{THESIS Date lil ifl'iliiil‘li 3 1293 00643 643 |I(fl'li"'°iiii‘iifllii i a , 1' ; iiiiiiii F” Mi; (In W This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Parental Style: Age Trends And Social Competency of Children In Rural and Urban Families presented by Dan Fawaz has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Fami 1y Ecology glee/VJ 7/9 Gina/2cm): Major professor November 8, 1984 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 EhAfiF iga‘n €35: are iversity fi RETURNING MATERIALS: iVIESI_] Place in book drop to remove this checkout from LlBRARlES Ail-[SIBIL your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ”:r: 9 ? ‘— ~7 4' r'vrvlm i” V m Went 5W 3 1’ zoo: AUG 1 4200} 64:2 3 0 o PARENTAL STYLE: AGE TRENDS AND SOCIAL COMPETENCY OF CHILDREN IN RURAL AND URBAN FAMILIES BY Dan Fawaz A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family and Child Ecology 1984 1."! I' " I c/«JI’ 7 ABSTRACT PARENTAL STYLE: AGE TRENDS AND SOCIAL COMPETENCY OF CHILDREN IN RURAL AND URBAN FAMILIES by Dan Fawaz An extensive amount of literature has been devoted to the examination of parent/child relations. The focus has often been child outcomes related to particular dimensions of parenting behavior. These outcomes have included such variables as locus of control, self—esteem and social competency. More recent research has included multiple dimensions of parent behavior that have been typed according to various styles. To date three major typologies have emerged: authoritative, authoritarian and permissive. The authoritative style has proven to be the most efficacious for the child's development, particularly the child's social competency. Parental style and social competency are the 'primary variables examined in the present study. An integration of theoretical constructs and conceptual frameworks were developed to underscore the present analysis. An ecological perspective subsuming social c0gnition and cognitive development provided the primary framework. The constructs associated with parental style added specificity to this integration. Based on literature and theory, there were three aims of the present investigation. Using a combined mother/father Dan Fawaz score as one parent score (heretofore analyzed separately), the relationship of parental style to social competency was examined. The importance of age trends in parent be- havior has been largely ignored, consequently it becomes the second focus of the present investigation. The last aim of the present investigation was the comparison of rural/ urban differences regarding age trends, social competency and parental style. Results confirmed the efficiency of the authoritative parent, however, all measures of social competency were not in the predicted direction. This was true for both the authoritative and authoritarian parent. The permissive style was rarely seen. More than fifty percent of the parents could not be specifically categorized. No significant differences were found between ages for parental style. Graphic inspection of age differences did indicate some age trends specific to parental style, however, results were non-significant. No significant differences were found between rural and urban families for measures of social competency, parental style or age. The efficiency for the authoritative parent was supported, however, there appears to be a large number of parents who have created their own style. To date such.a group of parents has been undocumented. This group seems to support the potential of other styles for children's development. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writing and completion of this dissertation would have not been possible without the support and guidance from the following people: Lawrence Schiamberg, Ph.D. Eileen Earhart, Ph.D. Robert Griffore, Ph.D. Daniel Jacobsen, Ph.D. Beatrice Paolucci, Ph.D. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES .......................................... Vi LIST OF FIGURES ....................................... viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1 Theoretical Framework ....... ...... ................ 4 The Rationale for the Present Research ........... 11 Overview of the Present Research ...... . .......... 16 Research Questions ............................... 20 Theoretical Definitions ....................... ...23 Operational Definitions .......................... 23 Assumptions ...................................... 25 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................. 26 Early Studies in Parent/Child Research ........... 26 Emergence of Multi-Dimensional Models ............ 31 Baumrind's Research on Social Competence and Parent/Child Relationships. ................ 35 Social Competence.... ........................ ....37 Cognitive Variables and Parent Style.. ........... 40 The Changing Role of the Family and the Child's Self Esteem.. ........ . ................. 41 Locus of Control ................................. 43 The Topological Approach ........................ 45 Age- ~Related Trends in Parent/Child Relationships ................................ 50 Urban/Rural Factors in Parent/child Relationships .................................. 59 III. METHODOLOGY ...................................... 62 Subjects ......................................... 62 Instruments ...................................... 63 Design... ........................................ 67 Procedure ........................................ 68 iv CHAPTER Page IV ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ........................... ..71 Factor Description.. ............................. 71 Overall Relationship of Parent Factors and Social Competency. ............................. 75 Relationship Between Parent Factors and Social Competency by Age of Child .......... 78 Rural/Urban Location as a Factor...... ........... 85 Authoritative versus Authoritarian Style and the Child's Social Competency..... ........... 88 Age Related Trends...... ..... . .................. .98 Rural/Urban Environment............. ......... ...100 Stepwise Regression Analysis....................101 Age Trends as a Function of Parental Style......108 Summary of Results.. ....... .. ................... 115 V DISCUSSION ......................... . ...... . ..... 117 Social Competency......... ................ ......117 Age Trends......... ....... . ..................... 120 Methodological Considerations ................... 125 Rural/Urban Factors ............................. 127 Implications for Future Research ................ 128 BIBLIOGRAPHY.. ....... . .......... . .................. ....134 APPENDIX A. Measures ............................... ....143 APPENDIX B. Additional Analyses ............... . ........ 165 APPENDIX C. Factor Identification ...................... 166 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLES Page DESIGN OF PRESENT STUDY.. ....................... 67 OVERALL CORRELATION BETWEEN PARENTAL FACTORS AND CHILD FACTORS ........ ... ........ . ........... 77 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PARENTAL FACTORS AND CHILD FACTORS (THREE YEAR OLD)... ............... 80 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PARENTAL FACTORS AND CHILD FACTORS (SIX YEAR OLD) .................... 81 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PARENTAL FACTORS AND CHILD FACTORS (NINE YEAR OLD) ................ ...84 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PARENTAL FACTORS AND CHILD FACTORS (URBAN) ........ . .................. 86 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PARENTAL FACTORS AND CHILD FACTORS (RURAL).... ..... . ..... .. ....... ...87 SUMMARY TABLE FOR CHILD FACTORS (PRESCHOOL) BY GROUP (AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE) ...... 90 SUMMARY TABLE FOR CHILD FACTORS (SIX YEAR OLDS) BY GROUP (AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE). ..... 91 SUMMARY TABLE FOR CHILD FACTORS (NINE YEAR OLDS) BY GROUP (AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE) ...... 93 T—TESTS FOR AGE DIFFERENCES IN PARENT BEHAVIOR..99 STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE FOR TASK ORIENTATIONOOOCOOOCCOC 00000000000 0...... ....... 102 STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE FOR LEADER...102 STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE FOR DISRUPTION ..... O I O O C O O O C ........ O OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 103 STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE FOR AFFECTION ...................................... 103 vi TABLE 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Page STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE FOR CAPABLE ..................................... 104 STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE FOR DEFIANCE ........................................ 104 STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE FOR APPREHENSION. ..... 0.... ........ 0...... .......... 105 STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE FOR SOCIAL ACTIVATOROOOOOOOOOOOOOO... 000000000000 00.105 STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE FOR HYPERSENSITIVITY.... ............................ 106 STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE FOR REASSURANCE.... ..... . ........................... 106 STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE FOR UNCOOPERATIVENESS ......... . ........ ... .......... 107 STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE FOR COOPERATIVENESS ................................. 107 vii FIGURE 1. LIST OF FIGURES Page Mean Scores for Parental Involvement, Parent Factor, for Authoritative, Authoritarian and Non-ClaSSifj—Ed StYlESOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.110 Mean Scores for Limit Setting, Parent Factor, for Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Non- Classified Styles ..... .. ............. ..... ..... .111 Mean Scores for Immediacy of Assistance, Parent Factor, for Authoritative, Authoritarian and Non-ClaSSified StyleSOOOOOOOOOCIOOOOCO0.0.0.0...112 Mean Scores for Reasoning Guidance, Parent Factor, for Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Non—Classified Styles ......... . ................. 113 Mean Scores for Intimacy, Parent Factor, for Authoritative, Authoritarian and Non—Classified 'Styles................................. ..... ....114 Hypotheses: Rejection/Nonrejection .............. 116 viii CHAPTER I Introduction During the past fifty years research in the parent/ child area has undergone a dramatic shift in complexity and analysis (Becker, 1964; Burr, Hill, Nye, and Reiss, 1978; Martin, 1975). It is the intent of the present research to follow this shifting pattern to a more complex analysis of the parent/child relationship. The child's contribution, not withstanding, the parents create an atmosphere and relationship that can be complementary or contrary (Thomas & Chess, 1984) or possess a style that fosters the development of the child (Baumrind, 1980). It is this role as conductor that seems to indicate the importance of parental style theoughout the development of the child from birth to adulthood. It is a relationship of orchestration that far exceeds the unitary and/or linear quality of past research and characterizations. The analysis of parental style attends to the parent/child relationship as it is represented today (Thomas, 1982) a complex, interactive, reciprocal social network. The present research contributes to this recognition of complexity through its examination of parental style within three domains: social competency of the child; age trends and rural versus urban issues. More specifically, three research questions have been derived from the review 2 of literature pertaining to each of these domains. Social competency: Is parental style related to social competency? Age trends: Do components of parental style, i.e., parental involvement limit setting, immediacy of assistance, reasoning guidance, intimacy, change as the child's age varies? Rural versus urban: What differences exist between rural and urban samples, regarding parental style, its relationship to social competency and age trends? The following discussion will briefly delineate the historical changes that have taken place and the rationale for research questions under investigation. Initially investigators examined single dimensions of parentlxflnndrntsuch as acceptance— rejection (Altman, 1958; Anderson, 1940; Hattwick, 1936; Monkman, 1958) or loosely defined categories of permissiveness and strictness (Roy, 1950; Stendler, 1950; Symonds, 1939; Watson, 1957). These dimensions were then associated with child outcomes such as cooperation (Hattwick, 1936) or adjustment (Monkman, 1958). The introduction of a more com— plex analysis using two or more dimensions simultaneously (Becker, 1964; Schaefer, 1959) has contributed to Baumrind's classic series of studies, (1967, 1971, 1973, 1978). Without exception the importance of a multidimensional analysis has been revealed. Parental behavior occupies various positions on dimensions such as love/hostility, psychological contrOl psychological autonomy, acceptance/ rejection, that do not manifest a linear relationship. 3 The trend toward a multidimensional analysis has continued into the eighties (Baruch and Barnett, 1981; Camp, Swift, and Swift, 1982; Mondell and Tyler, 1981). The consequence of such an analysis has led to categorization of parental behaviors into typologies, e.g., authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, and harmonious, which present child rearing practices as a matrix of behaviors. This parental style is then equated with particular child outcomes such as social competency (Baruch and Barnett, 1981; Baumrind, 1978; White & Watts, 1973) or cognitive abilities (Chu, 1975; Koch, 1979). The majority of this research either focused on mothers and fathers separately, or excluded fathers altogether. Very little of this research has been directed to the parent/child triad, i.e., mother, father, child, and its impact on the development of social competency in their children. The effect of the triadic relationship on the child's social competency is the major focus of the present investigation. Furthermore, the paucity of research regarding age-related trends in parental style is well documented (Appel, 1979). Children of different ages possess unique qualities that mediate the social situation. Parents maintain consistent trends at times, but also vary their style based upon their belief System (MCGillicuddy—Delisi, 1982). For example, a parent may hold certain ideas about their children's devel- opment such as reasoning ability, impulse control and the role children play within the family system. These ideas are then translated into action within the parent/child relationship. 4 Consequently, the second issue to be dealt with in the present research is the preferential style of parents with children of particular ages. Another area of parent/child interaction that warrants further examination involves rural/urban settings. The parent/child literature is almost devoid of rural/urban comparisions. The literature is replete with social class analysis as evidenced by comprehensive reviews (Deutch, 1973; Gecas, 1979), but the rural/urban distinction has not been a point of interest. Much as class characterizes parent/ ichild interactions, so may the rural/urban differentiation have important consequences for child—rearing practices. The third issue to be considered in the present research is the comparison of rural/urban parental behavior and the subsequent consequences for the child's social competency. Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework underlying the present research is comprised of principles derived from the conceptual frame— works of Bronfenbrenner (1979), Piaget (1926, 1932, 1970), Shantz (1975) and Baumrind (1967, 1971, 1978). Shantz (1975) work on social cognition, based on Piaget's cognitive devel— opmental theory, provided the social perspective necessary in the present research. Bronfenbrenner's work provided the overall framework explicating general propositions for this research. Bronfenbrenner states that his framework: ...involves the scientific study of the progressive, mutual accommodation between an active, growing human 5 being and the changing properties of the immediate settings in which the developing person lives, as this process is affected by relations between, and by the larger contexts in which the settings are embedded (p. 21). In this perspective, the developing person, the environment, and the evolving interaction between the two are viewed. The development of the child is viewed by the way the child perceives and interacts with the environment. Further, the child's environment is defined at three different connected levels from the immediate to distant. These environmental interconnections or systems each exert their impact upon the forces directly affecting the child's microsystem, i.e., immediate situation, mesosystem, i.e., linkage between settings in which the individual participates, and exosystem, i.e., linkages between settings which affect the individual but in which the child is not a participant. Thus, although the child's immediate environment seems to exert the greatest influence, other systems have their impact as well. For example, a child's ability to read may depend no less on how the child is taught than on the relationship between the home and school. The present research is restricted to analysis of the microsystem, or more specifically the triad of mother, father, and child. The developmental importance of the triad is critical when considering intact families. According to Bronfenbrenner (1979), the developmental process can break down if components of this triad play a disruptive rather than a supportive role. Emphasizing the dyad, as most 6 parent/child literature (Martin, 1975) tends to do, is inadequate because many families include mother, father, and child. Most importantly, Bronfenbrenner's conception of developmentrecognizestfe importance of the child's impact within the triadic relationship. Development is defined as the child's evolving conception of the ecological environment, i.e., micro, meso and exo systems, his relation to it, as well as the child's growing capacity to discover, sustain or alter its prOperties. The overt manifestation of the child's conception of his ecological environment is his behavior, which constitutes both the internal mechanisms and external manifestations of psychological growth as well as the ecological environment. Piaget's position, which is amenable to Bronfenbrenner's, provides some specific developmental corollaries that may supplement Bronfenbrenner's ecological perspective. Piaget's (1926, 1970) careful analysis of the changes evidenced in the child's thought and reasoning is organized under the cognitive levels of development he has theorized. Piaget (1962) stated that: from two to seven years of age (i.e., preoperational stage), representative thought developes spontaneously, often being unconscious because of its ease and egocentric quality, whereas at about seven or eight (the onset of concrete operations) it becomes deliberate and it takes its place in intelligence as a whole (p. 74). 7 The younger child is egocentric, i.e., the preschool child possesses an inability to take another's viewpoint, and focuses largely on perceptual as opposed to conceptual experiences, whereas the older child has the ability to decenter, i.e., take another's vieWpoint, and an increasing capacity to convey information through speech. More specifically, the preoperational child's thought is irreversible and attentive to limited amounts of information. Concrete operational children, on the other hand, are able to focus on several aspects of a situation simultaneously, are sensitive to transformations, and can reverse the direction of their thinking. Shantz's (1975) treatise on social cognition provides the necessary extension of Piaget's theory into the social realm. Social cognition deals with the child's ability to characterize others and make inferences about and attribute motives to what another person sees, feels, thinks and intends (the inner psychological experience of others). The way in which the child conceptualizes others will undoubtly have an important effect on the child's social behavior with others (Shantz, 1975). Consistent with Piaget's findings, younger children attend to the highly observable, salient, surface cues of people and situations, e.g., they often use appearance and possessions of the person to make inferences about others (Livesley and Bromley, 1973). Furthermore, this tendency to center attention on a single aspect of "external" stimuli also occurs with internal 8 stimuli, 1.e., children focus attention on their own positions, ideas or feelings, to the exclusion of other possible positions, ideas, or feelings. The older child (concrete operational child) demonstrates substantial changes in attentional tendencies. Rather than using external cues as much as younger children, older children describe people in terms of habits, dispositions, value, beliefs and traits, i.e., more abstract descriptions based on regularities in behavior across time and situations (Peevers and Secord, 1973). They can attend to a number of cues and focus on the internal states of another. Moreover, older children can recognize more accurately a variety of emotions and deal with complex affect (Borke, 1971; Mood, Johnson and Shantz, 1974). Throughout her discussion of research pertinent to social cognition, Shantz (1975) observed two consistent trends that have importance for the present study. First, the younger child is seen as much more competent in social understanding than Piaget's theory suggests. This does not alter the basic premises of cognitive deveIOpment or social cognition, but merely reorients these premises through the recognition of the greater sophistication in the young child's social understanding. Secondly, the age group of 5—7 years is seen as a transitional one in which the child is moving to more complex cognitive functioning and social understanding. Consequently, the 5-7 year old child may vacillate between the two stages of development. For example, at times children in this age range can focus on more than one dimension of a 9 situation, and at other times seem only able to deal with one dimension. The findings of Piaget and Shantzanxeeasily incorporated Fwithin Brofenbrenner's conceptualization of human development. Bronfenbrenner emphasized the evolving nature and scope of perceived reality as it emerges and expands in the child's awareness and active involvement with the physical and social environment. The young child's egocentrism manifests itself by a lack of adaptation to the relations between events and persons in the settings that do not, form the outset, involve the child's active participation. The perceptual orientation of the preoperational child precludes symbolic encoding, therefore, active participation utilizes the predominant mode of orientation for the young child. Furthermore, the rudimentary level of social understanding directly influences the triad and the child's interpretation of the developing relationship(s). What is suggested here is that the egocentric nature of the young child (cognitively and socially) influences the adequacy and appropriateness of particular parent behaviors. The better fit would presumably occur between authoritative parents and their children because such parents are more cognizant of the child's developing abilities. Furthermore, the young child's reliance on perceptual cues limits the processing of information to concrete representations thereby restricting the number of distinct behaviors, motives and information on which the child focuses. This characteristic puts the 10 young child at a disadvantage when parental style manifests fixed behaviors that do not take into consideration the child's perspective. Older children, on the other hand, have more advanced cognitive schemata at their disposal, which allow them to encode parent behavior with greater understanding and diversity by using symbolic and concrete representations. Their ability to adapt to parental style and maintain attention to the parents' perspective will increase learning of appropriate and more competent behavior. Baumrind's work (1967, 1971, 1978) supplements the conceptual integration with specificity and closure. She identified three distinct triads of parent/ child relation- ships that create specific realities for the child and the developing social competencies. The fact that Baumrind was able to specify the authoritative pattern as most effective is tied to a major proposition of Bronfenbrenner (1979). More specifically, "...the developmental impact of a triad increases as a direct function of the level of reciprocity, mutuality of positive feeling, and a gradual shift of balance of power in favor of the developing person" (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p.59). Thus authoritative parents, as the most effective, were characterized by Baumrind as controlling and demanding, but were also warm, rational, and receptive to the child's communiéation. Furthermore, these parents recognized reci— procity as a pattern of mutuallycxnfljmmfinn;exchange of grati— fication and as a generalized moral norm, with consequent 11 mature cognitive and moral judgment and action in the child (Baumrind, 1978). Parents who understand the changing and developing nature of the child were able to create a more responsive and appropriate reality to facilitate the child's social competency than those who did not. Parental behavior was not only subject to ecological considerations such as triadic relationships and systems, but cognitive levels of their children were inherent in an objective analysis of parental style as an emerging process. Thus, the integration of Piagetian principles with those of Bronfenbrenner and the conceptualization of Baumrind would seem to produce a viable framework for the further study of the development of social competency. The Rationale for the Present Research Given the frameworks of Bronfenbrenner and Piaget, and the conceptualizations of Shantz and Baumrind, the social competency of children should be enhanced by a particular parental style, i.e., authoritative. Several investigations (Abedor, 1983; Baumrind, 1967, 1971, 1973, 1978; Hartup, 1979; Jones, Rickel and Smith, 1980; White, 1975; White and Watts, 1973) have demonstrated that nurturant, demanding, controlling parents who also possess a realistic appraisal of their child's abilities, facilitate instrumental competence and/or components of social behavior. Given Bronfenbrenner's conclu— sion, regarding the impact of the triad, one would posit that the mother/father/child triad, representing a realistic 12 picture of the family, would likewise facilitate social competency. Yet given this deduction and the aforementioned studies, most parent/child research (Bing, 1963; Chu, 1975; Kuntz and Letteri, 1981; Martin, 1975; Olejnik, 1979) has been restricted to the analysis of one parent's behavior. Furthermore, despite criticisms for the failure to include fathers in analysis (Lamb, 1976), most studies neglected the paternal role. The exceptions, (e.g., Abedor, 1983; Baumrind, 1971, 1973) found an average score or created typologies of 'parental' behavior derived from mother and father scores. The recognition of social competency as a critical goal in the developmental sequence although overlooked historically (White, 1959) has begun to emerge as an ongoing developmental task in itself (Thomas & Chess, 1980). The individual's ability to interact as a social being using effective and appropriate means is necessary for sucessful integration into society. The development of social competency throughout childhood is critical to the ultimate manifestation of socially competent behavior as an adult (Ogbu, 1982). It is this process by which parents inculcate and children acquire social competencies for their adult cultural tasks which is critical. Research on the relationship between social competency and parental behavior has been rather sparse (Rollins and Thomas, 1979), yet its importance is no less critical to the child's social world (Dickie and Gerber, 1980; Kohn and Rosman, 1972). Baumrind and White represent the major researchers to date who have systematically examined social 13 competency as a function of the parent/child relationship. Furthermore, they demonstrated an appreciation for the uniqueness of the family comprised of individuals who are so complex and multifaceted that they defy easy classification and comparisons on any single or simple common dimension (Mischel, 1977), This is not surprising considering both Bronfenbrenner's multidimensional framework and the absence of research truly representative of the family (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Thus it becomes important to carry the level of analysis to the triad, while concomitantly examining the parent/child relationship along a number of dimensions. The importance of the child's changing abilities and their impact on social understanding (Shantz, 1975) and intellectual functioning (Ginsburg and Opper, 1969) has been well documented (Damon, 1980; Ruff, 1980). The way the child acquires knowledge, interacts with the social world, thinks, and perceives are all constrained by the child's developing abilities. More specifically, children of various ages possess specific age—related capacities that mediate between the child and the environment. It is because of these specific age related changes that children were selected from three dif- ferent age groups. The three year olds were securely entrenched in the preoperational stage, the six year olds occupying a transitional phase and the nine year olds well into the concrete operational stage. Each one of these groups demonstrates particular behavioral, social and cognitive capacities indicative of their place in the developmental sequence. 14 Despite the extensive body of literature detailing these capacities, very little research has focused on age trends in parental behavior that may vary with the child's age. One would posit that parental behavior would change to accommodate the child's changing abilities for parents who are aware of such changes, however, the relationship is not so clear cut. McGillicuddy-Delisi (1982) has shown that parents base their child—rearing on complex belief systems regarding developmental processes. Furthermore, Baumrind (1978) has shown that parental beliefs were associated with particular styles of child rearing. Authoritarian and permissive parents tended to articulate an image of their child that was not realistic or flexibly responsive to the developing competencies in the child. These parents appeared to construct fictional beliefs about what their child was like and relate to that fiction rather than to the child. Authoritative parents, on the other hand, were inclined to see the rights and duties of parents as complementary to the child's rather than identical. Moveover, they felt they should be receptive to and aware of the child's needs and views before making any attempt to alter the child's actions. Combined with the view of the child as maturing through stages with qualitatively different features, authoritative parents will react differently to their children as they grow older. It would seem more likely that authoritative parents would alter their behavior, while authoritarian and permissive parents would fixate their behavior over time. 15 Although focusing on changes in behavioral dimensions<3f parenting and not parental style, a number of investigators (Armentrout, 1970; Armentrout and Burger, 1972; Chen, 1981) have looked at overall age trends based on children's perceptions. Changes do occur. Psychological control seems to give way to psychological autonomy as the child gets older, while limit setting increases. Demands seem to decrease (Chen, 1981) while psychological nuturance increased (Weisz, 1980). Despite the differential efficacy of particular parental styles and belief systems, samples of parents are treated as homogeneous groups. .This general grouping of parents is also the design used in parent report studies (Baldwin, 1947; Bartz, 1978; Wenger, Berg and Berg, 1980). This leads to the second purpose of the present investigation: to examine age trends in parental behavior, according to parental style, using the child's age as an index. Another aim of this study is to examine rural/urban differences in parental style as they relate to the child's social competency. Considerable research exists on the relation— ship of social class (Deutsch, 1973) to child development and family interaction. Social stratification in our society can hardly be disputed; people differ considerably in terms of power, prestige and resources, and the material conse— quences of these differences are apparent (Gecas, 1979). Much as class would yeild particular results, geographical locations might also. Bronfenbrenner's (1979) conceptual framework indicates the importance of situational context 16 for the relations occurring within the microsystem as well as between systems. The microsystem of the rural family, thoughcnxnxanmjunder the same laws, might create a different set of experiences, availability of resources and interconnections between systems. Although multi—media have blurred these differences, availability of resources, frequency and quantity of contacts with a variety of situations may un— doubtedly differ. At any rate the consequences for parent/ child interaction are heretofore undocumented. Although much has been written about rural or urban children (Brown, 1977; Christensen & Dillman, 1973; Irons, 1967; Poresky, 1978), the comparison of rural and urban families is almost non—existent (Schiamberg, 1981). Testimony to this paucity of literature is best exemplified in a recent study undertaken by a group of investigators in several stages (Clark, Crase, Longe, Marshall, Kalvan, Mesih,Nelson, Pease, Poresky, Schiamberg & Tuppo, 1981). A careful review of their bibliography found no references to comparisons of rural/ urban families. Thus the final aim of the study is to examine the differences and/or similarities between rural and urban parent/child interaction in relation to social competency. Overview of the Present Research An extensive review of literature follows this initial chapter. The research is examined somewhat historically, paralleling decades from the 1930's to the present. As the review approaches contemporary scientific conceptualization 17 regarding parent/child interaction, consistent lines of thought begin to emerge. Early researchers (Anderson, 1940; Hattwick, 1936; Symonds, 1939) focused on singular dimensions of parenting behavior. Permissiveness—restrictiveness was one of the more prominent dimensions of the mid—twentieth century. This singular dichotomy was replaced by the simul— taneous investigation of two dimensions (Shaefer, 1959) and three dimensions (Becker, 1964). Significant contributions advocating a multidimensional approach was made by Bronfenbrenner (1961a, 1961b) as well. His studies on respon— sibility and leadership clearly demonstrated the complexity of the parent/child relationship. Despite the importance of multi- dimensional and non-linear research; it was not until Baumrind's critical work (1967, 1971, 1973, 1978) that their impact had been truly felt. She examined a number of components of parent behavior that could be codified into typologies or parental styles. At present, her work buttressed by other investigators (White & Watts, 1973; White, 1975) has supported a particular parental style as the most efficacious in the development of the child's competence. This "authoritative style" is characterized by parent behavior which is moderately demanding, highly nurturant, non—punitive yet adequately controlling and inductive in its approach. The review of the literature revealed an emerging consensus of opinion regarding the efficacy of the authoritative parent. The review also examined such areas as continuum based models, social competence, locus of control, cognitive variables, 18 age trends in parent behavior, and rural/urban comparisons. The last two areas were particularly germane to the purposes of the present study. A number of investigators have demonstrated differential parental responding depending upon the child's age (Armentrout & Burger, 1972; Burger, Lamp & Rogers, 1975; Chen, 1981). On the other hand, the analysis of rural/ urban families was almost non—existent. Schiamberg (1981) represented the sole comparison of rural/urban parent behavior. The method section delineated the composition of the sample, design, instruments and procedure used. The total sample included 180 families, half of which were selected from rural areas and the other half from urban areas. These rural/urban subsamples were further subdivided into three‘ age groups using age of the child as the defining criterion. Children were three, six or nine years old, thirty of each within each rural/urban subsample. All families included mother and father. Three instruments were used to gather information on demographic data, social competency and parental behavior. Demographic data were derived from a section of the Revised Kansas Home Interview Scale (see Appendix A). Social competency was measured using the Iowa Social Competency Scale (see Appendix A) and child rearing practices were assessed using the Iowa Parent Behavior Inventory (IPBI). Social competency of the children and child rearing practices are based upon parents' perceptions as measured by their responses 19 on the respective questionnaires of the Iowa Social Competency Scale were used, one form for preschool children and one for school age children. Separate mother and father forms were used to rate parental behavior. Each parent was administered the behavior inventory, while both parents were to complete the social competency scale. Graduate assistants administered the tests. A 1 to 99 scale was used to rate child and parent behavior, 1 denoting unlikely behavior and 99 highly characteristic behavior. A parent score was derived using a technique similar to Abedor (1983). Scores on the father form and the mother form of the parent inventory were added and then divided by two to arrive at a mean score reflecting both parents as one measure. Both measures of parental behavior and social competency are comprised of a number of items that indicate different components of each. These components were derived using the least squares method of factor analysis for parental behavior while social competency factors were the same as those used by Pease, Clark & Crase (1982). A total of twelve factors were indicative of social competency. Factors labeled social activatory hypersensitivity; reassurance, uncooperativeness and cooperativeness measured social compe— tency for preschool children. Seven factors were included in the school age form: task orientation, leadership, dis— ruption, affection, capability, defiance and apprehension. 20 The factor analysis of the parent inventory based on 36 items resulted in five factors: parental involvement, limit setting, immediacy of assistance, reasoning guidance, and intimacy. Analyses were run based on the parent and child factors. Parent factors were categorized further according to parental style. Using the same approach as Baumrind (1971, 1973) parents were ranked on their factor scores based on a median split. Each combined parent score was ranked either high or low on each of the five factors. Based on these rankings, parents were typed as to parental style (authoritative, authoritarian, permissive). Research Questions The foregoing literature was used to develop hypotheses derived from three research questions: 1) Social Competengy: Is parental style related to social competency? 2) Age Trends: Do components of parental style, i.e., parental involvement, limit setting, immediacy of assistance, reasoning guidance, intimacy, change as the child's age varies? 3) Rural versus Urban: What differences exist between rural and urban sampges, regarding parental style, its relationship to social competency and age trends? Hypotheses Social Competency: Is parental style related to social competency? 1) Higher social competency scores in children at all ages are associated to a greater degree with authoritative 21 parental style rather than with permissive or authoritarian styles. 2) Lower social competency scores in children at all ages are more likely to be associated to a greater degree with authoritarian parental style rather than with permissive or authoritative styles. 3) Children who fall in the mid ranges of social competency at all ages, are associated to a greater degree with permissive and/or authoritarian parental styles rather than authoritative. Age Trends: Components of parental style, i.e., parental involvement, limit setting, immediacy of assistance, reasoning guidance, intimacy, change as the child's age varies. 4) Parents of 9 year old children are less involved with their children than parents of 6 and 3 year olds, and parents of 6 year olds are less involved than parents of 3 year olds. 5) Parents of 9 year old children set fewer limits than parents of 6 and 3 year olds, and parents of 6 year olds set fewer limits than parents of 3 year olds. 6) Parents of 9 year old children decrease their immediacy of assistance relative to 6 and 3 year olds, and parents of 6 year olds decrease their immediacy of assistance relative to 3 year olds. 7) Parents of 9 year old children use more reasoning guidance than parents of 6 and 3 year olds, and parents of 6 year olds use more reasoning guidance than parents of 3 year olds. 22 8) Parents of 9, 6, and 3 year old children show no differences in level of intimacy. 9) The authoritative parent, is more likely to follow the age changes listed in hypotheses 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. 10) The authoritarian parent, is the least likely to demonstrate age changes listed in hypotheses 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Rural versus Urban: What differences exist between rural and urban samples, regarding parental style, its relationship to social competency and age trends? The rural/urban hypotheses will be stated as null hypotheses as previous research in the area is insufficient to support alternative hypotheses. 11) There is no difference in the incidence of authoritative, authoritarian and permissive parental styles between rural and urban families. 12) There are no developmental differences in parental involvement, limit setting, immediacy of assistance, reasoning guidance and intimacy between rural and urban children. 13) There is no difference in the relationship between parental style and social competency in rural and urban families. The present research was based on data collected in the fall of 1978. This research was sponsored by the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station under the auspices of the North Central Regional Agricultural Experiment Station Project (NC 124). It was at this point that the present author became involved. Participation included development of the theoretical framework, review of the literature, modi— fication of questionnaires, design and generation of hypotheses. 23 The present undertaking is a secondary analysis of the existing data. Theoretical Definitions Social Competency- The child's ability to interact as a social being in ways acceptable to values of Western society. The socially competent child would be able to interact effectively and appropriately in a variety of contexts (Ford, 1982; Lee, 1979). Parental Style— The child rearing techniques selected by parents (willfully or not) to socialize their children. These techniques are used for cultural transmission, learning of roles and skills, development of self and the shaping of goal—oriented activity. It is assumed in the present investigation that parental style fall into three basic types (Baumrind, 1971, 1973; White, 1975). Operational Definitions Social Competency— The child's social abilities are measured by the Iowa Social Competency Scale. Twelve factors, five for the preschool form and seven for the school age form represent different components of social competency. Higher scores on the positive dimensions, i.e., social activator, reassurance, cooperation, task orientation, leadership, affection, capability, and low scores on the negative dimen- sions (hypersensitivity, uncooperativeness, disruption, defiance, apprehension) represent more socially competent behavior. Less socially competent behavior is demonstrated 24 by low scores on the positive dimensions and high scores on the negative dimensions. Parent Behavior— Child rearing practices were assessed using the Iowa Parent Behavior Inventory. Five orthogonal factors were derived measuring different components of parenting. Father and mother responses were combined and averaged to arrive at a unitary score of parenting. Each factor had a separate score. Parents who frequently demonstrated the behaviors associated with each factor had higher scores, while infrequent behavior was indicated by low scores. Authoritative Parental Style— Parents who scored below the median on all five factors were defined as authoritative. Authoritative Parental Style— Parents who scored below the median on all five factors were defined as authoritarian. Permissive Parental Style— Parents who scored above the median on intimacy and immediacy of assistance, and below the median on the remaining three factors were defined as permissive. Urban— Places of 40,000 inhabitants or more incorporated as cities, villages, boroughs and towns, but excluding those persons living in the rural portions of extended cities. Rural— Places not classified as urban including the rural portions of extended cities (containing one or more areas each at least five square miles in extent and with a population density of less than 100 persons per square mile). Also, it must have minimal distance from any urban area. 25 Assumptions Actual parent or child behavior was never directly observed, therefore, two basic assumptions regarding such behavior were made. All behavior was measured by the parental responses on the behavior inventory and the social competency scale. It was assumed that parental responses on the behavior inventory reflected their actual child rearing behavior. Secondly, the validity of parental assessment of their children's behavior in a variety of social contexts was presumed. These two underlying assumptions were the foundation upon which the research and analyses were conducted. CHAPTER II Review of Literature The primacy, the intimacy, and the extensive protraction of parental influence render them crucial to the formation of child personality and the development of social competency. The extensive amount of research that has been undertaken in the last fifty years is testimony to this special relationship between parent and child (Becker, 1964; Martin, 1975; Stendler, 1950). Of particular interest to parents and professionals alike, are parental styles of child rearing and their child behavioral correlates which are the foci of the present research. Research undertaken by Baumrind (1967, 1971, 1973, 1978, 1980, 1982) has brought together the findings of other investigators by incorporating the results of unidimensional studies into a multidimensional framework. Exhaustive examinations of parental style and child competency correlates have yeilded consistent results that imply that particular parental behaviors are more benefical than others for the child's development. An extensive literature which preceded Baumrind's work has been instrumental in her research. Consequently, the investigations that led to Baumrind's classic styles are examined in the following section. Early Studies in Parent/Child Research Most research, particularly older studies, was characterized by abstraction. Parents were categorized in either permissive or strict dimensions and these categorizations 26 27 were related, most often implying causality, to specific types of children (Hattwick,1936; Symonds, 1939). Hattwick (1936) correlated preschool children's behavior with maternal styles and reached the following conclusions: 1) over attentive mothers produced a withdrawn child with infantile reactions; 2) irresponsible, neglecting mothers produced aggressive, delinquent children who seek attention and security; and 3) a calm, happy mother produced a cooperative child with good emotional adjustment. As the results indicated, mothers were placed either on the positive or negative side of the child rearing continuum. Symonds (1939) using a similar dichotomy, with different labels, matched 28 parents who 'dominated' their children in an 'authoritative' way with 28 parents who permitted their children much freedom and who usually acceded to their children's wishes. He found children from stricter homes more courteous, obedient and neat, but also shy, timid, withdrawing, docile and troubled. More permissive parents seemed to raise children who were more aggressive, more disobedient and who had more eating problems, but also more self—confident, better at self—expression, freer and more independent. The children manifested a combination of positive and negative consequences of strict and permissive child rearing patterns. The inadequacy of such a dichotomy becomes more dubious if one were to try to model a parental style based on such results. This artificial dichotomy was also used by Anderson (1940). His two parent groups were 28 either dominant, unsympathetic and lacking affection or affectionate and less dominant. Children of strict parents were more aggressive, rebellious, attention getting and emotionally unstable, while the more liberal parents had children who were more cooperative, emotionally stable, cheerful and obedient. This trend continued through the 1950's with studies of a wide range of variables pertaining to parent behavior (Altman, 1958; Beals, 1950; Becker, Peterson, Hellmer, Shoemaker & Quay, 1959; Bronfenbrenner, 1958; Monkman, 1958; Sears, Maccoby and Levin, 1957; Watson, 1957). Altman (1958) looked at the relationship between maternal attitudes and child personality variables. Accepting mothers had children who were 'intellectually original', emotionally spontaneous and emotionally free while flexible mothers had children who were 'intellectually original', vigorous, assertive and expressed total intellectual freedom. An examination of home factors by Beals (1950) indicated a single factor as the most critical in the development of a happy well adjusted child was the presence of a cooperative and democratic relationship. This relationship of child well-being to family atmosphere was the exception, however, as other researchers maintained the positive/negative dichotomy. Acceptance versus rejection were critical variables in the Sears, Maccoby and Levin (1957) study. Positive maternal qualities, i.e., loving and accepting, were correlated with 29 positive qualities in children. Accepting mothers had children who were independent, less aggressive and internalized paternal values, while rejecting mothers had children who were dependent, aggressive, and monitored their behavior based on external consequences. Further support for the acceptance/ rejection dimension cited by Sears et a1. (1957) was obtained by Monkman (1958). He found that well adjusted children had parents that were more accepting while maladjusted children had more rejecting parents. No significant differences were found on nine measures of personality, i.e., aggression, independence. Furthermore, obviously in response to the times, he stated there was no advantage to strict discipline in a good home. This conclusion was based upon the trend that demonstrated a consistent but non-significant advantage in all good homes regardless of discipline style. More specifically, children of permissive homes demonstrated more initiative and independence, were better socialized and more cooperative, manifested less 'inner' hostility and more admirable feelings toward others and showed a higher level of spontaneity, originality and creativity. It appeared from the foregoing conclusions that permissive parents were the harbingers of all that is good while strict parents bade ill for their children. The research results are not so clear cut. The aforementioned investigation by Symonds (1939) was an indication of the ambiguity that such a dichotomy produced. 30 BrOnfenbrenner (1961a) indicated the complexity of the parent/child relationship as he examined responsiblity in boys and girls. Although neglect, rejection and lack of discipline have negative consequences, i.e., irresponsiblity, for boys and girls, this parental composite can neither be categorized as permissive or strict. Furthermore, moderately strong discipline was advantageous for boys while low to moderate discipline facilitated responsiblity in girls. Neither relationship between responsiblity and discipline was linear as the aforementioned literature implied. In effect there were optimal levels of authority for children, with a higher optimun level for boys than for girls. The argument for a more dynamic explanation of parent/ child relations was also found when looking at leadership qualities in children ( Bronfenbrenner, 1961a). Both girls and boys manifested low leadership qualities if parents were characterized as rejecting, neglecting, absent and/or overprotective. Again the same parental behavior seems to have indicated different consequences for girls and boys if one wants to facilitate leadership qualities. High nurturance, warm relations with parents and principled discipline fostered leadership in boys while the same factors were associated with dependency in girls. As with authority, there was an optimal balance of affection and control. The danger for girls was seen as an excess of both affection and control, implying oversocialization. On the other hand, the danger for boys was 31 seen as an underdose of both affection and control, implying undersocialization. Emergence of Multi—Dimensional Models The movement away from linear, continuum—based models to a more complex, dynamic ordering of parent/child relations was promoted further by Schaefer (1959). Schaefer provided an integration of work:hntfln£;area as well as a novel conceptual configuration. He undertook a secondary analysis of the data gathered by the University of California Institute of Child Welfare (Jones and Bayley, 1941). Mothers were rated on eighteen behaviors related to child interaction which could be arranged in a systematic circular order. Correlations between adjabent variables were high, but taking any one variable as a starting point and moving along the circumplex ordering, the correlations between that variable and the other variables decreased, then, became negative, and finally, became positive and high again when the circle was completed. A factor analysis of these data substantiated the notion that these behaviors could be conceptualized in a two dimensional space. Based on additional findings (Baldwin, Kalhorn & Breese, 1945) Schaefer proposed a hypothetical model. The advantage of this model was that it was not necessary to select any particular orientation as representing the "true" dimensions of parent behavior. Basically, it was a method of portraying relationships among a number of variables. Those variables that appeared close to one another on the circumplex 32 were likely to have similar values for a given parent. The particular arrangement of the axes on this model was arbitrary, although it does happen to conform to dimensions proposed by Symonds (1939). Becker (1964) conducted a series of factor analyses on a large number of parent/child studies and concluded that Schaefer's two dimensional model was unable to account adequately for parental behavior. Based on his findings Becker suggested the importance of at least three dimensions in looking at parental behavior. Becker's model differed from Schaefer's in that the control versus autonomy dimension was subdivided into restrictiveness versus permissiveness and anxious-emotional involvement versus calm detachment. The warmth versus hostility dimension is defined at the warm end by such variables as accepting, affectionate, approving, child centered, frequent use of explanations, high use of praise in discipline and low use of physical punishment. The hostility dimension was defined at the restrictive end by many rules and strict enforcement of demands in such areas as table manners, toilet training, aggression to peers, noise, obedience. Anxious emotional involvement versus calm— detachment was defined at the anxious and by the following parent behaviors: high emotionality in relation to the child, babying, protectiveness and solicitousness for the child's welfare. The three dimensional model was the forerunner to Baumrind's work on parenting style. for example, both the 33 democratic parent and the indulgent parent (by definition) were high on the dimensions of warmth and permissiveness, but the indulgent parent was high on emotional involvement while the democratic parent tended to be low on this dimension (calm—detachment). This type of analysis can be extended around the model, showing how the typical concepts for types of parents can be thought of as being defined by various combinations of the three dimensions of parental behavior. Despite Becker's introduction of a three dimensional model, most research continued to utilize no more than two dimensions of parental behavior (Bayley and Schaefer, 1960; Grayson, 1969) or variations of one dimension (Brody, 1969; Crandall, 1964; Finney, 1964; Hoffman, 1960). This two dimensional focus was best exemplified by Schaefer's work. For example, Bayley and Schaefer (1960) examined loving and controlling mothers. They found that loving mothers were associated with calm, happy sons during infancy while at preschool and early childhood these same boys were characterized as friendly, cooperative, attentive children. Controlling mothers on the other hand had sons who were excitable and unhappy. These relationships held for girls as well, yet the correlations were stronger. Mothers of the well adjusted, socially outgoing children were further characterized as high in autonomy, treating their children in a more equalitarian fashion and showing more affection. For the most part these mothers fell in the upper right 34 quadrant of Schaefer's circumplex, i.e., autonomy—love. This is consistent with Baumrind's authoritative parent who was characterized as controlling, demanding, and nurturant. The support for a particular parental style was further enhanced by a number of studies with a uni-dimensional emphasis (Brody, 1969; Finney, 1964; Hoffman, 1960; Robinson, 1962). Significant correlations were found between rejecting mothers with children who manifested less information seeking, less interactive play, less compliance, and more attention approval—praise seeking (Brody, 1969). The debilitating effects of rejection were demonstrated further, as neurotic children had rejecting mothers who set unrealistic goals (Robinson, 1962). Furthermore, these parents made fewer independent demands which was contrary to Baumrind's authoritative parent who set realistic goals and increasingly demanded independence (Baumrind, 1978). A by—product of rejection was unqualified power assertion. Defined as direct coercive pressure on the child to change the entire ongoing pattern of behavior, this behavior contributed to the development of hostility, power needs and heightened autonomy strivings which the child displaced toward peers (Hoffman, 1960). The use of unqualified power assertion was another parent attribute that ran counter to an authoritative style of child rearing. Finney (1964) also examined deleterious parental styles. He found that overprotective mothers had children who were submissive and cold, unloving mothers had 35 dependent, anxious children who were lacking in self—con— fidence, and hostile mothers had overtly aggressive children showing overt hostility. It is unlikely that parents can be so easily classified as the aforementioned research implied. As Becker (1964) reasoned parents might be high on one trait while low on another or some combination thereof. Clapp (1968) attempted to codify three parental styles that would differentiate more competent from less competent four year olds. .Classi— fication was based upon global treatment of the child, as follows: 1) Type I — parents who treated their child as an adult, 2) Type II — parents who treated their child as an infant and 3) Type III — parents who treated their child as a four year old. He found that the more competent children had Type III parents, while the more dependent children had Type I or Type II parents. Thus, parents who had more realistic perceptions of their child, i.e., four year old, not an adult or infant, seemed to have the more competent children. Baumrind's Research on Social Competence and Parent—child Relationships Clapp's (1968) finding was consistent with Baumrind's initial work investigating parental style (Baumrind and Black, 1967). Baumrind and Black (1967) attempted to de- fine the socialization practices that were associated with competence in preschool children. They found that parental 36 practices which were intellectually stimulating and to some extent, tension producing, i.e., socialization and maturity demands, appropriate punitiveness, firmness in discipline were associated with various aspects of competence in the young child. Another study (Baumrind, 1967) found similar results. Parents of more mature children were controlling, demanding and nurturant. Parents of discontented children were non—nurturant, over controlling and demanding while parents of immature children were non—controlling, non— demanding and nurturant. The child's competence was not dependent upon one aspect of parental behavior, rather, it was a complex relationship of parent behavior that facili— tated this competence. The dependency upon parent behavior does not preclude the reciprocal nature of the parent- child relationship (Bell and Harper, 1977). It merely re- cognizes the differential roles of each participant. Dyadic and triadic systems may develop in which parent and child reinforce each other, consequently child behavior will directly influence this relationship. The parents are the initial elicitors of this relationship. Children may have temperamental differences that parents respond to, but parent— child relations depend on how parents respond to these dif— ferences (Thomas, Chess, & Birch, 1968). Thomas et a1. (1968) cited a number of examples where children with simi— lar temperaments developed different relationships with 37 parents because parents reacted differently to the same trait. On the other hand, children with different temperaments developed similarly because of similar parental responses. Although parents are not the sole participants in this parent/child relationship, they serve as the moderators. Consequently, the type of parent who fosters social competency in children possesses more power than the child in the parent—child dyad. Social Competence The concept of social competence is a relatively recent phenomenon that is presently undergoing definitional debate (Kohn and Rosman, 1972; Lee, 1979; White,l975; White & Watts, 1973; Zigler and Trickett, 1978). Kohn and Rosman (1972) derived the child's social competency via the assessment of young children's functioning in a preschool setting. Their conceptualization was based on overt classroom behavior resulting in two orthogonal dimensions of social-emotional functioning. These two dimensions were interest—participation versus apathy—withdrawal and cooperation-compliance versus anger-defiance. A similar conceptualization has been undertaken by White & Watts (1973). They also restricted their study to preschool children, however, their analysis included mothers as well. Moreover, they differentiated many \ dimensions of social competence that extended beyond the 38 preschool setting. The following social abilities comprised their measure of social competency: 1) getting and holding the attention of adults, 2) using adults as a resource after having first determined that a job is too difficult, 3) ex— pressing affection and moderate annoyance to adults, 4) leading and following peers, 5) expressing affection and mild annoyance to peers, 6) competing with peers, 7) showing pride in personal accomplishment and 8) engaging in role play or make believe activities. All but the last dimen— sion were general descriptors that became more sophisticated and differentiated with increasing age. The work of White (1975), and Kohn and Rosman (1972) were consistent with Ford's (1982) definition of social competence. More specifically, social competence was de— fined as the attainment of relevant social goals in speci- fied social contexts, through the use of appropriate means that result in positive developmental outcomes. The indi— vidual was Viewed as a social being interacting effectively and appropriately in a variety of contexts. This was a ‘highly differentiated conceptualization that precludes non— goal directed behavior. Moreover, this View was a static one that quantifies social competence based upon goal attainment. Lee (1979) proposed an alternative conceptual defini- tion of social competence. It is "a dynamic process that draws on the individual's cognitive, linguistic and social capabilities. It is the translation of these capabilities 39 into functionally appropriate interpersonal strategies for use in particular and/or sociocultural contexts (p.795)." This definition implied adaptive as well as assertive be— havior, thereby going beyond the attainment of specific outer—directed goals. The aforementioned definitions were all consistent with the social competency measures developed at Iowa State University and used in this dissertation (Clark et al., 1981). They have also operationalized social com— petency along such dimensions as cooperation, leadership and task orientation. The use of some measure of social competence in parent— child research has received scant examination. White (1975), White & Watts (1973) and Baumrind (1971, 1973) represented the major inroads in the area. White's re— search included measures of both social and nonsocial abilities, however, he differentiated between social and instrumental competence. Baumrind's research appeared to emphasize instrumental competence that is more goal directed, however, she also included indices of social abilities. Despite their measurement differences, the results of the two authors concurred regarding parental style and child— ren's competency. The authoritative style of parenting was most efficacious for the child's development. 40 Cognitive Variables and Parent Style Another group of studies which indicated the efficacy of particular parental styles or traits involved cognitive variables. A number of investigators (Bing, 1963; Crandall, 1964; Hurley, 1965; Morrow and Wilson, 1961) have examined the relationship between parent behaviors and indices of in- telligence. The findings of Hurley (1965) and Crandall (1964) were limited in focus, however, their results were consistent with previous data (Becker, 1964). Hurley found an inverse relationship between the acceptance/rejection dimension and IQ scores. As IQ scores increased rejection decreased. The relationship was stronger for girls than boys and mothers seemed to exert a greater influence than fathers. Crandall examined academic achievement and found that mothers of more competent girls were less nurturant than mothers of less proficient girls. The finding was consistent with Bronfenbrenner's data (1961a, 1961b) which revealed a lower Optimal level for girls than boys. However, a positive correlation between academic achievement and nurturance was found for boys. Moreover, nurturance was necessary but not sufficent to facilitate development (Baumrind, 1967; Baumrind and Black, 1967). Morrow and Wilson (1961) and Bing (1963) examined clusters of parental behaviors. Morrow and Wilson selected a group of superior students who were either high or low achievers. Relations with parents were significantly different for high achievers, as follows: they shared activities more, more ideas and confidences were 41 exchanged, the relationship was more approving, trusting, affectiOnate, and encouraging, parents were less restricting and severe in their disciplinary practices and the children seemed to manifest a greater acceptance of parental standards. In a similar vein, Bing (1963) examined a number of differ— ential cognitive abilities of fifth grade children and their mothers. She found that children with higher scores mani— fested a high degree of interaction and maintained a close relationship with a significant adult. The mothers of this group were also more emotionally involved with their child— ren, provided more attention and stimulation and also tended to make more demands. The recognition of a more complex relationship between parental style and child behavior continued through the seventies. Very few studies (Nuttal and Nuttal, 1976; Starkey, 1978) restricted their investigation to a singu- lar dimension of parent/child relations. Parents who were perceived as being more accepting and as using less hostile psychological control tended to have children with higher achievement traits (Nuttal and Nuttal, 1976). Likewise, Starkey (1978) found that parental acceptance was associ— ated with higher academic performance. The Changinngole of the Family and the Child's Self Esteem Baumrind began the shift to a more complex and dynamic look at the family in relation to child social competence. Emphasis was no longer on specific child variables or IQ 42 but rather, the family was seen as a facilitator of social competence (Zigler and Trickett, 1978; Hartup, 1979). The social sphere was seen as critical for the child's develop— ment, perhaps more so than the cognitive realm (White, 1973; Shantz, 1975). A common theme in child rearing studies began to emerge that centered on a child with an affilia— tive, person—oriented disposition as the outcome of a nur- turant attitude and acceptance of the child by the parents (Hartup & Yonas, 1971). The importance of interpersonal skill was further documented by Shilling (1979) who demon— strated that training in this area improved family inter- action. This new emphasis included a renewed interest in pa— rental correlates of child self-esteem (Sears, 1970; Miller, 1971). Coopersmith (1967) examined maternal correlates of self—esteem in boys. Mothers of high self—esteem boys were found to have high self-esteem themselves, were more satis— fied with the father's child—rearing practices, had more friendly, mutually satisfying relationships with their sons, demanded higher standards of performance, enforced rules and demands with consistency and firmness, used reasoning and discussion instead of arbitrary, punitive discipline, and used more rewards and less punishment in training the child. In essence, high self—esteem boys had an authoritative mother. These findings, providing indirect support for an authoritative parental style, were corroborated by the Sears (1970) data and the Miller (1971) study in which 43 positive correlations between warmth (Sears, 1970), empathy, genuineness and positive regard (Miller, 1971) and self-esteem. Locus of Control Further support, for an authoritative style, albeit components of this style, came from the locus of control area. A number of investigators (Allen, 1971; MacDonald, 1971; Magnum, 1976; Olejnik, 1979) examined a number of parent variables that correlated with the child's inclination for an external or internal locus of control. Children who were 'internals' had parents who were more warm, emotionally supportive, interested in sharing plans and activities, more strict yet treated their children in a more egalitarian manner, and were less critical, rejecting, neglectful and ignoring (Allen, 1971). Parents in the MacDonald (1971) study were characterized in a similar fashion. They were more nurturant, made more realistic demands, were more predictable and set specific standards for their child's behavior. Parents of external children were characterized as being more protective, using deprivation of privileges as punishment and using more affective punishment. The Magnum study (1976) also showed that internality is related to acceptance, more nurturance and consistency in discipline. Finally, the belief that an individual can affect his environment was examined developmentally, i.e., across age groups, by Olejnik (1979). The author concluded with the following recommendations: parents should adOpt an authoritative style or interaction which challenges 44 children and avoid authoritarian and permissive styles of interaction. The importance of an internal locus of control has been well established in mental health (Harrow and Ferrante, 1979), consequently the relationship to parental style seems most revealing. The consensus of findings in the locus of control studies appeared to support the previous research that promoted the authoritative parental style. The particular style which has received direct and in— direct support is best exemplified in Baumrind's studies (1971, 1973) that began in the late sixties and early seven— ties, respectively. Her purpose was to identify the effects of alternative patterns of parental authority on the develop— ment of competence in young children. The first study (Baumrind, 1971) was an attempt to replicate and/or expand upon parent/child relationships found in two previous studies (Baumrind, 1967; Baumrind and Black, 1967) and to differen— tiate further among patterns of parental authority and measure their effects upon the behavior of preschool children. Re— sults included the following: 1) authoritative parental behavior was clearly associated with independent, purposive behavior; 2) and authoritative parental control was associ— ated with all indices of social responsibility in boys, and with high achievement in girls. 45 The Topological Approach Baumrind's attempt to differentiate various patterns of parental authority led to classification of parents ac— cording to type or style. The first was a pilot study ini— tiated in the early sixties (Baumrind, 1971). Children were categorized into three classifications of social competency: 1) Pattern I — children were ranked high on vitality, self— reliance, approach—avoidance tendency and self—control; 2) Pattern II — children were low on peer affiliation and vi- tality and not high on approach—avoidance and 3) Pattern III— children were ranked low on self—reliance, self—control and approach—avoidance. Parents were defined along four di— mensions: parental control, maturity demands, clarity of parent—child communication and nurturance. Generally the results were as follows: parents of pattern I children were controlling and warm and communicated more freely with their children. They also preferred positive reinforcement to negative reinforcement to obtain compliance. In essence, it was a combination of high control and positive encouragement of the child's independent strivings, i.e., authoritative control. Parents of pattern II children preferred coercion as opposed to rational methods of control, were less nur— turant and sympathetic but not less controlling (i.e., authoritarian). Parents of pattern III children manifested a more complex picture. They were less controlling than the other two parental styles however, they were warmer than parents of pattern II children, yet not as warm as parents 46 of pattern I children. They used withdrawal of love and ridi— cule, rather than power (pattern II) or reasoning (pattern I) to obtain compliance. These parents of pattern III children were identified as permissive. These results were consistent with Baumrind's previous research as well as related parent- child literature (Becker, 1964; Martin, 1975). Warmth and nurturance are necessary qualities of parenting, but needed to be tempered with appropriate control. Although stated simply, these variables appeared to be critical to the child's optimal development. In order to replicate and extend the findings of her pi— lot study, Baumrind began a second study (1973) that was lon— gitudinal in nature. She followed children and their families from preschool through adolescence. In the initial analysis families were categorized into four different styles: author— itarian, authoritative, permissive and a new style labeled non—conforming. Conceptual definitions of these styles were further refined in the following way: 1) The authoritarian parent values obedience as a virtue and believes in restricting the child's autonomy . . . values the preservation of order and traditional structure as an end in itself . . . does not encourage verbal give and take, believing that the child should accept the par— ents word for what is right (p.13) 2) The authoritative parent . . . attempts to direct the child's activities in a rational, is— sue oriented manner, both autonomous self-will 47 and discipined conformity are valued, . . . they affirm the child's present qualities, but also set standards for future conduct. They use reason, power, and shaping by regime and reinforcement to achieve objectives . . . (p.13). 3) The permissive parent ". . . behaves in an affirmative, acceptant, and benign manner toward the child's impulses and actions, . . . gives the child as much freedom as is consistent with the child's physical survival . . . freedom means absence of restraint . . ." (p. 14). 4) Non-conforming parents were extrapolated from the data. Although similar to permissive parents they ". . . were less passive and exerted firmer control" (p. 14). "These parents were anti-authoritarian and anti—authority, but make demands on their children" (p. 14). Results from the first phase of this study and a later follow—up (Baumrind, 1978) indicated the differential efficacy of authoritative child—rearing as opposed to both authoritarian and permissive styles. OUt of the non—conforming category a new pattern emerged, harmonious parents. In her more recent work (Baumrind, 1978), the harmonious parent was more clearly defined as follows: ". . . while he or she almost never exercised control, seemed to have control in the sense that the child generally took pains to intuit and to do what the 48 parent wanted. The atmosphere in these families was characterized by harmony, equanimity, and later rationality " (p. 265). While other parental styles focused on control in one way or another, harmonious parents "focused not upon control issues, but upon developing principles for resolving differences" (p. 266). The harmonious parental pattern was most advantageous for girls who were extraodinarily competent, while boys seemed to suffer from such a family atmosphere. Since these data on harmonious parents were based on a sample of six girls and two boys, they must be interpreted with caution. They are presented here to temper the advantageous position of authoritative parenting and to avoid the danger of presuming one particular style of parenting as the ideal. Concurrent with Baumrind's series of studies, White examined parental behavior and children's social competency (White, 1975; White & Watts, 1973). Although he concentrated his efforts on the first three years of life, his results were concordant with Baumrind's. Mothers of the most competent children were stimulating, involved and geared their demands, communication and the child's environment to be congruent with the child's skills and development level. They exercised firm but consistent control and maintained a loving, nurturant relationship with their child. This atmosphere was created despite the fact that mothers often 49 have many other duties including part—time jobs. What they seem to do is perform, ". . . excellently the functions of designer and consultant" (White & Watts, 1973, p. 243). In essence the quality of the relationship was more important, than the quantity of the relationship. Although Baumrind (1978) indicated the viability of alternative parental patterns, i.e. authoritative, traditional and harmonious, overall the authoritative style or components of it continued to emerge in related research as the most effective for the child's development (Baruch and Barnett, 1981; Camp, Swift and Swift, 1982; Henry, 1980; Mondell and Tyler, 1981). Baruch and Barnett (1981) examined social competency in preschool girls and found one significant factor in the more socially competent girls, an authoritative parental style. The authoritative parental pattern demonstrating firm enforcement, maturity demands and the use of reason, accounted for 25% of the variance in the child's measured social competency. Camp et al. (1982) likewise demonstrated the advantage of non-authoritarian parental patterns for children's cognitive functioning. Although Mondell and Tyler (1981) concentrated on parent behaviors, results concur with others supporting an authoritative style. They found that more competent parents treated their child as being more capable and resourceful, showed generally warm and positive feelings and were more helpful with problem solving. The design of the experiment (Mondell & Tyler, 1981) included 50 semi—structured parent/child sessions, yet their conclusions seemed to support many of the components of an authoritative parental style, i.e., affirmed child's qualities, valued self-will, expressed warmth. Age—Related Trends in Parent/Child Interactions Age related trends, albeit predominantly cross—sectional in design have not been well researched. Researchers have either gleaned changes in parent behavior as a function of the child's perceptions (Armentrout, 1970; Armentrout and Burger, 1972; Burger, Lamp and Rogers, 1975; Chen, 1981; Schaller, 1973; Weisz, 1980) or parental reports (Baldwin, 1947; Bartz, 1978; Emmerich, 1962; Schaefer and Bayley, 1963; Wenger, 1980). It seems likely the components of parental practices and outlooks would vary as the child grows older (Schiamberg, 1981; Strommen, Mckinney and Fitzgerald, 1977), yet particular styles of parenting were characterized more by their consistency (Baumrind, 1973). Parents who believe in physical punishment, and use it, are likely to continue doing so. Parents who love their children when they are three will likely conitnue to love them when they are six and nine years old. Parents who believe in giving their children some voice in decisions which affect the children, or who try to reason and talk with their children will likewise continue to do so as they grow older. At the same time, though the ways in which such parental attitudes and 51 practices are realized are likely to change over the course of the child's development. For example, when children start school, parental concerns about their children show a predictable increase in emphasis on the children's competence, achievement and school performance (Schiamberg & Smith, 1982). Parents using physical punishment may punish both six and twelve year olds, but what the children are punished for is likely to be different, and so are the ways in which the children are punished. Moreover, changes in the children themselves are important factors influencing changes in the specific forms of interactions which may take place between the children and their parents (Burr et al., 1979). Parents who cannot accept the changes in their children, or who are too inflexible to change their own patterns as their children develop, for example, authoritarian parents, may seriously hinder their children's psychological growth (Baumrind, 1978). Note that here, too, it is not just the parents, or just the children, but the reciprocal interaction of parent flexibility and changes in the children that influence the parent/child interaction. The evidence supports both notions of consistency and flexibility (Armentrout & Burger, 1972; Burger et al., 1975; Chen, 1981; Weisz, 1980; Wenger, 1980). Children's perceptions of parental behaviors and attitudes change as the child gets older. Armentrout and Burger (1972) selected 635 children in grades 4 through 8 in five working class Catholic 52 schools of St. Louis. Each child was given the Child's Report of Parental Behavior Inventory. Factor analyses of the results produced three dimensions of paternal and maternal behavior: 1) acceptance versus rejection, 2) psychological control versus psychological autonomy and 3) firm control versus lax control. The first factor was self explanatory; the second refers to "covert, psychological methods of controlling the child's activities and behaviors that would not permit the child to develop as an individual apart from the parent" (p. 44) and the third indicates "the degree to which the parent makes rules and regulations, sets limits to the child's activities and enforces these rules and limits" (p. 44). Parents evinced definite shifts in their behavior as a function of their children's age. More specifically, acceptance first increased then decreased with age, while acceptance for girls began a slight upsurge at grade 8. A linear relationship was found for psychological control, decreasing with increasing age. Lax control decreased until the sixth grade but then increased through grade 8. The results, consistent with a more complex analysis of parent/child interaction, seemed to indicate an interactive effect when types of control were examined. Considering the two types of parental control together, it can be understood that as the degree of perceived psychological control exerted by parents decreased from fourth to sixth grades, the degree of reported firmness of enforcement of rules and limits increased. 53 Yet from sixth to eighth grades, both psychological control and firmness of control decreased. Thus, it seems that as the parents of these children relinquished intrusive and dominating methods of control, they initially compensated through increased overt rule making and limit setting and then, subsequently, relinquished these latter forms of control. The Armentrout and Burger study (1972) represented the most complex analysis to date on changing parent behaviors as perceived by children. An earlier study by Armentrout (1970) found negative correlation between parental control and the degree of parental acceptance. Consistent with the Armentrout and Burger study (1972), Burger et al. (1975) extended the results further. Using the same measures in a cross-sectional design, they examined children from the first through fourth grade. Results concerning the two controlling factors confirmed the previously noted trend that with advancing age, children perceived a decrease in psychologically controlling behaviors and a concomitant increase in parental rule making and limit setting. More recently, Weisz (1980) and Chen (1981) examined children's perceptions of their parents at different ages. Chen studied 2,112 children in grades one through nine. The most notable finding concerned parental demands. Children perceived that parental demands decreased with age, while the demand gradient for males was higher than for females. Utilizing a more creative technique, Weisz (1980) analyzed 54 published letters from 249 children who responded to the title, "Why my mom is the greatest." Contents of the letters were analyzed for age differences of the children who selected maternal behaviors for positive evaluation. References to being granted autonomy and control declined with age, while references to psychological nurturance increased with age. The aforementioned studies included parental behavior across the total sample. Parents were treated as a homogenous group without regard for particular parental style. Schaller (1973) examined children's perceptions for the total sample, but also separated parents into a high versus low controlling group of parents. Consistent with previously stated findings, parental control decreased with age, while democratic decision making within the family increased. Taking the data one step further, the author found that expectations of future parental behavior were highly dependent on actual parental behavior. Those children whose parents were perceived as highly controlling expected high parental control in the future, while children whose parents were characterized by low control expected low future control. This conclusion does not necessarily contradict the general findings cited earlier (Armentrout and Burger, 1972; Burger et al., 1975). Within each group parents may show a decrease in control while maintaining their relative position on the high/low dimension of control. Overall there was a downward 55 shift, but the decrease has different ramifications for parents and their children depending upon their predisposing parental style. Research concerning parental reports of their own behavior was neither consistent nor well documented in the literature. Moreover, the paucity of studies was evidenced by the few recent studies (Bartz, 1978; Wenger, Berg, and Berg, 1980). A study undertaken in the forties (Baldwin, 1947) included the home environment for analysis and despite the probability of cohort effects Baldwin's study was included in the present review. Results of the Baldwin study showed decreases in warmth and intellectual stimulation, but increases in restrictiveness as the child grows older, findings that seem to contradict the perception literature (Armentrout & Burger, 1972; Chen, 1980; Weisz, 1980). More recent, though still somewhat dated, work by Emmerich (1962) added to this inconsistency. His results demonstrated a seemingly random pattern of nurturance and restriction behavior. Analyzing data for children aged 6 to 10 years old, nurturance vacillated between high and low points from year to year. Measures of restrictiveness followed similar patterns. Such confusion might represent the artifical grouping of all parents as a singular entity. Analysis of parental behavior data according to style or weightings of particular factors might produce quite different results. Wenger et al. (1980) attempted to ascertain changes in 56 parental behavior by assessing their responses to verbal statements depicting aggressive or prosocial behavior. Each recorded statement by a child was preceded by an adult's explanatory statement describing the circumstances and identifying the child's sex and age. Although results concerned a number of variables, discussion is restricted to developmental issues. Parents judged aggressive behavior of older children as more serious than the same act by younger children. Overall the findings suggested that most parents change parenting strategies as the child undergoes developmental changes. Age related changes in children are important considerations that should be included in the understanding of parental behavior. The characteristics of both parents and their children contribute to the ultimate relationship that emerges. For example, three year olds can be said to be in the preoperational stage, the nine year olds in the concrete operational stage, and the six year old the transitional point between the two. Summarily, the preoperational child's thought is characterized by the irreversibility of the child's thinking and the ability to attend to limited amounts of information, two characteristics that are the static states of reality (Ginsburg and Opper, 1969). The concrete operational child focuses on several aspects of a situation simultaneously, is sensitive to transformations, and can reverse the direction of thinking (Ginsburg and Opper, 1969). 57 Moveover, as the child moves into the concrete operational stage, the child develops the ability to inhibit or withhold immediate responses to situations, permitting more thoughtful responses to be made (White, 1965). The six year old is moving toward a higher level of cognitive functioning, consequently much of the behavior vacillates between the two periods of thought (Ginsburg and Opper, 1969). The link between cognitive process and the social realm has been made by Shantz (1975) in a comprehensive review. This area termed social cognition refers to the, "child's intuitive or logical representation of others, that is how lwacharacterizescmiers and makes inferences about their convert, inner psychological experiences " (p. 258). Based on those inferences the child acts and reacts to the social world. The consequences of such inference will, in part, be the result of the child's level of social understanding. For example, young children attended to highly observable, salient, surface cues of people and situations, e.g., they often used appearance and possessions of the person (Livesley and Bromley, 1973). This is consistent with Piaget's findings with regard to preschool children's attention to the surface cues of physical objects and events. On the other hand, older children, i.e., eight years old, demonstrated substantial changes in ways they describe people. Their descriptions were more often in terms of habits, dispositions, values, beliefs and traits, i.e., they 58 were more abstract descriptions based on regularities in behavior of others across time and situations (Peevers and Secord, 1973). Despite the importance of social cognition, very little work has been undertaken to investigate the developmental differences in children's perceptions of parental child-rearing practices beyond mere description (Appel, 1979). Parental standards have to be perceived and assimilated by children over time. Children must accommodate themselves progressively to these standards in order to internalize then to the extent they will increasingly guide their behavior in the absence of external restraints. What is to be perceived is not matter, length or volume as in Piaget's classic experiments, but the essential intent of parental behavior on the child's actions. Based on Piaget's theory and Shantz's conceptualization, one can hypothesize that understanding of intent would be difficult until egocentrism diminishes. The significant development according to Piaget (1962) is the discovery of intentionality coincident with the attainment of concrete operations. Until this occurs the child's grasp of the "system of relationship governing the imposition of social constraints by adults will be inadequate" (p. 189—190). The child's perceptions not only govern social restraints, but the understanding of emotions (Borke, 1971; Shantz, 1975) and role taking skills (Rubin, 1978). Increasingly age merely serves as a marker for the maturing abilities to create order out of the increasingly 59 complex social world. Social competency reflects this ability to attain relevant social goals using appropriate meansvflfixfliresult in positive developmental outcomes (Ford, 1982). Urban/Rural Factors in Parent/Child Relationships There is considerable disagreement among social scientists concerning the importance of the rural/urban distinction in modern societies (Glenn and Hill, 1977). At least three distinctive VieWpoints have some prominence. The first, best exemplified by Wirth (1938), posited direct universal effects of density, population, and heterogeneity on important aspects of social structure, culture and personality. The second position promoted by Dewey (1960) posited few if any social, cultural or personality characteristics that are specific to a rural/urban residence. Lastly, Fisher (1975) proposed an intermediate viewpoint. Whereas pOpulation size, density and heterogeneity do not have such far reaching effects as proposed by Wirth, they are conducive to innovation and unconventional wisdom. Each position represents a distinct viewpoint that might lead to extensive research investigating such differences. However, this is not the case. The area of parent child relations is almost non-existent in comparative analysis of rural and urban families (Schiamberg, 1981; Newberger and Cook, 1983). Using size 60 of community as an independent variable Glenn and Hill (1977) examined existing survey data, including census and Gallup polls, regarding differences in beliefs and behaviors. The only parenting data invloved, concerned sexual issues, i.e., premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexuality, and the ideal family size. Additional rural/urban analyses were conducted to examine recreation participation (Hendee, 1969), marital happiness and satisfaction (Thorton-Stahura, 1976), day care (Olsen, 1977) and care—givers (Conklin, 1980). This paucity of research in which rural/urban families were investigated is exemplified by two recent studies (Schiamberg, 1981; Newberger and Cook, 1983). Neither study cited one rural/urban investigation that might relate to their research. Furthermore, only the Schiamberg study has relevance for the present analysis. Although Newberger and Cook looked at both rural and urban populations, they did not compare the two groups directly. Rural samples were compared with controls as were the urban samples, therefore the differences they found related to controls. Despite this methodological shortcoming ignoring direct rural/urban comparisons, consensus of results was attained. The findings indicated that awareness of developmental issues was related to a decrease in child abuse in both rural and urban samples. Schiamberg (1981) examined rural and urban differences item by item. More specifically, each question on the measures used, i.e., parent behavior inventory and social 61 competency scales, represented a variable. Differences were found between rural and urban families, however, these differences related to particular questions. Very few behaviors were significantly related to social competency in either the rural or urban sampbe. mezreneining type of rural/urban research examined either a rural or urban sample separately (Christopherson, 1980; Bigner and Jacobson, 1980). Problems of comparability of sample, operationalization of concepts and varying procedures make comparisons of such studies a dubious venture at best. It is readily apparent that rural/urban analysis of parenting is almost nonexistent. With the exception of Schiamberg's (1981) seminal work, very little has been undertaken to remedy this gap. If the rural/urban distinction is of diminishing importance (Glenn and Hill, 1977), such a conclusion must be based on some empirical evidence. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Subjects The subjects were one hundred eighty children and their parents. Parents included mothers and fathers for both rural and urban samples. Families were matched as closely as possible on family income, husband and wife occupations, husband and wife age and husband and wife education. Families were selected using school district rolls. Families who met the criteria were sent a letter of inquiry plus a cover letter provided by the school districts. The criteria were as follows (see Screening questions in Appendix A for exact terminology and organization): Respondents must have lived in the area for two or more years. Both mother and father had to be present and both having continuously raised the target child from age one onward. There must have been no diagnosed developmental handicap and an expressed willingness to participate must have been received. Finally, confirmation of child characteristics, i.e., sex, age, and current educational level, was ascertained. Those families who replied were called and were included in the study if they met the appropriate criteria. Sixty children from middle class families were randomly selected from each age group of three, six and nine year olds. Half of the children were from urban areas and half 62 63 from rural areas. Areas defined as urban by the census definition and selected for study were Lansing and Holt townships of Ingham County, Michigan. More specifically, urban included all persons living in urbanized areas and all persons living in places of 40,000 inhabitants or more incorporated as cities, villages, boroughs and towns, but excluding those persons living in the rural portions of extended cities. Rural areas were defined as any that are not urban by the census definition. The city of Lansing (population, 140,000) is bordered by Holt which is considered part of the metropolitan area. The Lansing, Holt townships are predominated by three major employed groups: 1) state government, 2) Michigan State University and 3) the auto industry. As a further criterion no county was used in which average population was more than one hundred persons per square mile. The mean ages for the urban children were as follows: three year olds were 3 years 6 months, six year olds were 6 years 4 months and nine year olds were 9 years 4 months. The mean ages for the rural sample were: three year olds were 3 years 3 months, six year olds were 6 years 3 months and nine year olds were 9 years 4 months. Instruments Demographic Information— Demographic data were derived from a section of the Revised Kansas Home Interview Scale (Appendix A). Questions included family size, ordinal position of the target child in the family, age and highest 64 level of education attained by each parent, primary occupation of each parent and gross income of each family. Social Competency— Social competency was measured using the Iowa Social Competency Scale (ISCS) (Appendix A) developed by Pease, Clark and Crase (1982). Both the school age form and the preschool form of the ISCS were behavioral rating scales administered to parents. Reliability estimates were computed using the Spearman—Brown formula. Construct validity was examined using a multitrait—multimethod matrix. Both construct validity and reliability estimates were done by Pease et al. (1982) at Iowa State University. Typical behavior of average or normal children as they function within the family environment was measured by the scales. The ratings were based on overt behavior observed by parents. Either a preschool form or a school age form was completed by the parents depending on the age of the child. Sixty items on the preschool form and fifty items on the school age form focused on the social development of children. For example, items on the preschool form included such questions as: Does the child Verbalize his wants?, Does the child try new things when playing by himself? Examples of questions on the school age form were: Does the child persist at tasks that appear hard for him? Does the child slam doors to release anger? Generally, the items tended to descibe a child's behavior in a variety of social situations involving parents and other adults, brothers and sisters, and neighborhood and school friends. 65 The premise for rating the scales was within the context of the typical behavior of an average child in a family situation. Only one child at one time was to be rated, and in general, only the behavior of that child during the month prior to the rating is considered. In this way, parents tended to avoid rating behavior that was atypical and the referent behavior is standardized in time for all parents. The ratings occur within the framework of the parents' own experience with the child. In this way opinions and evaluations of others do not enter into the ratings. Furthermore, ratings were based on observed overt behavior rather than interpretations of feelings or thoughts. Five factors were derived from the sixty items of the preschool form and seven factors from the school age form (Pease et al., 1982). Pease and her associates labeled the preschool factors social activator, hypersensitivity, reassurance, uncooperativeness and cooperativeness. The school age factors were labeled task orientation, leadership, disruption, affection, capability and defiance. Ratings for each item range from 1—99 with 1 representing behavior that is almost never seen and 99 representing behavior that is almost always seen. A rating of 50 indicates that the parent does not know if his or her child displays the behavior described in the item more or less than the average child. This type of scale developed by Wolins and Dickinson (1973) is justified in that it produces scores which better 66 meet the assumptions of classical scaling theory. More specifically, the 1 to 99 ratings are used as if they are cumulative proportions. This format produces better dicrimination for item analysis, such as Schiamberg (1981) had done. When items are added to form a composite, the differences between a 1 to 5 format and a 1 to 99 format dissipate. Consequently, the use of factor scores in the present study precluded a 1 to 99 scale. Statistically, the use of a 1 to 99 scale with factor scores merely created cumbersome scores to analyze (Pease et al., 1982; Wolins and Dickinson, 1973). Parental Style- Child rearing practices were assessed using the Iowa Parent Behavior Inventory (IPBI). Parental behavior in relation to a child was measured by this scale which is based on separate forms for mothers and fathers. Ratings were based on each parent's perception of personal behavior. For example, items on the parent inventory included such questions as: "To what extent do you explain to your child, when (s)he behaves in an unacceptable way, your reasons for not approving that kind of behavior?, Hold, pat or hug your child?" Each of the thirty-six items represented an actual behavioral situation. Five factors were derived from the individual items: 1) parental involvement, 2) limit setting, 3) immediacy of assistance, 4) reasoning guidance, and 5) intimacy. Scores for mothers and fathers were obtained for each of the five factors. The same factor scores were then 67 combined for each mother/father pair to produce an average score. This average score then became the unit of analysis for parent behavior. This averaging of parental scores was similar to the procedure used by Abedor (1983). Ratings were based on a 1 to 99 scale in which 1 indicated that the parent almost always never behaved that way and 99 indicated that the parent almost always behaved that way. A rating of 50 indicated that the parent behaved that way about half the time or was not sure how often he or she behaves that way. Design Behavior for each child ascertained using the social competency scale. Parent behavior was based on the IPBI for each parent separately, then converted to an average score for the five factors of each mother/father pair. The resulting design included three levels of child age — 3, 6, 9 and two levels of setting — rural and urban (Table 1). Dependent measures included social competency and child rearing behavior of parents. TABLE 1 Design of Present Study Age Urban Rural* N N 3 year olds 30 26 6 year olds 30 26 9 year olds 30 27 *Seven of the rural subjects were dropped due to subsequent failure to meet criteria. 68 Procedure Each parent was administered the IPBI separately, while parents completed the social competency scale together. Order of presentation of the two instruments was counter— balanced, so that the competency scale was administered first half the time and IPBI first half the time. Age of child was randomized so that one age did not show order effects. Demographic data were gathered first for all participants. Direct contact was made with both parents by a graduate assistant. Both the ISCS and the IPBI were completed in the home of the families. The ISCS took approximately twenty minutes, while both the mother and father forms of the IPBI took about twenty five minutes. The parents were grouped according to style based on their high/low median split on the five parent factors. A combined parent score was derived using a technique similar to Abedor (1983). The mother and father scores of each family for each of the five factors were summed and divided by two. This mean score reflected a combined parent score that was the unit of analysis. Based on these combined scores, parents were ranked using a median split. This ranking procedure was the same as that used by Baumrind (1967, 1971, 1973). Parents were classified as authoritarian if they scored below the median on all five factors. Authoritative parents were those who scored above the median on all five parent factors. Parents who scored above the 69 median on intimacy and immediacy of assistance and below the median on limit setting, reasoning guidance and parental involvement were classified as permissive. There were 36 authoritative parental pairs, 39 authoritarian parental pairs and only three permissive parental pairs. The remainder of the sample was unclassified by type (n = 91). Analysis of the data included least squares factor analysis, Pearson product-moment correlations, t~tests, analysis of variance and stepwise regression. Factor analysis was used for the parent behavior inventory. Correlations were run with parent factors and child factors to determine the relationship between social competency and specific parenting behaviors. Following the overall correlations, the same analyses were run for the three age groups separately. The same was done for rural/urban groups. A series of t-tests were run for each of the five parent factors, between the three and six year olds, the three and nine year old group and the six and nine year old group. T—tests were also used for rural/urban comparisons. Finally, stepwise regression equations were run for each of the twelve child social competency factors to determine the relative contribution of each parent factor. Separate analyses, i.e., ANOVA, were also undertaken for the two groups of parents that were typed authoritarian (n = 39) or authoritative (n = 36). The limited number (3) 70 of permissive parents precluded their participation in the analysis. Examination of age differences, rural/urban differences of levels of social competency was done using AN OVA . CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Factor Description Initially, a factor analysis was performed for the Iowa Parent Behavior Inventory (IPBI). The factor analysis for the IPBI resulted in five factors for both the mother and the father forms of the scale. These factors were the same as the ones found by Clark et al. (1981) in their use of the instrument. The factors included: 1) 2) 3) 4) Parental involvement - described a parent that is actively involved with the child. The parent physically helped the child with various tasks, involved themselves with the child's activities, played with the child and facilitated the child's problem solving despite the fact the parent may be involved elsewhere. Limit setting — described a parent that consistently and explicitly sets limits and enforced them in like fashion. Consequently, predictablility was a characteristic of this parent. Immediacy of assistance — desribed a parent whose response latency to the child's needs was relatively brief. Parents may interrupt their ongoing behavior to respond to expressed or implicit needs. Reasoning gpidance - described a parent who used reasoning to help the child understand his/her behavior and learn acceptable behavior including the reasons for acceptable or unacceptable behavior. The child's emotions were supported and consideration for the reasoning of both parent and child was considered. 5) Intimacy — described the parent who was openly affectionate physically and encouraged positive verbal expressions in the child. This inclination to openly express affection extended to situations when others were present. 71 72 Factor scores were calculated for each parent. These scores were then combined to produce an average score reflecting a parent measure (Abedor, 1983) rather than individual mother and father scores. The non—additive qualities of the scale, prevented the derivation of a global measure that included the five factors. A factor analysis was attempted with the ISCS, however, assumptions of factor analysis require three to four times the number of subjects to variables, i.e., items on the scales (Stapleton, 1983).* Consequently, factors were the same as those used by Pease et al. (1982). Based on their use with the ISCS and the present author's analysis, the following five factors were deducted for the preschool form of the ISCS. 1) Social activator - described children who were socially acceptable to others. They tended to be initiators and interacted freely with others in a variety of situations. They not only understood instructions but were able to give instructions and explanations for others to follow. In essence, they were contributing and involved members of their family, school and neighborhood. 2) Hypersensitivity - described behavior with emotional overtones. Children who scored high on this behavior were easily upset by teasing. They often were unable to cope effectively with accidents and often misbehaved in structured situations. 3) Reassurance — children who scored high on this factor were outgoing and accepting of others, including unfamiliar people. They joined children they were unfamiliar with and responded positively to contacts initiated by strange adults. They are comfortable in situations unfamiliar to them, needing little or no support from parents in close proximity. *Stapleton, J. Personal communication regarding statistical analyses. Michigan State University, June 6, 1983. 73 4) Uncooperativeness - described children who have difficulty in sharing with others. Their ability to sustain involvement in an activity was often short and often they demanded their way in activities with others. This demanded quality also manifested itself with parents. 5) Cooperativeness - described children who were aware of others and responded positively to interaction with them. They cooperated with other children, allowed others to join while also able to follow the lead of others. Self satisfaction was an important component of this factor manifested in their satisfaction with achievement. Cooperation with and consideration for others were characteristics of children scoring high on this factor. The school age form of the ISCS was comprised of the following seven factors. 1) Task Orientation — described children who were oriented to their world. They persevered in tasks and were able to communicate or share their activities, thoughts and ideas. Children who scored high on this factor were able to relate personal experiences imaginatively and creatively and to use verbal skills in relating to others. 2) Leader ~ described children that were able to initiate activities that others followed. Children and adults were often willing to accept their ideas and/or suggestions. They were able to make informed decisions based upon information relative to the situation. 3) Disruption — described children who demonstrated a lack of consideration and respect for others. They tended to center on themselves, showing little or no regard for the rights of others and often must be the center of attention. 4) Affection to Parent - described children who enjoyed being with their parents. They were able to express affection to their parents easily and look forward to activities they can share. In essence they enjoyed parental companionship and were open and warm in their relationship with their parents. 5) Capable - described children who were positive and problem solving oriented. These children enjoyed exploring new things and ideas. Furthermore, they were able to amuse themselves for extended periods 74 of time and initiate activities on their own. They were more aware of their needs and often shared their activities with parent and peers. 6) Defiance - described behavior that has negative emotional overtones. They tended to respond to pressures for conformity by overt negative physical and verbal behavior. They did not like being corrected, often complained about not having their own way. They reacted to limits by sulking or expressing anger or becoming defiant. They usually had poor self-concepts represented by their negative statements about themselves and others. 7) Apprehension - described children's ability to cope with anxiety. Children who scored high on this factor were concerned about the correctness of their behavior, appeared sensitive to criticism and were often disturbed when corrected in a given situation. Following Baumrind's (1971, 1973) procedure median scores were obtained on each parent factor to better discriminate parental style. Parents were ranked high or low on each factor depending on their position above and below the median. Unlike Baumrind and others (Becker, 1964; Martin, 1975), analyses in this study were undertaken using a combined parent score. The resulting median split produced two distinct parental styles and one large group that demonstrated no consistent pattern. The first group, roughly corresponding to the authoritative parental style scored high on all the parent factors (n = 36). The second group which scored low on all five parent factors was comparable to Baumrind's authoritarian parental style (n = 39). The remaining parents (n = 91) demonstrated no consistent pattern of high or low on the parent factors, 75 rather the variety of high/low combinations was so great that categorization was impossible. Only three parents corresponded to a permissive pattern. A variety of subsequent analyses were run to determine the relationship between parent factors and child social competency factors. The relative absence of permissive parents simplified the analyses considerably. Overall Relationship of Parent Factors and Social Competency :3) Initially, the data were analyzed using pearson product- - _,Ll.m_n_1 moment correlations to ascertain the overall relationship between the child's social competency and parental behaviors, i.e., factors. Separate analyses were then undertaken to test the specific hypotheses. Because the authoritative parent was defined as scoring high on all parent factors, it was expected that positive correlations would result with the following social competency factors: social activator, reassurance and cooperativeness for the preschool children, and task orientation, leader, affectionate and capable for the school age children. Negative correlations should exist for the remaining factors. Pearson product—moment correlations were run to determine the extent of association between the five parent factors and the twelve social competency factors (five preschool and seven school age). Overall correlations were run first, collapsing across age and setting for the school 76 age children. Preschool children were not included in this preliminary analysis as their social competency factors were different from the school age group. A number of significant correlations were found, although not always in the predicted directions (Table 2). The factor labeled parental involvement was positively correlated with all factors of the school age ISCS. Significant correlations were quite extensive, albeit accounting for very little of the variance. The factors disruption and apprehension denote low levels of social competency were positively associated with parental involvement. The second parent factor, limit setting, was also positively related with a number of child factors. Although statistical significance was high in many cases, significance was quite low. The trend held thoughout. All child factors were associated with limit setting except for the factor labeled defiant which showed no relationship. The school age form also showed a positive correlation between limit setting and the disruption factor, a relationship that was in the opposite direction expected. Significant correlations were revealed between the third parent factor, immediacy of assistance, and five of the school age factors. Significant positive correlations ranged from r = .16 to r = .37. All correlations except defiance were positive, although it was predicted that those child factors denoting low social competence (disruption and apprehension) would show an inverse relationship. 77 ~00. V 9.42:, HO. V Qt, mo. VVQ¥ mHH u c ...am. 00» aanm. ..afim. FGH. an. OH. suaeflbaH aaemm. NOE saefim. aaVN. mo. 50. ¥¥©N. OUQMUHSO GCHQmemm asahm. OO. aaeom. *shm. assam. NO. «OH. OUQmumHmm¢ MO hUMHUOEEH *«aom. mo. aaVN. saaom. aha. amfi. aha. GCHmem DHEHQ asamm. mo. «*amm. seam. emH. s00. aha. DCOEO>HO>CH Hmwfiwhmm coflmconoumm< oUCmHmom oanmmmu coflpoommd :oflumdumflm Hopmoq sofipmpcofluo xmme Hepumm om< HOOSUm uowumm uconmm mMOUOme adage one muowumm Hmpcoumm Cwo3pmm mcofipmawuuoo Hamuo>o N mflmdB 78 The fourth parent factor, reasoning guidance, produced four significant correlations with the school age factors, task orientation, affection, capable and apprehension. Three of the four relationships were in the predicted direction, with the one exception being apprehension. Intimacy, the final parent factor under investigation was positively correlated with five school age factors. The child factors labeled affection, capable and apprehension were all highly significant, p<<.0001. The fourth factor disruption produced a much lower correlation, r = .16, p><105, accounting for very little of the variance. Again, only two of the child factors were in the predicted direction. The preliminary correlational data maintained this trend of unexpected results throughout the correlational analyses. Although a majority of the relationships between parent factors and social competency were in the predicted direction, the negative components of social behavior did not follow prediction. Correlations were expected to be negative. This was particularly true of the school age factor apprehension and the preschool age factor of uncooperativeness which will be presented later. Relationship Between Parent Factors and Social Competency by Age of Child Further correlational analyses were run as a discriminating variable. As expected from the overall result, age was correlated with a number of variables, with the six year old group showing the greater number of significant correlations. 79 Data for the three year olds were significantly correlated with three of the five factors on the preschool form of the social competency scale (Table 3). Parental involvement was significantly correlated with the following factors: social activator, uncooperativeness, cooperativeness. The uncooperativeness factor was not in the predicted direction, although the remaining two factors were. The parental factor of limit setting was associated with the same social competency factors, with coefficients ranging from r = .22 to r = .28, p<(.05. All correlations were positive. Similar results were found for immediacy of assistance; correlations ranged from r = .21 to r = .25, p<.05. The last two parent factors reasoning guidance and intimacy were associated with only two (uncooperativeness and cooperativeness) and one (cooperativeness) social competency factors, respectively. The greatest number of significant correlations were found for the six year old group (Table 4). Moreover, this group of coefficients were with few exceptions highly significant in the statistical sense (p<.01). Parent-a1 involvement was associated with all child factors except the factor labeled defiance. Correlation coefficients ranged from .21 to .44. All were positive correlations. The factors labeled task oriented, leader, affection and capable were all in the predicted direction. The remaining two factor, disruption and apprehension, were not. 80 HO.VQ««. mo. VQ¥ Gm H C .mm. as. mo. mop so. suaeHUeH evm. Fem. HA. mo. ma. mucmeaso amazommmm aHN. «mm. mH. Ho. «Hm. oucmpmflmmd mo homeoEEH .mm. .mm. so. RH. .mm. meabbmm pagan wmm. w«mm. ma. no. *nm. Demao>ao>cH Hmbcmumm mmoeo>flpm wmoco>flpm oUCMHSmwmom >DH>HuHmcom uowm>euo< luomoou IMOQOOUCD luomhm Hmfluom Mooomm CHHSU nepumm pneumm AOHO name» wounpv muouomm UHHSU pew mucoumm Hmucwumm cmw3umm m£OHpmHmhuoo m mqmflfi 81 HOO. V Q33; HO.V Q.«.¢ m0. V Q», Om H C mo. NUmEHpCH *VN. wUCmUHSD mcflcommmm ***mm. mucmumflmmfi mo momHUwEEH *vm. mcflppwm pfleflq *ow. pcwEm>Ho>cH Hmucmumm coflmconwumm< mUCMflmmm manmmmo Cofluommmd Goflpmsuwfla Hmnqu coflpmpswfiuo nouumm naflno xmme MOpUmm pcmnmm Avao Maw» xflmv wuouumm UHflSU cam wuowumm Hmucwnmm :mm3pwm mcoflumawuuoo V mdm<fi 82 The second parent factor, limit setting, was significantly correlated with five of the child factors. Positive correlations in the expected direction were obtained for task orientation, affection and capable child factors. Despite prediction of an inverse relationship for the apprehension and disruption dimensions of the child's social competency, significant positive correlations were obtained, r = .46, p(.OOl; r = .24, p<.03, respectively. Immediacy of assistanoefollowedtle trends of the previous two parental factors, resulting in highly significant correlations for almost all child factors on the social competency scales. Correlations ranged from r = .21 to r = .46. Four of the coefficients were the predicted direction while the coefficients for disruption and apprehension were opposite from the expected direction. As in the overall correlational analysis, factors began to drop out for the last two parental scores (reasoning guidance and intimacy). The fourth, reasoning guidance, was significantly associated with four of the factors on the social competency scales. Three of the four were in the predicted direction, the one exception being the apprehension child factor, r = .35, p<(.001. Factors labeled task orientation, affection and capable were all significantly related to the reasoning guidance factor on the parent inventory. The final parent factor considered was intimacy. Two highly significant correlations were shown for the 83 child factors of capable and apprehension resulting in the following correlations, r = .32, p(.008; r = .34, p<.OO4, respectively. The parental factor scores for the nine year olds demonstrated a different pattern of association (Table 5). Unlike the other two age groups, parental involvement was associated with only one indice of social competency, apprehension, r = .24, pw<.03. Again this result runs counter to the hypothesized direction as a high score on this factor denotes a less socially competent child. The second parental factor, limit setting, was significantly correlated with two factors on the child's social competency scale. The dimension labeled capablexm“;;‘ produced a coefficient of, r = .25, p(.02, while apprehension resulted in a value of r = .23, p«<.03. The factors of immediacy of assistance, reasoning guidance and intimacy were associated with greater numbers of factors on the social competency scale, although none of the parental factors demonstrated as pervasive an association as for other age groups. Three child factors were associated with the parent factor, immediacy of assistance. Correlations ranged from, r = .29, p<.01 to r = .34, p(.OO4. Only one coefficient was in the predicted direction, the dimension labeled affection. The importance of reasoning guidance for nine year olds is demonstrated by the greater number of child factors associated with this parent factor. Task 84 *aavv. no. *«hm. aaamv. 0H. aamm. NO. aaam. *HN. mo. ¥«Vm. HO.I PH. abm. aamm. *MN. mo.l *mN. ON. 00. www. 50. ma. OH. 00. HH. No.1 mH.I Va. 00.1 So. V 9:... 8. Va... m0. VVQ¥ Wm H S Ma. hUmEHuQH wow. wUCmUHSO mcflzommwm vo.l monopmflmm< mo homHUmEEH OH. mcfluumm pagan mo. pcwEo>Ho>cH Hmpcoumm coflmconmummé wocmflmwm manmmmo coflpowmm< coflumiuwflo wammq coflumucwfluo uouumm oaflso xmme Houomm unmumm Apao mummm mcflcv muouomm UHHQU UCm mnouomm Hmpcwumm cmwkuwm mcoflumamuuoo m mqm<9 85 orientation, affection, capable and apprehension were all significantly correlated with reasoning guidance. All but the apprehensive factor, r = .29, p<.01 were in the predicted direction. The final factor, termed intimacy, revealed three significant correlations. These three correlations produced the highest coefficients for the nine year old subgroup. Again the apprehension factor was opposite the predicted direction. Rural/Urban Location as a Factor The final correlational analyses were performed using the rural/urban dimension as a differentiating factor. Unlike the age variable, few significant relationships resulted. Only three parent factors were associated with child factors for the urban sample (Table 6). Furthermore, not one preschool factor was associated with any of the parental factors. The factors were often just significant (p .05). Parental involvement was linked to three child factors including affection, capable and apprehension. Coefficients were quite similar, r = .17 to r = .19, p<:.05. Immediacy of assistance and limit setting were the remaining factors producing significant coefficients, each demonstrating relationships with three child factors. Limit setting was correlated with the affection, capable and apprehension dimensions. Again correlations were quite similar. Likewise, immediacy of assistance produced three significant correlations. The disruption, affection and apprehension factors were responsible for the significant correlations. 86 0a. No. 0a. mo. mo. V0. a0. Ma. VO. Na. ma. 0a. mo. aa. ama. mo. Va. *ha. ca. aa. Ma. yON. Na. «ma. *ma. Va. Ma. ma. ama. ma. aha. awa. 0a. Va. Va. mO.UvQ* mhua‘a NUMEHMCH mocmpasw azacommmm mucmumammfl mo homapmfiEa acappmm pagaq quEo>ao>ca amucmumm COHmaSmHmm< pcmammm wanmmdo COauUmmm< COapmsumaQ Hmpmwa COHpmucwauo xmme uowumm paago Asmnusv wuouuwm oaaflo paw muouUmm amuzmumm cwmspmm mCOHpmawHMOO o mamdb MOpUmm pcwhmm 87 co. VO.I 00. 00. Ma. mo. 00. no. ¥mm. ha. «am. 0a. « *mm. Na. ha. ama. * ama. Na. ma. Ma. ao.l V0. ma. ma. a. Na. 00. mo. ma. ma. aa. 00. 0a. «.ma. «.ma. 0a. m0. VQ... om u : momEauQH mummpaso moacommom mocmumammd mo momap®EEH asauumm pagaa psoEo>ao>cH ampcmumm COamcoflwumm< unmamom maflmmmo mmeOHpummm4 COHumsumaQ Hmpmma COHuMpcmaHO uouumm vaazo Aamusuv muouomm Uaano UCm maowomm ampcmnmm Cwmkumm macapmamnuoo h made XmmB Houomm ucmnmm 88 The rural dimension had an equal number of significant correlations, although distributed somewhat differently (Table 7). With one exception, a relationship was revealed for only two parental factors with child social competency. The exception was parental involvement with the apprehension dimension, r = .19, p