1.93.6“..BH w
J v. vallflfl. u
. 44413.95 ,
$.16}!th
a)?! :pa.

elf. vI Ole ‘
f2. 3 «v... :15:

(cc. . oiK.’

it: I, ’1

‘ Vi!
i...

. y 1‘
t ‘ Judy!
.......:.r.w..}r E...) 1..
14:61! .l‘z‘L tun!!!
“haw
Anna.

. 031.:
ftp‘ {5.3.0(FI:
“O‘DVC—ti‘l ‘

s: .3.le .

VFW!!!“

ss!‘

.l’},
.tfl‘

91:32:17 N

. 6:55..) .hflfiurHrlvct 2...: .. x

. . all-r! .

Awf .Offciliufa

.0)?
nun.

‘ . I It
, ‘ 1).};3.’ l
, . iii! . ll. .
\ .2...) \tv ‘ ‘

7:". \1
F x}... J.

 

.yr4.i.ll10
IOD‘.'I Illf‘.

.lll'rtotla pDI'LP J)? y)
linrlllli..ru‘ 111.! it

; .. - 0‘00 V 3"“ l ’.“$‘4'. V
, . . . . 5 ‘ ., p... p.
m v.» $.74. A . shod. :évzsirrfiwng
n.3,“! . .3.) < Sun... . 51;: . o. rikvlloilouiéa
:3"?- 7 vs Iii! f a F?“ I01
. . . V 55..fv..t..sréuhalbna ‘ {Sag
. .rc.etcrrn.1i2liv{.tlu xv .Irlzli
. , , ..v|l..f-:vlltn.: I.

 

. ‘1 . I‘ll

“Him as
MICHlGAN STATE

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\L \\\\\\\\\\\\\34 \\\\\\\\l

 

 

l

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Whe Relationship Between Undergraduates' Projective
Child Caregiving Behaviors and the Degree of Cohesion and
Adaptability in Their Perceived Family Structure
presented by

Virginia Carol Wright

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. degree in Psychology

%f%
Date fl/Mfif /

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

'

t LIBRARY
Mlchlgan State
University

 

l

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
emu-runwa-

 

 

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNDERGRADUTATES'
PROJECTIVE CHILD CAREGIVING BEHAVIORS
AND THE DEGREE OF COHESION

AND ADAPTABILITY IN THEIR PERCEIVED FAMILY STRUCTURE

by

Virginia Carol Wright

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Clinical Psychology

1990

ABSTRACT
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNDERGRADUATES' PROJECTIVE CHILD

CAREGIVING BEHAVIORS AND THE DEGREE OF COHESION AND
ADAPTABILITY IN THEIR PERCEIVED FAMILY STRUCTURE

BY

Virginia Carol Wright

Positive communication skills are characteristic of
sensitive child caregiving and are hypothesized to facilitate
balanced levels of cohesion and adaptability in healthy
family systems. The present study, using 154 undergraduate
students, assessed the relationship between perceived degree
of cohesion and adaptability in one's family-of-origin and
one's child caregiving attitudes in hypothetical problem
situations, as measured by the FACES-III and the Sensitivity
to Children Questionnaire, respectively.

A factor analysis of 19 categories of caregiving
responding yielded four modes of caregiving: emphasis on the
adult's perspective, consequence-specific discipline,
recognition of child input, and ordering/directing. Results
indicated that use of these four modes of caregiving
responding did not vary according to subjects' perception of
family-of-origin organization. Mode of caregiving responding
did vary according to gender: females scored higher than
males on emphasis on adult's perspective and recognition of

child input; males scored higher on ordering/directing.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to those
people who helped in the completion of this project.

I offer many thanks to all of the undergraduate students
who helped during the different phases of this project,
especially to those four students who served as coders.

A special thanks to Marcia Nagel whose efforts and unyielding
willingness to help exceeded all expectations.

I also thank my committee members for their support and
guidance. Larry Messe and Frank Floyd both contributed not
only to a finished product but also to a greater
understanding of, and appreciation for, research methods and
statistical analysis. Above all, a very sincere thanks to
Gary Stollak who served as the chairman of my committee. His
earlier research provided the impetus for this thesis and he
provided the encouragement and guidance I needed to continue
and eventually complete this task.

Finally, I thank my family and friends for giving me
their support and confidence. In particular, I give my
thanks to Lisa Pirsch, not only for her friendship but also
for her scholarly assistance, and to Ron Lapporte, whose

friendship, confidence and caring truly made a difference.

iii

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER 1.

CHAPTER 2.

CHAPTER 3.

CHAPTER 4.

CHAPTER 5.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ...........
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...........

The role of communication
in the family OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...

Communication patterns in healthy
and unhealthy family systems .......

Communication and the Circumplex
Model of Marital and Family Systems

The effects of child caregiving
practices on the psychosocial

development of children ......... .....

Individual and systemic influences
in child caregiving styles .......

Foundations for a relationship
between family health and individual
Child caregiving attitUdea coo-00000

HYPOTHESES OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO .......

METHOD .............................
Subjects ..........................
Measures ..........................
RESULTS ...........................
Category Usage and Reliability .....

Relationship between caregiving
sensitivity and global family health

Data Reduction .OOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOIOOOO

Relationships among perceived family
system types and categories of

caregiving responding ...............

iv

10

14

19

22
26
31
31
31
35

35

35

40

46

CHAPTER 6.

APPENDICES

A. Circumplex Model:
and Family Systems (Olson)

Gender differences ..............

summary OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO.
DISCUSSION OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Reliability and validity of the
measures OOOOOOOOIOOOOOOIOIOOOO

Gender Differences ............

Directions for future research

B. Factor loadings for Sensitivity to
Children questionnaire scoring
categories from Teyber et al., 1977 .

C. Demographics Questionnaire .........

D. Sensitivity to Children Questionnaire

E. Scoring Guide to the STC ...........

F. FACES III .00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

G. Sample distribution in the sixteen
family system types .................

H. Family system types for the analysis
Of variance 0..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

REFERENCES

Sixteen types of Marital

51
54

56

57
61

63

67

68
69
72
77

83

84

85

86

Table 1.

Mean Usage,

LIST OF TABLES

standard deviation, and

reliability coefficients for the STC
scoring categories 000000000000000000000000

Factor loadings for scoring categories
comprising the eight factors of mode
Ofcare81v1ng 00000000000000000000000000000

Factor loadings of the original factors
comprising the four composite scales ......

Items comprising the four composite scales

Means and F Scores on the four scales for
the adaptability groups 0000000000000000000

Means and F Scores on the four scales for
the cohesion groups .......................

Means and F Scores on the four scales for
the family types 00000000000000000000000000

Gender differences in usage of categories
of caregiving relative to total number of
codable responses .........................

Gender differences in modes of caregiving

responding

vi

Page

36

41

43

44

48

49

50

52

53

Chapter 1

Statement of the Problem

Despite the many conceptual bases for postulating a
relationship between one's caregiving attitudes and actions
and one's perception of the family-of-origin organization
(e.g., the degree of cohesion and adaptability), the
psychological literature lacks empirical evidence for such a
relationship. Patricia Minuchin (1985) has noted:

it would be useful to tap what children

perceive of their parents' interaction

and to interview adults not only about

their recall of childhood experiences,

but about perceptions of their parents'

interaction during childhood and their

own interactions as mates and parents

(p. 298).
It was the purpose of this research to provide information
with regard to this issue by studying the relationship
between an undergraduate's perception of his/her family
experience and his/her child caregiving behaviors assessed
via a questionnaire consisting of hypothetical parent-child
problem situations.

The specific goal was to empirically test the

relationship between perception of family cohesion and
adaptability in a large sample of undergraduates and their

behavior toward children in hypothetical situations. The

following general hypothesis was tested:

Young adults who perceive their families

as balanced in terms of cohesion and

adaptability will exhibit more behaviors

indicative of sensitivity toward

children (via more positive

communication) than will young adults

who perceive their families as extreme.
More specifically, it was hypothesized that a)individuals who
perceive their families as achieving balanced levels of
cohesion and adaptability have learned more positive
communication skills through their interactions with other
family members than have individuals who perceive their
families as more extreme and b)these communication skills
will be evidenced in sensitive responding in hypothetical
problem caregiving situations.

In the present research, ”balanced" and "extreme"
families were operationally defined according to Olson's
Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems (1985). The
circumplex model integrates two primary dimensions:
cohesion, or ”the emotional bonding that family members have
toward one another,” and adaptability, "the ability of a
marital or family system to change its power structure, role
relationships, and relationship rules in response to
situational and develOpmental stress" (Olson, Portner, and
Lavee, 1985, p. 4). Extreme families are those which fall
on the extreme ends of the cohesion and adaptability
continuua. Balanced families are those which fall in the

middle of both dimensions. A third group, mid-range

families, are those which are on an extreme end of one

dimension, but are balanced on the other. The model assumes
a curvilinear relationship betweeen family structure and
adaptive functioning: families extreme on either end of the
dimensions are more likely to have difficulty coping with
situational and developmental stress and thus are more likely
to be poorly functioning families than are balanced or mid-
range families. (See Appendix A for a diagram of Olson's
family typologies.)

For the purpose of this research, parenting sensitivity
toward children will be Operationally defined as proposed by
Stollak, Scholom, Kallman, and Saturansky (1973) and Stollak
(1988). Stollak and his colleagues concluded that the ’
literature suggests four responses which indicate sensitivity
in caregiving: one which indicates an awareness and
acceptance of the child's experiences including their
thoughts, needs, wishes and feelings; one which facilitates
the child's understanding of the relationship between his or
her feelings and his or her actions; one which describes the
impact of the child's feelings and actions on the adult's
feelings and actions; and one which provides opportunity and
directions for the child to find appropriate outlets for his
or her feelings, needs and wishes (Stollak et al., 1973).

Also incorporated into the operational definition of
sensitivity (versus insensitivity) toward children as
proposed by Stollak et a1. (1973) and as used in the present

research are the categories of insensitive adult behaviors

originally proposed by Gordon (1970). These insensitive
adult responses are characterized, in general, by a lack of
awareness and lack of communication of the adult's acceptance

of the validity of children's feelings and experiences.

Chapter 2

Review of the Literature

 

The Role of Communication in the Family

 

While it is presently but one of several focuses of
family systems theory, the study of communication patterns
within the family was actually the emphasis of researchers
often credited with the seminal work in family systems
theory. Although originally intended to specifically provide
a developmental theory of schizophrenia, the work of Bateson
and colleagues (1956) marked perhaps the earliest implication
that disturbed behavior is actually disturbed communicative
behavior which is maintained and structured by interaction
with others, and more specifically with family members.
Earlier psychological monographs pertaining to human
communication were primarily provided by cognitive theorists
interested in the development of communication skills in
children, and it was not until the emergence of family
systems theory that researchers began to study the
communication patterns among family members and the
subsequent functioning of the family system.

Watzlawick and colleagues (1967) expanded on the earlier
work of Bateson and more clearly pronounced the family
systems approach by noting that the observation of human
behavior should not be an "inferential study of the mind [but

rather] the study of the observable manifestations of

relationships" (p. 12). Watzlawick et a1. further note that
the vehicle of such manifestations is communication.
Contemporary family systems theory continues its emphasis on
family communication as "what passes between the members, the
exchange of material, energy, and information, taking place
in the system” (Constantine, 1986). The significance of
communication patterns exhibited by the family is clear when
one considers the integral role played by communication in
the defining of various concepts held by family systems
theory. The conception of the healthy family as an ”open

system, for example, acknowledges that families ”maintain
constancy through a continuous exchange and flow of
information; [that] the identity and functioning of an open
system depends on communication within the system and between
the system and the external environment” (Jacob, 1987, p.11).
Thus, the family's inherent attempts to maintain homeostasis
(Jackson, 1957) depends upon the capacity of family members
to communicate functionally. As Steinglass (1984) notes,
such communication reduces uncertainty and thus permits the
establishment of patterned interrelationships.

In a healthy family system, the need for homeostasis is
coupled with a need for change and growth. This need for
morphogenesis (Speer, 1970) is also dependent upon functional
communication patterns. As individual family members grow

and deve10p amidst one another, their behaviors are

interpreted and evaluated and their activities are

coordinated through communication (Yerby and Burkel-Rothfuss,
1982). When family members are able to communicate clearly
with one another, the family is more able to grow and to
adapt within its environment (Jacob, 1987). Thus,
communication acts as an important vehicle for both stability
and change and, as such, for achieving a healthy balance on
the morphogenesis-morphostasis continuum.

Finally, communication (both verbal and nonverbal)
defines the nature of the relationships between family
members and thus establishes the boundaries within the family
system and subsystems. Communication in this sense refers to
the messages which characterize all behavior, for all
behavior is considered to be communicative (Watzlawick et
al., 1967). Within the system, patterns of interpreting and
responding to such messages emerge over time and it is the
pattern of giving and receiving messages which gives meaning
or definition to the relationship (Calvin and Brommel, 1986).
Consequently, communication helps to define the type of

boundaries maintained by systems and subsytems.

Communication Patterns in Healthy and Unhealthy Family
Systems

Because family systems theory takes an ahistoric
approach, focusing on the ”here and now” of family
functioning, emphasis is placed on the description of
communication strategies currently being implemented by the

family. Thus, a great deal of attention has been focused

upon the description of different patterns of communication
evidenced in healthy and unhealthy families. Yerby and
Buerkel-Rothfuss (1982) define communication patterns as
being: both verbal and nonverbal, specific to the
relationship, recurring and predictable, reciprocal and
interactive, relationship defining, emergent, and able to be
changed by forces within the system or able to influence
changes in that system.

Noting these and/or other defining characteristics of a
family system's pattern of communication, researchers have
attempted to describe families according to the specific
patterns evidenced in their interactions. Fitzpatrick
(1977), for example, used communication patterns as
behavioral data in her work regarding
autonomy/interdependence and power in couple relationships.
She and her colleagues found that utilizing a variety of
modes of communication was characteristic of enduring
relationships.

Similarly, families are often described in terms of
their communication networks, or prescribed channels of
information exchange. Galvin and Brommel (1986) note that
families who have high adaptability and flexible rules are
likely to have a wide variety of communication networks. On
the other hand, families who have low adaptability and
exhibit rigid rules are more likely to use the same networks

of communication for various problems and situations.

Kantor and Lehr (1976) describe family systems in terms
of psychopolitics, the strategies used by family members to
achieve personal goals through interpersonal processes.

These researchers consider communication to be both verbal and
behavioral means of influencing "distance regulation”, or the
separateness or connectedness of the family. Thus,
communication serves to define one's role in the family as
well as the relationships between members. Kantor and Lehr

distinguished four types of positions or roles which family

 

members could assume: movers, those who originate a
collective action; followers, who continue the established
action; opposers, who block or alter the action; and
bystanders, who remain neutral with respect to the
established action. According to Kantor and Lehr, family
systems are most functional when different family members
assume different roles with regard to a particular action but
are flexible in which roles they assume across situations.
Whereas Kantor and Lehr recognize the importance of each
communicative role assumed by family members, Satir (1972)
described four very similar constructs which she defined as
"defended communication" resulting from a threat to an
individual's self-esteem. The four variations of defended
communication according to Satir are: blaming, placating,
distracting, and computing (rationalization). Constantine

(1986) notes that these types of defended communication are

 

most descriptive of dysfunctional family systems and are

 

10

defensive styles of the psychopolitical positions postulated
by Kantor and Lehr. More specifically: blaming is a
defensive form of moving; placating, in which one is
accomodating and self-effacing, is an extreme form of
following; distracting, while indirect, is a form of
opposing; and computing, by maintaining distance through
intellectualization, is a defended form of bystanding.

Kantor and Lehr's concept of psychopolitics and Satir's
concept of defended communication have both been validated in
numerous studies (e.g. Koch and Hattem, 1983; and Bryson,
1978, respectively, as cited in Constantine, 1986). The
constructs are clearly similar. What Satir provides,
however, is a clearer understanding that the roles assumed by
family members are, in fact, methods of communication because
they define the nature of the relationships between family
members and consequently determine the separateness or

connectedness of the family.

Communication and the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family
Systems

David Olson agrees that communication facilitates
family connectedness, or cohesion, and also contends that it
facilitates family adaptability. Olson and his colleagues,
in an attempt to integrate the many concepts of family
functioning, have provided what is called the Circumplex
Model of Marital and Family Systems. Through their

conceptual clustering of over 50 concepts of family dynamics,

 

11

Olson and colleagues found that three basic concepts emerge:
family cohesion, family adaptability, and family
communication. Positive communication skills serve to help
a family maintain healthy levels of cohesion and

adaptability. As Olson, Portner & Lavee (1985) note:

Positive communication skills (i.e.
empathy, reflective listening,
supportive comments) enable couples and
families to share with each other their
changing needs and preferences as they
relate to cohesion and adaptability.
Negative communication skills (i.e.
double messages, double binds,
criticism) minimize the ability of a
couple or family members to share their
feelings, and thereby, restrict their
movement on these dimensions. (p.49)

Olson's Circumplex Model of family functioning has been the
subject of many validation studies, (e.g. Garbarino, Sebes &
Schellenbach, 1985) and is currently widely accepted among
family researchers and practitioners. However, the majority
of validation studies have focused exclusively upon the
dimensions of cohesion and adaptability and have ignored the
dimension of communication as a facilitating dimension. As
Olson et al. (1983) note, research on family communication is
challenging due to the many varying aspects of communication
on which researchers may focus and to the difficulty of
obtaining observational data concerning communication

patterns.

12

The validation studies of the Circumplex Model which
have addressed the dimension of communication have provided
support for a relationship between family cohesion and
adaptability and communication skills, although the findings
have not yet provided a clear picture.' Rodick, Henggeler, &
Hanson (1986) provided one of the more supportive studies in
their research on mother-son dyads. The authors compared
dyads in which the son was a juvenile offender with dyads in
which there was no history of adjudication or psychiatric
referral. In addition to finding support for the hypothesis
that balanced levels of cohesion and adaptability (as
measured by the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation
Scales, I.) would be evidenced more frequently in healthy
families, Rodick et al. also found that the balanced families
also exhibited better communication skills. Specifically, in
balanced families the mothers displayed more supportive and
explicit communication in an observation measure of dyadic
interaction.

Data were not reported for communication patterns of the
sons, but other studies have indicated that the hypothesis of
positive communication in balanced families is not supported
for adolescent family members. For example, reports from a
national survey of 426 ”normal" two-parent families with
adolescents (Olson et al., 1983; Barnes and Olson, 1985)
indicated that parents of balanced families perceived better

family communication than parents of extreme families, but

 

13

that this finding did not hold with the adolescent family
members.

Anderson (1986) also found generally supportive but
somewhat inconsistent evidence for the hypothesized
relationship between degree of family cohesion and
adaptability and communication skills as measured by
expressiveness. In particular, Anderson found that there was
the expected association between expressiveness and balanced
degrees of cohesion and adaptability for wives, but that
husbands evidenced lower levels of expressiveness associated
with balanced families.

What becomes clear from the available validation studies
concerning family communication and Olson's Circumplex Model
is that measured levels of perceived communication skill rely
upon both the family members studied and the variables with
which communication skill is defined. Still needed in future
validation studies is an attempt to more clearly examine the
various aspects of family communication which are most
clearly associated with cohesion and adaptability. However,
it is clear that there does exist a relationship between some
family members' perception of family functioning, as defined
by cohesion and adaptability, and communication skills.

In summary, while family systems theorists provide
similar yet differing views of healthy versus unhealthy,
families, most view communication skills as integral to the

functioning of the family. Olson notes that healthy families

14

are those which experience balanced levels of cohesion and
adaptability which are made possible through optimal
communication. Satir (1975) notes that healthy family
functioning is possible only when family members demonstrate
direct and clear communication which facilitates flexible
rules and an open link to society. Stachowiak (1975)
identified four factors associated with family effectiveness,
of which two pertained to communication skill: the
expression of conflict and the clarity of communication.
Barnhill (1979) describes functional families as those who
can accept and deal with change yet maintain consistencies
and that this requires clear and undistorted communication
between family members. Studies from the Timberlawn
Psychiatric Research Foundation (Lewis, Beavers, Gossett &
Phillips, 1976) describe "optimal" families as displaying
open, clear, and frank communication. Clearly, family
systems theory has continued to recognize that family
functioning is at least partly dependent upon the ability of

family members to communicate with one another.

The effects of child caregiving practices on the psychosocial
development of children

Over the past decades, there has been a proliferation of
research regarding the relationship between child caregiving
behavior or style and various aspects of child psychosocial

development. Investigators, for example, have provided

15

evidence for a relationship between caregiver actions and
attitudes and children's aggressiveness (Baldwin, 1948;
Sears, Maccoby & Levin, 1957), self-esteem (Coopersmith,
1967), sex-role development (Jackson, Ialongo & Stollak,
1986), creativity (Harrington, Block & Block, 1987),
competence (Matas et al., 1978), self-regulation (Maccoby &
Martin, 1983), and ability to form emotional relationships
(Bowlby, 1951).

Perhaps one of the most important contributors to the
psychological literature concerning the relationship between
child caregiving style and the psychosocial competence of the
child is Diana Baumrind. Baumrind (1967, 1968, 1971)
extensively studied childrearing practices and found three
distinct parenting ”styles”: authoritarian, permissive, and
authoritative.

Authoritarian parents, according to Baumrind, attempt to
shape and to exert control over their children's behavior
according to rigid, absolute standards. The manner in which
this control is exerted is often described as cold and
without concern for the child's feelings regarding the
behavior. They tend to use punitive measures of discipline
in an effort to instill respect for authority and traditional
structure. The children of authoritarian parents are often
moody, more likely to become hostile under stress, ”dysphoric
and disaffiliative" (1967, p.32).

In contrast with authoritarian parents, permissive

 

16

parents exert little control over their children and lack
organization in the family. Oftentimes, these parents have
little confidence in their ability to parent and subsequently
are ineffective in discipline. Children have few demands
placed upon them by permissive parents and consequently often
lack self-control and self-reliance.

Authoritative parents are considered to be the most
effective caregivers. They are described as consistent,
loving, secure in their role as parents and respectful of the
independent decisions of their children. Communication
styles of authoritative parents are supportive and
nondistorted. Children of authoritative parents are more
self-reliant, competent, affiliative, socialized and content
than are children of authoritarian and permissive parents.

In her research on authoritative, authoritarian, and
permissive parents, Baumrind provided evidence that parental
restrictiveness and control correlate with self-assertiveness
and self-reliance in children. Baumrind's seminal work in
the area of child caregiving actions and the psychosocial
competence of children still forms the basis for contemporary
research. Parental affection, control and restrictiveness
are characteristics which are consistently found to influence
child development. The development of moral judgment, for
example, has been related to childrearing attitudes of
parental control. Sethi & Gupta (1984) found that boys

aged nine to eleven years with high moral judgment perceived

 

17

their mothers as affectionate, accepting, loving and
nonintrusive. Same-aged girls who display high moral
judgment also perceived their mothers as loving and
accepting, but also as more enforcing and controlling. In a
similar study of preschool children, Moran & O'Brien (1984)
found that intention-based judgments are correlated with
maternal democratic control. Similarly, Knight, Kagan &
Buriel (1982) found that prosocial development in children
among lower economic classes was related to the children's
perception of their parents as punishing, yet also
supportive.

Another body of research suggests that positive child
caregiving skills depend upon parents' ability to communicate
effectively with their child. Thomas Gordon (1970) proposed,
for example, that there are common adult verbal and
behavioral responses which are destructive to the parent-
child relationship. These negative responses are
characterized by a lack of awareness and communication of the
adult's acceptance of children's feelings and experiences.

According to Stollak et a1. (1973) and more recently
elaborated in Stollak (1988), the literature suggests four
important "ingredients" in adult communications which
indicate sensitivity in caregiving. Firstly, sensitive
responses to children ”clearly indicate an awareness of the
child's feelings” (Stollak et al., 1973, p. 170). Secondly,

sensitive responses facilitate the child's understanding of

 

18

the relationship between his or her feelings and behavior.
Thirdly, sensitive responding includes facilitation of the
child's understanding of the impact of the his or her
feelings and actions on the adult's feelings and behaviors.
Finally, sensitive responses help the child "find appropriate
outlets for his or her feelings, needs and wishes” (p.170).
Despite the fact that there has been little research
conducted to verify the effects of specific components of
communication on children's psychosocial development, there
appears to be a general consensus that communication skills
play an important role in effective and empathic caregiving.
Although a complete review of contemporary research
regarding the effects of child caregiving practices and
children's psychosocial development is beyond the scope of
this paper, the importance of recognizing and understanding
the influences of caregiving attitudes and actions on
children should not be understated. While most literature
focuses upon the influences of parenting style on the current
characteristics and develOpment of young children, one must
also note the longer term effects of caregiving behaviors.
Dubow, Huesman & Eron (1987) find, for example, that child
rearing that is non-authoritarian correlates with offspring's
higher levels of ego development in adulthood. Even without
direct longitudinal evidence for long-term outcomes of child
caregiving styles, one can extrapolate from existing

literature to infer possible outcomes of various parenting

 

19

techniques. One notes, for example, that caregiving style
influences the development of either prosocial (Barnett,
Howard, King & Dino, 1980) or aggressive and antisocial
(Loeber & Dishion, 1984) behaviors. Given the existing
evidence for continuity of aggressiveness and antisocial
behavior across the lifespan (see Loeber, 1982) one may
cautiously predict that child caregiving practices play an
important role in not only the short-term, but also the long-
term, psychosocial functioning of offspring. It is when we
allow ourselves to speculate about the possible long-term
effects that we begin to recognize the enormous impact of
caregiving style on the adaptive and mature, as well as

dysfunctional, child and adult development.

Individual and systemic influences in child caregiving styles

Recognizing the crucial role played by caregiving style,
research has focused upon investigating the determinants of,
or influences on, child caregiving attitudes and behaviors.
We tend to think of caregiving style as reflecting distinct
and stable personality characteristics of the individual, and
this contention, at least to some degree, may be quite valid.
Buss & Plomen (1975), for example, note that parent
temperament directly effects caregiving attitudes. However,
one's caregiving style is also determined, at least in part,
by external factors including environmental, child, and

family characteristics.

 

20

Probably the most obvious as well as the most severe
environmental factor adversely affecting caregiving practices
is that of poverty. Field (1980) found that disadvantaged
(i.e., low SES) black teenage mothers were unaware of the
abilities of their premature babies, having expectations
which were unrealistic. Their unrealistic expectations led to
less effective caregiving behaviors. A lack of an
understanding of child development and parenting skills is
more evident in lower SBS populations (Brooks-Gunn &
Furstenberg, 1986) and is reflected in these parents'
relatively more ineffective caregiving. In addition, parents
in impoverished homes are less likely to spend time with
their children (Lewis & Freedle, 1977) and these children are
likely to achieve lower IQ scores than are children of»
parents who speak with and instruct their children (Carew,
1977).

Several characteristics of the child him or herself
have been found to exert influence on parents' caregiving
style. A child's temperament, for example, influences the
manner in which one gives care, especially if the child's
temperament is not congruent with that of his parents (Buss &
Plomin, 1975). Thomas and Chess (1977) defined three types
of child temperament: easy, difficult, and slow-to-warm-up.
Ideally, parents recognize their own temperament and the
temperament of their children and moderate their caregiving

practices accordingly. However, parents might often ignore

 

21

or discourage expressions of their children's temperament and
moderate their caregiving practices in defensive ways rather
than in adaptive ways.

Maccoby (1980) notes other child characteristics which
influence child-rearing practices. The child's age or sex or
birth order, for instance, greatly influences parents'
attitudes and behavior as the abilities and needs of the
child change according to developmental stage and cultural

demands. In addition, the child's gender can determine

 

parents' attitudes and behaviors. Huston (1983), for
example, found that fathers, in particular, act differently
with sons than with daughters. In addition, Lasko (1954)
reported that first-born children receive more attention and
verbal stimulation than siblings born later.

Family size, itself, can influence parenting style.
Parents of larger families tend to be more authoritarian
(Elder & Bowerman, 1963) and mothers, in particular,
experience more stress and have more negative feelings toward
child-rearing than do fathers (Hurley & Hahn, 1971).
Authoritarian parenting is also more evident in families
where parents are experiencing personal stress (Zussman,
1980) and in families of lower socioeconomic status (Hess,
1970).

The emergence of a family systems approach to
psychological development, raises the question as to the

extent to which one's caregiving attitudes and style reflect

22

the family structure in which one was raised. At the most
basic level, an individual learns caregiving practices from
watching one's own parents. As Maccoby & Martin (1983) note,
however, our theoretical conceptions of such observational
learning have become more sophisticated and we now note that
children select only certain aspects of observed familial
interactions to internalize and use as a basis for later
behavior (Minuchin, 1985). Thus, the family systems approach
to the development of caregiving attitudes and behaviors

represents a more complex process.

Foundations for a Relationship between Family Health and
Individual Child Caregiving Attitudes

 

 

Because the system approach focuses almost exclusively
on the family unit, the concept of individual development
within the context of the family has been virtually
disregarded until recent years. In other words, only
recently have investigators attempted to assess individual
development or individual characteristics vis-a-vis the
family system. Researchers who have made such an attempt
have, in general, received support for the notion that one's
perception of family health or family environment correlates
with certain individual characteristics (e.g. Fine, 1984;
Billings & Moos, 1982; Kleiman, 1981).

Positive communication skills (e.g., clarity, frankness,

expressiveness, and consistency of verbal and nonverbal

 

23

messages) are theorized as necessary for families to
establish and maintain permeable and resilient family
boundaries (Galvin & Brommel, 1986) and as helping to achieve
a balance on the morphogenesis-morphostasis continuum by
maintaining homeostasis (Steinglass, 1987) while aiding in
effective adaptation to the environment (Jacob, 1987). In
addition, emotional connectedness in the family relies upon
positive communication strategies such as confirmation
(Sieburg, 1973) and self-disclosure (Montgomery, 1981). As
also noted above, communication skills are necessary for
effective and empathic child caregiving.

Because there is a consensus among many psychologists
that the same communication skills are characteristic of both
positive child caregiving styles and healthy family
functioning, the hypothesis that families who exhibit
balanced levels of cohesion and adaptability also display
more positive communication (Olson, 1985) can be extended to
a hypothesis that the offspring of balanced families have
observed and learned, and therefore will exhibit, more
positive communication skills (and thus a greater level of
sensitivity) in their present caregiving of children and when
they become parents than will the offspring of extreme
families. This hypothesis is not only conceptually supported
by the fact that communication skills are integral to both
family functioning and caregiving attitudes, but is also

supported by noting the similarities between the description

24

of healthy versus unhealthy family systems and the
description of healthy versus unhealthy caregiving practices.

Consider, as an example, Baumrind's discussion of
authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parents and
Olson's description of balanced, rigid, and chaotic family
systems. The similarities are striking. Authoritarian
parents exhibit the rigid, inflexible approach to discipline
and control which characterize the rigid extreme of
adaptability. Permissive parents manifest qualities
characteristic of chaotic family systems: limited and erratic
leadership, inconsistent discipline, etc. Finally,
authoritative parents are consistent in their discipline, yet
receptive to the ideas of their children and able to flexibly
adapt to various situations. Thus their caregiving style
reflects the qualities Olson describes as evident in balanced
families.

Similar comparisons can be made with regard to
Baumrind's categorization of parenting styles and Olson's
description of various family systems typed on the cohesion
dimension of his model. Authoritative parents are described
by Baumrind as warm, loving and respectful of their
children's ideas and wishes. This description of
authoritative parents is similar to Olson's description of
the parent-child relationship in balanced families in which
family members are close to one another yet recognize and

respect one another's unique feelings and needs. Similarly,

 

25

Olson's description of extreme families corresponds closely
to Baumrind's description of less effective child caregiving
styles. Authoritarian parents, for example, are described by
Baumrind as lacking supportive and affectionate relationships
with their children. This lack of emotional connectedness
between parent and child is hypothesized by Olson to be
evident in disengaged families. In contrast, Olson
hypothesizes that enmeshed families exhibit extreme levels of
emotional connectedness and thus are potentially unable to
differentiate the feelings and needs of individual family
members. Permissive parents, as described by Baumrind, often
lack confidence in their parenting role and are nondemanding
of their children, perhaps because their emotional over-
connectedness to their children restricts them from
expressing love in open and non-manipulative manners.

Despite the clear similarities, there exists at present no
empirical evidence for a relationship between these theories
of perceived healthy family functioning and adaptive child

caregiving practices.

 

Chapter 3

Hypotheses

1. Analyses were planned to assess the relationship between
the predictor variable -- global measure of perceived health
of family structure, as defined by Olson's circumplex model -
- and the criterion variable -- degree of caregiving

sensitivity.

Olson (1985) has argued that families who perceive
themselves as ”balanced" on the cohesion and adaptability
continuua represent those families whose communication skills
allow them to achieve and maintain homeostasis, clear
boundaries, etc. Patricia Minuchin (1985) and others (e.g.,
Fine et al., 1984, and Kleiman, 1981) have expanded the
hypothesis to note that balanced levels of cohesion and
adpatability relate not only to family health, but to
individual adjustment as well. One's ability to provide
sensitive caregiving is considered an important measure of
individual adjustment. Because positive communication skills
are hypothesized as necessary to achieve balanced levels of
cohesion and adaptability, it is predicted that individuals
who perceive their families as "healthy" (i.e. balanced) have
learned positive communication skills and that they will use
the skills in the form of sensitive child caregiving. More
specifically, it was predicted that subjects who perceived

their families as balanced would display more sensitive

26

 

27

caregiving than would subjects who perceived their families

88 more extreme .

2. Teyber, Messe, & Stollak (1977), used the Sensitivity to
Children scoring categories also employed in this study.
(Also presently used are three additional categories
developed for the current study). They found that the
categories represented theoretically derived sensitive and
insensitive parent responses (as described above). However,
a factor analysis of the categories also yielded six factors
representing different modes of caregiving responses. These
factors described the following kinds of adult responses:
lecturing-directing, power assertion-control, adult's
expression of child's influence upon him/her, empathy,
ridicule-interrogation, and instrumental control. (See
Appendix B for a list of caregiving categories and their
factor loadings for each of the six factors.)

Because Teyber et al. used methodology quite different
from that used in the present study (for example, in the
Teyber et a1. study, adult responses were provided verbally
rather than in written form), factor solutions were not
expected to be identical. However, these factor solutions
were used to provide a general understanding of modes of
caregiving to be used to develop hypotheses addressing the
relationship between the following predictor variables and

the criterion variable, patterns of caregiving responses: a)

28

degree of perceived cohesion in subjects' family-of-origin
and b) degree of perceived adaptability in subjects' family-

of-origin.

2a. Olson (1985) defines family cohesion as ”the
emotional bonding that family members have toward one
another.” According to the circumplex model proposed by
Olson, families balanced in cohesion are healthier than
families who are either enmeshed or disengaged. Families who
are too highly cohesive (i.e., enmeshed) are so emotionally
connected that family members are potentially unable to
differentiate the feelings and needs of individual members.
Families who are too low in cohesion (i.e., disengaged) are
lacking in emotional connectedness and thus family members'
relationships often lack support and affection. Thus, it was
predicted that the degree of perceived cohesiveness in
undergraduates' family-of-origin would be reflected in the
frequency of some caregiving responses including recognition
of the individuality of the child and the degree of
supportiveness and warmth of relationship between parent and

child.

2b. Olson (1985) defines adaptability as "the ability of
a ... family system to change its power structure, role
relationships, and relationship rules in response to

situational and developmental stress" (p. 4). According to

 

29

the circumplex model postulated by Olson, families who show
balanced levels of adaptability are healthier than families
who are either chaotic or rigid. Families who are too high
in adaptability (i.e., chaotic) are characterized by limited
and erratic leadership and inconsistent discipline. Families
who are too low in adaptability (i.e., rigid) are
characterized by strict discipline and unchanging rules and
control, with little allowance for input from children.
Thus, it was predicted that the degree of perceived
adaptability in undergraduate's family-of-origin would be
reflected in the frequency of caregiving responses such as
specific and consistent discipline strategies and power

assertion-control.

3. Although the cohesion and adaptability dimesions of the
circumplex model have often been studied as separate
entities, it is the purpose of the circumplex model to
account for the fact that family environment or family health
depends upon where the family falls (simultaneously) on both
the cohesion and adaptability continuua. Thus, Olson's
sixteen proposed family types represent sixteen unique family
systems, each of which have different styles of
communication, different relationship rules and roles, etc.
Thus, it was hypothesized that specific patterns of caregiving
responding may be unique to each proposed family system type.

No specific hypotheses could be proposed prior to initial

30

data analysis because patterns of caregiving responding were
defined by initial analyses. Thus, specific hypotheses
regarding the relationship between family system type and
pattern of caregiving responding will be elaborated in later

parts of this paper.

4. Analyses were also planned to assess the relationship
between the predictor variable, gender, and the criterion
variable, degree of caregiving sensitivity in hypothetical
situations.

Teyber et a1. (1977) reported that female subjects were,
in general, more accepting, less likely to use power
assertion to a child's angry communication and less likely to
use ridicule-interrogation in response to a child's angry
communication. Although Teyber et a1.'s study, as noted
above, used different methodology, it was predicted that
females would, in general, display more sensitivity and less

insensitivity.

 

Chapter 4

Method

Subjects

Subjects for the project were 154 undergraduate students
(78 males, 76 females) enrolled in Introductory Psychology
courses at Michigan State University. Participation in this
study fulfilled research experience requirements of these
courses. Subjects were informed that their participation was
voluntary and that their responses were to remain

confidential.

Measures

Subjects were asked to complete a series of
questionnaires about various aspects of their self-concept
(e.g. sex-role orientation) and about their relationship with
each of their parents. In addition, subjects completed three
questionnaires pertinent to this study: a demographics
questionnaire (see Appendix C), the Sensitivity to Children
questionnaire, and the Family Adaptability and Cohesion
Evaluation Scale III (Olson, Portner & Lavee, 1985). The
order of presentation of the questionnaires was
counterbalanced to minimize response bias.

The Sensitivity to Children (STC) questionnaire is a
projective measure which asks respondents to indicate his/her
response as a parent in sixteen hypothetical situations.

This format, first introduced by Jackson (1956), represents a

31

 

32

compromise between the accuracy provided by direct
observation for measuring parenting attitudes and the
convenience of self-report measures. Developed by Stollak et
a1. (1973), the STC items reflect problem situations commonly
reported by parents. Problem situations include themes of
sibling fighting, stealing, hiding an accident, masturbation,
etc. The STC questionnaire can be found in Appendix D.

Scoring categories for the STC, as noted above, reflect
those used by Gordon (1970) and Stollak et al. (1973) and
address both the theoretically and empirically derived
positive and negative (i.e. sensitive and insensitive)
aspects of caregiving actions. Specifically, positive
caregiving attitudes and behaviors are those which promote
the develOpment of the child's self-esteem and worth,
interpersonal competence, and mastery of the environment
(Stollak et al., 1973, p. 173). Negative caregiving
behaviors are those which Gordon (1970) and Baumrind (1967)
note as hindering the optimum psychosocial development of
children. These behaviors include an unwillingness of the
caregiver to consider the child's feelings, needs, and
wishes. In addition, three scoring categories were added for
the present research. These three categories ("ordering in
uncertain terms," "indication of positive affect through non-
verbal communication,” and "expression of parents' feelings
without a specific feeling word”) were added to more

clearly differentiate ambiguous statements. Appendix E

33

presents a complete list of the scoring criteria for each of
the 30 STC categories.

Scoring of the STC questionnaire was completed by four
undergraduates who were trained for a total of approximately
nine weeks. In addition to the initial training period,
coders met with the author once weekly to maintain
reliability between the coders. The undergraduates each
independently coded approximately one-half of the completed
protocols, thereby allowing reliability estimates to be
obtained based on the total sample of responses.

Each STC item was scored for every category that was
present in the response, but any category was scored only
once for each item. Subjects received a composite score
for each scoring category through an average of the category
totals provided by two independent coder ratings.

The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluations Scale
(FACES) III is a 20 item questionnaire representing the third
in a series of scales developed to assess the two dimensions
(i.e., cohesion and adaptability) on Olson's Circumplex Model
described above (See Appendix F). There are ten cohesion
items, including two items related to each of the following
concepts: emotional bonding, supportiveness, family
boundaries, time and friends, and interest in recreation.
There are also ten item representing the adaptability
dimension. This dimension includes two items related to each

of the following concepts: leadership, control, and

 

34

discipline; and four items concerning the concepts of roles
and rules.

Olson et al. (1985) have reported adequate internal
consistency reliability for both the cohesion (3-.77) and the
adaptability (£-.62) dimensions. In addition, the FACES III
has eliminated the correlation between the adaptability and
cohesion dimensions (3-.03) that were present in earlier
versions of the questionnaire and has reduced the impact of
social desirability on the adaptability dimension, thus
improving the scale's construct validity.

One often cited problem with the FACES III is the lack
of agreement between family members with regard to reported
degree of cohesion and adaptability in their family dynamics.
Olson et a1. (1985) thus suggest obtaining responses to the
FACES III from multiple family members. The sampling
procedure used in the current study did not include
administering the FACES III to multiple family members.

Thus, it is important to note that the data presented here
represent one's unique perception of family-of-origin
organization rather than a family score which might be a more

valid representation of actual family organization.

 

Chapter 5

Results

Category Usage and Reliability

Mean usage of the 30 scoring categories of the
Sensitivity to Children Questionnaire ranged from .006 to
4.97 per subject. As noted above, each of four trained
undergraduates coded approximately one-half of the completed
protocals. Reliability estimates (Pearson correlation
coefficients) were obtained for each coder pair and these
coefficients were then averaged to provide a single
reliability estimate for each caregiving category. Eleven
low frequency categories were unreliably used by the coders
(£<.60) and thus were dropped from further analyses.
Reliability estimates for the remaining 19 scoring categories
ranged from .62 to .91, with an average correlation
coefficient of .75. Table 1 presents the mean usage,
standard deviations, and inter-rater correlation coefficients
for the 19 categories used in the following analyses.
Relationship Between Caregiving Sensitivity and Global Family
Health

Hypothesis One proposed a relationship between family
health and the degree of caregiving sensitivity as measured,
respectively, by the FACES III and the Sensitivity to
Children (STC) Questionnaire. An average sensitivity score

and an average insensitivity score were computed for each

35

 

36

Table 1

Mean Usage, Standard Deviation, and Reliability
Coefficients for the STC Scoring Categories

ordering, d1recting000000000000000000 4097 1070 077

Warning, threatening................. 1.05 .91 .82
Moralizing, exhorting, preaching..... 1.96 1.22 .63
Advising, recommending .............. 1.02 .74 .63

Persuade with logic, 1ecturing....... 3.56 1.87 .79
Ridicule, name-calling, shaming...... 1.97 1.49 .73
Excusing, sympathizing............... .88 .76 .62
Probing, cross-examining............. 2.85 1.78 .88
Withdrawing, avoiding................ 1.16 1.06 .79
Restriction of priveledges........... 1.40 1.21 .83
Physical punishment.................. .17 .42 .91
Statement of adult feelings.......... 1.33 1.02 .75
Relates child feelings to adult

feelings.......................... .01 .06 .63
Relating child's behavior to adult's

behavior.......................... .08 .31 .77
Attempt to obtain information

regarding child's behavior........ .93 .66 .69
Child offered compromise............. 1.06 .85 .65

Non-verbal positive response

given to child................... 1.05 1.23 .87
Non-specific expression of adult's

feelings......................... 1.52 .95 .68
Child given specific directions

regarding future behavior........ 1.60 1.24 .72

37

subject by dividing the total number of sensitive and
insensitive responses by the number of possible sensitive and
insensitive categories. Scoring categories considered to
represent sensitive caregiving responses were those five
categories proposed by Stollak et a1. (1973), as well as two
of the three categories developed for the current study. One
category, ”non-specific expression of adult's feelings” was

not included in this analysis because it could be considered

 

either sensitive or insensitive. Those considered to
represent insensitive caregiving responses were Gordon's
prOposed destructive modes of parent-child communication.
(See preceding discussions.) In Table 1, the first 11
categories reflect those comprising the insensitive reponses.
Eacthubject received, in addition to average sensitivity and
insensitivity scores, an Index of Sensitivity score which
reflected the average number of sensitive responses relative
to the average number of insensitive responses.

The Index of Sensitivity scores ranged from .11 to 1.32,
with a sample mean of .46. Females had significantly higher
Index of Sensitivity scores than did males: the mean score
for females was .54 and the mean score for males was .39
(p<.001). This finding primarily reflects a difference in
the average frequency of sensitive responses. The frequency
of sensitive responses for males (x-.73) was substantially
lower (p<.001) than for females (x-l.10), while there was no

significant gender difference with regard to average

38

frequency of insensitive responses.

Based on repsonses to the FACES III, each subject
received a Distance from Center (DFC) score. This score,
used by Olson et a1. (1985), is based on the hypothesis that
families whose members perceive their family as falling as
close as possible to the center of the circumplex model (i.e.
balanced families) are better functioning than those whose
levels of cohesion and/or adaptability deviate from the
center of the two continuua. Thus, a very large DFC score is
proposed to be indicative of a less healthy family system.
Initially, two DFC scores were obtained for each subject:
one based on norms provided by Olson et a1. (1985), and one
based on the current sample mean. However, because these two
scores were found to be significantly correlated (£f.90),
only the scores based on Olson's norms were used in
subsequent analyses.

For the purpose of examining the relationship between
Distance From Center and caregiving sensitivity, squared DFC
scores were used in order to maximize the difference between
extreme scores and balanced scores. Relevant to Hypothesis
One, no significant correlation was found between DFC scores
and Index of Sensitivty scores. However, when examining
sensitive and insensitive responding separately, a
significant relationship was found between squared DFC scores
and average insensitivity scores (£"°17’.£<°05)° In other

words, subjects reporting less balanced families (i.e. higher

 

39

DFC scores) were less likely to respond to the hypothetical
situatidhs in insensitive ways.

This relationship clearly goes against the proposed
hypothesis. In an attempt to further understand this
unpredicted finding, these relationships were explored
separately for males and for females. There was no
significant relationship between squared DFC scores and any
measure of sensitivity/insensitivity in caregiving for
females. For males, however, the same negative relationship
between squared DFC scores and average insensitivity scores
was found (£--.28,‘p<.01).

Further clarification of the negative correlation
between squared DFC scores and insensitivity obtains from
examination of subjects' total number of scored responses.

As indicated earlier, each STC item was scored for every
category present in a response, but any one category was
scored only once for each item. The total number of scored
responses, then, reflects the number of different categories
scored across the sixteen items of the STC questionnaire.

The mean number of scored responses for the total sample was
28.6, with females receiving a significantly higher number of
scored responses (p<.02), thus suggesting that females used a
greater variety of caregiving responses. It was also found
that the number of scored responses was negatively correlated
with squared DFC scores for males (£--.29,‘p<.05). In other

words, male subjects reporting their families to be more

40

balanced were more likely to have a higher number of scored
responses. Furthermore, when controlling for number of
scored responses, the negative correlation between squared
DFC scores and average insensitivity scores was no longer
significant. Thus, while it is possible that male subjects
who perceive their families as balanced are more likely to
use insensitive responses to children, it is also possible 4
that this finding only reflects the finding that these male

subjects are more likely to respond frequently to children

 

than are males who perceive their families as more extreme.

Data Reduction

 

The remaining hypotheses proposed relationships between
perceived family system types and modes of caregiving
responding. A factor analysis of the 19 reliable scoring
categories of the STC reduced the data to a smaller number of
modes of caregiving responding. A principal-components
analysis using a varimax solution yielded eight factors
(eigenvalues>1.0), accounting for 62.6 percent of the
variance. Items were included on a factor if the factor
loading reached .40 or higher. Table 2 presents the factor
loadings for the STC scoring categories comprising the eight
factors, as well as the percent of total variance accounted
for by each factor.

As can be seen in Table 2, the factors found in the
current analysis do not resemble those obtained in previous

research. (See Appendix B for the factor solution obtained

41

Table 2

Factor Loadings For Scoring Categories Comprising
The Eight Factors of Mode of Caregiving

Factor 2
Categories Loadings Variance
FACTOR I. 15.2
17. Statement of adult feelings......... .75
5. Persuade with logic, lecturing...... .64

10. Excusing, sympathizing.............. .60
12. Withdrawing, avoiding............... -.52

FACTOR II. 8.8
11. Probing, cross-examining............ -.69
13. Restriction of priveledges.......... .66
8. Ridicule, name-calling, shaming..... -.57
FACTOR III. 7.9
25. Child offered compromise...... ...... .76
4. Advising, recommending ............. .69
FACTOR IV. 7.3

3. Moralizing, exhorting, preaching.... -.80
24. Attempt to obtain information

about child's behavior........... .62
FACTOR V. 6.3
29. Non-specific expression of adult's
fee11n880000000000000000000000000 076
30. Child given specific directions
regarding future behavior........ .46
21. Relating child's behavior to adult's
behav10r0000000000000000000000000 046
FACTOR VI. 6.2
28. Non-verbal positive response
given to child........... ..... ... .79
14. Physical punishment................. .52
FACTOR VII. 5.6
2. Warning, threatening................ .72
18. Relates child feelings to adult
feelings...00000000000000.0000... ‘054
FACTOR VIII. 5.3

1. ordering, directing...00.00000000000 080

 

42

by Teyber, Messe & Stollak, 1977.) This discrepancy appears
due, at least in part, to the fact that many of the scoring
categories were dropped in the present research due to coding
unreliability and that the present research involved written,
as opposed to verbal, responses by subjects.

Subjects' scores were summed to form composite scales
for each of the eight factors (i.e. the total sum of
responses for all categories included in each factor,
weighted according to the direction of the factor loading).
These composite scales were then subjected to a second factor
analysis in an attempt to further reduce the data. This
factor analysis of subscales resulted in four factors,
accounting for 62.4 percent of the variance (see Table 3).
Table 4 presents individual items on that were associated
with each of the four subscale factors.

The first factor ("Emphasis on the Adult's Perspective")
was comprised of items indicating adult's emphasis on his/her
own feelings, opinions or ideas (e.g., ”statement of adult's
feelings") rather than on either the feelings of the child or
on specific discipline interventions. The second factor
("Consequence-Specific Discipline”) was comprised of items
which reflected the adult's tendency to respond to problem
situations with specific consequence-oriented strategies
(e.g. ”restriction of privileges”). Items which were
negatively loaded on this factor were those which impose no

specific "goal-directed” interventions (e.g. "ridicule,

43

Table 3

Factor Loadings of the Original Factors Comprising
The Four Composite Scales

First-Order Factors 1 2 3 4

Factor 1 .66 -.47 .09 -.10
Factor 2 -.20 .77 -.O3 -.21
Factor 3 .14 -.09 .69 -.19
Factor 4 -.44 -.ll .27 -.35
Factor 5 .80 .09 .10 -.09
Factor 6 -.06 .08 .80 .15
Factor 7 .25 .64 .02 .22
Factor 8 -.10 -.02 .01 .90
Percent Variance 20.0 15.5 14.1 12.8

Note: Numbers in bold type are those included in the
columnar composite scales.

44

Table 4

Items Comprising the Four Composite Scales

FACTOR I. Emphasis on the Adult's Perspective

17. Statement of adult's feelings

5. Persuade with logic, lecturing

10. Excusing, sympathizing

12. Withdrawing, avoiding (-)

3. Moralizing, exhorting, preaching

24. Attempt to obtain information about child's behavior (-)
29. Non-specific expression of adult's feelings

30. Child given specific directions regarding future behavior
21. Relating child's behavior to adult's behavior

FACTOR II. Consequence-Specific Discipline

11. Probing, cross-examining (-)

13. Restriction of privileges

8. Ridicule, name-calling, shaming (-)

2. Warning, threatening

18. Relates child feelings to adult feelings (-)

FACTOR III. Recognition of child input

25. Child offered compromise

4. Advising, recommending

28. Non-verbal positive response given to child
(14. Physical punishment)

FACTOR IV. Ordering, directing

1. Ordering, directing

.1.-

 

 

t}

0!

45

name-calling”, ”cross-examining”).

The third factor ("Recognition of child input") was
comprised of items which recognized the child as a person and
as having his/her own contribution to the solution of problem
situations. However, one item ,"physical punishment,” is
clearly incongruent with the others. This factor is
comprised of two subscales: one comprised of two items --
”child offered compromise” and ”advising, recommending"; the
other was also comprised of two items -- ”non-verbal positive
response given to child" and "physical punishment". This
latter subscale initially was understood as indicating a non-
verbal means of communicating with a child, in both rewarding
and punishing ways. In order to understand this subscale's
contribution to the second-order factor, it is important to
note that the average usage of ”physical punishment” was very
low (x-.17) compared to that of ”non-verbal positive
responding" (x-1.05). This difference suggests that variance
in the composite scores of this factor used in the subscale
factor analysis can be attributed primarily to the use of
"non-verbal positive responding.”

Finally, the fourth factor was comprised of only one
item, ”Ordering, directing.” The mean usage of this response
was greater than the usage of all other categories, and it is
clear both from a statistical and practical standpoint that
the use of "ordering, directing” is used independently of the

other categories of caregiving responses.

46

Relationships Among Perceived Family System Types and
Categories of Caregiving Responding

Categories of caregiving repsonding, as defined by
factor composite scores, served as criterion variables and
were examined in relation to the predictor variables,
perceived family system types. Because the original
hypotheses were based upon factors derived in past research,
new hypotheses were formulated to be more specifically based
upon the subscales found in the present data. As noted
above, degree of cohesion was predicted to be most related to
a recognition of the individuality of family members and to
the capacity for supportiveness and warmth. In the present
study, it was expected that these qualities of parental style
would be most reflected in scores on ”Emphasis on the Adult's
Perspective" and on "Recognition of Child Input."

Because degree of family adaptability is reflected in
the family's patterns of leadership, discipline, and control,
it was predicted that degree of perceived adaptability would
be primarily related to subjects' scores on ”Consequence-
specific Discipline” and "Ordering, Directing." Finally,
because family system type as defined by the Circumplex Model
accounts for both perceived degree of adaptability and
perceived degree of cohesion, it was predicted that scores on
all four subscales would account for differences between

specific family system types.

47

Based on responses on the FACES III, subjects were
categorized on both the adaptability dimension (as chaotic,
flexible, structured, or rigid) and on the cohesion dimension
(as disengaged, separated, connected or enmeshed).

Assignment of subjects to the various cohesion and
adaptability groups was done according to cutoff norms
provided by Olson et al. (1985). A series of ANOVAs showed
no significant between-group differences in the use of any of
the four composite scales (see Tables 5 and 6).

In addition, subjects were assigned to one of five
family system types: structured-connected, structured-
separate, flexible-connected, flexible-separate, and
balanced. Although it would be preferable to use all 16
family types identifiable via the FACES III, the sample size
of this study did not allow adequate distribution of cases
for this full categorization procedure to be employed. (See
Appendix H for the distribution of the sample.) Olson et a1.
(1985) have suggested various combinations of the sixteen
family types for the analysis of variance with smaller sample
sizes (see Appendix I). The disadvantage of using only five
family system types is the inability to examine the most
extreme cases. In any event, as was the case when looking
at adaptability and cohesion separately, no significant
between group differences in factor scores were found for the

five family system types (see Table 7).

48

as. ~a.s mm.e H~.n h~.n unauuuuan .maauueao

NN. mm.m m~.m he.m om.~ snags usage aoauaamouom

mm. aa.an s~.~n mo.mu mo.~u maaaaaousu
maoouloonoaaomnoo

no.3 om.a sm.m no.» om.~ o>auooauuua u.saaa<
a~ma.me Ann-av Ammuav Adm-av “nanny
aquomno manuxmam vousuoauum v«m«m mamom ouwmonaoo

aaouu huwawgmuamv<

maaouu zuaaunmummvd can you monom usom
may no mouoom m was memo:

m manna

49

am. No.4 a~.n Hm.s am.a unauuauan .maauueuo

oa.a mo.m ha.~ oo.m ml.m uaaaa adage coauaamouum

Ma. wo.HI oo.~| H~.~I Ho.~I oaanHomfiv
maoomuoosoauommoo

as. ma.a mo.a Hm.m He.m o>auomaauoa a.u~=e<
x~m~.mVa As~uav Ase-av finance Aamuav
vmnmoamm vouomamoo vmumumnom vomwmcomwn mamom muumoaaou

naouu aoamonoo
mnoouu :oamonoo may now moaoom usom
onu co mwuoom m was memo:

o magma

50

 

o~. ma.m om.e ma.a mm.a oo.m mnauuouan .waaumuuo

oN. mm.m ~m.m ne.m am.m em.~ sagas cases so coauaamouou

no.5 ea.~n Ho.~u He.au om.mn mn.~- uaaaaauaau usuouuuuaoaaoaaoo

so.a m~.m Ha.a mm.m as.a an.“ o>a~uogauoa a.aH=u<

Alma.eva awn-av Ammaav “amuse Amuse finance macaw unamoaaou
vmuammmm vouoocmou oumummom wouoocmou oumumaom

manaxoam manaxoam vousuoauum wouauosuum

mama awumhm hauamm
amaze hauamm onu you magnum upon
any so mmuoom m can ammo:

u wanna

51

Gender Differences

 

In addition to those gender differences already
described, males and females differed significantly in the
mean usage of several of the STC scoring categories.
Because, as noted above, females had significantly more
codable responses than did males, gender comparisons
regarding mean usage of coding categories needed to be

comparisons of the frequency of category use relative to

 

subjects' total number of codable responses. As can be seen
in Table 8, females showed significantly more "advising,
recommending” (p<.05), ”persuade with logic” (p<.05),
”excusing, sympathizing" (p<.01), ”statement of adult
feelings” (p<.001), "child offered compromise” (p<.05), and
"non-verbal positive response to child" (p<.01). Males, on
the other hand, displayed more ”ordering, directing"
(p<.001), "ridicule, name-calling” (p<.05), ”physical
punishment” (p<.05) and ”withdrawing, avoiding” (p<.01).

In addition to those individual categories for which
gender differences were found, three of the four composite
scales also differed according to gender (see Table 9).
Specifically, females had higher composite scores, accounting
for total number of codable responses, on ”Emphasis on
adult's perspective” (p<.01) and on ”Recognition of child
input” (p<.01). As noted above, males used ”Ordering,

directing' significantly more often than did females (p<.05).

 

52

Table 8

Gender Differences in Usage of Categories of Caregiving
Relative to Total Number of Codable Responses

Categories Males Females
Ordering, directing .................. .197 .158 ***
Warning, threatening ................. .040 .034
Moralizing, exhorting, preaching ..... .067 .068
Advising, recommending ............... .033 .040 *
Persuade with logic, lecturing ....... .113 .132 *
Ridicule, name-calling, shaming ...... .075 .058 *
Excusing, sympathizing ............... .025 .035 **
Probing, cross-examining ............. .097 .103
Withdrawing, avoiding ................ .055 .035 **
Restriction of priveledges ........... .051 .050
Physical punishment ............ ..... . .009 .003 *
Statement of adult's feelings . ..... .. .035 .056 ***
Relates child feelings to

adult feelings .................... .0002 .0002
Relates child behavior to adult

behaviors ................... ...... .002 .004
Attempt to obtain information

about child's behavior ............ .030 .035
Child offered compromise ............. .032 .042 *
Non-verbal positive response

given to child .................... .027 .044 **
Non-specific expression of adult's

feelings .......................... .057 .050
Child given specific directions

regarding future behavior ......... .056 .053
* p<.05
** p<.01

*** p<.001

 

53

Table 9

Gender Differences in Modes of Caregiving Responding

 

Males Females 3
Factor (n-78) (n-76)
Emphasis on adult's perspective .270 .328 .01
Consequence-focused discipline -.081 -.078 n.s.
Recognition of child input .100 .129 .01

Ordering, directing .197 .158 .001

54

Summary
Using measures of global family health and global

sensitivity in caregiving, the hypothesis that undergraduates
from balanced families would display more sensitivity in
caregiving was not substantiated. In fact, the opposite was
found to be true for male subjects. This unpredicted finding
can be understood, at least in part, by the fact that males
from balanced families gave more codable responses (both
sensitive and insensitive) than did males from less balanced
families. While the number of codable responses may reflect
subjects' response style (e.g., length of response), an
alternative hypothesis is that males from balanced families
have a greater repertoire of caregiving responses. This
interpretation of the data would corroborate the hypothesis
of some family system researchers that healthy family systems
are those which are capable of using different communication
networks for various problems and situations (Galvin and
Brommel, 1986; Fitzpatrick, 1977). Thus, while a direct
relationship between global family health and individual
caregiving attitudes was not found in these subjects and with
the methods used, it may be that males who perceive their
families as more balanced have more varied modes of
communication in caregiving.

The second and third hypotheses proposed relationships
between family system type (as defined by degree of cohesion

and adaptability measured both separately and simultaneously)

55

and mode of caregiving (as defined by composite scores on the
four factors of caregiving responding). These hypotheses
received no statistical support.

The fourth hypothesis proposed that females would, in
general, display more sensitivity in caregiving than would
males. When using the sensitive caregiving responses
proposed by Stollak et al. (1977) and the insensitive
responses proposed by Gordon (1975), this hypothesis was
confirmed. In addition, it was found that females gave more
codable responses, perhaps reflecting that women have a
greater repertoire of caregiving responses than do men.
Finally, gender differences in modes of caregiving responses
suggest that women were more likely to respond to the
hypothetical situations in ways which were perhaps more
person-focused (e.g. emphasizing the adult's persepctive and
recognizing the child's input) than were men. Males, on the
other hand, were more likely than females to either withdraw
from the caregiving situation or to respond to the problem

itself through directing or punishing the child.

Chapter 6

Discussion

 

Current psychological literature suggests that positive
communication skills (e.g. clarity of communication,
reflective listening, etc.) are a)hypothesized to facilitate
balanced levels of cohesion and adaptability in family
systems and b)characteristic of sensitive child caregiving.
Based upon these suggestions, the present study was designed
to assess the relationship between perceived degree of
cohesion and adaptability in one's family-of-origin and one's
child caregiving attitudes and behavior in hypothetical
situations. Although family system theorists have begun to
attribute and relate individual development to family system
characteristics, research had not yet utilized this model to
study the development of caregiving attitudes and behaviors.
It was hypothesized that individuals from "healthy” family
systems learn positive communication skills through their
interactions with family members and that they use these
skills in sensitive caregiving to children.

There was no consistent evidence to support the overall
hypothesis that there would be a relationship between
cohesion and adaptability in the family-of-origin and
sensitivity in caregiving. Thus, these data suggest either
that individuals develop caregiving attitudes independently

of degree of cohesion and adaptability in their families-of-

56

 

57

origin or that the communication skills characteristic of
healthy family functioning may be different from those
communication skills necessary for sensitive child

caregiving.

Reliability and validity of the measures

The lack of significant results may also be attributed,
in part, to sampling and other problems. More specifically,
the use of a well-educated college sample may limit one's
findings with regard to both sensitivity in caregiving and
responses to the FACES III. With the exception of one
student, these subjects have had no first-hand experiences
with parenting. Thus, responses to the STC may not reflect
one's actual responses to children. Although it is both
useful and interesting to study one's perception of how one
would respond in a caregiving situation, parenting styles
that can be attributed to family-of-origin differences may be
more easily and validly seen in actual behaviors.

Other problems with a college sample arise when using the
FACES III, primarily because there are few validation studies
using this population. In a recent study, Curtis, Phillippe,
and Stollak (1988) administered the FACES III to a large
number of undergraduate students to assess the measure's
construct validity with this population. The results of this
study indicated that, while the cohesion factor looked

similar to that reported by Olson et a1. (1985), the

 

 

58

adaptability factor did not. Instead, Curtis et al. found
that, in a college sample, there were two different kinds of
adaptability: a)adaptability to rules, roles, and leadership
and b)child's contribution to discipline and decision making.
Replication of the findings of Curtis et a1. has not yet been
attempted. However, given these results and given the fact
that Olson has not provided norms for use of this measure
with a college sample, it is possible that the FACES III was
an inappropriate choice for use in this study.

The general lack of non-significant findings must also
be explored in light of methodological shortcomings of this
study in addition to those related to sampling problems.'
While the Sensitivity to Children Questionnaire allows for a
subjective test of caregiving attitudes, and thus goes beyond
a more limited objective test of parenting style, several
disadvantages of the questionnaire became apparent during
this study.

One disadvantage with the STC questionnaire involves
the coding procedures used. Although interrater reliability
was achieved for many of the STC scoring categories,
approximately one-third of the categories had to be dropped
due to poor reliability. Even though many steps were taken
to train undergraduate coders and to ensure interrater
reliability, it may be necessary with this questionnaire to
use a group of coders more extensively trained in making

clinical judgments. As evidenced in the unreliability of

59

several of the scoring categories, many of the decisions
needed to differentiate between caregiving responses required
clinical judgments not easily made by this group of coders.
Low reliability estimates made interpretation of the
data difficult in two ways. Firstly, because those
categories which did not achieve adequate reliability had to
be dropped from analyses, the results of this study cannot be
compared to others which have employed the STC. Secondly,
low reliability categories were primarily those which were
infrequently used. Although the low frequency categories may
have accounted for little of the variance, it is possible
that differences between family system types would be more
readily seen on the more extreme (i.e. less used) categories.
Another disadvantage of the STC questionnaire and coding
system involved the inattention to characteristics of the
items themselves. For example, of the sixteen items of the
STC, only one of the hypothetical situations reflected
a clearly positive situation. While this format is useful in
its ability to pull for how one responds to difficulties in
parenting, it is important to note that more neutral or
positive situations may pull for more sensitivity in
caregiving. As discussed later, gender differences in
caregiving behaviors are often found to be related to the
context of parent-child interaction (e.g., play versus child
management). Furthermore, it would be possible and useful to

design an STC questionnaire which more clearly characterized

60

items as representative of positive, negative or ambiguous
situations between parent and child. It would then be
possible, for example, to determine if differences in
perceived family system types would be more readily seen in
how one responds to ambiguous versus positive versus negative
situations.

Item characteristics which might elicit more meaningful
results may also include considering the gender of the child.
There is evidence to suggest that mothers and fathers respond
differently to male and female children (e.g., Huston, 1983).
Again, a closer examination of mediating variables implicit
in the items themselves might enhance one's understanding of
subjects' responses to the caregiving situations.

In addition to problems with reliability and inattention
to item characteristics, the Sensitivity to Children
Questionnaire may also suffer problems of validity. Although
the scale was designed to measure sensitivity in caregiving,
”sensitivity” may be, in this case, a misnomer. It could be
argued that Gordon's proposed parent communications
considered to be "insensitive" are appropriate parenting
interventions in situations involving a six-year-old child as
indicated on the STC. Because one could not expect
internalized rules of behavior in a six-year-old, for
example, a parent's job includes teaching and directing.
Thus, to define "ordering, directing" as an insensitive

response is perhaps questionable.

61

Additionally, those STC scoring categories described as
”sensitive” may be inappropriate for use with the six-year-
old child. Harter (1983) has argued that adults must
recognize the child's cognitive-developmental level to
understand appropriate interaction with the child. Although
Harter more specifically addressed cognitive-developmental
considerations with regard to play therapy techniques, her
discussion is relavent to understanding parent-child
interactions as well. More specifically, Harter discusses
limitations of the young child's ability to cognitively
understand his/her own emotions, the emotions of his/her
parents, and the motives and causes of their own behaviors.
Thus, while the facilitation of children's expression of
their feelings, needs and wishes is an important goal in
effective parenting, the expectation that this facilitation
is appropriate or even possible with a six-year-old-child is
perhaps ignoring the child's cognitive-developmental

limitations.

Gender Differences

The most salient findings of the present research were
those of gender differences in caregiving responding. These
results were, for the most part, highly consistent with past
research comparing males' and females' responses to children.
More specifically, results of this study corroborate past

literature suggesting that females are "less directly

62

attacking" (Teyber et al., 1977, p.1581), whereas males tend
to be more punitive (Becker, 1964; Teyber et al., 1977).

The finding that men were more likely than women to
respond to hypothetical problem situations by giving orders
and/or by directing the child's behavior is consistent with
past research utilizing a similar coding scheme (Teyber et
a1, 1977), but is somewhat inconsistent with some more recent
observational studies of parent-child interaction (e.g.,
Bronstein, 1984; Russell & Russell, 1987). Russell and
Russell (1987), for example, reported that mothers were more
dominant/assertive than fathers in observed parent-child
interaction with six- and seven-year-olds and that mothers
were more likely to be directive with their children. The
inconsistency of findings in this research and other studies
can be understood, at least in part, by differences in the
operational definitions of "directiveness." Whereas this
study conceptually combined "ordering” and ”directing” in a
single category of caregiving responding, Russell and Russell
defined these responses as unique interactional behaviors.
Thus, ”directiveness" was used to indicate parental attempts
to teach, correct, or provide information to their children.
These caregiving responses were, indeed, reported more
frequently by the females in the present research, as well
(through ”advising” and ”persuading with logic”). However,
Russell and Russell's suggestion that mothers are more likely

to give orders or commands is not supported by the findings

 

63

of this study.

Finally, the finding of this study that females were
more likely than males to verbally recognize their feelings
lends support for the traditional view that males are less
likely than females to respond to children with either
positive (Belsky, Gilstrap, & Rovine, 1984) or negative
affect (Clarke-Stewart, 1978). Although some researchers
have refuted the notion that fathers display a relative lack
of affective involvement with children, it has also been
recognized that fathers' interactions with children occur
primarily in the context of play and less in the context of
caregiving or child management (Lamb, 1981; Russell &
Russell, 1987). Because this study explored adult's
responses to children in primarily problem-based situations,
the present results are consistent with the findings of other

research.

Directions for Future Research

The shortcomings of the present study have clear and
direct implications for improvements in the methods used to
test the relationship between characteristics of the family-
of-origin and caregiving attitudes and behavior. These
suggestions for future research include changes in both the
sample and methods used.

As noted above, differences in caregiving styles that

may be attributed to characteristics of the family-of-origin

64

may be more accurately measured by actual behaviors of
parents rather than by responses to hypothetical situations
given by persons who have not had any parenting experiences.
It is therefore suggested that future studies include either
mothers' and fathers' reports of actual responses to children
or direct observation of their interactions with their sons
and daughters.

If the perception of how one believes he/she will parent

 

remains the focus of future research, the shortcomings of
this study would suggest changes in how the Sensitivity to
Children questionnaire is coded and/or interpreted. Firstly,
the issue of sensitivity versus insensitivity should be
either omitted or redefined to more appropriately address
what ”sensitivity” means in different situations and with
children of various ages. Secondly, modes of caregiving
responding should be studied with reference to the
charactersitics of the situations themselves (for example, by
predetermining whether the caregiving situations involve
child- or adult-owned problems). Thirdly, it would be useful
to revise both the directions given to subjects and the
coding system used to address more behavioral aspects of
parent-child interactions. Finally, as suggested earlier,
coding of the STC questionnaire should be completed by
persons better equipped to make fine distinctions between
scoring categories.

In addition, characteristics of family-of-origin

 

65

structure may be better measured and/or better understood by
using a measure other than the FACES III. If cohesion and
adaptability remain the desired focus of how one defines the
family-of-origin system, it would be beneficial to obtain
FACES III responses from all family members. One would then
be able to determine if the perception of one's family-of-
origin might be a less valid predictor of modes of

caregiving than a more "accurate" description provided by all
family members.

Perhaps the most salient shortcoming of the present
study, and thus the most important implication for future
research, involves the oversimplification of the proposed
relationship between family system and caregiving attitudes.
Whereas this study only allowed interpretation of a direct
relationship between FACES III scores and modes of caregiving
scores, a more accurate and holistic model should account for
a more complicated process. This research proposed that the
develOpment of caregiving attitudes results not so much from
a direct ”passing down" of parenting style, but rather that
characteristics of the family system influence caregiving
attitudes. It should be understood that the degree of
cohesion and adaptability are manifestations of how family
members relate to, and communicate with, one another. It
should be further recognized that these family system
characteristics may impact individual characteristics, such

as modes of caregiving, via their influence on other aspects

66

of the family relationships. It would be useful, then, to
direct future research toward the development of a more
comprehensive model addressing moderating variables (e.g.
degree of parental conflict, marital intimacy, parental
alliance, etc.) in the relationship between family system

characteristics and child caregiving attitudes and behavior.

 

APPENDICES

 

Appendix A:

Circumplex Model:
Sixteen types of Marital and Family Systems

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

é—Low COHESION High-——>
onseuucto strmtto couucno ammo
tx\\\ ‘ 7 / \\\\\\\\\
wont : monuuv cmoncuu cmoncuu cmnuuv
M onszuoacto urwrto concerto (memo
Huh
I
A
2 r I num:
I V
I: new: 035.2%.) 3??ng cowtclto tautsutn
I / /
B 4
d //////\ /////
2 ...... 222.2222: 222M: “2.2.2:: 222222"
Y /
Low \ .
1 ‘V’
W0 \ malou melon moaou mason \
\msumceo\ sumac couutcno tum:uto§-
\\\\\\\\\ _ / / _. \\

 

[:3 meta . m mouse: m mam

67

APPENDIX B:

Factor Loadings for Sensitivity to Children Questionnaire
Scoring Categories Comprising Six Factors

(From Teyber, Messe, and Stollak, 1977)

Factor
Categories Loading
Factor I. Lecturing-Directing
Advising, providing solutions.................... .67
Lecturing, arguing............................... .72
Attempt to gain more information
regarding child behavior...................... -.35

Factor II. Power-assertion control

Ordering, directing, commanding.................. .39
Warning, admonishing, threatening................ .63
Exhorting, moralizing, preaching................. .43
Interpreting, diagnosing, analyzing.............. .37

Withdrawing, distracting, avoiding............... .60

Factor III. Adult's expression of child's
influence on him/her
Statement of adult's feelings.................... .35
Relating child feelings to adult feelings........ .56
Relating child behavior to adult feelings........ .56

Factor IV. Empathy
Statement of child feelings...................... .67
Relates child feelings to adult behavior......... .53
Child given directions regarding the
expression of feelings........................ .45
Child offered compromise or alternative.......... .39

Factor V. Ridicule-interrogation
Name-calling, ridiculing, shaming................ .60
Cross-examining, interrogating................... .70

Factor VI. Instrumental control
Relating child behavior to adult behavior........ .60
Attempt to obtain more information

regarding child feelings...................... -.33
Adult control exerted through bribe or

contingent demand............................. .74

68

APPENDIX C:

DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE

The following are questions concerning the background of
yourself and your family. For each question, please fill in,
with the letter on the scoring sheet, the answer that is most
accurate regarding yourself and/or your family.

1. Sex?:

A.
B.

Male
Female

2. Your current relationship status?:

A.
B.

Single
Dating several different people

C. Dating the same person for the last year

D. Engaged

E. Married
3. Parental marital status?:

A. Married (first marriage for both parents)

B. Married (either parent has been married before)

C. Separated

D. Divorced in the last year (and still single)

E. Divorced over a year ago (and still single)
4. Do you live?:

A. In parents' home

B. In your own apartment or house

C. In a dorm

D. With relatives (other than parents)

5. Estimate of family income?:

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

15,000 - 30,000
30,000 - 45,000
45,000 - 60,000
60,000 - 75,000
Above 75,000

69

6.

10.

70

Father's occupation?:

A.

Corporate managers and executives, highly skill
technical jobs, government officials, college
professors

Middle managers, other professional/technical
workers, independent business people

Public school and junior college teachers, skilled
labor and trades, real estate sales, homemakers
Unskilled labor, factory workers, general sales,
general service workers, office workers

Mother's occupation?:

A.

Corporate managers and executives, highly skill
technical jobs, government officials, college
professors

Middle managers, other professional/technical
workers, independent business people

Public school and junior college teachers, skilled
labor and trades, real estate sales, homemakers
Unskilled labor, factory workers, general sales,
general service workers, office workers

Father's education?:

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Some high school

High school graduate

Some college or technical school
College or technical school graduate
Professional/graduate degree

Mother's education?:

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Some high school

High school graduate

Some college or technical school
College or technical school graduate
Professional/graduate degree

Your birth order?:

A.
B.
C.
D.

Oldest child

Middle child or about middle
Youngest child

Only child

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

160

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

71

Your family's religion?:

A. Catholic

B. Jewish

C. Protestant (Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.)
D. Fundamentalist Christian

E. Other

Do you share your family's religion?:

A. yes

B. no

Ethnicity?:

A. Anglo/white

B. Black

C. Hispanic: Mexican American/Latin American

D. Oriental
E. Other

Number of years at MSU?:

A. 1
B. 2
C. 3
D. 4
E. 5 or more

How is your schooling being paid for?:

I pay for my schooling

I am on full scholarship

I am on partial scholarship

My parents and I share the costs

My parents pay for the majority of my schooling

How many children do you have?

None
1
2
3

4 or more

PLEASE NOTE:

Copyrighted materials in this document have
not been filmed at the request at the author.
They are available for consultation. however,
in the author’s university library.

These consist of pages: 7 2-8 5

U-M-I

 

APPENDIX D:
SENSITIVITY TO CHILDREN QUESITONNARIE

Name: Date:

 

 

Instructions:

 

A series of situations will be found on the following
pages. You are to pretend and imagine that you are the
parent of the child described. All of the children in the
following situations are to be considered gig years 212,

Your task is to write down exactly how you would respond
to the child or children in each of the situations, in a
word, sentence or short paragraph. Write down your exact
words and/or actions, but please do 225 explain why you said
and/or did what you describe. Again, write down you exact
words and/or actions as if you were writing a script for a
play or movie. For example, do 225 write, ”I would reassure
and comfort him." You might instead write, I would smile at
him, hug him close, and in a quiet voice say, 'Don't worry
Billy, I love you'.”

1. Your six year old son, Nick, admired a minature car at
the store. He did not have the money to buy it nor did he
ask you to buy it. After returning home, you see him take it
out of his coat pocket and begin playing with it.

2. After hearing some screaming in the family room, you go
there and find your six year old daughter, Peggy, hitting her
two year old sister, Alison.

72

73

3. It is 8:00 p.m., and that is the time you and your six
year old daughter, Sarah, have previously agreed is her
bedtime for that evening. But she wants to stay up and play.

4. When emptying the garbage can, you find at its bottom
the broken remains of a toy you had given your six year old
son, Matthew, two weeks ago. It is clear that he didn't want
you to find out about its being broken.

5. Your six year old son, Chris, and his friend are playing
in your living room and you have asked them two times to play
somewhere else because you are expecting a visitor, and you
want the living room to look nice. As you are coming back
for the third time to asked the children to leave, you hear a
crash and find the children on the floor looking surprised at
the knock over lamp near them.

6. You have completed shopping for the food for dinner that
evening, and as you are checking out, your six year old
daughter, Linda, says she wants a candy bar. it is close to
dinner time, so you say "No" to her request. She says,
"Please, I'm hungry.”

 

74

7. Before going to bed at 10:00 p.m., you go into your six
year old son Roger's bedroom to see if he has the blanket
over him and to tuck him in, if necessary. You find him
masturbating. He sees you looking at him. He stops
masturbating and pulls the blanket up to his chin.

8. Your six year old daughter, Carol, was playing with her
toys and has things scattered about the room and on the
dinner table. you told her to be sure to pick up before
dinner. A friend of Carol came over and both children went
outside to play. You had to pick up the toys and things
yourself. Carol walks in, just in time for dinner.

9. Your six year old son, Gary, comes running in the house,
yelling, "I won, I wonll” He bumps right into you and knocks
over a glass of water you had in your hand. The glass falls
to the floor and the water spills over your clothes as well
as onto the floor.

75

10. Your six year old daughter, Mary, as wearing a new
outfit to school for the first time. You asked her to try to
keep it clean so it can be worn when your family goes out to
dinner tonight. When Mary comes home, the jacket of the
outfit is covered with dirt. She says, ”My friend was cold
so I let her wear it and she got dirt on it."

11. Your six year old daughter, Carla, kicks her blocks on
the floor saying, "I hate these blocks. They don't stack
right."

12. Your are trying to rest. Your six year old son, Derek,
is banging on a drum in the next room.

13. Your six year old son, Gene, comes to the table with
dirty hands, for what seems to be the 10th time over the past
several months, even though he has been reminded to wash his
hands before dinner.

76

14. You see your six year old daughter, Ginny, hit her
friend Deborah. Ginny says, ”I didn't want to his her but
she kept taking my truck away.”

15. Your six year old son, Lyle, is drinking coffee from
your cup. You do not want him to drink coffee.

16. Your six year old daughter, Elaine, comes home from
school, beaming. She holds up a spelling paper which has
”1002" written on it.

 

APPENDIX E:

Scoring Guide to the Sensitivity to Children Questionnaire

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Ordering, directing, or commanding a specific task at a
specific time.

Telling a child to do something, giving him/her an order
or a command. This may also include strong implications
of an order, but does not include telling him "you may
do ...” or giving him alternatives.

Example phrases: ”You must ..” "You will .." "Let's .."

Examples: ”Don't talk to your mother like that."
"Now you go apologize."
”Stop complaining."

Warning, admonishing, threatening

Unambiguously informing the child that specified or
unspecified consequences will occur if he does or does
not do something either now or in the future. This
includes ”scare tactics.”

Example phrases: ”You had better .. , or else ..

Examples: ”If you do that, you'll be sorry."
"One more statement like that and you'll
leave the room."

Exhorting, moralizing, or preaching -- using abstract
demands

Telling the child what he should or ought to do.
Example phrases: "You should ..” ”You ought .."

Examples: ”You shouldn't act like that."
”You have to learn to share.”
”You ought to say you're sorry."
”That's not a nice way to talk."

Advising, recommending, providing answers or solutions

Telling the child how to solve a problem; giving advice
or suggestions; providing answers or solutions for
him/her without referral to the feelings/needs/wishes of
the child. Typically, this is seen in specific
statements, not vague suggestions.

77

78

Example phrases: "Why don't you ..” "I would .. "

Examples: ”I suggest you talk to your teacher about it."
”Can't you put each thing away after you use
it?”

(5) Persuading with logic, instructing, lecturing -- without
moralizing

Trying to influence the child with facts, counter-
arguments, logic, information, or your own opinions.
This is often seen as preaching PLUS giving an
explanation.

Example phrases: "Yes, but .." “Do you realize ..

Examples: ”College can be the most wonderful experience
you'll ever have.”
”Look at it this way, your mother needs help
around the house.”

(6) Evaluating/judging negatively, disapproving, blaming,
critcizing

Making a negative judgment or evaluation of the child as
a person with no referral to child's actions.

Examples: "You are bad."
"You're lazy.”

(7) Praising, judging/evaluating positively, approving,
agreeing

Offering a positive evaluation or judgment without
referral to the child's actions. The respondent is
making a global evaluation of the child.

Examples: ”You are a good boy."
"I think you're smart."
(8) Name-calling, ridiculing, shaming, using sarcasm, making

light of

Making the child feel foolish, putting the child into a
category, shaming him, putting the child down.

Examples: ”You're a spoiled brat.”
"Look here, Mr. Smarty."

 

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

79

Diagnosing, psycho-analyzing, interpreting, reading-in,
offering insights

Telling the child what his motives are or analyzing why
he is doing or saying something; communicating that you
have him figured out or diagnosed.

Example phrases: "Your problem is .. "What you need 18..”

Examples: "You're just jealous."
"You don't believe that at all."
"You feel that way because you're not doing
well in school.”

Excusing, sympathizing, consoling, reassuring

Trying to make the child feel better, talking him out of
his feelings, trying to make his feelings go away,
denying the strength of his feelings.

Examples: "That's not so bad."
"Don't worry.”
"All kids go through that."

Probing, questioning, cross-examining, prying,
interrogating

Trying to find reasons, motives, causes

Examples: ”Why do you hate school so much?”
”Do the other kids tell you they don't want
to play with you?”
"What will you do if you don't go to
college?”

Withdrawing, distracting, avoiding, ignoring, bypassing

Trying to get the child away from the problem;

withdrwing from the problem yourself; distracting the
child or pushing the problem aside. ”Giving in” to the
child. This includes cases where the parent does not
respond at all, or says something irrelevant to the issue.

Examples: "Let's not talk about it now.”
"Just forget it."
"We can discuss it later."

80

(13) Restriction of privileges -- grounding

Grounding or restriction of privileges as the method of
discipline to resolve the issue. Includes such
restrictions as sending the child to his room and
includes instances where respondent indicates that the
child would be punished but specifically omits physical
punishment.

Examples: "You can't play outside for three days."
"No T.V. for a week."
(14) Physical punishment

A statement that indicates caretaker would use some form
of physical punishment to solve the issue.

Examples: ”I would spank him.”
”Then I would probably hit him."

(15) Yelling or shouting

Inclusion of the manner in which the caretaker would
respond by yelling, shouting, or scolding.

Examples: "I would shout or yell ...
”I would yell at him or scold him."

(16) There is a clear and unambiguous statement of the child's
feelings/needs/wishes.
Examples: ”You look happy."
”You seem sad.”
(17) There is a clear and unambiguous statement of the adult's
feelings/needs/wishes.
Examples: "I feel sad.”
"I am tired now."
(18) There is a clear and unambiguous relating of child

feelings to adult feelings.

Examples: ”When you look upset, I become sad."

 

81

(19) There is a clear and unambiguous relating of child
feelings to adult behaviors.

Examples: ”When you look upset, I try to cheer you up."

(20) There is a clear and unambiguous relating of child
behavior to adult feelings.

Examples: ”When you yell, I get angry."

(21) There is a clear and unambiguous relating of child
behavior to adult behavior.

Examples: "When you yell, I tell you to stop."

(22) The child is given specific directions for alternatve
expression of feelings/need/wishes and the way to handle
them, either in the present or in the future.

Examples: ”If you are angry at your sister, you can
tell her now.”

”Whenever you get angry at your sister, you
must tell her so."

(22b) The child is given specific directions or alternative
ways of handling behavior in the future.
Examples: ”Next time, be more careful.”

(23) There is an attempt to obtain more information regarding
child's feelings/need/wishes.

Examples: ”Can you tell me what you're upset about?"

(24) There is an attempt to obtain more information regarding
child behavior. (The behavior can occur either in the
present or in the past.)

This occurs when the problem is child-owned.

Exmaples: ”Tell me what happened.”

 

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

82

The child is given an alternative or compromise solution
based on mutual responect and cooperation.

This occurs as the result of input from both parent and
child and the child's feelings/needs/wishes are given
consideration.

Examples: "Next time we can bring some fruit with us
that you may eat while we're shopping.”
”You may stay up a little later, but you must
read quietly in bed.”

There is control over the child which is exerted through
a bribe or contingency demand without mutual
reciprocity.

Examples: "If you're good, maybe I'll let you go."

Ordering in uncertain terms.

The child is given an ambiguous order by the parent.
The tone of the demand is weak and uncertain.

Examples: ”Maybe you should stay home for the next 3
days.”
"Be quiet, okay?”

Indication of positive affect through non-verbal
communciation.
Examples: ”In a caring voice, I would say .."
”I would hug him."
"I would smile and say."

Expression of parent's feelings without a specific
feeling word.

Includes both verbal and nonverbal messages which
indicate a certain feeling without placing a label on
that feeling.

Examples: "That's great!!!"
"I would just stare straight into his eyes."

APPENDIX F:

FACES III
David H. Olson. Joyce Partner. and Yoav levee

 

All-4087 NI VIII

2 3 a 5
one: in ass-trite sountuts raeoucw‘tn‘ awosr art-tars

DISCRIDI YOUR I'AMILY NO“.

I.
2.

)0

II.

lllllllllllll lllllll

I2.
I3.
Id.
I3.
I6.
I7.
II.
I9.
20.

family members asl each other {or help

Ir. solving problems. the children‘s suuestions are followed
U‘e approve of each other‘s friends

Children have a say in their discipline.

We lite to do things It": just our immediate family.

Different persons act as leaders in our family.

Family members feel closer to other family members than to people outside
the family.

Our Iamily changes its way 0! handling tasks

Family members lile to spend free time with each other.
Parentis) and children discuss punishment together.
family members feel very close to each other.

The children mate the decisions in our family.

I
When our family gets totether for activities. everybody is present.

Rules change in our family.

We can easily think of things to do together as a family.

We shirt household responsibilities from person to person.

Family members consult other family members on their decisions
It is hard to identify the Ieaderts) in our family.

Family togetherness is very important.

It is hard to tell who does which household chores.

m 'AMILY SOCIAL SCIENCE. 290 MchaI "all, I'nioersit, oi Minnesola. SI. I'aui. MN 53'”

6) cut. on». sees

83

 

 

APPENDIX C:

Sample Distribution in the Sixteen Family Types

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disengaged Separate Connected Enmeshed
Rigid
8 3 l 3
Structured 7 8 12 4
Flexible 17 20 12 6
Chaotic 7 14 19 13

 

 

 

 

 

84

APPENDIX H:
Family System Types for Analysis of Variance

(Proposed by Olson, 1985)

 

 

 

A Slm‘b “It”: 7H1” 5 balaneeo,Mtd-$‘.ao[e,& II‘UODO
((MISIHK (OHISIDN
. 2'?) __r
y 3 ' 1% 2 3 — 5 ‘
E : 5 6.55.2572.) 6
- :r ,I// ’/ /// 4
g g '7 //_ 11/ //,
5 : .H.U/’//c74
‘ z 9 5110711,” 12
E ‘ ’1’... / a
K c I, '
B
13% I4 15 .$
,90; balanced
5::3 find-Range
g Extreme
C Four Quadrant. D" Balanced L Quadrant:
. ((UISION (OHUION

 

 

.1- 2 :1 3 .0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"nflPYMHl IYV
M’IIIPIM'III "V

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n Flexible-Separated
33 Flexible-Connected
331] Structured-Separated
UV Slrutlured-Connccled

85

LIST OF REFERENCES

 

REFERENCES

Anderson, S.A. Cohesion, adaptability, and communication: A
test of an Olson circumplex model hypothesis. Family
Relations, 1986, 32, 289-293.

Baldwin, A.L. Socialization and the parent-child
relationship. Child Development, 1948, $2, 127-136.

 

Balswick, J. & Averett, C. Differences in expressiveness:
Gender, interpersonal orientation, and perceived
parental expressiveness as contributing factors.
Journal pf Marriage 2221553 Family, 1977, 32, 121-127.

Barnes, H.L. & Olson, D.H. Parent-adolescent communication
and the circumplex model. Child Development, 1985, 22,
438-447.

 

Barnett, M., Howard, J., King, L., 8 Dino, G. Antecedents of
empathy: Retrospective accounts of early socialization.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1980, 6,
361-365. '

 

Barnhill, L.R. Healthy family systems. The Family
Coordinator, 1979, 28, 94-100.

 

Bateson, G., Jackson, D.D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J.H.

Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science,
1956, A, 251-264.

 

Baumrind, D. Child care practices anteceding three patterns

of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs,
1967, 12, 43-88.

Baumrind, D. Authoritarian vs. authoritative parental
control. Adolescence, 1968, 3, 255-272.

Baumrind, D. Current patterns of parental authority.
Developmental Psychology Monographs, 1971a.i(1)'

Becker, W. Consequences of different kinds of parental
discipline. In M. Hoffman and L. Hoffman (Eds.) Review

pf Child Development Research. New York: Russell Sage,
1964.

86

87

Belsky, J., Gilstrap, B., & Rovine, M. The Pennsylvania
infant and family development project: 1. Stability and
change in mother-infant and father-infant interaction
in a family setting at one, three, and nine months.
Child Development, 1984, 25, 692-705.

 

Billings, A. & Moos, R. Family environment and adaptation:
A clinically applicable typology. American Journal pf

Family Therapy, 1982, 10, 26-39.

Bowlby, J. Maternal care and mental health. Geneva: World
Health Organization, 1951.

 

Bronstein, P. Differences in mothers' and fathers' behavior
toward children: A cross-cultural comparison.
Developmental Psychology, 1984, 22(6), 995-1003.

Brooks-Gunn, J. & Furstenberg, F.F. The children of
adolescent mothers: Physical, academic, and
psychological outcomes. Developmental Review, 1986, p,
224-251. '_“'

Bryson, C. H. stud y of the relationship of self- -description
and family dysfunction. Unpublished masters thesis,
Georgia State University, 1978.

 

 

 

 

Buss, A.H. & Plomin, R.A. ‘A temperament theory pf
personality development. New York: Wiley, 1975.

 

Carew, J.V. Social class, experience and intelligence in
young children. In G. McGurk (Ed.) Ecological factors
‘ip human development. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1977.

Clarke-Stewart, R.A. And daddy makes three: The father's
impact of mother and the young child. Child
Development. 1978, 32, 466-478.

Constantine, L.L. Family paradigms: The practice pf theory
13 family therapy. New York: Guilford, 1986.

Coopersmith, S. The antecedent of self-esteems. San

Francisco: Freeman, 1967.

 

Curtis, W.J., Phillippe, R.A. & Stollak, G.E. Factor
analysis of the FACES III: A three factor solution.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Atlanta, August, 1988.

Dubow, E.F., Huesman, L.R., & Eron, L.D. Childhood
correlates of adult ego development. Child Development,
1987, 28(3), 859-869.

88

Elder, G.H. & Bowerman, G.E. Family structure and child
rearing patterns: The effect of family size and sex

composition. American Sociological Review, 1963, 32,
81-96 e

 

Field, T. Interactions of preterm and term infants with
their lower and middle class teenage and adult mothers.
In T. Field, S. Goldberg, D. Stern, & A. Sostek (Eds.)
High-risk infants and children: Adult and peer
interactions. New York: Academic Press, 1980.

 

 

Fine, M. Perceptions of marriage and rationality by levels
of perceived health in the family of origin. Journal pf
Marriage and the Family, 1984, $2, 193-195.

Fitzpatrick, M.A. Dyadic adjustment in tracitional,
independent, and separate relationships: A validation
Study. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Paper
presented at Speech Communication Association, December,
1977a.

Galvin, R.M. & Brommel, B.J. Family communication:
Cohesion and changg. Glenview, Illinois: Scott,
Foresman, and Company, 1986.

 

Garbarino, J., Sebes, J., & Schellenbach, C. Families at
risk for destructive parent-child relations in
adolescence. Child Development, 1985, 52, 174-183.

Gordon, T. Parent effectiveness training. New York: Wyden,
1970.

 

Harrington, D.M., Block, J.H.,& Block, J. Testing aspects of
Carl Roger's theory of creative environments: Child-
rearing antecedents of creative potential in young
adolescents. Journal pi Personality and Social
Psychology, 1987, 52(4), 851-856.

 

 

Harter, S. Cognitive-developmental considerations in the
conduct of play therapy. In G.E. Schaefer & R.J.
O'Connor (Eds.) Handbook 23 Play Therapy, New York:
Wiley & Sons, 1983.

Hess, R.D. Social class and ethnic influences upon
socialization. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.) Carmichael's
Manual pg Child Psychology (Vol. II, 3rd Edition). New
York: Wiley, 1970.

 

 

Hurley, J.R. & Hahn, R.L. Shifts in child rearing
attitudes linked with parenthood and occupation.
Developmental Psychology, 1971, s, 324-328.

 

89

Huston, A.C. Sex-typing. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.) Handbook 22
Child Psychology (Vol. IVL 4th Edition). New York:
Wiley, 1983.

Jackson, D.D. The question of family homeostasis.
Psychiatric Quarterly, 1957, 22, 79-90.:

Jackson, L.A., Ialongo, N., & Stollak, G. Parental
correlates of gender role: The relations between
parents' masculinity, femininity, and child-rearing
behaviors and their children's gender roles. Journal 22
Social and Clinical Psychology, 1986, 3(2), 204-224.

Jackson, P.W. Verbal solutions to parent-child problems.
Child Development, 1956, 22(3), 339-349.

Jacob, T. (Ed.) Family interaction and psychopathology:
Theories, methodsp and findings. New York: Plenum
Press, 1987.

Kantor, D. & Lehr, W. Inside the Family. San Francisco:
Josey Bass, 1976.

 

Kleiman, J. Optimal and normal family functioning. The
American Journal 22 Family Therapy, 1981, 22, 37-44.

Knight, G.P., Kagan, S., & Buriel, R. Perceived parental
practices and prosocial development. Journal 22 Genetic

Psychology, 1982, 141(1), 57-65.

Koch, A.Y. & Hattem, D.M. Operationalizing psychopolitical
role flexibility: A method for observing Kantor and
Lehr's player parts. Unpublished manuscript, Texas Tech
University, 1983.

Lamb, M.E. (Ed.) The role 22 the father lp_child development
(2nd Edition). New York: Wiley, 1981.

Lasko, J.K. Parent behavior toward first-born and second-
born children. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1954, 22.

Lewis, J.M., Beavers, W.R., Gossett, J.T., & Phillips, V.A.
.23 single thread: Psychological health 23 family
systems. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1976.

Lewis, M. & Freedle, R. The mother and infant communication
system: The effects of poverty. In H. McGurk (Ed.)
Ecological factors 22 human development. Amsterdam:
North Holland, 1977.

 

 

 

9O

Loeber, R. The stability of antisocial and delinquent child
behavior: A review. Child Development, 1982, 22, 1431-
1446.

 

Loeber, R. & Dishion, T.J. Boys who fight at home and
school: Family conditions influencing cross-setting

consistency. Journal 22 gonsplting and Clinical
Psychology, 1984, 22(5), 759-768.

 

Maccoby, E.E. Social development: Psycholochal growth and
the parent-child relationship. New York: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, 1980.

 

 

Maccoby, E.E. & Martin, J.A. Socialization in the context
of the family. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.) Handbook 22 Child
Psychology (Vol. IV). New York: Wiley, 1983, 1-101.

Matas, L., Arend, R.A., & Sroufe, L.A. Continuity of
adaptation in the second year: The relationship between
quality of attachment and later competence. Child
Development, 1978, 22, 547-556.

 

Minuchin, P. Families and individual development:
Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child
Development, 1985, 22, 289-302.

 

Montgomery, B.M. The form and function of quality
communication in marriage. Family Relations, 1981, 22,
21-30.

 

Moran, J.D. & O'Brien, G. Relationship between parental
child-rearing attitudes and preschoolers' moral
judgments. Psychological Reports, 1984, 22(3), 893-894.

Olson, D.H., McCubbin, H.I., Barnes, H.L., Larsen, A.S.,
Muxen, M.J., & Wilson, M.A. Families: What makes
them work. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983.

 

 

Olson, D.H., Portner, J., & Lavee, Y. FACES III. Family
Social Science, Univeristy of Minnesota, St. Paul,
Minnesota, 1985.

 

Olson, D.H., Russell, C.S., & Sprenkle, D.H. Circumplex
model of marital and family systems: VI. Theoretical
update. Family Process, 1983, 22, 69-83.

Rodick, J.D., Henggeler, S.W., and Hanson, C.L. An
evaluation of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion
Evaluation Scales and the circumplex model. Journal 22
Abnormal Child gpychology, 1986, 22(1), 77-87.

 

 

 

91

Mother-child and father-child

Russell, G. & Russell, A.
Child Development,

relationships in middle childhood.
1987, 22, 1573-1585.

Satir, V. PeOplemaking. Palo Alto, California: Science and

Behavior Books, 1972.

Intervention for congruence. In V. Satir, J.

 

Satir, V.
Stachowiak, and H. Taschman (Eds.) Helping Families £2
Change. New York: Jason Aronson, 1975.

R.P., Maccoby, E.E. & Levin, H. Patterns 22 child-

Sears,
New York: Harper and Row, 1957.

rearing.

Sethi, A.S. & Gupta, D. Moral judgment level and perceived
maternal child rearing attitudes of boys and girls.
Journal 22 Psychological Researches, 1984, 22(2), 102-

106.
t
Sieburg, E. Interpersonal confirmation: A paradigm for

conceptualization and measurement. Paper presented at
International Communication Association, Montreal,

Quebec, 1973.

 

Speer, C. Family systems: Morphogenesis and morphostasis,
or is homeostasis enough? Family Process, 1970, 2(3),
259-277.

Stachowiak, J. Functional and dysfunctional families. In V.
Satir, J. Stachowiak, and H. Taschman (Eds.) Helping

Families 22 Change. New York: Jason Aronson, 1975.

Steinglass, P. Family systems theory and therapy: A

clinical application of general systems theory.
Psychiatric Annals, 1984, 22(8), 582-586.

Steinglass, P. A systems view of family interaction and
psychopathology. In T. Jacob (Ed.) Family Interaction
and Psychopathology: Theories, Methods, and Findings.

New York: Plenum Press, 1987.

Stollak, G.E. Parent/Teacher/Therapist/Friend Manuscript in
progress. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI,

1988.

A., Kallman, J.R., & Saturansky, C.
Responses of undergraduates
Journal 22 Abnormal

Stollak, G.E., Scholom,
Insensitivity to children:
to children in problem situations.

Child Psychology, 1973, 2(2), 169-180.

92

I

Teyber, E.C., Messe, L.A., & Stollak, G.E. Adult responses to
child communications. Child Development, 1977, 22,
1577-1582.

 

Thomas, A. and Chess, S. Temperament and development. New
York: Brunner/Mazel, 1977.

 

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, P.J., and Jackson, D.D. Pragmatics
22 Human Communication: A Study 22 Interactional
Patterns, 22tholog$epiygpg Paradoxes. New York:
Norton, 1967.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yerby, J. and Buerkel-Rothfuss, N.L. Communication patterns,
contradictions, and family functions. Paper presented
at the Speech Communication Association Convention,
1982.

Zussman, J.S.U. Situational determinant of parental
behavior. Dissertation submitted to the Department of
Psychology, Stanford University, 1980.

 

HICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES
l l ll MINI ill ill "I llllll I“! ll Ill! lllll ll ill ”I Will ll 1 ll
31293008956934