3:»: V .73. o . {fivfiQWJ-fi‘ d ‘ , ‘ 4h: . " AI. {yup-u ‘ w “I." .;?1 .‘v 3.. ‘ ' . . i f _ Witt-.1 .‘ - v ..z “ , , ‘ ‘ ' ‘ ' ~ ‘ J54»- " 4‘ ' ‘ ' ‘ ~ “ ' , \f'~3;u;‘..$ a n rm... M. ‘ :7 flu» p "a ' _ 3’1 1" “i éfié‘ai "I z~uou L. . n21.- m-‘Zg'.* ; if; «375%. J. . 7 o .u» e A-c : “a”. ‘ fifl‘sm-‘Eén‘a ’ r * a “”51“ .a 1. ‘— . 1‘7 “3-3:; A nag. mmwém - {vs‘tq fig 3:,“ v.» a .51.”:1. " A: "w:- .0 2'. I s! .fth‘ ‘I v: . 1 "£353 .. " v 4‘7“ angi.§g;.,mh~w : V' w“: A 'I "91' - ”Sr-Var - 4-- ‘ : {‘1' ‘28:??? “ xg$§ , \Z‘fit.‘ “ I '.. ‘ ‘ «3533?: d V umtfi > E 1. men. . » V ‘ . .' A . ,r. g 34.;- ; “a; {A‘uné‘filfiv‘lfll a .22, .2. i 1%,}. igufiaram> u.“ , -. >~ agannfi: . ~ ‘N M ¢%%&%‘ ‘3 Elmakféxggk ”'g‘. : y‘ a ‘ 035?: - ~ 5...- '- .» M‘s-K ‘.er ml ‘ ‘ «g ,' N: v; .'"'.. -s. H y W ‘_'V . W J . , ~- - ‘ . "IN" , '_ ,3.“ ‘Jfi' .. _"“" . _ ' 2‘1” " . z: 3 $3? “twig; fgg,::‘. "..; é}? jlo- . ' ‘wr-g‘g‘gfiwfig ‘~ww.wz‘4 ,3: -- - r ' ‘ ‘ xv. . ‘ . l n fiv» 3' .9“ ‘3} ..,...‘.. .2. "3 w .. .151“ u ”A. (‘": ’.r .L n. “..». “an... A.‘ M .uaw . v "-'-‘:i'aL'-5u‘.r~'i' ., y. 5‘ t . 3 ‘4 «Eur ‘ ~ 5“ -. ' “.1357 ~ 1 ”2AM. ch; , ,. if. ‘ ‘ $33“, , . :36: i...‘ ' " $99153: @‘7fi; ' A 49'; aw‘m’fiw win 23 in 34,,» . at} Y 1 .. 'I -v u WE’Qfi-fiyéfi‘ . » kWh“ ‘t’. 5 £13 -.I. A», flap-3n. vwm: . ~. 3*. 0 1’1! ”2'! '9; r.“ 0. ,L .5 . ‘ If 1‘ be: .3. gram czar-r “i“ .:". .1' 4“ waning; . 7m: 1‘ w; V, . ' Jun ‘30-, ‘Hw" BIRAR ES Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Ill 31293 00917 1632 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Childhood Household Type As A Factor In Degree Of Traditionalism In Family Ideology Among Col lege Undergraduates presented by Constance M. Noyce has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master QLSQienQidegree in 1m; 11 §tudies IdlbéutLA/M« .é'zzenel 6/10. Major professor Date é/j‘g/fo 07639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution Sisal-11 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE __l :3 fiEr—T ____lL_ __J u“ {— MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution owns-9.1 CHILDHOOD HOUSEHOLD TYPE AS A FACTOR IN DEGREE OF TRADITIONALISM IN FAMILY IDEOLOGY AMONG COLLEGE UNDERGRADUATES BY Constance M. Noyce A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Family and Child Ecology 1990 f ‘ {/7L .//a ,1/‘7" J/x'v ABSTRACT CHILDHOOD HOUSEHOLD TYPE AS A FACTOR IN DEGREE OF TRADITIONALISM IN FAMILY IDEOLOGY AMONG COLLEGE UNDERGRADUATES BY Constance M. Noyce The purpose of this study was to explore significant differences in degree of traditionalism in family ideology among young adults based on five household types. A second purpose of this study was to search for such differences in respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology due to respondent's perception of peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology. A probability survey design was used, drawing on sections of underclassmen level family life courses. Participants completed self-administered questionnaire in the classroom. Findings of the study include that there were no statistically significant differences in degree of traditionalism in family ideology among underclassmen based on childhood household types. There were statistically significant differences in respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology based on respondent's perception of peer's degree of traditionalism in family ideology. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people contributed to this research thesis, as well as to my opportunity to earn a Master of Science degree. I thank Dr. Dolores Borland for her hours of work as my advisor and major professor for my thesis committee. She not only encouraged me to refine my work, but also served as a role model with high professional standards. I thank Dr. Lillian Phenice, committee member, for her contributions to this thesis, constant support, and also for being a role model in academia. I am grateful to Dr. Jeanne Brown for her consistently having faith and confidence in me as a graduate assistant, and for opening new doors to me to valuable professional experiences. I thank the professors and graduate teaching assistants who permitted me to survey their students during the data collection process of this research. Thank you to my husband, John Noyce, for his unwavering support, encouragement, and understanding during my years as a graduate student. Without him this would not have become a reality. I am grateful to my parents, Ed and Esther Howard, for instilling in me a love and appreciation for education. Their steadfast iii love and support, as well as the opportunities they gave me in life laid the foundation for a quest to learn more. Lastly, love and affection to Max and Bridget for their devotion. Without all of these people, learning would not have been such a joy nor as purposeful. iv Table of Contents Page LIST OF TABLES......................................Vi LIST OF FIGURES. ....... . ...... . .................... vii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION......... ........................ 1 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE......... ................ 5 Ecological Perspective............. ...... .10 III. METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY.........14 Research Objectives............ ...... ...14 Conceptual and Operational Definitions. .15 Hypotheses. .................... ....... ....18 Instrumentation...........................19 Sample Design ............. . ......... ......21 Data Collection Procedures................ 22 Analysis of Data..........................23 Limitations 0 O O O O O O ...... O O O O O O 000000000000 26 Assumptions..... ..... ....... .............. 27 IV. RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSIS ................ 29 Rate of Response..........................29 Description of the Sample......... ...... ..29 Testing of Hypotheses.....................41 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS OFTHERESEARCHOO..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...57 summarYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. ........ O 57 conCIUSions O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 0 60 Limitations of the Present Study. ....... ..66 Suggestions for Future Research...........67 Chapter APPENDCES............... ..... ......... '70 A. Approval Letter from UCRIHS...............71 B. Introduction Letrer to Instuctors.........73 C. Instrument................................76 REFERENCESOOOOOOOOO. ...... O ........... O... .......... 89 vi Table LIST OF TABLES Summary Table of Demographic Characteristics of Respondents ................ ...... ......... Percentages of Respondents Living in Each Household Type During Ages 2 through 6 (N - 434) ................... . ................ Mean Traditional Family Ideology (TFI) Scale Scores by Gender and Class Level (N = 434) ....... Mean Traditional Ideology (TFI) Scale Scores by Household Type (N = 434).. ......... Correlationsa Between Degree of Traditionalism in Family Ideology and Class Level by Gender......... ............... Correlationsa Between Degree of Traditionalism in Family Ideology and Household Type by Gender and Class Level (N - 434).. .......... . ................. Correlationsa Between Degree of Traditionalism in Family Ideology and Perceived Degree of Traditionalism in Family Ideology in Peer Group by Gender and Class Level (N - 434) .................... Analysis of Variance for Degree of Traditionalism in Family Ideology and Household Type by Gender and Class Level (N - 434) .............................. Means and Standard Deviations for Degree of Traditionalism in Family Ideology by Household Type and Gender/Class Level (N=434)...... ........ ...... .. ........ vii Page .29 O 35 .38 .41 .43 .44 .46 .48 .51 Table Page 10. T-test of Significant Differences in Respondent's Degree of Traditionalism in Family Ideology (TFI#1) due to Respondent's Perception of Peers' Degree of Traditionalism in Family Ideology (TFI#2) by Gender and Class Level (N - 434).... ....... 56 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Independent variables and dependent variable.... .................................. 13 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION There has been an increasing amount of diversity found in family forms in America due to a rise in the divorce rate since the 19605, a contracting economy, and changing cultural attitudes. By the year 2000, it is predicted that there were be many' more single-parent families and remarried families than exist today (Cherlin & mrstenberg, Jr., 1983). Children of these various family forms may be reared by one or two biological parents, a biological parent and stepparent, or any combination of these throughout their youth. Other variations may include living with extended kin, foster parents, or adoptive parents. Single-parent families, in which the adult head of household never married or lost a mate to death or marital disruption, differ in many ways from stable dual— parent or remarried families. When there is only one parent present in the household, there is far less distinction between the power and status levels of the adult and of the child (Weiss, 1975). Children tend to share more in family decision-making processes and negotiate family rules more than if there were two parents to dominate this sphere. As the ‘parent and children take over the roles not filled by an absent parent, there may be a higher level of cooperation and democratization in the family. Sometimes the oldest child must handle greater responsibility, caring for younger siblings and doing more household tasks. As a result, this family form can foster greater maturity in children as compared to their counterparts in stable dual—parent households (Weiss, 1975). A stable dual—parent household may be defined as one in which husband and wife marry, rear children, and remain in the home without marital disruption (death, separation, desertion, or divorce). A study of fathers only found that children in this household type tended to experience more father support, more father control, more father punishment, less autonomy, and less household responsibility than. those in. single-parent. households. Because of these factors, children reared in stable dual- parent households may be more likely to stress distinct mother-father roles, greater submission to authoritarian power, and greater levels of sex stereotyping (Amato, 1987). Changing status families are those in which there is a change from single-parent to dual-parent (bringing stepparent into the family system) or from dual-parent to single-parent, due to death or marital disruption. They face unique challenges as they must adjust to the addition or loss of a parent, as well as the possible addition of stepchildren. Whether an addition or loss is involved, roles within the family change as the household type changes. Movement from a democratic to an autocratic family power structure or the reverse places a degree of stress on family members. Children readjust their roles, tasks, and ‘beliefs regarding’ family ideology. Past research has focused on many independent variables in their relationships to degree of traditionalism in family ideology. Yet little work has concentrated on the effect of the type of household in which a child is reared on his or her family ideology. The purpose of this study was to assess whether significant differences occurred in degree of traditionalism in family ideology due to childhood household type. More specifically, this research examined the relationship of type of' household young adults were reared in during the preschool years of 2 to 6 years of age and their' present ideological beliefs concerning family roles. The five household types examined included stable single—parent (mother), stable single-parent (father), stable dual-parent (two biological, parents), changing' status (single-parent to parent and stepparent), and changing status (dual parent -to single-parent). Did the type of household a child was reared in have an. impact ‘upon. his or' development. of traditionalism in family ideology? Was the difference between household types such that a child was influenced to develop an extremely low or high degree of traditionalism in family ideology? Information resulting from this study may aid family life educators and family therapists in understanding and predicting degree of traditionalism in family ideology of young adults reared in different household types. Professionals in the field of family life will be better prepared to anticipate family role expectations of young adults as they approach the development task of choosing a marital lifestyle. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE According to Levinson and Huffman (1955), ideology is the relatively organized, relatively stable pattern of thought within the individual and is an aspect of personality. Children formulate an ideology regarding what is appropriate and preferable for parent-child relationships and childrearing 'techniques, husband-wife roles and relationships, concepts of masculinity and femininity, and family values. One's family ideology may be on a democratic- autocratic continuum, which corresponds with the equalitarian-authoritarian continuum of personality. Levinson and Huffman (1955) have characterized five aspects of the authoritarian extreme, known as traditionalism, which represent focal points of affect and meaning in the sphere of family ideology. These aspects include conventionalism, authoritarian submission, exaggerated masculinity and femininity, and moralistic rejection of impulse life. Children develop a family ideology not only as a result of familial influences, but also as a function of age. The 2-month old infant is not cognitively able to judge the appropriateness of a sex-typed toy and, on the other hand, an adolescent will likely have an opinion regarding how his father should discipline his siblings. At what ages are children vulnerable to familia influences in their formation of family ideology? Around age 2, children first begin to apply age- group labels to themselves and others (Edwards & Lewis, 1979). Roles are comprehended on the behavioral level as the child can differentiate between infants, children, and adults. According to Kohlberg (1966), 2-year-old children can self-categorize themselves as boys or girls and their gender identity is stabilized by age 6. Throughout the preschool years, they are able to verbalize the behaviors they consider appropriate for infants, young and older children, parents, and grandparents (Edwards & Lewis, 1979). Erickson's (1963) eight ages of man characterize the preschooler in the autonomy vs. shame and doubt and the initiative vs. guilt stages as developing a sense of moral responsibility with insight into social institutions, functions, and roles. Once children have reached the ages of 6 or 7, their attitudes toward others have become well informed, indicative of their increasingly advanced perceptual and conceptual ways of understanding the outside world separate from their own feelings and needs (Werner, 1957). By age 6 most American children have completed one year of kindergarten and have developed a pattern of thinking regarding social roles and relationships, family values, and gender identity. In reviewing the literature, many independent variables have been found to relate to degree of traditionalism in family ideology, but little research has focused on type of household reared in during childhood as an influential factor. One reason for this is that the dual—parent nuclear family has been the dominant family form until the late 19603, providing for little diversity in household structure. Now that family forms are becoming more diverse and such variety is more common, its relationship to family ideology formation becomes of greater significance. The following variables have been studied in relation to degree of traditionalism in family ideology including: active military service, race, traditional parental decision-making authority and sharply distinguished husband-wife roles, socioeconomic level, parental educational level, and dramatic social changes of the 19605. Active military service has been found to be positively related to a high degree of traditionalism in family ideology among young men, but not young women (Firestone, 1987). Not only did young men bring traditional attitudes with them when they volunteered for service, but these attitudes were also reinforced during periods of military membership. Race has been found to be related to degree of traditionalism in family ideology (Burns & Homel, 1989). Among non—Anglo families studied, most notably those of Mediterranean origin, a patriarchal lifestyle reinforced sharply differentiated gender roles and parental authority in the home: The literature reviewed revealed a positive relationship was found between degree of traditionalism in family ideology and division of husband-wife roles and division. of' decision-making' authority (Papanek, 1969). The degree of traditionalism in family ideology was higher among children in those families where husband and wife roles were sharply distinguished and in those families where decision-making authority was clearly divided along traditional lines. The literature reviewed revealed a negative relationship between socioeconomic level and degree of traditionalism in family ideology (Bruns & Homel, 1989). Higher status families encouraged their children to master all types of household skills, regardless of the children's gender and sex—typed tasks. The effect of parental educational level on degree of traditionalism in family ideology was also found to be negatively related by White and Brinkerhoff (1981). Parents with higher educational levels were more democratic and their children. made substantially less distinction between the work of boys and girls. The effect of dramatic social changes of the 19605 on degree of traditionalism in family ideology was studied by Weeks and Botkin (1987). Comparing marriage and family role expectations of female college students in 1961 to the same age cohort in 1972, degree of traditionalism in family ideology was found to be related to social changes which occurred in particular decades studied. As the years progressed, female college students anticipated increasingly more egalitarian marital relationships for themselves. However, this correlation was weaker for such students between 1972 and 1984. During the decade of 1961 to 1972 in which dramatic social upheaval took place, respondents revealed the lowest degrees of traditionalism in family ideology. Yet when the 19705 introduced greater conservatism in politics, industry, and family roles and functioning, students' attitudes reflected a corresponding increase in degree of traditionalism in family ideology. Change in the social climate affected these students' expectations for their fUture family lives. In summary, the literature reviewed indicated that active military service of males, but not females, related positively to degree of traditionalism in family 10 ideology. Race was also found to be related to degree of traditionalism in family ideology. Parents whose husband—wife roles were sharply distinguished and decision-making authority' *was traditionally' divided related positively to degree of traditionalism in family ideology. Socioeconomic level and parental educational level were found to be negatively related to degree of traditionalism in family ideology. The effects of social changes of the 19605 were found to relate to degree of traditionalism in family ideology, with the chronological progression of eleven years to be negatively correlated. Since the impact of type of household reared in during childhood on degree of traditionalism in family ideology has not been studied, more research needs to be done in this area. There is limited research on the family role attitudes and beliefs of young adults, particularly those not reared in stable dual-parent families. With increasing numbers of children being reared in alternative family types, it is important that type of household reared in during childhood be examined in relationship to degree of traditionalism in family ideology. Ecological Perspective Human ecology is a field that utilizes the human ecosystem as an approach to studying the interaction 11 between humans and their environment. The human environed unit (individuals or groups of individuals) interfaces with the natural, human constructed, and human behavioral environments in a reciprocal fashion (Bubolz et al., 1979). The natural environment is that which is formed by nature, with physical, biological, and space- time components. The human constructed environment is that which is created or altered by human beings, comprised of sociophysical, sociocultural, and sociobiological components. The human behavioral environment is that of human beings and their psychological, social, and biophysical behaviors. This study investigated the interaction between the human environed unit (i.e., type of household reared in or the young adult's attitudes and beliefs) and the human behavioral environment outside of the family system (i.e., the young adult's perception of peers' traditional ideological attitudes and beliefs). By asking respondents what they perceive their friends' attitudes and beliefs regarding family ideology to be, the interchange between the human behavioral environment within and outside of the human environed unit was investigated. This indicated which is a stronger influence on the respondents: the human environed unit (i.e., household type) or the human behavioral environment outside of the family system (i.e., 12 respondents' perceptions of friends' attitudes and beliefs). See Figure 1. l3 Independent Variable: Household type (During Early Childhood) Dependent Variable: Respondent's Degree of traditionalism in Family Ideology Independent Variable: Respondent's Perception of Peers' Degree of Traditionalism in Family Ideology Figure 1. Independent variables and dependent variable. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY Research Objectives The main goal of this research was to gain more information about the effect of household type in which a child is reared during ages 2 through 6 on attitudes toward family ideology. More specifically, this research examinéd the relationship between household type (single- parent, mother; single-parent, father; dual-parent; changing status of single-parent to parent and stepparent; and changing status of dual-parent to single- parent) and degree of traditionalism in family ideology when gender and class level at the university were controlled. Significant differences in respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology due to household type were also examined. The second important goal of this research was to examine the relationship between respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology and respondent's perception of peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology. A comparison between the strength of the relationships between childhood household type and perception of peers' degree of traditionalism in family 14 15 ideology to respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology would indicate which influence is greater. These two correlations were repeated, controlling for gender and class level at the university. Significant differences in respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology based on respondent's perceptions of peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology were examined as well. Conceptual and Operational Definitions The following section will discuss the major variables used in this study. Operational definitions will follow the conceptual definitions. In this study, the dependent variable was degree of traditionalism in family ideology. One independent variable was type of household reared in during ages 2 through 6. The second independent variable was respondent's perceptions of peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology. Respondent's gender and respondent's class level were treated as control variables in data analysis. Degree of traditionalism in family ideology (TFI#1)--Conceptually, this is defined as a relatively organized, stable pattern. of' thinking, or ideological orientation, regarding family structure and functioning along a democratic-autocratic continuum. Traditionalism represents the autocratic extreme, with a tendency to 16 highly value conventionalism, authoritarian submission, exaggerated masculinity-femininity, extreme emphasis on discipline, and a moralistic rejection of impulse life. Operationally, the Traditional Family Ideology Scale, shortened form, was used to measure this variable. (See Appendix C, questions 19-30. Details of the coding are located on page 19). Type of household (reared in during ages 2 through 6)-—Conceptually, this is defined as the parent-child household structure a child lived in during ages 2 through 6. Stable single-parent household is one in which the child lived with one same biological parent, either mother or father. Stable dual-parent household is one in which the child lived with the two biological parents. Changing status household is” either a change from single-parent household to one biological parent and a stepparent, or from a stable dual-parent household to a stable single-parent household. Operationally, the respondent was asked to indicate which parent or parents he or she lived with for each year during the ages of 2 through 6. (See Appendix C, questions 9-13). Respondent's perceptions of peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology (TTT#2)--Conceptually, this variable refers to what a respondent believes most of his or her friends' ideological orientations regarding family structure and fUnctioning are. Operationally, the 17 respondent was asked to indicate how he or she believes his or her friends would respond to the statements in the Traditional Family Ideology Scale, shortened form. (See Appendix C, question 31-42. Details of the coding are on page 19). Respondent's gender-—Operationally, the respondent was asked to select from choices of either male or female. (See Appendix C, question 2). Respondent's class 1evel--Operationally, the respondent was asked to indicate if he or she is classified as a freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, or other. (See Appendix C, question 4). Respondent's ethnic identification-—Conceptually, this variable refers to a person's identification with racial origin. Operationally, it was measured by asking the respondent to select from a listed category that which best represents his or her ethnic identification. (See Appendix C, question 5). Respondent's religious affiliation-—Conceptually, this variable refers to the religious group with which a person is affiliated. Operationally, it was measured by asking the respondent to select from a listed category that religion of which he or she is a member. (See Appendix C, question 6). Respondent's frequency of church attendance-- Conceptually, this variable refers to the frequency with 18 which the respondent visits a place of worship. Operationally, it was measured by asking the respondent to select from a listed category that which best describes how often he or she usually visits a church, synagogue, or temple. (See Appendix C, question 7). Respondent's urbanicity--Conceptually, this variable refers to the rural or urban composition of the respondent's permanent residence. Operationally, this was measured by asking the respondent to select from a list of categories that which best represents the type of community in which he or she permanently resides. (See Appendix C, question 8.) Parental occupation—-Conceptually, this variable refers to the social status ascribed to the occupation held by the parent(s) with whom the respondent lived during ages 2 through 6. Operationally, the respondent was asked to write in the occupation or type of work his or her father, mother, stepfather, and/or stepmother were engaged in for each year, during ages 2 through 6. (See Appendix C, questions 14-18). Hypotheses In order to accomplish the research objectives of this study, five research hypotheses were identified for testing. H01: Among college undergraduates, there is no relationship between degree of traditionalism in family ideology and class level in school. 19 H02: Among college undergraduates, there is no relationship between degree of traditionalism in family ideology and the type of household reared in during early childhood. H03: Among college undergraduates, there is no relationship between degree of traditionalism in family ideology and perceived degree of traditionalism in family ideology among their peers. H04: There is no significant difference in degree of traditionalism in family ideology between college undergraduates reared in stable single-parent (mother) households, stable single-parent (father) households, stable dual-parent households, changing status households of stable single-parent to parent and stepparent, or changing status households of stable dual-parent to stable single-parent during the ages of 2 through 6. H05: There is no significant difference in degree of traditionalism in family ideology between college undergraduates based on perceptions of their peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology. A p < .05 level of confidence with a two-tailed test will be required to reject the null hypotheses. Instrumentation The dependent variable, degree of traditionalism in family ideology, was measured by use of the Traditional Family Ideology Scale, shortened form, developed by Daniel J. Levinson and Phyllis E. Huffman in March, 1955 (Levinson & Huffman, 1955). The shortened form of the scale was tested in a pilot study involving five groups, totaling 507 college students, registered nurses, and student nurses within the Boston area. Coefficients for 20 the scale's corrected split-half reliability was .92, and test—retest reliability after a six-week interval was .93. Reliability data were available only for the Harvard summer session group, comprised of 84 students (Levinson & Huffman, 1955). This instrument was selected because of its ability to discriminate between various religious groups in the expected direction (Shaw & Wright, 1967). It was also chosen because of its ease by which it is understood by participants and the simplicity of the scoring procedure. The instrument may be completed in five to ten minutes, which is a desirable length of time for administering a questionnaire during regular class meeting times. The Traditional Family Ideology scale, shortened form, is included in this study's instrument (see .Appendix C, questions 19-30). This scale has been placed at the end of the instrument because it may be perceived as more threatening or personal by respondents than the demographic data. Items #23 and #29 of the scale have been slightly changed to reflect a less chauvinistic tone. It is believed that this did not alter the discriminatory power of each original item. Items #23 and #29 were changed from he and his to he or she and his or her. (See Appendix C, question 19-30). 21 The original Traditional Family Ideology (TFI) Scale is a 40-item scale containing both autocratic and democratic statements. The TFI, shortened form, contains only 12 items which are all autocratic statements. The respondent indicates from a six-point Likert Scale a response to each statement, from "I disagree very much" to "I agree very much." The respondent's score was the sum of his or her item scores. The total scores ranged from 12 to 72. Using a continuum, a score of 12 represented highly democratic and a score of 72 represented highly autocratic, or traditional responses. The respondent's perceptions of peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology was also measured by use of the TFI Scale. Scoring procedures for this scale were the same as above. Sample Design This study was conducted at a large public university in a moderately sized, Midwestern city. A probability sample survey design was used, although the findings of the study are only generalizable to the undergraduate students enrolled in family life courses at this university. The population was undergraduate students enrolled in those classes in family life in which freshmen were a component. The sampling frame was a total of 802 students enrolled in four different courses, comprised of 14 sections. 22 Utilizing the course offering book for the fall term, all sections in which freshmen were enrolled were chosen. The instructors of each of these sections were contacted to obtain consent to administer the instrument in the classroom to their students. All students present in each section visited were given a questionnaire, giving each student the option of voluntary participation and allowing for recording of the response rate. Respondents who were graduate students and/or who had been or are married were eliminated for the purpose of this study. Only data from those participants who were never-married undergraduates, aged 18-23, and who indicated that they could recall types of household lived in during ages 2 through 6 were analyzed. Data Collection Procedures After course sections were selected, the instructors were contacted to obtain consent to administer the questionnaire in their classrooms. First, each instructor was sent a letter of introduction briefly explaining the purpose of the study and asking for their assistance. (See Appendix B.) Each letter was followed up by a visit to each instructor's office, at which time the study was explained in greater depth, and a request for consent was made. After instructor consent. was obtained, a date and time was arranged to collect data in 23 the classroom. All of the instructors selected and contacted consented to allowing the questionnaire to be administered to their students. Questionnaires were distributed during early November, at which time the drops and adds period had ended. The classes were also visited on middle-of—the- week days, when attendance was presumably at its maximum for nonexam days. Each student present in the classroom was given a self—administered questionnaire and a computerized answer sheet. After briefly explaining to the respondents the directions for the instrument, students completed the questionnaire. Then the researcher collected the questionnaires. Analysis of Data The first stage of data analysis involved descriptive statistics. As appropriate to the level of measurement for each variable, the mean, median, and mode of each variable were obtained. These statistics were used to describe the sample. In stages two, hypotheses 1-3 were tested. The dependent variable, degree of traditionalism in family ideology was treated at the interval ratio level of measurement since these ordinal data are comprised of six categories in the Traditional Family Ideology Scale. (See Appendix C, questions 19-30). 24 In order to test hypothesis one, the Spearman nonparametric correlation between respondent's class level and degree of traditionalism in family ideology was utilized to examine the strength of the correlation between class level and degree of traditionalism in family ideology. Next, the eta squared statistical technique was utilized to search for a correlation between household type and degree of traditionalism in family ideology and test hypothesis two. In order’ to control for gender and class level, gender and class level were combined to make six subgroups of female freshmen and sophomores, female juniors, female seniors, male freshmen and sophomores, male juniors, and male seniors. Freshmen and sophomores were combined in data analysis because, as underclassmen, their degree of traditionalism in family ideology seemed to be less affected by the influences of college life. Upperclassmen, on the other hand, exhibited varying degrees of traditionalism in family ideology. It was reasoned that if juniors and seniors had been combined as a group, the differences in their TFI Scale scores might have cancelled out each other. Finally, a Pearson's r correlation coefficient technique was utilized to examine the correlation between the respondent's degree of traditionalism in family 25 ideology (referred to as TFI#1) and respondent's perceptions of peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology (referred to as TFI#2). This was done to search for the strength. of’ the relationship ‘between. the. two variables and to test the third hypothesis. Then, to control for gender and class level, the same statistical technique was utilized for the same six subgroups as described above. In stage three, the one-way analysis of variance was utilized to determine if significant differences in degree of traditionalism in family ideology occurred based on respondent's household type and to test hypothesis four. Again, to control for gender and class level, the same statistical technique was rerun for the same six subgroups as described above. Lastly, a t-test of significant difference was utilized to determine if significant differences in respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology (TFI#1) occurred based on respondent's perception of peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology (TFI#2) and to test hypothesis five. Since there was an insufficient number of respondents with TFI#2 scores which could be divided into quartiles for data analysis, the TFI#2 scores were divided into thirds. The low scores, ranging from 12 to 29, represented the bottom third and the high scores, ranging from 47 to 64, 26 represented the upper third. Therefore, the independent variable, respondent's perception. of’ peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology, was divided into two categories, representing very low or very high degrees of traditionalism in family ideology. Again, to control for gender and class level, the same statistical technique was utilized for the same six subgroups as described above. Limitations There are a few limitations in every research design. One limitation of this research design is that respondents may not have accurately recalled parental occupation for each of the five years (during ages 2 through 6). However, to minimize this, respondents were first reminded to think about the parents with whom they lived before answering any questions regarding household type or parental occupation. If they could not recall for sure, they could so indicate, and those respondents were included in the study. Another limitation of this research design is that due to the high absentee rate and that classes were drawn from a predominately female college, the results of this study are generalizable only to students of these family life courses who visit class regularly. However, all of the courses chosen for the sampling frame were electives 27 for most of the students and very few of the respondents were family life majors. Therefore, the sample was not comprised of family life students, who may tend to be more traditional than students majoring in other subjects, but rather comprised of students who took a family life course for personal enrichment. A final limitation is that there were too few respondents with TFI#2 scores that could be divided into quartiles for a t-test of significant difference. Instead of utilizing the extremely low and high quartiles for data analysis, the TFI#2 scores were divided into thirds, which were used to represent respondent's perception of peers' relatively low and high degrees of traditionalism in family ideology. Assumptions It was assumed that the respondents answered the questions in the instrument honestly and to the best that their memories would allow. To help prevent nonresponse or response bias to the TFI Scales, there were six forced choice Likert-style response choices. Therefore, a respondent could not select a neutral choice for convenience sake. Respondents were also given the opportunity to answer "other" and write in alternative responses for many questions which did not have clear-cut dichotomous 28 choices , such as for gender . This helped to prevent answers being forced into :nonrepresentative categories simply because there were not appropriate choices available. CHAPTER IV RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSIS Rate of Response There were a total of 802 students enrolled in the 14 sections selected to survey for this study. Of those students, 315 were absent from class on the days the questionnaire was administered , 22 refused to participate, 16 questionnaires were incomplete and 15 did not meet sampling criteria. Thus, 434 students of the 802 students enrolled participated in tee study resulting in a response rate of 54%. All data analyzed were from respondents who were never—married college undergraduates, aged 18 to 23. Since 3995 of students enrolled in these sections were absent on the days the questionnaire was administered, those who did not respond to the survey may be more conscientious students, and thus not representative of undergraduate students in general. Description of the Sample In stage one of the data analysis, the demographic characteristics of the sample were calculated and are presented in Table 1. The sample was 76.1% female and 29 30 Table 1 Summary Table of Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Characteristics Frequency Percentage (N . 434) (100.0) Sex Male 104 23.9 Female 330 76.1 Age 18 26 6.0 19 117 26.9 20 138 31.7 21 84 19.3 22 55 12.6 23 14 3.2 Marital Status Never-married 434 100.0 Class Level Freshmen 27 6.2 Sophomores 144 33.1 Juniors 139 32.0 Seniors 124 28.5 Ethnicity White 335 77.2 Black 78 17.9 Hispanic 9 2.1 Asian 6 1.4 Other 4 .9 Native American 2 .5 Religious Affiliation Catholic 173 39.8 Protestant 165 38.0 Jew 14 3.2 Other 58 13.4 Unsure 24 5.5 31 Table 1 (Continued) Characteristics Frequency Percentage (N - 434) (100.0) Frequency of Church Attendance Never 54 12.4 1-2 Times per Year 168 38.7 Once per Month 69 15.9 1-3 Times per Month 92 21.1 Weekly 51 11.7 Urbanicity (Permanent Residence) On a Farm (3 40 acres) 10 2.3 Rural Area, Not a Farm (< 40 Acres) 15 3.4 Town Less than 5,000 36 8.3 Town of 5,000 - 25,000 79 18.2 City of 25,000 - 100,000 137 31.6 Inside City Limits of City More Than 100,000 51 11.7 Suburb of City Over 100,000 105 24.1 Parental Occupation Father White Collar 265 60.9 Blue Collar 89 20.5 Unemployed 5 1.1 Inappropriate 7 1.6 Unsure 68 15.9 Mother White Collar 105 24.1 Blue Collar 24 5.5 Full-time Homemaker 206 47.4 Changed from Homemaker to White Collar 38 8.7 Changed from Homemaker to Blue Collar 4 .9 Unsure 57 13.1 32 Table 1 (Continued) Characteristics Frequency Percentage (N - 434) (100.0) Stepfather White Collar 8 1.8 Blue Collar 6 1.4 Inappropriate 419 96.5 Unsure 1 .2 stepmother White Collar 1 .2 Inappropriate 429 98.8 Unsure 4 .9 Note: Totals may not equal 100.095 due to rounding of numbers. 33 23.9% male. The mean age of the respondents was 20 years old. FUrther, 6% were age 18, 26.9% were 19, 31.7% were 20, 19.3% were 21, and 12.6% were 22, and 3.2% were 23. Of the students, 6.2% were freshmen, 33.1% were sophomore, 32% were juniors, and 28.5% were seniors. The ethnic composition of the sample was 77.2% White, 17.9% Black, 2.1% Hispanic, 1.4% Asian, .9% other (Pacific Islander, Biracial, Asiatic, and African), and .5% Native American. The sample represented a large variety of religious affiliations, although two denominations predominated. Of the respondents, 39.8% were Catholic and 38% were Protestants. Of the remaining 22%, 3.2% were Jews, 13.4% were other religious groups, including Agnostics and Atheists, and 6% did not answer this question. When asked how often they visited a place of worship, 12.4% responded never, 38.7% answered one: to two times per year, 15.9% said once per month, 21.1% answered one to three times per month, and 11.7% visited weekly. None of the respondents answered "daily," and 1% did not answer this question. The mode response was one to two times per year. Students who responded to the questionnaire represented a wide range of urbanicity. When asked to describe their permanent residence, 2.3% lived on a farm of 40 acres or more, 3.4% were from a rural area, but not 34 a farm (less than 40 acres), 8.3% lived in a small town of less than 5,000, 18.2% lived in a town of 5,000 to 25,000, 31.6% lived in a city of 25,000 to 100,000, 11.7% lived in the city limits of a large city over 100,000, and 24.1% were from a suburb of a large city over 100,000. The mode response was a city with a population of 25,000 to 100,000. The type of household lived in during the ages of 2 through 6 is presented in Table 2. Most of the respondents lived in the dual-parent household type (79%) during ages 2 through 6. Of the remaining 21%, 6% lived in a singe-parent household (mother only), 1% lived in a single-parent household (father only), 9% lived in a changing status household or dual-parent to single- parent, 4% lived in a changing status household 0 single- parent to parent and stepparent, and 1% answered "other." In this last category, three respondents lived with grandparents and three lived with mother and a grandparent. The mode household type was dual-parent. It was interesting to note changes in the percentages of respondents living in each household type from age 2 through 6. See Table 2. As would be expected, the percentage of respondents living with mother and father (dual-parent) decreased over the five years, the percentages of respondents living with other only (single-parent) with a parent and stepparent 35 Table 2 Percentages of Respondents Livinggin Each Household Type During Ages 2 through 6 (N - 434) Household Type Age of Respondent Single-Parent (Mother) 10.1 10.3 11.7 11.5 13.6 Single-Parent (Father) .2 .5 .2 .5 .5 Dual—Parent (Mother & Father) 86.4 85.5 83.2 81.8 79.3 Parent and Stepparent .5 .9 2.1 3.4 3.0 Other 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.2 Note: Totals may not equal 100.0% due to rounding of numbers. 36 (single—parent to dual-parent) increased. As parents in stable dual-parent households died, separated, deserted, or divorced, there was a corresponding increase in mothers rearing children alone or remarriages occurred, bringing stepparents into existing households. The percentages of respondents living with father only (single-parent) or in "other" household types did not change notably and represented a small percentage of the sample. When asked what type of occupation their father engaged in during each year of ages 2 through 6, respondents wrote in the type of work their fathers did (if appropriate). Responses showed that 60.9% had fathers who had white collar jobs, 20.5% had fathers who had blue collar jobs, 1.1% were consistently unemployed, for 1.6% the question was inappropriate if they did not know their father, and 15.9% did not know their fathers' occupations during those years. None of the fathers of the respondents changed during the five—year period from one occupational status category to another. White collar positions represented the mode. Mother's occupational status presented a different range of positions. Responses showed that 24.1% of the sample's mothers worked in white collar positions, 5.5% blue collar positions, 47.4% were full-time homemakers, 8.7% changed from homemaker to white collar worker, .9% 37 changed from homemaker to blue collar workers, and 13.1% did not recall their mothers' occupations. The categories of homemaker to white collar and homemaker to blue collar included mothers who stopped being full—time homemakers to enter the labor force, usually when the respondent was age 5 or 6. The mode occupational status for mothers was that of full-time homemaker. Of the respondents 96.5% did not have a stepfather, but of those who did, 1.8% had stepfathers in white collar positions, 1.4% had stepfathers in blue collar positions, and .9% were unsure of' their stepfathers' occupations. Of the respondents, 98.8% did not have a stepmother, but of those who did, .2% reported their having white collar positions and .9% were unsure of their stepmothers' occupations. The dependent variable, degree of traditionalism in family ideology, was measured by use of the Traditional Family Ideology (TFI) Scale. For simplicity, this will also be referred to as TFI#1. Of the two independent variables in this study, respondent's perception of peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology, was measured by the same scale and will also be referred to as TFI#2. On both of these scales, higher scores represented higher traditional values being reported. A. summary of how the students responded to the Traditional Family Ideology Scale is presented in Table 3. 38 Table 3 Mean Traditional Family Ideology (TFI) Scale Scores by Gender and Class Level (N - 434) Respondents N Mean S.D. All Respondents 434 32.1 7.8 All Males 104 36.6 7.5 Males: Freshmen 5 43.0 9.7 Sophomores 29 35.9 6.6 Juniors 30 39.1 7.0 Seniors 40 35.8 8.1 All Females 330 30.7 7.4 Females: Freshmen 22 32.9 5.0 Sophomores 115 31.2 8.5 Juniors 109 30.6 6.6 Seniors 84 29.6 7.1 39 The grand mean of TFI#1 scores for all respondents was 32.1, while the grand mean of TFI#2 scores for respondents' perceptions of their peers was 34.3. The range of TFI#1 scores was from 12 to 54, and the range of TFI#2 scores was from 12 to 64. By comparing the means and ranges of these two scales' scores, it appears that the respondents perceive their friends to be more traditional or autocratic than they consider themselves to be. By comparing the TFIitl score means of different subgroups of the sample, it became apparent that certain personal characteristics correspond with a higher degree of traditionalism in family ideology. A breakdown of mean TFI#1 scores by gender and class level revealed marked differences in degree of traditionalism in family ideology. See Table 3. The grand mean TFIiil score was 32.1 for all respondents. All males, as a group, exhibited a TFI#1 mean of 36.6, while all females, as a group, had a TFI#1 mean of 30.7. Males as a group had a higher degree of traditionalism in family ideology than did females. By breaking down by class level within each gender, differences in age (by class level) and gender appeared. Comparing the different class levels among males, it appears that freshmen have the lowest mean degree of traditionalism in family ideology, with a mean TFI#1 40 score of 32.0, followed by sophomores with a mean of 35.9, and then juniors with a mean of 39.1. However, senior males had a mean TFI#1 score of 35.8, making them more similar to sophomores and less traditional than junior males. Thus, each succeeding class level reported themselves as more traditional than the previous class level, except for male seniors. Females as a group presented slightly different results. The mean TFI#1 score for all female respondents was 30.6. Freshmen females had a mean TFI#1 score of 32.9, making freshmen more alike in gender than any other class level. But while males' TFI#1 mean scores increased for each class level through junior, then decreased somewhat for seniors, females' mean TFI#1 scores were lower for' each. class level. as the jyears progressed. Female sophomores' mean TFI#1 score was 31.2, juniors was 30.6, and seniors' was 29.6. Thus, older classes of women reported themselves as less traditional than did women in lower class levels. The mean TFI#1 scores of respondents based on household type did not vary greatly. See Table 4. The mean TFI#1 score of the single parent (father only) household type was 23.0, which was much lower than the grand mean of 32.1. However, there was only one case reared in a single-parent (father only) household, so this mean is not meaningful. The remaining household 41 Table 4 Mean Traditional Ideology (TFI) Scale Scores by Household Type (N - 434) Respondents N Mean S.D. All Respondents 434 32.1 7.8 Single-Parent (Father) 1 23.0 0.0 Other 6 29.2 7.3 Dual-Parent to ’ Single-Parent 38 31.7 9.0 Dual-Parent 343 32.0 7.8 Single-Parent (Mother) 28 32.5 7.3 Single-Parent to Parent and Stepparent 18 35.2 6.9 42 types are ranked in order from least to most traditional in family ideology: other, dual-parent to single-parent, dual—parent, single-parent (mother only), and single parent to parent and stepparent. Testing of Hypotheses Several hypotheses were proposed for testing in this researdh. The findings of this study will be presented in the order that the hypotheses were presented. H01: Among college undergraduates, there is no relationship between degree of traditionalism in family ideology and class level in school. In order to test this hypothesis, the Spearman nonparametric correlation was run to examine TFI#1 score by class level. A negative correlation of -.04 was found. It was not statistically significant (.20 significance). The correlation between these two variables was further tested by controlling on gender. A correlation of -.10 and -.02 was found for males and females, respectively. Again, the correlation was not found to be statistically significant between these two variables (.04 and .44, respectively). See Table 5. H02: Among college undergraduates, there is no relationship between degree of traditionalism in family ideology and the type of household reared in during early childhood. The statistical technique of eta squared was utilized to measure the strength. of' the relationship between degree of traditionalism in family ideology and 43 Table 5 a Correlations Between Degree of Traditionalism in Family Ideology and Class Level by Gender Gender N Mean Sig. All Respondents 434 -.04 .20 Males 104 -.10 .04 Females 333 —.02 .44 aSpearman Rho. household type. These two variables were not found to be associated since r - .00 for all respondents. See Table 6. The eta squared statistical technique was repeated for each of the following six subgroups, controlling for gender and class level: female freshmen and sophomores, female juniors, female seniors, male freshmen and sophomores, male juniors, and male seniors. Again, these two variables were not found to be strongly associated with each of the six subgroups. Thus, controlling for gender and class level, respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology and household type were not highly correlated. 44 Table 6 a Correlations Between Degree of Traditionalism in Family Ideology and Household Type by Gender and Class Level (N a 434)b Gender and Class Level N r Sig. All Respondents 434 .00 .39 Females Freshmen and Sophomores 133 .03 .25 Juniors 106 .01 .68 Seniors 84 .01 .88 Males Freshmen and Sophomores 34 .06 .57 Juniors 30 .14 .26 Seniors 40 .14 .12 aEta Squared. bSix cases from single-parent (father) and other household types were eliminated in data analysis due to insufficient numbers of cases per category. 45 H03: Among college undergraduates, there is no relationship between degree of traditionalism in family ideology and perceived degree of traditionalism in family ideology among their peers. The statistical technique of Pearson's r correlation coefficient was utilized to examine the strength of the relationship between TFI#1 score and TFI#2 score. For all respondents as a group, this analysis revealed a strong correlation of +.71, which was statistically significant at a confidence level of p < .01. This positive number represents a positive linear relationship between respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology and respondent's perception of peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology. See Table 7. This statistical technique was utilized again for each of the six subgroups, controlling for gender and class level. The correlation between TFI#1 and TFI#2 scores for female freshmen and sophomores was .73. For female juniors, this correlation was .61. Female seniors displayed a correlation of .70. The significance of F = .00. Examining males, a correlation of .78 was found for male freshmen and sophomores. Male juniors revealed a correlation of .56, and male seniors displayed a correlation of .46. The significance of F -= .00. The strongest positive linear relationship between TFI#1 scores and TFI#2 scores was for male freshmen and 46 Table 7 Correlationsa Between Degree of Traditionalism in Family Ideology and Perceived Degree of Traditionalism in Family Ideology in Peer Group by Gender and Class Level (N - 434) Gender and Class Level N r Sig. All Respondents 434 .71 .000 Females Freshmen and Sophomores 137 .73 .000 Juniors 109 .61 .000 Seniors 84 .70 .000 Males Freshmen and Sophomores 34 .78 .000 Juniors 30 .56 .001 Seniors 40 .46 .001 aPearson's r Correlation Coefficient. 47 sophomores. Compared to male seniors, there is reduction in peers' influence of male students across class levels. However, females maintain a high correlation between their beliefs and their perception of their peers' beliefs across class levels. H04: There is no significant difference in degree of traditionalism in family ideology between college undergraduates reared in stable single-parent (mother) households, stable single—parent (father) households, stable dual-parent households, changing status households of stable single—parent to parent and stepparent, or changing status households of stable dual-parent to stable single-parent during the ages of 2 through 6. The statistical technique of one-way analysis of variance as utilized to examine significant differences in degree of traditionalism in family ideology, based on household type. There was not a statistically significant difference in TFI#1 scores between household types. See Table 8. Since there was only one case reared in the single-parent (father only) household type, this was an insufficient number of cases to include in this statistical procedure. This one-way analysis of variance technique was repeated for each of the six subgroups, controlling for gender and class level. None of the subgroups revealed a statistically significant difference in degree of traditionalism in family ideology based on household type. 48 mam. omH.HH mee.mm m masono canoes mom. oma.HH mvv.mm m mesouw decapmm mam. omH.HH mee.mm m Hmooe muoacmm «we. smo.H~ mm~.mm m mmsouo canons vow. hmo.H~ Nmm.mo m mmoouo coozuom ewe. smo.am ~m~.mw m Hmooa muoficse mew. mom.am owm.mhm m museum canvas mew. mom.am www.msm m museum amazoom moUoandom men. www.5m www.msm m Hmpoe can aoEammum monEom son. mmm.moa omH.~m m museum canoes son. mmm.uoa oma.~e m museum cmmsumm pom. mmm.eoH omH.~6 m Hmooe mucmoaodmmm Ada m m: mm we ouuoom Hw>oq mmmao can umpcoo Aeme n 2V Ho>oq mmmau can Hoodoo an mama paosomoom can amoaoooH maasem ca Emfiamcofiufiomue mo ooumoo Dom dogmaum> mo mammamcd m manna 49 «Na. mee.m~H emm.osm m menouo canoes «NH. mvv.mma vmm.05m m mmsouw cmm3nmm ema. mv¢.mma vmm.o>m m Hmpoe muoficmm New. oww.mm Hmm.hma m mmDouD Ganvfi3 New. oom.mw me.hma m mmsouo COOSDOm «mm. omm.mm Hom.hma m HopOB muOfiCDh New. mam.vm mm¢.¢oa m mmsouw GHEDHZ mum. mmm.vm mm¢.voa m mmoouw cmmzuom mouoeosmom New. mmm.¢m mmv.voa m HmuOB Cam GOESmOum moan: m m: mm up mousom Hm>oa mmmao com Doocoo Aconcapcoov o manna 50 The .means and standard deviations for degree of traditionalism in family ideology by household type and gender/class level are displayed in Table 9. When comparing these means and standard deviations, one must keep in Hand the small number of respondents in some of the subgroups. Among female freshmen and sophomores, the lowest mean TFI#1 scores were found among those reared in dual-parent households and the highest mean TFI#1 scores were among those reared in changing status households of single-parent to parent and stepparent. Female juniors reported the lowest mean TFI#1 scores among those reared in changing status households of dual-parent to single- parent, while their highest mean TFI#1 scores were found among those from changing status households of single- parent to parent and stepparent. For female seniors, the lowest mean TFI#1 scores were among those reared in changing status households of single-parent to parent and stepparent and the highest mean TFI#1 scores were reported from those raised in single-parent (mother) households. Male freshmen and sophomores displayed the lowest mean TFI#1 scores among those reared in changing status households of dual—parent to single-parent and the highest mean TFI#1 scores were reported from those reared in single-parent (mother) households. Male juniors reported the lowest mean TFI#1 scores among those from 51 Table 9 Means and Standard Deviations for Degree of Traditionalism in Family Ideology by Household Type and Gender/Class Level (N - 434)a Gender, Class Level and Household Type N Mean Sig. All Genders, Class Levels, and Household Types 434 32.10 7.8 All Respondents Single-Parent (Mother) 28 32.53 7.3 Dual-Parent 343 32.03 7.8 Single-Parent (Father) 1 23.00 0 0 Single-Parent to Parent and Stepparent 18 35.22 6.9 Dual-Parent to Single-Parent 38 31.71 9.0 Other 6 29.17 7 3 Female Freshmen and Sophomores Single-Parent (Mother) 9 33.89 7.3 Dual-Parent 108 30.92 8.2 Single-Parent (Father) Single-Parent to Parent and Stepparent 6 36.84 7.8 Dual-Parent to Single- Parent 10 32.80 8.3 Other —- -— —— Female Juniors Single-Parent (Mother) 11 30.00 5.9 Dual-Parent 79 31.05 6 3 Single-Parent (Father) -- -- 1- Single—Parent to Parent and Stepparent 4 31.50 2.4 Dual—Parent to Single- - Parent 12 28.75 8.5 Other -- -- -- Table 9 (Continued) 52 Gender, Class Level and Household Type N Mean Sig. Female Seniors Single-Parent (Mother) 1 33.00 0.0 Dual-Parent 74 29.54 7 2 Single-Parent (Father) -— -- -- Single-Parent to Parent and Stepparent 1 25.00 0.0 Dual-Parent to Single— Parent 8 29.88 7.4 Other —- -- -- Male Freshmen and Sophomores Single-Parent (Mother) 2 39.50 0.7 Dual-Parent 27 35.14 7.1 Single—Parent (Father) —- -— -- Single-Parent to Parent and Stepparent 3 37.33 3.0 Dual-Parent to Single- Parent 2 30.00 14.1 Other —- -- -- Male Juniors Single-Parent (Mother) 3 38.34 9.7 Dual-Parent 21 38.38 5.9 Single—Parent to Parent and Stepparent 3 37.00 11.1 Dual-Parent to Single- Parent 3 46.67 5 8 Other 53 Table 9 (Continued) Gender, Class Level and Household Type N Mean Sig. Male Seniors Single-Parent (Mother) 2 24.50 7.8 Dual-Parent 34 36.82 7.8 Single—Parent (Father) -- -- -- Single-Parent to Parent and Stepparent 1 39.00 0.0 Dual-Parent to Single— Parent 3 31.00 6.5 Other -- -- -- 3The mean scores and standard deviations for single- parent (father) and other household types could not be computed within gender and class level subgroups due to small sample size per category. 54 changing status households of single—parent to parent and stepparent, while the highest. mean TFI#1 scores were reported by those raised in changing status households of dual-parent to single—parent. Male seniors reported the lowest mean TFI#1 scores among those reared in single- parent (mother) households and the highest mean TFI#1 scores among those from changing status households of single-parent to parent and stepparent. The only household type in. which three subgroups revealed the lowest or highest mean TFI#1 score was that of the changing status household of single-parent to dual— parent. Female freshmen and sophomores, female juniors, and male freshmen and sophomores raised in this household type exhibited the highest mean a TTT#1 scores of their subgroups. This finding corresponds with the highest mean TFI#1 score based on household type for all respondents. H05: There is no significant difference in degree of traditionalism in family ideology between college undergraduates based on perceptions of their peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology. The final hypothesis was tested by use of the t-test statistical technique to determine if significant differences in respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology occurred based on respondent's perception of peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology. The TFI#2 scores were divided into three groups. The low 55 third represented scores of 12 to 29 and the high third represented scores of 47 to 64. The two low and high score groups were used to test for significant difference in TFI#1 scores based on TFI#2 scores. Among all respondents, there were statistically significant differences in TFI#1 scores based on TFI#2 scores, with a t value of -14.17 (p < .001). See Table 10. This statistical technique ‘was also repeated for each of the six subgroups to control on gender and class level. The t value was significant at the critical level of p < .05 for female juniors. The t value was significant at the critical level of p < .01 for female seniors and male freshmen and sophomores, and the t value was significant at the critical level of p < .001 for female freshmen and sophomores. There was an insufficient number of respondents in the male junior and male senior categories for this statistical procedure. Thus, controlling for gender and class level, statistically significant differences in respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology based on respondent's perception of peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology were found. 56 Table 10 T-test of Significant Differences in Respondent's Degree of Traditionalism in Family Ideology (TFI#1) due to Respondent's Perception of Peers' Degree of Traditionalism in Family Ideology (TFI#2) by Gender and Class Level (N - 434) N Gender and T—Value df Class Level Low High Third Third All Respondents 134 37 -14.17*** 54.10 Females Freshmen and Sephomores 57 9 —8.47*** 10.12 Juniors 33 5 —3.96* 4.51 Seniors 37 5 -4.09** 4.83 Males Freshmen and Sophomores 5 6 —5.41** 6 00 Juniors 1 9 —— -- Seniors 1 3 -- -— *P < .05 **p < .01 ***p < 001 1 Total number of respondents does not equal 434 since the middle third TFI#2 scores were not included in data analysis. The t-value and degree of freedom. could not be obtained for male juniors and male seniors due to an insufficient number of respondents in both low and high score categories. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH Summary The purpose of this study was to explore significant differences in degree of traditionalism in family ideology based on childhood household type. More specifically, this research examined the type of household (single-parent, mother; single-parent, father; dual-parent; changing status of single-parent to parent and stepparent; or changing status of dual—parent to single-parent) young adults were reared in during preschool years and their present ideological beliefs regarding family ideology. The strength of the relationship between these two variables was also examined. A second purpose of this study was to seek significant differences in respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology based on respondent's perception of peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology. A correlation between these two variables was explored as well. A A probability survey design was used, drawing on all sections of underclassmen level family life courses in 57 58 which freshmen were enrolled for the sampling frame. Although a few graduate students and those who are or had been married were enrolled in these sections, only the responses from never-married undergraduates were included in this study. Each student present in the classroom at the time of the survey was given the opportunity to refuse to participate in the study. All respondents remained anonymous and were assured of confidentiality. After collecting, cleaning, and coding the data, a sample size of 434 was utilized for data analysis. The resulting response rate was 54%, which is considered an adequate rate of response by Babbie (Babbie, 1986). A majority of the respondents were white females from dual- parent households, with fathers in white collar positions and mothers who were full-time homemakers when the students were preschoolers. Comparing the mean Traditional Family Ideology (TFIiil) Scale scores by gender and class level, female seniors exhibited the lowest mean score and male juniors displayed the highest mean score. A comparison of mean TFI#1 scores did not reveal statistically significant differences in degree of traditionalism in family ideology based on childhood household type. However, the one respondent reared in a single-parent (father only) household displayed the lowest TFI#1 score, and 59 respondents reared in the changing status household of single-parent to parent and stepparent exhibited the greatest mean TFI#1 score. The testing of five hypotheses found no support for those which searched for differences in degree of traditionalism in family ideology based on childhood household type, or for those seeking a correlation between these two variables. Statistically significant differences between the two variables were not found after controlling for gender and class level. Support was found for a correlation between respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology and respondent's perception of peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology. The Pearson's r correlation coefficient was .71 for all respondents and was significant at the .00 level. Controlling for gender and class level, statistically significant correlations were also found for each of six subgroups, ranging from .46 to .78. The strongest positive linear relationship among the subgroups was found for male freshmen and sophomores, with a correlation coefficient of .78. The t-test statistical technique also revealed statistically significant differences in respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology based on respondent's perception of peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology. Dividing all the scores into three groups 60 (low, medium, and high), the low and high score groups were tested for significant differences. Among all respondents, there were statistically significant differences in TFI#1 scores based on the two TFI#2 categories (low and high) with a t value of -14.17 (p < .001). Controlling for gender and class level, four of the six subgroups reached a critical value at p < .05 or better. Conclusions It is important to keep in mind the characteristics of the sample when drawing conclusions about the results of any research study. Since mean TFI#1 scores and standard deviations were based on the majority characteristics of the sample or subgroup, the concept of "low" or "high" degree of traditionalism in family ideology is in comparison to the "average" respondent. If one were to draw a composite picture of the average respondent based on the mean or mode of all variables considered in this study, this respondent would be described as follows: The respondent is a white 20- year-old, never-married female sophomore. She is a Catholic who goes to church one to two times per year, permanently residing in a city with. a population of 25,000 - 100,000. Her stable, dual-parent household consists of a father in a white collar position and a 61 mother who was a full—time homemaker while she was a preschooler. Her mean TFI#1 score is 32.1, which is low in comparison to the range of possible scores of 12-72. Data analysis did not find a strong correlation between respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology and household type during early childhood, nor were there statistically significant differences in respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology based on childhood household type. In general, however, respondents reared in the changing status household of dual-parent to single-parent tended to have lower TFIiil scores, and respondents reared in the changing status household of single-parent to parent and stepparent tended to have higher TFI#1 scores. The implications of these patterns are that when one is a preschooler, a change from dual-parent to single- parent household corresponds with a development of more democratic beliefs regarding family ideology and less role division based on traditional sex stereotyped roles. To compensate for an absent parent, the power structure of the household becomes less divided by parent and child status levels and both parent and child may have to assume both male and female roles (Weiss, 1975). Conversely, when one is reared in a household that takes a stepparent into an existing family system, one may develop a corresponding autocratic belief system 62 regarding family ideology. Not only does the new stepparent take over some roles and responsibilities once handled by the single parent (primarily a mother) and her child or children, but this stepparent may also become more autocratic to overcompensate for not being the "natural" parent. He may fear that the mother was too lenient with the children and the family needs greater structure and parental authority. Also, the parent and stepparent may rely on traditional family roles to develop an identity as a family unit. It was also interesting to note differences in mean TFI#1 scores based on gender and class level. Since the same students were not surveyed longitudinally, one cannot conclude that individual students changed from their freshman through senior years. However, comparing mean TFIitl scores of genders and class levels, one can see differences between the groups which suggest that one group is more or less traditional than others. Male and female freshmen seemed to be the most closely matched on mean TFI#1 scores than any other class level. This makes sense, since freshmen in their first term of college have been relatively unaffected by the influences of college life. But then the genders diverge in degree of traditionalism in family ideology beyond their freshman year. Male sophomores were more traditional than male freshmen, and male juniors were more traditional than 63 male sophomores. Male seniors were a bit less traditional than male juniors, becoming very much like male sophomores. Females' responses, on the other hand, revealed a very different patterns Female sophomores were less traditional than female freshmen, and female juniors were less traditional than female sophomores. Female seniors were the least traditional of all respondents, regardless of gender or class level. It appears that while in college, men tend to become more traditional with advancing grade level while women become less traditional in ideology with advancing grade level. What is the implication of this for young adults who are dating and developing permanent relationships as they graduate from college? If they cohabit or marry at about the time they leave college, males and females may have different expectations for family life and, more specifically, for their own marriages and families of procreation. However, they may accommodate to the expectations of partners during the early romantic stage only to find themselves in conflict as the relationship continues in marriage. If expectations for themselves, spouses, and children. differ when they graduate from college, perhaps the premarital state is a crucial time for couples to discuss their beliefs and expectations. 64 An important finding of this study was that there is a strong positive linear relationship between respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology and respondent's perception of peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology. Perhaps peers have a greater influence over respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology than does the household type one was reared in during preschool years. Young adults' friends include dating partners, so students may have beliefs regarding family ideology that are dependent on the beliefs of their pool of eligible mates. The interchange between the behavioral environment outside of the family system and the respondent appears to be stronger than the interchange between the household type reared in during preschool years and the respondent, at least during the early college years. It was also very interesting to find that, on an average, respondents perceived their friends to have higher degrees of traditionalism in family ideology than a they exhibited themselves. Could it be that students perceive themselves to) be more democratic than their peers or that by the mere fact that they were enrolled in family life classes as an elective course, they are more aware of family relationships and dynamics than they perceive their peers to be? Not only can peers influence students' belief systems, but students may also choose 65 friends whom they can influence or whom they perceive to have similar belief systems. If one were to predict which individuals might have a high degree of traditionalism in family ideology, one could consider individuals who perceive their peers to be highly autocratic. Also, if one were to draw a composite picture of the "average" highly traditional respondent regarding family ideology, he might be described as a male junior who was reared in a changing status household of single-parent to parent and stepparent during early childhood. In conclusion, there were no statistically significant differences in degree of traditionalism in family ideology based on childhood household type. However, there were general patterns of differences based on gender and class level. There was a strong positive linear relationship between respondents' degree of traditionalism in family ideology and respondent's perception of peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology. There were also statistically significant differences in respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology based on respondent's perception of peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology. Respondents also tended to perceive their peers to be more traditional in family ideology than they perceived themselves to be. 66 Limitations of the Present Study One limitation of this study is the generalizability of its findings. The results of this study can only be generalized to conscientious students (that is, those who attend class regularly) enrolled in family life courses at this university. However, most of the respondents were not home economic majors, so they may be relatively representative of a larger portion of the student body. Another limitation of this study is that there were few respondents representing certain variables. There was only one respondent reared in a single-parent, father only, household and six respondents reared in the "other" household type during early childhood, so their responses could not be included in most statistical procedures. If a larger sample size could have been obtained, perhaps there would have been enough respondents reared in each household type to stratify the responses for greater generalizability. Since one of’ the independent variables household type reared in during ages 2 through 6 was measured by asking respondents with whom they lived during these years, more responses may have been obtained for each household type if the age span had been increased beyond ages 2 through 6. There is presumably a greater proportion of the sample who did live in single-parent or changing status households during their youth if their 67 parents separated, deserted, died, divorced, and/or remarried during the respondents' childhoods or adolescence. However, since attitude and belief formation is well developed by the age of 6, measurement of household type beyond age 6 would not have revealed any impact of household type of belief formation. A second limitation of this study is that if the research had been conducted at a different university or college with a large ethnic representation, then greater numbers of respondents in each ethnic category might have been available for data analysis. Suggestions for Future Research This study could be replicated with different populations, and one could analyze more control variables with a larger sample which may reveal statistically significant differences in degree of traditionalism in family ideology. An interesting combination of variables to study would be the impact of ethnicity and parental occupation status with degree of traditionalism in family ideology. It would also be worthwhile to examine, with a larger sample, how ethnic groups correlated with household types. One must also keep in mind that since the sample was comprised of students attending a major university, those who had "made it" that far were probably reared in middle class families that stressed 68 education and occupational success. If this study were replicated utilizing different control groups, based on socioeconomic status or area of the country, interesting differences might result. Since the very few respondents included in this study who were reared in single-parent (father) and "other" household types reported the lowest mean TFIiil scores, it might be worthwhile to further investigate more young adults who were reared in these household types. Perhaps there is something unique about the family dynamics of households headed by single fathers or extended families that cause their children to be less traditional than their peers reared in different household types. One could also examine the impact of living with a single father on a part-time basis, which is sometimes the case in joint custody arrangements. If the Traditional Family Ideology Scale could be adapted to measure the degree of traditionalism in family ideology of children, aged 6 through 8, then perhaps a more direct link between childhood household type and degree of traditionalism in family ideology could be found. This process would help to eliminate intervening 69 variables which may affect changes in youth's ideology as they age. Since male and female seniors appeared to have very different mean TFIiil scores, with males having higher mean scores, it would be worthwhile to follow the same respondents over 10 or 15 years. The impact of marriage, childrearing, divorce, and remarriage might cause marked changes in traditionalism in family ideology. Finally, fUrther research in the area of the influence of peers on young adults' degree of traditionalism in family ideology might be very fruitful. Since a strong correlation was found between respondent's degree of traditionalism in family ideology and respondent's perception of peers' degree of traditionalism in family ideology, the power and nature of peer influences may be worth examining further. As young adults graduate from college, their beliefs regarding family life will hawe a major impact on their future family relationships and personal expectation for themselves and family' members. Further investigation into the impact of adults' perceptions of peers' beliefs on adults' degree of traditionalism in family ideology as well as actual role enactment in families of procreation may produce greater insight into the development of family structure and functioning. APPENDICES 70 APPENDIX A APPROVAL LETTER FROM UCRIHS 71 Letter MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY COIN"!!! OS ItalAICH I.\\Ol\1§0 EAST mm 0 summons 0 due-It" rams stands «runs. 1. “NY “All ISI’I ”54‘” October I8. I989 IRB# 89-453 Constance M. Noyce PO. Box 592 Lake Odessa. Ml 48849 Dear Ms. Noyce: RE: “CHILDHOOD HOUSEHOLD TYPE AS A FACTOR IN DEGREE OF TRADITIONALISM IN FAMILY IDEOLOGY AMONG COLLEGE FRESHMAN IRB# 89-453” The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. The proposed research protocol has been reviewed by another committee member. The rights and welfare of human subjects appear to be protected and you have approval to conduct the research. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. It you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to October 18, 890. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by UCRIHS prior to Initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects. complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to my attention. It I can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let me know. thn K. Hudzik, Ph.D. Chair. UCRIHS JKl-I/sar cc: D. Borland N11 ' i a .Wv Acme/f4“! W: Inuit-um 72 APPENDIX B INTRODUCTION LETTER TO INSTRUCTORS 73 October 30, 1989 407 Human Ecology Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 Professor , I am a graduate student in the Department of Family and Child Ecology, working on my thesis towards a Master's degree in Family Studies. The research I am doing involves surveying college students to examine the relationship between the household type (structure) they were reared in during early childhood and their current beliefs regarding family life issues. II have chosen to survey students enrolled in freshmen and sophomore level courses offered by the Department of Family and Child Ecology upon the advice of my graduate committee. The class section(s) which you are teaching this fall and which pertain to my sampling frame has been selected to participate in my research study. The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) has approved my research proposal and I have enclosed a copy of their approval letter. I would be grateful if you would consent to allowing me to distribute questionnaires to your students in the classroom at a preappointed date and time. It should take them approximately ten to fifteen minutes to complete the questionnaires. I will be contacting you in person at your office within a week to discuss this matter. If possible, I would like to administer the questionnaires by the middle of November at a time which is convenient for you. I appreciate your consideration and look forward to seeing you. Sincerely, WWW Constance M. Noyce Master's student 74 75 Professor I You have agreed to allow me to administer a questionnaire to your students in , section(s) I will be in your classroom on at . Please do not discuss the content of my study with your students because: I am attempting to reduce the possibility of bias in their responses. Thank you very much for your assistance in my research. If you need to reach me, you may leave a message at either of the telephone numbers listed below. Sincerely, Constance M. Noyce 407 Human Ecology 353-3392 355-7680 APPENDIX C INSTRUMENT 76 FAMILY LIFE BELIEFS By Constance M. Noyce for Master's Thesis Research Department of Family and Child Ecology Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan October 1989 77 78 QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS The Family and Child Ecology class in which you are enrolled was selected to participate in a research study. We are interested in learning more about how college students feel about family life. Information gained from this study will be included in a Master's thesis and may eventually help educators and family therapists understand young adults' opinions about family issues. Your class section will only be visited once and it should take you approximately fifteen minutes to complete this questionnaire. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and anonymous. You may refuse to answer any or all questions and may discontinue completing this questionnaire at any time without penalty. If you decide not to participate, please answer the four questions on page 3 and check the box at the bottom of the page. You can indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire to the study director. All results from this study will be treated with strict confidence and you will remain anonymous in any report of these results. Please do not write your name on the questionnaire or your answer sheet. Upon your 79 request and within these restrictions, a summary of this study's results will be available to you. If you have any questions or concerns regarding participation in this study, please contact: Constance M. Noyce 407 Human Ecology Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 (517) 353-3392 80 Please complete this page FIRST We would like some information from you in order to understand how college students feel about family life. Please answer all questions by filling in the circle around the number of your response choice on the computerized answer sheet. Please use a #2 pencil. Section 1. 1. What is your age? 1. 17 20 18 3. 19 4. 20 5. 21 6. If older, please write age here 2. What is your sex? 1. male 2. female 3. What is your marital status? 1. never-married 2. married (once only) 3. divorced 4. widowed 5. remarried 4. What is your class level in college? 1. freshman 2. sophomore 3. junior 4. senior 5. If other, please write in here . If you do NOT wish to participate in this study, please indicate by checking the box below. E::] NO, I do not want to participate in this study. If you DO wish to help us, please continue. 81 Which of the following best describes your ethnic background? . Black Hispanic Native American White Asian . If other, please write in here O‘U’IthH Which of the following do you feel best describes your religious affiliation? 1. Protestant 2. Catholic 3. Jew 4. If other, please write in here Which category do you feel best describes how often you visit your church, synagogue, or temple? never once or twice per year once per month one to three times per month every week daily mmwaH Which category best describes your permanent residence? On a farm (40 acres or more) In a rural area but not a farm (less than 40 acres) In a small town of less than 5,000 In a town of 5,000—25,000 In a city of 25,000-100,000 . Inside the city limits of a large city over 100.000 In a suburb of a large city over 100,000 NH mU‘Ibw \I 82 Section 2. Now we would like some information about your family. To help use with our study, please answer the following questions. Please think about which parent or parents you lived with more than half of the time when you were ages 2 through 6. For each age, please fill in the circ e around the number on your answer sheet that corresponds with the type of household you lived in. If none of the choices describe your situation, please write with whom you lived beside OTHER: for each year. 9. When you were 2 years old, with whom did you live most (more than haIf) of the time? 1 Biological mother only 2. Biological father only 3. Biological mother and father 4. Biological parent and a stepparent 5. OTHER: 6. Don't recall for sure. 10. When you were 3 years old, with whom did you live most (more than’half) of the time? 1 Biological mother only 2 Biological father only 3. Biological mother and father 4. Biological parent and a stepparent 5. OTHER: 6 Don't recall for sure. 11. When you were 4 years old, with whom did you live . most (more than half) of the time? 1 Biological mother only 2. Biological father only 3. Biological mother and father 4. Biological parent and a stepparent 5. OTHER: 6 Don't recall for sure. 83 12. When you were 5 years old, with whom did you live most (more than half) of the time? 1 Biological mother only 2 Biological father only 3. Biological mother and father 4. Biological parent and a stepparent 5 OTHER : 6 Don't recall for sure. 13. When you were 6 years old, with whom did you live most (more than half) of the time? 1 Biological mother only 2. Biological father only 3. Biological mother and father 4. Biological parent and a stepparent 5 . OTHER: 6. Don't recall for sure. Now think about the type of work your parent or parents did when you were the ages of 2 through 6. If they were not employed outside the home, indicate "not employed." If there was no biological parent or stepparent present, then write in "N/A." If you don't know the occupation, write in "don't know." 14. When you were 2 years old, what type of work or occupation did your parents engage in outside the home? a. Biological father b. Biological mother c. Stepfather d. stepmother 14. When you were 3 years old, what type of work or occupation did your parents engage in outside the home? (If no change from age 2, indicate "no change"). a. Biological father b. Biological mother c. Stepfather d. stepmother 16. 17. 18. 84 When you were 4 years old, what type of work or occupation did your parents engage in outside the home? (If no change from age 2, indicate "no change"). a. Biological father b. Biological mother c. Stepfather d. Stepmother When you were 5 years old, what type of work or occupation did your parents engage in outside the home? (If no change from age 2, indicate "no change"). a. Biological father b. Biological mother c. Stepfather d. Stepmother When you were 6 years old, what type of work or occupation did your parents engage in outside the home? (If no change from age 2, indicate "no change"). a. Biological father b. Biological mother c. Stepfather d. Stepmother 85 Section 3. This section is about family life. The best answer to each statement below is your personal opinion. You may find yourself agreeing strongly with some of the statements, disagreeing just as strongly with others, and perhaps uncertain about others. Whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure that many people feel the same way you do. Please fill in the circle around the number of each response on your answer sheet, indicating how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Your choices are: disagree very much disagree pretty much disagree a little agree a little agree pretty much agree very much (fliwaI-J HHHHHH 6. 19. Some equality in marriage is a good thing, but by and large the husband ought to have the main say-so in family matters. 20. If children are told too much about sex, they are likely to go too far in experimenting with it. 21. The most important qualities of a real man are strength of will and determined ambition. 22. Women who want to remove the word OBEY from the marriage service don't understand what it means to be a wife. 23. A child should not be allowed to talk back to his or her parents, or else he or she will lose respect for them. 24. There is a lot of evidence such as the Kinsey Report which shows us we have to crack down harder on young people to save our moral standards. 25. A man can scarcely maintain respect for his fiancee if they have sexual relations before they are married. 26. It goes against nature to place women in positions of authority over men. 27. 28. 29. 30. 86 The family is a sacred institution, divinely ordained. A. mother whose children are messy or rowdy has failed in her duties as a parent. There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel a great love, gratitude, and respect for his or her parents. A child who is unusual in any way should be encouraged to more like other children. 87 We have finished asking you how you feel about your opinions regarding family life. Now please consider how most of your friends would feel about the following statements. You may or may not agree with most of your friends, but try to concentrate on how you think most of them feel. Again, please fill in the circle around the number of each response on your answer sheet, indicating HOW MUCH MOST OF YOUR FRIENDS WOULD AGREE OR DISAGREE with each of the following statements. Your choices are: They would disagree very much They would disagree pretty much They would disagree a little They would agree a little They would agree pretty much They would agree very much O‘U’IhUNI-J 31. Some equality in marriage is a good thing, but by and large the husband ought to have the main say-so in family matters. 32. If children are told too much about sex, they are likely to go too far in experimenting with it. 33. The most important qualities of a real man are strength of will and determined ambition. 34. Women who want to remove the word OBEY from the marriage service don't understand what it means to be a wife. 35. A child should not be allowed to talk back to his or her parents, or else he or she will lose respect for them. 36. There is a lot of evidence such as the Kinsey Report which shows us we have to crack down harder on young people to save our moral standards. 37. A man can scarcely maintain respect for his fiancee if they have sexual relations before they are married. 38. It goes against nature to place women in positions of authority over men. 39. The family is a sacred institution, divinely ordained. 400 41. 42. 43. 88 A. mother whose children are :messy or rowdy has failed in her duties as a parent. There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel a great love, gratitude, and respect for his or her parents. A child who is unusual in any way should be encouraged to more like other children. How often do you try to change the opinions of most of your friends regarding family life issues? Consider behaviors such as discussions, arguments, giving them books, introducing them to people who think differently than they do, and so no. 1. Never 2. Sometimes 3. Often 4. Very frequently Thank you very much for your time and assistance. Please return this questionnaire, your answer sheet, and the pencil after the entire class is finished. REFERENCES 89 REFERENCES Amato, P. R. (1987). Family processes in one-parent, stepparent, and intact families; The child's point of view. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 327-337. Babbie, E. (1986). The practice of social research. Belmont: Wadsworth Pfiblishing Co. Bubolz, M., Eicher, J., & Sontag, M. S. (1979). The human ecosystem: A model. Journal of Home Economics 71 (Spring): 28-31. Burns, A., & Homel, R. (1989). Gender division of tasks by parents and their children. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 113-125. Cherlin, A., & Furstenberg, Jr., F. (1983, June). The American family in the year 2000. The Futurist, 7- 14. Edwards, C. P., & Lewis, M. (1979). Young children's concepts of social relations: Social functions and social objects. In The child and its family. Edited by M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum, 235-266. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Firestone, J. M. (1987). Sex—appropriate roles: comparing the attitudes of civilian and military youth. Population Research and Policy Review, 6, 275-296. Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children's sex role concepts and attitudes. In The development of sex differences. Edited by E. E. Maccoby. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Levinson, D. J., & Huffman, P. E. (1955). Traditional family ideology and its relation to personality. Journal of Personality, 23, 251-273. 90 91 Papanek, M. L. (1969, February). Authority and sex roles in the family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 88-96. Shaw, M. E., & Wright, J. M. (1967). Scales for the management of attitudes. New York: McGraw Hill, 66-69 0 Weeks, M. O, & Botkin, D. R. (1987). A longitudinal study of the marriage sex role expecations of college women: 1961-1984. Sex Roles, 17, 49—58. Weiss, R. S. (1975). Marital separation. New York: Basic Books, Inc. White, L. K., & Brinkerhoff, D. B. (1981). The sexual division of labor: Evidence from childhood. Social Forces, 60, 170-181. General References Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authogitarian personality. New York: Harper & Brothers. Bryne, D. (1965). Parental antecedents of authoritarianism. qurnal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 369-373. Hoffman, L. W. (1960, February). Effects of the employment of mothers on parental power relations and the division of household tasks. Marriage and Family Living, 27-35. Kessler, S. J., & McKenna, W. (1978). Gender:_An ethnomethodological approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Levin, J., & Spates, J. L. (1968). Closes systems of behavior and traditional family ideology. Psychological Reports, 23, 979. Rossides, D. W. (1976). The American class system. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, Co. Sedney, M. A. (1987). Development of androgyny, parental influences. Psychology of Womenguarterly, 11, 311-326. 92 Unger, R. K. (1979). Female and male, psychological perspectives. Philadelphia: Harper & Row. Zeller, R. A., & Carmines, E. G. (1978). Statistical gnalysisipf social data. Chicago: RandiMcNally College Publishing Company. HICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES 1|WWIWWHIWWIWIHWWWIIHWWI 31293009171632