less passive inhibition of such processes. He believed that anxiety is not only a trauma which must be avoided, but that anxiety is also a condition of distress which can be met by the action of specific inhibitors. Inglis (l96l), however, emphasized the influence of active avoidance behavior: It is to be suggested that the paradigm for the elimination of anxiety producing mediating responses is to be found in experi- ments involving escape activity rather than in experiments dealing with the simple exclusion of unrewarded responses [p. 263]. The amount of avoidance activity itself can have beneficial or dele- terious effects: By initiating too much avoidance the individual may deprive him- self of certain problem solving tools and so may reduce the efficiency of his adjustment; on the other hand, insufficient avoidance may be equally maladaptive since the consequent increase in the emotive properties of a situation may also be descriptive of efficient behavior [p. 264]. In addition, Eysenck (l96l) believed the anxiety response to be unadaptive when it is evoked in circumstances in which there is no threat. Attempted differentiation has been made between the concepts of fear and anxiety (Jersild, l954; Coleman, l956). Anxiety and fear are closely related since many stress situations give rise to both / / .‘- {I m @1125 mm, \W W~i\\§-\R\R ‘ 61 fear and anxiety. With fear there is usually a "clear perception of the threatening circumstance" while with anxiety the individual may be ”unable to clearly define to himself what it is that makes him anxious [Jersild, 1954, p. 869].“ Anxiety may vary in intensity from mild feelings of uneasiness to the most acute dread and apprehension (Coleman, 1956). Anxiety, then, is an encompassing emotional state, while fear usually refers to a specific external stimulus. Numerous studies have dealt with the effects of anxiety on a number of variables. Adams and Sarason (1963) studied the relation- ship between anxiety in children and in their parents and found that there was a relationship. The hypothesis that a child's anxiety behavior would be more positively correlated with his mother's anxiety behavior than with his father's anxiety behavior, possibly due to greater contact between mothers and children during the formative years, was strongly supported for both boys and girls. Cunningham (1972) looked at the anxiety levels of parents (fathers and mothers) teaching their child a prearranged task and found significant differences between parents in relation to socio- economic group. "Greater anxiety was shown by lower socioeconomic group mothers than by fathers, while the reverse was true for middle socioeconomic group parents [p. 168]." Gilmore (l966). in looking at the relationship between hospitalization and toy choice, found that all groups of children studied showed preference for novel toys. However, children who experienced the anxiety that goes with hospitalization preferred to 62 Play with toys relevant to hospitalization more than did another similar unhospitalized population of children. Perhaps the hospitalized children were able to deal better with the anxieties of the experience with the aid of the hospital-related toys. Smith et al. (1956) found anxious individuals of a permeable or fluid personality structure made optimum gains in reading efficiency when exposed to a maximum of structure and direction and would make minimum gains when little structure and direction was util ized; subjects who were rigid and anxious were uninfluenced by teach‘i ng method. It appears that anxiety as well as personality structure has an effect on performance. Levitt (1967) reported that the effects of anxiety on learning deDer-d ed largely on the specific nature of the situation, the per- sonal 'i ties of the individuals involved, the nature of the task (i.e., COMP] exity), intelligence and tension. In some cases anxiety could facil ‘i tate learning and in some cases, inhibit it. Walters' (1960) StUdy gave strong support to the hypothesis that anxiety, not isola- tion by itself, is the major factor affecting rate of conditioning. Anxious subjects conditioned more readily than nonanxious subjects. LiPSltt and Spears (1965) studied the effect of anxiety and stress on ChilClY‘en's paired association learning and found that while neither anxiety nor stress had a reliable effect on low competition (high associl'ation) pairs, learning on high competition pairs was reliably poorer. for high anxious and high stress subjects. Thus there seems to be rationale for looking at parental anxiety levels as well as child anxiety levels. An individual's 63 anxiety level in an unfamiliar potentially stress-producing situation could significantly affect performance and other socioemotional behavior as well. Dependency and Dependence Promotion Dependency is expected and reinforced throughout all stages of development (Bandura and Walters, 1963). Dependency behavior appears to have its roots in infantile attachment. The development of attach- ment is considered to be essential to normal personality development in the young child (Ferguson, 1970). Goldfarb (1955), Bowlby (1952), and Spitz (1945) attribute the abnormal personalities of institution- reared children to the absence of a primary attachment relationship with a mother-figure. These findings imply that dependency fails to devel op unless the child experiences relatively consistent gratifica- tion From the same person (Hartup, 1963). The infant never learns to have trust in an unpredictable environment. Erickson's (l950) theory of stages of personality development emphasizes the need for the development of trust in the first stage of life. According to Maccoby and Feldman (1972), the quality of the mutheV‘~chi1d relationship rather than the quantity is of greater 1.mpm‘tc’ance in the maintenance of attachment. As the child matures, attachment becomed what has been coined "dependency"; Ferguson (1968) Cited the interchangeable usage for the two terms in the literature t0 indicate the same behavioral process at two different stages of deVE] °Dment. Attachment has to have occurred before dependency can 4.. C‘ 9‘ It. 64 develop. It is completely normal behavior for a two, three, or even four year old to show dependence, in some form, on his mother, father, or any significant other. Dependency, according to Ferguson (1968), refers to a general trait (not just specific behavioral responses). She cited nine spe- cific behaviors which reveal dependency: seeking attention (including both positive and negative forms of attention-seeking). seeking recognition or approval, seeking comfort and reassurance, seeking physical proximity to another person, seeking or maintaining physical contact (touch and holding, clinging), seeking help, protest at separation or separation- anxiety, anxiety over loss of nurturance, passive reaction to frustration [p. 4]. Heathers (1955a) suggested that dependency is really two dif- ferent types of behaviors, emotional and instrumental dependency. Hartup (1963) defined emotional dependency as behavior which shows that other individuals are satisfying and rewarding themselves. Heathers (1955a) classified emotional dependency as approaches to others, want- 1'Dg to be physically near or in contact with others; seeking attention, comfort or approval from others, and being distressed by separation. ONLY this type of dependency is likened to attachment (Ferguson, 1970) . Instrumental dependency, on the other hand, refers to active infOlt‘mation seeking of another individual in order to accomplish some 9°“ (help seeking). Instrumental dependency can be related to low comPetence and shows lack of self-sufficiency (Heathers, 1955a). The above breakdown of dependency into emotional and instrumental seems to be a useful way to look at such behaviors. The reported antecedents of dependency are quite diversified. Ge""‘W‘tz (1956) has a theory of emotional dependence which is based on 65 learning theory and the existence of drive states. Gewirtz (1954) suggested that children show more attention-seeking behavior when in the presence of a nonresponsive adult than in the presence of an adult who focuses attention on the child. Furthermore, when rejection involves withholding positive reinforcement rather than the presentation of negative reinforcement, its effect may be to intensify dependency toward the frustrating agent (Hartup, 1958). Hartup (1958) also found that children who had experienced delay of reward for dependency displayed more dependent behavior than children whose dependency had been consistently rewarded. Osofsky (1970) looked at dependence promotion and independence Promotion. Dependence promotion was defined as the degree to which the mother encouraged the child to follow the mother's lead and dis- courag ed the child's individual efforts. Independence promotion was defined as the degree to which the mother encouraged the child to do tasks individually and supported the child's individual initiative. The results of this study, which have already been reported in the section on mother-child interactions, showed that mothers reinforced inCIependent behavior when the child acted independent, dependent behaVior when the child acted stubborn, and neither independent nor dePe'Klent behavior when the child acted dependent. Clinical case material revealed that an extreme degree of moth‘F-‘lr‘ing may create very strong dependency habits (Levy, 1943). Dager (1964) has said that a restrictive or overprotective parent- chnd interaction is associated with children who are withdrawn, 66 submissive, and dependent. On the other hand, Waldrop and Bell (1964) f0und that a lack of social availability of a mother because of a high family density should result in an enhancement of dependence behavior. Bandura and Walters (1963) suggested that adult nurturance is a critical factor in establishing dependence in children. Few child development specialists would disavow the importance of nurturance, especially maternal nurturance. An optimal level or amount of nurturance is desirable, but optimal in no way either dictates extreme amounts (as in overprotection) or too little (as in neglect). Socially and devel opmentally, it would appear that a moderate level of dependency is va luable. But what does dependency mean relative to child socialization? In the socialization process dependency acquires motivational properties (Hartup, 1963). Walters (1960) has taken the view that anxiety is the motivational state relevant to much dependent behavior. He sug- gested that dependency habits can be learned in connection with many drives--first in response to hunger, thirst, and pain, and later in response to the anxiety aroused when the child's relationship with adults is threatened. Sears, Rau, and Alpert (1965) have viewed dependency as having a role in the reinforcement of the imitative behavior that leads to adult 5°19 adoption. Sears, Maccoby, and Levin (1957) were quoted as saying: In the normal young child the dependency motive appears to 98 a powerful one. It cannot be eliminated and it cannot be 1Snored. In fact, the more the child's efforts to satisfy it are Pustrated, the more insistent and all absorbing are his suppli- Cations . . . if she [the mother] begins to be less responsive to 67 his customary ways of seeking her affection and attention, his first reaction will be to redouble his efforts. That is, he will behave more dependently [p. 141]. Ferguson (1968) and Cairns (1962) both have evidence to sug- gest that children in whom dependency habits are strongly developed are more responsive to social reinforcers. This would suggest that dependent children are also more likely to be rule—followers or law- abiders for fear of adult disapproval. Heathers (1955b) states that dependency is manifested in different ways by two-year-olds and four-year-olds, the older children showing less clinging and affection seeking. Beller (1955), however, believes that sooner or later, the young child, especially in American culture, is expected to make a turn about and become more independent and self-reliant. There is evidence which suggests that emotional dependency interferes in some way with children's initial adjustment to nursery school . Marshall and McCandless (1957) found a consistently negative corre‘l ation between preschool children's measure of popularity and their measure of dependence. D0pular. The less dependent children were more Waldrop and Bell (1964) concurred with Marshall and McCandless; high dependent behavior results in less popularity with peers. But, does diminished dependence always imply increased inde- pEV‘dence? It is to independence and independence promotion that atter"tion must now be turned. 68 Independence and Independence Promotion Being a "success" in American culture necessitates independent behavior (i.e., self-reliance and ambition). Thus, many parents begin early to establish independence in their children in the hope of preparing them for successful competition in the future. Learning to take care of one's self is an important goal of childhood. Preschool education emphasizes getting the child to act responsibly and inde— pendently as a part of child growth and development (Christianson, l96l ; Hildebrand, 1971). From early infancy the child struggles for identity and autonomy. Erickson (1950) described the first two years of life of the child as struggling to establish some sort of a “trust" bond via attachment and dependence and followed by the attempt to establish autonomy and independence apart from other individuals. In the obser- vation of a small child and his mother, one can often see the transition taking place. The child sitting on his mother's lap for a moment of securi ty gets down to explore something in the environment, only to rush back to his mother again for reassurance (Ainsworth, 1973). So begins the emergence of independence behavior. As the Child gets older the moments of independence increase in quantity of . time, and the clinging behavior begins to diminish in quantity of time. The Characteristic preschool crisis is based on the child's transition to greater independence during this period (Emmerich, 1969). According to Bandura and Walters (1963), much of the research on delJendency-independency is based on the assumption that independence 69 emerges from dependence (i.e., dependency on another person must have been established first before the attainment of independence has meaning). Independence has been defined by Heathers (1955a) as self- sufficiency or the absence of dependency. But Hartup (1963), however, contends that independence is more than just the lack of dependence. It should refer to behavior which is self-reliant and self-assertive. Bel ler (1955) identified some behaviors which typify independence, including taking the initiative, overcoming obstacles, persistence, satisfaction from work, and wanting to do things alone. Dager (1964) found that the permissive (not extreme) and democratic parent-child interaction appears to be associated with children who demonstrate independence as well as self-confidence, initi ative, creativity, and cooperation. Watson (1967), in general, aSlf‘ees with Dager's analysis of child-rearing practices and indepen- dence : "there is a tendency for greater freedom in the home to show itsel “F in greater independence in the child's behavior outside the home [p. 148]." Both Winterbottom (1953) and Ferguson (1970) discussed some child-rearing antecedents and results of independence promotion: Early parental expectation of and reward for independence seems to be one of the most reliable predictors of achievement (i.e., mothers of high achievement-oriented children make earlier achievement demands, more frequently reward achievement responses, and are less restrictive Of 1."dependence activity than mothers of low achievement-oriented childY‘en. Independence promotion results in more independent children, Jus1; as dependency promotion results in more dependent children. 70 Overall Summary Many studies about parent-child interactions already exist in the literature. They represent the gamut in terms of research methodology. Every type of methodology, however, has certain varying limitations. The choice of which research methodology is most appro- priate for a particular study is going to depend on the theoretical conceptualization of the problem, the independent variables of interest, the dependent variables of interest and what studies and research in related fields have contributed to the area of central interest. The theoretical framework for this study was the inter- actional framework, the various demographic variables were the independent variables of interest, and orientation behaviors were the dependent variables of interest for this study. This literature review represents an attempt to bring all of these factors into focus. CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGN The Design This study contained three main independent variables of interest: 1) sex of the child (male and female); 2) socioeconomic status (middle class and lower class); and 3) race (black and white). In addition, three other variables of interest were covaried: 1) ordinal position of the child; 2) age of the mother; and 3) age of the child. The completely crossed and balanced 2 x 2 x 2 design matrix is shown in Table 3-1. This same basic design was used for the analyses of those dependent variables related to the mother as well as analyses of those dependent variables related to the child. In addition, a repeated '“easures analysis was used with the child variables. The regression ahalysis design for two additional variables of interest, age of the nIother and ordinal position of the child, involved a single cell regres- sion analysis collapsed across the dimensions. Forty-eight preschoolers and their mothers were the subjects in this study. Each dyad of a mother and her child was treated as a Unit. 71 72 Table 3-1 Design Matrix Sex of the Preschool Child is... 'V nu Social Class Race Male Female 01, 02, 03....0n 01, 02, 03....0n Black 6 6 Lower SES White 6 6 Black 6 6 Middle SES White 6 6 where: 01....0 refers to each observation taken for the repeated measures dimension 73 The Subjects ' I .4... From approximately one hundred subjects used in a larger .fi‘.‘ ‘- Mr .- . research study (Boger and Cunningham, 1970), a sample of forty—eight preschool children and their mothers was chosen through a stratified § - ._._~ m -'-. am..- ~ randonisampling procedure. The subjects in the larger study were 1.“? «it: I selected by availability sampling within a representative framework. "Selection of children for each demographic group was made on the basis of several factors, with an attempt to obtain a varied and representa- tive distribution on each [Boger and Cunningham, 1970, p. 24]." Ethnic determination for the larger study was based on the ethnic origin of the parents. For this study, both parents had to be black for the child to be considered black, and both natural parents had to be white for the child to be considered white. The determination of socioeconomic status group was made on the basis of four factors: income, occupation of the primary wage-earner, education of both parents, and housing. A given family was "classi- fied within a given socioeconomic group if it met at least three criteria and did not deviate from the fourth by more than one cate- gory [Boger and Cunningham, 1970, p. 24]." The specific breakdown is given in Table 3-2. In the selection of the sample from the larger subject pool, subjects were first placed in their respective cells. Children not later officially enrolled in the preschool program were not used as subjects in this study. Also eliminated was one child who had both parents present in the Familiarization Task Session. The number of I .. "xx-aim.” 74 Table 3-2 Socioeconomic Group Determination Factor Lower SES Middle SES Within eligility guide- Not within eligibility Incmne lines for public guidelines for public assistance assistance Occupation of wage earner Unemployed, unskilled, or semi-skilled Skilled, semi-profes- sional, or profes- sional -cm_ Education of Both parents no higher than twelfth grade Both parents with educa- tion beyond twelfth parents grade Public housing project Single family or multi- or single family or family dwelling in good multi-family dwelling condition (character- in poor condition ized by low density, Housing (characterized by high well-kept condition, density, run-down con- dition, gross mis- management, and low social desirability of neighborhood) cleanliness, good up- keep, and social desirability of neigh- borhood) 75 remaining subjects per cell ranged from nine to twelve children. Names were then randomly drawn within each cell to obtain a random rank-ordering of all subjects available within a cell. Where siblings existed in the subject pool, the first one chosen became part of the sample and the second child was then eliminated. If the data on a particular subject was not usable (due to poor condition of the videotape--visual or audio), the next subject in line was used. Further Description of the Sample The subjects in this study were thought to be relatively representative of the populations of interest. The specific relevant characteristics of the sampled subjects are as follows: 1) All subjects, mothers and children, were native-born United States citizens and were either Anglo-American or Afro-American. 2) The occupational level of the sampled mothers ranged from unemployed through professional status, the most frequent category being unemployed-housewife. The breakdown of occupa- tional level for the mothers in each of the demographic cells is shown in Table 3-3. 3) The educational level for the sampled mothers ranged from no higher than seventh grade through graduate degrees. The breakdown of educational level for the mothers in each demo- graphic cell is given in Table 3-4. 4) The average age of the mothers was a little over twenty-nine years (29.4 years). The range of the mothers' ages was 20 to 76 pcmpmwmmm mumzumtm .mmgzc .tmgummp .Louoou ..m.m gmpmmumt .tmesmgmota gmusaeou .mezo nogm ..a.m megoz stucsmF .Lou_:mn .gmxgoz cowuuatumcoo ..m.m savorcnuwg amp .umwpsum awn: .Lmucwmq ..m.m onwm m.omtsc .cm>wgu xuagu ..m.m (6.00130) mm .msazws paw;m_: azogo owsamguoEmo m.upw;o em_asmm Ame u zv _m>m4 Focopumuaum .mtmguoz vim mpnmh 78 45 years. The mean age of the mothers within each of the demographic cells is shown in Table 3-5. 5) The average age of the sampled child was three years and five months (41.6 months). The range of ages was two years and nine months to four years and ten months. The mean age of the children within each of the demographic cells is sum- marized in Table 3-5. 6) The average number of siblings of each child was slightly less than two (1.85). The breakdown for each demographic cell is summarized in Table 3-6. 7) The average ordinal position in the family of the sampled children was a little over two (2.23). The breakdown for each demographic cell is summarized in Table 3-7. 8) All of the middle socioeconomic group children had both parents present in the home. One-third of the lower socio- economic group children had a mother present but no father, while two-thirds of the lower socioeconomic group children had both parents present in the home. The breakdown for each of the demographic cells is summarized in Table 3-8. The Familiarization Task Session In order to assess the behaviors of mothers and their children in an unfamiliar situation, an unstructured, potentially unnatural situation was set up. The instrument was developed by Cunningham and Boger (1969) at the Head Start Research Center, Michigan State 79 Table 3-5 Age of Subjects white females l .Smnpled Mothersa I Childrenb Child's . ___ gisagrapmc Mean 3:323:33. Mean 3231363,] Middle-555 35.50 2.59 40.33 6.80 aAge in years at time of assessment b Age in months at time of assessment 80 Table 3-6 Number of Siblings of Sampled Children (5: :?¥;?: Mean Standard Demographic Deviation (Slewcnup ‘6?:: (Singles 2 ° 00 2 . 28 2222222.... 133?:2-335 1 '83 1 .60 52:52-33“... 1 '83 1 .84 ”3122.16.35; .8. “'7 "if-32.182222... .... 0°75 . \ 81 Table 3—7 Ordinal Position of Sampled Child Sampled ”m” - N Mean 32323223.. Demographic Group "°"°"‘SES 6 2 .33 1 .86 black males L°"e"SES 4.17 2.64 black females 6 L°"’e"'SES 6 2.17 1 .94 white males L°‘”""'SES 6 2.33 1 .37 white females Middle-SES 2.00 1.10 black males 6 "idd'e'SES 6 1.67 0.82 black females Middje’SES 6 1.33 0.82 Whi te males Midd 19'5” 6 1.83 0.98 Whi te females so 1 82 Table 3-8 Presence of Fathers in Homes of Sampled Children Sampled Child's Father Father Total Demographic Present Absent Group Lower-SES black males 2 4 6 Lower-SES black females 6 0 6 Lower-SES white males 4 2 6 Lower-SES white females 4 2 6 Middle-SES black males 6 0 6 Middle-SES black females 6 0 6 Middle-SES Whi te males 6 0 6 M' - 1dd 'le SES 6 0 6 "hi te females g 83 University. For the complete instrument description, see Appendix I-A. For each session, the mother and child were escorted to the mobile trailer unit where the session was conducted, and the experi- menter told the mother to familiarize the child with the new environ- ment. The mother and child were then left alone in the testing room where the mother was free to interact with the child in any way she wished. Each interaction period, which lasted approximately five minutes, was videotaped for subsequent rating according to the depen- dent variables of interest. For the instrument description, see Appendix I-B. At the end of this time period the examiner returned to ‘the testing room and spent an additional two to three minutes getting acquainted with the child and setting up the next appointment time. This time period was also videotaped, but the behavior exhibited during this time was not of interest in this study. The experimenter, mother, and child then left the room. The Familiarization Task Rating Procedure The Familiarization Task Rating Procedure was developed by 015°" . Cunningham, and Boger (1973) at the Institute for Family and Child Study at Michigan State University for the Specific purpose of assess ‘ing parent and child orientation behaviors in an unfamiliar Sit“£"‘:‘i<)n. For the complete instrument description, see Appendix I-B. The Familiarization Task Rating Procedure (FTRP) consists of four- . QCDmponent parts, each reflecting a particular type of orientation 84 behavior: verbal behavior of the mother; nonverbal, physical behavior of the mother; affective behavior of the mother; and affective behavior of the child. The subcategories of each part are as follows: a) Verbal behavior of the mother: verbalization, verbal focus, verbal fantasy, verbal time orientation, voice affective tone, verbal initiation—response mode, verbal support, and verbal independence promotion. b) Nonverbal behavior of the mother: affective physical behavior, neutral physical behavior, nonverbal initiation-response mode, nonverbal support, and nonverbal independence promotion. c) Affective behavior of the mother: hostility, warmth, and anxiety. (1) Affective behavior of the child: anxiety and dependency. The FTRP uses a time-sampling procedure with twenty-second intervals. Each interval is rated sequentially and each variable is rated every interval. Up to three behaviors may be recorded for verbal and/OI" nonverbal orientation behaviors. An over-all interval rating '5 Used for each of the affective behaviors. Training of the rater took one to two weeks and involved dis- cuss i on about the meaning of the categories as well as many hours of praCt-i Ce using the rating schedule. When a relatively high level of compe tence with the instrument was acquired, reliability was determined "Sing . . ‘3 Videotape not prev1ously seen by the observer. Two methods 85 of reliability were used, one based on total recorded positions and one based on total blanks. The minimum acceptable levels of reliability using these two procedures were .75 and .85 respectively. Appendix I-B provides a complete description of the procedures used for comput- ing reliability. Both intra- and inter-rater reliability were computed. The reliability of the individual rating the videotapes used in this study ranged from .85 to .95 (total recorded positions and total blanks respectively). The Null Hypotheses The overall null hypothesis of this study was as follows: there is no difference in the maternal verbal, nonverbal, and affective orientation behavior, and the child's affective behavior in a Famil- iarization Task Session with respect to socioeconomic status, race, and/or sex of the child, with the age of the mother and ordinal posi- tion of the child showing no relationship to the verbal, nonverbal, and affective behavior of the mother. The general and specific null ”Ypotheses of this study were as follows: 7' ye\"bal Orientation Behavior of the Mothers Genera Z Null Hypothesis: The he With ‘ismo difference in the verbal orientation behavior ofmothers reSp heir preschool ch1ldren 1n a Fam111ar1zation Task Sess1on w1th and tfit to race, SES, and/or sex of the child, with the age of the mother e ordinal position of the child showing no relationship to the orienting behavior of the mothers. 86 Specific Null Hypotheses: 1.1) There is no difference between the verbal orientation behaviors of middle-class mothers and lower-class mothers with their children in a Familiarization Task Session. 1.2) There is no difference between the verbal orientation behaviors of black mothers and white mothers with their preschool chil- dren in a Familiarization Task Session. 1.3) There is no difference between the verbal orientation behaviors of mothers of boys and mothers of girls with these children in a Familiarization Task Session. 1.4) There is no difference in the verbal orientation behaviors of mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session with respect to the interaction of race, SES, and/or sex of the child. 'l.5) There is no relationship between the age of the mothers and the verbal orienting behavior of these mothers with their pre- school children in a Familiarization Task Session. l .6) There is no relationship between ordinal position of the children and the verbal orienting behavior of the mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. 2. Nonverbal Orientation Behavior of the Mothers General Null Hypothesis: Thence} is no difference in the nonverbal orienting behavior of mothers :"th their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session with megpect to race, SES, and/or sex of the child, with the age of the t: 29" and the ordinal position of the child showing no relationship "<3 nonverbal orienting behavior of the mothers. fibecific Null Hypotheses: 2?- . . . . ‘1 2) There 15 no difference between the nonverbal or1entat10n behaviors of middle-class mothers and lower-class mothers with their children in a Familiarization Task Session. 2.2) 2.3) 2.4) 2.5) 2.6) 87 There is no difference between the nonverbal orientation behaviors of black mothers and white mothers with their pre- school children in a Familiarization Task Session. There is no difference between the nonverbal orientation behaviors of mothers of boys and mothers of girls with these children in a Familiarization Task Session. There is no difference in nonverbal orientation behaviors of mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session with respect to the interaction of race, SES, and/or sex of the child. There is no relationship between the age of mothers and the nonverbal orienting behavior of these mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. There is no relationship between ordinal position of the children and the nonverbal orienting behavior of the mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. 3. _Affective Orientation Behavior of Mothers General Null Hypothesis: The re is no difference in the affective orientation behavior of mothers With their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session with respect to race, SES, and/or sex of the child, with the age of the mother and the ordinal position of the child showing no relationship to the affective orienting behavior of the mothers. Specific Null Hypotheses: There is no difference between the affective orientation behavior of middle-class mothers and lower-class mothers with their pre- school children in a Familiarization Task Session. There is no difference between the affective orientation behavior of black mothers and white mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. There is no difference between the affective orientation behavior of mothers of boys and mothers of girls with these preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. 3.4) 3.5) 3.6) 88 There is no difference in the affective orientation behavior of mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session with respect to the interaction of race, SES, and/or sex of the child. There is no relationship between the age of mothers and the affective orienting behavior of these mothers with their pre- school children in a Familiarization Task Session. There is no relationship between the ordinal position of the children and the affective orienting behavior of the mothers with their preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. 4. Affective Orientation Behavior of Children General Nul l Hypothesis : There is no difference in the affective orientation behavior of preschool cfrildren in a Familiarization Task Session in relation to race, SES, sex of’ the child, and/or the elapsed time spent in the session. Specific Null Hypotheses: 11.‘l) There is no difference between the affective orientation behavior of middle-class preschool children and lower-class preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. There is no difference between the affective orientation behavior of white preschool children and black preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. There is no difference between the affective orientation behavior of male preschool children and female preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session. There is no difference in the affective orientation behavior of preschool children in a Familiarization Task Session with respect to the interaction of race, SES, and/or sex of the child. The affective orientation behavior of preschool children does not differ with respect to the elapsed time spent in the session in a Familiarization Task Session. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 5) 7) 89 Operational Definitions The following Operational definitions were used in this study: Verbalization is the relative amount of each specific type of verbalization which occurs during the Familiarization Task Session as measured by the FTRP. Verbalization also includes the total amount of verbalization which occurs in the Familiarization Task Session as measured by the FTRP. The specific types of verbalizations are: l) nursery school related verbalizations—-program, teacher, building or materials, other children, child himself; 2) trailer related verbalizations-- furniture, blocks-general, blocks-specific, experimenter, physical attributes of the trailer, and atmosphere; and 3) statements about things other than nursery school or trailer --home environment, school places, and miscellaneous. Verbal focus is the relative amounts of emphasis on who the verbalization is primarily concerned with (i.e., mother, child, other, no obvious focus) in the Familiarization Task Session as measured by the FTRP. Verbal fantasy_is the relative amount of fantasy verbalization i.e., ratio of fantasy to nonfantasy verbalization) which is used in the Familiarization Task Session as measured by the FTRP. Verbal time orientation is the average level of time orientation (i.e., past, present, future) used verbally during the Familiari- zation Task Session as measured by the FTRP. Voice affective tone is the average level of affect (i.e., nega- tive, neutral, positive) conveyed by the voice during the Familiarization Task Session as measured by the FTRP. Verbal initiation-response mode is the average level of verbal initiation-response mode (i.e., proactive, reactive, retroactive) used in the Familiarization Task Session as measured by the FTRP. Verbal support is the average level of supportive verbalization (in contrast to nonsupportive or neutral) which is used in the Familiarization Task Session as measured by the FTRP. 8) 9) 10) ll) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 90 Verbal independence promotion is the average level of independence promoting verbalization (in contrast to dependence promoting or neutral) used in the Familiariza- tion Task Session as measured by the FTRP. Affective physical behavior is the relative amount of each specific type of affective physical behavior which occurs during the Familiarization Task Session as measured by the FTRP. Affective physical behavior also includes the total amount of affective physical behavior which occurs in the Familiarization Task Session as measured by the FTRP. The specific types of affective physical behavior are negative physical, social physical, approach and defense. Neutral physical behavior is the relative amount of specific types of neutral nonverbal physical behavior which occur during the Familiarization Task Session as measured by the FTRP. Neutral physical behavior also includes the total amount of neutral nonverbal physical behavior which occurs in the Familiarization Task Session as measured by the FTRP. The specific types of neutral physical behavior are pointing and block handling. Ngnverbal initiation-response mode is the average level of nonverbal initiation-response mode (i.e., proactive, reactive, retroactive) used in the Familiarization Task Session as measured by the FTRP. Nonverbal support is the average level of supportive nonverbal behavior (in contrast to nonsupportive or neutral) which is used in the Familiarization Task Session as measured by the FTRP. Nonverbal independencepromotion is the average level of inde- pencence promoting nonverbal behavior (in contrast to dependence promoting or neutral) used in the Familiarization Task Session as measured by the FTRP. Hostility is the average level of hostility (high, moderate, none)_shown by the mother in the Familiarization Task Session as measured by the FTRP. Warmth is the average level of warmth (high, moderate, none) shown by the mother in the Familiarization Task Session as measured by the FTRP. Anxiety-Maternal is the average level of anxiety (high, moder- ate, low) shown by the mother in the Familiarization Task Session as measured by the FTRP. 91 17) Anxiety-Child is the average level of anxiety (high, moderate, low) shown by the child in the Familiarization Task Session as measured by the FTRP. 18) Child dependency is the relative amount of each Specific type of dependency which occurs during the Familiarization . Task Session as measured by the FTRP. Child dependency also includes the total amount of dependency which occurs in the Familiarization Task Session as measured by the FTRP. The specific types of dependency measured are instrumental and emotional. Data Reduction and Analysis All data were coded on computer coding forms by a trained coder. The data were then quality checked by a research assistant trained both in coding and in rating the FTRP, and keypunched on com- PUter cards and mechanically verified. The same basic data reduction procedure and analyses used by CUDDingham (1972) were employed in this study: A transformed data deck was generated with a computer {Jrogram . . . which reduced the individual observations to (:ategory and variable frequencies for each subject for each raw \rariable [p. 72]. Within this same program any category frequency which was (3" vvas changed to a new value computed by the formula l/2n, where n 13 the number of observations or intervals. '1"his transformation was done because the frequencies were ulti- lTLately used for calculating log transformations, which would have been mathematically impossible to compute with the zero frequencies [p. 72]. I t ”as assumed that the differences from zero in the value of the S<: Ores obtained by this transformation would be small and therefore “Pi - th‘. '1 the range of the errors of measurement. L 92 Using this frequency deck with the nonzero frequencies, a second program was run which transformed the frequency scores into the variables of interest. Logit transformations were computed in the subsequent analysis program for all proportion scores for the qualitative variables of interest. Use of the logits as input variables was chosen as a means of controlling the instability of variances which results from the use of standard proportions. Specification of the logits in the dichotomous case followed the form logit = log §-, \Nhere p was the frequency of occurrence of an event and q was the frequency of nonoccurrence of that same event. For the loolychotomous case, a series of logits was specified in the form . _ a logit l - log a ; . _ b logit 2 — log-E ; logit x = log 9-; n where a, b, . . . n are the frequencies of occurrence of cate- gories a, b, . . . n, and n is the category with the greatest eXpected rate of occurrence [Cunningham, 1972, p. 73]. Applying the use of the preceding procedures, thirty-eight Vari ables were identified within three categories of orientation as def‘i r‘Ied in this study. In Table 3-9 the nature of these variables I s de l ineated. 93 Ememoeq Foozom seamen: wee ozone coepe~e_enem> a nexus uumnnzm one goes: cw m:o_u -mNPFenem> emceoume co sucmscmee Locummp Foocum seamen: we“ “gone cowue~w_meem> m mmxme uuwmnsm use cues: :_ mace» -eNTFean> voweoume co aucmzcmew Lm—woeu we» so Foogum scones: one can» emcee mazes» op Loewe cows: meow» -MNeFenem> umueoume to sucmscmgc Lop_meu one on Loewe cows: mcowu -mNPanLm> umvtoumc we haemaamte Foocum scenes: on» op Loewe sown: meow“ -mNepeaem> emueoome co zucmzcmee me u mzm 1% mo_ 1M mop 1w moF 1M mo_ L 00—. Aeev Ammo Aeev “may Aeev Auev cowprFanem> meow>m 5mm cowumpcmweo pmaem> m_oeesm to eoeeeeeeeo Ammpnmeem> noseocmcmchv coeumuec_ucm:o mpnmetm> memseee< e_ sew: meeeeeee> exec to eeeeeeeeaeeeso 3 2E 94 Potocom :_ mxuo_n one ozone :o_uo~wponeo> o moxoe poonnzm one noenz cw moo?» no~epongo> oooeoooe co socozomec cm_woeu on» cw oezuwcgze on» ozone coeuoNPFoneo> o moxoe Hoonnzm on» no_n3 cw mcowp -onponeo> oooeooot to socozooee .oonom atomezc on» cw oFPnu convene ozone coepoNPPonLo> o mmxoe uuonnzm one gown: cw mcoeu -oNPPonco> oooeoooc to socozooem Poonom atomez: on» c_ cogopwno eonuo ozone coepoNWFonem> o moxoe pumnnzm one noes: cm meow» noneponto> oooeoooe co sacozooge m_o_gmuoe no mc_opmzn Foonom scomez: on» ozone compoNVFoneo> o moxoe woownzm on» noes: cw meow» 1o~eponeo> oooeoooe mo socozomgm I! mm L 8. 2.3 h as :5 ...e so, A...z owle oe_ A.=ev e so. A..v .ILW mop Aeov 11m.mop Ahoy Aowzcwacoov coeuonponto> eponesw to eeeeeeeeen Ammpnowgo> omesoemcoghv eeeeeeeeeeeezo “essenneono m.n o_eee ll+f 1L o_noeeo> .launnLuuuuuuuuuuuunu 95 mooeoo so .mocmooe eonoo .meonnooo: .meon ozone coooeNPFenco> e mmxee ooownzm ono noon: co mcooo -e~openeo> oooeoooe eo socozoooe ocoe -ooeo>co oopoeeo ono mo ononomoEoe oetoomm eno ozone coooeNo—eneo> e moxee ooonnzm eno noon: co moooo -eNoFeneo> oooeooog co socozooee u Amazooccze to oxooon oocv oneseoeo>co goooeeo ono mo mooznoeooe oeoomAno oowoooom nonoo ozone coooe~ooenem> e moxee ooonnzm ono noon: no mcooo -eNoPenem> ooonoooe mo socozooee coocosoeooxo ono ozone coooeNooeneo> e moxee ooomnzm ono noon: co mcooo -eNoFeneo> oooeoooe oo soomzootm u mxooon ono eo mooznoeooe oocwooom ozone coooe~ooeneo> e mmxee oumnnzm ono noon; co mcooo -eNPPeneo> oooeouog mo sucozomoe n o me x + mz w + m mm m e Aoozcoocouv e mop Any coooeNopengo> soonesm to eooooeoeen Amo_neoee> oosgoomcegev eeooeeoeooeezo 1+ eoneoees fiwmzcoucoov m.n veneo l/ wFODEXW $0 towuwtwkwa \ «MSNQGwLw> DUELOKWIGLRV tOeuMUekmotsz .\ QNQMmLmn fiUUJ-srUEOUV \wIMw mvxamek. Aeonooe onov m_omeon co momzooe noon: coooeeooenco> e moxes oomnnzm ono noon: no mcooo neeopengo> oooeoooe co sucmzoote ooono ono co momzoom noon: coooeNPFeneo> e moxee oomnnzm ono noon: co mcooo -eeooeneo> oooeooot eo socozooee ozooe mzoo>no on now: coooeeooenem> e moxee ooonnzm ono noon: so moooo -eeopeneo> oooeoooc mo zucozoote on Ann Aev ozoom Feneo> 96 coooe~ooeneo> ace o>om oo: moon ooonnzm ono noon: no moocz osoo ooPoEem co sucozooom .ooo .mcoooeoe> .eonoeoz ono we nozm mooooo ozoocep -Foumoe ozone coooe~o_enoo> e moxee ooonnzm ono noon: co mcooo -eNooenoo> oooooooe mo zoomzooge oceanoeo>oo ooonom emnooce ozone coooeeooeneo> e moxes ooonnzm ono noon: co mcooo -eeooeneo> ooooooog to sucozoogo Aomzcoocouv coooeNFPengo> m_onesw to eooooeooon Ammoneoge> noseoemceehv eoooeeooooeezo neeeeoozogo m.m 0_neo o_neoge> l/I f'I'. . ~ :Omomumu:otm30 mpOQENW $0 COeurCo$$Q I . all? I“ ”I Ila."n1u.auin “flu".llla..|.luuflrllulzi I ill. 11.. 11 . In «3.1.3:. QCQUv min. Wenonah. 97 ocoo oooo> an oosm>ooo mo + o . ocoo oooeoe o>ooemoc e noon: toe moooo e +o o + e- o>ooooooe -euopeneo> omoeouoe co nooozootm u e A+evm + A com + A evp mooo> oezozm ono oo tweet noon: mcooo -eeopeneo> oooooooe mo nocozooee u see ocmmoeo ono oo Loewe noon: mcooo -eNopengo> oooeoomg eo socozomee u «a» one + mmw+ -eNerneo> oooeoooe mo socozooee omoeooog co nocozomgo u azo ameocee smeocee eo omz ooopeog nownz mcooo .ILM moo Aeneo> -e~openem> oooeoooo to socozoooo u a» do Amocooec .mgonnmooc .mmcoonom .Lonoeo ..m.ov moezoo>oooo Lonoo no momzooe noon: coooeNooeneo> e moxee ouonnzm mno noon: no mcooo mzuoe Aeneo> -eNooengo> neocooog mo socozomoo u om Ammoneote> oosgommceeev moonesw oo coooocoeon coooeoomoocezo eoneoee> H .fika ouwo> meono: m cues: to; mcoeo o .. uenoecogo> omoLOUmL to Aocoaomgm I u \ mooos mponEhm $0 to u c O Amwecoekm> DOELOKMZMLk l - I- p r we 0 .\ :Omumumkmutmlo V W~Q©xkb> «oeuvweipuCQUv \wlmw Whanvh 98 oczoe: co oecozo: one noon: mcowo neuooeneo> oooeoome mo suoozooge u z oezoec mz z m co o>ooeooozm wee noon: mcooo e +z o + .m, oeooozm neeooeneo> omoeoomo oo socozooce u m Amzevm + A mom + Amcvo Aenem> oezoec no m>oooeoeooe one noon: mcooo neeooeneo> oooeooog oo socozooee u we oezoec no o>oooeoo one noon: mcooo 1e~ooeneo> oooeoooo co aocozooem u we woos oezoec be» + wee + mam omcoomoe co o>oooeoeo oge noon: mcooo -coooeoooco 1e~ooengm> ooogoomc mo aucozooem n ma Aemmvm + Ammcvm + Amoevp Pengo> mooo ouoo> an oeso>coo mo ooocoe o>ooomoo e noon: Loo mcooo -eeooeneo> oooeoooe co socozooee u + Aomzoooooov oomz mo .oooeee o: mooso>ooo .oooo ocoo ouoo> Feeozo: e noon: toe mcooo o o>ooomome senooeneo> oooeoooe to nocozooem u muoo> soonesm to eeoooeooeo Ammoneoee> eeeeoomeeeoo eoeeoee> eeooeeooooeezo Aeezeooeoov m-m eoneo K (I no mmLeS DQeCOk mtoLk» apogehw $0 coeoecpkba N a AQEOeumumkmotmlD menteLmS IIlIII. I 11 ll III. 1 III III‘ I!) fifie..u~.eshuuesfivuv \wlfio Mina-VF 99 .1.. oo_ A.ev ooeeoooe mo ooeocoo moo>Fo>oo oo: oz» Loo>enon oeoomxno o>ooomoo noon: no meoo>enmn oeoomsno e>ooooeoe m< Feneo>coc oooeoooe we zooozoonm u ooo>co Loo>enon Loo>enon oeoomzno o>ooomoo noon: o< oeoomxno co mooo>enon Feoomzno o>ooooewe .Ilw moo Aoev o>ooooe+< Aeneo>ooc oooeouoe oo zooozooee u awe awe meoo>enom :oooeocooeo oenoo>coz oocooooomoco ooosoeo noenz mcooo -eeopeneo> ooeeoooe eo socozooee n He oocmocoooocw no oocoocoooo Lonooo oooEoLo oo: oo noon: moooo ue~ooeneo> oooeoooe eo socozooem n 2» H z o cooooeoeo oucoocoooo oooeoeo noon: mcooo o + o + e oocoocoooooo -eNo—ento> oooeooog to nocozomge u at Aoevm + Azevw + Aoovo _eneo> oozoe: Aoozcoocouv so o>ooeooozmooc woe noon: mcooo oeooozm -enopeneo> oooeoooe eo nocozooem n mze Fento> soonesm eo eooooeooez Ammoneoee> eeeeoomeeeoo eoneoee> eoooeeoeooeezo Aeezeooeeov m-m eoneo fIII\-vldal.1l-l- u .l I I! til—Ill- WPOQEXW k0 COwupCkaQ Ni EOmuMUmkmuCQZO \ h «DtJC—uEOUo 01h Neath 100 mxuoon ono mopocen nooeoomsno ooonnzm ono noon: no meoo>enon Aeoomzno oeeozwc oenoo>ooc omooouoo co nocmzooee ocmscoco>co ono co mooonno Lonoo to mxooon ono oo mocooo neoeoomsno ooomnzm ono noenz no meoo>enon Peoomano oeeozoo Aenoo>ooc oooeooog co Aocmzomgm noo>enon oeoomano Aecozoz oooeoooo noo>enon Aeoomxgo o>oouoeee oeneo>coc on men ooownzm ono noon: no moocz oeoo ooposem eo mocozoote oooeoooe mo ooeonoo m=o>oo>co Loo>enon FeowmAno o>ooemmc noon: no meoo>enon Peoomzno o>oooocee Feneo>ooc oooeoooo eo mocozooto oooeoooe mo ooeocoo moo>oo>co oo: Loo>enmn oeoomsno o>ooemoc noon: co mgoo>enmn Feoomxno o>ooomeoe Peneo>co= omoeooog to zooozooeo oz no mm + e mo_ Anv Aoozcoocoov Loo>enmn Feoongo o>ooooem< soonesm to eooooeoeen Ammoneoee> custommcetev coooeooeoocezo eoeeoee> 1e Aeezeooeeoo e-m eoneo «ounultvdiquv ml” «1:3st 101 onooozm oo Joe, no: onoonzm nonoooc ooopmon noon: mnoo>enon oeoomsno Fenno>coc ooonooon oo socozoono u z onzoe: no o>oonooozo mz z m one noon: onoo>enon peoomxno e + m + .w. onooozm Penno>coc ooonooon eo nocozoone n m Amzevm + Aznvm + Amevo Penno>coz onzoe: no o>oooeonoon one noon: mnoo>enon AeoomAno Penno>ooc ooonooon mo zucozoone u em onzoe: co o>oooeon one noon: mnoo>enon oeoomsno Aenno>=oc ooonooon mo socozoonm n we once onzoe: no o>oooeono em me an omooomon one noon: mnoo>enon Peoomxno o + o + m -coooeoooco Penno>coc ooonooon mo zooozoone n ma Ahmevm+ Ammevm + Amoeoo Fenno>coz ooonooon Aoozcoocoov mnoo>enon oeoomxno Penozo: noo>enon Fenno>coo on men ooonnzm ono noon: Peoomsno co moocz oeoo ooAnEeo no nocozoone n x Aenozoz moenesw no eooooeonon Ammoneone> eeenenmeenov e_neoee> eoooeeonooeezo Aeezeooeooo m-m eoneo w FODEXW $0 EOru or: vkmwQ \ mvNCQmLmS Ammuwhnmlufixm> tflinuhohChVUnihflvs-Lu\ coeonuenootnzo I III . AfiuUJ—svdcoyxvv Golan nun-names. 102 czonm noopoomon no _o>o— noon e now: e mpe>nooco oEoo ooFQEem wo socozoonn n In ozone nooooomon mo oo>oo ooenoooe e now; moe>nooco oeoo ooooEem oo nocozcone u e m: fl: oz o + o + o ozone sooeoomon ono>o o: nooz m N o mpe>nooco oeoo ooPQEem to zucozoone u o A room + A menu + A Icvo sooooomez mnoo>enom coooeocoono o>oooocn< oocoocooooco oooeono noon: mnoo>enon oeoomzno oenno>coc ooonooon mo nooozoonn u He oocoocooooco no oocoocoooo nonooo oooEono oon on noon: mnoo>enon oeoomAno Fenno>coc ooonooon no nocozoono n n oocoocoooo H z oooeono noon: mnoo>enon Feoomsno o + c + n Fenno>coo ooonooon we nocozoonn u o AHovm + Azcvm + AoeVF o cooooEono oocoocooooco Fenno>coz onzoe: co o>oonoonzmzoc one noon: mnoo>enon Peoomnno Fenno>coc ooonouon eo nocozoonw u mzn Aoozcoocoov onooozm Fenno>coz Amooneone> ooenonmcenhv moenesm no eooooeoeen eoooeeoeooeezo ooneone> Aeezeooeoov m-m eoeeo czozm :oEan onm>o c: not: n N e: IIIIII-II mpm>nmucw wEeu Umchmm $0 Xucmzownt u "3% \ A Renew + a know + A nee \ Confess. III ELAN “tuck-h 30958 no convoccoo K «mooownwnoehuwwzcmao c \ onoooLnS Anwwephrunhouv nwlh. mvnaluk. 103 oo>on soonxce 38. e men eooee one neon; oennze one>noonn osno ooPQEem no nonozoonn :-on + z-on + z-on A=-onnm + Az-ono~ + Az-onoo eooeo-noooxe< Fo>oo zoonxne nmnn e men nonooe ono nonnz mnnnzo one>noocn osno ooFoEem no nocozoonn no>on soonxce ooenoooe e men nonooe ono nonnz onnnzo mFe>noonn oeno oonosem no sonozoonn _o>on soonxce zoo e men nonooe ono nonnz mnnnzo one>noonn oeno ooPQEem no aunozoonn .n A=-znvm + Az-zeoe + Az-znvo 1-2n + z-zn,+ z-z Pennooez -aoonx:< ozone noEnez no no>on nmnn e non: one>noonn oeno nonoEem no zucozoonn nzonm noenez no Po>oo ooenoooe e non: moe>noonn oeno ooFQEem no nonozaonn ozonm nosnez ono>o on non: mne>noocn oeno oonoeem no sunozoonn H go one + AN3nVN + Azznoo m3 N3 n + n + A... noEnez moenesm no eeoooeonen Amonnenne> ooEnonmnennv nonoeunnnooezo onnenne> Aeozeooeeoo m-e ooneo I l.- 1 - I tanstor“noocn oEno oopQEmm no Aucmzoonn n 2 on ninth RomnXSx mm m. to) mEkonmthk npooocam no cononcnnmo \ A nothnomuWnnocoao n \ «1&2th «java-sn0:00v 3.11.1 Una-VF 104 zonoonoooo on ozonm onnno ono nonnz annnzo mne>noonn osno ooPQEem no nooozoonn aunoonoooo neonoEznoonn ozoeo o_neo one none; oennzo moe>noonn oeno eonoEem no aunozoonn nonoonoooo neconooso ozone oonno one zone: oennzo one>noocn oeno oonoEeo no zonozoonn Ao>on monoonoooo opnnu Fo>on noonxne none o men ooneo oeo none: oennoo one>noocn oeno ooPoEem no nonozoonn no>on soonxne ooenoooe o no; ooneo ono none: oennzo one>noonn osno ooPQEem no zunozoonn Aooznnocoov onnnounoonxn< moooesm no eononennoo Amonnenne> oosnonmnennv nonoeonnnonezo oooenno> Aoozcnocoov mum o—neh 1110 ma‘. 1.):otheses of 1' [H.L'.C0‘.’A) Fixe: (1.1.1014) Fixed nn’ate analysi AH analyses W1: and 6500 Contr: University Con; Dmgrams were L The thy Study containec group! rate , a! 211 es 0f IDIEH C0110. Three \ mther, and ag. WISES, The behavior of th« affective Orie tion behavior and his mother MUItlp 9f the COVam‘ a analysis of Va S1gnjfl'cc‘ar1ce 105 Statistical Analysis Two main types of analyses were used to test out the hypotheses of interest: 1) a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) Fixed Effects Model and a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) Fixed Effects Model, including a repeated measures multi- variate analysis of variance, and 2) a multiple regression analysis. l\ll analyses were carried out using the Michigan State University 3600 and 6500 Control Data Corporation computers at the Michigan State University Computer Laboratory. Finn's (1967, 1971) multivariance programs were used in the analyses. The three major independent variables of interest in this study contained two levels each. They included socioeconomic status group, race, and sex of the child. Two additional independent vari— ables of interest were age of the mother and ordinal position of the Child. Three variables--ordinal position of the child, age of the mOther, and age of the child-~were used as covariates for the MANCOVA analyses. The dependent variables of interest were verbal orientation behavior of the mother, nonverbal orientation behavior of the mother, a1”f’ective orientation behavior of the mother, and affective orienta- tlon behavior of the child. The unit of analysis was the sampled child an<1 his mother. Multiple regression analysis was used to test the significance °f the covariates in the analyses of maternal behavior, and multivariate anaIysis of variance was employed to test the hypotheses if no ”gnlficance was determined for the covariates. To test the hypotheses pertaining to I variables, age maternal deper. eployed. Bas- nre perfonnec‘ basis of total ' A repE' iypotheses per addition to t2; Noun, race, a on the results for males and '"9151195 dimen An alp Event 1“ quest IIDOIhesis. I univariate Va lfileIdua] UH] regardEd 35 ma 106 pertaining to the relationships between the two additional independent variables, age of the mother and ordinal position of the child, and the maternal dependent variables, a single cell regression analysis was employed. Based on the results of these analyses, additional analyses were performed in which the dependent variables were regrouped on the basis of total maternal affective behavior. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to test hypotheses pertaining to change in child behaviors over time in addition to the design over subjects dimensions of socioeconomic status group, race, and sex of the child used in the other analyses. Based on the results of the repeated measures analysis, separate analyses for males and females were used to test the significance of the repeated measures dimension on sex of the child. An alpha level (the probability of chance occurrence of the event in question) of 0.05 was selected for testing each multivariate Individual univariate variables were disregarded in the If hypothesis. Case where the overall multivariate variable was not significant. the multivariate alpha level was less than 0.05, however, individual uni variate variables were considered significant at alpha i .01; 171d ividual univariate variables of alpha level less than 0.10 were also weQarded as making potentially meaningful contributions to the interpre- tation of the data. Any significant interactions were graphed. All "onSignificant individual univariates of significant multivariate analyses “'1. th low probability of chance occurrence (0: _<_ 0.10) were then examined for- Dossible regrouping on the basis of clustering of like variables. CHAPTER IV RESULTS Verbal Orientation Behavior Multivariate analyses of variance and covariance were calculated for verbal orientation behavior using the three independent variables of race, socioeconomic status grouping, and sex of the child. The covari- ates were age of mother, ordinal position of the child, and age of the chi 'l d. Regression analyses were computed for each of two additional independent variables--age of the mother and ordinal position of the Childuto determine the relationships between these variables and verbal Orientation behavior. The variables used to make up verbal orientation bEl'iavior were: quantity of verbalization, type of verbalization, verbal fOcus, verbal fantasy, time orientation, voice affective tone, verbal l'i‘itiation-response mode, verbal support and verbal independence pro- motion. The twenty-three scores used as measures of these variables ("C1 uded eight logit transformations and five mean scores (Table 3-9)- S\1‘3“\'ificance of Covari ates A regression analysis was computed for the three covariates of interest, and results showed no significance in the multivariate test for all three (alpha level equal to 0.6942) (Table 4-l). Individual alpha levels for the three covariates were: age of mother, 0.3744; 107 Tests fer c R. X Covariates \ Fultivariate tes l nivariate tests 108 Table 4-1 Tests for Significance of Covariates in Multivariate Tests of Verbal Orientation Behaviors of Mothers Test Statistics Degrees of Alpha Covariates Chi Square Freedom Level Mul tivariate test 62.5736 69 < 0.6942 Univariate tests INge of the child 18.9842 23 < 0.7022 ()rdinal position of the child l8.7757 23 < 0.7142 Age of the mother 24.54l6 ' 23 < 0.3744 age of child. 0- t‘ne covariates v of verbal orien‘. variance. I Thee-Hay Intere X“ The thre child by socioeil wild not be rel (Table H). lrl univariates were wc-‘rlay Interac Since 5 ell'st, two-way We found on 1; related to thes economic gmup (We 4‘41; re “18553 (Tabl 1+ - 109 age of child, 0.7022; and ordinal position of the child, 0.7142. Since the covariates were found to be nonsignificant in the analyses, analysis of verbal orientation behavior was made using multivariate analysis of variance. Three-Way Interaction The three-way interaction tested was for race by sex of the child by socioeconomic status. The null hypothesis for this interaction could not be rejected since an alpha level of 0.9828 was obtained (Table 4-2). Thus, a three-way interaction was not indicated and univariates were not considered (Table 4-3). lwo -Nay Interaction Since significance of three-way interaction effects did not exi st, two-way interactions were looked at. No significant differences Were found on the overall multivariate tests and the null hypotheses 1r‘e'lated to these interactions were not rejected (Table 4-2). Socio- economic group of race interaction had an alpha level of 0.4310 (Table 4-4); race by sex of the child interaction had an alpha level of 0.8653 (Table 4-5); and socioeconomic group by sex of the child interaction had an alpha level of 0.1316 (Table 4-5). Table 4-2 Summary of Multivariate Tests on Verbal Orientation Behavior 110 Multivariate Test Statistics Test Degrees of Alpha Hypothesis Statistic Freedom Level Analysis of Variance Socioeconomic group (SES) 2.2081 23 and 18 0.0454 Race 0.7714 23 and 18 0.7247 Sex of the child 1.0904 23 and 18 0.4312 Socioeconomic group (SES) x race 1.0906 23 and 18 0.4310 Race x sex of the child 0.6146 23 and 18 0.8653 Socioeconomic group (SES) x sex of the child 1.6827 23 and 18 0.1316 Race x sex of the child x Socioeconomic group (SES) 0.3892 23 and 18 0.9828 \ Regression Analysis ______g Age of the mother 20.7572 23 0.5960 Ordinai position of the child 21.3365 23 0.5606 \ Analyses 0f lariable K. lerbal orientati \ 111 Table 4-3 Analyses of Variance for Race x Sex x SES Interaction: Verbal Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable [Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (23 and 18 degrees of freedom) Verbal orientation [ 0.3892 l< 0.9828 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Verbalization Quantity 0.2794 0.4443 < 0.5089 Types Nursery school/trailer 0.4484 0.1698 < 0.6826 Other/trailer 0.6468 0.4771 < 0.4938 Nursery school Teacher/program 1.0587 0.6984 < 0.4083 Building/program 2.7447 0.4531 < 0.5048 Children/program 1.5450 0.2897 < 0.5934 Child/program 0.1975 0.0859 < 0.7711 Trailer Furniture/blocks-general 0.0243 0.0101 < 0.9206 Blocks-specific/blocks-general 0.0025 0.0009 < 0.9769 Experimenter/blocks-general 1.6095 1.0295 < 0.3164 Other attributes/blocks-general 0.1693 0.0766 < 0.7834 Atmosphere/b1ocks-general 1.1322 0.5753 < 0.4526 Other Home/miscellaneous 0.0117 0.0034 < 0.9537 School/miscellaneous 0.0159 1.2583 < 0.2687 Verbal focus “0 obvious focus/child 0.2855 0.3039 < 0.5846 Mother/child 2.0882 3.1341 < 0.0843 Other/child 0.0015 0.0023 < 0.9619 Verbal fantasy 1.0773 0.8523 < 0.3615 Verbal time orientation 0.0040 0.4930 < 0.4867 Voice affective tone 0.0032 0.1341 < 0.7162 Verba] initiation-response mode 0.0007 0.1076 < 0.7446 Verba1 support 0.0002 0.0030 < 0.9568 Verba] independence promotion 0.0229 0.4688 < 0.4975 --_._2 . Analyses lerbal 0r1‘entat1‘ \\ \— 1erballzation Quantity Types Nursery Schc Other/(rm e Nursery Schc eacher/pr Bunding/p Ch11drEn/D Trailer Furlllture/ 1ocks‘spe Xpel‘imen filer attr 0ther ., C 001/1111: 112 Table 4-4 Analyses of Variance for SES x Race Interaction: Verbal Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (23 and 18 degrees of freedom) Verbal orientation J 1.0906 l < 0.4310 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Verbalization Quantity 0.2827 0.4496 < 0.5064 Types Nursery school/trailer 0.3804 0.1440 < 0.7064 Other/trailer 0.2492 0.1838 < 0.6705 Nursery school Teacher/program 1.0480 0.6913 < 0.4107 Building/program 6.6513 1.0980 < 0.3010 Children/program 0.1929 ,0.0362 < 0.8502 Child/program 6.5369 2.8421 < 0.0997 Trailer Furniture/blocks-general 1.0382 0.4306 < 0.5155 Blocks—specific/blocks-general 3.0078 1.0341 < 0.3154 Experimenter/blocks-general 0.5094 0.3258 < 0.5714 Other attributes/blocks-general 1.6495 0.7466 < 0.3927 0 Atmosphere/b1ocks-general 0.2371 0.1205 < 0.7304 t er Home/miscellaneous 8.0673 2.3571 < 0.1326 School/miscellaneous 0.0146 1.1567 < 0.2887 Verbal focus No obvious focus/child 1.5335 1.6325 < 0.2088 Mother/child 2.1502 3.2272 < 0.0800 Other/child 0.7054 1.0652 < 0.3083 Verbal fantasy 0.1167 0.0923 < 0.7629 Verbal time orientation 0.0009 0.1096 < 0.7424 Voice affective tone 0.0190 0.8083 < 0.3740 Verbal initiation-response mode 0.0149 2.2450 < 0.1419 Verbal support 0.0611 1.0537 < 0.3109 Verbal independence promotion 0.0161 0.3290 < 0.5695 Analyses le'bal orientat‘ \ \ ‘lerbalization Quantity Tynes Nursery Sch< Other/traile Nursery sch Teacher/p BU11dlng/I Ch11dr8nn Cbud/1310c Trail” 1 F”('ll'tur‘e) OCkS-Sp‘ XDErimen. ther att Atmospheh other 113 Tab1e 4-5 Analyses of Variance for Race x Sex Interaction: Verbal Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable JMean Square 1 Ratio J Level Multivariate Analysis (23 and 18 degrees of freedom) Verbal orientation 1 0.6146 J < 0.8653 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Verbalization Quantity 0.0234 0.0372 < 0.8481 Types Nursery school/trailer 0.0571 0.0216 < 0.8839 Other/trailer 0.0315 0.0233 < 0.8796 Nursery school Teacher/program 0.2504 0.1652 < 0.6866 Building/program 0.0312 0.0052 < 0.9432 Children/program 9.2777 1.7397 < 0.1947 Child/program 0.0021 0.0009 < 0.9759 Trailer Furniture/blocks-general 2.2905 0.9501 < 0.3356 Blocks-specific/blocks-general 0.3189 0.1097 < 0.7423 Experimenter/blocks-general 1.7520 1.1207 < 0.2962 Other attributes/b1ocks-general 0.0108 0.0049 < 0.9447 Atmosphere/blocks-general 0.4053 0.2060 < 0.6524 Other Home/miscellaneous 0.4659 0.1361 < 0.7141 School/miscellaneous 0.0245 1.9386 < 0.1716 Verbal focus N0 obvious focus/child 0.5519 0.5875 < 0.4479 Mother/child 0.3148 0.4724 < 0.4959 Other/child 0.2782 0.4201 < 0.5206 Verbal fantasy 5.3248 4.2126 < 0.0468 Verbal time orientation 0.0043 0.5250 < 0.4730 Voice affective tone 0.0326 1.3871 < 0.2459 Verbal initiation-response mode 0.0007 0.1053 < 0.7473 Verbal support 0.0616 1.0611 < 0.3092 Verbai independence promotion 0.0770 1.5932 < 0.2182 114 Table 4-6 Analyses of Variance for SES x Sex Interaction: Verbal Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (23 and 18 degrees of freedom) Verbal orientation J Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) .6827 l A .1316 Verbalization Quantity Types Nursery school/trailer Other/trailer Nursery school Teacher/program Building/program Children/program Child/program Trailer Furniture/blocks-general Blocks-specific/blocks-general Experimenter/blocks-general Other attributes/b1ocks-general Atmosphere/b1ocks-general Other Home/miscellaneous School/miscellaneous Verbal focus No obvious focus/child Mother/child Other/child Verbal fantasy Verbal time orientation Voice affective tone Verbal initiation-response mode Verbal support Verbal independence promotion x ---0 ON mwooo o—uao OOOCO-‘OOH .0149 .4040 .5684 .6469 .5408 .9884 .7811 .0482 .4265 .9925 .6847 .7169 .3051 .0008 .8937 .1018 .1244 .8279 .0083 .1155 .0288 .1942 .0592 do d—"OOO OOOO dwhhd—‘OON ON .0236 .1529 .1568 .4267 .7496 .3729 .3396 .0200 .1466 .6349 .6678 .3806 .1344 .0664 .0159 .1528 .1878 .4461 .0251 .9155 .3409 .3471 .2133 AAAAA AAAA A AA OOOOOOOOO CO 00000 0000 00 O AAA/\AAAAA .8787 .6979 .2886 .5174 .3918 .5450 .5634 .8883 .7039 .4303 .2040 .2470 .1519 .7980 .1635 .6980 .6671 .2363 .3175 .0324 .0437 .0748 .2773 ere fou br he s but a Sl§ grab; ma 115 Igst of the Main Effects None of the interactions were significant at the 0.05 alpha level, so main effects were then considered. No significant differences were found for the race main effect (alpha level less than 0.7247) or for the sex of the child main effect (alpha level less than 0.4312), but a significant difference was found to exist for the socioeconomic group main effect (alpha level less than 0.0454) (Table 4-2). For the socioeconomic group main effect five univariate vari— ables were found to be significant at alpha 0.01 or less (Table 4-7): (1) the relative number of verbalizations which were other-related had a univariate alpha level of 0.0008. Differences in cell means (Appen~ dix IIA--Tab1e II-l) indicated that middle-class mothers made more other-related statements than did lower-class mothers; (2) the relative number of verbalizations about the experimenter had a univariate alpha level of 0.0017. Differences in cell means (Appendix IIA--Table II-l) indicated that middle-class mothers made more verbalizations about the experimenter than did lower-class mothers; (3) the relative number of verbalizations about other attributes in the trailer had a univariate alpha level of 0.0038. Differences in cell means (Appendix IIA-- Table II-l) indicated that middle-class mothers made more verbalizations about other attributes in the trailer than did lower-class mothers, (4) the relative number of furniture-related verbalizations had a univariate alpha level of 0.0102. Differences in cell means (Appendix IIA--Table I1-1) indicated that middle-class mothers made more verbalizations about the furniture in the trailer than did lower-class mothers; and (5) the 116 Table 4-7 Analyses of Variance for SES Main Effect: Verbal Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (23 and 18 degrees of freedom) Verbal orientation 2.2081 1 < 0.0454 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Verbalization Quantity 4.2413 6.7455 < 0.0131 Types Nursery school/trailer 0.4522 0.1712 < 0.6813 Other/trailer 18.2862 13.4871 < 0.0008 Nursery school Teacher/program 1.0503 0.6928 < 0.4102 Building/program 0.5307 0.0876 < 0.7688 Children/program 0.8302 0.1557 < 0.6953 Child/program 0.4244 0.1845 < 0.6699 Trailer Furniture/blocks-general 17.5360 7.2736 < 0.0102 Blocks-specific/blocks-general 9.2020 3.1638 < 0.0829 Experimenter/blocks-general 17.7825 11.3750 < 0.0017 Other attributes/b1ocks-general 20.9455 9.4805 < 0.0038 0 atmosphere/b1ocks-general 6.2900 3.1963 < 0.0814 t er Home/miscellaneous 3.1412 0.9178 < 0.3439 School/miscellaneous 0.0367 2.9039 < 0.0962 Verbal focus No obvious focus/child 2.1027 2.2384 < 0.1425 Mother/child 0.1048 0.1573 < 0.6939 Other/child 0.1966 0.2968 < 0.5890 Verbal fantasy 5.2188 4.1287 < 0.0489 Verbal time orientation 0.0000 0.0004 < 0.9836 Voice affective tone 0.0238 1.0128 < 0.3203 Verbal initiation-response mode 0.0042 0.6339 < 0.4307 Verbal support 0.1934 3.3339 < 0.0754 Verbal independence promotion 0.3400 6.9666 < 0.0118 of 1.011 indicate ibich we Sicer 5c :bntribi {l} the variate 117 variable of verbal independence promotion had a univariate alpha level of 0.0118. Differences in cell means (Appendix IIA--Table II-l) indicated that middle-class mothers tended to have more verbalizations which were independence promoting than did lower—class mothers. In addition, six additional univariate variables were indicated under socioeconomic group main effect for making potentially meaningful contributions to the variance between groups (alpha less than 0.10); (1) the relative number of blocks-Specific verbalizations had a uni- variate alpha level of 0.0829. Differences in cell means (Appendix IIA-- Table II-l) indicated that middle-class mothers tended to use more blocks-specific verbalizations than did lower-class mothers; (2) the relative number of verbalizations about the atmosphere of the trailer had a univariate alpha level of 0.0814. Differences in cell means (Appendix IIA--Tab1e II-l) indicated that middle-class mothers tended to use more verbalizations about the atmosphere of the trailer than did lower-class mothers; (3) the relative number of verbalizations about other schools had a univariate alpha level of 0.0962. Differences in cell means (Appendix IIA--Table II-l) indicated that lower-class mothers tended to have more verbalizations about other schools than did middle- class mothers; (4) the quantity of verbalizations had a univariate alpha level of 0.0131. Differences in cell means (Appendix IIA--Tab1e II-l) indicated that middle-class mothers tended to have more total verbaliza- tions than did lower-class mothers; (5) the relative amount of fantasy verbalization had a univariate alpha level of 0.0489. Differences in cell means (Appendix IIA--Tab1e II-3) indicated that middle-class 31111815 leer-cl fada ur . B‘QA :" (Fri-3W1 . to have i’lhi’am" 118 mothers tended to use more fantasy in their verbalizations than did lower-class mothers; and (6) the variable of verbal support behavior had a univariate alpha level of 0.0754. Differences in cell means (Appendix IIA--Table II-7) indicated that middle-class mothers tended to have more supportive verbalizations than did lower-class mothers. Since the race main effect was not found to be significant univariate variables were not looked at (Table 4-8). Since the sex of the child main effect was not found to be significant univariate variables were not looked at (Table 4-9). Regression Analyses To test the hypotheses pertaining to the relationships between age of the mothers or ordinal position of the child and maternal verbal orientation behavior, a single cell regression analysis was employed. No significance was found for either of these independent variables (Table 4-2). Age of the mother had an alpha level of 0.5960, while ordinal position of the child had an alpha level of 0.5606. Since the multivariate test for age of the mother was not found to be significant, univariate variables were not considered (Table 4-10). Since the multivariate test for ordinal position of the child was not found to be significant, univariate variables were not considered (Table 4-11). “_- ~— lad able 119 Table 4-8 Analyses of Variance for Race Main Effect: Verbal Orientation Behavior Between F Mean Square Ratio MultivariateAnalysis (23 and 18 degrees of freedom) Verbal orientation I 1 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Alpha Variable Level O .7714 l < 0.7247 Verbalization Quantity 0.0946 0.1505 < 0.7001 Types Nursery school/trailer 0.4027 0.1525 < 0.6983 Other/trailer 1.4906 1.0994 < 0.3007 Nursery school Teacher/program 0.3863 0.2548 < 0.6165 Building/program 0.7818 0.1291 < 0.7213 Children/program 7.3667 1.3814 < 0.2469 Child/program 0.3845 0.1672 < 0.6849 Trailer Furniture/blocks-general 0.2180 0.0904 < 0.7652 Blocks-specific/blocks-general 1.8084 0.6217 < 0.4351 Exgerimenter/blocks-general 3.1109 1.9900 < 0.1661 0t er attributes/blocks-general 4.4416 2.0104 < 0.1640 Atmosphere/b1ocks-general 0.0098 0.0050 < 0.9442 Other Home/miscellaneous 3.3382 0.9753 < 0.3293 School/miscellaneous 0.0013 0.0995 < 0.7542 Verbal focus No obvious focus/child 1.1165 1.1886 < 0.2822 Mother/child 5.6649 8.5024 < 0.0058 Other/child 0.1987 0.3000 < 0.5870 Verbal fantasy 0.6384 0.5051 < 0.4815 Verbal time orientation 0.0003 0.0387 < 0.8451 Voice affective tone 0.0362 1.5420 < 0.2216 Verbal initiation-response mode 0.0179 2.7019 < 0.1081 Verbal support 0.1429 2.4631 < 0.1245 Verbal independence promotion 0.0139 0.2856 < 0.5961 120 Table 4-9 Analyses of Variance for Sex Main Effect: Verbal Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (23 and 18 degrees of freedom) Verbal orientation 1 0904 0.4312 _-‘ Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) 1 Verbalization Quantity Types Nursery school/trailer Other/trailer Nursery school Teacher/program Building/program Children/program Child/program Trailer Furniture/blocks-general Blocks-specific/blocks-general Experimenter/blocks-general Other attributes/blocks-general Atmosphere/blocks-general Other Home/miscellaneous School/miscellaneous Verbal focus No obvious focus/child Mother/child Other/child Verbal fantasy Verbal time orientation Voice affective tone Verbal initiation-response mode Verbal support Verbal independence promotion d .4937 .5157 .5231 .4955 .7408 .4124 .2462 .5148 .6552 .8458 .0974 .7335 .9253 .0024 000001 Nd _J dmd—ld .0844 .1215 .5922 .5508 .0359 .0040 .0007 .0144 .1158 00000-3000 00 —‘0 N0004>—'000 0N 00‘00 0-‘00 .3757 .5738 .8609 .6253 .6176 .7650 .1071 .6283 .5691 .5775 .6651 .8809 8999 1884 8563 1823 8943 .2269 .4103 1708 1030 2480 3733 AAAAA AAAA A AA AAAAAAAAA 000000000 00 00000 0000 00 0 .1312 .4532 .1802 .0642 .4366 .1916 .7453 .4327 .4551 .0089 .0628 .3536 .0964 .6667 .3604 .6717 .3500 .2747 .0421 .6817 .7500 .6213 .1314 Regr M, M 1'51‘15318 E“ R lerbal orientai 121 Table 4-10 Regression Analysis for Age of the Mother: Verbal Orientation Behavior Raw Regression Test Alpha Variable Coefficients Statistic Level Multivariate Analysis (23 degrees of freedom) Verbal orientation 1 20.7572 1 < 0.5960 UnivariatelAnalysis (l and 46 degrees of freedom) Verbalization Quantity -0.0333 3.1781 < 0.0813 Types Nursery school/trailer -0.0763 4.9932 < 0.0304 Other/trailer 0.0377 1.5757 < 0.2158 Nursery school Teacher/program -0.0546 3.8820 < 0.0549 Building/program -0.0389 0.4958 < 0.4849 Children/program -0.0468 0.7716 < 0.3843 Child/program -0.0382 1.2637 < 0.2668 Trailer Furniture/blocks-general 0.0316 0.7196 < 0.4007 Blocks-specific/blocks-general 0.0027 0.0047 < 0.9454 Experimenter/blocks-general 0.0466 1.9143 < 0.1732 Other attributes/blocks-general 0.0737 3.9186 < 0.0538 Atmosphere/b1ocks-general 0.0455 2.0074 < 0.1633 Other Home/miscellaneous 0.0779 3.2514 < 0.0780 School/miscellaneous 0.0007 0.0788 < 0.7802 Verbal focus No obvious focus/child 0.0109 0.2222 < 0.6396 Mother/child -0.0020 0.0087 < 0.9260 Other/child -0.0059 0.1043 < 0.7482 Verbal fantasy 0.0394 2.0668 < 0.1574 Verbal time orientation -0.0032 2.3915 < 0.1289 Voice affective tone 0.0085 5.8082 < 0.0201 Verbal initiation-response mode 0.0000 0.0004 < 0.9838 Verbal support -0.0145 6.8052 < 0.0123 Verbal independence promotion 0.0043 0.6096 < 0.4390 Regressio ‘ie'sal orientat \ g'erbalizgytion llantity 11:95 N“1590’ schi Other/ trai 1. Nursery sch Teacher/p Bulldlng/ Chl1dren/ Ch11d/pro r511er urnitUre B ockS-g xpel‘imn 111181" at mospher 01 er 122 Table 4-11 Regression Analysis for Ordinal Position of the Child: Orientation Behavior Verbal Raw Regression Test Alpha Variable Coefficients Statistic] Level Multivariate Analysis (23 degrees of freedom) Verbal orientation I J 21.3365]< 0.5606 Univariate Analysis (1 and 46 degrees of freedom) Verbalization Quantity -0.0019 0.0007 < 0.9790 Types Nursery school/trailer -0.0336 0.0611 < 0.8059 Other/trailer -0.l339 1.3806 < 0.2461 Nursery school Teacher/program -0.l437 1.7968 < 0.1867 Building/program -0.0817 0.1513 < 0.6992 Children/program 0.2917 2.1580 < 0.1487 Child/program -0.ll72 0.8216 < 0.3695 Trailer Furniture/blocks—general -0.0147 0.0107 < 0.9181 Blocks-specific/blocks-general -0.2497 2.9548 < 0.0924 EXperimenter/blocks-general -0.l962 2.3889 < 0.1291 Other attributes/b1ocks-general -0.1664 1.3218 < 0.2563 Atmosphere/b1ocks-general 0.1165 0.8964 < 0.3488 Other Home/miscellaneous -0.0529 0.0979 < 0.7558 School/miscellaneous 0.0149 2.2955 < 0.1366 Verbal focus No obvious focus/child 0.0718 0.6743 < 0.4158 Mother/child 0.0002 0.0000 < 0.9983 Other/child -0.0465 0.4523 < 0.5047 Verbal fantasy -0.0423 0.1600 < 0.6911 Verbal time orientation -0.0086 1.1848 < 0.2821 Voice affective tone 0.0068 0.2312 < 0.6329 Verbal initiation-response mode -0.0100 1.8492 < 0.1806 Verbal support -0.0301 1.8645 < 0.1788 Verbal independence promotion -0.0100 0.2263 < 0.6366 The mu analysis of va 1181119 the thre grivplnga and ordinal 9051't1 yses vere comp child to deter“ and nonverbal verbal orienta iontype of ne bode, nonverba scores used as I I transfonnati on. Significance 0‘ A regrr interest and r; far all three 31911 levels f, 316 of the chi ‘ -:dvariates Her: | | orientation bevl l Variance. 123 Nonverbal Orientation Behavior The multivariate analysis of covariance and the multivariate analysis of variance were calculated for nonverbal orientation behavior using the three independent variables of race, socioeconomic status grouping, and sex of the child. The covariates were age of the mother, ordinal position of the child, and age of the child. Regression anal- yses were computed for age of the mother and ordinal position of the child to determine the relationship between these independent variables and nonverbal orientation behavior. The variables used to make up non- verbal orientation behavior were: quantity of affective physical behav- ior.type of neutral physical behavior, nonverbal initiation-response mode, nonverbal support and nonverbal independence promotion. The nine scores used as measures of these variables included six logit transformations and three mean scores (see Table 3-9). Significance of the Covariates A regression analysis was computed for the three covariates of interest and results revealed no significance in the multivariate test for all three (alpha 1eve1 less than 0.1306) (Table 4-12). Individual alpha levels for the three covariates were: age of the mother, 0.4215; age of the child, 0.2340; and ordinal position, 0.1034. Since the covariates were found to be nonsignificant in the analysis of nonverbal orientation behavior, analysis was made using multivariate analysis of variance. Tests for K \ tovariates \\ 13111Variate te inlvariate test 199 of the Cr Mn“ posit Age Of the 1110 \ 124 Table 4-12 Tests for Significance of Covariates in Multivariate Tests of Nonverbal Orientation Behaviors of Mothers Test Statistics Degrees of Alpha Covariates Chi Square Freedom Level Multivariate test 35.3370 27 < 0.1306 Univariate tests Age of the child 11.6477 9 < 0.2340 Ordinal position of the child 14.5716 9 < 0.1034 Age of the mother 9.1730 9' <:0.4215 Three-Hay Inte The th and by sou-C. herejected ftl ivfivted (Tab‘. it since the r; lie-Kai lntera Since exist at the 0 .10 Significant the ”U” hypot (Table 4.13). 19191 180.111} level of 0123! interaction hav 101‘ the SoCiOe Se lab]e 4‘16 VariableS . :1 96 125 Three-Nay Interaction The three-way interaction tested was for race by sex of the child by socioeconomic status grouping. The null hypothesis could not be rejected for this interaction since an alpha level of 0.1868 was computed (Table 4-13). None of the univariate variables were looked at since the multivariate test was not significant (Table 4-14). Two—Nay Interaction Since significance of three-way interaction effects did not exist at the 0.05 alpha level, two-way interactions were examined. No significant differences were found on the multivariate tests, and the null hypotheses related to these interactions were not rejected (Table 4-13). Socioeconomic group by race interaction had an alpha 1eve1 oftLllll; the race by sex of the child interaction had an alpha level of 0.1239; and the socioeconomic group by sex of the child interaction had an alpha level of 0.0985. None of the univariate alpha levels were examined since none of the multivariates were found to be significant. See Table 4-15 for the socioeconomic group by race interaction univariate variables. See Table 4-16 for the race by sex of child interaction univariate variables. See Table 4-17 for the socioeconomic group by sex of the child interaction univariate variables. lino-thesis 41“ K‘— Socioeconovnic . lace Sex of the chi SOtloeconomic Socioeconomic 1 0f the Ch11d RdCe X SEX of . 126 Table 4-13 Summary of Multivariate Tests on Nonverbal Orientation Behavior Multivariate Test Statistics Test Degrees of Alpha Hypothesis Statistic Freedom Level Analysis of Variance Socioeconomic group (SES) 2.2923 9 and 32 < 0.0409 Race 1.8685 9 and 32 < 0.0937 Sex of the child 0.8009 9 and 32 < 0.6183 Socioeconomic group (SES) x race 1.7811 9 and 32 < 0.1111 Race x sex of the child 1.7246 9 and 32 < 0.1239 Socioeconomic group (SES) x sex of the child 1.8427 9 and 32 < 0.0985 Race x sex of the child x socioeconomic group (SES) 1.5100 9 and 32 < 0.1868 Regression Analysis Age of the mother 13.7919 9 < 0.1300 Ordinal position of the child 7.6724 9 < 0.5675 llnallses 0- E- m— (allable N \ lonverbal 01.16 X \ directive WE luantltl’ Types Social 13115 Dei‘enslVE/=I Negative 1? lieutral WWI Quantity Blocks/130int lionverbal init lonverbal SUD? llonverbal indel \ 127 Table 4-14 Analyses of Variance for Race x Sex x SES Interaction: Nonverbal Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (9 and 32 degrees of freedom) Nonverbal orientation I 1.5100l < 0.1868 Univariate Analysis 7 A (l and 40 degrees of freedom) Affective physical behavior Quantity 2.3519 2.1753 < 0.1481 Types Social physical/approach 5.9136 1.5637 < 0.2184 Defensive/approach 0.0421 0.0359 < 0.8506 Negative physical/approach 0.0200 0.0662 < 0.7983 Neutral physical behavior Quantity 1.2569 0.6999 < 0.4078 Blocks/pointing 0.1099 0.0094 < 0.9235 Nonverbal initiation-response 0.0002 0.0211 < 0.8852 Nonverbal support 0.0662 1.3542 < 0.2515 Nonverbal independence promotion 0.2288 1.4773 < 0.2314 \ \ Affective 1111‘ Quantity Types Socia] p Defensiv Negatlve :l'eutra} phys Quintityy :TOnVerb 011 u0W0 rt; 3:1 \lr 128 Table 4-15 Analyses of Variance for SES x Race Interaction: Nonverbal Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (9 and 32 degrees of freedom) Nonverbal orientation [ 1.7811 1 < 0.1111 Univariate Analysis r (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Affective physical behavior Quantity 0.1038 0.0960 < 0.7583 Types Social physical/approach 7.5995 2.0096 < 0.1641 Defensive/approach 1.8802 1.6054 < 0.2125 Negative physical/approach 0.0111 0.0367 < 0.8491 Neutral physical behavior Quantity 4.8926 2.7243 < 0.1067 Blocks/pointing 5.7627 0.4908 < 0.4877 Nonverbal initiation-response 0.0044 0.3782 < 0.5421 Nonverbal support 0.0005 0.0097 < 0.9220 Nonverbal independence promotion 0.1334 0.8610 < 0.3591 _— 129 Table 4—16 Analyses of Variance for Race x Sex Interaction: Nonverbal Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (9 and 32 degrees of freedom) 0.1239 A Nonverbal orientation 1.7246 1 ‘— Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Affective physical behavior Quantity 0.3312 0.3063 < 0.5831 Types Social physical/approach 8.2053 2.1698 < 0.1486 Defensive/approach 0.1090 0.0931 < 0.7619 Negative physical/approach 0.3459 1.1421 < 0.2917 Neutral physical behavior Quantity 0.0103 0.0057 < 0.9401 Blocks/pointing 0.6965 0.0593 < 0.8089 Nonverbal initiation-response 0.0357 3.0491 < 0.0885 Nonverbal support 0.0387 0.7913 < 0.3791 Nonverbal independence promotion 1.3094 8.4543 < 0.0060 130 Table 4-17 Analyses of Variance for SES x Sex Interaction: Nonverbal Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (9 and 32 degrees of freedom) Nonverbal orientation [ 1.8427 < 0.0985 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Affective physical behavior Quantity 0.0820 0.0759 < 0.7845 Types Social physical/approach 1.6008 0.4233 < 0.5191 Defensive/approach 1.0190 0.8701 < 0.3566 Negative physical/approach 0.0002 0.0006 < 0.9806 Neutral physical behavior Quantity 0.0043 0.0024 < 0.9615 Blocks/pointing 1.2353 0.1052 < 0.7474 Nonverbal initiation-response 0.1225 10.4645 < 0.0025 Nonverbal support 0.0006 0.0130 < 0.9097 Nonverbal independence promotion 1.0092 6.5158 < 0.0147 iest of Main Ef Since n :be multivariat to significant level less thar level less thar for the socioec {Table 4-13), For the were found to 1 were indicated variance betwee the qUaTltity 01 0f tosoo. Dii cated that mldc behaviors than :Dil‘yslca] bEhav- ll cell "leans ' lowers tended class mothers; aunivai‘iate a ill He. 1 ‘Table 11019 Di‘OactWe 131 Test of Main Effects Since none of the interactions were judged to be significant at the multivariate alpha level (0.05), main effects were next considered. No significant differences were found for the race main effect (alpha level less than 0.0937) or for the sex of the child main effect (alpha level less than 0.6183), but a significant difference was found to exist for the socioeconomic group main effect (alpha 1eve1 less than 0.0409) (Table 4-13). For the socioeconomic group main effect no univariate variables were found to be significant at alpha level 0.01, but five variables were indicated as making a potentially meaningful contribution to the variance between groups (alpha 1eve1 lessthan 0.10)(Table 4-18): (1) the quantity of affective physical behavior had a univariate alpha level of 0.0500. Differences in cell means (Appendix IIB--Tab1e II-9) indi- cated that middle-class mothers tended to use more affective physical behaviors than did lower-class mothers; (2) the quantity of neutral physical behavior had a univariate alpha level of 0.0947. Differences in cell means (Appendix IIB--Tab1e II-lO) indicated that lower-class mothers tended to use more neutral physical behaviors than did middle- class mothers; (3) the variable nonverbal initiation-response mode had a univariate alpha level of 0.0498. Differences in cell means (Appen- dix IIB--Tab1e II-ll) indicated that middle-class mothers tended to use more proactive physical behavior than did lower-class mothers; (4) the variable nonverbal support had a univariate alpha level of 0.0902. Ana R “a l'ariabl e K \ ‘ivnverbai oriv \\ \_ Affective Dhy Quantity Types 30cm ph DQfEDSWe Neoative Rem“ Physi Quantity blows/pm.n onverbal ini riOHVerba] S lionverba] ind \ ii 132 Table 4-18 Analyses of Variance for SES Main Effect: Nonverbal Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (9 and 32 degrees of freedom) Nonverbal orientation J [ 2.2923 l < 0.0409 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Affective physical behavior Quantity 4.4194 4.0876 < 0.0500 Types Social physical/approach 4.0483 1.0705 < 0.3071 Defensive/approach 0.2328 0.1988 < 0.6581 Negative physical/approach 0.0310 0.1024 < 0.7507 Neutral physical behavior Quantity 5.2643 2.9313 < 0.0947 Blocks/pointing 31.4894 2.6822 < 0.1094 Nonverbal initiation-response 0.0479 4.0951 < 0.0498 Nonverbal support 0.1475 3.0162 < 0.0902 Nonverbal independence promotion 0.7331 4.7332 < 0.0356 differences in riddle-class m tian did lower dence promotic cell means (A; bothers tendec Nanoting tnar Since multivariate ( 4-19), Since found for the looked at (Tat Rec i‘9551011 Ana T0 to: the ”10121181“ 01‘ Orientation be No Signlficanc 133 Differences in cell means (Appendix IIB--Table II-12) indicated that middle-class mothers tended to use more nonverbal support behaviors than did lower-class mothers; and (5) the variable nonverbal indepen- dence promotion had a univariate alpha level of 0.0356. Differences in cell means (Appendix IIB--Table II-13) indicated that middle-class mothers tended to use more nonverbal behavior which was independence promoting than did lower-class mothers. Since for the race main effect no significance was found for the multivariate variable, univariate variables were not considered (Table 4-19). Since for the sex of the child main effect no significance was found for the multivariate variable, univariate variables were not looked at (Table 4-20). Regression Analyses To test the hypotheses about the relationships between age of the mother or ordinal position of the child and maternal nonverbal orientation behavior, a single cell regression analysis was employed. No significance was found for either of the independent variables (Table 4-13). Age of the mother had an alpha level of 0.1300, and ordinal position of the child had an alpha level of 0.5675. Univariate variables for the independent variable age of the mother were not considered because the multivariate variable was not found to be significant (Table 4-21). Also, since the multivariate variable for ordinal position was not found to be significant, uni- variate variables were not considered (Table 4-22). 134 Table 4-19 Analyses of Variance for Race Main Effect: Nonverbal Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (9 and 32 degrees of freedom) Nonverbal orientation 1.8685 1 < 0.0937 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Affective physical behavior Quantity 0.3595 0.3325 < 0.5675 Types Social physical/approach 0.6276 0.1660 < 0.6860 Defensive/approach 1.4190 1.2116 < 0.2776 Negative physical/approach 0.6085 2.0094 < 0.1641 Neutral physical behavior Quantity 9.3480 5.2052 < 0.0280 Blocks/pointing 3.2524 0.2770 < 0.6016 Nonverbal initiation-response 0.0115 0.9824 < 0.3276 Nonverbal support 0.0027 0.0549 < 0.8160 Nonverbal independence promotion 0.2871 1.8534 < 0.1811 lariable \ \ Nonverbal c \ \ iiHectic/9 I Quantity Types SOCial DEfenS. Negatir Heltra] Dhg Quantity Blocks/pc iiOiVerba] T fibril/em“ E iiCnVErba] 1 ‘\\\\\‘\‘ 135 Table 4-20 Analyses of Variance for Sex Main Effect: Nonverbal Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (9 and 32 degrees of freedom) Nonverbal orientation I 0.8009 < 0.6183 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Affective physical behavior Quantity 0.1344 0.1243 < 0.7263 Types Social physical/approach 3.3229 0.8787 < 0.3542 Defensive/approach 0.6964 0.5946 < 0.4452 Negative physical/approach 0.6295 2.0787 < 0.1572 Neutral physical behavior Quantity 5.4383 3.0282 < 0.0896 Blocks/pointing 15.4053 1.3122 < 0.2589 Nonverbal initiation-response 0.0011 0.0933 < 0.7616 Nonverbal SUpport 0.0539 1.1028 < 0.3000 Nonverbal independence promotion 0.0052 0.0334 < 0.8561 136 Table 4-21 Regression Analysis for Age of the Mother: Nonverbal Orientation Behavior Raw Regression Test Alpha Variable Coefficients Statistic ‘ Level Multivariate Analysis (9 degrees of freedom) Nonverbal orientation 13.7919 < 0.1300 Univariate Analysis (1 and 46 degrees of freedom) Affective physical behavior Quantity -0.0302 1.5670 < 0.2170 Types Social physical/approach 0.0594 1.6969 < 0.1992 Defensive/approach -0.0188 0.5775 < 0.4512 Negative physical/approach -0.0018 0.0198 < 0.8888 Neutral physical behavior Quantity 0.0851 7.2326 < 0.0100 Blocks/pointing -0.l705 5.1881 < 0.0275 Nonverbal initiation—response 0.0006 0.0470 < 0.8294 Nonverbal support -0.0104 4.4227 < 0.0410 Nonverbal independence promotion 0.0137 1.6680 < 0.2030 137 Table 4-22 Regression Analysis for Ordinal Position of the Child: Nonverbal Orientation Behavior Raw Regression Test Alpha Variable Coefficients Statistic Level Multivariate Analysis (9 degrees of freedom) Nonverbal orientation 7.6724 1 < 0.5675 Univariate Analysis (1 and 46 degrees of freedom) Affective physical behavior Quantity -0.1205 1.7475 < 0.1928 Types Social physical/approach 0.2773 2.6314 < 0.1117 Defensive/approach 0.1303 2.0036 < 0.1637 Negative physical/approach -0.0l48 0.0940 < 0.7606 Neutral physical behavior Quantity 0.0450 0.1222 < 0.7533 Blocks/pointing -0.4480 2.3645 < 0.1310 Nonverbal initiation-response 0.0033 0.0908 < 0.7646 Nonverbal support -0.0212 1.1974 < 0.2796 Nonverbal independence promotion -0.0358 0.7788 < 0.3822 _— The 11 analysis of V of the mother child, and St rather, ordir analyses were child to dete and affective Effective or' and maternal variables we' 51 gnificance A re interest, an Individual a 138 Maternal Affection Orientation Behavior The multivariate analysis of covariance and the multivariate analysis of variance were calculated for affective orientation behavior of the mother using the three independent variables of race, sex of the child, and socioeconomic status group. The covariates were age of the mother, ordinal position of the child, and age of the child.’ Regression analyses were computed for age of the mother and ordinal position of the child to determine the relationship between these independent variables and affective behavior of the mother. The variables used to make up affective orientation behavior of the mother were hostility, warmth, and maternal anxiety. The three scores used as measures for these variables were three mean scores (see Table 3-9). Significance of Covariates A regression analysis was computed for the three covariates of interest, and results showed no significance in the multivariate test for all three variables (alpha 1eve1 less than 0.8464) (Table 4-23). Individual alpha levels for the three covariates were: age of the mother, 0.7932; age of the child, 0.5025; and ordinal position, 0.6808. Since the covariates were found to be nonsignificant in the analysis of maternal affective behavior, analysis was made using multivariate analysis of variance. 139 Table 4-23 Tests for Significance of Covariates in Multivariate Tests of Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior Test Statistics Degrees of Alpha Covariates Chi Square Freedom Level Multivariate test 4.8598 9 < 0.8464 Univariate tests Age of the child 2.3531 3 < 0.5025 Ordinal position of the child 1.5068 3 < 0.6808 Age of the mother 1.0336 3 < 0.7932 140 Three-Nay Interaction The three-way interaction tested was for race by sex of the child by socioeconomic status grouping. The null hypothesis could not be rejected for this interaction since an alpha level of 0.6871 was computed (Table 4-24). Univariate variables were therefore not considered (Table 4-25). Two-Nay_Interaction Since three-way interaction effects were not significant at the 0.05 alpha level, two-way interactions were considered. No significant differences were found on the multivariate tests and, therefore, the null hypotheses related to these interactions were not rejected (Table 4-24). Socioeconomic group by race interaction had an alpha level of 0.6922; the race by sex of the child interaction had an alpha level of 0.1611; and the socioeconomic group by sex of the child inter- action had an alpha level of 0.1180. The multivariate variables for the interactions were not found to be significant. Therefore, none of the univariate alpha levels for any of the interactions--socioeconomic group by race (Table 4-26), race by sex of the child (Table 4-27), or socioeconomic group by sex of the child (Table 4-28)--were considered. 141 Table 4-24 Summary of Multivariate Tests on Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior Hypothesis Multivariate Test Statistics Test Statistic Degrees of Freedom Alpha Level Analysis of Variance Socioeconomic group (SES) 2.5653 3 and 38 0.0689 Race 1.5957 3 and 38 0.2064 Sex of the child 2.6894 3 and 38 0.0600 Socioeconomic group (SES) x race 0.4888 3 and 38 0.6922 Race x sex of the child 1.8137 3 and 38 0.1611 Socioeconomic group (SES) x sex of the child 2.0880 3 and 38 0.1180 Race x sex of the child x socioeconomic group (SES) 0.4962 3 and 38 0.6871 Regression Analysis Age of the mother 5.0276 3 0.1698 Ordinal position of the child 0.7345 3 0.8651 Analyses \ K variable 142 Table 4-25 Analyses of Variance for Race x Sex x SES Interaction: Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (3 and 38 degrees of freedom) Maternal affective orientation 0.4962 < 0.6871 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Hostility 0.0090 0.8397 < 0.3650 Warmth 0.0044 0.1125 < 0.7391 Anxiety 0.0021 0.1398 < 0.7105 143 Table 4-26 Analyses of Variance for SES x Race Interaction: Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio ‘ Level Multivariate Analysis (3 and 38 degrees of freedom) Maternal affective orientation 1 0.4888 < 0.6922 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Hostility 0.0013 0.1199 < 0.7310 Warmth 0.0290 0.7471 < 0.3926 Anxiety 0.0061 0.3990 < 0.5312 Analyses a x.“ ‘iariable 144 Table 4-27 Analyses of Variance for Race x Sex Interaction: Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior #— Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (3 and 38 degrees of freedom) Maternal affective orientation [ 1.8137 < 0.1611 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Hostility 0.0134 1.2468 < 0.2709 Warmth 0.0815 2.0992 < 0.1552 Anxiety 0.0225 1.4826 < 0.2305 _— 145 Test of Main Effect Since none of the two-way or three-way interactions were judged to be significant at alpha level 0.05, main effects were considered. No significant differences were found for the race main effect (alpha 1eve1 less than 0.2064), for socioeconomic group main effect (alpha level less than 0.0689), or for sex of the child main effect (alpha level less than 0.0600) (Table 4-24). The multivariate variable for socioeconomic group main effect was not found to be significant. Therefore, univariate variables were not considered (Table 4-29). The multivariate variable for race main effect was not found to be significant. Therefore, univariate variables for race main effect were not considered (Table 4-30). The multivariate variable for sex of the child main effect was not found to be signifi- cant. Therefore, univariate variables for sex of the child main effect were not considered (Table 4-31). Regression Analyses To test the hypotheses about the relationships between age of the mother or ordinal position of the child and maternal affective orientation behavior, single cell regression analyses were employed. No significance was found for either of these independent variables (Table 4-24): age of the mother had an alpha level of 0.1698, and ordi- nal position of the child had an alpha level of 0.8651. Univariate var- iables were therefore not considered for either of the variables-~age of the mother (Table 4-32) or ordinal position of the child (Table 4-33). Analyses of Variance for SES x Sex Interaction: 146 Table 4-28 Affective Orientation Behavior Maternal Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (3 and 38 degrees of freedom Maternal affective orientation l [ 2.0880 < 0.1180 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Hostility 0.0279 2.5884 < 0.1156 Warmth 0.0961 2.4755 < 0.1236 Anxiety 0.0113 0.7460 < 0.3929 147 Table 4-29 Analyses of Variance for SES Main Effect: Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (3 and 38 degrees of freedom) Maternal affective orientation 1 [2.5653 ] < 0.0689 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Hostility 0.0753 6.9877 < 0.0117 Warmth 0.0945 2.4342 < 0.1266 Anxiety 0.0293 1.9286 < 0.1726 148 Table 4-30 Analyses of Variance for Race Main Effects: Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (3 and 38 degrees of freedom) Maternal affective orientation 1.5957 < 0.2064 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Hostility 0.0288 2.6696 < 0.1102 Warmth 0.0166 0.4269 < 0.5173 Anxiety 0.0063 0.4170 < 0.5222 149 Table 4-31 Analyses of Variance for Sex Main Effect: Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (3 and 38 degrees of freedom) Maternal affective orientation [ ] 2.6894 J < 0.0600 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Hostility 0.0369 3.4255 < 0.0716 Warmth 0.0040 0.1020 < 0.7512 Anxiety 0.0344 2.2678 < 0.1400 150 Table 4-32 Regression Analyses for Age of the Mother: Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior Raw Regression Test Alpha Variable Coefficients Statistic Level _— Multivariate Analysis (3 degrees of freedom) Maternal affective orientation 5.0276 < 0.1698 _._‘ Univariate Analysis (1 and 46 degrees of freedom) ___ Hostility -0.0047 3.1834 < 0.0810 Warmth 0.0084 3.3825 < 0.0724 Anxiety -0.0012 0.1590 < 0.6920 151 Table 4-33 Regression Analysis for Ordinal Position of the Child: Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior Raw Regression Test Alpha Variable Coefficients Statistic Level MultivariateiAnalysis (3 degrees of freedom) Maternal affective orientation J 0.7345 1 < 0.8651 Univariate Analysis (1 and 46 degrees of freedom) Hostility -0.0006 0.0031 < 0.9556 Warmth 0.0110 0.3857 < 0.5377 Anxiety 0.0056 0.2616 < 0.6115 152 Child Affective Orientation Behavior A multivariate analysis of variance was calculated for child affective orientation behavior using the three design variables, race, sex of the child, and socioeconomic group, with a repeated measures dimension. The variables used to make up child affective orientation behavior were child anxiety, type of dependency, and amount of depen- dency shown. The nine scores used as measures of these variables over elapsed time included two logit transformations and one mean difference score (Table 3-9), Specification of the contrasts for each of these three variables across the four time periods resulted in the nine variables used in the repeated measures analysis. Three-Way Interaction with Repeated Measures An alpha level of 0.4075 (Table 4-34) revealed that there was no significant interaction among sex of the child, race, and socioeco- nomic status, and amount of elapsed time in the session. The null hypothesis for this interaction could not be rejected, and, therefore, none of the univariates were looked at (Table 4-35). Two-Way Interaction with Repeated Measures Since the three-way interaction with repeated measures was not found to be significant, two-way interactions were looked at next. Multivariate tests of the two-way interactions did not reveal any significant differences (Table 4-34). The alpha level for socioeconomic status group by race interaction was 0.4045; the alpha level for race by 153 Table 4-34 Summary of Multivariate Tests on Child Affective Orientation Behavior Multivariate Test Statistic Test Degrees of Alpha Hypothesis Statistic Freedom Level Socioeconomic group (SES) 0.6028 9 and 32 < 0.7851 Race 0.8995 9 and 32 < 0.5371 Sex of the child 2.4564 9 and 32 < 0.0297 Socioeconomic group (SES) x race 1.0789 9 and 32 < 0.4045 Race x sex of the child 0.4758 9 and 32 < 0.8800 Socioeconomic grOUp (SES) x sex of the Child 1.4077 9 and 32 < 0.2261 Socioeconomic group (SES) x race x sex of the child 1.0745 9 and 32 < 0.4075 154 Table 4-35 Analyses of Variance for Race x Sex x SES Interaction: Child Affective Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (9 and 32 degrees of freedom) Child affective orientation 1.0745 < 0.4075 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Anxiety lst-4th intervals 0.2361 1.2580 < 0.2688 2nd-4th intervals 0.0061 0.0519 < 0.8211 3rd-4th intervals 0.0046 0.1043 < 0.7485 Dependency Quantity lst-4th intervals 0.0892 0.0097 < 0.9222 2nd-4th intervals 10.2211 1.6057 < 0.2125 3rd-4th intervals 41.6508 5.4420 < 0.0248 TYPE: emotional /i nstrumental lst-4th intervals 1.7027 0.1814 < 0.6725 2nd-4th intervals 3.3164 0.4359 < 0.5129 3rd-4th intervals 0.3785 0.0571 < 0.8124 If 155 sex of the child interaction was 0.8800; and the alpha level for socioeconomic status group by sex of the child interaction was 0.2261. Univariate variables were not considered for race by sex of the child interaction (Table 4-36), for socioeconomic group by race interaction (Table 4-37), or for socioeconomic group by sex of the child interaction (Table 4-38) since the multivariate variables were not found to be significant. Test of Main Effects with Repeated Measure§_ Since none of the two-way interactions with repeated measures was found to be significant at alpha level less than 0.05, possible differences based on the interaction of main effects with repeated measures were looked at next. Multivariate tests of the race main effect (alpha level less than 0.5371) with repeated measures and the socioeconomic group main effect (alpha level less than 0.7851) with repeated measures did not yield significant differences (Table 4-34). However, a sex of the child main effect was found to be significant at multivariate alpha level less than 0.0297, indicating an interaction between sex of the child with repeated measures. Because the multi- variate variables for both socioeconomic group main effect and for race main effect were not found to be significant, univariate variables for socioeconomic group main effect (see Table 4-39), and for race main effect (see Table 4-40) were disregarded. 156 Table 4-36 Analyses of Variance for Race x Sex of the Child Interaction: Child Affective Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (9 and 32 degrees of freedom) Child affective orientation I 1 0.4758 < 0.8800 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Anxiety ' lst-4th intervals 0.0156 0.0831 < 0.7747 2nd-4th intervals 0.0000 0.0000 < 0.9998 3rd-4th intervals 0.0416 0.9367 < 0.3390 Dependency Quantity lst-4th intervals 2.7870 0.3024 < 0.5855 2nd-4th intervals 9.1492 1.4373 0.2377 3rd-4th intervals 10.0418 1.3120 0.2589 Type: emotional/instrumental lst-4th intervals 0.0272 0.0029 0.9574 2nd-4th intervals 2.1686 0.2851 0.5964 3rd-4th intervals 2.1053 0.3176 0.5763 157 Table 4-37 Analyses of Variance for SES x Race Interaction: Child Affective Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (9 and 32 degrees of freedom) Child affective orientation 1.0789 0.4045 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Anxiety lst—4th intervals 0.1205 0.6422 0.4277 2nd-4th intervals 0.1868 1.5767 0.2166 3rd-4th intervals 0.0000 0.0000 0.9997 Dependency Quantity lst-4th intervals 1.5122 0.1641 0.6877 2nd-4th intervals 0.0453 0.0071 0.9332 3rd-4th intervals 8.6708 1.1329 0.2936 Type: emotional/instrumental lst-4th intervals 15.1166 1.6108 0.2118 2nd-4th intervals 34.4880 4.5333 0.0395 3rd-4th intervals 2.7019 0.4076 0.5269 158 Table 4- Analyses of Variance for SES x Sex of the Child Interaction: Affective Orientation Behavior 38 Child Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (9 and 32 degrees of freedom) Child affective orientation 1 l 4077 0.2261 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Anxiety lst-4th intervals 0.0558 0.2974 0.5886 2nd-4th intervals 0.0756 0.6376 0.4293 3rd—4th intervals 0.0185 0.4165 0.5224 Dependency Quantity lst-4th intervals 17.9162 1.9437 0.1710 2nd-4th intervals 9.0355 1.4195 0.2406 3rd-4th intervals 1.0849 0.1417 0.7086 Type: emotional/instrumental lst-4th intervals 21.4366 2.2842 0.1386 2nd-4th intervals 31.0428 4.0804 0.0502 3rd—4th intervals 2.6474 0.3993 0.5311 159 Table 4-39 Analyses of Variance for SES Main Effect: Child Affective Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (9 and 32 degrees of freedom) _‘ Child affective orientation J 0.6028 < 0.7851 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) #- Anxiety lst-4th intervals 0.0017 0.0092 < 0.9240 2nd-4th intervals 0.0556 0.4690 < 0.4974 3rd-4th intervals 0.1157 2.6041 < 0.1145 Dependency Quantity lst-4th intervals 2.9217 0.3170 < 0.5766 2nd-4th intervals 0.0854 0.0134 < 0.9084 3rd-4th intervals 17.6018 2.2998 < 0.1373 TYPet emotional/instrumental lst-4th intervals 0.1306 0.0139 < 0.9067 2nd-4th intervals 4.6733 0.6143 < 0.4378 3rd-4th intervals 18.7685 2.8311 < 0.1003 160 Table 4-40 Analyses of Variance for Race Main Effect: Child Affective Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (9 and 32 degrees of freedom) Child affective orientation 0.8995 0.5371 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Anxiety lst-4th intervals 0.1206 0.6426 0.4275 2nd-4th intervals 0.0016 0.0131 0.9094 3rd-4th intervals 0.0185 0.4165 0.5224 Dependency Quantity lst-4th intervals 0.0818 0.0089 0.9255 2nd-4th intervals 1.4924 0.2345 0.6309 3rd-4th intervals 12.4339 1.6246 0.2099 Type: emotional/instrumental lst-4th intervals 0.0970 0.0103 0.9196 2nd-4th intervals 3.8069 0.5004 0.4835 3rd—4th intervals 9.8844 1.4910 0.2293 161 For sex of the child main effect, however, two univariate variables were found to be indicative of potentially meaningful con- tributions to the variance between groups (Table 4-41). The variable difference in quantity of dependency between the first and the fourth intervals had a univariate alpha of 0.0376. Differences in cell means (Appendix IID--Table II-18) indicated that there was a potentially mean- ingful interaction between sex of the child and repeated measures on this dimension; females tended to increase in quantity of dependency over elapsed time while males tended to decrease in quantity of dependency over elapsed time (Figure 4-1). The variable for difference in relative amount of emotional dependency between the third and fourth intervals had a univariate alpha level of 0.0373. Differences in cell means (Appendix IID--Tab1e II—19) indicated that there was a potentially meaningful interaction between sex of the child and repeated measures on this dimension, males tended to increase in amount of emotional depen- dency over the elapsed time, while females tended to decrease in amount of emotional dependency over elapsed time (Figure 4-2). Since the interaction between sex of the child and repeated measures was found to be significant at 0.05, the grand mean (test of repeated measures) could not be looked at. Therefore, subjects were separated by sex and each groUp was independently analyzed with multi- variate analysis of variance in order to test the significance of the repeated measures dimension. 162 Table 4-41 Analyses of Variance for Sex Main Effect: Child Affective Orientation Behavior Between F Alpha Variable Main Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (9 and 32 degrees of freedom) Child affective orientation 2.4564 < 0.0297 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Anxiety lst-4th intervals 0.0048 0.0258 < 0.8733 2nd-4th intervals 0.1867 1.5754 < 0.2168 3rd-4th intervals 0.0186 0.4190 < 0.5212 Dependency Quantity lst-4th intervals 42.6477 4.6267 < 0.0376 2nd-4th intervals 0.5421 0.0852 < 0.7720 3rd-4th intervals 0.1675 0.0219 < 0.8832 Type: emotional/instrumental lst-4th intervals 6.1962 0.6602 < 0.4213 2nd-4th intervals 15.4785 2.0346 < 0.1616 3rd-4th intervals 30.7683 4.6413 < 0.0373 163 120.0 r Females >, U C O.) ”O C 3900- c O 2% O .20) U): >, 5 UR! co) 0)!- '00 Cd) 8_'° 60.0 - 00.) D4) ‘0 9—0 O"- .U >s: 44-!- «- '2 8 Males g= - > L. Q) .C U) I Figure 4-1. Interaction effect between sex of the child and the repeated measures dimension for quantity of dependency. 60.0' §> 50.0 3 C 8 8 40.0 E 0 IS 8 30.0 LIJ 0.... O .p E g 20.0 < “>’ E 2% 10.0 Figure 4-2. 164 repeated measures dimension for relative amount of emotional dependency. L b Females _ Males 1.. L 1 1 4 T.I T2 T3 T Interaction effect between sex of the child and the 165 Separate Analyses for Males and Females Two-way interaction for males with repeated measures dimension. The socioeconomic group by race interaction tested had a multivariate alpha level of 0.2743. Thus, this two-way interaction for boys was not found to be significant at the 0.05 alpha level (Table 4-42). Tests of main effects for males with repeated measures dimension. Neither of the two main effects tested was found to be significant at alpha 1eve1 less than 0.05. The race main effect had a multivariate alpha level of 0.7546; the socioeconomic main effect had a multivariate alpha level of 0.3690 (Table 4-42). Test of grand mean for males with repeated measures dimension. Since the tests for two-way interactions and for main effects were not found to be significant, the grand mean, indicative of the differences on repeated measures, was next considered. The multivariate test of the grand mean for boys was found to be nonsignificant--a1pha 1eve1 less than 0.4576 (Table 4-42). Repeated measures was not a significant dimension for the males observed. Therefore, univariate alpha levels for the grand mean were not considered (Table 4-43). Two-way interaction for females with repeated measures dimension. The socioeconomic group by race interaction tested had a multivariate alpha level of 0.1941. Thus, this two-way interaction for girls was not found to be significant at the 0.05 alpha level (Table 4-44). 166 Table 4-42 Summary of Multivariate Tests for Affective Orientation Behavior of Boys _— Degrees of Alpha Hypothesis F Ratio Freedom Level Grand mean 1.0501 9 and 12 < 0.4576 Socioeconomic group (SES) 1.2139 9 and 12 < 0.3690 Race 0.6274 9 and 12 < 0.7546 Socioeconomic group (SES) x race 1.4361 9 and 12 < 0.2743 167 Table 4-43 Analysis of Variance for Grand Mean: Affective Orientation Behavior of Boys Hypothesis F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (9 and 12 degrees of freedom) Boys' affective orientation ] 1 1.0501 l 0.4576 Univariate Analysis (1 and 20 degrees of freedom) Anxiety lst-4th intervals 0.3238 1.4983 0.2352 2nd-4th intervals 0.1301 1.0270 0.3230 3rd-4th intervals 0.0024 0.0484 0.8282 Dependency Quantity lst-4th intervals 1.2013 0.1531 0.6998 2nd-4th intervals 0.6845 0.1389 0.7133 3rd-4th intervals 3.7161 0.4215 0.5236 Type: emotional/instrumental lst-4th intervals 0.7119 0.0822 0.7774 2nd-4th intervals 19.1558 2.2175 0.1521 3rd-4th intervals 21.2897 2.7259 0.1144 168 Table 4-44 Summary of Multivariate Tests for Affective Orientation Behavior of Girls Degrees of Alpha Hypothesis F Ratio Freedom Level Grand mean 2.9625 9 and 12 < 0.0415 Socioeconomic group (SES) 1.1803 9 and 12 < 0.3858 Race 0.8331 9 and 12 < 0.6004 Socioeconomic group (SES) x race 1.6965 9 and 12 < 0.1941 169 Tests of main effects for females. Since the two-way interaction tested was not found to be significant, tests for main effects were next considered. Neither of the two main effects tested were found to be significant at alpha 1eve1 less than 0.05. The race main effect had a multivariate alpha level of 0.6004; the socioeconomic main effect had a multivariate alpha level of 0.3858 (Table 4-44). Test of the grand mean for females. Since the tests for two-way interaction and for main effects were not found to be significant, the grand mean (test of repeated measures) was next considered. The multi- variate test for the grand mean for girls was found to be significant-- alpha 1eve1 less than 0.0415 (Table 4-44). For the test of the grand mean for females one variable was indicated as making a potentially meaningful contribution to the inter- pretation of the data. The difference in quantity of dependency shown between the first and the fourth intervals had an alpha level of 0.0212. Differences in cell means (Appendix IID--Tab1e II-18) indicated that girls tended to increase in dependency from the first to the fourth interval (Table 4-45). Subsequent Analyses for Total Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior Based on the results of the multivariate analysis of variance and the multiple regression analyses of the mother-related dependent variables, additional multivariate analyses of variance were performed in which the dependent variables were regrouped on the basis of total 170 Table 4-45 Analysis of Variance for Grand Mean: Affective Orientation Behavior of Girls ~ Hypothesis F Alpha Variable Mean Square Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (9 and 12 degrees of freedom) _- Girls' affective orientation 2.9625 < 0.0415 _— Univariate Analysis (1 and 20 degrees of freedom Anxiety lst-4th intervals 0.2216 1.3921 < 0.2520 2nd-4th intervals 0.0627 0.5680 < 0.4599 3rd-4th intervals 0.0209 0.5184 < 0.4799 Dependency Quantity lst-4th intervals 66.2520 6.2578 < 0.0212 2nd-4th intervals 0.0458 0.0059 < 0.9398 3rd-4th intervals 1.8193 0.2803 < 0.6024 Type: emotional/instrumental lst-4th intervals 7.1639 0.7088 < 0.4099 2nd-4th intervals 1.4094 0.2143 < 0.6485 3rd-4th intervals 10.4359 1.9154 < 0.1817 171 maternal affective behavior. Multivariate analyses of variance and covariance were calculated for total maternal affective orientation behavior using the three independent variables of race, socioeconomic status grouping, and sex of the child. The covariates were age of the mother, ordinal position of the child, and age of the child. The variables used to make up total maternal affective orientation behavior were: verbal focus, voice affective tone, verbal initiation-response mode, verbal support, verbal independence promotion, quantity of affective physical behavior, type of affective physical behavior, nonverbal initiation-response mode, nonverbal support, nonverbal independence promotion, hostility, warmth, and anxiety. The seventeen scores used as measures of these variables included seven logit transformations and nine mean scores (see Table 3-9). Significance of Covariates A regression analysis was computed for the three covariates of interest and results showed no significance in the multivariate test for all three (alpha level equal to 0.5579) (Table 4-46). Individual alpha levels for the three covariates were: age of the mother, 0.5342; age of the child, 0.3369; and ordinal position of the child, 0.6442. Since the covariates were found to be nonsignificant in the analyses, analysis of total maternal affective orientation behavior was made using multivariate analysis of variance. 172 Table 4-46 Tests for Significance of Covariates in Multivariate Tests of Total Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior Test Statistics Degrees of Alpha Covariates F Ratio Freedom Level Multivariate test 0.9594 51 < 0.5579 Univariate tests Age of the child 1.1993 17 < 0.3369 Ordinal position of the child 0.8345 17 < 0.6442 Age of the mother 0.9534 17 < 0.5342 173 Three-Nay‘Interaction The three-way interaction tested was for race by sex of the child by socioeconomic status. The null hypotheses for this interaction could not be rejected since an alpha level of 0.4826 was obtained (Table 4-47). Two-Nay Interaction Since significance of three-way interaction effects did not exist, two-way interactions were looked at. No significant differences were found on the overall multivariate tests and the null hypotheses related to these interactions were not rejected (Table 4-47). Socio- economic group by race interaction had an alpha level of 0.4309; race by sex of the child interaction had an alpha level of 0.4480; and socioeconomic group by sex of the child interaction had an alpha level of 0.1316. Test of the Main Effects None of the interactions were significant at the 0.05 alpha level, so main effects were then considered. No significant differences were found for the race main effect (alpha level less than 0.2232) or for the sex of the child main effect (alpha 1eve1 less than 0.5441), but a significant difference was found to exist for the socioeconomic grOUp main effect (alpha level less than 0.0545) (Table 4-47). 174 Table 4-47 Summary of Multivariate Tests on Total Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior Multivariate Test Statistics Test Degrees of Alpha Hypothesis Statistic Freedom Level Socioeconomic group (SES) 2.0317 17 and 24 < 0.0545 Race 1.3932 17 and 24 < 0.2232 Sex of the child 0.9399 17 and 24 < 0.5441 Socioeconomic group (SES) x race 1.0696 17 and 24 < 0.4309 Race x sex of the child 1.0488 17 and 24 < 0.4480 Socioeconomic group (SES) x sex of the child 1.4299 17 and 24 < 0.2063 Race x sex of the child x socioeconomic grOUp (SES) 1.0083 17 and 24 < 0.4826 175 For the socioeconomic group main effect, two univariate variables were found to be significant at alpha levels equal to or less than 0.01 (Table 4-48). The variable of verbal independence promotion had a univariate alpha level of 0.0118. Differences in cell means (Appendix IIA--Table II-l) indicated that middle-class mothers tended to have more verbalizations which were independence promoting than did lower-class mothers. The variable of hostility had a univariate alpha level of 0.0117. Differences in cell means E_ (Appendix IIC--Table II-l4) indicated that lower-class mothers tended to show more hostility toward their children than did middle-class mothers. In addition, five additional univariate variables were indicated under socioeconomic grOUp main effect for making potentially meaningful contributions to the variance between groups (alpha 1eve1 less than 0.10). The variable of verbal support had a univariate alpha level of 0.0754. Differences in cell means (Appendix IIA--Table II-7) indicated that middle-class mothers tended to have more supportive verbalizations than did lower-class mothers. The quantity of nonverbal affective physical behavior had a univariate alpha level of 0.0500. Differences in cell means (Appendix IIB--Table II-9) indicated that middle-class mothers tended to use more affective physical behavior than did lower-class mothers. The variable nonverbal initiation- response mode had a univariate alpha level of 0.0498. Differences in cell means (Appendix IIB--Table II-ll) indicated that middle-class mothers tended to use more proactive physical behavior than did 176 Table 4-48 Analyses of Variance for SES Main Effects: Affective Orientation Behavior Total Maternal Between F Alpha Variable Mean Squares Ratio Level Multivariate Analysis (17 and 24 degrees of freedom) Total maternal affective orientation 2.03l7l < 0.0545 Univariate Analysis (1 and 40 degrees of freedom) Verbal focus No obvious focus/child 2.1027 2.2384 < 0.1425 Mother/child 0.1048 0.1573 < 0.6939 Other/child 0.1966 0.2968 < 0.5890 Voice affective tone 0.0238 1.0128 < 0.3203 Verbal initiation-response mode 0.0042 0.6339 < 0.4307 Verbal support 0.1934 3.3339 < 0.0754 Verbal independence promotion 0.3400 6.9666 < 0.0118 Affective physical behavior Quantity 4.4194 4.0876 < 0.0500 Types Social physical/approach 4.0483 1.0705 < 0.3071 Defensive/approach 0.2328 0.1988 < 0.6581 Negative physical/approach 0.0310 0.1024 < 0.7507 Nonverbal initiation-response 0.0479 4.0951 < 0.0498 Nonverbal support 0.1475 3.0162 < 0.0902 Nonverbal independence promotion 0.7331 4.7332 < 0.0356 Hostility 0.0753 6.9877 < 0.0117 Harmth 0.0945 2.4342 < 0.1266 Anxiety 0.0293 1.9286 < 0.1726 177 lower-class mothers. The variable nonverbal support had a univariate alpha level of 0.0902. Differences in cell means (Appendix IIB-- Table II-12) indicated that middle-class mothers tended to use more nonverbal SUpport behaviors than did lower—class mothers. The variable nonverbal independence promotion had a univariate alpha level of 0.0356. Differences in cell means (Appendix IIB--Tab1e II-l3) indicated that P middle-class mothers tended to use more nonverbal behavior which was independence promoting than did lower-class mothers. Summary of Results Multivariate Comparisons Multivariate tests of the general hypotheses led to the following conclusions: 1) There was a significant difference between the maternal verbal orientation behaviors of middle-class mothers and of lower-class mothers (socioeconomic group effect), but no differences were found in verbal orientation with respect to race, sex of the child, and the interactions of race, sex of the child, and/or socioeconomic group, nor were age of the mother or ordinal position of the child found to be related to maternal verbal orientation behaviors. 2) There was a significant difference between the maternal nonverbal orientation behaviors of middle-class mothers and of lower- class mothers (socioeconomic group effects) but again, no differences were found in nonverbal orientation with respect to race, sex of the child, and the interactions of race, sex and/or socioeconomic group, 178 nor were age of the mother or ordinal position of the child found to be related to maternal nonverbal orientation behaviors. 3) There were no differences found in maternal affective orientation behavior, with respect to sex, race, socioeconomic group, or the interaction of race, sex, and/or socioeconomic group. Age of the mother and ordinal position of the child were not found to be related to maternal affective orientation behaviors. 4) There were no significant differences between the affective orientation behaviors of black children and white children (race effects with repeated measures), between the affective orientation behaviors of middle-class children and lower-class children (socioeconomic group effects with repeated measures), nor between the interactions of race, sex, and/or socioeconomic status group. However, there was a signifi— cant difference in the interaction between sex of the child and the repeated measures dimension. In a separate analysis, the repeated measures dimension was found to be significant for female children, but not for male children. 5) There was a significant difference between the total maternal affective orientation behaviors of middle-class mothers and of lower-class mothers (socioeconomic group effects), but no differences were found in total maternal affective orientation with respect to race, sex of the child, or the interactions of race, sex, and/or socioeconomic group. 179 Univariate Comparisons Tests for individual variables were examined. The results are sumnarized in Table 4-49. Verbal Orientation Behaviors 0n eleven of the twenty-three variables considered as making up verbal orientation behavior, significant differences or at least trends !— were indicated on the six hypotheses of interest for verbal orientation behavior. The contributions of each variable were as follows: Verbalization--quantity. Middle-class mothers tended to talk more to their children than did lower-class mothers. No other effects were noted. Verbalization--type. Verbalization type was broken down into three broad categories: nursery school-related, trailer-related and other-related. 1. Nursery school-related. No differences were found among mothers of varying demographic groUps and no relationships were deter- mined between verbalizations about the nursery school and mother's age or ordinal position of the child. 2. Trailer-related. Middle-class mothers made more verbaliza- tions about every specific aspect of the trailer environment (furniture, blocks-specific, experimenter, other attributes, and atmosphere) than did lower-class mothers. No other effects were noted. If 180 Table 4-49 Summary of Significance and Marginal Significance for Individual Variables Univariate Alpha Variable <0.01 0.02-0.05 0.05-0.10 _— Verbalization Quantity SES - - Types Nursery school/trailer — Other/trailer SES — - Nursery school Teacher/program - - - Building/program - - - Children/program — — - Child/program - - - Trailer Furniture/blocks-general SES - Blocks-specific/blocks-general - Experimenter/blocks-general SES - Other attributes/blocks-general SES - Atmosphere/b1ocks-general - Other Home/miscellaneous - - - School/miscellaneous - - SES Verbal focus No obvious focus/child - Mother/child - Other/child - Verbal fantasy - Verbal time orientation - Voice affective tone - Verbal initiation-response mode - Verbal support - a Verbal independence promotion SES - U) Illlmll (I) Nonverbal Orientation Behavior Affective physical behavior a Quantity - SES - Types Social physical/approach - - - Defensive/approach — - _ Negative physical/approach - - - 181 Table 4-46--Continued Univariate Alpha Variable <0. 01 0.02—0.05 0.05-0.10 Neutral physical behavior Quantity Blocks/pointing Nonverbal initiation-response mode Nonverbal support Nonverbal independence promotion —_ SESa 5E5a SES SE5a Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior —_‘ Hostility SESa - - Warmth - - _ Anxiety - - - Child Affective Orientation Behavior Anxiety lst-4th intervals 2nd-4th intervals 3rd-4th intervals Dependency Quantity lst-4th intervals 2nd-4th intervals 3rd-4th intervals Type: emotional/instrumental lst-4th intervals 2nd-4th intervals 3rd-4th intervals S indicates sex of the child difference. SES indicates socioeconomic group difference. G indicates an effect for the grand mean (repeated measures). aIndicates grOUp difference on total maternal affect variables in addition to difference in original grouping of variables. 182 3. Other-related. A socioeconomic group difference was determined for verbalizations which were other-related with middle- class mothers making more such statements than lower-class mothers. In looking at the variables which make up other-related, however, a trend could be found where lower-class mothers tended to make more verbalizations about other schools than did middle-class mothers. No other effects were noted. Verbal focus. No differences were found among mothers of varying demographic groups and no relationships were determined between verbal focus and mother's age or ordinal position of the child. Verbal fantasy. Middle-class mothers tended to use more fantasy in their verbalizations to their children than did lower-class mothers. No other effects were noted. Time orientation. No differences were found between mothers of varying demographic groups and no relationships were determined between time orientation and mother's age or ordinal position of the child. Voice affective tone. No differences were found between mothers of varying demographic groups and no relationships were determined between voice affective tone and mother's age or ordinal position of the child. Verbal initiation-response mode. No differences were found between mothers of varying demographic groups and no relationships were determined between verbal initiation-response mode and mother's age or ordinal position of the child. 183 Verbal SUpport. Middle-class mothers tended to have more supportive verbalizations than did lower-class mothers. This difference was upheld in the subsequent analysis of total maternal affective orientation behavior. No other effects were noted. Verbal independence promotion. Middle-class mothers did more independence promoting in their verbalizations than did lower-class mothers. This difference was upheld in the subsequent analysis of total maternal affective orientation behavior. No other effects were noted. Nonverbal Orientation Behaviors On five of the nine variables considered as making up nonverbal orientation behavior, significant differences or at least trends were indicated on the six hypotheses of interest for nonverbal orientation behavior. The contribution of each variable was as follows: Affective physical behavior-~quantity. Middle-class mothers tended to use more affective physical behavior than did lower-class mothers. This difference was upheld in the subsequent analysis of total maternal affective orientation behavior. No other effects were noted. Affective physical behavior--types. No differences were found between mothers of varying demographic groups, and there was no rela- tionship found between type of affective physical behavior and maternal age or ordinal position of the child. 184 Neutral physical behavior--quantity. Lower-class mothers tended to use more neutral physical behaviors than did middle-class mothers. No other effects were noted. Neutral physical behavior--type. No differences were found among mothers of varying demographic groups and no relationship was determined between type of neutral physical behavior and age of the mother or ordinal position of the child. Nonverbal initiation-response mode. A socioeconomic grOUp difference was determined for this variable, middle-class mothers tending to use more proactive physical behavior than lower-class mothers. This difference was upheld in the subsequent analyses of total maternal affective orientation behavior. No other effects were noted. Nonverbal support. Middle-class mothers tended to use more nonverbal support than did lower-class mothers. This difference was Upheld in the subsequent analyses of total maternal affective orien- tation behavior. No other effects are noted. Nonverbal independence promotion. Middle-class mothers tended to use more nonverbal independence promotion than did lower-class mothers. This difference was upheld in the subsequent analyses of total maternal affective orientation behavior. No other effects were noted. 185 Maternal Affective Behaviors On one of the three variables considered as making up maternal affective orientation behavior, trends were indicated on the six hypotheses of interest. The contributions of each variable were as follows: Hostility. On the subsequent analyses of total maternal affective orientation behavior, lower-class mothers were found to be more hostile than middle-class mothers. No other effects were noted. Warmth. No differences were found between mothers of varying demographic groups, nor were relationships determined between maternal warmth and ordinal position of the child or mother's age. Anxiety. No differences were found between mothers of varying demographic groups, nor were relationships determined between maternal anxiety and mother's age or ordinal position of the child. Child Affective Behaviors On two of the nine variables considered as making up child affective behavior, trends were indicated or significance was determined on the five hypotheses of interest for child affective behavior. The contributions of each variable were as follows: Anxiety. No differences were found on the repeated measures dimensions between children of varying demographic groups. 186 Dependenc --quantity. A sex of the child main effect with repeated measures interaction was found to exist in the difference between the quantity of dependency shown between the first and the fourth intervals; females tended to increase in quantity of dependency over elapsed time while males tended to decrease in quantity of depen- dency over elapsed time. A repeated measures effect was shown to indicate a trend for the variable, difference in quantity of dependency shown between the first and the fourth intervals: females tended to increase in quantity of dependency shown between the first and the fourth intervals. No other effects were noted. Dependency--relative amount of emotional dependency. A sex of the child main effect with repeated measures interaction was found to exist in the difference between the relative amount of emotional dependency shown between the third and the fourth intervals; males tended to increase in relative amount of emotional dependency over the elapsed time, while females tended to decrease in relative amount of emotional dependency over the elapsed time. No other effects were noted. CHAPTER V CONCLUSION Discussion Summary of Results In the investigation of three areas of maternal orientation behavior and the area of child affective behavior it was determined that differences did occur between mothers of differing socioeconomic groups in all three areas of maternal orientation, and differences did occur between male and female children in the area of child orientation behavior. No interaction effects were determined for the multivariate tests of any of the orientation behaviors of the mothers, and no inter- action effects existed for child orientation behavior. The results .based on the regrouping of variables related to total maternal affective orientation behavior indicated that the only differences in these behaviors were with respect to social class. Maternal Orientation Behaviors Social Class Differences The primary differences in the behavior of the mothers were found to exist as a function of socioeconomic group on the orientation 187 188 behaviors. The results of this study are not surprising in light of the literature existing on the effects of social class. Psathas (1957) found middle-class homes to have more verbal contact between the parent and the child than lower—class homes. The results in Psathas' study indicated that middle-class mothers made far more total verbali- zations to their children than did lower-class mothers. In addition, in this study, middle-class mothers appeared to concentrate on the environment in which they found themselves, making many more comments about the trailer and things in the trailer than did the lower-class mothers. Perhaps this is indicative of concern on the part of the parent to provide labels for what the child is experiencing. In addition, middle-class mothers had more other—related verbalizations than lower-class mothers. However, there was the indica- tion present that lower-class mothers tended to make more verbaliza- tions about other school environments than did middle—class mothers. Thus, while middle-class mothers were far more "chatty" about things other than the trailer or the nursery school than were lower-class mothers, lower-class mothers had more to say about schools other than the nursery school in question. In this study, middle-class mothers used more fantasy verbaliza- tions than lower-class mothers. Since utilization of fantasy is a communication technique which can be used effectively to teach concepts or ideas (Spodek, 1972), and since middle-class parents feel that it is their duty as parents to help their children learn as much as they can, while lower-class parents tend not to view their role as "teacher" 189 (Smilansky, 1968) it seems entirely within the realm of possibility that middle-class mothers would use more verbalizations with fantasy content than lower-class mothers would. The results of this study did not bear out LeShan's (1952) premise that the middle-class is future-oriented and the lower—class is present-oriented, as there were no significant differences in relation to social class on this variable. A reason for this finding in this particular study could be that in 1969-1970 (the years in which -1! the bulk of the data for this study was collected), nearly twenty years later than LeShan's study, the social classes have become more homogeneous in their temporal focus chiefly as a result of the middle- class becoming more present-oriented. Another reason could be inherent in the nature of the Familiarization Task procedure: Mothers were asked to make the child familiar with the trailer environment as a part of the nursery school experience and a great preponderance of the conversations were about the "present" trailer environment. On the whole, middle-class mothers tended to be more supportive (verbally and nonverbally) as well as less hostile than lower-class mothers. This finding does not seem surprising in view of the environ- mental conditions with which the lower-class must cope. The lower-class often must endure substandard living conditions in terms of jobs (income, security, and status), housing, and educational opportunity. Cunningham (1972) also found instances of more negative affect demonstrated by lower-class parents, particularly the mothers. Middle-class mothers tried to do more verbally and nonverbally to promote independence in their children than did lower-class mothers. 190 Perhaps this result is a function of the fact that middle-class parents are concerned about their children being able to function independently in some future endeavor. While all parents of all socioeconomic levels are concerned about their children's futures (Clausen, 1963), lower- class parents may not either have the necessary resources or the motiva- tion to urge their children to attempt to break the perpetual cycle, especially when failure is the usual “reward." Another finding relevant to social class differences was in the quantities of nonverbal behaviors. Middle-class mothers used more affective physical behaviors than did lower-class mothers, while lower- class mothers tended to use more neutral physical behaviors than did middle-class mothers. It appears that middle-class mothers are more physically demonstrative, both in terms of positive and negative affect, and in terms of contact and noncontact, while lower-class mothers seem less demonstrative and seem to rely on nonaffective, noncommittal physical behaviors. Lower-class mothers did more pointing and block handling than did middle-class mothers. A possible explanation of this may be that lower-class mothers are not at ease in the situation and being able to handle some of the props physically has a tension reduction function. Another possible rationale may be that lower-class parents are not socialized to be overly demonstrative to their children. Race Differences No race differences were determined for any of the maternal orientation behavior variab1es. No race differences were determined 191 in the subsequent analysis of total maternal affective orientation behavior. Sex of’the Child Differences No sex of the child differences were determined for any of the maternal orientation behavior variables. No sex of the child differences were determined in the subsequent analysis of total maternal affective orientation behavior. Age of the Mother Age of the mother was not found to be related to any of the maternal orientation behavior variab1es. Age of the mother was not included as a variable in the subsequent analysis of total maternal affective orientation behavior. Ordinal Position of the Child Ordinal position of the child was not found to be related to any of the maternal orientation behavior variables. Ordinal position of the child was not included as a variable in the subsequent analysis of total maternal affective orientation behavior. Child Orientation Behavior Socioeconomic Class Differences No socioeconomic class differences were determined for the child orientation variables. In addition, no interaction effects were found. 192 Race Differences No race differences were determined for the child orientation variables. In addition, no interaction effects were found. Sex of the Child A significant finding of this study relevant to sex of the child with repeated measures interaction had to do with differences in the amount of emotional dependency shown between the third and the fourth intervals. Males increased in emotional dependency, while females decreased in emotional dependency. Another significant finding relevant to sex of the child with repeated measures interaction had to do with the difference in the total quantity of dependency shown between the first and the fourth intervals; females increased in quantity of dependency from relatively little to quite a bit, while males decreased slightly, from a high amount to slightly less than the females. In looking at these two findings simultaneously, it appears that while males were increasing and females were decreasing in amount of emotional dependency, females had to be increasing in amount of instrumental dependency because of the increase in quantity of dependency for the girls. Thus, while females are not expressing emotional dependency as readily as the liberated male who is freer to express emotional feeling, they are still engaged in help-seeking and attention—getting maneuvers. When males and females were independently analyzed to test the repeated measures effect, none of the variables were found to be sig- nificant for the boys, not even the emotional dependency variables. 193 The quantity of dependency between the first and the fourth intervals was again found to be significant for girls as was the test for all the child affective behavior variables. Thus, it appears that little girls continue to live up to social expectations and are dependent, attention-seeking, and nonself—reliant. Total Maternal Affective Orientation Behavior The only differences in total maternal orientation behavior revealed in the results was with respect to social class. On the basis of this subsequent analysis further support was given for differences found in the preliminary analysis on several of the affective behaviors cited. As before, middle-class mothers were found to be more verbally and nonverbally supportive as well as less hostile than lower-class mothers. Middle-class mothers tried to do more verbally and nonverbally to promote independence in their children than did lower—class mothers. Also this analysis further supported the finding that middle—class mothers used more affective physical behaviors than did lower-class mothers. Any explanation of these findings must lie in the cultural and environmental differences which are by definition inherent in the two social classes. Many of these differences have been discussed in prior sections of this study as well as in numerous other research-based works. Major reasons for these differences appear to be a result of socialization differences but the general reason for these socialization differences apparently lies in the economic sphere. The lower-class individual, 194 because of limited resources--both material in the forms of goods and money and human in terms of education and development of useful and marketable skills--is at the bottom to begin with and most often finds it difficult or virtually impossible to bring himself out of the "rut" into which he is born. The problem then for him becomes searching for and learning how best to utilize any means by which he can break the endless chain of poverty passed on from generation to generation. The Limitations of This Study The limitations of this study which should be considered in the interpretation of the results are: 1) In a family all family members are important socialization agents, but with special emphasis on the parents. This study is limited to the study of the mother's orientation and affective behaviors in an unfamiliar situation, and thus, is limited in its inference. A father's treatment of the same situation might be altogether different. A second repetition of the same situation using the father instead of the mother would no longer be an unfamiliar situation to the child. However, a potentially similar unfamiliar situation might be developed. 2) The situation may have been more "unfamiliar" for some of the subjects than for others; for instance, middle-class parents have often had more exposure to nursery school type situations than lower- class parents. 195 3) The Familiarization Task is a potentially artificial mother-child interaction situation, and it thereby is limited in its inference. 4) Previous validation of the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure as a measure of maternal and child orientation behavior was minimal. Predictive validity eSpecially needs to be ascertained as this study can say nothing about the child's subsequent development in the nursery school as a function of the means with which his mother oriented him to the new situation. Reliability could be increased by finer definitional descriminations on some of the vari- ables which were too subjective. Inevitable errors of measurement occurred in the data collection. 5) The selection of the subjects was from a fortuitous sample from a larger p0pulation. Sample size was also relatively small. 6) Because only one aspect of the child's behavior (affective orientation behavior) and three aspects of the mother's behavior (verbal, nonverbal and affective orientation behaviors) were considered, the scope of the study was limited. Other relevant variables may not have been considered. 7) Reciprocal parts of the communication process were not determined and thus relevant interactive data may not have been con- sidered. 196 8) The length of the time period in the Familiarization Task session may have been too restrictive for allowing the varying types of behaviors to occur. 9) The quality of the data was questionable with some of the subjects. Some of the video tapes were not in good condition; in some, the audio and/or video components were substandard. The time periods in the Familiarization Task session were not all equivalent; a few were not even the prescribed five minutes. Implications There are many directions one could go from here, which points to the fact that while this study was limited in scope, it certainly is not limited in its implications. The results of this study offer a contribution to the whole study of child socialization and family interaction. The findings of this study provide useful information about how mothers of varying demographic groups attempt to deal with orienting their children to new situations, and provide a base for future research directed at ascertaining the relationship between the employment of varying kinds of orientation techniques and children's subsequent adjustment to the originally unfamiliar environments. The socialization of the child has fortunately become a focal point of much child development research of late. In this increasingly complex world, it is a wonder that children adapt as well as they appear to do. Anything which can be done which can facilitate this adaptation and adjustment process lasting a lifetime should be done. 197 If there can be found special techniques which work well to facilitate this process, it is important to distribute this kind of information to parents, to schools, to doctors or to anyone else who may deal with children in everyday life. It may well be that techniques will have to be situation Specific. Levy's (1959) research already alluded to this probability. But, perhaps, some general kinds of techniques applicable in any situation might apply as well. Knowledge about how a child becomes most comfortable in a new situation as well as knowledge about how parents can best make a child comfortable in such a situation would be useful information for any child socialization institution. Any enrichment program involving lower-class children must utilize available knowledge about social-class differences in parent-child interaction. Development of personality, development of self concept, and development of self-esteem can all stem from the particular manner in which a child is raised. The job of child advocates everywhere is to create the best environment in which a child, any child, can be raised. Suggestions for Future Research A number of researchable possibilities arise from this study. Several of the most important are enumerated below: 1) A replication of the present study using the father as the parent figure could be undertaken. It may be argued that the father is an integral part of the American family, and as such makes an important contribution to the socialization of the child. 198 2) A replication of the present study with both parents, father and mother, present to familiarize the child to a new environ— ment should be done. 3) Two types of follow—up studies should be done: a) A short-term study should be done to assess how a parent familiarizes his child to a new environment, and to assess how well the child adjusts to the new environment without the parent present, immediately after. b) A long-term study should be done to assess how the child adjusts to the new environment over an extended period of time after the initial parent-child contact with the new environment. 4) A replication of the present study should be undertaken to assess the total parent-child interaction process which takes place in the situation. 5) A study similar to this one could be undertaken, but with a completely different unfamiliar situation setting, to determine situation specificity. 6) A comparison could be done of how a mother familiarizes each of her two or more children to the same unfamiliar environment, systematically varying the order of presenting each of the children to the unfamiliar environment. 7) The present study should be redone, but the time allowed in the session should be lengthened in order to assess more adequately the behaviors which are exhibited. 199 8) The present study could be done using older than preschool age children and younger than preschool age children (under three years). 9) Further validation of the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure should be undertaken. 10) A straight replication of the present study is needed. 11) A study could be done to compare the use of three treatments of child orientation to a new unfamiliar environment: a) A treatment where no specific directions are given to the parent with respect to familiarizing the child to a new environment. b) A treatment where mild nondirective directions are given to the parent, much like was done for this study. c) A treatment where emphatic, explicit directions are given to the parent, along with a lecture on how important it is to make a child feel comfortable in a new situation. 12) Studies could be done using other parent-figures, such as teachers, grandparents, and neighbors, to determine how well the child is able to adjust, and to assess how the familiarizing individual accomplishes his task. APPENDIX I THE FAMILIARIZATION TASK AND THE FAMILIARIZATION TASK RATING PROCEDURE APPENDIX IA THE FAMILIARIZATION TASK This instrument was developed by 00 Lynn Cunningham and Robert P. Boger, Head Start Research Center, Michigan State University.1’2 Specific materials and procedures are described in the sections which follow. Materials Twelve wooden blocks are used in this task. The blocks are all 1%" high and vary on the following dimensions: (a) colore-red, blue, and yellow; (b) texture--smooth and rough; and (c) shape--1l shapes of varying sizes in 9 geometric forms. All the blocks are painted with brightly colored enamel. Rough texture was obtained by making indenta— tions in the wood with both the blunt and pointed ends of nails. The twelve blocks can be fit together to form a 12-3/4" rectangle as shown in Figure A-l. 1Cunningham, J. L., and Boger, R. P. Familiarization Task. Unpublished instrument description, Head Start Research Center, Michigan State University, 1969. 2Special credit is given to Chris Walter and Sharon Evans for their assistance with the development of this instrument. Rick Walter and Bill Brown helped with the development of materials, and Judy Kuipers and Marilyn Beery provided helpful comments with respect to the structure of the task. 200 201 Yellow R d (T) , e B'”e (T) Blue 1 Red 1‘ Yellow Blue Yellow ?$? Yellow (T) Blue Red (T) T = Textured Figure A-l. Closed arrangement of familiarization task blocks. 202 Procedure The blocks are arranged on a small table at one end of the room, with three small chairs randomly placed in the room. The arrangement of the blocks on the table is shown in Figure A-2. The following instructions are given the mother by the experimenter outside the testing room: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHERE WE WILL BE PLAYING SOME GAMES TOGETHER LATER 0N. THERE ARE SOME TOYS INSIDE THAT HE MAY PLAY WITH TODAY. BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY NEW THINGS, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO HELP HIM GET USED TO THE TRAILER FIRST. THEN I WILL COME IN SO HE AND I CAN GET TO KNOW EACH OTHER BETTER. The mother and child are then left alone in the testing room. The mother is free to interact with the child in any way she wishes. At the end of five minutes from their entry into the room, the examiner returns. Additional time is spent getting acquainted with the child. 203 V. V@ R 15’ R = Red 8 - Blue Y = Yellow T = Textured Figure A-2. Arrangement of familiarization task blocks. APPENDIX 18 FAMILIARIZATION TASK RATING PROCEDURE The Familiarization Task Rating Procedure (FTRP) was designed for use with videotaped interactions to assess parent and child behaviors in an unfamiliar situation. It was developed by Marilyn Olson, Jo Lynn Cunningham, and Robert P. Boger, Institute for Family and Child Study, Michigan State University. General Procedures In this observational rating system, certain behaviors exhibited by the parent and the child are rated every twenty seconds for as long as the session lasts. Each twenty-second interval is considered as a separate entity and rated independently of every other interval. In order to assess adequately all the behaviors exhibited by the parent and the child, several viewings of each session are necessary (approximately four to six times through the tape). Thus, it would take one trained rater approximately forty-five minutes to one hour to complete the rating of one parent-child familiarization task session of approximately five minutes (including rewindings of tape). For continuity and efficiency, it is best that the same rater assess all the behaviors throughout the entire tape. 204 205 Rating_Format The behaviors assessed during each twenty-second interval for the parent are as follows: Verbalization Verbal focus Verbal fantasy Verbal time orientation Voice affective tone Verbal initiation-response mode Verbal support behavior Verbal independence promotion Affective physical behavior Neutral physical behavior Nonverbal initiation-response mode 12. Nonverbal support behavior 13. Nonverbal independence promotion 14. Hostility 15. Warmth l6. Maternal anxiety _a_..n dommwmmwa—a The behaviors assessed during each twenty—second interval for the child are: 1. Child anxiety 2. Child dependency The format for recording an observation segment consisting of these parent and child behaviors for each twenty seconds is shown in Figures B—1 and B—2. Recording Observations A code must be recorded in each code position for each interval on the rating form. An "X" is coded or a line is drawn through any specific behavior position which is not applicable. The ratings for hostility, warmth, maternal anxiety, and child anxiety must each be a code other than "X" for each interval. 206 .mgaumooca acHumm xmm» coHumNHLmHHHEmE esp not mane» mcwumm .H-m usamHu H m z x H z o H z a 3qu mz z m mz z m H: S: E E E .E E E m N H 2 m H + o .. + o .. H z o H z o H E E E a... E E mz z m mz z m mz “_z u. .._z .._ E E E .E E E E 207 .onumooHE mchmm swap coHHNNHHNHHHEmH asp L0H msmsm mcwumg Ho umsgom .N-N agzmHa Hocmucoaov uHng HHacha uHHso NH :oHHosoHa mocmu icoamucH Hmagm> NH :oHHosoHa mocmu iconoucH Hungm> HH cowuoeoga oucmu -cmaou:H HmaHm> 94on NH NH HH Hgognam HmnHm> Heoaaam HmaHm> Hcoaaam Hangw> HHonco Hangmpmz NH NH HH owes mmcoammg muos oncoammg muos mucoammg -coHpmeHcH -coHpmHHHcH acoHumHHHcH a go a go a Hm> gusts: HHHHHHmoz H a > H a > H a NH NH HH meow mean «so» NH NH HH m>HuumHHw moHo> m>HHomHHm moHo> m>HuomHHm muHo> :oHHoEoHa coHHoEoHa coHuoeoga E mocmccmamncH mucoucogwucH mucmccmaoccp NH NH HH Honcw>coz HmnHm>coz HmaHm>coz :oHHmucmHHo coHumucoHHo :oHHmpcmHHo I mEHH HmnHm> mam» Hungm> oEHH Hangm> ..NH NH HH . Heoaoam Hgoaazm «Leanna Hanem>coz Hungm>coz Hangm>coz NH NH HH NH NH HH HmmpcmH HmnHm> Hmmucmm Hongm> ammucmH HmnHm> muos mucoamog ouos mucoammg «nos mucoammg IcowubrurCH ICOwHMrHPCr IcorvmrvrcP mm* mm* mm“. QNH» mpfi QCH Honco>=oz Hangm>coz Hangm>=oz maoom econ :oHH maoom once coHH mauoH once coHu . , . Hango> -m~wH~ngw>iHmnmm> -NNNFNnHm> Hungo> -NNHHmnHm> NH NH ”Hg; HH HH mHea AHNH «NH HH Hmonzga m>Hu mauoH mvou :oHH mauoH once coHu maooH ouoo :oHH ngpsmz -umHH< Haguamz -umHH< Hmnxm> -NNHcmaHm> Hmpxo> -NNHHmnHw> HmnHo> -NNHHNpHm> 208 Coding for each category is achieved by assigning the appropriate alpha-numeric code (for verbalization, verbal focus, affective physical behavior, and neutral physical behavior) or by circling the appropriate code letters (verbal fantasy, verbal time orientation, voice affective tone, verbal initiation-response mode, verbal support behavior, verbal independence promotion, nonverbal initiation-response mode, nonverbal support behavior, nonverbal independence promotion, hostility, warmth, maternal anxiety, child anxiety, and child dependency). All the verbal-related codes depend on the verbalization coded and if there is none, the related categories are also inapplicable and a line is drawn through them. All the nonverbal-related codes depend on the affective physical and/or neutral physical behavior coded and if there is none, the related categories are also inapplicable and a line is drawn through them. The focus in recording the time sampled behaviors is on the total behavior unit. Frequently a particular verbal behavior is accompanied by a nonverbal behavior and, conversely, frequently a particular nonverbal behavior is accompanied by a verbal behavior. In this rating procedure the verbalization-related codes are linked up with the nonverbal-related codes such that there are three inter- action units per interval, each of which can be marked for verbaliza- tion and/or nonverbal behavior. Because of the complex nature of the codes to be recorded every twenty seconds it is necessary to go through the tapes several times. 209 The suggested order in which to rate behaviors each time through the tape is as follows: 1) General verbalizations paired with general nonverbal codes. 2) Specific nonverbal codes (nonverbal initiation-response mode, nonverbal support, and nonverbal independence promotion). 3) Hostility, warmth, maternal anxiety, child anxiety, and child dependency. 4) Specific verbalization codes. 5) Remaining specific verbalization codes (including fantasy, time orientation, voice affective tone, verbal initiation- response mode, verbal support and verbal independence promotion). 6) Final check, resolution of remaining problems, and completion of ratings. Reliability Two types of reliability are determined. Intrarater reliability is established by the same observer rating the same tape at two different points in time. Interrater reliability is established between two observers rating the same tape. Comparison of the resultant ratings for both types is then made code by code. Two methods of determining reliability are used: one based on total blanks and one based on total recorded positions. Points for figuring reliability are assigned as is shown in Figure B-3. The .weacmuoga mcHHmm xmmh coHHNNHLNHHHEma 85H to» HHHHHnsHHmL HaHme 20H mucHoa Ho HcmsemHmm< .N-m «LamHa jl 9 9 m6 210 9 9 699 66969699 66969999 66 96999999 66 211 procedures used to compute reliability are exactly the same as those used by Cunningham and Boger (1970). Total Blanks The method of computing reliability by total blanks is best described by Cunningham and Boger (1970). Count and evaluate the total number of possible codes, regard- less of whether anything was recorded within that area for that time interval or not. This method credits the observers with agreements for those instances on which they agree that no recordable behavior occurred, i.e., both recorded an "X" for that category of that interval (Cunningham and Boger, 1970, p. 11). The formula for figuring reliability by this method for the Familiariza— tion Task Rating Procedure is: agreements (number ofypoints) number of frames X 51 % reliability = Total Recorded Positions The method of computing reliability by total recorded positions is best described by Cunningham and Boger (1970), Count and evaluate only those positions in which one or both observers recorded something other than "X" (Cunningham and Boger, 1970, p. 11 . The formula for figuring reliability by this method for the Familiariza— tion Task Rating Procedure is: agreements (number of points) agreements plus disagreements (number of points possible for positions in which either observer recorded any code) % reliability = 212 Reliability Minumums Suggested reliability minimums have been made for each method of computing reliability for both interobserver reliability and intra- observer reliability. These reliability minimums are presented in Table I-l. Codes The description of each code used in the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure is as follows: Type of verbalization: Up to two subject specifics can be rated for each of up to three possible behavioral units per interval. Environment Specifics NS - General statements about P - Statements about nursery school nursery school program T — Statements about nursery school teacher B - Statements about nursery school tangibles or building (e.g., inside or outside toys, equipment) K - Statements about other children in nursery school C - Statements about child (subject) in nursery school TR - Trailer-related statements F - Statements about furniture (i.e., table and chairs) in the trailer BG - General statements about blocks BS - Specific statements about blocks (e.g., color, shape, size, texture) - Statements about the experimenter Statements about other specific physical attributes of the trailer (e.g., walls, lights, camera, floor, mirror) A - Statements about the atmosphere of the trailer (e.g., emotional feelings, the child, the mother) 70 m I 213 Table I-l Minimum Suggested Observer Reliability Indices for Familiarization Task Rating Procedure T Type of reliability Method Interobserver Intraobserver Total blanks 1 .85 .90 i Total recorded i .75 .80 positions : i 214 Environment Specifics O - Statements about things H - Statements about the home environ- other than nursery school ment, neighbors, other friends, or trailer other non-school places S - Statements about school places other than nursery school in question (e.g., Sunday School, another nursery school) M - Miscellaneous statements (e.g., weather, vacations, going to bathroom) X - No verbalizations X - Not applicable Verbal referent: This code must be rated for each verbalization specific. Specific verbalization circled--the specific verbalization (listed above) not actually mentioned but referred to only indefinite reference. Specific verbalization not circled——the specific verbalization (listed above) actually mentioned. Verbal focus: This code must be rated for each verbalization specific. Child Mother Other (e.g., siblings, father, neighbor) No obvious focus No verbalization x2030 Verbal fantasy: This code must be rated for each verbalization Specific. F - Fantasy verbalization--statements incorporating some elements of what really does not exist. NF - Nonfantasy verbalization--reality-oriented statements. Verbal time orientation: This code must be rated for each verbalization Specific. PA - Statements about the past-~before the mother and child entered the trailer environment. PR - Statements about the present--the mother and child in the trailer environment. FU - Statements about the future--either to being in the trailer in the future, or in the nursery school at some later date, or something in the child's future other than anything connected with the nursery School. 215 Voice affective tone: This code must be rated for each verbalization specific. - - Negative voice tone (i.e., critical, antagonistic, hostile). o - Neutral voice tone + - Positive voice tone (i.e., praising, warm) Verbal initiation-response mode: This code must be rated for each verbalization specific. PR - Proactive--giving information not specifically sought by the child; giving direction, guidance, initiating new material to enhance the child's understanding of the environment, providing suggestions for acting not asked for by the child. RE - Reactive--primarily responding to the child's immediately preceding verbal and/or nonverbal behavior; reactionary, not providing unsolicited information. RT - Retroactive-~delayed reaction; responding to the child's behavior which has occurred sometime in the past (not immediate); response is presented as new material. Verbal support behavior: This code must be rated for each verbalization specific. S - Support--verbalization Shows support of the child's position in the environment; consideration by mother of child's needs. N — Neutral--Shows neither support nor nonsupport. NS - Nonsupport--verbalization shows lack of support for the child; ignores child's needs; focus by mother on other things or on herself. Verbal independence promotion: This code must be rated for each verbaliza- tion Specific. D - Dependence--verbalizations in which the mother seems to expect child to depend on her, or stay near her; encourages dependence. N - Neutral--verbalizations in which neither independence pro- motion nor dependence promotion occurs. I - Independence--verbalizations in which the mother encourages child to operate independently; encourages child to explore environment. 216 Nonverbal affective physical behavior: Up to three codes per interval may be recorded. NP- SP - AP DF- Negative physical behavior--behavior which is not socially acceptable and which involves physical contact between the parent and the child (e.g., hitting, pushing, slapping). Social physical behavior-~behavior which is socially acceptable and/or conveys affection and which involves physical contact between the parent and the child (e.g., patting, hugs, kisses, holding hands). Approach gesture--behavior which is socially acceptable or positive in connotation and which does not involve actual physical contact between the parent and the child (e.g., smiles, motions to approach, claps). Defensive posture—-behavior which is not socially acceptable or is negative in connotation and which does not involve actual physical contact between the parent and the child (e.g., moves child's chair away, threatens, shakes finger at child). Not applicable. Nonverbal neutral physical behavior: Up to three codes per interval may be recorded. P - Points out aspects of environment, including blocks. 8 - Builds or plays with blocks; physically handles the blocks. X - Not applicable (includes all other neutral physical behaviors). Nonverbal initiation—response mode: This code must be rated for each physical behavior recorded. PR- RE - RT - Proactive--initiating new behaviors or material to enhance the child's understanding of the environment; providing guidance or direction in a nonverbal way or coupled with a verbalization. Reactive--nonverbal behavior primarily responding to the child's immediately preceding verbal and/or nonverbal behavior; reactionary, not providing unsolicited information. Retroactive-~delayed reaction; responding nonverbally to the child's behavior which has occurred sometime in the past (not immediate); response presented as new material. 217 Nonverbal support behavior: This code must be rated for each physical behavior recorded. 5 - Support--nonverbal behavior which shows support of the child's position in the environment; consideration by mother of child's needs. N - Neutra1--nonverbal behavior which Shows neither support nor nonsupport. NS - Nonsupport--nonverbal behavior which shows lack of support for the child; ignores child's needs; focus by mother on other things or on herself. Nonverbal independence promotion: This code must be rated for each physical behavior recorded. D - Oependence--nonverbal behavior in which mother seems to expect child to depend on her, or stay near her; encourages dependence. N - Neutral-~nonverbal behavior in which neither independence- promotion nor dependence—promotion occurs. I - Independence-~mother's nonverbal behavior in which the mother encourages child to operate independently; encourages child)to explore environment (e.g., pushes blocks toward child . Hostility: This code must be rated for each interval. - No overt hostility or annoyance Shown. Moderate hostility or annoyance--some threats made. High hostility or annoyance--physical and/or verbal abuse shown. 1 2 3 Warmth: This code must be rated for each interval. 1 - No overt warmth or affection shown. 2 - Moderate warmth and affection-~some attempt at kindness or affection. 3 - High warmth and affection Shown—-phySically and/or verbally demonstrative. 218 Maternal anxiety: This code must be rated for each interval. [_H Low anxiety shown. M - Moderate anxiety--indications of some anxiety-related behaviors shown, with anxiety inferred (e.g., figiting, nervousness, tapping fingers, readjusting position, nondirective looking around). High anxiety--obvious overt and direct tension or discomfort in the Situation (e.g., explicit verbal indications, loss of temper, expressions of loss of control, "I don't know what to do"). Child anxiety: This code must be rated for each interval. L - Low anxiety shown. M - Moderate anxiety-~indicators of some anxiety-related behaviors shown, with anxiety inferred (e.g., figiting, restlessness, kicking table, frequent moves). H - High anxiety--obvious overt and direct tension or dis- comfort in the situation (e.g., explicit verbal indicators, "I don't like it here," crying, tension reduction maneuvers, seeks out the mother). Child dependency: One, both, or none must be circled, depending on which applies. E - Emotional dependency—-psychological dependency shown (e.g., clinging behavior, whining, crying, seeking physical proximity, reluctance to leave). Instrumental dependency—-asking by child for help because of lack of self-sufficiency and independence, but not specifi- cally to seek out physical proximity, praise, reassurance or attention; seeking guidance in his activities or further information. APPENDIX II CELL MEANS OF VARIABLES FOR THE DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS APPENDIX II-A CELL MEANS OF VERBAL ORIENTATION BEHAVIOR VARIABLES Cell means and standard deviations are given for those verbal orientation behavior variables used in the analyses. The dimensions for verbal orientation described are as follows: verbalization categories, Table II-l; verbal focus, Table II-2; fantasy verbalization, Table II-3; time orientation, Table II-4; voice affective tone, Table II-5; verbal initiation-response mode, Table II-6, verbal support, Table II-7; and verbal independence promotion, Table II-8. 219 220 Table II-1 Demographic Group Means for Verbalization Categories on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure Mean Standard Category Proportion Deviation Lower Socioeconomic Group Black Males Quantity 1.57017 0.62133 Types Nursery school/trailer 0.37433 0.79997 Other ftrailer 0.14233 0.16208 Nursery school Teacher/program 0.75967 1.83238 Building/program 0.50950 1.22009 Children/program 0.09300 0.19939 Child/program 0.50967 1.22001 Trailer Furniture/blocks-general 0.10267 0.13391 Blocks-specific/blocks-general 0.05150 0.06417 Experimenter/blocks-general 0.07350 0.12897 Other attributes/blocks-general 0.19283 0.39585 Atmosphere/b1ocks-general 0.14283 0.25914 Other Home/miscellaneous 0.01150 0.00138 School/miscellaneous 0.01150 0.00138 Middle Socioeconomic Group Black Males Quantity 0.68617 0.36281 Types Nursery school/trailer 0.14183 0.28681 Other/trailer 0.15783 0.10086 Nursery school Teacher/program 0.01017 0.00041 Building/program 0.73417 1.60617 Children/program 0.09933 0.21833 Child/program 0.01017 0.00041 Trailer Furniture/blocks-general 0.16967 0.10657 Blocks-Specific/blocks-general 0.29883 0.41053 Experimenter/blocks—general 0.18433 0.14570 Other attributes/blocks-general 0.14900 0.09236 Atmosphere/blocks-general 0.24133 0.24839 Other Home/miscellaneous 0.05617 0.11260 School/miscellaneous 0.01017 0.00041 221 Table II-l--Continued Mean Standard Category Proportion Deviation Lower Socioeconomic Group Black Females Quantity 3.52633 3.96249 Types Nursery school/trailer 0.05300 0.05029 Other/trailer 0.05967 0.08006 Nursery school Teacher/program 0.01083 0.00117 Building/program 18.00933 44.08624 Children/program 0.17550 0.40392 Child/program 0.17550 0.40392 Trailer Furniture/blocks-general 0.13017 0.14376 Blocks-specific/blocks-general 0.31233 0.73762 Experimenter/blockS-general 0.01367 0.00758 Other attributes/blocks-general 0.01083 0.00117 Atmosphere/b1ocks-general 0.13550 0.65110 Other Home/miscellaneous 15.03083 36.72728 School/miscellaneous 0.01083 0.00117 Middle Socioeconomic Group Black Females Quantity 1.24417 0.88921 Types Nursery school/trailer 0.04633 0.06259 Other/trailer 0.45317 0.81614 Nursery school Teacher/program 0.01017 0.00098 Building/program 0.01017 0.00098 Children/program 0.07517 0.15914 Child/program 0.01017 0.00098 Trailer Furniture/blocks-general 0.91017 1.90941 Blocks-specific/blocks-general 0.26533 0.39955 Experimenter/blockS-general 0.02983 0.04034 Other attributes/blockS-general 0.31367 0.38621 Atmosphere/b1ocks-general 0.41667 0.69445 Other Home/miscellaneous 0.08300 0.15636 School/miscellaneous 0.01017 0.00098 222 Table II—l--Continued Mean Standard Category Proportion Deviation Lower Socioeconomic Group White Males Quantity 1.32850 0.57920 Types Nursery school/trailer 0.14750 0.28876 Other/trailer 0.11083 0.09069 Nursery school Teacher/program 0.27050 0.63711 Building/program 0.05633 0.11252 Children/program 30.05450 73.45808 Child/program 0.08017 0.17090 Trailer Furniture/blocks-general 0.06367 0.04513 Blocks-specific/blocks-general 0.09283 0.14808 Experimenter/blocks-general 0.12033 0.17372 Other attributes/blockS-general 0.16783 0.10148 Atmosphere/blocks-general 0.12733 0.17819 Other Home/miscellaneous 0.01017 0.00147 School/miscellaneous 0.01017 0.00147 Middle Socioeconomic Group White Males Quantity 1.01583 0.33323 Types Nursery school/trailer 0.18367 0.24122 Other/trailer 0.31033 0.13362 Nursery school Teacher/program 0.05700 0.07284 Building/program 32.00867 78.37943 Children/program 16.12767 39.13014 Child/program 0.04600 0.06344 Trailer Furniture/blocks-general 0.41917 0.31173 Blocks-Specific/blocks-general 0.39750 0.65172 Experimenter/blocks-general 0.23433 0.26120 Other attributes/blocks-general 0.62250 0.65007 Atmosphere/blocks-general 0.26767 0.27941 Other Home/miscellaneous 0.29200 0.40682 School/miscellaneous 0.01033 0.00052 223 Table II-1--Continued __‘ Mean Standard Category Proportion Deviation Lower Socioeconomic Group White Females Quantity 6.99683 13.74460 Types Nursery school/trailer 0.07667 0.08646 Other/trailer 0.10533 0.13768 Nursery school Teacher/program 0.01133 0.00197 Building/program 0.01133 0.00197 Children/program 0.12400 0.19912 Child/program 0.01133 0.00197 Trailer Furniture/blocks-general 0.03767 0.04358 Blocks-specific/blocks-general 0.04650 0.05525 Experimenter/blockS-general 0.03567 0.05996 Other attributes/b1ockS—general 0.06733 0.09980 Atmosphere/blockS-general 0.14667 0.10669 Other Home/miscellaneous 0.13117 0.18970 School/miscellaneous 0.01133 0.00197 Middle Socioeconomic Group White Females Quantity 1.11533 0.27560 Types Nursery school/trailer 0.06183 0.09936 Other/trailer 0.23983 0.14252 Nursery school Teacher/program 0.01050 0.00084 Building/program 0.34217 0.81217 Children/program 0.01050 0.00084 Child/program 0.67550 1.62867 Trailer Furniture/blocks-general 0.16867 0.18398 Blocks-specific/blocks-general 0.10067 0.19608 Experimenter/blocks-general 0.17867 0.23629 Other attributes/blocks-general 0.33267 0.44967 Atmosphere/b1ocks-general 0.24867 0.14767 Other Home/miscellaneous 0.28800 0.51665 School/miscellaneous 0.01050 0.00084 Note: N==8 for each cell. Each proportion indicates ratio of observa- tions designated by respective categories. 224 Table II-2 Demographic Group Means for Verbal Focus on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure Mean Standard Category Proportion Deviation Lower Socioeconomic Group Black Males No obvious focus/child 0.08217 0.07361 Mother/child 0.09100 0.10094 Other/child 0.01583 0.01046 Middle Socioeconomic Group Black Males No obvious focus/child 0.02800 0.02021 Mother/child 0.03250 0.01571 Other/child 0.03300 0.02996 Lower Socioeconomic Group Black Females No obvious focus/child 0.12500 0.25755 Mother/child 0.05717 0.04060 Other/child 0.01083 0.00117 Middle Socioeconomic Group Black Females No obvious focus/child 0.01933 0.00819 Mother/child 0.06033 0.06172 Other/child 0.01983 0.02362 Lower Socioeconomic Group White Males No obvious focus/child 0.04133 0.03946 Mother/child 0.01683 0.01102 Other/child 0.04700 0.08917 225 Table II-2--Continued Mean Standard Category Proportion Deviation Middle Socioeconomic Group White Males No obvious focus/child 0.02067 0.01722 Mother/child 0.05750 0.05506 Other/child 0.02317 0.02166 Lower Socioeconomic Group White Females No obvious focus/child 0.02967 0.04528 Mother/child 0.02517 0.02598 Other/child 0.02400 0.02024 Middle Socioeconomic Group White Females No obvious focus/child 0.04167 0.03781 Mother/child 0.02267 0.01607 Other/child 0.02133 0.02630 Note: N==8 for each cell. Each proportion indicates ratio of observations designated by reSpective categories. 226 Table II-3 Demographic Group Means for Fantasy Verbalization on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure Mean Standard Demographic Group Pr0portion Deviation Lower socioeconomic group black males 0.04900 0.04582 Middle socioeconomic group black males 0.13417 0.11376 Lower socioeconomic grOUp black females 0.10050 0.10933 Middle socioeconomic group black females 0.05600 0.05177 Lower socioeconomic group white males 0.03033 0.05031 Middle socioeconomic group white males 0.05483 0.05012 Lower socioeconomic group white females 0.06150 0.05187 Middle socioeconomic grOUp white females 0.17900 0.24942 Note: N==8 for each cell. Each proportion indicates ratio of verbalizations which were fantasy in contrast to nonfantasy. 227 Table II-4 Demographic Group Means for Time Orientation on the Familiarization on Task Rating Procedure Standard Demographic Group Mean Deviation Lower socioeconomic group black males 2.08200 0.18106 Middle socioeconomic group black males 2.08200 0.05099 Lower socioeconomic group black females 2.01650 0.04103 Middle socioeconomic group black females 2.00033 0.07525 Lower socioeconomic group white males 2.04133 0.05652 Middle socioeconomic group white males 2.09517 0.11417 Lower socioeconomic group white females 2.05017 0.06982 Middle socioeconomic group white females 2.01467 0.03627 —_—_ Note: N==8 for each cell. Means were based on a weighting of "l" for past time orientation, “2" for present time orientation, and "3" for future time orientation. 228 Table II-5 Demographic GrOUp Means for Voice Affective Tone on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure Standard Demographic Group Mean Deviation Lower socioeconomic group black males 1.98967 0.21992 Middle socioeconomic group black males 2.18833 0.18030 Lower socioeconomic group black females 2.07017 0.15580 Middle socioeconomic group black females 2.04017 0.05610 Lower socioeconomic group white males 2.04850 0.14801 Middle socioeconomic group white males 2.13517 0.07805 Lower socioeconomic grOUp white females 2.20083 0.16826 Middle socioeconomic group white females 2.12367 0.15310 Note: N==8 for each cell. Means were based on a weighting of "1" for negative voice tone, "2" for neutral voice tone, and "3" for positive voice tone. 229 Table II-6 Demographic GrOUp Means for Verbal Initiation-Response Mode for the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure Standard Demographic Group Mean Deviation Lower socioeconomic group black males .84350 0.05220 Middle socioeconomic group black males .80333 0.09720 Lower socioeconomic grOUp black females .77167 0.09731 Middle socioeconomic group black females .84433 0.06867 Lower socioeconomic group white males .90200 0.02923 Middle socioeconomic group white males .80683 0.10985 Lower socioeconomic group white females .86083 0.08862 Middle socioeconomic group white females .84817 0.07665 _— Note: N==8 for each cell. Means were based on a weighting of "1" for proactive, "2" for reactive, and "3" for retroactive. 230 Table II-7 Demographic Group Means for Verbal SUpport on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure Standard Demographic Group Mean Deviation Lower socioeconomic group black males 1.47567 0.38981 Middle socioeconomic grOUp black males 1.14633 0.17541 Lower socioeconomic group black females 1.38167 0.41315 Middle socioeconomic group black females 1.31433 0.07976 Lower socioeconomic group white males 1.36300 0.19971 Middle socioeconomic group white males 1.18400 0.14256 Lower socioeconomic group white females 1.13333 0.11567 Middle socioeconomic group white females 1.20117 0.17541 Note: N==8 for each cell. Means were based on a weighting of "l" for support, "2" for neutral, and "3" for nonsupport. 231 Table II-8 Demographic GrOUp Means for Verbal Independence Promotion on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure Standard Demographic Group Mean Deviation Lower socioeconomic group black males 2.38717 0.18017 Middle socioeconomic group black males 2.63283 0.18852 Lower socioeconomic group black females 2.32233 0.19863 Middle socioeconomic group black females 2.34017 0.30685 Lower socioeconomic grOUp white males 2.27967 0.16718 Middle socioeconomic group white males 2.51117 0.24295 Lower socioeconomic group white females 2.28850 0.24058 Middle socioeconomic group white females 2.46683 0.20978 Note: N==8 for each cell. Means were based on a weighting of "1“ for dependence promotion, "2" for neutral, and "3" for independence promotion. APPENDIX II-B CELL MEANS OF NONVERBAL ORIENTATION BEHAVIOR VARIABLES Cell means and standard deviation are given for those nonverbal orientation behavior variables used in the analyses. The dimensions for nonverbal orientation described are as follows: affective physical behavior categories, Table II-9; neutral physical behavior categories, Table II-lO; nonverbal initiation-response mode, Table II-ll; nonverbal support, Table II-12; and nonverbal independence promotion, Table II-l3. 232 233 Table II-9 Demographic GrOUp Means for Affective Physical Behavior on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure _— m 7'4 A. Mean Standard Category Proportion Deviation Lower Socioeconomic Group Black Males Quantity 14.4465 5.2889 Types Social physical/approach 0.0300 0.0465 Defensive/approach 0.1765 0.4034 Negative physical/approach 0.0115 0.0014 Middle Socioeconomic Group Black Males Quantity 6.5090 8.9007 Types Social physical/approach 0.1362 0.1085 Defensive/approach 0.0102 0.0004 Negative physical/approach 0.0102 0.0004 Lower Socioeconomic Group Black Females Quantity 5.8813 3.5764 Types Social physical/approach 1.1755 2.8534 Defensive/approach 0.0922 0.1998 Negative physical/approach 0.0300 0.0466 Middle Socioeconomic Group Black Females Quantity 5.0087 2.2936 Types Social physical/approach 1.1512 2.5051 Defensive/approach 0.0418 0.0775 Negative physical/approach 0.0360 0.0642 234 Table II-9--Continued Mean Standard Category Proportion Deviation Lower Socioeconomic Group White Males Quantity 14.3658 16.8232 Types Social physical/approach 1.4337 2.3597 Defensive/approach 0.0102 0.0015 Negative physical/approach 0.0102 0.0015 Middle Socioeconomic Group White Males Quantity 8.4365 8.6153 Types Social physical/approach 0.1127 0.1082 Defensive/approach 0.0103 0.0005 Negative physical/approach 0.0103 0.0005 Lower Socioeconomic Group White Females Quantity 17.8077 16.2272 Types Social physical/approach 0.0512 0.0974 Defensive/approach 0.0113 0.0020 Negative physical/approach 0.0113 0.0020 Middle Socioeconomic Group White Females Quantity 3.7340 1.7885 Types Social physical/approach 0.1488 0.2575 Defensive/approach 0.0640 0.1318 Negative physical/approach 0.0105 0.0008 Note: N==8 for each cell. Each proportion indicates ratio of observations designated by respective categories. Demographic Group Means for Neutral Physical Behavior on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure 235 Table II-10 Mean Standard Category Proportion Deviation Lower Socioeconomic Group Black Males Quantity 15.5067 33.1436 Blocks/pointing 5.3770 4.1374 Middle Socioeconomic Group Black Males Quantity 4.7213 2.9930 Blocks/pointing 0.7420 0.4012 Lower Socioeconomic Group Black Females Quantity 12.8220 15.9606 Blocks/pointing 86.0335 207.7091 Middle Socioeconomic Group Black Females Quantity 13.2980 20.1045 Blocks/pointing 1.7293 2.2529 Lower Socioeconomic Group White Males Quantity 5.7062 4.5534 Blocks/pointing 265.2517 426.5465 _-__ 236 Table II-10--C0ntinued Mean Standard Category Pr0portion Deviation Middle Socioeconomic Group White Males Quantity 23.0747 35.4459 Blocks/pointing 49.1005 117.0517 Lower Socioeconomic Group White Females Quantity 17.9678 32.0538 Blocks/pointing 109.3670 263.8833 Middle Socioeconomic Group White Females Quantity 45.9080 40.3074 Blocks/pointing 48.3938 117.3851 _— Note: N==8 for each cell. Each proportion indicates ratio observations designated by respective categories. of .ll' 237 Table II-11 Demographic Group Means for Nonverbal Initiation-Response Mode for the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure Standard Demographic Group Mean Deviation Lower socioeconomic group black males 1.9523 0.0517 Middle socioeconomic group black males 1.8118 0.1037 Lower socioeconomic group black females 1.8108 0.1731 Middle socioeconomic group black females 1.8633 0.1172 Lower socioeconomic group white males 1.9525 0.0510 Middle socioeconomic group white males 1.7645 0.1309 Lower socioeconomic group white females 1.9110 0.0984 Middle socioeconomic group white females 1.9342 0.0843 Note: N==8 for each cell. Means were based on a weighting of ”1" for proactive, ”2" for reactive, and "3" for retroactive. 238 Table II-12 Demographic Group Means for Nonverbal Support on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure Standard Demographic Group Mean Deviation Lower socioeconomic gr00p black males 1.1608 0.2355 Middle socioeconomic group black males 1.1107 0.2080 Lower socioeconomic groUp black females 1.3517 0.2609 Middle socioeconomic group black females 1.1675 0.1590 Lower socioeconomic group white males 1.2707 0.3356 Middle socioeconomic group white males 1.0845 0.1153 Lower socioeconomic group white females 1.1993 0.2129 Middle socioeconomic group white females 1.1763 0.1673 _—_ Note: N==8 for each cell. Means were based on a weighting of "l" for support, "2" for neutral, and “3" for nonsupport. 239 Table II-13 Demographic Group Means for Nonverbal Independence Promotion on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure Standard Demographic Group Mean Deviation Lower socioeconomic group black males 1.7547 0.4599 Middle socioeconomic group black males 2.5353 0.2603 Lower socioeconomic group black females 1.8732 0.4163 Middle socioeconomic group black females 1.7977 0.4528 Lower socioeconomic grOUp white males 1.8225 0.3699 Middle socioeconomic group white males 2.1162 0.5309 Lower socioeconomic group white females 2.3255 0.2714 Middle socioeconomic group white females 2.3153 0.2984 _—__ Note: N==8 for each cell. Means were based on a weighting of "1" for dependence promotion, "2" for neutral, and "3" for independence promotion. APPENDIX II-C CELL MEANS OF MATERNAL AFFECTIVE ORIENTATION BEHAVIOR VARIABLES Cell means and standard deviations are given for those maternal affective orientation behavior variables used in the analyses. The dimensions for maternal affective orientation described are as follows: hostility, Table II-14; warmth, Table II-15; and anxiety, Table II-l6. 240 241 Table II-14 Demographic GrOUp Means for Hostility on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure Standard Demographic Group Mean Deviation Lower socioeconomic group black males 1.20983 0.12692 Middle socioeconomic group black males 1.09950 0.16047 Lower socioeconomic group black females 1.10017 0.11725 Middle socioeconomic groUp black females 1.03133 0.07675 Lower socioeconomic group white males 1.14450 0.12616 Middle socioeconomic group white males 1.00000 0.00000 Lower socioeconomic group white females 1.04683 0.05800 Middle socioeconomic group white females 1.05367 0.07358 Note: N==8 for each cell. Means were based on a weighting of “l" for no overt hostility, “2" for moderate hostility, and “3" for high hostility. 242 Table II-15 Demographic Group Means for Warmth on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure Standard Demographic Group Mean Deviation Lower socioeconomic groUp black males 1.24000 0.18968 Middle socioeconomic group black males 1.48650 0.13465 Lower socioeconomic grOUp black females 1.24800 0.09557 Middle socioeconomic group black females 1.27733 0.12685 Lower socioeconomic group white males 1.18867 0.16756 Middle socioeconomic group white males 1.29867 0.14353 Lower socioeconomic group white females 1.32333 0.26651 Middle socioeconomic grOUp white females 1.29250 0.33407 Note: N==8 for each cell. Means were based on a weighting of “1" for no overt warmth, "2" for moderate warmth, and "3" for high warmth. 243 Table II-16 Demographic Group Means for Maternal Anxiety on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure Standard Demographic Group Mean Deviation Lower socioeconomic group black males 1.03900 0.06819 Middle socioeconomic group black males 1.02950 0.04936 Lower socioeconomic group black females 1.06667 0.07847 Middle socioeconomic group black females 1.02233 0.03469 Lower socioeconomic group white males 1.02783 0.04436 Middle socioeconomic group white males 1.00000 0.00000 Lower socioeconomic group white females 1.16867 0.30804 Middle socioeconomic group white females 1.05283 0.10024 Note: N==8 for each cell. Means were based on a weighting of "l“ for low anxiety, "2" for moderate anxiety, and "3" for high anxiety. APPENDIX II-D CELL MEANS OF CHILD AFFECTIVE ORIENTATION BEHAVIOR VARIABLES Cell means and standard deviations are given for those child affective orientation behavior variables used in the analyses. The dimensions for child affective orientation described are as follows: anxiety, Table II-l7; quantity of dependency, Table II-18, and emotional dependency, Table II-l9. 244 245 Table II-l7 Demographic Group Means for Child Anxiety for Each Minute Interval on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure Standard Category Mean Deviation Lower Socioeconomic Group Black Males lst interval 1.0555 0.1359 2nd interval 1.0555 0.1359 3rd interval 1.1110 0.1720 4th interval 1.0000 0.0000 Middle Socioeconomic Group Black Males lst interval 1.5000 0.7818 2nd interval 1.2777 0.2510 3rd interval 1.4443 0.7794 4th interval 1.4445 0.8074 Lower Socioeconomic Group Black Females lst interval 1.4443 0.7794 2nd interval 1.3333 0.8165 3rd interval 1.1667 0.4082 4th interval 1.0555 0.1359 Middle Socioeconomic Group Black Females lst interval 1.2222 0.2722 2nd interval 1.2777 0.3897 3rd interval 1.3333 0.8165 4th interval 1.3888 0.8005 246 Table II-17--Continued Standard Category Mean Deviation Lower Socioeconomic Group White Males lst interval 1.6667 0.7890 2nd interval 1.3333 0.8165 3rd interval 1.5000 0.7818 4th interval 1.5557 0.6208 Middle Socioeconomic Group White Males lst interval 1.3333 0.2983 2nd interval 1.1110 0.1720 3rd interval 1.0555 0.1359 4th interval 1.1667 0.2790 Lower Socioeconomic Group White Females lst interval 1.1667 0.2790 2nd interval 1.1665 0.1824 3rd interval 1.1667 0.2790 4th interval 1.0000 0.0000 Middle Socioeconomic Group White Females lst interval 1.2777 0.3897 2nd interval 1.0555 0.1359 3rd interval 1.0000 0.0000 4th interval 1.0555 0.1359 Note: N==8 for each cell. Means were based on a weighting of "1" for low anxiety, "2" for moderate anxiety, and "3" for high anxiety. 247 Table II-18 Demographic Group Means for Quantity of Dependency Shown for Each Minute Interval on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure —_- _— Mean Standard Category Proportion Deviation Lower Socioeconomic Group Black Males lst interval 93.7520 143.6075 2nd interval 49.1630 117.0080 3rd interval 0.6687 0.6808 4th interval 94.0833 143.3501 Middle Socioeconomic Group Black Males lst interval 52.3350 124.2725 2nd interval 144.5000 157.6090 3rd interval 144.9968 157.0652 4th interval 99.7477 152.8990 Lower Socioeconomic Group Black Females lst interval 132.6655 144.0276 2nd interval 96.3387 148.8981 3rd interval 45.7535 109.8617 4th interval 90.5833 138.9768 Middle Socioeconomic Group Black Females lst interval 91.3303 138.8644 2nd interval 48.7532 117.2101 3rd interval 1.4182 0.9146 4th interval 90.5015 139.5058 248 Table II-18--Continued Mean Standard Category Proportion Deviation Lower Socioeconomic Group White Males lst interval 1.0865 1.0166 2nd interval 0.4232 0.7970 3rd interval 48.4173 117.3735 4th interval 0.7510 0.9768 Middle Socioeconomic Group White Males lst interval 0.9995 ' 0.7750 2nd interval 96.7518 148.1423 3rd interval 45.5035 109.9828 4th interval 49.1627 117.0082 Lower Socioeconomic Group White Females lst interval 132.4180 144.2921 2nd interval 150.4187 169.4329 3rd interval 1.2460 0.8172 4th interval 42.9167 102.4321 Middle Socioeconomic Group White Females lst interval 94.3298 143.1581 2nd interval 0.9965 0.7692 3rd interval 90.9983 139.1228 4th interval 1.0867 1.0164 Note: N==8 for each cell. Each pr0portion indicates ratio of observations designated dependency in contrast to nondependency. 249 Table II-19 Demographic Group Means for Emotional Dependency Shown for Each Minute Interval on the Familiarization Task Rating Procedure __‘ Mean Standard Category Proportion Deviation Lower Socioeconomic Group Black Males lst interval 0.0928 0.1995 2nd interval 15.1743 36.6591 3rd interval 0.0115 0.0014 4th interval 0.0115 0.0014 Middle Socioeconomic Group Black Males lst interval 48.0085 117.5713 2nd interval 0.0102 0.0004 3rd interval 17.0085 41.6372 4th interval 99.0052 127.2037 Lower Socioeconomic Group Black Females lst interval 59.0072 102.9727 2nd interval 42.0088 102.8742 3rd interval 0.4235 0.6594 4th interval 0.1760 0.4037 Middle Socioeconomic Group Black Females lst interval 18.0087 44.0866 2nd interval 54.0903 132.2283 3rd interval 54.0087 132.2682 4th interval 54.1737 132.1180 250 Table II-19--§9ntinued Mean Standard Category Proposition Deviation Lower Socioeconomic Group White Males lst interval 45.0083 110.2230 2nd interval 45.0620 110.1967 3rd interval 59.0882 108.6350 4th interval 59.3382 108.4748 Middle Socioeconomic Group White Males lst interval 32.3385 78.2193 2nd interval 0.0640 0.1318 3rd interval 0.2568 0.4134 4th interval 46.0068 76.0477 Lower Socioeconomic Group White Females lst interval 63.0100 154.3130 2nd interval 0.0113 0.0020 3rd interval 14.1740 34.2099 4th interval 0.0113 0.0020 Middle Socioeconomic Group White Females lst interval 16.0088 39.1875 2nd interval 16.1738 39.1087 3rd interval 16.0088 39.1875 4th interval 0.0105 0.0008 Note: N==8 for each cell. Each proportion indicates proportion of observations designated emotional dependency in contrast to instrumental dependency. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerman, N. W. The diagnosis of neurotic marital interaction. Social Casework, 1954, 35, 139-147. Adams, E. 8., and Sarason, I. G. Relation between anxiety in children and their parents. Child Development, 1963, 34, 237-246. Ainsworth, M. D. S., and Bell, S. M. Attachment, exploration and separation: illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. In R. C. Smart and M. S. Smart (Eds.), Readings in child development and relationships, New York: Macmillan, 1973, 84-110. Anderson, H. H., and Anderson, G. L. Social development. In L. Carmichael (Ed.), Manual of child psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1954, 1162-1215. Andersen, J. E. Methods of child psychology. In L. Carmichael (Ed.), Manual of child psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1954, 1-59. Axline, V. M. Dibs: in search of self. Boston: Houghton—Mifflin, 1964. Axline, V. M. Play therapy. New York: Houghton-Miff1in, 1947. Baldwin, A. L., Kalhorn, J., and Breese, F. H. The appraisal of parent behavior. Psychological Monographs, 1949, 63 (4, Whole No. 299). Bales, R. F. Interaction process analysis. Cambridge: Addison- Wesley, 1951. Bandura, A., and Walters, R. H. Social learnipg and personality development. New York: Ho1t, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963. Baughman, E. E., and Dahlstrom, W. G. Negro and white children: a psychological study of the rural South. New York: Academic Press, 1968. 251 252 Baumrind, 0., and Black, A. E. Socialization practices associated with dimensions of competence in preschool boys and girls. Child Development, 1967, 38, 291-327. Beller, E. K. Dependency and independence in young children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1955, 87, 23-25. Bernstein, 8. Language and social class. British Journal of Sociology, 1960. 11, 271-276. Bing, E. Effect of child rearing practices on development of differ- ential cognitive abilities. Child Development, 1963, 34, 631-648. Birdwhistell, R. L. Background to kinesics. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 1955, 13, 10-18. Blood, R. 0. New approaches in family research: observational methods. In M. B. Sussman (Ed.), Sourcebook in marriage and the family. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1963, 538-542. Boger, R. P., and Cunningham, J. L. Differential socialization_pat- terns of preschool children. Interim report #2, Michigan State University, Early Childhood Research Center, 1970. Bowlby, J. Maternal care and mental health. New York: World Health Organization, 1951. Bonner, H. On being mindful of man. Boston: Houghton, 1965. Bossard, J. H. S. Parent and child studies in family behavior. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1953. Bossard, J. H.S., and Boll, E. S. Family situations, an introduction to the study_of child behavior. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1943. Bott, E. Family and social network: Roles, norms, and external relationships in ordinary_urban families. New York: Free Press, 1971. Brim, 0. G. The parent-child relation as a social system: 1. Parent and child roles. Child Development, 1957, 28, 343-364. Brim, 0. G., and Wheeler, S. Socialization after childhood: two essays. New York: John Wiley, 1966. Brody, G. F. Maternal child-rearing attitudes and child behavior. Developmental P§ychology, 1969, 1, 66. 253 Brenfenbrenner, U. Who cares for America's children? Young Children, 1971 (January). 157-163. Brophy, J. E. Mothers as teachers of their own preschool children: The influence of socioeconomic status and task structure on teaching Specificity. Child Development, 1970, 41, 79-94. Br0phy, J. E. Mothers as teachers of their own preschool children: The influence of socioeconomic status and task structure on teaching Specificity. Unpublished paper. Austin, Texas: University of Texas at Austin, 1969. Brown, J. S. Problems presented by the concept of acquired drives. In Current theory and research in motivation: A symposium. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1953, as quoted in H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), Handbook of abnormalypsy- chology. New York: Basic Books, 1961, 263. Burgess, E. W. The family as a unity of interacting personalities. The Family, 1926, 7, 3-9. Bustrillos, J. R. Decision-making styles of selected Mexican home- makers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. Caldwell, B. M., Heider, J., and Kaplan, B. The inventory of home stimulation. Unpublished manuscript, Syracuse University, 1968. Cited in Lytton, H. Observation studies of parent- child interaction: A methodological review. Child Develop- ment, 1971, 42, 651-684. Campbell, J. H., and Helper, H. W. Dimensions in communication: readings. Belmont, Ca1if.: Wadsworth, 1970. Christianson, H. M., Rogers, M. M., and Ludlum, B. A. The nursery school. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1961. Clausen, J. A. Socialization and society. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1968. Clausen, J. A., and Williams, J. R. Sociological correlates of child behavior. In H. W. Stevenson, J. Kagan, and C. Spiker (Eds.), Child Psychology, the sixty-second yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education, 1963, 62-107. Coleman, J. C. Abnormal psychology and modern life. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1956. 254 Cox, F. N., and Campbell, 0. Young children in a new situation with and without their mothers. Child Development, 1968, 39, 123- 131. Cunningham, J. L. A comparison of the didactic interactions of mothers and fathers with their preschool children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Cunningham, J. L., and Boger, R. P. Familiarization task. Unpublished instrument description, Head Start Research Center, Michigan State University, 1969. Cunningham, J. L., and Boger, R. P. Parent-Child Interaction Rating Procedure. Unpublished instrument description, Michigan State University, Early Childhood Research Center, 1970. Dager, E. Z. Socialization and personality development in the child. In H. T. Christensen (Ed.), Handbook of marriage and the family. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964, 740-781. Davitz, J. R., and Davitz, L. J. The communication of feelings by content-free speech. Journal of Communication, 1959, 9, 6-13. Duvall, E. M. Conceptions of parenthood.' American Journal of Sociology, 1946, 52, 193-203. Eisenberg, A. M., and Smith, R. R. Nonverbal communication. Indiana- polis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971. Emmerich, W. The parental role: A functional cognitive approach. Monographs of Society for Research in Child Development, 1969, 34 (8, No. 132). Emmerich, W. Variations in the parent role as a function of the parent's sex and the child's sex and age. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1962, 8, 3-11. Erickson, E. H. Childhood and society. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1963, 247-258. Eysenck, H. J. Handbook of abnormal psychology. New York: Basic Books, 1961. Farber, B., and Jenné, W. C. Family organization and parent-child communication: Parents and siblings of a retarded child. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1963, 28 (7, Serial No. 91). 255 Ferguson, L. R. Dependency motivation in socialization. Paper presented at Symposium on social behavior: Early experiences and processes of socialization, Miami University, October 31 and Novembergl, 1968. Ferguson, L. R. Personality development. Belmont, Ca1if.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1970. Finn, J. D. Multivariance--univariate and multivariate analyses of variance and covariance: A Fortran IV program. State Uni- FE: versity of New York at Buffalo, School of Education, 1967. 33 Finn, J. D. Multivariance--univariate and multivariate analysis of variance, covariance, and regression: A Fortran IV program. State University of New York at Buffalo, School of Education, 1971. Foote, N. N. Identification as the basis for a theory of motivation. * American Sociological Review, 1951, 16, 14-21. Freud, S. Inhibitions, symptoms and anxiety. London: Hogarth Press, 1936. Cited in C. S. Hall and G. Lindsey (Eds.), Theories of personality. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1957, 45-46. Gewirtz, J. L. A program of research on the dimensions and antecedents of emotional dependence. Child Development, 1956, 27, 205-221. Gewirtz, J. L. Three determinants of attention seeking in young children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1954, 19 (2, Serial No. 59). Gilmore, J. B. The role of anxiety and cognitive factors in children's play behavior. Child Development, 1966, 37, 397-416. Goldfarb, W. Emotional and educational consequences of psychologic deprivation in infancy: a revaluation. In P. H. Hoch and J. Zubin (Eds.), Psychopathology of childhood. New York: Guine and Stratton, 1955, 105-119. Gorovitz, J. B. Comparison of the teaching styles of mothers of non- retarded children and mothers of retarded children. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, 1973. Halverson, C. F., Jr., and Waldrop, M. F. Maternal behavior toward own and other preschool children: The problem of "ownness." Child Development, 1970, 41, 839-845. 256 Harrison, R. Nonverbal communication: Explorations into time, space, action and object. In J. H. Campbell and H. W. Halper (Eds.), Dimensions in communication: readings. Belmont, Ca1if.: Wadsworth Publishing, 1970, 256-271. Hartup, W. Dependence and independence. In H. W. Stevenson (Ed.), Child psychology: sixty-second yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963, 333-363. Hartup, W. Nurturance and nurturance withdrawal in relation to the I a) dependency behavior of preschool children. Child Development, 1 1958, 29, 191-201. Hatfield, J. S., Ferguson, L. R., and Alpert, R. Mother-child inter- action and the socialization process. Child Development, I . 1967, 38, 365-414. , - Heathers, G. Acquiring dependence and independence: a theoretical orientation. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1955a, 87, 277- 291. Heathers, G. Emotional dependency and independency in nursery school play. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1955b, 87, 37-58. Hess, R. 0., and Handle, C. Family worlds: A psychological approach to family life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959. Hess, R. D., Shipman, V. C., Brophy, J. E., and Bear, R. M. The cognitive environments of urban preschool children. Final report on Research Grant #R34, University of Chicago, Gradu- ate School of Education, 1968. Hildebrand, V. Introduction to early childhood education. New York: Macmillan, 1971. Hill, A. A. What is language? In J. H. Campbell and H. W. Helper (Eds.), Dimensions in communication: Readings. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1970, 244-255. Hoffman, M. L. An interview method for obtaining descriptions of parent-child interaction. Merrill-Palmer anrterLy, 1957, 3 , 76-83 0 Hoffman, M. L. Power assertion by the parent and its impact on the child. Child Development, 1960, 31. 129-143. Horney, K. Our inner conflicts. New York: Norton, 1945. 257 Inglis, J. Abnormalities of motivation and "ego-functions." In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), Handbook of abnormal psychology. New York: Basic Books, 1961. Jersild, A. T. Emotional development. In L. Carmichael (Ed.), Manual of child psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1954, 833-917. John, V. P., and Goldstein, L. S. The social content of language acquisition. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.), Disadvantaged child: volume 1. Seattle: Special Child Publications, 1967, 435- 469. Kesson, W., and Mandler, G. Anxiety, pain, and the inhibition of distress. Psychological Review, 1961, 68, 396-404. Klemer, R. H. Marriage and family relationships. New York: Harper and Row, 1970. Kluckhohn, F. R., and Strodtbeck, F. L. Variations in value _ orientations. Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson, and Company, 1961. Kogan, K., and Wimberger, H. C. An approach to defining mother- chi1d interaction styles. Perceptial and Motor Skills, 1966, 23, 1171-1177. Kohlberg, L. Early education: A cognitive-developmental view. Child Development, 1968, 39, 1013-1062. Kohn, M. L. Social class and parental values. American Journal of Sociology, 1959, 64, 337-351. Kohn, M. L. Social class and parent-child relationships: An inter- pretation. American Journal of Sociology. 1963, 68, 471-480. Lafore, G. G. Practices of parents in dealing with preschool children. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1945. LeShan, L. L. Time orientation and social class. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, 47, 589-592. Levine, J., Fishman, C., and Kagan, J. Social class and sex as determinants of maternal behavior. American Journal of Orthopsychiatpy, 1967, 37, 397. Levitt, E. E. The psychology of anxiety. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1967. 258 Levy, E. Children's behavior under stress and its relation to training by parents to respond to stress situations. Child Develop- ment, 1959, 30, 307-324. Lipsitt, L. P., and Speers, W. C. Effects of anxiety and stress on children's paired association learning. Psychonomic Science, 1965, 3, 553-554. Longabaugh, R. Category system for coding interpersonal behavior as social exchange. Sociometry, 1963, 26, 319-341. Lytton, H. Observation studies of parent-child interaction: A methodological review. Child Development, 1971, 42, 651-684. Maccoby, E. E. Choice of variables in the study of socialization. Sociometry, 1961, 24, 357-371. Maccoby, E. E., and Feldman, S. S. Mother attachment and stranger- reaction in the third year of life. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1972, 37 (1, Serial No. 146). Marshall, H. R., and McCandless, B. R. Relationships between depen- dence on adults and social acceptance by peers. Child Develop- ment, 1957, 28, 413-419. McKinney, J. P. The develOpment of values--prescriptive or proscrip- tive. Human Development, 1971, 14, 71-80. Mead, G. H. Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. Merrill, B. A measurement of mother-child interaction. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1946, 41, 37-49. Milton, G. A. A factor analytic study of child rearing behavior. Child Development, 1958, 29, 381-392. Mischel, W. Preference for delayed reward and social response. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1961, 62, 1-7. Moustakas, C. E., Sigel, I. E., and Schalock, H. D. An objective method for the measurement and analysis of child-adult interaction. Child Development, 1956, 27, 109-134. Mullin, J. J. Empathic drive and its influence on accuracy in judging people. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1962. 259 Olson, M. A., Cunningham, J. L., and Boger, R. P. Familiarization Task Rating Procedure. Unpublished instrument description, Michigan State University, Institute for Family and Child Study, 1973. O'Rourke, J. F. Field and laboratory: The decision making behavior of family groups in two experimental conditions. Sociometry, 1963, 26, 422-435. Osofsky, J. D. The shaping of mother's behavior by children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1970, 32, 400-405. Parsons, T. The social system. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1951. Peck, R. F., Bown, 0. H., Fuller, F. F., Melcer, D. J., and White, M. M. FAIR System Manual. Austin: University of Texas, Research and DevelOpment Center for Teacher Education, 1968. Prugh, 0., Staub, E. M., Sands, H. H., Kirschbaum, R. M., and Lenika, E. A. A study of the emotional reaction of children and families to hospitalization and illness. American Journal of Orthopsychiatgy, 1953, 23, 70-106. Psathas, G. Ethnicity, social class, and adolescent independence from parental control. American Sociological Review, 1957, 22, 415-423. Rallings, E. M. A conceptual framework for studying the family: The situational approach. In F. I. Nye and F. M. Berardo (Eds.), Emerging conceptual frameworks in family analysis. New York: Macmillan Company, 1966, 130-151. Raskin, J. Family interaction scales. Archives of Genetic Psychiatry, 1964, 11, 484-494. Reed, K. H. The nursery school, a human relationships laboratory. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1971. Rich, J. Interviewing children and adolescents. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1968. Roff, M. A. A factorial study of Fels Parent Behavior Scales. Child Development, 1949, 20, 29-45. Rose, A. M. Human behavior and social processes: An interactional approach. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1962. Rothbart, M. K., and Maccoby, E. E. Parents differential reaction to sons and daughters. Journal of Personality and Social Psy: chology, 1966, 4, 237-243. 260 Schachter, S. The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1958 Schaefer, E. S., and Bayley, N. Maternal behavior, child behavior and their intercorrelations from infancy through adolescence. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1963, 28 (3, Serial No. 87). Schalock, H. 0. Observations of mother-child interaction in the laboratory and in the home. Unpublished doctoral disserta- F- tion, University of Nebraska, 1956. Dissertation Abstracts, 1956, 16, Part 1 (Pub. No. 16, 244), 707. Schmidt, W. H. 0., and Hone, T. Some nonverbal aspects of communi- cation between mother and preschool child. Child Development, 1970, 41 , 889-896. E , Schvaneveldt, J. D. The interactional framework in the study of the family. In F. I. Nye and F. M. Berardo (Eds.), Emergingcon- ceptual frameworks in family analysis. New York: Macmillan Company, 1966, 97-129. Sears, R., Maccoby, E., and Levin, H. Patterns of child rearipg. Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson, 1957, 141. Sears, R. R., Rau, L., and Alpert, R. Identification and child rearing. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1965. Sigel, I. E. Influence techniques: a concept used to study parental behaviors. Child Development, 1960, 31, 799-806. Sigel, I. E., Hoffman, M. L., Dreyer, A. S., and Torgoff, 1. Influence techniques used by parents to modify the behavior of children, a case presentation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatny, 1957, 27, 356-364. Smilansky, S. The effects of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool children. New York: Wiley, 1968. Smith, A. R. Communication patterns of mother-child interaction within the home. Unpublished masters thesis, Michigan State University, 1968. Smith, D. E. P., Wood, R. L., Downer, J. W., and Raygor, A. L. Reading improvement as a function of student personality and teaching method. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1956, 47, 47-58. Smith, N. L., and Trager, G. L. An outline of English structure. Norman, Oklahoma: Battenburg Press, 1951. 261 Spitz, R. A. Hospitalism: an inquiry into the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early childhood. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, Volume 1, 1945, 1, 53-74. Spedek, B. Teaching in the early years. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1972. Stern, G. G., Caldwell, B. M., Hersher, L., Lipton, E. L., and Richmond, J. B. A factor-analytic study of the mother-infant dyad. Child Development, 1969, 40, 163-182. I; Stryker, S. Symbolic interaction as an approach to family research. Marriage and Family Living, 1959, 21, 111-119. Stryker, S. The interactional and situational approaches. In H. T. Chris- tensen (Ed.), Handbook of marriage and the family. Chicago: Rand, McNally, 1964, 125-170. ii) Sullivan, H. S. Tensions, interpersonal and international: A psychiatrist's view. In H. Cantril (Ed.), Tensions that cause war. Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois Press, 1950, 79-138. Turner, R. H. Role-taking: Process versus conformity. In A. M. Rose (Ed.), Human behavior and socialyprocesses: an interactional approach. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1962, 20-40. Waldrop, M. F., and Bell, R. 0. Relationship of preschool dependency behavior to family size and density. Child Development, 1964, 35, 1187-1195. Walters, J., Connor, R., and Zunich, M. Interaction of mothers and children from lower-class families. Child Development, 1964, 35, 433-440. Walters, J., Pearce, D., and Dahms, L. Affectional and aggressive behavior of preschool children. Child Development, 1957, 28, 15-26. Walters, R. H., and Ray, E. Anxiety, social isolation and reinforce— ment effectiveness. Journal of Personality, 1960, 28, 358- 367. Waters, E., and Crandall, V. J. Social class and observed maternal behavior from 1940 to 1960. Child Development, 1964, 35, 1021-1032. Watson, G. Some personality differences in children related to strict or permissive parental discipline. In G. R. Medinnus (Ed.), Readings in the psychologyof parent-child relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967, 141-154. 262 Winterbottom, M. R. The relation of childhood-training in independence to achievement motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1953. Dissertation Abstracts, 1953, 13, Part 3 (Pub. No. 5113), 440. Whiting, W. M., and Child, I. L. Child trainipg_and personality: A cross-cultural study. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953. Wright, H. F. Observational child study. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in child development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1960, 71-139. Yarrow, L. J. Interviewing children. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Hand- book of research methods in child development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1960, 561-602. Yarrow, N. R. Problems of methods in parent-child research. Child Development, 1963, 34, 215-226. Yarrow, N. R., Campbell, J. D., and Burton, R. V. Child rearing: An inquiry into research and methods. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1968. Zigler, E. Social class and the socialization process. Review of Educational Research, 1970, 40, 87-110. "1111411114114I