 

} LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before due due.

  

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

" t H". :1 If“;

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
cmmHt

PARENT-ADOLESCENT RELATIONSHIPS
EXAMINED THROUGH
ENGAGEMENT STYLE (AGENT vs PATIENT)
AND LOCUS OF CONTROL
By

Nancy E. Hill

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1992

['373z

7
K,

6" 7

ABSTRACT

PARENT-ADOLESCENT RELATIONSHIPS EXAMINED THROUGH
ENGAGEMENT STYLE (AGENT VS PATIENT) AND LOCUS OF CONTROL

By

Nancy E. Hill

Locus of control (LOC) and engagement style (ES) were examined as
characteristics of parents and adolescents that could explain variations in parent-
adolescent relationships of minority families. These constructs could inﬂuence
parenting style and in turn the parent-adolescent relationship.

One hundred seventy-three ninth and eleventh grade students from four high
schools and college freshmen from a midwestern university participated. They
completed the engagement style questionnaire, family environment scale (FES), parent
authority questionnaire (FAQ) and Rotter’s LOC scale.

Older subjects scored more agent than the younger subjects on ES. College
freshmen scored more external than eleventh grade students. Mothers were rated as
more authoritative by college freshmen females than eleventh grade females. On the
FES, signiﬁcant correlations between adolescents and mothers became evident on
seven of the subscales, whereas with fathers only one subscale had a signiﬁcant
correlation. This surprising concordance between mothers‘ and adolescents’ views

deserves further investigation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported by a National Science Foundation Honorable Mention
Minority Graduate Fellowship Award (BNS #9016162).

I thank Dr. John P. McKinney for his guidance as I completed this study.
Thank you also to Dr. Hiram E. Fitzgerald and Dr. Ellen Strommen for their insights
and comments on both the proposal and ﬁnal thesis. I thank Mr. Roger Halley for his
invaluable assistance in the preparation of the proposal package for the National
Science Foundation.

My appreciation, also, goes to the teachers and principals at East, Lincoln
West, John Adams and Max Hayes High Schools of the Cleveland Public School
System for their cooperation in to asking their students to participate in this study. My
thanks go to the students and the parents who took the time to participate in this
study.

Finally, thank you to my mother for always being there for me and listening to

me during both the frustrating and exciting points of this process.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ................................................ vi
List of Figures ................................................ vii
Introduction ................................................. 1
Hypotheses .................................................. 10
Hypothesis Related to Age Differences ............................... 16
Method ..................................................... 17
Subjects ............................................... 17
Procedure .............................................. 17
Instruments ............................................. 19
Data Analysis .......................................... 23
Results ..................................................... 24
Preliminary Analyses ...................................... 24
Reliabilities ............................................. 24
Analyses for Differences Between Schools ....................... 29
Hypotheses for Engagement Style and Locus of Control ............. 32
Path Analyses ........................................... 34
Additional Analyses ....................................... 40

iv

Analyses of Parent Response ........................... 40

Engagement Style ................................... 45

Locus of Control .................................... 45

Parenting Style ..................................... 46

Parent-Adolescent Relationship .......................... 48

Discussion ................................................ . . . 50

Engagement Style ........................................ 50

Locus of Control ......................................... 54

Parenting Style .......................................... 56

Parent-Adolescent Relationship ............................... 58

Path Model Analyses ...................................... 61

References .................................................. 63

Appendix A: Letter to Parents .................................... 71

Appendix B: Telephone Script .................................... 74
Appendix C: Family Environment Scale

Description of the Subtests ............................. 76

Appendix D: References to Tables 2 and 3 ........................... 78

Story Completion Test .......................................... 79

Rotter’s I-E Scale ............................................. 91

Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) ............................. 96

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

LIST OF TABLES

Summary of Hypotheses 18

Comparison of means from this study with means from other studies
using the same measures for males 25

Comparison of means from this study with means from other studies
using the same measures for females 27

Reliabilities on all measures used based on
ninth and eleventh grade subjects 30

Correlations between student ratings and each parent rating on each
subscale of Moos’ Family Environment Scale 51

Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.

Figure 12.

LIST OF FIGURES

Path model for engagement style

Path model for locus of control

Age change for females on engagement style

Age comparisons for locus of control

Path analysis for college freshmen males on engagement style
Path analysis for 11th grade males on engagement style
Path analysis for 11th grade females on engagement style
Path analysis for 9th grade males on engagement style
Path analysis for 9th grade females on engagement style
Path analysis for 11th grade females for LDC

Path analysis for 9th grade males for LDC

Age progression on parent authoritativeness

vii

11

12

33

35

37

38

39

41

42

43

47

Introduction

Coleman (1978) claims that many of the theories of adolescence are
contradictory. The traditional notion emphasizes disruptions during adolescence. The
traditional notion follows from G. Stanley Hall’s (1904) biogenetic theory that
describes adolescence as a period during which conﬂict and difﬁculties are inevitable.
Hall’s theory was substantiated by school and juvenile court records and parental
testament of turbulence and conﬂict during adolescence.

However, many studies do not support this traditional notion of adolescent
development as tumultuous and reveal that with some teenagers, adolescence can be a
rather smooth transition. In her 1928 study of girls in Samoa, Margaret Mead
(1928/1961) was one of the ﬁrst to provide evidence that adolescence can be a
peaceful transition, at least in that culture. This led to the belief that perhaps the
period of adolescence is stressful only for adolescents in the modern western world.
But, Douvan and Adelson (1966) found that, even in the United States, adolescence
was not necessarily unduly stressful and that many adolescents ﬁnd the transition to
adulthood smooth. Also, Offer and Offer (1975) found that almost one quarter (23%)
of the boys in their study did not experience distress during adolescence. According to

the traditional theory of "storm and stress," conﬂict will be chronic in the parent-

2
adolescent relationship. J. A. Hall (1987) described parent-adolescent conﬂict by

stating that conﬂict originates from the unconscious mind of the adolescent.

Conﬂict is present in some families and not in others (Montemayor, 1983).
Furthermore, where conﬂict is present, its inﬂuence is not always the same from one
family to the next. Therefore, research is needed to understand why their are such vast
differences between families in describing the parent-adolescent relationship. Perhaps
the explanation of differences in parent-adolescent relationships does not lie in the
changes or goals of adolescent development, but in differences in personalities of the
parent and the adolescent. As adolescents become older and more independent, they
may, in fact, become more conﬁdent in stating their opinions on topics they discuss. If
the parent and adolescent differ in the way they address situations in general, this
difference may lead to more conﬂict.

Many of the studies of parent-adolescent relationships have focuwd on speciﬁc
aspects of the relationship e.g., conﬂict (e.g., Jacob, 1974, Montemayor, 1985, Robin,
1981), communication (e.g., Nydegger & Mittencss, 1988), or time spent together
(e.g., Montemayor, 1985). Rather than study the areas of communication and conﬂict
in the parent-adolescent relationship as has often been done, I will explore personality
constructs, i.e., engagement style and locus of control, that may underlie the styles of
communicating and negotiating in various interpersonal relationships including the
parent-adolescent relationship. The researcher assumes that engagement style can be
used to explain interactions between two individuals based on how each individual

perceives his or her interaction with the environment in general (McKinney, 1980).

3

Engagement style is the way an individual perceives his or her interactions
with the environment (McKinney, 1980). According to McKinney (1981), engagement
style can be thought of as a continuum, with two exuemes, "active agent" and
"reactive patient" and a central section labelled "communal." These styles can be
envisioned as forms of communication. The extremes can be thought of as
monologues. An active agent is one who perceives oneself as "doing" on the
environment or giving a monologue to his or her environment. A reactive patient is
one who perceives oneself as "being done to" by the environment or hearing a
monologue being given. The "communal" engagement style can be thought of as a
dialogue. A communal person is one who perceives oneself as both acting upon the
environment and being acted upon by the environment, which includes give and take,
hearing (being done to), and talking (acting upon).

Engagement style appears to be similar in some respects to the locus of control
concept. At ﬁrst examination it appears almost identical (active agentm'ntcrnal locus of
control; reactive patient=external). However, a closer examination reveals that it differs
in several areas (McKinney, 1981). First, an internally controlled person must not only
act on the environment but also perceive the effects of his or her actions. The active
agent engagement style refers only to the part of acting on the environment. In this
sense it is less complicated than locus of control. Second, engagement style refers
simply to the experience of oneself acting or being acted upon without reference to the
expected results. From this perspective, engagement style could develop prior to locus

of control.

4

Some evidence leads to the idea that locus of control could develop after
engagement style. Locus of control develops after social learning of the cause-effect
relationship of one’s actions takes place (Rotter, 1966). Tzuriel and Haywood (1985)
found that a child who is intrinsically motivated to explore and be curious about the
environment or act on the environment (active agent) becomes less intrinsic when he
or she is continually rewarded externally for such behaviors. Therefore the child
develops as an externally controlled person because his or her "agent" behavior is
rewarded externally. However, if the child’s "active agent" behavior continues without
external rewards then the child will develop to be internally motivated. Lewis and
Goldberg (1969) discussed the theory of generalized expectancy as it pertained to
locus of control and rewards for behavior. Rotter (1966), as cited in Lewis and
Goldberg’s work, claims that children form a generalized expectancy or an expectation
that their behaviors will elicit a reward. If children are rewarded from the outside they
will expect these external rewards each time they produce this behavior. However, if
the reward comes from the inside or if the child repeats the behavior because of his or
her own desire, then the child will not expect external rewards for these behaviors and
will be rewarded internally for the behavior. Therefore, the drive for the behavior is
internal or internally controlled.

Deci (1980) also discussed the effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation in this
regard. Locus of control is deﬁned as a generalized expectancy regarding the perceived
causal relationship between behavior and its consequences (N owicki & Strickland,

197 3; Rotter, 1966). Engagement style focuses solely on the perceived interaction

5

between the environment and a person, and does not concern itself with the
consequences of the action.

McKinney (1981) did not ﬁnd a correlation between locus of control and
engagement style (r = .01). But logically it follows that to be internally controlled
necessitates being an "agent" person. Thus it appears that there could be some
relationship between the two constructs, a relationship that warranted retesting. This
relationship was examined by considering both locus of control and engagement style.
A considerable amount of research has been done in the area of parent-child relations
and locus of connol (i.e. Galejs & Pease, 1986; Johnson & Kilmann, 1975; Krarnpen,
1989; Tzuriel &. Haywood, 1985; Yates, Kennelly, & Cox, 1975). The ﬁndings in
these studies seem to point to logical hypotheses concerning the effect of engagement
style on the parent-adolescent relationship as well.

Engagement style is a characteristic that can affect social interactions in all
aspects of a person’s life. Therefore, one might expect engagement style to possibly
explain interaction differences between parents and adolescents. Parents with
differing engagement styles may, in fact, have parenting styles that correspond to the
manner in which they interact with the environment. Galejs and Pease (1986) found
that different parenting practices are implemented by parents who are more self-
determined than parents who feel that event outcomes are determined by fate. The
former (self-determined parents) may be considered to be "agent" while the latter
(fate-controlled parents) appear to be more "patient." Parenting style has, in turn, been

found to affect the parent-adolescent relationship (Galejs & Pease, 1986), adolescents’

6
self-esteem (Buri, Louiselle, Misukanis, & Mueller, 1988) and adolescents school

performance (Dornbusch, Ritter Leiderman, Roberts & Fraleigh, 1987).

Researchers studying the parent-adolescent relationship have focused upon
patterns of communication and interactions between the parent and the adolescent; and
they have used these patterns to examine various facets of the parent-adolescent
relationship. Few studies have examined how each person in the relationship perceives
his or her interactions with the environment, in general, and how this general style of
interacting affects the speciﬁc relationship between the parent and the adolescent.

General characteristics of one’s relationships or style of relating to others can
be considered personality characteristics that are relatively stable and comparable from
one relationship to another. Wish, Deutsch, and Kaplan (1976) concluded that different
relationships can be compared to one another because certain common characteristics
can be present in more than one relationship. These characteristics can be explored and
identiﬁed by examining how each person in a relationship relates to the other and to
the environment in general. Gjerde (1986) claims that the quality of one relationship
can inﬂuence and in turn be inﬂuenced by other relationships. Researchers showed that
the quality of the marital relationship affects the parent-child relationship. For
example, Farrington (1978) found that the onset of marital disturbances tends to
precede the development of aggression in the adolescent children. Burrnan, John and
Margolin (1987) found that parents’ marital satisfaction was positively associated with
child adjustment. Howes and Markman (1989) found that even the premarital quality

of communication between parents can be associated with autonomous behavior in

7
their children. Belsky (1981) stressed the importance of the marital relationship for

effective parenting.

Montemayor (1986) found that conﬂict varies in families by social context
(e.g., economic conditions, length of time that adolescents are dependent on their
parents) , family structure (e.g., family size, single and step parents) and style of
interaction (e.g., communication, problem-solving styles, exchange of positive and
negative behavior). Robin (1981) found that training families to solve problems
effectively reduced conﬂict and its negative effect. Findings such as these still do not
fully explain why only some families have conﬂict problems and others do not. This
study examined engagement style and locus of control as personality characteristics
that may affect the family environment as a whole.

Some studies examine a speciﬁc aspect of the nature of the relationship itself.
By examining personality consn'ucts like engagement style and locus of control, one
can explore (1) the individual’s perceptions of a social event or interaction and (2) the
underlying basis for the way a given individual interacts in social situations. These
points can be studied by examining one’s perception of his or her interactions with the
environment both through perceived inﬂuence and intentions. Speciﬁcally, this study
examined how engagement style and locus of control relate to the various interactions
within the parent-adolescent relationship. Instead of examining one of the traditional
dimensions of a relationship, such as conﬂict or communication style, and using it to
explain the relationship, the researcher used a personality variable (e.g., engagement
style or locus of control) to explain why these traditional dimensions vary from one

family to another.

8

This study focused on how differences in engagement style and locus of
control inﬂuenced many of the characteristics of the adolescent-parent relationship.
Perhaps by examining differences in personality characteristics such as these, one can
begin to explain variation and contradictions, suggested by Coleman (1978), in
theories of adolescence. Engagement style can be a means of exploring the parent-
adolescent relationship in a manner somewhat different from earlier studies.

How parents and adolescents relate to one another is important because this
relationship plays a key role in the adolescent’s overall development. The parent- child
relationship has been shown to affect all aspects of child development. Burman, John,
and Margolin (1987) found that when the warmth in the parent-chﬂd relationship is
taken into account, the relationship between marital problems and child behavior
problems were found only for mother’s perception of boys. Frick, Lahey, Hartdagen,
and Hynd (1989) found that children’s own rating of adjustment is related directly to
the parent-child relationship. They concluded that an effective parent-child relationship
may buffer the impact of divorce or a distressed marital relationship. Cooper,
Grotevant, and Condon (1983) found that adolescents in a supportive family are better
able to develop and express their own opinions, which leads to individuation. From
information on child-rearing practices, one can signiﬁcantly predict the majority of
personality variables on the high school personality questionnaire, such as self-
sufficiency, conformity, and withdrawal (Barton, Dielrnan, & Cattell, 1977). Bell and
Bell (1982) stress the importance of interactive communication between parents and

adolescents in the development of an adaptive self.

9
Hunter and Youniss (1982) argue that building a mutually reciprocal

relationship that allows for exposure to loyalty, empathy, trust, and morality is what
leads to adolescent social development. Garbarino, Sebes, and Schellenbach (1984)
found that children at risk for destructive parent-child relations are less socially
competent and have developmental problems. Also, Hill (1980) proposed that security
in the family relationship can promote competency in the child by allowing that child
to become involved in activities outside the family. These outside activities can foster
the development of identity. These studies show the importance of the parent-
adolescent relationship to adolescent development.

The impact of engagement style and locus of control on the parent-adolescent
relationship as examined in this study is shown in Figures 1 and 2 respectively. I
predicted ﬁnding an indirect relationship between engagement style and the parent-
adolescent relationship mediated by parenting style. I anticipate ﬁnding the same
indirect relationships for locus of control and the parent-adolescent relationship. A
measure of the family environment was used to assess the quality of the parent-
adolescent relationship. I also predicted that this relationship is directly affected by the
parenting style (as deﬁned by Baumrind, 1971) which is in turn affected by the
parent’s engagement style or locus of control and the child’s engagement style or
locus of control. Engagement style was measured by two variations of McKinney’s
(1990) engagement style measures for college students. One variation consisted of a
form for high school students and another for adults. The initial measure, used by
McKinney (1980), was a semi-projective technique. More recently, McKinney (1990)

constructed a story completion measure for college students and adults.

10

Locus of control was measured by Rotter’s (1966) locus of control measure (I-
E Scale). Parenting Style was measured according to adolescent perception. Brook,
Whiteman, Gordon, Brenden, and Jinishian (1980) found that adolescents’ perception
of maternal behavior was quite similar to the mothers’ perception of their own
behavior, and as Buri, Louiselle, Misukanis, and Mueller (1988) state, "the actual
parental behavior to which an individual has been exposed will effect that individual
to the extent and in the way that he or she perceives that behavior." The adolescents’
perception of their parents, child-rearing practices were measured by the parent
authority questionnaire (PAQ) (Buri, 1989). The quality of the parent-adolescent

relationships was examined using the family environment scale (FES) (Moos, 1974).

Hypotheses
The engagement style model for this study is presented in Figure 1. In Figure
2, includes the model for locus of control. The following shows the relationship
predicted between each variable shown in the models.
Mother’s Parenting Style ----->
Parent-Adolescent Relationship
Father’s Parenting Style ----->
Parent-Adolescent Relationship
Parenting Style was expected to be directly related to the family environment.
Yee and Flanagan (1985) found that children from high authoritarian family
environments were more concerned about being scrutinized when amongst peers than

children from authoritative or permissive families. They concluded that families with

11

33» 32539.8 .8 .32: 5am .p 052“.

 

 

23¢ 95:an
3.2.8...

 

 

 

9:23:39
«503.com
Lacuna

 

 

 

25¢

28833.3
92303.3(

 

 

 

 

23»
255335
9353.

 

 

 

 

.3» mczcoamo
c.3522

 

 

23.»
2580895

9552,.

 

 

 

12

.8230 .o goo. .8. .255 5nd .N 2:2“.

 

.2280

 

 

23» 95:23
9.2.3“.

.0 once.

 

93003.3(

 

 

 

 

 

 

3:23:32
EoceoBoe
Leeann

 

 

 

 

.223
.o «:00.

93:3“.

 

 

 

 

.3» 95:23
c.3505.

.9230
Lo 300.

4/f 9.5522

 

 

 

 

 

 

13

high parental control may make the child more self conscious by being overly
concerned about the child’s conformity to external rules. Authoritarian parenting style,
because of its dictorial and controlling characteristics, was going to lead to fewer
adolescent contributions to the family environment (Buri et al., 1988). Therefore this
environment and the parent-adolescent relationship would have been less cohesive and
expressive, but more controlling.

In contrast, authoritative parenting styles led to family environments that were
characterized by the encouragement of autonomous behavior or independent decision-
making. This type of environment conveys to the child that he or she is worthy of
trust; in this family environment, parents placed more emphasis on independent
decision making and less on the compliance with decisions made by others. Nunn and
Parish (1980) found that children reared by permissive parents tended to develop less
self-esteem. Buri et a1. (1988) found that the mother’s authoritativeness was positively
related to child’s self-esteem.

Authoritarianism, as measured by Buri’s Parent Authority Questionnaire, in
both parents was expected to be negatively related to the following subscales on the
FES: expressiveness and independence. Authoritarianism was expected to be positively
related to the control subscale.

Autiroritativeness in both parents was expected to be positively related to the
cohesion, expressiveness, independence and organization subscales of the FES.

Permissive parenting styles are predicted to be positively related to the conﬂict

subscale and negatively to the control, organization, and cohesiveness subscales.

l4

Adolescent’s Engagement Style -----> Parenting Style
Adolescent’s Locus of Control -----> Parenting Style

The effects of engagement style on child-rearing practices have not been
researched. The effect of engagement style on parenting style was expected to be
similar to that of locus of control. This expectation was based on the notion that
engagement style is a possible precursor to the development of locus of control.

External people tended to perceive their parents more negatively (MacDonald,
1971; Palmer, 1971; Rotter, 1966). Johnson and Kilmann (1975) found that external
children rated their mothers as more restrictive and demanding than internals, and that
maternal overprotectiveness and restrictiveness were related to external locus of
control.

Research has shown that males with an external orientation rated fathers as
more rejecting while external females rated their fathers as less rejecting (Johnson &
Kilmann, 1975; Yates, Kennedy & Cox, 1975). These researchers demonstrated that
parental punishment perceived as noncontingent to child misbehavior was related to
external locus of control. Based on the preceding research, it was also expected that
adolescents who perceive themselves as "patients" (being acted upon by their
environment) will rate their parents as more authoritarian.

Children who have a more internal locus of control perceive their parents in a
very different manner. Nowicki and Segal (1974) found that the parents of children
with internal locus of control generally had more positive parenting qualities.
Researchers have found evidence that internals perceive their parents as more

consistent and predictable in punishment (authoritative) (Davis & Phares, 1969;

15
MacDonald, 1971). Yates et a1 (1975) found that parents perceived as contingent

punishers were also perceived as loving and verbally supportive, while the
noncontingent punisher was perceived as rejecting, neglecting and critical. Therefore, I
predicted that more agent adolescents would perceive their parents as more
authoritative.
Parent Engagement Style ----- > Parenting Style
Parent Locus of Control ----- > Parenting Style

Galejs and Pease (1986) examined the locus of control of parents and asked
what they believed were ideal characteristics of parents. They found that more external
mothers stressed educational materials and good nutrition as ideal parental behaviors.
However, for more internal mothers, the ideal parenting characteristics included more
affection and verbal interaction. Given that internal parents stress verbal interaction or
authoritativeness and agent and communal people are ones who act upon their
environment, I predicted that the more agent mothers would be rated as authoritative.

The same study also examined the relationship between father’s locus of
control and their perception of the ideal parent. Fathers, who believed they were in
control of their lives, emphasized good health habits, balanced meals and encouraged
responsibility. Fathers who believed they were in less control of their lives included
creativity and verbal interaction as ideal parenting characteristics. Fathers did not
believe that they had no control over their lives or that their lives were controlled by
fate, but simply thought that they had less control than the other fathers in the study.

Therefore, all of the fathers can be considered internals. Considering that the

16

characteristics listed by the fathers fall mainly in the authoritative parenting style, I
predicted that agent fathers would rate as more authoritative.

Different parenting styles can be expected with differing combinations of
engagement style. If the parent is agent and the adolescent is patient, one could predict
that the parenting style would be more authoritarian. The parent would be "doing
things to the child" while the child perceived him or herself as only being done to and
not having an active effect on the relationship. A patient parent and agent child could
lead to more of a permissive parenting style. The parent would perceived him or
herself as "being done to" by the child, whereas the child would be "acting on" the

relationship.

Hypothesis Related to Age Differences

Age was expected to be a signiﬁcant factor in the development of engagement
style and in the manifestations of the parent-adolescent relationship. I predicted that
the older adolescents would be more agent than the younger adolescents. I based this
on the ﬁndings of several researchers who indicate that as children get older they
attain more means of affecting their environment and gain control of increasingly more
areas of their lives (Bialer, 1961; Crandall, Katkovsky, & Crandall, 1965; Sherman,
1984). Older subjects will have more opportunity to act upon their environment.

The data were also be analyzed for sex differences. I made no particular
predictions for the effect of sex or any interaction between sex and age. A summary of

the hypotheses of this study can be found in Table 1.

17
Method

ub'ec s

The 174 minority subjects were from four high schools in a large midwestem
city and a large midwestem university. From the high schools, the sample consisted of
71 9th grade students (28 males and 43 females with a mean age of 14.6 years) and 57
11th grade students (37 males and 20 females with a mean age of 16.5 years). From
the large midwestem university 46 college freshmen (19 males and 27 females with a
mean age of 19.9) participated. I examined these three age levels because Papirri and
Sebby (1987) found a developmental change in the affective quality of the parent-
adolescent relationship during the apex of the pubertal growth spurt. This change in
affect between the adolescent and parent could affect the interactions between the
adolescent and the parent. By the time adolescents are in the 11th grade, most have
passed this stage; the interactions assessed would not be confounded with differing

interactions due to the stresses of entering puberty.

We

The ninth and eleventh grade students were given a letter in class explaining
the purpose of the study. A copy of this letter can be found in Appendix A. The
students were asked to take this letter home and discuss it with their parents, sign it
and bring it back to school. The letter was followed by a phone call to answer any
questions for those who had not returned the signed letter and to determine why they
had chosen not to participate. The telephone script can be found in Appendix B. Those

who returned the letter completed the adolescent measures in class and took the parent

18

Table l. Summag of hypgtheses.

 

 

 

 

Summary of Hypotheses
FES SUBSCALE
r + r -
Parental Agreement Won. amen-um
W Org-man
Religion-Moral w
Parenting Style
Authoritarian Count W, W
Authoritative Cobedee. Erupts-m
Independence. cum
Permissive Conan Cannot. Org-arm. Cotton
Engagement Style of Adolescsent Parenting Style Rating
More agent adolescent More W nth;
More patient adolescent trauma-rum
Engagement Style of Parent Parenting Style Rating
Agent or communal mother Harem
Patient mother More mam
Agent father More mun.
Patient father More W
Communal father Mae W

 

CROSS-SECTIONAL AGE EFFECTS

Adolescents will become progressively more agent as they get older.

 

19

measures home. The parent measures were mailed back to the University upon
completion. The college freshmen were recruited via the undergraduate introductory
psychology subject pool in exchange for class credit. They were asked to complete the
instruments and mail a packet of instruments to their parents to complete.

Each packet contained a consent form that was signed by the parent(s) and the
adolescent, the engagement style questionnaires, Rotter’s I-E scale, and the Family
Environment Scale. Each packet was assigned a number and all of the materials in that
packet had that number written on it. Therefore the appropriate parent adolescent pairs
could be matched while maintaining anonymity. The parents and adolescents were
instructed not to put their names or any other identifying information on the

questionnaires.

Inmmgnts

The engagement style questionnaires were story completion tests. Each brief
story began with two sentences that set up a situation for Sally (for females), Bill
(adult males), and Billy (for adolescent males) and the respondent was asked to
indicate with one sentence what happens next in the story. These responses were
coded for agency. Each test included twenty situations. An example would be "Sally
wants to play tennis. She asks her friend if she wants to play. " An agent response may
have been "Sally plays tennis with her friend." Such a response was considered agent
because the subject described Sally (or Billy) as active in the situation. A communal
response (i.e. both agent and patient) may have been "Sally’s friend says yes and Sally

is happy." This response was considered communal because Sally (or Billy) was

20

described by the subject as being both active in the situation and as the recipient of
action of another person. A patient response may have been "Sally’s friend says that
she will play tennis with her." This response showed Sally solely as the recipient of
another’s behavior and not as active. Therefore, this response would have been
considered patient. The subject’s agency was determined by how many stories they
completed using agent responses. The reliability of this instrument was acceptable
(Cronbach’s alpha = .90) (McKinney, 1990). The relationship of the story measure
with the picture form was also acceptable (r = .40, corrected for attenuation, n -- 114).
The adult and high school forms were identical in all respects except the content of
the stories. The adolescent stories involve activities that adolescents would engage in,
while adult stories involved activities more appropriate for adults.

The Family Environment Scale was designed by Moos (1974). It consiswd of
ninety true/false questions that were divided into three dimensions for a total of ten
subscales. In the Relationship Dimensions were three subscales: Cohesion,
Expressiveness and Conﬂict. The Personal Growth Dimension there consisted of ﬁve
subscales: Independence, Achievement Orientation, Intellectual-Cultural Orientation,
Active-Recreational Orientation, and Moral-Religious Emphasis. Last, the System
Maintenance Dimension, included two subscales: Organization and Control. A full
discussion of what each subscale attempted to measure can be found in Appendix C.

Reliability for the Family Environment Scale has been demonstrated (Moos,
Insel, & Humphrey, 1974). The Kuder—Richardson Formula 20 was used to calculate
the internal consistency of each scale. Reliabilities range from .64 for the

Independence subscale to .78 for Cohesion, Intellectual-Cultural Orientation, and the

21

Organization subscales. The reliabilities were based on a sample of 814 family
members in 240 families. The average item-subscale correlation was calculated on the
same 814 family members and ranged from .45 for the Independence subscale to .58
for the Cohesion subscale. Test-retest reliability was calculated on forty-seven family
members in nine families with an interval of eight weeks. The scores range from .73
on the Expressiveness subscale and .86 on the Cohesion subscales. The
interconelations for each of the subscales averaged about .20 indicating, according to
Moos et al (1974), that the subscales measure distinct but related aspects of the family
environment.

The Parent Authority Questionnaire, designed by Btni et al., 1988), consisted
of 30 questions, 10 for each of the parenting styles (authoritative, authoritarian, and
permissive). Each parent received a score for each type of parenting style, with a total
of six subscales (three for each parent). Each item was stated from the perspective of
an individual appraising the authority exhibited by his or her parents. The respondent
replied on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree
(5). An example of an item from the permissive scale is "My mother/father has always
felt that what children need is to be free to make up their own minds and to do what
they want to do, even if this does not agree with what their parents might want. " An
example from the authoritarian scale is "As I was growing up my mother/father did
not allow me to question any decision that she/he made." An example of an item from
the authoritative scale was, "My mother/father has always encouraged verbal give and

take whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were unreasonable."

22

The test—retest reliability was based on responses of 61 college students over a
two week period yielded the following: r=.81 mother’s permissiveness, r=.86 for
mother’s authoritarianism, r=.78 for mother’s authoritativeness, r=.77 for father’s
permissiveness, r=.85 for father’s authoritarianism, and F92 for father’s
authoritativeness. Cronbach (1951) coefﬁcient alpha values were calculated on the
responses of 185 college students to the FAQ. The results are as follows: .75 for
mother’s permissiveness, .85 for mother’s authoritarianism, .82 for mother’s
authoritativeness, .74 for father’s permissiveness, .87 for father’s authoritarianism, and
.85 for father’s authoritativeness (Burl et al., 1988).

Rotter’s (1966) LE Scale consisted of 29 forced—choice items. Each question
gave two alternatives and the subject selected which one he or she more strongly
believed. The items presented statements that reﬂected either individual control of the
world or fate, luck, or chance as controlling the events of the world. Six of the 29
items were "ﬁller" items that were not related to the measure but were used to
disguise the purpose of the test. An example of a test item would be: "a. It is hard to
know whether or not a person really likes you (external). b. How many friends you
have depends upon how nice a person you are (internal). " The test was scored by
counting the number of "external" choices.

One month test-retest scores for 30 male college students were: r = .60, 30
female college students: r = .83 (combined r = .72). Two month test-retest reliability
for 63 male college students were: r = .49, 54 female college students: r = .61
(combined r = .55). Rotter (1966) stated that the lower two-month test-retest reliability

scores may be due to different method of administration of the test at the two times.

23

The students completed the initial test set in a group, but students taking the second
test set did so individually.

The internal consistency of the test proved acceptable. The Spearman-Brown
Split Half for 50 male college students was: r = .65 and 50 female college students: r
= .79. Kuder-Richardson for 50 male college students turned out to be r = .70 and r =
.76 for 50 female students. A second Kuder-Richardson analysis on 200 males and 200

females yielded r = .70 and .70 respectively.

Dag Analysis
All of the hypotheses were tested by conducting path analyses on the data. One

path analysis included locus of control another included engagement style. These
analyses were used to determine whether either was related to parenting style and
whether either affects the parent-adolescent relationship or family environment.
Preliminary analyses were completed to determine sex and age differences.
Additionally, for ninth and eleventh grade students, analyses were made to determine
school differences and to determine the appropriateness of combining schools by age.
Considering that many of the parents did not return their questionnaires, the data were
analyzed to determine differences between subjects whose parents returned the
questionnaires and those who did not. Separate path analyses were completed based on

age and sex if necessary based on the preliminary analyses.

24

Results
Preliminary Analyses
Tables 2 and 3 show means (for males and females, respectively) for each of
the measures used in this study by grade (references in Appendix D). Also, for
comparative pumoses, means from previous studies that used the same measures as
this study are provided Analyses revealed a marked difference between the means for
the engagement style questionnaire from this study and that from another study of

ninth and eleventh grade subjects (i.e. for females, Men. In, =5.l98 Mun. m = 6.00

1~4,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,my = 9.72).

Reliabilities

Since the previously published reliabilities for each of the measures used were
based on college students and not speciﬁcally on minorities, reliabilities for each
measure were completed Dancy and Handal (1981) reported norms for African-
Americans for the Moos’ Family Environment Scale, however, reliabilities were not
included. Not all subjects completed all questionnaires which resulted in differences in
sample size for some of the measures. Split-Half, Spearman-Brown, and Cronbach
alpha calculations were completed for each measure. These reliabilities can be found
in Table 4.

The reliabilities for most of the subscales of Moos’ Family Environment Scale
were below acceptable levels. For example, for the Achievement Orientation and
Expressiveness, Cronbach Alphas were .105 and .216 respectively. These low

reliabilities demonstrate that perhaps the questions on these measures are not

25
Table 2. Comparisons of means from this study with means from other studies using

the same measures for males.

 

 

Current Study Other Studies
Test 9th 11th CF Mean Age
Rotters I-E 10.821 10.135 11.947 11.321 univ
Engagement style 4.804 3.764 5.947 9.722 16-18
Parent Authority Questionnaire Subscales
Permissive
for mothers 25.962 27.028 26.167 25.383 19.2
Permissive
for fathers 27.458 26.097 26.474 23.48 19.2
Authoritative
for mothers 34.192 33.667 38.111 36.52 19.2
Authoritative
for fathers 34.042 32.194 36.579 33.20 19.2
Authoritarian
for mothers 33.346 31.944 31.389 27.20 19.2
Authoritarian
for fathers 32.583 33.806 31.105 29.03 19.2

Family Environment Scale Subscales

Cohesion 5.786 6.189 6.316 6.61‘ n-uzs .n
Expressiveness 4.357 4.027 4.632 5.45 :uclad
Conﬂict 3.964 3.243 3.737 3.31
Independence 5.893 5.649 6.474 6.61
Achievement 6.607 6.405 6.316 5.47
Intellectual 4.714 4.784 5.105 5.63

26
Table 2 (cont’d).

 

 

Current Study Other Studies
Test 9th 1 1th CF Mean Age
Active
recreational 5.393 5.297 6.105 5.35
Moral religious 6.500 5.054 5.316 4.72
Organizational 5.893 5.919 4.895 5.41
Control 6.143 4.865 3.842 4.34

 

27

Table 3. Comparisons of means from this study with means from other studies using
the same measures for females.

 

 

Current Study Other Studies
Test 9th 11th CF Mean Age
RottersI-E 12.220 11.400 12.815 11.81‘ univ
Engagement style 5.198 6.000 8.593 9.722
16-18
Parent Authority Questionnaire Subscales
Permissive
for mothers 24.860 26.000 24.815 25.383 19.2
Permissive
for fathers 27.105 26.600 24.360 23.48 19.2
Authoritative
for mothers 36.070 32.263 35.481 36.52 19.2
Authoritative
for fathers 31.421 32.450 31.840 33.20 19.2
Authoritarian
for mothers 34.186 32.526 31.222 27.20 19.2
Authoritarian
for fathers 32.974 30.700 32.960 29.03 19.2
Family Environment Scale Subscales
Cohesion 5.093 5.500 6.630 6.61‘ rut-1125.11

up

Expressiveness 3.860 4.250 5.556 5.45 W
Conﬂict 4.395 4.650 3.926 3.31
Independence 5.628 6.300 6.407 6.61
Achievement 6.581 6.350 6.444 5.47
Intellectual 4.442 5.050 5.407 5.63

28
Table 3 (cont’d).

 

 

Current Study Other Studies
Test 9th 1 ltlr CF Mean Age
Active
recreational 4.442 4.950 6.037 5 .35
Moral religious 5.535 5.550 5.593 4.72
Organizational 5.721 5.200 5.815 5.41
Control 5.558 5.350 4.519 4.34

 

29

applicable to minority pepulations in the same manner that they are in the populations
that were originally used by Moos. Having only nine questions per subscale combined
with the inappropriateness of the questions probably contributes to such low
reliabilities.

For Buri’s Parent Authority Questionnaire, the reliabilities ranged from
Cronbach Alpha ranging from .715 for the Permissive scale for fathers to .818 for the
Authoritarian scale for mothers. All of the reliabilities for this measure were at or
above acceptable levels.

Engagement style had the highest Cronbach Alpha level of all measures used
(.871). With a minority population, the engagement style questionnaire showed high
reliability.

Rotter’s locus of control scale, like the Moos Family Environment Scale, had
low reliability. Jones and Zoppel (1979) concluded the Rotter locus of control Scale
does not have equivalence of meaning across populations, even here in the United

States.

Analyses for Differengs Bewn Sehools
Because forn' high schools were involved in this study, a 2 x 4 (grade (9th and

11th) by school) ANOVA was done on all constructs. If no differences were found
between schools within the same grade, then data from all four schools would be
combined for all further analyses.

The only signiﬁcant ﬁnding was for ninth grade students; students at one high

school M = 4.774) scored signiﬁcantly lower than at another high school M = 5.831)

30

Table 4. Reliabilities on all measures used based on the ninth and eleventh gag
subjects.

 

 

Test N Split Half Spearman-Brown Cronbach
Alpha

Rotters I-E 105 .389 .560 .456

Engagement Style 105 .756 .861 .871

Parent Authority Questionnaire Subscales

Permissive

for mothers 103 .575 .730 .727
Permissive

for fathers 94 .547 .707 .715
Authoritative

for mothers 103 .606 .755 .802
Authoritative

for fathers 94 .605 .754 .793
Authoritarian

for mothers 103 .781 .877 .818
Authoritarian

for fathers 94 .677 .807 .774

Family Environment Scale Subscales

Cohesion 105 .629 .774 .772
Expressiveness 106 .208 .345 .216
Conﬂict 106 .578 .732 .726
Independence 106 .164 .281 .303
Achievement 106 .1 1 1 .200 .105

Intellectual 106 .457 .627 .601

31

Table 4 (cont’d).

 

 

Test N Split Half Spearman-Brown Cronbach
Alpha

Active

Recreational 106 .365 .534 .655

Moral Religious 106 .375 .546 .558

Organizational 106 .514 .679 .626

Control 106 .217 .356 .323

 

32
on the Moral Religious Subscale of the Moos Family Environment Scale E = 3.124, p_

< .039). Since this was the only signiﬁcant ﬁnding, all further analyses were based on

data from the four schools combined for both 9th and 11th grade subjects.

H theses for En a ement S 1e an Loc s of ntrol

Analysis of the overall age difference for engagement style was £12,170) =
5.374, p < .005. The Tukey test of pairwise comparisons revealed that college
freshmen M = 7.2), as predicted, scored signiﬁcantly more agent than 9th grade M =
5.001) or 11th grade M = 4.882) grade students.

Also, 2 x 3 (sex by grade) ANOVA revealed that college freshmen females M
= 8.593) scored signiﬁcantly more agent than 9th grade females M = 5.198), E(5,167)
= 3.475, p < .005. This age difference for females can be seen in Figure 3.

For the Rotter I-E scale of locus of control, the overall age difference for the
student rating was E(2,169) = 47.476, p < .013. As shown in Figure 4, the Tukey test
of pairwise comparisons revealed that college freshmen M = 12.381) were
signiﬁcantly more externally controlled than 9th M = 11.521) and 11th M = 10.768)
grade students. This ﬁnding is contrary to previous studies in the area of locus of
control, but consistent with research using African-Americans.

Scores on Rotter’s I-E scale of locus of control and scores on the engagement
style test were not correlated signiﬁcantly (r = .145, ns). McKinney (1981), also, did
not ﬁnd locus of control and engagement style scores to be correlated. However, this

was contrary to the hypotheses for this study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34

Path Analyses

Most parents of the students involved in this study did not return their forms.
This left an inadequate sample to conduct a path analysis on the hypothesized model.
In only 46 cases across the three age levels had both student and parent response. A
path analysis was conducted on a subset of the models, excluding the engagement
style and locus of control scores of the parents. Conducting the path analysis on this
subset of the models seemed appropriate because adolescents’ engagement style and
locus of control were predicted to directly affect parenting style and in turn the parent-
adolescent relationship.

The preliminary analyses exhibited both age and sex differences. Therefore, the
sample was divided by sex and grade. This subdivision also rendered less than
adequate sample sizes for path analyses. Among the six subsets, the sample size
ranged from 19 to 33. Considering there were 17 measures, including all subscales, the
sample sizes were blatantly too low to warrant any type of conﬁdence in the ﬁndings.

Path analyses were completed on the six subsets, even though the data were
inadequate to determine if there was any type of relationship between the data and the
models. Separate analyses were done for engagement style and locus of connol. No
path coefﬁcients were signiﬁcant, though path coefﬁcients were in the predicted
direction between student’s engagement style and authoritative parenting scores for
some sex by grade subsets. For college freshmen males, the path coefﬁcient between
student engagement style and mother’s authoritative score was .21, for father’

authoritative score, .33. The path analysis ﬁgures for college freshmen males can be

 

 

 

 

111111
Ev N o 00 to v (\1 OT.

 

 

36

seen in Figure 5. The coefﬁcients for college freshmen females were not in the
predicted direction nor were they high enough to report.

The path coefﬁcient between student engagement style and mother’s
authoritative score for eleventh grade males (.56) and father’s authoritative score (.33)
were also in the predicted direction. The ﬁgures for the path analysis for eleventh
grade males can be seen in Figure 6.

As Figure 7 shows, the path coefﬁcient between student engagement style and
mother’s authoritative score for eleventh grade females was not in the predicted
direction. For ninth grade males, the path coefficient was in the predicted direction for
the path between student engagement style and parent’s authoritativeness score.
Between student engagement style and mother’s authoritativeness score the path
coefﬁcient was .35 and for father’s authoritativeness, it was .33. The same was also
true for ninth grade females (.19 and .14 respectively) although the path coefﬁcients
were not as strong. The results of the path analysis for ninth grade males can be seen
in Figure 8 and for ninth grade females, Figure 9.

For locus of control scores, path analyses were done on the six subsets of the
sample. As with the path analyses for engagement style, the sample size was not
adequate to have conﬁdence in the results. These data did not ﬁt the predicted model.
Only eleventh grade females (Figure 10) and ninth grade males (Figure 11) even had
scores in the predicted direction. For eleventh grade females, the path coefﬁcients
between student locus of control and score for mother’s authoritativeness was .59 and
for father’s authoritativeness it was .21. For ninth grade males, the path coefficient

between student locus of control and mother’s score on authoritativeness was not

.23» 22.3393 :0
no.9: cosine: cos-co .6. 39:93 59". .m 0.52".

 

923:053
.23“.

 

 

 

catﬁtoﬁae
35mm

 

 

 

 

37

 

mm

 

ozmﬂetoa
28w $56“. 9...

«co—53:25 .m .lel

3:5“.

 

 

 

 

 

mu 1 03am
o>=£toﬁae =35

H

 

 

 

roueuco
compo—2 pm. «cmvaam

 

 

 

 

cetezeoﬁam 9.-
.5920.)—

 

 

 

v0...

 

w 9328.8
3 o

38

 

 

23w
EoEcoz>cm

2:5“.

 

 

.23» 25:53.8 :0
no.2: ooeeu 5: .o. 22:23 5o.— .0 2:2...

 

3282053
35w“.

 

 

 

52322.23
856W.

 

 

one

 

63.3.8.3
Bien— o. P.

Pa. 23»
O>_~m:..ozuam. a .ceEeueaee

compo—2 com. acutaum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cotﬂtoﬁzo
.6565. 2..-.

 

 

 

 

9.33.2.

/._OO

39

 

 

225
~coE:o:_>:m
>__Eo....

 

 

.w.Z i

23» 3233: :o
«22:2 255 5: :2 2:35 5cm K 2:2“.

 

9:220:28
.656“.

 

 

 

5:220:25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/

 

.25.“. 03..
2528.2:
COP—«mu. 00?.
So. 6.26
m>=wutozuzm n 22:023.?
8505. one. 2.255
5.32353 com.
3522 on».
93288:
:e o

40

signiﬁcant, but in the predicted direction, (.51) and for father’s authoritativeness score
the path coefﬁcient was .47. The remaining path coefﬁcients for locus of control were

not signiﬁcant nor were they in the predicted direction.

Additional Analyses
Analyses of Parent Resmnse

Because the majority of parents of subjects involved in this study did not return
questionnaires, subjects whose parents did return their questionnaires were compared
with those subjects whose parents did not. I predicted that this could be an indicator of
the quality of the parent-adolescent relationship.

A 2 x 3 (parent response x grade) ANOVA was done for all constructs.
Although the omnibus F ratio for engagement style indicated signiﬁcant differences,
@(1,171) = 7.227, p < .008), according to the Tukey test of pairwise comparisons,
within grade there were no signiﬁcant differences between students whose parents
returned their forms and students whose parents did not. The signiﬁcant ﬁnding was
that ninth and eleventh grade students who did not have parent responses M = 5.302,
4.500, respectively) scored signiﬁcantly lower than college freshmen M = 8.726) who
had parent responses. Considering the age difference and the diﬂ‘erence in parent
response, this ﬁnding was confounded.

Although the reliability was quite low, signiﬁcant differences were found for
the Expressiveness Subscale of the Family Environment Scale between students whose
parents responded and those who did not (30,171) = 17.786, p < .001). The Tukey

Test of pairwise comparisons revealed that college freshmen whose parents did

41

 

 

Boom

~:oE:0.__>:m
3.56“.

 

 

.23.... 3050320 :0

no.2: 2.20 :5 :0. n.n>.o:o 5o“. .o 950.".

 

o>2220£=o
.550“.

 

 

 

:02220500
..o5om

 

 

 

 

023.880
20:3“.

 

 

 

000

or...

 

 

3:220:30

own-I .—>UC

H

 

hOm—HOE

 

 

 

 

:02220530
2050.).

2.080000:

.coua:

 

 

 

 

 

 

023.550
.0 0

  

  

42

 

 

Boom

.coE:0...>:w
3.52

 

 

.o.3n 32:33: :0

no.2:2 2020 :5 :0. n.n>.o:o Eon. .0 950E

 

9:220:25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3:3“.
52220500
.652
o>_nn.E..oo on P.
h05o... ooo
0>2m=bop==w 0071 «cannon—E
2050.2 _ on F. Eons.
:o2220:3o omo.

50£~O§

 

 

 

‘ o>.nn__:._oa

LOO

   

0mm...

  

43

 

 

200w

EoE:0...>:m
2.26“.

 

 

00.. :0. 3.2:. 2020 :2... :0. 0.0230 5nd .0. 0.52....

 

o>22205=o
.mgen:

 

 

 

 

5222053
35?

 

 

 

o>.nn..::oa
:oﬁou

 

 

 

 

o>22205=o

uGBwOE

 

 

00—...- _OB~COO
«O 0300—

 

‘

 

:o2220:3o
bop=22

 

 

 

 

033.850
:0 0

 

 

.coe=.

 

Geo...

00.. :0. no.o:: 0020 :3 :0. 22:05 50.. .5 200.“.

 

o>..220:.:o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:o:.on.
5222053
:o:.wm.
one
o>.nn..::oa
2000 .050”. 00...
.:o:::0:.>:w .m .2 I 000... .03200
3.82. 03222053 x .0 2.00.
:o 0 0.0. .cooa.
:02220500 000...
:o 0
w E. .2 0mm.
o>.nn.:::oa

.00

 

45
respond M = 5.710) scored signiﬁcantly higher than college freshmen whose parents

did not respond M = 4.067).

Engagement Selle

T tests were done on all constructs comparing male and female subjects. For
engagement style the following ﬁndings were the signiﬁcant: Females M = 6.394)
scored signiﬁcantly more agent than males M = 4.614) Q = -2.409, p_ < .017). This
ﬁnding is contrary to the ﬁndings of McKinney (1981) who did not ﬁnd sex

differences.

Locus of Control

In this study, males M = 12.226) scored signiﬁcantly more external on
Rotter’s I-E scale of locus of connol than females M = 10.784) Q = 2.955, p < .004).
Although contrary to typical research ﬁndings on locus of control, this ﬁnding is
consistent with research that has examined the locus of control of African-Americans.
DiCindio, Floyd, Wilcox, and McSeveney (1983) found that males tend to be more
external than females in the African-American population. This ﬁnding is especially
interesting bacause it is similar in direction to the engagement style ﬁndings with
females scoring signiﬁcantly more agent than males. Although a signiﬁcant correlation
between locus of control and engagement style was not found this ﬁnding is
interesting because it shows a similar pattern for sex differences within this

population.

 

46
Parenting Sale

For the student’s rating of mothers on the Authoritative subscale of Buri’s
Parent Authority Questionnaire, age differences were found to be signiﬁcant (20,166)
= 3.703, p_ <.027). The Tukey test of pairwise comparisons found that college
freshmen M = 36.796) rated mother as more authoritative than 11th M = 32.965)
grade students. This age difference can be seen in Figure 12.

T tests were used to assess sex differences on subjects ratings of their parents’
parenting style. On Buri’s Parent Authority Questionnaire, males M = 33.919) rated
fathers as more authoritative than females M =31.795) Q = 1.909 p < .05).

Students’ ratings of both their parents on the Buri Parent Authority
Questionnaire were correlated. The correlation of mothers and fathers on the
perrnissiveness subscale was r = .56, p_ < .002, on the authoritarian subscale r = .48, e
< .007, and on the authoritative subscale r = .40, p < .030. This shows that these
adolescents view their parents as somewhat in agreement on their childrearing
practices.

Correlations between subscales indicate that the subscales are measuring
different but related aspects of the same construct. The adolescents’ ratings of their
mothers for authoritative and authoritarian subscales were signiﬁcantly but negatively
correlated (r = -.548, p_ < .002). This signiﬁcant negative correlation is consistent with
Buri’s (1989) finding (r = -.48, p < .0005). The Pearson Product Moment Correlation
between the authoritarian subscale and the permissive subscale was signiﬁcantly but
negatively correlated (r = -.671, p < .001) for fathers and r = -.487, p < .007 for

mothers) as also shown by Buri (1989) (r = -.38, e < .005 for mothers and r = -.50, e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48

< .005 for fathers). These ﬁndings demonstrate that mothers are not usually seen as
having more than one type of parenting style and that fathers are perceived as both
permissive and authoritarian.

The correlation between adolescents’ ratings on the authoritative and
authoritarian subscales approached signiﬁcance (r = -.346, p < .066) for fathers. This
correlation was not signiﬁcant in Buri’s (1989) study for fathers or mothers. However,
the correlations between permissiveness and authoritativeness differed for ratings of
fathers in comparison to mothers. The correlation between adolescents’ ratings of
mothers for Permissiveness and Authoritativeness was not signiﬁcantly correlated (r =
.292, p < .124). The correlation between adolescents ratings of fathers on
permissiveness and authoritativeness was signiﬁcantly correlated (r = .507, p < .005).
The correlations were converted to z scores followed by the use of standard error of
the sampling distribution and a 2 test which revealed that the two correlations were

signiﬁcantly different (z = 2.30, p < .05).

Parent-Adolescent Relationship

The parent-adolescent relationship was measured by Moos’ Family
Environment Scale which has 10 subscales. Each subscale was treated separately in all
analyses. For the Active Recreational Orientation Subscale, the overall age difference
was (_1-"_‘(2.171) = 4.984, p < .008). The Tukey test of pairwise comparisons revealed
that college freshmen M = 6.071) scored higher than 9th grade students M = 5.417).

A 2 x 3 (sex by grade) ANOVA revealed age differences for females on the

Active Recreational Orientation Subscale (£6,168) = 2.773, p <.020). The Tukey

49
analyses indicated that college freshmen females M = 6.037) scored signiﬁcantly

higher than 9th grade females M = 4.442).

For the Expressiveness Subscale, an overall increase was found (£0,171) =
6.828, p < .001). The Tukey analyses revealed that college freshmen M = 5.094)
scored signiﬁcantly higher than 11th grade students M = 4.138). A 2 x 3 (sex by
grade) ANOVA followed by a Tukey test of pairwise comparisons revealed that
college freshmen females M = 5.556) scored signiﬁcantly higher than 9th grade
females M = 3.860) $6,168) = 3.734, p < .003).

For the Control Subscale of the Moos Family Environment Scale, an overall
decrease in student ratings showed (20,171) = 9.600, p < .001). The Tukey analyses
indicated that college freshmen M = 4.120) scored signiﬁcantly lower than 9th grade
students M = 5.850).

A 2 x 3 (sex by grade) ANOVA followed by the Tukey test of pairwise
comparisons, for the control subscale, revealed that college freshmen males M =
3.842) scored signiﬁcantly lower than 9th grade males M = 6.143.

The data from the Family Environment Scale was analyzed for sex differences
using the t test. Females M = 4.311) scored signiﬁcantly higher on the Conﬂict
Subscale of the Moos’ Family Environment Scale than males M = 3.595), Q = -1.909,
p < .05).

Data analyses also showed signiﬁcant correlations between mothers’ ratings
and students’ ratings on seven of the ten scales of the Moos Family Environment

Scale. The correlation between fathers’ ratings and students ratings was signiﬁcant on

50

only one of the subscales, Moral-Religious Subscale. Table 5 shows these correlations.

The majority of subjects are female (nu, = 16; mm“, = 30).

Discussion
Engagement Sgle

As predicted, older adolescents were more agent than the younger adolescents
in this study. This can be explained by their increased activity in their environments.
No signiﬁcant differences were found between ninth and eleventh grade students
which could be due to the fact that their environments are more similar than different.
When one compares the environment of college freshmen with that of the ninth and
eleventh grade students, one ﬁnds a marked difference. The difference includes the
facts that the college freshmen are required to make more decisions for themselves and
have to play a more "active agent" role to maintain themselves.

This ﬁnding may also be an artifact of the college sample being more selective
than the ninth or eleventh grade sample. However, the college students were freshmen
rather than upperclassmen. When comparing upperclassmen with freshmen one must
be aware and account for selective attrition. The upperclassmen sample may be
different than the freshmen sample simply because some people have dropped out in a
nonrandom manner. This study used college freshmen so the selective attrition rate
would be low. Today, those that complete at least one or two quarters of college after
high school is not as selective as it has been in previous years. Therefore, differences
due to selectivity could be minimal. In order to address this question, one would need

to compare college freshmen with those the same age who did not go on to college.

51

Table 5. Comlations between student ratings and each parent rating on each subscale
of Moos’ Family Environment Scale.

 

 

Subscale on Correlation Conelation

FES with Mother p value with Father p value
n=43
Cohesion .360 .055 .045 ns
Expressiveness .508 .005 .048 ns
Conﬂict .616 .001 .259 ns
Independence .134 ns .004 ns
Achievement .036 us .201 ns
Intellectual .653 .001 .313 ns
Active recreational .537 .003 .331 ns
Moral religious .736 .001 .825 .001
Organization .545 .002 .277 ns

Control .268 ns .246 ns

 

52
Although a paper-and-pencil test of engagement style was used for this study,

future studies examining this construct in adolescence should also use interview
techniques and different story stems. Many subjects in this study thought that Bill and
Sally were "a joke" or not real to life. Researchers need to be careful to assure that the
stories are relevant to the pepulation under study. In order to assess a true measure of
engagement style through a projective test, the subject needs to be able to identify
with the character. Although some may have viewed Billy and Sally as a joke does not
preclude their identifying with them. If the subject views the character as too extreme,
he or she may not identify with "Bill" or "Sally," resulting in skewed responses. Based
on comments that the students wrote at the end of the questionnaire, the subjects
viewed "Bill" and "Sally" as passive or always needing assistance, which may have
skewed the responses to the "patient" end of the scale (M = 5.54 on a scale of 0 to 20
compared to the mean from McKinney (1981) of M = 9.72). But in speaking with
these subjects I do not believe that they see themselves as being as patient as they
viewed Sally and Billy.

Difﬁculty in identifying with "Sally" or "Billy" occurred in the ninth and
eleventh grade sample and may have led to skewing to the "patient" end of the scale.
Additionally, respondents could have used the space at the end of the questionnaire for
comments. Many of the students commented that "Sally" and "Bill" were going to get
into trouble if they were not careful, that they were too dependent and needed to learn
how to think for themselves and the like. It seems reasonable to suppose that these
subjects did not see themselves as similar to these characters and did not identify with

them, which would call into question the validity of the measure even though the

53

reliability was quite high. One method of testing whether or not these student viewed
themselves as patient as they viewed Sally and Billy is to give them the engagement
style questionnaire and also ask them to write several paragraphs about themselves
regarding their interactions with their friends. One could correlate the number of agent,
patient, and communal responses from the questionnaire with the number of like
statements from the paragraphs about themselves. The engagement style questionnaire
had the highest reliability of any measure used in this study, the questionnaire is
reliably measuring some aspect of these subjects; however, further studies are needed
to test the validity of the questionnaire. Future research examining engagement style in
minority populations may need to determine if the engagement style scale has
equivalence in meaning across differing populations within the United States.

Although number of words in a response was not analyzed for the engagement
style data, during data coding it appeared that the more words a person used in his/her
response the more likely the response was to be communal. Subjects who gave three—
word answers tended either to use Bill or Sally as subjects and were, therefore, coded
as agent, or they consistently used the other person in the story stem as the subject
and were coded as patient. However, from watching subjects respond to the questions
I concluded that the shorter answers were more often an indicator that the subject just
wanted to complete the questionnaires as quickly as possible with little care. Those
with longer answers tended to be ones who showed more care about their responses.
They were more complete, including what both "Sally" or "Bill" had done in addition
to what the other person in the story stem had done. Perhaps people who are more

communal in their engagement style are more verbal or more careful to include all

54

people in their response than their agent or patient counterparts. It would seem
reasonable that patient respondents see only one side of the situation (that of being
done to) and that agent respondents see only the other side of the situation (that of
acting upon). Communal respondents may have been the only ones to see both sides of
the situation (that of being done to and acting upon), which is clearly reﬂected in their
answers. Future researchers in the area may want to investigate this observation. Are
persons who score as more communal more verbal than agent or patient people?
Future researchers could examine both the number of words or complexity of
responses given with the engagement style score. One may also want to account for

the verbal skills of the person and their engagement style score.

of n 1

Studies that examine age changes on the construct of locus of control have
found that people become more internally controlled as they get older (i.e. Sherman,
1984). Therefore, an examination of locus of control in ninth graders, eleventh graders,
and college freshmen, one might expect college freshmen to score as more internally
controlled than the ninth grade subjects. Contrary to these studies, college freshmen in
this study scored signiﬁcantly more externally controlled than ninth and eleventh grade
subjects.

One way to explain this ﬁnding is to compare the environment of the college
freshmen to that of ninth and eleventh grade students. The ninth and eleventh grade
students are in environments that are basically stable and familiar to them, therefore

they may in fact feel that they are more in control of that environment. College

55

freshmen, on the other hand, more than likely have recently experienced a
considerable change in their environments. For the ﬁrst time, they may be living away
from home. They are attending a large university and may feel as though they are not
in control, or not getting the expected reinforcement from the environment as they try
to maneuver themselves through the maze of selecting appropriate classes. Also, one
must take into consideration that fact that the reliability on the Rotter I-E Scale was
not as good as some of the other measures (e.g. Cronbach’s Alpha =.456). After using
the Rotter locus of control scale with African-Americans, Jones and Zoppel (1979)
concluded that it lacks equivalence in meaning cross-culturally as well as for differing
populations within the United States.

An attempt at replicating this ﬁnding could assure that it is not an artifact in
the data. One method of testing the hypothesized explanation is to compare the locus
of control of those students who went to college right after high school with those
who stayed at home and took jobs. Also, one would want to compare subjects of
differing ages with either a cross-sectional or a longitudinal study. Another explanation
for the ﬁnding could be that college freshmen have a more external locus of control
until they become accustomed to their environment. Therefore, if one examined
college sophomores or juniors, the researcher would ﬁnd the expected change to a
more internally controlled person. To determine whether the difference is due to being
accustomed to the environment or an actual age difference, one could compare
upperclassmen with same age college freshmen.

Males scored as more external than females in this study. This is opposite to

many ﬁndings for locus of control (i.e. Rotter, 1966). However, when examining locus

56

of control in minority subjects, more speciﬁcally African-American subjects, one finds
that males tend to be more external than females (DiCindio et al., 1983) and that being
more externally controlled is associated positively with other outcome variables such

as self esteem (i.e., Gurin, Gurin, & Lao, 1969; Hendrix, 1980). Therefore, this ﬁnding

is consistent with the literature despite the less than desirable reliability.

Parenting Sgle
As predicted, college freshmen rated mothers as more authoritative than did

eleventh grade students. Although ninth grade students also rated mothers as more
authoritative than did eleventh grade subjects, the difference was not signiﬁcant. The
difference between the authoritative ratings for mothers of ninth grade students and
college freshmen was also not signiﬁcant. As college freshmen gain more control of
their lives and their parents relinquish some control over their adolescents, the
relationship can become more egalitarian and democratic. Both the parents and the
adolescents were amenable to trying to understand the others perspective. The
increasing ability of adolescents and parents to take the other’s perspective was
demonstrated by Smetana, Braeges and Yau (1991). This ﬁnding was also consistent
with the lower level of conﬂict found at the beginning and end of adolescence,
reﬂecting the inverted "U" that Montemayor (1983) reported. Eleventh grade students
may not view their parents as authoritative as did college freshmen because they are
struggling over issues with their parents as they attempt to become more independent.
Researchers have demonstrated that Authoritative parenting styles are

associated with positive outcomes for the child (i.e. Maccoby & Martin, 1983) and

57
more positive relationships (Alexander, 1973). In the present study, both ninth grade

subjects and college freshmen rated their parents as more authoritative than eleventh
grade subjects, although only college freshmen were signiﬁcantly different from the
eleventh grade subjects. This ﬁnding does not imply that eleventh grade subjects do
not rate their parents as authoritative but simply not to the extent as the ninth grade
and college freshmen subjects.

The correlations between the subscales of the Parent Authority Questionnaire
were similar to that of previous studies (e. g. Burl, 1989). For both mothers and
fathers, Buri (1989) did not ﬁnd signiﬁcant correlations between authoritativeness and
permissiveness. In this study, however, the correlation between permissiveness and
authoritativeness for fathers was signiﬁcant (r = -.507, p < .005). This was not the
case for mothers. The distinction that can be made regarding the fathers on the
permissive and authoritative subscales warrants further investigation. The adolescents
in this study were able to distinguish between parenting styles for fathers better than
for mothers, but they agree signiﬁcantly more with mothers on the family
environment.

This study examined parenting style from the perspective of the adolescent. It
would be interesting to investigate parenting style and changes in parenting style from
the perspective of the parent of Aﬁican-American adolescents. Fu et al. (1984) found
that parenting styles as perceived by the adolescent remained much the same across
the ages of 12 to 16. Studies have shown that parents’ rating of their parenting style
and children’s ratings of their parent’s parenting style are signiﬁcantly correlated

among white adolescents (i.e, Brook et al., 1980, Deal, Halverson, & Warnpler, 1989).

58

Parent-Agolescent Relationship

Previous researchers who examined African-American adolescents using Moos’
Family Environment Scale found age differences only on the Independence subscale
(i.e., Dancy & Handal, 1981). This ﬁnding was not replicated in the present study.
College freshmen females scored signiﬁcantly higher than eleventh grade females on
the expressiveness subscale of the family environment scale. According to Moos’
(1974) explanation of the expressive subscale, this means that college freshmen
females feel that "family members are allowed and encouraged to act openly and to
express their feelings" more than eleventh grade females. Balkwell, Balswick, and
Balkwell (1978) found that African-American high school students tended to have
lower levels of expressiveness overall than white students. The ﬁnding in this study is
consistent with Dancy and Handal (1981) in that they did not ﬁnd signiﬁcant
differences on the Expressiveness subscale between older and younger high school
students. They did not study college freshmen.

The signiﬁcantly higher level of expressiveness found in the college freshmen
could be explained by the tendency, found in this study, for college freshmen overall
to rate their m0thers as more authoritative than eleventh grade students. Authoritative
parents, according to Baumrind (1971) and Maccoby and Martin (1983), are more
democratic in their parenting style. They tend to respect the adolescent’s opinion and
use reasoning for explaining decisions they make as parents. Since these parents value
the adolescent’s point of view, they may encourage them to express themselves.

Therefore, one would expect that as adolescents get older they would view their

59

mothers as more authoritative and they would feel that they could more easily express
their feelings.

College freshmen also rated their family environment as lower on the control
subscale than did ninth grade students. According to Moos (1974) this subscale
"assesses the extent to which the family is organized in a hierarchical manner, the
rigidity of family rules and procedures and the extent to which family members order
each other around." One would expect that college freshmen would feel less of this
control than a ninth grade subject. College freshmen are typically young adults of legal
age. Many of them are living away from home and making their own decisions about
many of the issues that would come under parental control for a ninth grade subject.
Some of those issues include curfew, clothing choices, and whether or not they want
to go to class or school on a particular day.

The responses from mothers and adolescents were signiﬁcantly correlated on
seven out of the ten subscales while fathers and adolescents were signiﬁcantly
correlated on only on one subscale, moral religious; this is fascinating and deserves
further attention. The difference in the number of signiﬁcantly correlated subscales on
the Family Environment Scale between adolescents and their mothers and between
adolescents and their fathers was signiﬁcant (X2 = 7.5, p < .01). This can be expected
for several reasons. The majority of subjects who had parent data were females (N m
= 30, N”... = 16) and adolescent females typically idenn'fy more with their mothers
than their fathers. It would be interesting to examine this phenomenon with males and
their fathers. Not enough male parent data were available to correlate them separately

with the fathers’ scores.

60

A second reason for these subjects’ responses to have such high correlations
with their mothers’ data could be because Aﬁican-Americans tend to be more parent
oriented (DiCindio et al., 1983). DiCindio et al. (1983) found that subjects who were
more internally controlled were more peer oriented, while those who were more
externally controlled were more parent oriented. DiCindio et a1 ( 1983) found that
African-Americans were both more externally controlled and more parent oriented than
their white counterparts. Mothers in African-American families are typically viewed as
strong ﬁgures, therefore, to identify with parents in these families could mean
identifying with the mother.

Fu and her colleagues (1984) studied four aspects of childrearing by African—
American and white mothers and daughters. These childrearing aspects included
fostering dependency, excluding outside inﬂuences, loyalty to parents, encomaging
independence. They found that African-American mothers scored higher on all four
aspects than the white mothers in the study. More pertinent to this study is that the
African-American mothers fostered loyalty to parents and dependency in their
daughters. This could also explain why there is such a high correlation between
mothers and adolescents ratings on the Moos’ Family Environment Scale.

One important contribution of this study to the literature has been the reliability
of the Moos’ Family Environment Scale for use with African-American adolescents.
Dancy and Handel (1981) contributed norms as they differ ﬁom Moos’ ( 1974) work
with predominately white college students and this study provides the reliabilities of

each subscale.

61

Path Model Analyses

There simply were not enough data to complete the analysis on the model after
accounting for the sex and age differences found in the preliminary analysis. The fact
that the data were not consistent with the predicted models does not necessarily mean
that the models were incorrect. The power in the model was not high enough to
warrant conﬁdence in any ﬁnding in the path analyses.

The results of the path analyses were that the coefﬁcents were in the predicted
direction between student engagement style and parent authoritativeness. At this time,
I would be interested in redoing parts of the study to account for some of the
difﬁculties in gaining response from parents. Perhaps one could begin by recruiting
parents and then by having the parents encourage the adolescents to participate.

This study, like many, ends with more questions than answers. Future research
should be directed at attempting to answer the following questions that have arisen.
The signiﬁcant correlations between mothers and adolescents on seven of the ten
subscales of the FES warrants further investigation. Is this true only for females? Is it
also true between fathers and sons? It would also be interesting to attempt to replicate
this ﬁnding with white subjects as well.

For the study of engagement style in minority populations, additional research
is needed to determine the most appropriate method for assessing engagement style.
Although the engagement style test had the highest reliability score of the measures
used in this study, future researchers should determine whether the engagement style

scale has equivalence in meaning in differing populations.

62

Another area for future research, mentioned earlier, is the appearance of a
relationship between number of words used in a response and engagement style scores.
Perhaps using a different method of assessing engagement style, such as a forced-
choice technique, would be appropriate.

The results of this study could lead in many different directions for future
research, particularly in the areas of parent-adolescent relationships, African-American

families and engagement style.

References

References

Alexander, J. F. (1973). Defensive and supportive communication in family systems.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 3;, 613-617.

Balkwell, C., Balswick, J. & Balkwell, J. W. (1978). On black and white family
patterns in America: Their impact on the expressive aspect of sex-role

socialization. qurnal pf Marriage ang me Family, 50(4), 743-747
Barton, K., Dielrnan, T. E., & Cattell, R. B. (1977). Child-rearing practices related to

child Personalim W 101.. 75-85-

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. W
Psycholegy Menegryaphs. 3(2,Pt.2). Washington DC: American Psychological
Association.

Bell, L. G, & Bell, D. C. (1982). Family climate and the role of the female adolescent:
Determinants of adolescent functioning. Family Relations, M, 519-527.

Belsky, J. (1981). Early human experience: A family perspective. Develepmental
Psychelogy, 11, 3-23.

Bialer, I. (1961). Conceptualization of success and failure in mentally retarded and
normal children. Journal pf Personslig, 22, 303-320.

Brook, J., Whiteman, M., Gordon, A., Brenden, C. Jinishian, A. (1980). Relationship
of maternal and adolescent perceptions of maternal child-rearing practices.

Pegeptuﬂ gs! Motm Skills, 5;, 1043-1046.

63

54

Buri, J. R. (1989). An insn'ument for the measurement of parental authority prototypes.
Precedings of paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern
Psychological Association (6lst, Chicago, IL).

Buri, J. R., Louiselle, P. A., Misukanis, T. M. & Mueller, R. A., (1988). Effects of
parental authoritarianism and authoritativeness on self-esteem. W
M Psychology Bulletin, _1_4(2), 271-282.

Burman, B., John R. S., Margolin, G. (1987). Effects of marital and parent-child
relations on children’s adjustment. Iloumel pf Femily Psyehelpgy, 1(1), 91-108.

Coleman, J. C. (1978). Current contradictions in adolescent theory. MM
meme. 1(1). 1-11.

Cooper, C. R., Grotevant, H. D. & Condon, S. M. (1983). Individualin and
connectedness in the family as a context for adolescent identity formation and
role-taking skill. In H. D. Grotevant & C. R. Cooper (Eds), MM
Developmen; in the Emily, New Directions for Child Development, no. 22. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 43-59.

Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V. J. (1965). Children’s beliefs in their
own control of reinforcement in intellectual-academic achievement. Qh_il_d

Developmens, 36, 91-109.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefﬁcient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

Psychpmetr_'r_ks,' 16, 297-334.
Dancy, B. L. & Handal, P. J. (1981). Effect of gender and age on family climate
scores of black adolescents and preliminary norms. Psyehelogjeel Rems, 48,

755-757.

65

Davis, W. L. & Phares, E. J. (1969). Parental antecedents of intemal-extemal control
of reinforcement. MW 23, 427-436.

Deal J. E., Halverson, C. F., & Wampler, K. S. (1989). Parental agreement on child-
rearing orientations: Relations to parental, marital, family and child characteristics.

hi1 velo ment 80, 1025-1034.

Deci, E. L. (1980). The Psychelogy pf Self-Qterminatien, Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.

DiCindio, L. A., Floyd, H. H., Wilcox, J. & McSeveney, D. R. (1983). Race effects in
a model of parent-peer orientation. Agoleseence, 1_8_(70), 369-379.

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H, Roberts, D. F. & Fraleigh, M. J.
(1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. we
Qevelopmeng. 58, 1244—1257.

Douvan, E. & Adelson, J. (1966) The Ageleseens Esperieng. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.

Farrington, D. P. (1978). The family backgrounds of aggressive youths. In L. A.
Hersov & M. Berger (Eds), Agggssion and Anti-social Behavior in Childhood
Mm. London:Pergamon, 73-94.

Frick, P. J ., Lahey B. B., Hartdagen, S. & Hynd, G. W. (1989). Conduct problems in
Boys: Relations to maternal personality. marital satisfaction and socioeconomic
status. umal f ini a1 i1 P cholo 18(2), 114-120.

Fu, V. R., I-Iinkle, D. E., Shoffner, S., Martin, S., Carter, E., Clark, A., Culley, P.,

Disney, 6., Ercanli, G. Glover, E., Kenney, M., Lewis, H., Moak, S., Stalling, S.,

66
& Wakeﬁeld, T. (1984). Maternal dependency and childrearing attitudes among

mothers of adolescent females. Adolescence L206), 795-804.

 

Galejs, I. & Pease, D. (1986). Parenting beliefs and locus of control orientation. The
Journal of Psyehology, m6), 501-510.

Garbarino, J., Sebes, J. & Schellenbach, C. (1984). Families at risk for destructive
parent-chﬂd relations in adolescence. Chile Development, g5, 174-183.

Gjerde, P. F. (1986). The interpersonal structure of family interaction settings: Parent-
adolescent relations in dyads and triads. Develeemenﬂ Egghelegy, 2(3), 297-
304.

Gurin, P., Gurin, G., Lao, R. C. & Beattie, M. (1969). Internal-external control in the
motivational dynamics of Negro youth. W 25(3), 29-53.

Hall,G.S.(l904).Al n :IP hl di l'on hsil
W New York: D.
Appleton & Co.

Hall, J. A. (1987). Parent-adolescent conﬂict: An empirical review. Mm
2(88), 767-789.

Hendrix, B. L. (1980). The effects of locus of control on the self esteem of black and

white youth. The Jewel ef §Qi§l Peyehelogy, .1_1_2_, 301-302.
Hill, J. P. (1980). The early adolescent in the family. In Ilhe Seveng-Ninm YeMk
of the Natieng ﬁm'eg fgg the $3511 ef ﬂeeetjen,

Howes P., & Markrnan, H. J. (1989). Marital quality and child functioning: a

longitudinal investigation. thlg Develeement, 60, 1044-1051.

67
Hunter, F. T. & Youniss, J. (1982). Changes in function of three relations during

adolescence. Qevelepmental Psychology, 1_8(6), 806-811.

Jacob, T. (1974). Patterns of family conﬂict and dominance as a function of child age
and social class. Developmengal Psychology, 1_0(1), 1-12.

Johnson, B. L. & Kilmann, P. R. (1975). The relationship between recalled parental
attitudes and intemal-extemal control. Journal of ini al Ps holo £0), 40-
42.

Jones, E. E. & Zoppel, C. L. (1979). Personality differences among blacks in Jamaica

and the United States. rn f 1 l h 1 19(4), 436-456.
Krampen, G. (1989). Perceived childrearing practices and the development of locus of

control in early adolescentS- WWW
1_2(2), 177-193.

Lewis, M. & Goldberg, S. (1969). Perceptual-cognitive development in infancy: A
generalized expectancy model as a function of the mother-infant interaction.
MW 12(1). 81-100.

Maccoby E. E. & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:
Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed), WWW
(Vol. 4, pp 1-101). New York: Academic Press.

MacDonald, A. P. (1971). Internal-external locus of conuol: Parental antecedents.
Jeumel ef angultjng egg Qiniee; Peyehelogy, 11, 141-147.

McKinney, J. P. (1980). Engagement style (agent vs. patient) in childhood and

adolescence. Human gveleemene, 23, 192-209.

68
McKinney, J. P. (1981). The construct of engagement style: Theory and research. In

H. Lefcourt (Ed.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct: Assessment
Methods _1_, (359-383). New York, New York: Academic Press.

 

McKinney, J. P. (1990). Personal Communication.

Mead, Margaret, (1961). Qeming ef Age in Samoa, (3rd ed.). William Morrow and
Company.

Montemayor, R. (1983). Parents and adolescents in conflict: All families some of the
time and some families most of the time. Jogmal ef £1eg quleeeeng, L 83-103.

Montemayor, R. (1985). A naturalistic view of conflict between adolescents and their

parents and siblings. f l A 01 n 5,0), 23-30.

Montemayor, R. (1986). Family variation in parent-adolescent storm and stress.
Jeumgl ef Adoleseent Reggieh, _1_(1), 15-31.

Moos, R. H. (1974) Family environment scale. In R. H. Moos, P. M. Insel, and B.
Humphrey m in limin M 1 F il W En ' nm nt
ﬁeﬂes, (1-15). Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Moos, R., Insel, P. M., & Humphrey, B. (1974). Prelimingy Manual for Family
Environment Scﬂe, Werk Environment Seale, as; (Queen Enm’ nmeng Seale. Palo
Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Nowicki, S., & Segal, W. (1974). Perceived parental characteristics, locus of control
orientation, and behavioral correlates of locus of Control. W

Peychelegy, ML 33-37.
Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. M

Qeneelg'ng ens! glinieal byeholegy, 40, 148-154.

69
Nunn, G. D. & Parish, T. S. (1980). Students’ perceptions of parental practices and

evaluations of self, mother, and father. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 10, 1269-
1270.
Nydegger, C. N. & Mitteness, L. S. (1988). Etiquette and ritual in family conversation.

American Behavioral Scientist 1116), 702-716.

 

Offer, D. & Offer, J. (1975). Frem teenage to young manhﬂ New York: Basic.
Palmer, R. D. (1971). Parental perception and perceived locus of come] in

psychopathology. 152qu ef Peggenalig, _L9, 420-431.
Papini, D. R., & Sebby, R. A. (1987). Adolescent pubertal status and affective family

relationships: A multivariate assessment. WW
m0), 1-15.

Robin, A. L. (1981). A controlled evaluation of problem-solving Communication
training with parent-adolescent conﬂict. Behgvig Therapy, _12, 593-609.

Rorter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement- WW 39(1).

Sherman, L. W. (1984). Development of children’s perceptions of internal locus of
control: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. Journal ef Pemnelity, gm),
338-354.

Smetana, J. G., Braeges, J. L. & Yau, J. (1991). Doing what you say and saying what
you do: Reasoning about adolescent-parent conﬂict in interviews and interactions.

legmal ef AQoleseent Re§eageh, 6(3), 276-295.

70
Tzuriel, D. & Haywood, H. C. (1985). Locus of control and child-rearing practices in

intrinsically motivated and extrinsically motivated children. Psychological Regen,
51, 887-894.

Wish, M., Deutsch, M. & Kaplan, S. J. (1976). Perceived dimensions of

interpersonal relations. Joernal of Personality and Smial Psychology, 35(4), 409-
420.

Yates, R., Kennelly, K., & Cox, S. H. (1975). Perceived contingency of parental

reinforcements, parent-child relations, and locus of control. Psyeholegical Rem ,
16, 139-146.

Yee, D. K., & Flanagan, C. (1985). Family environments and self-consciousness in

early adolescence. E 1 A l n 5(1), 59-68.

Appendix A

71

Appendix A

Dear Parents and Students:

My name is Nancy Hill. I am a Psychology graduate student at Michigan State
University studying parent-adolescent relationships. I am interested in how parents and
adolescents interact with others in a relationship in general, and how this affects the
parent-adolescent relationship. I would like to know if you would be interested in
participating a study I will be conducting in the next couple of months under the
guidance of Dr. John P McKinney. It will require only about forty-ﬁve minutes of
your time.

All that is asked is that both of the parents ﬁll out three brief questionnaires. The
son or daughter will be asked to complete four questionnaires during school. The ﬁrst
one is a story completion questionnaire. It will give you an initial story and ask you to
write what would come next. An example of a story is: "Sally wants to play tennis.
She asks her friend if she wants to play." You would write a sentence that explains
what would come next. The second questionnaire has a true/false questions. A sample
question would be: "Family members really help and support one another." You would
be asked to answer whether this statement is generally true or false in regards to your
family. The ﬁnal questionnaire for the parents will require that you choose between
two statements which one you agree with most. The fourth questionnaire for the child

only will ask if the child generally agrees or disagrees with the statement listed in

72

regards to your family. A sample question would be: "My mother/father has always
encouraged verbal give and take whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions
were unreasonable". These will be sent home to you by your child upon returning this
letter signed. Your identity and responses to the questionnaires will be held in the
strictest conﬁdence. The questionnaires that you will receive will be coded numerically
such that parent-adolescent triads can be correctly matched without the use of
identifying information. Please consider whether or not you would be interested in
participating. Once you have decided to participate please sign the enclosed form and
return it to your child’s homeroom teacher. Please feel free to contact me at 517-355-
3936 if you have any questions.

Thank you

Nancy E. Hill

73

I, . have voluntarily decided to participate in the study that
Nancy Hill is conducting on adolescent-parent relationship. I understand that
everything in the study has been explained to me and all of my questions have been
satisfactorily answered. I also understand that my identity will be held anonymous,
that I am voluntarily participating in this study and that I may withdraw from the
study at anytime, for any reason without penalty. I understand that I have a right to
the general results of the study, but speciﬁc results will not be possible due to

anonymity. Participation in this study does not guarantee any beneﬁcial results.

 

 

Parent’s signature Date

 

Student’s Signatme

I would like the ﬁnal results of this study
Name

Address

 

Appendix B

74

Appendix B

Telephone Script

Hello Mr/Mrs . my name is calling in regards to
the letter you should have received from Nancy Hill discussing a study on adolescent-
parent relations. Did you receive the letter? It should have been sent home from school
with your son/daughter.

If yes: Good, Do you have any questions that I can answer at this time? Have you
decided whether or not you would like to participate?

If no: Is there any particular reason why. O.K. thank you for your time.

If yes: Good, if you could please send the signed permission slip back to school
with your son/daughter I will be able to send you the packet of questionnaires. Thanks
for your time.

If no: It is a study examining how both parents and adolescents interact with
others, in general and how this effects the parent-adolescent relationship. Do you think
you would be interested? It only requires about ﬁfteen to twenty minutes of your time.
All that you would be asked to do is to ﬁll out two questionnaires that would be
mailed to you. If you are interested I can see to it that your son/daughter receives a
letter from their teacher. Do you think that you would be interested?

If yes: Good I will see to it that you get a letter.

75

If no: Is there a particular reason for not wanting to participate? O. K. thanks for

your time, Bye.

Appendix C

76

Appendix C
Family Environment Scale
Description of the Subtests taken from

Moos, 1974 (p 4)

Relationehie Dimension§

1. Cohesion: The extent to which family members are concerned and committed to the
family and the degree to which family members are helpful and supportive of each
other.

2. Expressiveness: The extent to which family members are allowed and encouraged to
act openly and to express their feelings directly.

3. Conflict: The extent to which the open expression of anger and aggression and

generally conﬂictual interactions are characteristic of the family.

P nal Dimen i n
4: Independence: The extent to which family members are encouraged to be assertive,
self suﬂ'rcient, to make their own decisions and to think things out for themselves.
5: Achievement Orientation: The extent to which different types of activities (e.g.,
school and work) are cast into an achievement oriented or competitive framework.
6. Intellectual-Cultural Orientation: The extent to which the family is concerned about

political, social, intellectual and cultural activities.

77

7. Active Recreational Orientation: The extent to which the family participates actively
in various kinds of recreational and sporting activities.
8. Moral-Religious Emphasis: The extent to which the family actively discusses and

emphasizes ethical and religious issues and values.

System Maintenanee Dimeneiene

9. Organization: Measures how important order and organization is in the family in
terms of structuring the family activities, ﬁnancial planning, and explicitrress and
clarity in regard to family rules and responsibilities.

10. Control: Assesses the extent to which the family is organized in a hierarchical
manner, the rigidity of family rules and procedures and the extent to which family

members order each other around.

Appendix D

78

Appendix D
1Yates, III, R., Kennelly, K. & Cox, S. H. (1975)
2McKinney, J. P. (1980)
3Buri, J. R. (1989)

‘Moos, R. H. (1974)

79

Story Completion Test
(adult female)
The following stories are all about a lady named Sally. Please complete the story with
a third sentence by telling the next thing that happens in each story. Remember, they

are all about Sally.

1. Sally is visiting a new part of town and she gets lost. She stops to ask a police

ofﬁcer where Brook street is.

 

2. Sally is in a hurry and can’t do her own project. She asks her partner if she can

help out.

 

3. Sally wants to celebrate her birthday. She asks a few friends what they are doing

that night.

 

4. Sally tries out for a part in the local play. She asks the director what her chances

are.

 

5. Sally wants to play tennis. She asks her friend if she wants to play.

 

6. Sally enjoys good food She asks her sister if she wants to go out to dinner.

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

80
Sally is going skiing. She asks her friend which trail they should take.

 

Sally is bored with her work today. She asks her friend what else they could do.

 

Sally is pretty strong. She asks her friend, who is moving, if she wants some help.

 

Sally wants to see a movie. She hates to go alone so she asks her partner if he

wants to go.

 

Sally is hard at work. She shows her employer what she has done.

 

Sally is reading a story aloud. She asks her daughter if she is enjoying it.

 

Sally wants to go downtown. She asks a friend if she can use the friend’s car.

 

Sally is having marital troubles. She asks a friend for advice.

 

Sally is low on cash. She asks a friend for a loan.

 

Sally is an excellent cook. She asks her friend if she wants help preparing food

for her party.

 

81

17. Sally is a hard worker. She gives her supervisor an excellent report.

 

18. Sally is going for a visit. She asks her friend for directions.

 

19. Sally likes a new suit she sees in the store window. She ask the clerk if she thinks

it is well made.

 

20. Sally is a good typist. She offers to help her friend who has a project due.

 

Comments?

82

Story Completion Test
(adult male)
The following stories are all about a guy named Bill. Please complete the story with a
third sentence by telling the next thing that happens in each story. Remember, they are

all about Bill.

1. Bill is visiting a new part of town and he gets lost. He stops to ask a police

ofﬁcer where Brook street is.

 

2. Bill is in a hurry and can’t do his own project. He asks his partner if he can help

out.

 

3. Bill wants to celebrate his birthday. He asks a few friends what they are doing

that night.

 

4. Bill tries out for a part in the local play. He asks the director what his chances

are.

 

5. Bill wants to play tennis. He asks his friend if he wants to play.

 

6. Bill enjoys good food. He asks his sister if she wants to go out to dinner.

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

83
Bill is going skiing. He asks his friend which trail they should take.

 

Bill is bored with his work today. He asks his friend what else they could do.

 

Bill is pretty strong. He asks his friend, who is moving, if he wants some help.

 

Bill wants to see a movie. He hates to go alone so he asks his partner if she wants

to go.

 

Bill is hard at work. He shows his employer what he has done.

 

Bill is reading a story aloud. He asks her daughter if she is enjoying it.

 

Bill wants to go downtown. He asks a friend if he can use the friend’s car.

 

Bill is having marital troubles. He asks a friend for advice.

 

Bill is low on cash. He asks a friend for a loan.

 

Bill is an excellent cook. He asks his friend if he wants help preparing food for

his party.

 

84

17. Bill is a hard worker. He gives his supervisor an excellent report.

 

18. Bill is going for a visit. He asks his friend for directions.

 

19. Bill likes a new suit he sees in the store window. He ask the clerk if he thinks it

is well made.

 

20. Bill is a good typist. He offers to help his friend who has a project due.

 

Comments?

85

Story Completion Test
(adolescent female)
The following stories are all about a girl named Sally. Please complete the story with
a third sentence by telling the next thing that happens in each story. Remember, they

are all about Sally.

1. Sally is visiting a new part of town and she gets lost. She stops to ask a police

ofﬁcer where Brook Street is.

 

2. Sally is in a hurry and can’t do her homework. She asks her class mate if she can

borrow hers.

 

3. Sally wants to celebrate her birthday. She asks a few friend what they are doing

that night.

 

4. Sally uies out for the swim team. She asks the coach what her chances are.

 

5. Sally wants to play tennis. She asks her friend if she wants to play.

 

6. Sally is in the mood for pizza. She asks her mother what is for dinner.

 

7. Sally is going skating. She asks her friend if she thinks it is too cold.

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

86
Sally is bored with studying today. She asks her friend what else they could do.

 

Sally sees an old man crossing the street. She asks him if she can carry his

package for him.

 

Sally wants to see a movie. She hates to go alone so she asks her brother if he

wants to go.

 

Sally is hard at work cleaning her room. She shows her mother what she has

done.

 

Sally is reading a story aloud. She asks her younger sister if she is enjoying it.

 

Sally wants to go to a football game. She asks a friend if her mother would drive.

 

Sally wants to "go with" a certain boy. She asks a friend for advice.

 

Sally lost her lunch money. She asks a friend if she would lend her some money.

 

Sally has done pretty will on her tests and homework. She asks her friend if she

want help with her math.

 

87
17 . Sally is a good student. She gives her teacher an excellent paper.

 

18. Sally is going for a visit. She asks her friend for directions.

 

l9. Sally likes a new outﬁt she sees in the store window. She asks the clerk if she

thinks it will be the style this season.

 

20. Sally is good at playing the guitar. She asks her friend if she want to start a band.

 

Comments?

88

Story Completion Test
(adolescent male)
The following stories are all about a boy named Bill. Please complete the story with a
third sentence by telling the next thing that happens in each story. Remember, they are

all about Bill.

1. Bill is visiting a new part of town and he gets lost. He stops to ask a police

ofﬁcer where Brook Street is.

 

2. Bill is in a hurry and can’t do his homework. He asks his classmate if he can

borrow his.

 

3. Bill wants to celebrate his birthday. He asks a few friends what they are doing

that night.

 

4. Bill tries out for the swim team. He asks the coach what his chances are.

 

5. Bill wants to play tennis. He asks his friend if he wants to play.

 

6. Bill is in the mood for pizza He asks his mother what is for dinner.

 

7. Bill is going skating. He asks his friend if he thinks it is too cold.

 

10.

11.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

17.

89
Bill is bored with studying today. He asks his friend what else they could do.

 

Bill sees an old man crossing the street. He asks him if he can carry his package

for him.

 

Bill wants to see a movie. He hates to go alone so he asks his brother if he wants

to go.

 

Bill is hard at work cleaning his room. He shows his mother what he has done.

 

Bill is reading a story aloud. He asks his younger sister if she is enjoying it.

 

Bill wants to go to a football game. He asks a friend if his mother would drive.

 

Bill wants to "go with" a certain girl. He asks a friend for advice.

 

Bill lost his lunch money. He asks a friend if he would lend him some money.

 

Bill has done pretty will on his tests and homework. He asks his friend if he want

help with his math.

 

Bill is a good student. He gives his teacher an excellent paper.

 

90
18. Bill is going for a visit. He asks his friend for directions.

 

19. Bill likes a new sweatshirt he sees in the store window. He asks the clerk if he

thinks it will be the style this season.

 

20. Bill is good at playing the guitar. He asks his friend if he want to start a band.

 

Comments?

91
Rotter’s I-E Scale

This is a questionnaire to ﬁnd out the way in which certain important events in
our society affect different people. Each item consists of a pair of alternatives lettered
a or b. Please select the one statement of each pair ( and only one) which you more
strongly believe to be the case as far as you’re concerned. Be sure to select the one
you actually believe to be more true rather than the one you think you should choose
or the one you would like to be true. This is a measure of personal belief: obviously
there are no right or wrong answers.

In some instances you may discover that you believe both statements or neither
one. In such cases, be sure to select the one you more strongly believe to be the case
as far as you’re concerned. Also, try to respond to each item independently when

making your choice, do not be inﬂuenced by your previous choices.

1.a.

2.a.

3.a.

4.a.

5.a.

6.a.

7.a.

8.a.

92

Children get into trouble because their parents punish them too much.

The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents are too easy
with them.

Many of the unhappy things in people’s lives are partly due to bad luck.
People’s misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.

One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don’t take
enough interest in politics.

There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them.
In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world.
Unfortunately, an individual’s worth often passes unrecognized no matter how
hard he tries.

The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense.

Most students don’t realize the extent to which their grades are inﬂuenced by
accidental happenings.

Without the right breaks on cannot be an effective leader.

Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage of their
opportunities.

No matter how hard you try some people just don’t like you.

People who can’t bet others to like them don’t understand how to get along
with others.

Heredity plays the major role in determining one’s personality.

It is one’s experiences in life which determine what they’re like.

9.a.

10.a.

11.a.

12.a.

13.a.

14.a.

15.a.

93
I have often found that what is going to happen will happen.

Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to
take a deﬁnite course of action.

In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely of ever such a thing as
an unfair test.

Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that
studying is really useless.

Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do
with it.

Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right
time.

The average citizen can have an inﬂuence in government decisions.

This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much the little
guy can do about it.

When I make plans. I am almost certain that I can make them work.

It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be
a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow.

There are certain people who are just no good.

There is some good in everybody.

In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck.

Many time we might just as well decide what to do by ﬂipping a coin.

l6.a.

17.a.

18.a.

19.a.

20.a.

2l.a.

22.a.

94
Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the

right place ﬁrst.

Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability, luck has little or
nothing to do with it.

As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims of forces we
can neither understand, nor control.

By taking an active part in political and social affairs the pe0ple can control
world events.

Most people don’t realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by
accidental happenings.

There really is no such thing as "luck."

One should always be willing to admit mistakes.

it is usually best to cover up one’s mistakes.

It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you.

How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person you are.

In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good
ones.

Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all
three.

With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.

It is difﬁcult for people to have much control over the things politicians do in

ofﬁce.

23.a.

24.a.

25.a.

26.a.

27.a.

28.a.

29.a.

95

Sometimes I can’t understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give.
there is a direct connection between how hard I study and the grades I get.
A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what they should do.
A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are.

Many times I feel that I have little inﬂuence over the things that happen to
me.

It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role
in my life.

People are lonely because they don’t try to be friendly.

There;s not much use in trying too hard to please people, if they like you,
they like you.

There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school.

Team sports are an excellent way to build character.

What happens to me is my own doing.

Sometimes I feel that I don’t have enough control over the direction my life
is taking.

Most of the time I can’t understand why politicians behave the way they do.
In the long run the people are responsible for bad government on a national

as well as on a local level.

96
Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ)

 

Instructions: For each of the following statements, circle the number of the 5-point
scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) that best indicates how that statement
applies to you and your father. Try to read and think about each statement as it applies
to you and your father during your years growing up at home. There re no right or
wrong answers, so don’t spend a lot of time on any one item. We are looking for your

overall impression regarding each statement. Be sure not to omit any items.

 

1. While I was growing up my father felt that in a well-run home the children

should have their way in the family as often as the parents do.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
2. Even if his children didn’t agree with him, my father felt that it was for our

own good if we were forced to conform to what he thought was right.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

97

Whenever my father told me to do something as I was growing up, he

expected me to do it immediately without asking any questions.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up, once family policy had been established, my father

discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the children in the family.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

My father has always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever I have felt

that family rules and restrictions were unreasonable.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

My father has always felt that what children need is to be free to make up
their own minds and to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree
with what their parents might want.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

10.

98

As I was growing up, my father did not allow me to question any decision

that he had made.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up my father directed the activities and decision of the

children in the family through reasoning and discipline.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

My father has always felt that more force should be used by parents in order

to get their children to behave the way they are supposed to.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up, my father did n_ot feel that I needed to obey rules and

regulations of behavior simply because someone in authority had established

them.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

ll.

12.

13.

14.

99

As I was growing up, I knew what my father expected of me in my family,
but I also felt free to discuss those expectations with my father when I felt

that they were unreasonable.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

My father felt that wise parents should teach their children early just who is

boss in the family.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up, my father seldom gave me expectations and guidelines

for my behavior.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

Most of the time as I was growing up, my father did what the children in the
family wanted when making family decisions.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

15.

16.

17.

18.

100

As the children in my family were growing up, my father consistently gave us

direction and guidance in rational and objective ways.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up, my father would get very upset if I tried to disagree

with him.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

My father feels that most problems in society would be solved if parents

would go; restrict their children’s activities.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up my father let me know what behaviors he expected of
me, and if I didn’t meet those expectations he punished me.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

19.

20.

21.

22.

101

As I was growing up, my father allowed me to decide most things for myself

without a lot of direction from him.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up my father took the children’s opinions into consideration
when making family decisions, but he would not decide for something simply

because the children wanted it.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

My father did 19; view himself as responsible for directing and guiding my

behavior as I was growing up.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

My father had clear standards of behavior for the children in our home as I
was growing up, but he was willing to adjust those standard to the needs of
each of the individual children in the family.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

23.

24.

25.

102

My father gave me direction for my behavior and activities as I was growing
up and he expected me to follow his direction, but he was always willing to

listen to my concerns and to discuss that direction with me.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up my father allowed me to form my own point of view on

family matters and he generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was

going to do.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

My father has always felt that most problems in society would be solved if
we could get parents to strictly and forcibly deal with their children when
they don’t do what they are supposed to as they are growing up.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

26.

27.

28.

29.

103

As I was growing up, my father often told me exactly what he wanted me to

do and how he expected me to do it.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up my father gave me clear direction for my behaviors and

activities, but he was also understanding when I disagreed with him.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up my father did get direct the behaviors, activities and

desires of the children in the family.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up I knew what my father expected of me in the family

and he insisted that I conform to those expectations simply out of respect for

his authority.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

30.

104
As I was growing up, if my father made a decision in the family that hurt me,

he was willing to discuss that decision with me and to admit it if he had

made a mistake.
I 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

105
Parent Authority Questionnaire (PAQ)

 

Instructions: For each of the following statements, circle the number of the 5-point
scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) that best indicates how that statement
applies to you and your mother. Try to read and think about each statement as it
applies to you and your mother during your years growing up at home. There re no
right or wrong answers, so don’t spend a lot of time on any one item. We are looking

for your overall impression regarding each statement. Be sure not to omit any items.

 

1. While I was growing up my mother felt that in a well-run home the children

should have their way in the family as often as the parents do.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
2. Even if his children didn’t agree with him, my mother felt that it was for our

own good if we were forced to conform to what he thought was right.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

106

Whenever my mother told me to do something as I was growing up, he

expected me to do it immediately without asking any questions.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up, once family policy had been established, my mother

discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the children in the family.

1 2 3 ' 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

My mother has always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever I have felt

that family rules and restrictions were unreasonable.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

My mother has always felt that what children need is to be free to make up
their own minds and to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree
with what their parents might want.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

 

10.

107

As I was growing up, my mother did not allow me to question any decision

that he had made.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up my mother directed the activities and decision of the

children in the family through reasoning and discipline.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

My mother has always felt that more force should be used by parents in order

to get their children to behave the way they are supposed to.

1 2 3 4 5
Suongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up, my mother did get feel that I needed to obey rules and

regulations of behavior simply because someone in authority had established

them.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

11.

12.

13.

14.

108

As I was growing up, I knew what my mother expected of me in my family,
but I also felt free to discuss those expectations with my mother when I felt

that they were unreasonable.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

My mother felt that wise parents should teach their children early just who is

boss in the family.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up, my mother seldom gave me expectations and guidelines

for my behavior.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

Most of the time as I was growing up, my mother did what the children in
the family wanted when making family decisions.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

15.

16.

17.

18.

109

As the children in my family were growing up, my mother consistently gave

us direction and guidance in rational and objective ways.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up, my mother would get very upset if I tried to disagree

with him.

1 2 3 ' 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

My mother feels that most problems in society would be solved if parents

would n_ot restrict their children’s activities.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up my mother let me know what behaviors he expected of
me, and if I didn’t meet those expectations he punished me.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

19.

20.

21.

22.

1 10
As I was growing up, my mother allowed me to decide most things for

myself without a lot of direction from him.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up my mother took the children’s opinions into
consideration when making family decisions, but he would not decide for

something simply because the children wanted it.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

My mother did _n_gt_ view himself as responsible for directing and guiding my

behavior as I was growing up.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

My mother had clear standards of behavior for the children in our home as I
was growing up, but he was willing to adjust those standard to the nwds of
each of the individual children in the family.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

23.

24.

25.

26.

111

My mother gave me direction for my behavior and activities as I was growing
up and he expected me to follow his direction, but he was always willing to

listen to my concerns and to discuss that direction with me.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up my mother allowed me to form my own point of view
on family matters and he generally allowed me to decide for myself what I

was going to do.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

My mother has always felt that most problems in society would be solved if
we could get parents to strictly and forcibly deal with their children when

they don’t do what they are supposed to as they are growing up.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up, my mother often told me exactly what he wanted me to
do and how he expected me to do it.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

27.

28.

29.

30.

112

As I was growing up my mother gave me clear direction for my behaviors

and activities, but he was also understanding when I disagreed with him.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up my mother did pet direct the behaviors, activities and

desires of the children in the family.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me in the family

and he insisted that I conform to those expectations simply out of respect for

his authority.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

As I was growing up, if my mother made a decision in the family that hurt

me, he was willing to discuss that decision with me and to admit it if he had

made a mistake.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree