1.1:. .. 3.3.x) {.2 z; :21: I: 5.2:... .1. : >_)\:}.15\ :4... ‘32.: 3:2: :2. 3.12.; :1 5:23.) .1... >3: |||||ll||||||||l|ll|||ll|l||||H”l|l|||||||llllllllllllllllll l 3 1293 01031 9089 l' LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Mother-Daughter Relationship and Upward Mobility in Middle Class African—American Women presented by Nancy E. Hill has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Psychology <1 Anifnf?‘ Date; 7/27/94 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institutibn 0 12771 " -‘LJ fir: PLACE DI RENEW BOXtonmavothb mum your record. TO AVOID FINESrotunonorbdorodntodm. « DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU lommmw Oppommylmon Wt MOTHER-DAUGHTER RELATIONSHIPS AND UPWARD MOBILITY IN MIDDLE CLASS AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN BY Nancy E. Hill A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1994 ABSTRACT MOTHER-DAUGHTER RELATIONSHIPS AND UPWARD MOBILITY IN MIDDLE CLASS AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN BY Nancy E. Hill There has been little empirical research on normative development in middle class African-American families. Some researchers note that little research involving African American families focuses on the development of African American females. This study explored the mother-daughter relationship and upward mobility in middle class African American women. Middle-class African—American women from Huddle and working class backgrounds were studied to determine how their mothers, particularly, and the rest of their families assisted in their success. An instrument was cpnstructed to assess issues related to socialization for achievement. Based on the social class of their families of cuigin, women were compared on race-related socialization, nwther's and father's expectations and involvement in ahmmtion, social relations, interactions with kin, and perceived career preparations. In addition, perceived career Efleparation, racial socialization, and parental expectations were exami- relationsl Confi for instn alphas ray Md Involx sales: 1 in Educat. me i bl Mean Expectati. attaining... M 'A n suluvatlon were examined as they relate to the mother-daughter relationship. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses were used for instrument development. Five scales were confirmed with alphas ranging from .49 to .93. The Parental Expectations and Involvement in Education Scale was divided into two scales: Mother's and Father‘s Expectations and Involvement in Education (alpha: .88 and .87, respectively). One difference was found based on social class measured kw Duncan's Prestige Scale. Middle-class fathers held higher expectations for their daughters' careers and educational attainment and were more involved in their daughters' education. Material resources may not be as important as other factors in socialization for achievement. The mother- daughter relationship was positively related to perceived career preparation, mother‘s and father's expectations and involvement in education. The mother—daughter relationship was not related to racial socialization. These findings and the merits of the instrument are discussed. Future research questions are raised including future revisions of the instrument. This pr: Research Ava: p5‘.~":holoqicai Fitzgerald n klieving in Vision to re: ltd-33°, Dr. P 33 Ellen A. mince on i ”Y appre task time out Ties and ex; Ce:.,€ .t. .be he“ 32‘€ . ..¢€VQEEnts ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was supported in part by a Dissertation Research Award from the Science Directorate of the American Psychological Association. I am.indebted to Dr. Hiram E. Fitzgerald for his guidance on this project. Thank you for believing in this project and assisting me in bringing the vision to reality. Thank you also to Dr. Harriette P. MCAdoo, Dr. Marvin H. McKinney, Dr. Richard M. Lerner, and [kn Ellen A. Strommen for their insights, comments, and guidance on both the proposal and final dissertation. My appreciation, also, goes to the women who willingly took time out of their busy days to share a part of their lives and experiences with me which I have attempted to describe here. This project is a testament to their achievements and success. I thank.all of the organizations and individuals who have assisted me in contacting these women. Also, I thank Michelle Hunt and Royna Bellinger for all cm'their support and assistance with coding and entering all cm‘the data. I thank Dr. Kenneth Williams for providing me lxmh instrumental and emotional support throughout this process . iv Fina. raised me to the co: and liste v *1- buiies Of Finally, I thank my own mother who believed in me and raised me to be successful without forgetting to reach out to the community. I thank her for always being there for me and listening to me during both the exciting and difficult times of this process. TABLE OF CONTENTS IJST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . IJST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . IJST OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . (mapter 1: Review of the Literature African American Families . . . Current Conceptualizations of American Families . . Stressors that face African American families . . . . . . . The Mother-Daughter Relationship Social Class . . . . . . . . Current Definitions . . . . Characteristics of Middle Income African American Families . . Issues of Measurement . . . Upward Mobility . . . . . . Socialization . . . . . . . . . Gender Socialization . . . . . General Definition . . . . Socialization, Racial Socialization . . . Families 0 O O O O O O O 0 Overview . . . . . . . . . Current Methodologies . . . More Empirical Research vi Daughters? . . . . . . . Values . . . . . . . . . . Aspirations . . . . . . . Achievement . . . . . . . . African American Gender Roles What Do African American Mothers Want for their African Socialization of Males and Females Feminism, and Racism Socialization in African American Families How do Children Learn to be African American is Needed Methodological Considerations . Each Parent's Role in Socialization Socialization of Women in African American 0 viii ix 10 l8 19 20 25 29 43 44 46 46 47 50 S3 53 56 58 58 62 68 68 7O 72 73 74 77 Researct Chapter 2: t Partici; Procedu1 Instrumq To; Va? De: Thl Th Th‘ Th Th Ceding Analysi ”L 5.. 1v () .ter 3; IHtercC Instru: Fa Researc Chant» “Fl-er 4: Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Chapter 2: Methods and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 83 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Instrument Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Topics and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Validity and Reliability . . . . . . . . . . 92 Description of Scales . . . . . . . . . . . 93 The Parental Expectations and Involvement in Education Scale (PEIES) . . . . . . . . 95 The Career Issues Scale (CIS) . . . . . 95 The Race-Related Socialization Scale (RRSS) . 95 The Mother-Daughter Relationship Scale (MDRS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 The Kin Interactions Scale (KIS) . . . . 96 The Social Relations Scale (SRS) . . . . . . 96 . . . . . . 97 Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Chapter 3: Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Intercoder Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Instrument Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Family Socialization . . . . . . . . . 107 Interpersonal socialization . . . . . . 118 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Chapter 4: Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Instrument Development . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Limitations of the Current Study . . . . . . 152 Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Appendix A: Letter to Participants . . . . . . 157 . . 158 Appendix B: Initial Item Pool . . . Appendix C: Operational Definitions of the Dimensions 164 Appendix D: The Instrument . . . . . . 165 Appendix E: The Codebook . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Appendix F: Correlation Matrix . . . . . 192 237 IJST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . vii Table 1 The Table 2 The fro Con Soc Mod Fac Dim Sec the Con Int Tam” Hod Fac 50c Fables Sec: Intc Table 9 ”Mg 4519 10 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 10 11 12 LIST OF TABLES The Sources of the Items for Each Scale.... ..... 94 The Minimum, Maximum, and Range for each Scale from the SAAFOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0...00......0.0.098 Exploratory Factor Analysis and the First Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the Family Socialization Dimension................... ..... 112 Modification Indices for the Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Family Socialization Dimension of the SAAF.............. ............ 117 Second Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the Family Socialization Dimension....... ...... 120 Exploratory Factor Analysis and the First Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the Interpersonal Socialization Dimension .......... 125 Modification Indices for the Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Interpersonal Socialization dimension of the SAAF............129 Second Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the Interpersonal Dimension........................131 Summary of the univariate analyses of the MANOVA based on parents' occupational prestige................................ ....... 136 Summary of the univariate analyses of the MANOVA based on fathers' occupational prestige................................ ....... 137 Summary of the univariate analyses of the MANOVA based on mothers' occupational prestigeOOOOOOOOOOO0.0000000000COOOOOO0.00....0138 Correlations between the mother-daughter relationship, parental expectations, career preparation, and race-related socialization....142 viii Figure 1 Figure 2 “fire 3 Figure 4 lm F‘NIQ 5 MO OHvOH Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure LIST OF FIGURES Frequency Distribution of Intercoder Reliability (Cohen's Kappa).. ...... .... ........ 106 The structural model for the confirmatory factor analysis of the family socialization dimension of the SAAF..... ...... . ..... . ..... ...108 The structural model for the confirmatory factor analysis of the interpersonal socialization dimension of the SAAF ............ 109 The structural model for the second confirmatory factor analysis of the family socialization dimension of the SAAF.....119 The structural model for the second confirmatory factor analysis of the intersonal socialization dimension of the SAAF................. ..... .... .......... 133 ix CIS FEIES “a {as S 535 Car Fat Sca Kit M01 CIS FEIES KIS MDRS MEIES PEIES RRSS SRS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Career Issues Scale Father's Expectations and Involvement in Education Scale Kin Interactions Scale Mother-Daughter Relationship Scale Mother's Expectations and Involvement in Education Scale Parental Expectations and Involvement in Education Scale Race-Related Socialization Scale Social Relations Scale Chapter 1 Review of the Literature How does the mother-daughter relationship in African American middle-class families influence the daughter's aspirations? This study focuses on the middle-class African American family, especially on the role that the mother- daughter relationship plays in socialization and how socialization differs across social class. This study examined the function that the mother-daughter relationship has in the transmission of values, aspirations, and upward nobility from the daughter's perspective. Racial socialization, social relations, and parental expectations were also examined as a function of social class during cflfildhood. The mother-daughter relationship and its variation across background in middle class African American families is described. African American Families The current conceptualizations of African American families are reviewed along with a discussion of the merits cm’each as they apply to the current study. There are stressors tl stressors ti American far discussed as African Ame} importance < icerican fe: literature 1 itaPplies 1 Success. stressors that face most families. In addition, there are stressors that face ethnic minority families and African American families specifically. These stressors are discussed as they apply to African American families and the African American females' development. Because of the importance of the mother-daughter relationship in African American females' development, the literary and empirical literature pertaining to this relationship is discussed as it applies to socialization for achievement and academic success . Current Conceptualizations of African American Families. Researchers have identified several trends in the research on African Americans, particularly with regard to the African American family. According to McAdoo (1988a), three conceptualizations or major divisions are found in the study of the African American family. The first conceptualization is that African American families are in their "current state" because of poverty. Researchers taking this perspective believe that European standards of family are the norm and deviations from these standards by African American families are "pathological" (Moynihan, 1965). These researchers focus on the negative stereotypes that have been presented about the African .American family, such as disorganization, matriarchy, and "Fbathology" as presented by Moynihan (1965). This conceptualizai school" descrf dominant cultl cainant cultl deviant. This per: African Amerit Researchers ta Americans haw and are striv 1. .iterature pui calls this pe View stems fr fa-ii - ~ sY herita attributed th and term“. if rican tuner" A 3 conceptualization is similar to the "cultural ethnocentric school" described by Dodson (1988) because it assumes the dominant culture is normal and differences between the dominant culture and other cultures are perceived as deviant. This perspective assumes that all remnants of the African American family were destroyed by slavery. Researchers taking this perspective believe that African Americans have accepted the norms of the dominant culture and are striving to conform to them. In her review of the literature published between 1965 and 1978, Johnson (1988) calls this perspective the "cultural deviant" model. This View stems from Frazier (1949) who argued that African family heritage was lost during slavery. Frazier (1949) attributed the differences between African American families and European-American families to incomplete assimilation by African Americans. Willie (1988) found that researchers taking this perspective are more concerned about explaining why African American families differ from European-American families than they are about discussing the role and merits of the African American family. Poverty may have an impact on the African American family. Taking the perspective that some African American families are in their state because of poverty also may assist in describing the situation of some low income African.American families. However, this perspective assumes that all Afr (1988) repor 'cultural de although it current rese The sec i5 that pove an enduring : (1988) "Cult! cumPal‘ison f< lie-rican fanj iiddle c1355 African Alien“ resemblances Cultural valu 4 that all African American families are in poverty. Johnson (1988) reports that the amount of research taking the "cultural deviant" perspective decreases after about 1974 although it has by no means disappeared entirely from current research. The second conceptualization McAdoo (1988a) describes is that poverty, enslavement, and Reconstruction have left an enduring scar on African American families. Johnson's (1988) "cultural equivalent" perspective is an appropriate comparison for this View in that it assumes that African American families should be similar to European-American middle class families. When resemblances are found between African American families and European American families the resemblances are assumed to represent similarities in cultural values. Differences between African American and European American families are believed to be attributable to the impact of the experience of slavery and poverty on African Americans. Although Sudarkasa (1988) describes many connections between African culture and African American families today, she attributes the prevalence of single parent families to the experience of slavery. The third conceptualization discussed by McAdoo (1988a) is that African American families are qualitatively different from families of other ethnic groups. This view is similar to the "cultural variant" perspective discussed in Johnson (1988). The unique values and experiences of African Americans are (1988) also d 'cultural rele African Americ Eur0pean Ameri culture. In addit: Studies of M] ”090560 a SO< “arisen famij interdependent Sficiety. The \ subsystems of as ' , Ilcan Alter“ 5 Americans are used to describe their family patterns. Dodson (1988) also describes a similar perspective called the "cultural relativity school." This school views aspects of African American culture as qualitatively different from European American culture and possibly related to African culture. In addition to the three conceptualizations of the studies of African American families, Billingsley (1968) proposed a social system approach to studying African American families. This approach emphasized the interdependence between African American families and society. The variability in the structure of the family, the subsystems of the larger society, and the influence of the African American community would be included. Of the current conceptualizations of African American families presented above, the first pertains to the impact of poverty and does not address the diversity of socioeconomic status within the African American population. Although the social class of middle class African American families' ancestors may not be middle class and this may impact their values and beliefs, this perspective is not necessarily applicable to a study of middle income African American families. The second conceptualization assumes that differences between African American families and European- American middle class families are attributable to the negative impact of slavery, poverty and Reconstruction. This Perspective do between Africa families may i African Ameri Because these diversity of s differences be ‘his research; Although all j m a unique SI 51:11 at to th. research is n similarity in McAdOO ( Paid to Attic uestitute Sit 6 perspective does not allow for the idea that differences between African American families and European-American families may be attributable to positive aspects of the African American subculture as opposed to negative ones. Because these two conceptualizations do not account for diversity of socioeconomic status or for positive differences between African American and other families, this researcher adopts the cultural variant perspective. Although all families within the United States share aspects of the dominant culture, African American families function in a unique subculture. Some aspects of family may be similar to that of the majority culture, but further research is needed to determine if these resemblances imply similarity in reasons or outcomes. McAdoo (1988b) reports that much attention has been paid to African American families that are in the most destitute situation, while little attention has been paid to stable families and to positive attributes or strengths of the family. The current study will focus on the role of African American women in their family and their socialization for career success. Before discussing specifically the role of African American women in their families and mother-daughter relationships, it is important to discuss the stressors African American families face because these stressors may impact or change the role of the woman in the family; Stressor: African Amerir members. As i: .cAdoo (l988d individuals r made for thei Success as an het‘inrk that its many dive the Strength first line of ladner (1978) American fam; ldentitYr bOi with the COn‘ at at least 7 Stressors that face African American families. The African American family plays specific roles for its members. As is true with people from most ethnic groups, McAdoo (1988d) finds that African American middle class individuals recognize the sacrifices that their families made for their success. These individuals often regard their success as an achievement to be shared with the family network that assisted them. The African American family, in its many diverse forms, is the backbone to the community and the strength behind its children. Such families form the first line of defense against discrimination (Willie, 1988). Ladner (1978) finds that, in the face of racism, the African American family provides a sense of self and a stable identity, both of which provide African American children with the confidence that prepares them to meet future challenges. African American families, particularly poor families, must deal with many stressors that are not present or at least are not as prevalent in other families. Another one of the stressors that African American families face is racism. The Random House College Dictionary (1984) defines racism as an intolerance of another race and a "doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior." Racism is a daily, pervasive reality for African Americans through which the potential for being devalued through physical or control (He level of st African Ame based on cu Seem to f in racist beha Acre Powerf transcend t religiOn (l. Cate(iot‘iZe llSCusSeS R (CGUCasOids 'Regl'o l d s it 8 physical or psychological harm is always present and beyond control (McAdoo, 1983). This increases one's day-to—day level of stress. Hacker (1992) argues that the racism that African Americans face is greater than simply judgments based on culture. Some researchers illustrate how racists seem to find scientific or religious rationale for their racist behavior (Hacker, 1992, Lerner, 1992). Race can be a more powerful social variable than many others and can transcend the effects of class, education, occupation, and religion (Ladner, 1978). Race has been used to rank and categorize the merits of people for centuries. Lerner (1992) discusses Rushton's categories of people into three races (Caucasoids, Negroids, and Mongoloids). Blackslcn: "Negroids" always fare worse in the Western measures of intelligence and creativity than either of the other race categories. Researchers report numerous examples of racial discrimination with regard to wage and employment. Watson (1989) reports that African American families with a householder in an upper middle class job in 1986 had a mean income of $43,562; whereas European American families in similar jobs had a mean income of $56,193. Hacker (1992) reports that African American women make $807 for every $1000 that European-American women make. For as long as records have been kept, unemployment for African Americans has alvay (Hacker, HcAd unemplofl normative communit) less mom European ““9 met 93‘5“ $79: the Same earn 59m 1a""l’ers backgrour health ea in the A: The: {Elaticm heriCan 9 has always been about twice that of European Americans (Hacker, 1992). McAdoo (1988c) discusses the impact of racism, unemployment, underemployment, health care, and housing as normative stressors in the African American family and community. African Americans with college degrees still make less money and have a higher unemployment rate than their European American counterparts. Hacker (1992) reports that among men with four years of college, African American males earn $798 for each $1000 earned by European Americans with the same education level. African American female lawyers earn $900 for each $1000 earned by European American female lawyers (Hacker, 1992). Although people of other ethnic backgrounds must deal with unemployment, underemployment, health care, and housing, these stressors are more pervasive in the African American community. These additional stressors have led to more egalitarian relationships and greater role flexibility in African American families (Jewell, 1987). The more typical pattern in African American families, regardless of social class, is egalitarian, where neither spouse dominates and decision making is shared (McCray, 1980). Segregated gender roles are not as likely to be found in African American families as in other families (Collins, 1990). During enslavement, African American women performed the same types of duties as men, in addition to their required domestic chores. This meant that women we with We: both pa 1 their sr African Be: must {3: Childrej some sui lifters prvi'ide ejd to fame, the Afr Rid tC at t} tees. 10 women were not limited to devalued domestic work, in accord with West African traditions (Collins, 1990). Similarly, both parents must work outside the home just to maintain their socioeconomic level; dual employment is not new in African American families (McAdoo, 1988c). Because of the stressors that African American families must face, African American mothers must prepare their children to succeed and overcome these stressors. Unlike some subcultures of the United States, African American mothers:must prepare their daughters to be instrumental providers for their families. How do these mothers prepare their daughters? How does the relationship between mothers and daughters impact this preparation. The next section discusses the role of the mother in African American families and the mother-daughter relationship. The Mother-Daughter Relationship. Like women of other ethnic groups, African American women are childrearers and sources of emotional support for their families. However, the African American woman has a unique role within her family compared to the role of other women in their families and to other members of the African American family (e.g. fathers, grandparents). Nobles (1975) argues that, within the African American family, special attention should be paid to the bond between the mother and child. He claims that this emphasis on the mother and child is in part because of the significance of the mother and child in African heri' family durinr (1991) repor to be key fir African Amer Stack (1974) and her ch11 laibl‘ity of Parent fanil lezbers. Like al their Child: However, the the need f0! ah; ““ldren to SUPP-021m c ia‘ - l Gayle$ {a . 339' «Qty . She 11 African heritage and the definition of African American family during enslavement as a mother and childz..Joseph (1991) reports that African American mothers will continue to be key figures in the maintenance and continuance of African American life in both families and communities. Stack (1974) also describes the strong bond between a mother and her children. In the community Stack studied, the majority of children were raised by their mothers, in single parent families, as opposed to being reared by other family members. Like all mothers, African American mothers must prepare their children to survive in the world in which they live. However, the social position of African Americans creates the need for African American mothers to prepare their children to survive in a society that is not always supportive of the development of African American children. Abde-Gayles (1980) discusses the diversity of motherhood as it is presented in fictional literature. She describes some of the methods mothers use to prepare their children for society. She compares the portraits of motherhood in five novels to portraits presented.by the sociological research literature. While the fictional literature focuses on the lives of individuals replete with faults and assets, the sociological literature focused on the "problems" of families using "representative samples" of mothers and their children. From Wade-Gayles' perspective, the sociological literature of mothers they were childreari 0f the rel American f to look at t0 gain a design en; In ad racist soc Prepare tl‘. “ill IECei Africa“ An fit into t illustrate (A 12 literature failed to take into account many of the aspects of mothers that determine and influence the outcomes that they were measuring (e.g. individual differences in childrearing practices, beliefs, and aspirations). Because of the relative lack of empirical literature on the African American family and African American women it is important to look at all sources, both popular and empirical, in order to gain a better understanding of this population and to design empirical studies to explore these issues. In addition to preparing their children to survive in a racist society, African American mothers must especially prepare their daughters to manage the mixed messages they will receive from society. Collins (1990) argues that African American mothers must teach their daughters to both fit into the system and to struggle against it. To illustrate the role her mother played in her life, Brown (1986) states that there was a "need to socialize me one way and at the same time to give me all the tools I needed to be something else." African American daughters must learn to expect to work and to strive for education so that they can support themselves. Wallace (1978) argues that mothers know that their daughters must learn to function within the system, but they also know that they must prepare their daughters to fight the system so as to not become participants in their own subordination. Since the struggle may not provide the daughters with male protection, mothers must prox many batt discrimir the situe The deemed s; StudY- 01 relation: relathn; 1934). B. relatim QTOund m that the Willem. 13 must provide their daughters with the skills to persevere many battles, from sexual harassment to racial discrimination, while hoping that they will not experience the situations that will require the use of these skills. The mother-child relationship in general has been deemed significant for empirical study. However, the mother- daughter relationship specifically is equally important to study. One of the most powerful and influential relationships in an African American woman's life is her relationship with her mother (Troester, 1984; Wade-Gayles, 1984). Bell-Scott and Guy-Sheftall (1991) state that the relationship between mothers and daughters provides the ground work for later relationships. Greene (1990b) finds that the relationship between the mother and daughter influences how the daughter comes to view herself and can be a salient factor in how she raises her own daughters. In a rural African American sample, Harris (1992) found that 55% of African American adolescents and 77% of African American college students identified their mother as the most influential person in their lives. Her sample did not include subsamples from other ethnic backgrounds and therefore it is not clear whether these findings are true across ethnic background. However, Hook and Curry (1983) did report that high-achieving, European American, middle to Upper middle class, female adolescents reported being more similar to their fathers. Wade-Gayles (1984) finds that the nother-da the resea data on In single pa ”Other-so The ‘ described 1984). Re such as t role of m St"it“‘gth. assert th pCSitive Often tux: difficult beaten t describin Paule Na: states: rec net does recQ dckn l4 mother-daughter relationship receives little attention in the research literature. Most of the literature analyzes data on maternal aspirations, childrearing techniques, single parenthood, or intergenerational poverty by examining mother-son relationships (Cole, 1991; wade-Gayles, 1984). The power of the mother-daughter relationship has been described in African American literature (Wade-Gayles, 1984). Recent autobiographies of African American women, such as those of Maya Angelou and Angela Davis, describe the role of mothers and grandmothers as mentors and models of strength. Troester (1984) and Wade-Gayles (1984) do not assert that all mother-daughter relationships are always positive and endearing. Sometimes, this relationship is often tumultuous and wrought with conflict. However, the difficulties they face often do not impede the influence between the mother and daughter (Wade-Gayles, 1984). In describing the mother-daughter relationship depicted in Paule Marshall's novel Brown Girl, Brownstones, Wade-Gayles states: reconciliation between mother and daughter does not mean an affectionate relationship. Affection does not mean equal bonding. Rather, reconciliation means Selina's [daughter] acknowledgement that there will always be a part of herself that is inseparable from her mother (p.10). The Afri describe research empiric: Th4 African descrip‘ relatio- ethmgr descrip th039 were Ve say hav to assi that, "y 15 The African American mother-daughter relationship has been described in African American women's fiction, but researchers need to study and describe this relationship empirically. There have been several empirical descriptions of the African American mother-daughter relationship. Some of these descriptions are similar to those of mother-daughter relationships of other ethnic groups. Stack's (1974) ethnographic study of "Jackson Harbor" provided a description of the mother-daughter relationship in a low income community. She found that many mothers and daughters were very committed to one another. Although the daughters may have many other commitments to attend to they always try to assist their mothers when requested. One daughter states that, "you can't come when she calls all of the time, although you might want to and feel bad if you can't. I'm all worn out from running from my house to her house like a pinball machine. That‘s the way I do. I'm doing it 'cause she‘s my mother and 'cause I don't want to hurt her. Yet, she is killing me" (Stack, 1974, p.36). , The participants in Stackls study were of a low socioeconomic status. It is not clear if this finding is equally applicable to African American families from other socioeconomic statuses. Afr were ass very pos 'did not them. Ra and admi Struggle (1991) 9, African strength general, 0: bOth “laughte: Col 16 African American women's feelings toward their mothers were assessed by Joseph (1991). She found that women had very positive things to say about their mothers, but this "did not imply that all was sweet, kind, and loving between them. Rather, what was expressed was an undeniable respect and admiration for their mothers' accomplishments and struggles against overwhelming odds ..." (p.95). Sims-Wood (1991) explains that to obtain an appreciation of the African American mother-daughter relationship and the strengths and weaknesses in African American families in general, it first is necessary to obtain a full appreciation of both the "turbulence" and "tenderness" of the mother- daughter relationship. Cole, in her preface to Double Stitch (Bell-Scott et al., 1991), states three themes regarding the nature of the African American mother-daughter relationship. First, there is considerable diversity in the relationship across families, but an African American mother-daughter relationship is going to be similar to others because of the commonality of being African American in a European American environment. The second theme Cole presents is that the African American mother-daughter relationship must deal with sexism as well as racism. For example, although African American women have been in the labor market for equal lengths of time as African American men, they still receive less pay than Afi they hax America: Europear outside The constant daughte: term rel To her dang “5:15 a: daughter affectic be bcth CharaCtE iGEntiCE when: 3°¥ever Close, * a a n“ the s that t‘ 17 than African American men for similar occupations. Also, they have been in the work force longer than many European American females, but they still receive less pay than these European American females. There is sexism both inside and outside the African American community. The third theme is that the relationship must be constantly worked on in order for both the mother and daughter to prosper from it. This is true for most long term relationships. To survive in this society, a mother needs to prepare her daughter for many things. These mothers are not by any means alike in the manner in which they raise their daughters. There are continua, some are going to be affectionate, others quite demanding, and still others will be both to varying degrees. Additionally, because the characteristics of these relationships are not going to be identical from one family to the next means that not all mother-daughter relationships are going to be the same. However, even in the case where the relationship is not close, there is still mutual influence between the mother and the daughter. This influence will impact the decisions that the daughter makes in her life, even if the decision is made because the daughter is resisting her mother's desires. There are differences in theoretical perspectives one can take when designing research on African American nmthers, daughters, and families. Some of these perspectives 18 characterize the African American family by its assets while other perspectives explore only the deficits. African American families must overcome many stressors to succeed in this society. Some of these stressors are experienced by families of other ethnic groups, but many are not as pervasive in those families as they are in African American families, such as unemployment, underemployment, and poverty (Hernandez, 1993). When designing a study to explore characteristics of African American families, one must also consider that African American families are diverse and will differ from each other on a variety of characteristics. One of the characteristics on which African American families will differ is social class, which is of interest for the current study. Social Class This section will, first, review the definitions of social class as they apply to Americans and the diversity. within and between social class categories. Second, middle class African American families are discussed specifically, in terms of the characteristics of middle class African _ American families as they are similar and different from other middle income families. Variations in measurement of social class are discussed in relation to the classification of African American families. After reviewing the literature (Nisocial class and measurement of social class for African Americans sociologi Finally, discussed 9m cat9‘30ri: wealth, ‘ Feathem; includes Percepti, disadvan. bEtWeen .' diVez-sit: heriCan: families cite $25 19 Americans, upward mobility is defined in the context of sociological and psychological literature and research. Finally, mobility within African American communities is discussed. Current Definitions. Social class refers to a method of categorizing people according to some criteria based on wealth, power, education and/or prestige (Watson, 1989). Featherman and Kahn (1994) indicate that social class includes many other variables such as, hierarchy, control, perceptions of disadvantage, and attributions of disadvantage. There is a tremendous amount of diversity both between and within social classes. To emphasize the diversity of income levels of middle class African Americans, Coner-Edwards and Edwards (1988) note that families with incomes within the range of $25,000 to above $50,000 per year fall into the middle class. Other sources cite $25,000 for a family of four as middle class, which is less than twice the income level which is considered poverty (Oshansky, 1993). The diversity in income within middle class leads to equally diverse lifestyles and material possessions. The breadwinners of these families are also diverse in terms of education, ranging from high school completion through four or more years of college, graduate, cu'professional school (Coner-Edwards & Edwards, 1988). Most criteria for categorizing social class lead to static categories which are measured as an event in time. Feathe dynami They a They 1 class assume 20 Featherman, Spenner, and Tsunematsu (1988) propose a more dynamic approach to defining and categorizing social class. They argue that social class changes across the lifespan. They report that, in most studies of the influence of social class on child development, measurements of social class are assumed to remain stable throughout childhood. Many children, they found, change social class two to three times during the first six years of life. Measures of social class fail to consider that in many families, because of career mobility or a period of unemployment, social class can change. Often the first child is born into a different social class than later children. Kohn (1969) argues that it is not social class per se that is the important factor that distinguishes among the socialization patterns of families, but the core values, life-style goals, and mobility aspirations some families have because of the their educational or social class level. For example, the social class of a professional who loses his or her job may decline dramatically. However, he or she still has the values and aspirations of a middle class individual to pass on to his or her children. act ' t s o M'ddle Income A ican America familig_. Wilkerson's (1990) New York Times article stated that two main characteristics separate middle class African Americans from middle-class European Americans. The first characteristic is the likelihood that many more relatives of the midc America: class Er Sec TESOUI'CI charact. income, America Billing Snsport from a worth 0 21 the middle-class African Americans will come to the African American family for assistance than relatives of middle- class European American families come for assistance. Second, African American families tend to lack the resources of other middle-class people. These characteristics were based primarily on level of family income, education, occupation, and style of life of African Americans in addition to studying family profiles. Billingsley (1992) presents several case histories, in support of Wilkinson's findings. Billingsley reports data from a study by the U.S. Census indicate that the median net worth of African Americans was less than 10% of the median net worth of European American families. Aside from the classification of social standing, other characteristics of middle-class families need to be explored. Based on a review of the literature, psychiatrists Coner-Edwards and Edwards (1988) have defined several characteristics of African American middle-class families. These families tend to embrace the dominant culture. Some families may appear as though they have not embraced the dominant culture, but under closer examination one will find that they have adopted certain values and activities of the dominant culture. Whether implicit or explicit all middle class African American families have adopted some characteristics of the dominant society. These families also believe in the work ethic. They believe that they must work 22 hard to achieve middle-class status and work even harder to maintain it. African American middle-class families also believe more in delaying gratification than European American middle-class families. They believe in long-range planning and putting off the benefits of their work until other goals have been achieved. They have a strong sense of self and empowerment. Having proven themselves against the obstacles of racism and achieved success, these families demonstrate great pride and self esteem. Their ethnic minority status takes a relative, rather than a pervasive position in their lives. The final characteristic of the African American middle class family is a sense of importance about their heritage. Many accuse middle-class African Americans of denying their heritage (Coner-Edwards & Edwards, 1988). However, a large number of these families embrace their heritage and have a strong sense of pride in their ancestors. Most want to be accepted in the African American community. Some African Americans who have achieved middle class status experience psychological repercussions. Coner-Edwards and Edwards (1988) outline several of these repercussions. First, there is identity confusion. Middle-class African Americans desire to be accepted by the dominant society in which they work. They also wish to be accepted by the African American community consisting of many who have not achieved middle-class standing. In their attempt to fit in both commun either. The se status is t For many mi in poverty as the "hav considered aembers 511p upward l y m 0 23 both communities, many find that they are not comfortable in either. The second repercussion for achieving middle-class status is the sense of guilt (Comer-Edwards & Edwards 1988). For many middle-class families who have family members still in poverty or even in working class status, they are viewed as the "haves," while their families of origin are considered the "have nots." Because most likely these family members supported and assisted the person in becoming upwardly mobile, this can lead to a tremendous sense of guilt. These families may refuse to take vacations, except to visit their families. They may also offer gifts, money, and assistance in order to relieve some of their guilt feelings. Higginbotham and Weber (1992) found that upwardly mobile African American women express guilt and debt to their community twice as often as European American upwardly mobile women. Guilt and achievement has been studied in European-American middle class men. Weiner (1985) found that quilt is often felt when failure to achieve is due to controllable factors, such as not putting forth adequate effort. Brown and Weiner (1984) and Weiner (1985) do not find that guilt is expressed in their sample in relation to success. The third repercussion of achieving middle class status relates to the work ethic. Like individuals of other ethnic munority backgrounds, many middle-class African Americans feel th maintai sense c They ra great 5 Subject generat Obile tiddle because Th Edwards 24 feel that they have to work all of the time in order to maintain their standing. These families often do not gain a sense of balance in their lives between work and leisure. They rarely take vacations for pleasure and they feel a great sense of guilt when they take time off. All of the subjects in McAdoo's (1981) study believed that each generation of African Americans must make the upwardly mobile cycle again. McAdoo (1981) also found that many middle class African American families felt "on guard" because they may slip back to working class status. The fourth repercussion reported by Coner-Edwards and Edwards (1988) is a continuous feeling of anxiety and insecurity about social status. Some may view their accomplishments as a result of luck, and they fear that bad luck may set in. Many feel anxiety about their ability to maintain what they have achieved. They seem to forget the hard work that went into the process. Ogbu (1981) found that some middle class African Americans do not socialize with lower-income African Americans because of this insecurity. The fifth consequence is a feeling of lack of nurturance. They may feel isolated, separated from their families. They are craving affection, acceptance and connectedness. They are often too busy for frequent contacts outside the work place. Also for African Americans, the lines between social Class are more flexible. Statuses that would be considered middle cla: upper class feeling of (McAdoo, 19 over 50% 01 considered the human c muledge a Often diff; ECCESS and (Cannon, H; the aPPrOp] Africa“ Aime income 01' ‘ scanZoni ’ . StdtuS 0f , 25 middle class in European American communities are considered upper class in African American communities because of the feeling of power, mobility, and freedom from hard work (McAdoo, 1981). According to the 1990 U. 8. Census, well over 50% of African Americans in the United States are now considered middle class but still they are not visible in the human development literature. In addition to the lack of knowledge about how one can access the population, it is often difficult for non-African American researchers to gain access and trust from potential African American samples (Cannon, Higginbotham, & Leung, 1991). Issues of Measurement. Some researchers have questioned the appropriateness of assigning social class standing to African American families by using measures that emphasize income or occupation (McAdoo, 1978; McAdoo, 1982; Scanzoni & Scanzoni, 1978). Because of discrimination, employment status of African Americans is often determined more by race than by educational attainment. Smith (1989) found that occupational prestige and work place authority were significantly related to educational attainment in African Americans, but not as strongly as has been determined among European Americans. For most African Americans in their study, the effects of education on work place authority was not significant. However, education did distinguish between muddle managers and those who supervised at least two levels 0f employees. it.» ,_ § 26 A variety of indices are used to assess class standing besides income and occupation. These include education, social values, and lifestyle (Watson, 1989). Featherman and Kahn (1994) discuss the problems with these measures because they do not often assess independently the components of social class, such as income, education, and occupational prestige. These components of social class are often independently related to psychological outcomes. Social class has been measured by self report. However, Smith (1989) found that self-identified social class did not correlate significantly with years of schooling. High-school graduates and college-educated African Americans equally saw themselves as either working class or middle class. Those with some college training were the least likely to see themselves as upper class. Those who had less than a high- school education or had a high-school diploma were almost twice as likely to rate themselves as upper class as those with some college training. Also, those with some college training were most likely to see themselves as working class. These findings illustrate the problems of using self report as a valid measure of social class. Mueller and Parcel (1981) reviewed several measures of social class and made recommendations about the appropriateness of each measure for specific types of research questions. They concluded that income alone is not the best indicator of social class because it does not take into cor variatic Edward's This sea and is s of occup Wide Var occupati: Sec< Scale. Tl many Of 1 reVised t “5° Crit categoriz of diSCri 27 into consideration power or prestige and there is great variation of income within specific occupation categories. Edward's (1933) scale was reviewed by Mueller and Parcel. This scale is a ranking system using twelve major categories and is still the basis for the U. 3. Census classification of occupation. The major limitation of this measure is its wide variation of education requirements and incomes for occupations within categories. Second, Mueller and Parcel reviewed the Hollingshead scale. They do not recommend the use of this scale because many of the occupations are outdated and it has not been revised to meet the changing labor market. McAdoo (1981) also criticizes the Hollingshead scale for the categorization of social class for African Americans because of discrimination in the job market. Equal educational attainment does not always lead to comparable occupational attainment across ethnicity. The Siegel Prestige scale is most often used in sociology (Mueller & Parcel, 1981), but not psychology. It is based on the general public's rating of prestige for various occupations. Although the general public's ranking of prestige has shown considerable reliability, its validity has been questioned because of the variables the public takes into account when assigning prestige varies. The Duncan Socioeconomic Index is another measure reviewed by Mueller and Parcel (1981). A regression equation taking income educat Index 1981). OCCUpa (Huell. equallj Hauser Feathe: the st1 Se Feathei Canside inClude 28 taking into account the percentage of males with particular income and percent of males with a particular level of education is used to calculate the Duncan Socioeconomic Index (SEI) (Mueller & Parcel, 1981; Stevens & Featherman, 1981). When used to predict the three digit census occupations, the equation produced a multiple R of .91 (Mueller & Parcel, 1981). Additionally, Duncan scores equally predict male and female occupations. Featherman and Hauser (1977), Mueller and Parcel (1981), and Stevens and Featherman (1981) recommend the use of the Duncan SEI for the study of occupational social mobility. Several revisions of the Duncan SEI (Stevens & Featherman, 1981) have been made. One takes into consideration only the male work force (MSEIZ). The second includes both males and females in its calculations (TSEI2). Both were revised based on the occupational characteristics of the 1970 Census. Because the sample of this study is female, the TSEI2 will be used to calculate social standing. Although the TSEI2 will be used in this study, the limitations of this and the other measures of social class are understood and are considered in the interpretation of the results. For example, the occupations used on this scale were based on our society of twenty five years ago. An enormous amount of diversity exists both between and within social classes within the African American community. Numerous means of measuring social class have been develc questi Americ even w Middle charac famili unique Charac. family CCnseq1 be"Come and TSL explore de‘JelO; Childhc 29 developed. The appropriateness of some measures have been questioned because of their emphasis on income. African Americans still average less income than European Americans even when education and years of experience are controlled. Middle—class African American families share many characteristics with European American middle-class families. However, middle-class African Americans as a unique ethnic and socioeconomic group, have some unique characteristics and face some unique consequences. The family must prepare African American children to face the consequences of racial discrimination and to succeed and become upwardly mobile in this society. Featherman, Spenner, and Tsunematsu (1988) argue that in order to appropriately explore the influence of social class of upbringing on development, social class needs to be measured throughout childhood in order to assess changes that may take place because of changes in employment. Upward Mobility. Mobility has been most extensively studied from a sociological perspective. These studies explore the openness or closeness of class structure and overall mobility of the society as a whole. From this perspective, a society is classified as either open or closed, fair or unfair, equitable or inequitable depending on the manner in which the advantages and disadvantages are passed from one generation to the next (Hout, 1988). Openness refers to the overall chances of having a different (either one's pa greater . or occupa or unfair comparat.‘ Society. has an e; On a ccmparing countries historiCa more Open §ESCribin “apared 0f [the] 30 (either higher or lower) social class or occupation than one's parents. A closed society is one in which there is a greater likelihood that one will remain in the social class or occupation of his or her father. A society is deemed fair or unfair and equitable or inequitable based on the comparative chances of mobility among subpopulations of a society. In a fair or equitable society, each subpopulation has an equal opportunity for mobility. On a larger scale, many studies have been conducted comparing social mobility between and among industrialized countries. Erikson and Goldthorpe (1985) review the historical basis for the theory that the United States is a more open society with regard to social mobility. In describing Tocqueville's perception of the United States compared to Europe, Erikson and Goldthorpe state that "one of [the] features to which Tocqueville gave major emphasis was the instability of the social position of families, and, hence, the uncertainty of the lines of class demarcation" (p. 1). Erikson and Goldthorpe (1985) quote Marx and Engels as saying that America lacks the presence of "a permanent and hereditary proletariat". Lipset and Bendix (1959) made the first attempt to empirically compare the mobility rates of industrialized countries. They found that the mobility rate in the United States was not significantly different than that of other countries. They concluded that if America was distinct with regard rather the av one's (1985) bet'uieej Cross-1 lesson the ab; Campar, Goldthc 31 regard to mobility, it was not in the rate of mobility but rather the extent of the perception of structural Openness, the overall chances of having a different occupation than one's father. In reviewing the literature, Erikson and Goldthorpe (1985) concluded that the issue of differential mobility between countries was not settled. They found previous cross-national studies showed vast differences in the measurement and conceptualization of mobility that precluded the ability to effectively compare countries. To effectively compare mobility rates across countries, Erikson and Goldthorpe (1985) applied the categories for the American mobilities tables to the European data. In doing so, they found a consistently greater amount of upward mobility in the United States for moving from farm or manual labor positions to nonmanual position than in England, but no differences were found in other categories. There were no differences between United States and the other European countries studied on any category. In general, they concluded that America no longer stands apart from the other nations in its amount of social mobility. By comparing overall mobility across countries, one fails to observe historical variations in mobility within a particular country. One method of examining mobility within a particular society is to assess the overall disparity between fathers' employment (occupational origin) and sons' employ implie these the op more 0; eXplail rQPOI‘t: greater destina were up 19605 h Selecte. role in betVEQn 32 employment (occupational destination). Greater disparity implies absolute mobility in the society (Hout, 1988). Using these methods, Featherman and Hauser (1978) concluded that the opportunity structure of the United States had become more open since the 19603. This increased openness can be explained by a variety of changes. Hout (1984a, 1984b) reports that for African American men there has been a greater correlation between origin occupations and destination occupation. Those African American males who were upwardly mobile into particular occupations during the 1960s had similar origin statuses as European American males selected for those occupations. Also, race played less of a role in the first job males received after leaving school between 1962 and 1973 (Featherman & Hauser, 1976). Most of the research on mobility patterns pertains to men. Hout (1988) claims that the mobility patterns of women are more complex and much less is known about them. Estimating mobility for women, the origin/destination comparison must take into account a change in generation (as mdth men) in addition to the effect of the change of gender (from father's occupation to daughter's occupation). However, research has shown that mobility patterns of women differ from those of men in circulation among white collar positions and between farm and nonfarm occupations (Hauser, Featherman, & Hogan, 1977; R005, 1985; Tyree & Treas, 1974). According to Hout (1988), one of the characteristics of femal that to pr leave level compel house} and fa remair HO'a‘eve VCEen :obili soCiOe Cecn‘lpa {1988) prCPor' Veaken 33 female employment that makes mobility estimates difficult is that for some women, employment is not financially necessary to provide for their families. Women in this situation can leave the work force if they do not achieve the occupational level they desire. Hout (1988) examined male and female mobility by comparing the origin (father's occupation or other head of household) with the destination occupation for both males and females. He found that both upward and downward mobility remained stable throughout the 19705 and early 19805. However, upward mobility exceeded downward mobility for women by 160%; whereas upward mobility exceeded downward mobility for males by only 78%. As a whole, one's socioeconomic status of origin has become less important for occupational mobility for both males and females. Hout (1988) attributes this decline in importance to the rising proportion of the work force with college degrees and the weakening association between origin and destination status. Hernandez (1993) identified six features of families of origin that influenced educational attainment early in this century. These are fathers' education, fathers' occupational status, number of siblings, farm origin, family intactness during childhood, and race. All but one of these features (number of siblings) have diminished in importance for educational attainment in later cohorts (Hernandez, 1993). \ The become a mobility. is still chance 01 success r 34 The research reviewed above suggests that America has become a more open and equal society with regard to mobility. Some researchers report that although the message is still being communicated that every individual has a chance of achieving upward mobility, the opportunities for success have diminished (Goldstein & Smucker, 1986). Hernandez (1993) found that educational opportunities have become equal across ethnic groups at the high school level but not at the college level. Goldstein and Smucker (1986) report that the path to upward mobility has changed over the years. Initially it was believed that all one needed was inner drive, hard work, and perseverance (the Horatio Alger myth). The first shift in the path to success came with the Great Depression. No longer was "inner strength" and will power enough to guarantee success. There were factors beyond the control of an individual. After World War II, there was an additional change. This included an increase in government bureaucracies and large corporations. These occupations required formal credentials and technical skills. Individuals were required to conform to these organizations to gain success. Again, less emphasis is pflaced on the inner strengths of the individual but on meeting the needs of the organization (Mill, 1951). This is the organizational model. Because of the changing needs of the organizations and the sudden shifts in the labor market, the i SUCCE: conce) multii First, career flexit a SEpa Beanin Succes One do: Third, Eeans . Stucke: lllliyel.E studeni Horatic 35 the idea of "one life, one-career" often does not lead to success (Goldstein & Smucker, 1986). Goldstein and Smucker (1986) examine a new conceptualization of career success. This is called the multitrack model of success. It is based on three themes. First, to be successful, individuals should expect to change careers one or more times during their lives. The key is flexibility rather than specialized skills. Second, there is a separation in the definition of success. What may be the meaning of success to society may differ from the meaning of success to an individual. There is, consequently, more than one domain for success (e.g., personal and professional). Third, success is possible in this society but it is by no means certain no matter how hard one works. Goldstein and Smucker's (1986) study consisted of more than four hundred university students. Regardless of their background more students endorsed the multitrack model of success than the Heratio Alger model or the organizational model. Much of the literature on mobility patterns focus on a larger societal or international scale. This is important fer examining historical trends, patterns, and models for success. However, examining mobility from a psychological perspective allows for a closer examination of impact of these trends on individuals in particular life situations. By focusing more on individual contexts as opposed to societal trends, upward mobility is defined as an increase 36 in status level within a family from one generation to the next. Closely tied to good values and high aspirations is a mother's desire for her children to be upwardly mobile (Dill, 1980). Family support plays an important function for upward mobility (McAdoo, 1981). Dawkins (1989) finds that African American young adults' career aspirations are strongly associated with the mothers' aspiration for them, educational plans, and ability. The fathers' aspirations for the young adults were not as strong an influence. Mobility for African Americans differs from that of European Americans in that class stability for African Americans can be considered a form of mobility. McAdoo (1981) found that each generation of African Americans must begin the upwardly mobile cycle again in order to maintain middle class standing. Upward mobility for women is more complex than for men regardless of race because many women still gain their social standing through their mates. This is true although many more women are in the work force than ever before (McAdoo, 1981). The problems for African American women are unique because they have less control over their social status because "her status is linked to the pool of eligible Black men who are constantly bombarded by occupational discrimination" (McAdoo, 1981, p.6). For these reasons, middle class African American women and those who wish to be upwardly mobile are under greater stress to 37 achieve and maintain their middle class standing (McAdoo, 1981). In their effort to be upwardly mobile, African American women suffer from both sexism and racism. Racism and sexism, as experienced by African American women, has been described in both fictional and empirical literature. Nobel Prize Laureate Toni Morrison once said of the place of African American women in society, "She had nothing to fall back on; not maleness, not whiteness, not ladyhood, not anything. And out of the profound desolation of her reality, she may well have invented herself." Empirical research has corroborated that which has been described in fictional literature. Cotton (1988) found that African American females face greater wage discrimination than do both European American females and African American males. "For whereas Black males are the victims of racial discrimination and European- American females the victims of sexual discrimination, Black females suffer both" (Cotton, 1988; p.16). Cotton (1988) reports that an additional year of education increases the wage of European-American women by 5.5%; whereas it increases the wage of African American women by only 4.7%. Watson (1989) suggests that the near parity in income between African American females and European American females is likely attributable to African American women's longer tenure in the work force as opposed to equity in the work force. thei: liste Amer; cont] and a rela1 and 1 of ti lhdi\ becar inflL than dEgre Child Fact 1‘] bEtwe S}; .‘n. Child; 38 African American women have played an active role in their upward mobility. Based on a random sample of those listed in the 1978 edition of Who's Who Among Black Americans, Mullins and Sites (1990) explored the contribution of African American women to the maintenance and achievement of upper class standing. They compared the relative contributions of resources for success of the male and female ancestors of the subject. They based the amount of the contributions of a resource on the level the individual attained for that resource. This is problematic because it does not take into account the encouragement and influence of a parent that wanted more for their children than they had. By their definition, a mother with a masters degree is said to make a greater contribution to her children with regard to education than the father who does not have a college degree without regard for other factors. The resources examined in their study included skin color (there is considerable evidence that being of lighter skin continues to be an advantage), education, and occupation. They found that where there were differences in skin color between husbands and wives, more often women had lighter skin. The women, therefore, contributed more towards their children's success via the influence of skin color. With regard to education, maternal grandparents provided greater educational resources than paternal grandparents. Mothers also made a greater contribution than fathers to the possible educatior previous] vomen are In a the role status at and 21, a IaOderate 21- This School e1 Siblings associat. income g: siblings eillcatio l 39 possible achievement of their children with regard to education. In the area of occupational contributions, males previously have had higher levels of occupations, however, women are making an increasing contribution. In an Australian sample, Marjoribanks (1991) assessed the role of family environment and the number of siblings on status attainment. He assessed adolescents at age 11, 16, and 21, and found that the family learning environment had a moderate to strong association with status attainment at age 21. This association was much greater than that with the school environment. He also found that the number of siblings present in middle income groups had significant associations with educational attainment but not in lower income groups. In lower income groups, the number of siblings influenced occupational attainment but not educational attainment. Although this sample was an Australian one, it demonstrates the variation between social classes within a population. It will be interesting to determine if a similar relationship exists in other ethnic groups, including African Americans. Exploring the relationship between the family learning environment, in families of other ethnic backgrounds, and upward mobility and how this relationship varies by social classes can allow for a better understanding of differences between social classes in how they prepare their children to succeed and become upwardly mobile . given next socic great for n famil 40 In African American families, recognition is often given to the entire family by the person who has reached the next socioeconomic level (McAdoo, 1980). In lower socioeconomic levels, the extended family is used to a greater extent for material needs and child care. However, fOr middle class African American families, the extended family is used more for emotional needs (McAdoo, 1980). In addition, many African Americans that make it to the middle class still do not have the wealth to pass down to their children and therefore they must recreate the desire for mobility within their children in order for them to remain middle class (Goldscheider, 1989; Hauser & Anderson, 1991; McAdoo, 1978; 1981). Goldscheider (1989) found that intergenerational flow of income is strongly influenced by both ethnicity and family income. Education is necessary to maintain or achieve middle class standing. Most American children require financial assistance from their parents to attend college. Therefore, social mobility and education are both linked to the flow of income between generations (Goldscheider & Goldscheider, 1991). Goldscheider and Goldscheider (1991) found, in.the data from the High School and Beyond Study, that African Americans receiVed significantly less financial support for educational expenses from parents than did European-American students. Unlike many European American and Hispanic students, when African American students receive contributions from their the a: contr contr Europ 1991) 41 their parents towards their education, it does not reduce the amount of money the African American student must contribute. Also, African American students generally contribute more to their parental family economy than their European American counterparts (Goldscheider & Goldscheider, 1991). Other factors influence intergenerational flow of income. These include the age of the parents, with older parents needing to divert much of their income to prepare for retirement. This is less true for African Americans because they have a shorter life expectancy than other ethnic groups and therefore do not use their retirement funds to the extent of other ethnic groups. Another factor is the number of children; the more children there are, the less money per child is available. Goldscheider and Goldscheider (1991) suggest that because African Americans, on average, have more children and have lower incomes than other ethnic groups, it could be expected that they would have less money to pass on to each child. Even though some of these trends are converging, the average intergenerational flow of income has not. Part of this is due to the dramatic change in the family structure in African Americans. Now, sixty percent of children are living in female-headed households. Even with resources available, some African American children still do not succeed. Smith (1988) discusses some of 1 chi] adva Amer demc schc 42 of the reasons why some middle class African American children succeed in school while others with similar advantages do not. Smith argues that in order for African American children to benefit from school, the parents must demonstrate to their children that the teachers and other school authorities are an extension of themselves and are to be respected. She claims that in some families, this may not happen because a school that is run by European-Americans may represent the "system" against which the parents fought in order to succeed. The teachers also may not properly encourage the African American child in class. Smith also reports that the bureaucracy of a public school system becomes difficult to navigate particularly if one's child has a special need. In order for African Americans to succeed the parents must find a school that they can trust. They also must involve extended family members in the care and education of the child. African American families have been found to differ based on social class and family structure. In its many diverse forms, the family is the backbone to the community. The roles of individuals in the African American family may differ from those in majority families. For example, in the African American family women are expected to be both instrumental providers as well as emotional providers more often than within the families of their European-American counterparts (Burgess & Horton, 1993). In some types of gra1 the rais that C021 43 African American families the extended family members (e.g. grandparents, aunts, uncles) have a larger role in rearing the children. Without regard to who or how the child is raised the issue is to socialize the child in such a manner that he or she is upwardly mobile and is an asset to the community. How do parents socialize their children? Socialization This review will present an overview of family socialization from the child development literature, including gender role socialization. Most of the literature has focused on socialization within European American middle-class families. Although this literature does not necessarily apply directly to all aspects of socialization within African American families, it is important to review this literature to determine how and when this literature is of heuristic value. This literature will be reviewed, followed by a discussion of socialization as it applies to various other ethnic groups, particularly African Americans. There certainly will be elements of socialization, as it is understood for European American middle class families, that also will hold true for those of other ethnic backgrounds. However, there may be aspects of socialization that are unique to particular ethnic groups. Finally, this review discusses socialization for the subgroup of middle class CUI'I SOC: clas Azer- love Trou; 44 African American females who are of specific concern in the current study. The family is the place where many types of socialization commences. There is a vast amount of literature on socialization. In order to have a complete picture of socialization, researchers must increase the diversity of subject groups studied. What is characteristic of the European American middle-class family in America may or may not be characteristic of African American middle- class families, Hispanic upper class families, Latino American families, Native Americans, European American lower-class families or any other ethnic or social class groups. Each Parent's Role in Socialization. It is within the family that children first learn about relationships and interactions in the social world. In healthy families, children learn to value themselves, to have confidence in their abilities, and to explore the environment. When these children go to school, the socialization that began at home is continued and strengthened. Parents believe that they play a special role in the socialization of same sex children (Ruble, 1984). Identification theories propose that children adopt the values, behaviors, and attitudes of their same sex parents by age five or six (Worrell, 1981). Therefore, mothers would Play a special role in the socialization of their daughters; whe SOC pre are rev; less thar LL 45 whereas fathers would play a special role in the socialization of sons. Females, according to Block (1983), receive more pressure to be nurturant, obedient, and responsible. Males are expected to be independent, self reliant, ambitious, career oriented, and strong willed (Block, 1983). In her literature review, Block (1983) found that many studies concluded that females grow up in a more structured and directive world than males. The results of the studies Block reviewed indicate that adults, particularly fathers, are less achievement oriented in their interactions with females than with males. They are more expressive and encourage more dependent behavior with females than males. Social learning theorists place emphasis on reinforcement and punishment as a means of socializing (Worrell, 1981). Males and females are encouraged to behave in different ways and discouraged from behaving in other manners. Higginbotham and Weber (1992) present data on European-American middle class families that demonstrate that parents not only deemphasize independent achievement, but they may devalue the efforts of their daughters as well. They may encourage their daughters' efforts for education, but not for their career. Chodorow (1978) and Gilligan (1982) present data on European American middle-class families that demonstrate that the context of female development leads to a greater emphasis on relationships. Male socialization, according to ole the he: sir 46 Chodorow, occurs as the male both sees himself as different from his female mother and similar to the male figure in his life. In order for males to identify with their fathers or older males in their environment, they must separate from their mothers. Chodorow also asserts that the mother treats her sons as different from herself and her daughters as similar to herself. For females, on the other hand, socialization occurs as the daughter sees herself as similar to her mother and the mother sees herself as similar to the daughter (Chodorow, 1978). This emphasis leads to women perceiving themselves as connected to and in relation to others. It is not necessary for the female to separate from her primary caretaker to participate in female gender socialization. Gender Socialization This section begins with a discussion of the appropriate terminology for and the difference between sex and gender socialization. This is followed by a review of the literature on the socialization of males and females. Finally, the impact of socialization on feminism and racism is discussed. General Definition. There has been a great deal of debate as to the proper label for gender and sex role socialization. A special section in the March, 1993 issue of Psychological Science was devoted to the difference between SEX SOC det is) (Ka‘ int: cape Crav as t gen: role 47 sex and gender and the appropriate labels for sex and gender socialization. The term gender is used to signify the social determination that a person is either male or female. Gender is assigned at birth on the characteristics of the genitalia (Katz, 1979; Worrell, 1981). Sex, although often used interchangeably with gender, often refers to reproductive capabilities and sexuality. Gentile (1993) and Unger and Crawford (1993) distinguish between the terms sex and gender as biologically and culturally based, respectively. Given these distinctions in the terms sex and gender, it can be concluded that sex role socialization refers to socialization regarding differences in biological functioning; whereas gender role socialization refers to socialization for cultural differences in roles and expectations. The current study focuses on the culturally based socialization for African American females and not biologically based differences and therefore the term "gender role socialization" will be used rather than "sex role socialization". Socialization of Males and Females. Part of the socialization that occurs in the home is gender role socialization. Gender roles influence choices, values, and behaviors throughout a person's life (Ruble, 1984). Parents expect socially mature and gender-appropriate behavior from their children (Brooks-Gunn & Zahaykevich, 1989). Block (1983), in her literature review, concludes that the Easel and 48 psychological context in which males and females develop differs. Gender role socialization begins at a very young age. Even infants are treated differently based on their sex (Huston, 1983; Ruble, Provenzano, & Luria, 1974). Some evidence also suggests that male and female infants also behave differently and possibly elicit different treatment from their male and female caregivers (Fitzgerald, 1977). Early conceptualizations of gender roles considered them as one continuum with masculinity at one pole and femininity at the other (cf. Constantinople, 1973). By this definition, to be high on masculinity means also to be low on femininity. The converse is also true. In the mid 1970s and early 19805, researchers have envisioned masculinity and femininity as separate continua (Bem, 1975; Bem, 1978; Spence, 1984; Spence, Helmreich & Stapp, 1975). According to this conceptualization, an individual can be high on both masculine and feminine measures, low on both, or high on one and low on the other. This conceptualization leads to four categories of gender role development. First, undifferentiated people score low on both the masculine and feminine measures. Second, feminine people score high on feminine measures, but low on masculine measures. Third, masculine people score high on masculine measures and low on feminine measures. Last, androgynous people score high on measures of both masculinity and femininity. tha pre dCCe faVo 49 Androgyny was believed to produce healthier individuals than the other categories because one's behavior is presumably not constricted by gender roles. "...[FJor fully effective and healthy human functioning, both masculinity and femininity must each be tempered by the other, and the two must be integrated into a more balanced, a more fully human, a truly androgynous personality. An androgynous personality would thus represent the very best of what masculinity and femininity have each come to represent, and the negative exaggerations of masculinity and femininity would tend to be canceled out" (Bem, 1978). Although the concept of androgyny was initially well accepted in the psychological literature, it began to lose favor in the late 19805 (O'Heron & Orlofsky, 1990; Orlofsky & O'Heron, 1987). Being androgynous was more beneficial for females than for males. Males who scored high on masculinity scales or scored high on androgyny scales were equally well adjusted (O'Heron & Orlofsky, 1990). However, females who scored high on femininity scales were less well adjusted. Those females who were more masculine or androgynous were better adjusted. Androgynous and masculine type males and females scored similarly on adjustment. For female gender roles, Ruble (1984) finds there are two poles. The positive pole is that women are regarded as roll pro the h o shine 50 mother figures, worthy of worship. The negative pole is that women are inferior at their core. She explains that even the positive pole is inherently negative, because placing a woman on a pedestal confines her to an essentially passive, powerless, and therefore subordinate role. Worrell (1981) argues that heuristic theories of gender role development must have three components. First, they provide for a progression of gender role development across the life span (does not have an endpoint). Secondly, they provide equal treatment of male and female development (the psychological constructs are gender-free). In addition, they accommodate individual differences in development (flexibility). Worrell (1981) concludes that theories must be able to account for the strong stereotyping which occurs during middle childhood, greater flexibility and individual differences in female gender role socialization, and the impact of exposure to multiple sources of appropriate gender behavior. Socialization, Feminism, and Racism. The role for women in the family has been defined extensively in the human development literature. For the mainstream culture, the primary role of women is to care for children and the family. They may work or have careers, but they plan to either quit or work part time while their children are presdhool age (O'Connell, Betz, & Kurth, 1989). Although this is changing, it was believed that women did not want succe succe. AlthO' emple littl. were ' achie 51 success and careers as men did and that women were afraid of success because it may bring unhappiness (Matlin, 1987). Although no longer true today, it was believed that women's employment was not to support the family, but to provide little extras or luxuries that the family wanted, but which were not necessary. Because of the differential emphasis placed on achievement and independence between males and females, gender role socialization could influence social mobility, particularly if a woman subscribes to female gender role socialization. In middle to upper middle class European- American adolescents, females who rated themselves as similar to their fathers were higher achievers (Hock & Curry, 1983). There was no relationship between achievement and perceiving oneself as similar to mothers. Additionally, no relationship was found between perceiving oneself as similar to either parent and achievement for males. Wolfe and Betz (1981) examined the relationship between occupational preference and gender-role orientation in female, midwestern college freshmen (ethnicity and SES undefined). They found that women who subscribed more to masculine gender role orientation were more likely to chose nontraditional careers; whereas women who subscribed more to feminine, androgynous, or undifferentiated gender role orientations were more likely to chose traditionally female careers . EVE ove han cha the fee; She Vote at } Cont 52 European-American women are entering the work force in ever increasing numbers. This has challenged the perception of the female role. Based on the traditional role for women (being at home taking care of the children and house), women who have careers often suffer from role conflict and role strain (Matlin, 1987). Role strain occurs when a woman feels overwhelmed by the amount of responsibilities she must handle. In this case, it is the need to competently meet the challenges of her career or job in addition to caring for the home and the children. Role conflict occurs when a woman feels that the activities in her life conflict with the role she believes she should fulfill. This occurs most often for women in the work force who really feel that they should be at home caring for the children. Her work role is then in conflict with her role as wife and mother. Zinn (1991), in her theoretical paper on the impact of race and feminism on family theories, discusses deviations from the dominant notions of masculinity and femininity in ethnic minority cultures and how these deviations have been blamed for the lack of social mobility within these populations. It is having strong male and female roles in the African American community and more patriarchal roles in the Latino community that has been blamed for the social position of many of the families in these populations. Iatino and Asian females are socialized in a more tr '0) ‘COUQ 4n MISCO‘ :5!» sat) Child: 53 traditionally feminine manner than African American females (Almquist, 1991; Zinn, 1991). Socialization in African American Families How do Children Learn to be African American. As in other families, the African American family also is the starting point for socialization for children. However, the African American family must also prepare its children to deal with contradictions in society with regard to their worth and esteem. Often when European American children go to school, the socialization that began at home is continued and strengthened. More often the curriculum and environment is consistent with their environment at home. However, for African American children, it is often the case that the socialization of self worth and esteem that began at home is undermined at school (Comer, 1993). This can be true regardless of the percentage of ethnic minority students in the school (Smith, 1989). Even schools with a large percentage of ethnic minority students often have a largely European-American administration and teachers. Also, the curriculum in these schools is often still Eurocentric (Comer, 1993). Typically, the first time African American children discover that they are African American is through a negative experience because of racism (Sanchez, 1989). Children understand that there are differences in shades of color 0 differe African from a ‘ Be» PIEpare It is, * sociali: understz World. 2 that of is neces childrer Afr t0 (:0an Hale (15 Prepare EUI'QPEar 54 color of the skin as a perceptual recognition of differences. However, understanding what it means to be African American in America, Sanchez reports, often comes from a negative experience. Because of these factors, African American parents must prepare their children to deal with attacks on their esteem. It is, therefore, important to examine the role of socialization separately in African American families to understand how they prepare their children to exist in the world. This preparation may be similar in some respects to that of middle class European-American families. However, it is necessary to determine where the socialization of children is similar and where it differs. African American families must prepare their children to confront competing demands from the society at large. Hale (1980) asserts that the African American family must prepare its children to function effectively and live among European-American people without becoming "white". The process of teaching African American children to function in two different communities requires an ability to be different people at different times (Greene, 1990a). It requires a duality of socialization without losing a core sense of self. "It is required of Black families that they teach Black children to be aware of and able to imitate the majority culture whether they accept its values or not" (Greene, 1990a, p. 209). Greene further asserts that an add vay dis Soc a b: mail chil chi: inf: Alle thei fami €Ven 55 additional stressor for African American parents is finding ways to prepare their children for racial dangers and disappointments without being overly protective. Socialization within African American families occurs within a broader societal environment that is not compatible with maintaining positive mental health for African-American children. Parents must act as a buffer between their children and society by filtering and interpreting information from society (Thornton, Chatters, Taylor, & Allen, 1990). How do middle class African American families prepare their children to succeed in society? The African American family fosters a sense of itself as participants in the events around them (Jenkins, 1988). Like many families, these families develop, within their children, the ability to set intentions and goals, which have a motivating effect on a child's behavior. These families are different in that African American parents teach their children to envision alternative conceptions of themselves and situations presented to them by society (Jenkins, 1988). The parents teach both sons and daughters that they can have an active impact on life by establishing intentions and goals even if they are at odds with what they perceive from the environment. Teaching children to maintain goals and alternative conceptions of themselves that may counter messages received from society assists them in dealing with the dos believe include from Eu America challen America R_a that ex~ America; Ethnic ( Society between mainsltre the Unit Cdtps. I] iiil‘én the (mite, AfriCan 56 the double standard that some African American mothers believe exist (Greene, 1990b). This double standard includes the belief that certain behaviors are tolerated from European-American children but not from African American children and that African American children are not challenged in the same manner in the classroom as European- American children. Racial Socialization. Racial socialization is an issue that exemplifies all that is unique about the African American experience (Greene, 1990b). Families of other ethnic groups that have attempted to assimilate to this society have also dealt with aspects of racism and conflict between the values of their own culture and those of mainstream America. During World War II, Japanese people in the United States were gathered and sent to relocation camps. The Irish and Italians were discriminated against when they first began immigrating to the United States (Whyte, 1955). However, racism, as it is experienced by African Americans, is by far the most extreme form of discrimination. Almquist (1991) examined labor-market gender inequality among the eleven largest racial and ethnic groups in the United States. Based on 1980 Census track data, she found that among groups with high proportions of immigrants (e.g. Koreans, Cubans, and Asian Indians), many of the men acquired professional training either before or immediately after arriving in the United States. Although this does not mitiga it doe did nc to com destro destru were d T issues {Thorn Parent raisin. They a: or racj d Elmo! for the 57 mitigate all of the detrimental effects of discrimination, it does assist in occupational mobility. African Americans did not come to America at their will and attempts were made to completely separate them from their culture and to destroy their culture. In addition to this attempt at destruction of African American culture, African Americans were denied the opportunity for an education. The relative importance of socialization of racial issues differs greatly from one family to the next (Thornton, Chatters, Taylor, & Allen, 1990). For some parents this is of central concern. They are not only raising an American child, but an African American child. They anticipate that their children will encounter hostile or racist situations. For other parents, racial issues play a minor role. These parents do not prepare their children for the negative impacts from the environment. Research has found that parents who do believe in preparing their children for a racist society believe that less emphasis should be placed on teaching the culture (Peters, 1985). He found that parents placed more emphasis on learning how to cope with prejudice, having pride and self respect, and understanding that fair play is important but not always reciprocated by European-Americans (Peters, 1985). Harrison, Wilson, Pine, Chan, & Buriel (1990) report that parents of successful children stressed ethnic pride, self dev egalitar The mothers race tha that fam orientat discrimi: among up) Orientat; American ascribed ASpg falilies but in ct re96rd tc heriCan a hoe; V.‘ ##— __________l 58 self development, awareness of racial barriers, and egalitarianism in their socialization practices. Thornton et al. (1990) found that African American mothers were more likely to socialize their children about race than were fathers. Bowman and Howard (1985) also found that familial socialization of active rather than passive orientations toward blocked opportunities and racial discrimination is a critical factor for academic success among upwardly mobile African American youth. This active orientation often leads to a separation between an African American child's personal identity and negative aspects ascribed to his or her racial group. Aspects of socialization between African American families and other families in some respects are similar, but in other respects they are different, particularly with regard to racial socialization. However, within African American families socialization may differ based on gender. Socialization of Women in African American Families Overview. Women from all ethnic backgrounds are increasing their roles in their families and communities. Previously, the role for women in the family and community was that of emotional provider for the family and to care for the needs of the family in the home. Today, there is an ever increasing number of women entering the workforce in full time careers and other positions to provide instrum Hernand 1970, 3 vere in Hi: instrum. Althougl African Americar argues t b0th Afr differen (1981) a Paid lab dEfiniti definiti alternat acceptor] socializ f— 59 instrumental support for the family (Anderson, 1988: Hernandez, 1993; Kamerman & Hayes, 1984; Nye, 1974). In 1970, 38.9% of women with children under 18 years of age were in the workforce. This increased to 52.8% in 1980. Historically, African American women have been both instrumental and emotional providers for their families. Although the roles are converging, the traditional roles of African American women differ from those of European— American women (Marshall & Barnett, 1991). Dugger (1991) argues that the differences in the historical experiences of both African American and European-American women result in different responses to gender role prescriptions. Davis (1981) asserts that the experience of slavery and subsequent paid labor allowed for the construction of an alternate definition of womanhood for African American women. This definition included hard work and self reliance. This alternate definition could impact African American women's acceptance of the traditional female gender role socialization. The results from studies examining European-American and African American women's acceptance of traditional female gender roles are mixed. Some researchers have found that African American women were more likely than European- American women to reject these traditional roles (Cherlin & Walters, 1981; Fulenwider, 1980). Other researchers found that African American and European-American women were equally a sacrifice , sample one 1980). Alt from the a American w motherhoodl are very i African Am ”manhood 1 and Perseve Using in the Unit af°rementic attitudes c She fomd t than EurOpg Of the rOle traditional and renal e EuropEan‘An vith regard compete in Aha-1C6“ vo We“ or st 60 equally accepting of the view of women that emphasized self- sacrifice, femininity, and motherhood (Gump, 1975; Hermons, 1980). Although these contradictory findings could be due to sample and measurement differences, they also could result from the alternate definition of womanhood for African American women. This alternate definition does not reject motherhood or self-sacrifice. In fact, these characteristics are very important for African American women. However, African American women may reject a limited definition of womanhood that does not include self sufficiency, hard work, and perseverance. Using a multistage probability sample of adult females in the United States, Dugger (1991) examined the aforementioned competing hypotheses concerning gender role attitudes of African American and European-American women. She found that African American women were more rejecting than European-American women of the dominant culture's view of the roles for women with regard to the women's movement, traditional family, traditional marriage, discrimination, and female gender stereotyping. African American and European-American women were not significantly different with regard to their feelings of women's competence to compete in male dominated situations. However, African American women were more accepting than European-American women of stereotyping of children's gender roles. In Europeal likely * continu. (Aatlin experie America the wor America Caucasi all age COT-Pate 1993). the V0: i°t Ste Centur} partic: COnSta, 61 In a sample of working class African American and European American women, African American women are more likely than European-American women to say that they would continue working even if it was not financially necessary (Matlin, 1987). One of the main differences between the experiences of African American females and European- American females is African American women's experience in the work force (Malson, 1983). Historically, African American women were in the workforce in larger numbers than Caucasian women. In 1870, 49.5% of African American women of all ages and marital statuses were in the labor force compared to 15.5% of Caucasian women (Burgess & Horton, 1993). More than half of the African American women were in the work force before 19103. European-American women did not start working in such numbers until more than a half a century later. For Caucasian women, labor force participation doubled between 1890 and 1960 while remaining constant for African American women (Burgess & Horton, 1993). African American women were more likely to work after marriage and childbirth than were European-American women. While the birth of children signals a break or end to employment for many European-American women, it signals an additional reason to work for African American women. McCray (1980) argues that in times of crises, the African American woman has had to take on both the roles of instrumental and affective provider. These crises are a result I of the . for the family. providi Accordi concern both me econonj idericé family mMerl hueric. to Var neceSS “99am 62 result of both unemployment and underemployment of males and of the absence of the male. Social conditions do not allow for the African American woman to stay home to care for her family. Therefore, part of being a "good" mother includes providing materially for her family as well as emotionally. According to McCray (1980), African American women are more concerned with the adequacy of the total family income from both male and female employment than they are concerned with economic equity with African American men. Since African American men are often unable to earn enough to support the family, because of discrimination and underemployment, motherhood did not become a full time occupation for African American women. McCray (1980) argues that her adaptability to various roles should have been viewed as a strength necessary for survival. Instead it has been used for negatively labeling African American women and blaming them for the plight of African American families, particularly the plight of males. African American Gender Roles. Despite the deficiency of research on female gender socialization within socioeconomic classes other than middle class and ethnic backgrounds other than European-American, Block (1983) summarized from her review of the literature that many gender-related socialization values of mothers and fathers are consistent across socioeconomic levels, educational levels, and cultural backgrounds. Although Block (1983) concluded across soc aspects oi PGOple of Trevino (i determine and actual In ad Source of AOdels of African AI: listed as Robinson ( “mayhem the 1Me 1 includes ‘ suffer lei midwester studied b Very few L socializa socic-(1126 he , socla 63 concluded that gender role socialization is consistent across social class, ethnicity, and education levels, some aspects of gender-role socialization may be different for people of ethnic backgrounds other than European-American. Trevino (1980) found that different cultural backgrounds determine different socialization for achievement motivation and actual achievement differences. In addition to providing different gender messages, the source of the message is also different. Fathers have been models of achievement for European-American females, for,“ African American females, mothers and grandmothers are ii listed as models of strength, endurance, and achievement. Robinson (1983) argues that African American women are androgynous and have been "feminists for centuries". Because the role for women in the African American community includes working and providing for the family, these women suffer less from role conflict (Matlin, 1987). Of the midwestern, middle-age and older, African American women studied by Coleman, Antonucci, Adelmann, and Crohan (1987), very few listed homemaking as their primary social role. Because of this expanded definition of the woman's role in the community and family, it is important to examine the socialization within the family and gender role socialization for African American females separately from the socialization of women of other ethnic backgrounds. 64 Coleman, et al. (1987) examined the impact of marital, parental, work, and gender roles on the psychological health of middle-aged and older African American women. They found that age, health, and family income were related to self esteem in their sample. They discuss possible reasons for some of the contradictory results from research on self esteem in African Americans. In comparing themselves to European-Americans, African Americans rate themselves as having equal levels of self esteem as European—Americans in areas of family roles and lower than European-Americans in areas such as occupation. Coleman et al. (1987) reported that African American women rarely compare themselves to European-American women. They compared themselves to African American women in general or to African American women who are like themselves (e.g. professional, divorced, etc.). This allows them to maintain levels of self esteem that are similar to European-Americans (Cross, 1991). There was a higher commitment to work or a career which led to a higher rejection rate of the dominant culture's feelings toward sexuality and family issues for European- American women but not for African American women. African American women without children were the most rejecting of the dominant culture's views of gender roles. There was a significant difference in gender role attitudes between African American women that were married and had children and never married African American women without children. This d. hugger involv compet differ vomen' gender 1 ethnic daughi And H' achie Amer) with 3322 65 This difference did not exist for European-American women. Dugger concluded that European-American women's greater involvement in the work force led to similar views on competing in the public arena and work world. However, different historical experiences lead to African American women's greater rejection of the dominant culture's view of gender. In socializing their children, like families of other ethnic groups, African American families prepare their daughters differently for success in this society. Bowman and Howard (1985) examined racial socialization and academic achievement in a national sample of three generation African American families. Their study focused on those families with an African American youth between the ages of 14 and 24. African American daughters reported that racial pride was emphasized by their parents; whereas boys were warned of racial barriers. However, just over one third of the parents did not teach their children anything about race relations (Bowman & Howard, 1985). Racial socialization was found to be related to achievement. Sons and daughters who were warned of racial barriers and dealing with interracial situations received higher grades than students who were not taught anything about relations between African Americans and European-Americans. Harris (1992) finds that families who assist their daughters in identifying and developing solutions contribute to their experienc benefits adolescen given to i ”as about adulthood and Hovar< Ethnic pr. racism in' finds tha‘ elilies): to families. pcrk they Afri and Chi) d We had roles. he Oriantat: integrat. heritan Afri Can , 13mm States. diverse emailsis 66 to their sense of control and understanding of their experiences. The outcome of confronting racism and sexism benefits both the individual and the family. Both adolescents and college students stated that the best advice given to them about their future as African American females was about the adversity that they would encounter during adulthood and how to succeed despite the adversity. Bowman and Howard (1985) state that females are socialized to have ethnic pride, but are not socialized as to what to do when racism interferes with accomplishing goals. Greene (1990b) finds that African American daughters are socialized to expect to work and to take care of themselves and their families. They are encouraged to think about the type of work they want to do and plan for the education it requires. African American women have been laborers, homemakers, and childrearers. This leads to the assumption that they have had experience if not success in handling multiple roles. Malson (1983) asserts that the gender role orientation of African American women should be more integrated based on the previous experiences of African American women. Malson (1983) examined the implications of African American women's experiences for gender role ideology. She interviewed women from an eastern United States' city. They ranged in age from 20-55 and came from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. Based on her descriptive analysis, gender role orientation of African American women vas mc compor vould gave v their to the Americ both r indica and n: Sump ( ideolc not me she a: undere 67 was more of an integration of traditional and nontraditional components. Eighty percent of her sample reported that they would rather be working than be at home. The reasons they gave were a need for independence, an enjoyment of having their own money, and the financial advantage working brings to their families. Malson (1983) also found that African American women tend to have similar scores on measures of both nurturance and self actualization or work. This indicates that African American women see both traditional and nontraditional traits as appropriate for their position. Gump (1980) argues that African American women's gender role ideology needs to be examined based on their own experiences not measured against the European—American female yardstick. She argues that the "traditional role, as it is generally understood probably does not exist for black women" (p.353). Based on the African American woman's role in her family, many myths have been created. One of these myths is that of the "Black Matriarchy“ (Collins, 1990; McAdoo, 1988b; Moynihan, 1965). According to this myth, African American women dominate the family and community at the expense of African American men. Because the role of the African American woman in her community did not conform to that of the European-American middle class women in her community, some researchers (e.g. Moynihan, 1965) blamed the economic and structural deterioration of the African American community on the activities of the African American voman. Sh such that 1991) . The Purposes, blame Afr: African has good v role of ti explain ec D0191 app: daughters. as a Dowel iterican , patriarch,- Iaggressi‘ abandOned stigmatiz HOVever' . has traai In the he me: ptt W 7 ”a mothers d 68 woman. She, supposedly, emasculated the males and made it such that they could not succeed economically (Collins, 1991) . The image of the "Black Matriarchy" served several purposes, according to Collins (1990). First, it was used to blame African American women for continued poverty in the African American community. Based on the belief that if one has good values from home they can rise above poverty, the role of the African American woman in her family was used to explain economic and class subordination. She was unable to model appropriate gender behavior for both her sons and daughters. The image of the "Black Matriarch" was also used as a powerful symbol to both African American and European- American women at a time when women were challenging the patriarchal system (Collins, 1990). Regardless of ethnicity, "aggressive, assertive women are penalized-they are abandoned by their men, end up impoverished and are stigmatized as being unfeminine" (Collins, 1990, p.75). However, McAdoo (1988b) argues that the power relationship has traditionally been shared in African American families. In the next section, some of the types of things mothers attempt to pass onto their daughters are discussed. What Do African American Mothers Want for their Dau hters? Values. European-American mothers and African American mmthers differ somewhat in terms of what they want for their daughter American educated occupati Higginbc gender 1' These re females Career. ambiVale Whe to pegs mentione (Dill, 1 are deti ethuic j Alvin (1 parents evidenc, think it teachinc Af) Pass do» I “”9100, DA A ‘SSEd d 69 daughters. Using life history interviews of southern African American and European-American women who were college educated and were working full time in "middle-class" occupations (managers, professionals, or administrators), Higginbotham and Weber (1992) examined the role of race and gender in the subjective experience of upward mobility. These researchers found that mothers of European-American females stressed education, but did not stress having a career. Both parents in European-American families reacted ambivalently to their daughter's interest in a career. When African American mothers are asked what they want to pass down to their children, one of the first things they mentioned was a good set of values and to be a "good" person (Dill, 1980). Many of the values in the mainstream culture are detrimental to the development of a positive esteem, ethnic identity, and achievement in general (McAdoo, 1981). Alwin (1990) examined the values that African American parents passed onto their children from 1958-1983. He found evidence for an increasing trend for teaching children to think for themselves and a decreasing trend for simply teaching children to obey rules. African Americans have an oral tradition and tend to Pass down values through proverbs (Jackson & McAdoo, 1991; McAdoo, 1989). Many of the proverbs or values that are passed down to children fall into two categories (McAdoo, 1989). The first pertains to having a strong work ethic, self-e persev catego illust as to . this h. rememb. tate 1 grandmc IElatic as haVe fc (Willie Strive a1so st from th Class f °f the the Val “ming 1991) . familie that th 557031. educatic k SCI.001 a r——_ 70 self-esteem, and assertiveness. The second one pertained to perseverance and the mother's role in the family. These two categories of values passed on to African American children illustrate the importance of moving ahead and persevering so as to reach a higher level than the parents. Also, after this higher level is reached, parents want their children to remember their heritage. Bell-Scott and Guy-Sheftall (1991) state that skills and values are transmitted from grandmother to mother to granddaughter through their relationships and other associations. Aspirations. Aspirations that African American families have for their children differ along social class and race (Willie, 1986). Willie claims that working class families strive to be well-fed, well-clothed, and well-housed. They also strive to own their own homes. These aspirations differ from those of middle class families because for working class families less emphasis is placed on the monetary value of the home. Working class families are less concerned with the value of the home, they are concerned more simply with owning a home. Lower income families, according to Huttman (1991), aspire to have high quality housing. Middle class families place a greater emphasis on education. They stress that their children go to college immediately after high school. They plan more for their children's college education by steering them towards math and sciences in high school and saving money early in the child's life for college tend tc childre She als jobs ma educatj Hl America Accord; the W Protem Tesean unreal, Villin: do not gangs . 71 college. Huttman (1991) finds that families of lower incomes tend to have lower educational aspirations for their children than do working class and middle class families. She also found that working class parents in semi—skilled jobs mainly want their children to get a high school education. Huttman (1991) states that the research on African American mother's aspirations for their children is mixed. According to Huttman, some researchers assert that although the mothers may have high aspirations, they attempt to protect their children from disappointment; other researchers assert that aspirations are very high, maybe unrealistically high. Lower income families are reportedly willing to make very high sacrifices so that their children do not have to grow up in communities that are infested with gangs and drugs. Several studies have examined the aspirations of lower and working class families. Dill (1980) conducted a study of African American women who worked as domestics; she assessed their aspirations for their children. The vast majority wanted their children not to work in the same capacity that they did, but to get an education and a good job. These women thought that their children had a better chance than they did. Although these women recognized that racism still persisted, they hoped that opportunities would eventually Open up and they wanted their children to be prepared, £71 72 educated, and therefore able to take advantage of these opportunities when they arise. Huttman (1991) reports that education is one thing that African American parents can agree is important for their children's success. Edwards and Polite (1992) report that parents stress to children that other things, like civil rights, can be taken away from them, but education can never be taken away. Collins (1991) reports that African American women stress that their mothers wanted them to be independent and resourceful, and to get their education before settling down and getting married. Achievement. How do mothers stress achievement? Hale (1980) argues that mothers stress a strong motivation to achieve in their children. "Black parents have always stressed to their children the importance of excelling European—American children in behavior and performance because falling short would reflect unfavorably upon the group" (p.83). Dawkins (1981) found no gender differences in African American adolescents educational aspirations. Higginbotham and Weber (1992) found that virtually no African American women stated that their parents stressed marriage as the primary goal in life, but a significantly greater number of European-American women did. According to Higginbotham and Weber, African American women face a different reality. African American women are socialized to be the mot the edu do are sit in chi the. the: daut cur) file of n Stud must £2? /:: reSe fie} 73 be self sufficient and not expect that marriage will provide them with financial stability. Hill (1972) asserts that a strong achievement motivation within African American families often comes from the emphasis the mother places on the importance of education. These mothers tell their children that they must do better than their European-American counterparts if they are going to succeed in the educational setting and in other situations. However, Astone and McLanahan (1991) argue that in order to have an impact on the mobility of their children, not only must parents hold high aspirations for their children, but they must be effective in transmitting these aspirations to their children. Like many mothers, African American mothers want their daughters to have good values and to strive to achieve. The current study will explore how the mother-daughter relationship and other family members assist in the success of middle class African American women. Before designing a study there are important methodological considerations that must be addressed, as indicated in the following section. Current Methodologies This section begins with an overview of the presence of research on African Americans in the key journals in the field of psychology. Included in this discussion are trends in publishing research on African Americans in general, biz pre of of the pro not alo Ame: bee] othe desc dang Gene 3.6% issu repo FUN and ; 5.2% t0 A1 pUblj Amerj F————L about African American women specifically, some of the 74 biases present in the literature that is published, and the present need for empirical research on more diverse samples of African Americans. This review is follow by a discussion of the importance of quality and type of methodology used when studying African American families. Some of the problems researchers face when using instruments that are not valid and reliable for African American are discussed along with some considerations and possible solutions. More Empirical Research is Needed. Although the African American family and the mother-daughter relationship have been described and discussed extensively in fiction and other literature, there has been little empirical research describing the influence of the family and the mother- daughter relationship on mobility or African Americans in general (Wade-Gayles, 1984). Graham (1992) found that only 3.6% of journal articles in six APA journals addressed issues of African Americans between 1970 and 1989. She also reported a downward trend in the number of articles published when comparing five-year intervals between 1970 and 1989. In the five-year period between 1970 and 1974, 5.2% of the articles in the journals she reviewed pertained to African Americans: however only 2.0% of the articles published between 1985 and 1989 pertained to African Americans. Zalk (1991) reviewed 432 articles in fourteen APA journals in 1990. Gender was not mentioned in 40% of these 75 articles and 65% did not mention ethnicity of the subjects. Brown, Goodwin, Hall, and Jackson (1985) reviewed psychology of women textbooks for coverage of issues of women of diverse ethnic backgrounds. They found that 18 of 28 textbooks gave no reference to African American women or only mentioned them in a restricted fashion (e.g. matriarchy or relation to the feminist movement). For the journals Psychology of Women Quarterly and Sex Roles between 1980 and 1990, only small percentages of the articles focused on African American women (3.9% and 2.7%, respectively) (Johnson, 1991; Sachs, 1991). In each case, most of these articles appeared in special issues. Much of the research on African Americans either is not done or simply is not published in the key journals in the fields of psychology and human development. Peery and Adams (1981) examined the qualitative ratings of journals in human development. Their goal was to determine which journals were viewed as the most significant by those studying human development, which were most visible, and which were deemed as having the most scientific credibility. They found that Child Development, Developmental Psychology, SRCD Monographs, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Human Development, and the Journal of Genetic Psychology were the most visible and credible journals focusing on human development in the field. When this researcher examined the 1990-1992 volumes of Developmental Psychology, she found only one article that per on of can Afr dee cre fre to 1 some Ame] r936 Amer Wher rese Afri Afri COns Samp feSe. Deve. 76 pertained to African Americans as participants. No articles on African Americans were published in the 1990-1992 volumes of Human.Developmentfi. From these findings several things can be concluded: (1) much of the research conducted on African Americans is not being presented in the journals deemed by the field as the most visible and scientifically credible; (2) the research is not being conducted as frequently as it should be; and (3) researchers are failing to describe the ethnicity of their samples and therefore some of the research that actually included African Americans in the sample is not included in the body of research on African Africans. In addition to the relative invisibility of African Americans in research in the field of human development, when African Americans are the focus of the study, often the research does not consider issues of diversity within the African American population. The research often compares African Americans with other ethnic groups without considering the diversity within the African American sample. McLoyd and Randolph (1985) examined the trends in research on African American children as published in Child Development from 1936 to 1980. During these years only seven articles, or 5% of all articles on African Americans, addressed what the authors defined as middle class African Americans; whereas 82 articles, or 52% of these articles, stu SOC tha tha cla in' psy. soc. Ame: foc1 soc: to t Afrj anj cone qUal qUan lite arti Grdh Comp Aher fail 77 studied low income populations. In 21% of the articles, the social class of the sample was unspecified. Not only is there a need for research to be conducted that focuses on aspects of the African American population that have been ignored in the past, such as the middle class, but this research needs to be made available to those in the field. Despite the relative lack of literature in the field of psychology on African Americans, other fields, such as sociology, have created a base of literature on African Americans and the family. However, the field of sociology focuses on the development, organization, and functioning of society, social relations, and institutions. It is important to turn to psychology to address socialization within the African American family as it applies to characteristics of an individual or subgroup of individuals. Methodological Considerations. Another important consideration in the study of African American women is the quality of the methodology. In addition to the small quantity of published articles in the psychological literature discussed previously, the methodology of these articles is often less than desirable as well. For example, Graham (1992) finds that many of the articles focused on comparisons between African Americans and European— Americans, confound ethnic and socioeconomic status, and fail to report the race of the experimenter. Many of these art met Ame Afr in and Afr res. Ame: lite that edUC Amer fema to A deSc only femaj Broo] Amer: hm Only under are t 78 articles also did not discuss the implications of these methodological problems. The problem of the lack of research on African Americans and its questionable quality is even greater for African American females. African American women become lost in the studies of both women and African Americans. Smith and Stewart (1983) assert that when researchers have studied African Americans, they have usually studied men and when researchers have studied women they usually mean European- American women. Smith (1982), in her review of the literature on African American adolescent females, stated that many researchers make the erroneous assumption that the educational and socialization problems faced by European- American females can be generalized to African American females as well. Only a modest amount of research pertains to African Americans in general, but an even smaller portion describes the lives of African American women. Perhaps the only exception to the lack of research on African American females is in the area of teen pregnancy. The work of Brooke-Gunn and Furstenberg was based on samples of African American teenagers (Brooks-Gunn & Furstenberg, 1986; Furstenberg, 1971; Furstenberg, 1980). However, by studying only "problems" of African Americans, it is difficult to understand the full range of normative development. If we are to understand the lives of African American women, there 79 needs to be a greater focus on the issues involved in the development of African American women. Before initiating research, validity and reliability of methodology needs to be established. Instruments and techniques need to be designed or revised to adequately assess aspects of the lives of African American women. Graham (1992) recommends, in addition to reporting complete descriptions of the method used, including race of the experimenter and SES of the participants. Also researchers need to be more open to new methodologies. She argues that journals should be more accepting of "well-conducted field investigations of a particular African American population..." (p. 638). Collins (1989) suggests several methods for assessing aspects of the life of the African American woman. She stresses using multiple sources of information. Researchers should use qualitative methods in addition to or sometimes in the place of quantitative methods. She asserts that the value of anecdotal information should not be dismissed. Anecdotal information is very important especially in the initial stages of research. Anecdotal information provides a foundation for developing appropriate research questions and instruments. This information can be obtained by using open ended questions that are not necessarily analyzed for the Purposes of a particular study, but to allow participants to discuss issues that are important to them individually. fa: is re: ana won Afr yea of as out Pla. 5011: pre: com attl desc OCCU 0f H1 Stud deSil 80 These responses can be used to guide future research questions and concepts. The information gained in this fashion cannot be used on its own as empirical data until it is properly tested using a representative sample. Lyke (1983) provides an example of this type of research. In order to assess discrimination and coping, she analyzed oral history data on the lives of African American women who made significant contributions to the lives of African American people and who were over the age of 70 years. She found that within this group of women, a number of situational and personal factors influenced their perception and abilities to cope with discrimination, such as the women's perceptions of their control over the outcome, the perception of the source of the problem, and place of employment for most of their working years. The source of the problem was defined as either individual prejudice or institutional or societal problems. Perceived control was defined by identifying the locus of control attributed by the individuals. The place of employment was described by the racial composition of the work place and occupational status. Colby and Damon (1992) also demonstrated the usefulness f more qualitative and ethnographic techniques for the tudy of moral commitment. They interviewed people esignated as "moral exemplars" and summarized the lives of these it the com: To assassin American quantita' African ; role of 1‘ Middle c1 basis of class bar the Parti exPectati involveme dafighter relations “9%; There middle Cla mandolph that has f there may when 90mm to relatio: (Ladner, l? 81 these individuals and the influences of their experiences on the commitments and work that they had done for others. To address the need for more appropriate methods for assessing many of the issues important to the African American family, the current study will develop a quantitative measure of "Socialization and Achievement for African American Females" (SAAF) and use it to examine the role of the mother-daughter relationship in upward mobility. Middle class women will be assessed and compared on the basis of whether they come from a middle class or a working class background. In addition to demographic information, the participants will be asked questions pertaining to the expectations their parents had for them and their parents involvement in their education, career issues, mother- daughter relationship, interactions with other kin, social relations, and socialization with regard to race-relations. Research Questions There is a lack of research on socialization within middle class African-American families (Graham, 1992; McLoyd & Randolph, 1985; Wade-Galyes, 1984; Zalk, 1991). Research that has focused on African-American families has found that there may be different patterns in African-American families when compared to families of other ethnic groups pertaining to relations with kin (Stack, 1974), racial socialization (Ladner, 1978; McAdoo, 1983; McAdoo, 1988); social relations (Comer-E: parental related t there is differenc important African-A literatur research Does Anerican ' Class? DO 51 Class Afr; social Cla Does preparatic Do A1 Parents: 6 Vary as a theSe WOme Is th preparatio 82 (Coner-Edwards & Edwards, 1988; Edwards & Polite, 1992), parental aspirations (Dill, 1980; Huttman, 1991); and issues related to careers (Higginbotham & Weber, 1992). Since there is evidence for between group differences and differences based on social class on these domains, it is important to explore within group differences among the African-American population. Based on the review of the literature, the current study will address the following research questions: Does racial socialization of middle class African American women differ as a function of parental social class? Do social relations and kin interactions of middle class African American women differ as a function of the social class of the woman's parents? Does the perception of the quality of their career preparation differ by the social class of their parents? Do African American women's perception of their parents' expectations for them and involvement in education vary as a function of the social class environment in which these women were reared? Is the mother-daughter relationship related to career preparation, parental expectations or racial socialization? mm Ques African A thirty. O S_D=9.29 y rate. Bec nailing 1 women may impossibl. when inte: to reCogn; S°1icitec1 participat °f the ent Women. The n SheioQCOHO range of $ SamDle rat ”a“ (82. class (11. Chapter 2 Methods and Procedures Participants Questionnaires were distributed to 1209 middle class African American women, all of whom were over the age of thirty. One hundred eighty-two women (mean age 44.26 years, §Q=9.29 years) returned their surveys for a 15.1% return rate. Because some women may have appeared on more than one mailing list or belonged to more than one organization, some women may have received more than one questionnaire. It was impossible to control for this duplication. In addition, when interpreting the results of this study, it is important to recognize that approximately 85% of those who were solicited to participate in the study chose not to participate. Therefore, the sample may not be representative of the entire population of middle—class African-American women. The women who comprise the sample had a mean Duncan's Socioeconomic index of 57.47 (§Q=18.27) EDd a mean salary range of $50,000 to $59,0005.'The vast majority of the sample rated themselves as either middle or upper middle class (82.5%). Some, however, rated themselves as working class (11.5%), lower class (1.1%): and upper class (3-8%)- 83 Their me degree ( = colleg Par organize include: Inc. of 1 Ann Arbo: Arbor am Civil Sea Of 100 8: Schools, Reinvestn Authority Michigan in gainin W The American Biernacki The Show. where For in the sill rESearch 1 84 Their mean education level was greater than a Bachelor's degree (mean = 6.67, §Q=1.02 on a seven point scale where 6 = college graduate and 7 = graduate or professional school). Participants were recruited via various professional organizations in central Michigan. These organizations include: Michigan State University Personnel Office; Links Inc. of Lansing; Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Inc. Lansing and Ann Arbor Chapters; Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority Inc. Ann Arbor and Detroit Chapters; State of Michigan Department of Civil Service; the Lansing Chapter of the National Coalition of 100 Black Women; and teachers from the Flint Community Schools. In addition, the Director of Management and Reinvestment of the Michigan State Housing Development Authority and the Director of Minority Health for the Michigan Department of Public Health assisted the researcher in gaining access to other organizations. EIOQQQUEG The women were contacted through various African American organizations and through the snowball method (cf. Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981; Erikson, 1979; & Trost, 1986). The snowball method of sampling is a sampling technique where participants refer others who may also be interested in the study. These individuals are then contacted by the research team. As women agreed to participate, they were asked if the stud The sample wi larger p: obtain a Mexican-j city's pr predomina adequatel used the to locate is that j individua findings. aCCepted Present 3 required mailings, target p0; referrals the Lansi] the Ratio] offset re< low has e 1 meet the c 85 asked if they know of other women who may be interested in the study. The snowball method has been used to gain access to a sample when the target population is dispersed among a larger population (Welch, 1975). Welch used this method to obtain a Mexican-American sample in Omaha, Nebraska. The Mexican-American population in Omaha was two percent of the city's population. Although some neighborhoods were predominantly Mexican—American, these neighborhoods did not adequately represent the diversity of the population. Welch used the snowball method in conjunction with other methods to locate her sample. One problem with the snowball method is that it may limit sampling to a network of interconnected individuals thereby restricting the generalizability of the findings. In an effort to deal with this bias, Rubin (1976) accepted only one referral per family in her study. The present study used a variety of methods to secure the required sample including the snowball approach, direct mailings, and solicitation of organizations catering to the target population. Unlike Rubin (1976) however, two referrals per participant were accepted because only 6.8% of the Lansing metropolitan area is African-American, far below the national average. Two referrals per participant help to offset recruitment problems that may be associated with a low base rate of middle-class African American women who meet the criteria for inclusion in this region. Tin partici] setting. organize particip contacti principl schedule Prospect Inc of L Arbor). member's Black W01 Michigan: describi, instI'umer enVelope. the Princ contacted other mat A Co Question“, other the] the eXCep1 kicked fil COde numbe 86 The purpose of the study and the requirements for participation were explained by letter or in a group setting. The presidents of each of the previously listed organizations were contacted concerning potential participation of their members. The best method for contacting their members was determined. For example, the principle investigator attended some of the regularly scheduled meetings of some organizations and met with prospective participants and explained the study (e.g. Links Inc of Lansing; Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority Inc. of Ann Arbor). In other cases, organizations provided a list of member's names and addresses (e.g. National Coalition of 100 Black Women; Department of Civil Service, State of Michigan). Individuals recruited by mail were sent a letter describing the study and informed consent, a copy of the instrument to be completed, and a self addressed return envelope. Perspective subjects brought to the attention of the principle investigator by the snowball method were also contacted by letter and sent a copy of the instrument and ther materials. A copy of this letter is in Appendix A. A code number was assigned to each participant. uestionnaires did not contain any identifying information ther than the code number. Individuals were anonymous with he exception that the principle investigator maintained a ocked file containing the master list of participants and ode numbers. This was essential in order to provide feedback to it results and tr arise. This fi accordance wit guidelines (15 Instrument Cor An instru current study. Proposed resea development of Validity. There are of Psychometri and Item ReSpo one, two, or t stressing, and aIlpropriate fol there is a Cor; 1985), Item re: the Set 035 iter assumption that resp0n3e theory opposed to lin] to true ScOreS 87 feedback to individuals expressing interest in the general results and to conduct follow up studies should the need arise. This file will be maintained for five years, in accordance with American Psychological Association guidelines (1983). nst e o '0 An instrument was developed for the purposes of the current study. It assessed six topics related to the proposed research questions. This section describes the development of this instrument and its reliability and validity. There are at least two basic approaches to development of psychometric instruments. These are Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory. Item response theory is based on one, two, or three parameter models: item difficulty, guessing, and item discrimination. These models are most appropriate for achievement, ability tests, or tests where there is a correct response (Hambleton, & Swaminathan, 1985). Item response theory is based on the assumption that the set of items measures a single common trait, an assumption that is difficult to meet. In addition, item response theory links actual items to the true score as opposed to linking test scores (based on more than one item) to true scores. Classical continuously 1 Hambleton & Jc It is less 51:: only necessary it is, is star. Classical test Because the la are multifacet Classical Test more useful wh right and wron or Wrong answe T0 develc: “sea on Crock. (1993), They a: following Sect; categories or 1 each was define topic area was 88 Classical test theory has been applied and researched continuously for over sixty years (Gulliksen, 1950: Hambleton & Jones, 1993; Lord, 1952; Lord & Novick, 1968). It is less stringent than item response theory in that it is only necessary to assume that the factor structure, whatever it is, is standard across parallel forms and samples. Classical test theory links test scores to true scores. Because the latent traits that were assessed in this study are multifaceted, instrument development was based on Classical Test Theory. In addition, item response theory is more useful when developing tests of ability when items have right and wrong answers. This instrument will not have right or wrong answers. Therefore, classical test theory was used. To develop this instrument, five steps were followed based on Crocker and Algina (1986) and Hambleton and Jones (1993). They are listed first and then described in the following section. First, theoretically legitimated categories or topics were selected from the literature and each was defined. Second, a pool of items relevant to each topic area was generated. Third, expert raters (African- American psychology professors and graduate students) were used to link items to the topic areas based on their moperational definitions. Fourth, criteria for assignment of items to topics were developed to provide external rater ‘validity for the instrument. Finally, a confirmatory and exploratory f priori factor helm questions pro six topic are and involveme: relationships related socia.‘ In reviet addressing ear was necessary Assess the dom 0f the 1115th Anerican famil reliability an African Alteric Study was to d 89 exploratory factor analysis was conducted to test the a priori factors. Topics and Questions. In order to address the research questions proposed in this study it was important to assess six topic areas. These areas include parental expectations and involvement in education, career issues, mother-daughter relationships, kin interactions, social relations, and race— related socialization. y In reviewing the literature, there were no instruments addressing each of the six topic areas noted above. Thus, it was necessary to first develop an instrument that would assess the domains deemed to be important. In addition, many of the instruments developed to assess aspects of African American families do not have published and established reliability and validity information for middle income African American families. Therefore, the first task of this study was to develop a psychometrically sound instrument for liddle-class African American females. A single instrument with scales and dimensions was eveloped because it was believed that the topics assessed ould be aspects of a single construct of socialization. To velop an initial pool of items, questions were adapted om three established instruments. Each item from the tablished instruments were examined to determine if they lated to the defined topic areas. The instruments used ntained both open and closed ended items. The open ended items selects to form Liker rewriting the research. Based on the defined t In many cases instruments a: items were wr; These items wq reflect the re Twenty-t1 Higginbotham a MCA(100 (1982), the remaining for the Purpos in APpehdix B. Select“ becau times of Afric. PerspectinS 0 of Afri°3n~Amey mobile families useful for 1881 interactions . excellent apprc relatiOnship 90 items selected for use in the current study were rewritten to form Likert-type items by rephrasing the statements or rewriting the items based on the results of previous research. Based on the literature, items were written to reflect the defined topics when other questions were not available. In many cases, no items included in the three established instruments assessed the topic areas effectively. Therefore, items were written on areas discussed in the literature. These items were also written in a Likert-type format to reflect the research on the selected topics. Twenty-three of these items were adapted from Higginbotham and Weber (1992), nineteen were adapted from McAdoo (1982), eleven were adapted from Burton (1990), and the remaining thirty-eight items were developed specifically for the purposes of the current study. The items are listed in Appendix B. The above-noted three instruments were selected because they are established and used with many types of African-American families from different perspectives (e.g. single-parent, multigenerational aspects of African-American families, teen parents, and upwardly ‘mobile families). McAdoo's (1982) instrument was most useful for issues of racial socialization and kin interactions. Burton's (1990) instrument provided an excellent approach for assessing the mother-daughter relationship. The Higginbotham and Weber (1992) instrument provided exce pertaining to social relati Higginbo half to three histories of 3 American womei Open and closr Scales: Auton< Coworkers, Di] Race White, F: Gender, Same r Scale, and W0: been Pliblished .40 for Antone Higginbotham reliability co Samegender’ I Different Gend Different Race The reliabilitj We .72. McAdoo's . ended questions Single parent I i . he UllltEd Stat 91 provided exceptional questions and ideas for issues pertaining to career development, parental expectations, and social relationships. Higginbotham and Weber's instrument is a two and one half to three hour interview designed to assess the life histories of middle class African American and European- American women in a mid-western city. It consists of 275 open and closed ended questions and separates into fourteen scales: Autonomy, Clients and Subordinates, Clients, Coworkers, Different Gender, Different Race Black, Different Race White, Friends, Immediate Family Relationships, Same Sender, Same Race Blacks, Same Race Whites, Subordinates Scale, and Work Relationships. Validity measures have not seen published. However, reliability coefficients range from .40 for Autonomy to .90 for Clients and Subordinates {Higginbotham & Robinson, personal communication, 1993). The ‘eliability coefficients were below .63 for five scales: .ame Gender, Immediate Family Relationships, Friends, ifferent Gender, and Autonomy. The reliability for ifferent Race Black and Same Race Black were not reported. e reliability coefficients for the remaining scales were ove .72. McAdoo's instrument consists of both closed and open oded questions and was developed, pilot tested, and used on ngle parent African American mothers in an eastern city in 6 United States. Reliability information on this instrument ha developed, pi their mothers ended and clo: been publishec To deten BXpert raters an operationai Iventy Africa] students were reeks, twelve graduate Studs rate of 60%, .1 Professors and the Profess 01‘s identical 50m Placement of 1 ML Validity, a CI developed for A... ten rate prOdUCed SiXty EXDGCtatiOnS a Is sues, twelVe Kin Intemctio. for Race‘Relat 92 instrument has not been published. Burton's instrument was developed, pilot tested, and used on adolescent mothers, their mothers, and grandmothers. It also included both open ended and closed ended questions. Its reliability has not been published. To determine the assignment of items to topic areas, expert raters were asked to link items to the scale based on an operational definition of the items (see Appendix C). Twenty African American psychology professors and doctoral students were asked to complete this rating. After three weeks, twelve expert raters (four professors and eight graduate students) had returned their forms for a return rate of 60%. There were no differences in responses between professors and graduate students. When analyzed separately, the professors' and graduate students' responses yielded identical solutions in terms of the rater validity and the placement of items to scales. Validity gpd Reliability. To establish external rater validity, a criterion of 83% agreement among raters was developed for an item to be included in a particular scale (i.e. ten raters agree out of twelve). This criterion produced sixty-one questions: seventeen for Parental Expectations and Involvement in Education, four for Career Issues, twelve for Mother—Daughter Relationships, six for Kin Interactions, eight for Social Relations, and fourteen for Race-Related Socialization. Once the items were re the items and scale, the co operational d This reduced Because the Career Is EXploratory i was reduced t- Pumber of ite: t0 75% for tin the number of is in APpendi: in Table 1, rater Validity manner dP—Scrit and other psyc dammed aft In additi PrestiOns Were instrument had asking about t 0 O CCllpat 10m in d . nd neighborho 93 Once the external rater validity was established the items were reviewed again for face validity. After reviewing the items and the operational definition of Social Relations scale, the content of one question did not reflect the operational definition and it was removed from the scale. This reduced the number of items on that scale to seven. Because the 83% criterion produced only four items for the Career Issues scale and this is, initially, an exploratory instrument that will be revised, the criterion was reduced to 75% for this scale only. This increased the number of items from four to eight. Reducing the criterion to 75% for the other scales would not significantly increase the number of items assigned to that scale. The entire scale is in Appendix D. The source of the items in each scale is in Table 1. Description of Scales. For each of the scales, external rater validity and face validity were established in the manner described above. Internal consistency of each scale and other psychometric properties of each scale were determined after the data were collected. In addition to the scales mentioned above, demographic questions were asked. The Demographic section of the instrument had forty-four questions. It contains questions sking about the participants' marital status, education, ccupation, income, family composition, parents' occupation, nd neighborhood diversity. Seventeen of these questions Table—1' The scale Demographics current McAdoo ( Hiooinbo web PEIES* current Higginbo Web .____________ US enrrent ngginbO' Webl “_________. nus Current 1 McAdoo (. ngginboi Webt \ AME Burton . McAdoo (3 \ hS McAdoo (1 88 Current 5 Higginbot Webe 'rar Relatedasoci ectations (AIS. 'a zatio ). Socral Relatizn: 94 gggagule, The sources of the items for each scale. £3<=ale Number of questions from source [Deamographics Current Study 19 McAdoo (1982) 17 Higginbotham & Weber (1992) 8 PEIES* Current Study 9 Higginbotham & Weber (1992) 8 (:15 Current Study 7 Higginbotham & Weber (1992) 1 lRRSS Current Study 4 McAdoo (1982) 8 Higginbotham & Weber (1992) 1 MDRS Burton (1990) 11 McAdoo (1982) 1 K18 McAdoo (1982) 6 SRS Current Study 3 Higginbotham & Weber (1992) 4 'ParcntiI’Expcctationc and Involvement in Education Scalc4fPETESTT_C3E=;?_T;;E;;_SE:I=_TC133; Race- Rclatcd Socialization Scale (RRSS); Mother-Daughter Relationship Scale (HDRS); Kin Interaction Scale (KIS); Social Relations Scale (SR8). were adapted Weber ( 1992) this study. 1 in Appendix 1 111% Scale (PEIES) assess parent and parental Participant a the items we: The remaining study. about the par f°r Career , m compensation £ and their eXpe adapted frOm I original with fourteen item Preparation th and about Afri Participants ' shoald be rais 95 were adapted from McAdoo (1982), eight from Higginbotham and Weber (1992), and nineteen were written specifically for this study. A codebook for the demographic questionnaire is in Appendix E. The Parental Egpectations and Involvement in Education cale (PEIESl. This seventeen item scale was designed to ssess parental involvement in the participant's schooling nd parental expectations for academic achievement for the articipant as well as the participant's siblings. Eight of he items were adapted from Higginbotham and Weber (1992). he remaining nine items were designed specifically for this :tudy. The Career Issues Scale (CIS). Eight questions ask bout the participants' career motivations; their priorities or career, marriage, and children; their feelings about ampensation and advancement in their current occupation; 1d their expectations about family and career. One item was lapted from Higginbotham and Weber (1992) and seven are 'iginal with the current study. The Race-Related Socialization Scale (RRSS). This urteen item scale assesses participants' perception of the eparation they received from their parents about racism 3 about African American subculture. It also assesses rticipants' opinions of how African American children auld be raised. Eight of the items were adapted from McAdoo (1982 and four we: M twelve item Burton (1990 assesses fee values that ‘ the frequenc: were analyzec in responses evaluating he included bio] l991811 ad0ptic Participant 1 neither biolo 1981). measures the 1 relatives, am from MCAdOo (1 M dSSESSes defilOg a nd 335°Ciates chcmcteristic grown Up , Thre. 96 McAdoo (1982), one item from Higginbotham and Weber (1992), and four were developed specifically for the current study. The Mother-Daughter Relationship Scale (MDRS). This twelve item scale contains eleven items which were from Burton (1990) and one item from MCAdoo (1982). This scale assesses feelings that the participant has for her mother, alues that the participant attributes to her mother, and he frequency of current mother-daughter contacts. Results ere analyzed to determine whether there are any differences 'n responses as a function of whether the participant was -valuating her mother or a surrogate mother. Mothers .ncluded biological mothers as well as those acquired via .egal adoption. Surrogate mothers included everyone who the articipant identifies as a functional mother but who is either biological nor legally adoptive (Pearce & McAdoo, 981). The Kin Interactions Scale (KISL. This six item scale aasures the participants' sense of obligation to her alatives, and the amount of support she has received from er relatives while growing up. All six items were adapted om McAdoo (1982). The Social Relations Scale (SR8). This seven item scale sesses demographic information about the subject's friends d associates, how she met these people, and how aracteristics about her friends have changed as she has awn up. Three items were developed specifically for the current stud: Higginbotham The que: Achievement : determined 1:] suit the sec} true/false sc “mostly false calculated by Scores were 2 "Mostly Tmer IIlinimum and I: listed in Tat Cudm T0 reduc meets. the undergradUate backgrmmd in the tYpe of d copies of the socialiZation aspeCtS of so. Potential see: sample (Nesti, against a cod i 97 current study. The remaining four were adapted from Higginbotham and Weber (1992). The questionnaire is entitled "Socialization and Achievement in African American Females" (The SAAF). It was determined that a closed ended Likert-type format would best suit the scope of this study. The scale is a four point true/false scale, consisting of "true," "mostly true," "mostly false," and "false." The scale scores were calculated by adding the score for each item in that scale. Scores were assigned in the following manner: "True"=4, "False"=1. The "Mostly True"=3, "Mostly False"=2, and minimum and maximum scores and the range for each scale are listed in Table 2. Coding To reduce potential race and gender of experimenter effects, the scorers were African-American female undergraduate research assistants. They were given background information about the purpose of the study and the type of data to be collected. The scorers were given copies of the codebook for the demographic information and socialization instrument (Appendix E) and trained in all aspects of scoring by the principle investigator. After the potential scorers' questions were discussed, they were given sample questionnaires to be scored. The scores were checked against a codebook by the principle investigator for mmcmm EJEfiXQE EJEflCflZ @DCGK WEWUH xx @HMUW wHOUW mmcommmm ..nuaN/Nm man EON“ @Hmom 2.0va MON mwmcnwtfi mucnw \EUEHXGE \EDEfiCflE $5.5 -N. manNfiv.H 98 . .Ammmv w com mcoH o o wHoo a o no soH ocuo :H :a& .Hmmazc meom mHnmcoHumem sauna H .b H m H . m AmHsv H m .u u sacrumnuoz wHoom wwsme wauoo “AmMHmmv chom soap “memmv onom sewumNHHmHoom toHMHomlmocm “AmHov mosom as ucwEo>Ho>cH cam mcoflumuoomxm Hmucwumme Hm mm s ewH s mam mH em a ewH e mHs on ma NH euH NH was: me mm eH euH eH mmmm em mm m va m mHo It Hm mm 5H enH 5H «mMHma wmcmm Essfixmz EDEHCHE cocoa wEouH e meom ll, wuoom owcommwm mfidm on» Eon“ mason comm new coach cam .Essflxme .ESEHCHE one .N meme accuracy. Er considered t without erro: criterion wa: scorer and s. was calculat. cleaning the scorers and ‘ agreement . miss First, se established, each scale tc degr8e to Whi Because the j Collection, c the a Priori calculatea, Based on 1 exploratory f scales, Adjus were theOreti aCtual Out Com 99 accuracy. Errors were discussed and corrected. A scorer was considered trained after she scored three instruments without error when checked against the codebook. This criterion was reached after scoring five instruments for one scorer and seven for the other. The interrater reliability was calculated prior to resolving discrepancies, merging,and cleaning the data. Discrepancies were discussed by the scorers and the principle investigator until there was agreement. Analysis First, several types of quantitative reliability were established. Cronbach's coefficient alpha was calculated for each scale to determine its internal consistency or the degree to which the items in each scale are correlated. Because the items and scales were established prior to data collection, confirmatory factor analysis was used to verify the a priori scales. Item to scale correlations were also calculated. Based on the results from the confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses, adjustments were made to the scales. Adjustment may be necessitated if poor items must be dropped, items load on different scales, or the number of factors deviates from the number of factors (scales) that were theoretically derived (see results section for the actual outcomes). The data were rescored based on the modified sca.‘ using the so analysis. A median was used to 1 based on Dunc occupation (‘ of women who: participant w those women m the participa the results : 116 in the s: was d‘v’termine Featherman, ; The first between mid d] social Class A“alllsis of \ [2 (SE3 9m“! questions. Sc Social Relatj Mother's and Education Sca between the r 100 modified scales. The research questions were addressed by using the scales that were adjusted based on the factor analysis. A median split established by Mueller and Parcel (1981) was used to divide the sample into two socioeconomic groups based on Duncan's Prestige Scale (TSEIZ) rating of parental «occupation (the women's parents). The first group consisted of women whose parents were considered middle class when the participant was growing up. The second group consisted of 'trnase women whose parents were considered working class when the participant was growing up (as indicated in detail in times results section, there were 66 in the first group and 116 in the second group). Socioeconomic status of parents WEISS determined by Duncan's socioeconomic index (Stevens & Featherman, 1980) . The first five research questions examined differences l3€3tween middle-class African American women based on the sOcial class in which they were reared. A Multivariate AI'lalysis of Variance (MANOVA) using Hotelling's T statistic [:3 (SES groups); 6 (scales on SAAF)] addressed these c3‘~3l€2*.st1'.ons. Scores from the Race-Related Socialization, Sc><=ia1 Relations, Kin Interactions, Career Issues, and ”1‘31ther's and Father's Expectations and Involvement in Ecilactation Scales were the dependent variables. The sixth research question examined the relationship hDQ"tween the participant's perception of the mother—daughter relationship and perceive correlation career prepa positive not feel more pr women who re mothers. A n report a pos feel that th in the workp their mother: A Positiv relationship danghters wh¢ race relatior mothers. A He who reDOI‘t t) relations Whe relationship Finally, a daughter rela indicate that their mothers expectations 101 relationship and career preparation, racial socialization, and perceived parental expectations. A high positive correlation between the mother—daughter relationship and career preparation would mean that women who report a positive mother-daughter relationship also report that they feel more prepared to handle issues in the workplace than women who report a less positive relationship with their mothers. A negative correlation would mean that women who report a positive relationship with their mothers do not feel that they are as adequately prepared to handle issues in the workplace than women who report a relationship with their mothers that is less positive. A positive correlation between the mother-daughter relationship and racial socialization would indicate that daughters who report that they received messages regarding race relations also have a positive relationship with their mothers. A negative correlation would indicate that women who report that they received messages regarding race relations when they were growing do not perceive their relationship with their mother as positive. Finally, a positive correlation between the mother- daughter relationship and parental expectations would indicate that women who report a positive relationship with :heir mothers believe that their parent‘s held very high expectations for them. A negative correlation would indicate :hat women who perceived that their parents held high career and educatic relationship Three Pea calculated t Relationship scales: Race Scale, and P Education Sc From thes were differe SOCialized f. 0f their upb: describe the relationship “as Africar 102 and educational expectations do not report a positive relationship with their mothers. Three Pearson Product Moment Correlations were calculated between scores from the mother-Daughter Relationship scale and scores from each of the following scales: Race-Related Socialization Scale, Career Issues Scale, and Parental Expectations and Involvement in Education Scale. From these analyses, it was determined whether there were differences in how African American females are socialized for achievement as a function of the social class of their upbringing. In addition, this study begins to describe the relationship between the mother-daughter relationship and socialization for achievement in middle- class African American women. Intercoder R There we: coders. Cohe: the instrume: section of t] Proportional exptfitted by ( maximum valuw same rate (v: compfiring the Cate90ries . independent 1) cohen's Kappa 1'00‘ The maj range. I“ additi. Chapter 3 Results I ntercoder Rel iabil ity There were two undergraduate African American female coders. Cohen's (1960) Kappa was calculated for each item in the instrument and each of the items in the demographic section of the instrument. The Kappa statistic is the Proportional increase in coder agreement beyond what can be eXpected by chance. The Kappa statistic can only reach its maximum value when the two coders use the categories at the Same rate (von Eye & Sorensen, 1991) . This was determined by Comparing the percentages across each of the response Categories. For a subset of thirty-five participants, the coders independently scored and coded the questionnaires so that cc’l'len's Kappa statistics could be calculated. The Kappas for the 64 items, which comprise the SAAF, ranged from .90 to 1 - 00. The majority of these items had Kappas of 1.00 (n=47) . The remaining items (n=18) had Kappas in the .90 to 1.00 range. In addition to the 64 items of the SAAF, there were 43 lteIns that comprised the demographic section of the 103 instrument. 1.00. Ninete had Kappas i ranged betwe seem low, hc TSEIZ coding parents and The Dunc: and in twent participants lquments we one case, "C given as a C adininistrati Duncan TSEI Administrato for which th The Principl lOb titles w domestic Wor household" ( PriVate h 0113 householC1 Wo :IHOUSeREeper: 104 instrument. The Kappas for these items ranged from .74 to 1.00. Nineteen of the items had Kappas of 1.00, twelve items had Kappas in the .90s, and the remaining twelve items ranged between .70 and .89. The Kappas for the latter items seem low, however, most of these items represent the Duncan TSEI2 coding for the job titles of the participant, her parents and both sets of grandparents. The Duncan TSEIZ coding booklet has over 800 job titles and in twenty-seven cases the job titles given by the participants were not listed in the coding booklet, so judgments were made by the coders based on job duties. In one case, "Chief, Center for Substance Abuse Services“ was given as a current occupation. Since this is an administrative position in the Department of Public Health a Duncan TSEI score of 61.9 was given for "Health Administrator." Coders were instructed to report job titles for which they made judgments to the principle investigator. The principle investigator established consistent codes for job titles which repeatedly needed judgment. For example, domestic workers could be considered "Housekeepers, private ousehold" (Duncan TSEI code=15.4), "Maids and servants, rivate household" (Duncan TSEI code= 14.7), or private ousehold worker--allocated" (Duncan TSEI code=13.8). 'Housekeepers, private household" (Duncan TSEI code=15.4) as used for coding domestic workers in the current study. A frequency demographic Instrument I The part 2.8:1. Such about having analysis. Or scale in a 1 Communicatic Examinat: into one of Interpersona Dimension in Kin Interact Involvement Family SOCia' item ratio. r socializatio] others Ontsic Social Relat; Race‘R‘elated Participant~t into two dime capitaliZES C 105 A frequency distribution of the Kappas for the SAAF and the demographic questionnaire is in Figure l. Instrument Development The participant-to-item ratio for the entire scale was 2.8:1. Such a low participant-to-item ratio raised concern about having adequate power for the confirmatory factor analysis. One way to deal with this issue is to divide the scale in a logical fashion based on content (personal communication; von Eye, 1994). Examination of the scale suggested that items could fit into one of two dimensions: Family Socialization and Interpersonal Socialization. The Family Socialization Dimension included the Mother—Daughter Relationship Scale, Kin Interactions Scale, and the Parental Expectations and Involvement in Education Scale. This procedure produced a ?amily Socialization Dimension with a 5.2:1 participant-to- .tem ratio. The second dimension, Interpersonal ocialization, relates to socialization for interacting with thers outside of the family. This dimension combined the ocial Relations Scale, the Career Issues Scale, and the ace—Related Socialization Scale and produced a 6.3:1 rticipant-to-item ratio. Although dividing the instrument to two dimensions increases statistical power, it also pitalizes on chance. However, given the exploratory nature -«mQvau w.:w:00» xzzflnwzwz uGUOUtmtr: .0 CO.:32.._:m:.u XOCmuttnUtL .s wtlmel 106 2.2: u 2 mac. u .532 me. n >mo .Em .9. flow .3” 1:. .3 .oo .335. 95:08 3=3m=mm 8322:. .0 5:25.65 35.62“. .v 229.... S of the curre power seemec‘ of type I e1 First an instrument t six. Then, 1 factor anal: first confi: and a secone (See Append. analyses.) . factor anal; and Figure related to . are given 1 Varimax rot for 44.7% o InvolVEment SEparate fa critenum 0 included qu inv°1Vement t0 father I S 107 of the current study, the benefits of increasing statistical power seemed to outweigh the risk of increasing the chance of type I error. First an exploratory factor analysis of the entire instrument was performed using SPSS for Windows, release six. Then, LISREL VIII was used to calculate a confirmatory factor analysis on the a priori scales. 0n the basis of the first confirmatory factor analysis, adjustments were made and a second confirmatory factor analysis was performed. (See Appendix F for the correlation matrix used for these analyses.) The structural models for the first confirmatory factor analyses are shown in Figure 2 (Family Socialization) and Figure 3 (Interpersonal Socialization). Explanations related to these models and the factor analyses performed are given in the following sections of the results. Family Socialization. A seven factor solution using a varimax rotation converged in six iterations and accounted for 44.7% of the variance. The Parental Expectations and Involvement in Education Scale (PEIES) loaded on two separate factors in the exploratory factor analyses using a criterium of an eigenvalue of 1.00. The first factor included questions pertaining to mother's expectations and involvement. The second factor included questions pertaining to father's expectations and involvement in addition to ‘ ""‘II \ 0 ll... QOI.N C IV .IIDI O elk-UL ul<AGS< HOUUEE XMCUEELHHEOU UThuk ESQ USE l mesuxnaropix LCJCCIL \AkCUfiLONQXum .Wilmflfinumvwmw IL12 mmHm: we. mno. cofiuwospw :m :fisuuw 50> umsu cwmmmuum umzuoe u5o> .m .H0020m Hmcofimmouonn uo opmstmum mmHm: ow. 5mm. ccfipcouum Hopfimcoo 0» 50> pmosu5ooco umzuoe u50> .m .m: vcfi3ouo mums 50> cwc3 mum: muwzomwu mmHm: we. own. uso> 0:3 socx 0» unwom m pa wows uwzuos u5o> .s .aoocom HmCOMmmououm no wum5cmum mmHMh om. awn. ccapcwuuw umpfimcoo 00 50> poomu5ooco nonpmu u50> .o .wowaaoo ou on 09 50> mmHmm mm. mmn. pwuowmxo uwsuwu u5o> .c: mcfi3ouo muo3 50> cos; .m .05 mzw30uo who: 50> cw:3 who: muocosop mmHmm mm. was. 050> 0:3 zocx 0» ucflom m ow wows uwzumu uso> .v .mzflaoozom u5o> sue: pw>ao>:« >uw> mmz mmumm mm. vmn. uwzuwu u5o> .munm> Hoorom >umEHHQ u5o> usozosouzh .n .m: ocazoum mum: 50> mmHm: me. mom. cwzz xuozwso: u5o> zufiz 50> pwumwmmc nozbos u50> .m muouomu m .m.< Ham m>amoou 02 50> pwuommxo nocuos u5o>. udso mm. m>~.\~m~. umzu uHmu 50> .oc«aoo:0m >Hum0 uso> 5502050025 .H «mmHmm oumEfiumm Dcfipmoa udsuwm 4&0 stmm on» u0u mum>amc< Hobomm >u0umsufiusou uwuflu on» pzm mfim>amc< nobomu >uoumuonxm .n manna ill uaauom . . . I H~mwu was 50> has: mccmumuwpc5 nozuos u50> .~ mus: me. mNm. .5o> o» usmuuomsfi ma uozuos u5o> .H man: .0:«H00:0m u5o> so“: pm>~o>cq >uo> um: mmum: we. he». hocuos u5o> .mumo> Hoosom >umsfiuo uso> 0505050uze .na umoumo u5o> no ouc-oo u0u 50> ocauonwum uo Anon mzu sud: mewuooua >cm mean: mo. mom. :« wumafiofiuumc o» 50> commusooco unsound u5o> .oa m.< Ham o>ao0mu ou 50> pwuowmxo uwzumu u50> wmnmm om. ohm. umzu udou 50> .DCaHoocom >Humw u5o> u5ocmsouze .mH .Q5 oca3ouo who: 50> cos: mmmwu cm. mow. xuo3weo: u5o> sud: 50> omumwmwm umcuou u5o> .eH .coupufizo on: 50> amous uwoumo mmHmu av. mmn. u5o> 05cfiucoo ou 50> pouooaxw mucwumn u5o> .nH .omoqaoo pcmuum ou 50> mmumz ~n. mmm. vouooaxo nozuos u50> .n: ocw3ouo one: 50> con: .NH mmuuu we. ono. cofiumospo cm :fimuum 50> uwzu pommouum uozumu u5o> .HH .ouaa :« pow005m ou ccuuam5ooo wanna go. Hue. cw o>mz ca5ozm 50> umzu commouuw nonuoe u5o> .oa oumfiaumm unaccoa u~5mom new wEmm way Op 0» szu uowmxw p.200 50> .w>«umawu afiao mo. moo. meHU m amo: cu >m3 u5o> we use 0m 50> uH .H me .cmo 50> mm mun: nn. was. :wuuo mm umzaofi M50> :ua: mocfizp 0p 0» >uu 50> .NH man: we. won. .ot 50> was: uwuumE 0: 50> mumwoom thDOE u5o> .HH mac: (5. hen. .uwzuoE M50> wxfid on Du u:m3 50> .oa .uwzu0E u5o> spa: ”u was: ms. nnh. m>mz 50> mfizmcoflumeu wzu sud: pwfiuwwumm mum 50> .m 1 man: om. nmm. .uwzu0E M50> ou meHo >uw> wau 50> .m .w>wuuomm5w can Ema: wm3 uwSDOE M50> mun: on. Hen. zufiz mwzwcowumawu u50> .a: o:fl30um wuw3 50> :05: .> man: as. mam. .uwzu0E M50> umcuu 50> .w man: me. one. .quDOE u5o> uowmmwu 50> .m .szu05 u5o> man: mm. 5mm. cue: wuwuoww no mocwawwu uwccfi u50> mumsw 50> .e mac: om. mpw. .50> muowmwwu uwzuos u5o> «wow 50> .n mumEfiumm unfipmoq yazwoz Ho>cH :ofiuw05pm :« ucos>ao>CH paw mcofiumuowmxm m.uwcumm 6cm wcofiumuowdxm m.uwsuoz “Ammwv ofiwuw mcofiuwdwm Hmfioow “Amev odmow :ofiuomuoDCH sax “amass. maaom mesmcoeumdme amazosmouuwsuoz “.mmzmc mamom coupe Nafimfioom cwumawmuwomz “AmHoc admow mosmmm uowumo “AmmHmdv oawom cofiu mo5pm :« uzwso>ao>cH pcm w:o«umuoomxm Hmuzmumme .mw>«umdwu paw >Hfismu H50> >2 50> ou so>fim me up. mew. mam: may no“ pod m 030 50> Home 50> .>Hkuw:wo .o .>H«Emu may we umwu may :ufi3 moou5owwu no: no we: wumzm o» coyommxo me can no on :m: mow. mw>oe: 00 :ua most= >Hfismu u5o>.:w comumm m «H .m .xomn be you on uowmxw u.:oc 50> .w>«uwawu me ma. nmv. wmofio m o» >wc0E cmoH 50> con: .Hmuwcwm :H .v .cw>fim m>wc 50> can» mam: oboe pw>fiwowu o>mz 50> Hwou 50> me vv. one. .mw>«um~mu u50> ou mcofiummflano u5o> no mayo» :H .m mam cufiz .5o> :mcu wumc5uu0u wmoa mum uaso mm. hoe. 0:3 wuwonE >HfiEmu mam: ou pmumofiano down 50> .m mumswumm Dcfipmoq u~5mwm _O>C_ VGA . Iv 3:...Ifioeozfiooexm 612:0 . . 1 ....:\ . 1 I 1 ...._<252 2: .o 22:23 .203 30:15:33 neoooe 2: .2 .652: .3305...» of. .v 252“. table 5. S Socializati Actual Item PENIS" Your mother you were gr: Your mother I teachers we: Y0“! mother graduate or but mother Occupation I You to attEn VA‘ any p r °9rams M1“ ‘ Was ve . 120 Table 5. Second Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the Family Socialization Dimension. CFA Actual Item Estimate MEIES* Your mother assisted you with your homework when .51 you were growing up. Your mother made it a point to know who your .71 teachers were when you were growing up. Your mother encouraged you to consider attending .63 graduate or professional school. Your mother stressed that you attain an education .78 Your mother stressed that you should have an .80 occupation to succeed in life. When you were growing up, your mother expected .73 you to attend college. .67 Your parents encouraged you to participate in any programs with the goal of preparing you for college or your career Throughout your primary school years, your mother .72 was very involved with your schooling. Your parents made special efforts to prepare you .39 to get along as a Black woman in this society. CRONBACH'S ALPHA .88 Firms throughout your primary school years, your .73 :ather was very involved with your schooling. Your father made it a point to know who your .61 Leachers were when you were growing up. hen you were growing up, your father expected .80 on to go to college. our father encouraged you to consider attending .74 raduate or professional school. our father stressed that you attain an education .77 § Actual I te Your parenn career afte Your father when you we Throughout YOU! tithe: EDI-”IS Y0“ {Eel \ YOU;- moth 121 Table 5 (con't) ou try to do things with your mother as often 8 you can. CRONBACH'S ALPHA .93 Actual Item CFA Estimate Your parents expected you to continue your .44 career after you had children. Your father assisted you with your homework .62 when you were growing up. Throughout your early schooling, you felt that .66 your father expected you to receive all A's CRONBACH'S ALPHA .87 MDRS Your mother is important to you. .49 Your mother understands what you are really like. .81 You feel your mother respects you. .66 You share your inner feelings or secrets with .68 .your mother. Wou respect your mother. .68 You trust your mother. .78 en you were growing up, your relationship with .76 our mother was warm and supportive. ou feel very close to your mother. .86 on are satisfied with the relationship you have .78 1th your mother. on want to be like your mother. .74 our mother accepts you no matter what you do. .67 .73 Actual Item fl I18 In terms of I You feel you have given. In general, relative, yo If a person up. he or sh resources Vi Generally, YI glVen to You 122 Table 5 (con't) Actual Item CFA Estimate X18 In terms of your obligations to your relatives, .47 you feel you have received more help than you have given. In general, when you loan money to a close .17 relative, you don't expect to get it back. If a person in your family "makes it" or "moves .27 up" he or she is expected to share his or her resources with the rest of the family. Generally, you feel you owe a lot for the help .76 given to you by your family and relatives. CRONBACH'S ALPHA .50 *Parental Expectations and Involvement in Education Scale (PEIES); Career Issues Scale (CIS); Race-Related Socialization Scale (RRSS); Mother-Daughter Relationship .Scale (MDRS); Kin Interaction Scale (KIS): Social Relations Scale (SRS); Mother's Expectations and Involvment in Education Scale (MEIES); Father's Expectations and Involvment in Education Scale (PEIES) . Item numb Relations whatever 1 This item helping 01 part of s< scale was Five on Scale (SRS from .30 t factors (t deleted. I little in I You grew u] racial soc: the SRS was For the Original it etIlally hig ("Compared c0miensated 123 Item number 13 loaded highest with items from the Social Relations Scale ("Blacks who are successful should do whatever they can to assist other less fortunate Blacks"). This item was moved to the Social Relations Scale because helping others who are not relatives can be construed as part of social relationships. Cronbach's Alpha for this scale was .74. Five out of seven of the items from the Social Relations Scale (SRS) loaded on one factor. Factor loadings ranged from .30 to .66. Item number six loaded equally high on two factors (those with items from RRSS and SRS) and was deleted. Item number seven loaded with the RRSS ("You have little in common now with people in the neighborhood where on grew up"). However, it does not fit conceptually with acial socialization and was deleted. Cronbach's Alpha for he SRS was .66. For the Career Issues Scale (CIS), five of the eight riginal items loaded on one factor. Item number one loaded qually high on two factors and was deleted. Item number two "Compared to the population at large, you are adequately ompensated for your work") loaded highest with the KIS ale. This item does not fit conceptually with interactions 'th one's kin, therefore it was deleted. Item number seven 'You participated in extra-curricular activities in college at assisted you in developing skills necessary for your rear") loaded highest with the FEIES items. Since it does not conc deleted. item-tota Alpha for A conf original . were simij Table 6 51 and confix Socializat explorato; Similar, F socialiZat exPIOratOr cases wher different fiVe 0n th loading 0f omitted fr. initial Sc. The Sea dhdlysis a: of the Con‘ {15 V difiCati, 124 not conceptually fit with paternal expectations it was deleted. Item number six was deleted because the corrected item-total correlation for this scale was .14. The Cronbach Alpha for the CIS was .49. A confirmatory factor analysis was calculated on the original scales and the revisions based on this analysis were similar to those for the exploratory factor analyses. Table 6 shows the factor loadings for both the exploratory and confirmatory analysis. Similar to the Family Socialization dimension, the factor loadings from the exploratory factor analysis and the LISREL estimates were similar. For example, item number eight on the Race-Related Socialization Scale had a factor loading of .72 on the exploratory factor analysis and a LISREL estimate of .77. In cases where the factor loading and the LISREL estimate were different the item was deleted. For example, item number five on the Race-Related Socialization Scale had a factor loading of .32 and a LISREL estimate of .09. This item was omitted from the scale. The Goodness of Fit Index for the 'nitial scales was .75. The scales were revised based on the exploratory factor nalysis as discussed earlier and the modification indices f the confirmatory factor analysis. The estimates from the odification indices are reported in Table 7. The ..I..t2£.:_: ..C—.....N‘~r.~tcv. ~C:OQ~C;~£.:N qu hOu E~c>~rz< hCuDCL >LCuRanuECU Sneak $2; 1:: Rer>~cz< LCLLCK LLCLQLC~LXE .0 CwQCH 1J25 .|= .I I: .onm masons; ounzz :m5u :wntfiasv wmmx up. has. nwwzu mo w>fiuownona onOE one wucmncm xomdm .o .owao w:o>nw>w >2 pmnmzw 50: ans wnouwnwsu use 050n25 one unzu wn5u~50 covanws< mmuu me. hum. xowam oz» no wuowmmm one onwzu .20mcwmo n50> :H .n .szu umwnu onmowm good: >52 osu mmmm on. ewe. an wocwnwuunt m waxes noHoo :«xw m.:ownwm xowam < .o .ouchxnoz mg» :« coduanEnnomnp «maven no m50n5m5unm map 00. mwn. watts: >~w>wuowumw 0y 50> uzv5mu wuzmnma n50> .m .>uw«00m was» :« ccsoa guano a mm oonc you on mac: ha. mom. 50> mnmmwnm o» munouuw ncwomdm moms muzonmn n50> .v .wc50no ofizsuw nwsuo mwmm no. mmw. 05 cos» >nucwnouunp concfifico nnw;u wwnmn mxocfim .n .swzu Dawn» encode mung: >83 0:» an mmzm mm. Nan. woconmuump m waxes nofioo :wxw m.:0mnoa xomnm < .N mac: can: .>wtou mn55~50 :mownwsc xosnm unEo ma. mmw. wry an Dwfixw on5uH5o :connu< no wuzccewn meow .H «mflmm oumEnumM mcwtmoq udsmwm amc< nonomn >n05msnwusou awnwn 025 fine wfim>fiwc< no» I «unawamdoow Hmzomnomnwqu one >n0nmnonaxm .WIWflMMH .20wwzosac :0 «u . :80» u c 72:. Eden ~E3u0< a some 1J26 .50> no condo mam me. nmo. nmnoom oEmm osu no one moronnu uzonn50 n50> .N .50> mo vzsonoxomb mmoao Hmuoom oEmm osn Bonn mum on. owe. one: ooo-oo 2% sun: osau ncoam 50> ondooa ozh .« mam .pmno3 o:u :« 520nm oznnuoo mmzz cc. ome. non :OMnmncmond acnoonm too: conpnnzo xomnm .va mam can: :.mxomdm onw=5nn0n moon nozuo gunman 0» can >ozu mew nw. non. no>oua;3 05 tnsozw nsnmmo005m one 0:: mxoanm: .nn .muconmd onqzs one cozy mwm: me. new. conpnnzo nnosu sud: DDnnum onoe one muconmc xomnm .NH .m0«nos< :« mxomnm no oncoezmanmaooow osn ozapcmuwnopcs :« 50> tonwuwmm yes» onmooa unso -. mwn. xoenm ozoecn 55obn eonnoum 50> 0—0u unconca n50> .HH .uuomn5o> >3 0p 50> uasz cozy L50no a we onaoom xocum ou mwzz en. nmn. wrongs: nos: :0 onoe tronoc ouun sq nooccso n50> .ca .>n«c5ssoo xqum oz» 2% wwmz on. n~m. m5nxum m.:0mnod m noonum oc>u nae: can nodoo cfixw .a oueE«umu Danube; uasmoa :n »:oso0cm>pm wHU hm. awe. no :0nuosonm now nonmmonq >Houc5qotm onm 50> .v .won»nnnpm no mHU wv. mow. m»:on» n50> »ooHnon >H5n» m»:oE:mnmmm 20m n50> .n wa :»n3 .xnoz n50> now po»mw:oQEoo >Ho»m5moom »«50 mm. wee.| onm 50> .oman »m can»ma5moa oz» 0» poanEoo .m mno»omu m .xnos n50> new ooummcomeoo »nso om. nwv.n\~mn. >noum5qotm one 50> Kmnoxnozoo n50> o» o>n»mnom .n WHO mmmm c»n3 .Q: 3on5 50> onocz poocnODzmHo: or» »«E0 mo.l man. an onmood :»n3 30: :oEEOU :n on»»nn o>mz 50> .> .d5 mcnzonq ono3 50> cos: on; 50> unfio ~H.I m~.I mtconnu oz» :»n3 30: :0E500 an oa»»nn o>m2 50> .o mum ne. vow. .omonnoo an ouna Hmnoom 0009 m Um: 50> .m mam mm. eon. .onmeou >H»w0E mm: owoanoo :M m5onm noon n50> .e .noozom 25%: :« mans: wooconnomxo MMm we. mom. amnoom n50> Uo>0mco 50> .oHozz oz» :0 .n onmfin»mm manomoa no>cH use w:0«»c»0ocxw o.noz»wn “Ammnmzv onmom con»m05tm 2n »:oe>no>cH 5cm mconuouoocxm w.noc»0: “Ammo. onmom neon»onom nanoow “nanny onmom con»06no»:H can hammer» onmom dnzmcon»mnox no»555mounoz»oz “.mmmzv onmom con»m~nnnnoow oo»mnoznoomz “Ammo. oncom mo5mmn noonoo ".mmHmav onmom :0wnm055m cm »:oEo>no>:n pew mcom»m»0ocxm no»:onme a .noonwo n50> n0n >nmmmo0o: unnnxm on» DCnQOHo>op ca 50> to»onomm »wz» oooanoo an mHU mn. new. mon»n>n»0m nmn50nnn50Imn»xo an po»mcn0n»nmd 50> .m mmnmn :»n3 .ovondoo »«eo wn. men. n0n 50> ponwdonn >Ho»m5Uopm noozom can: n50> .h .coxw» o>ws 50> uco«»nmoc Hchnmoouonn n0u ac»«Eo ww. omw. conunHM5U no>o onoz 50> ucs» o>onnon no: 05 50> .w .coE cos» >n»:onounnp to»mon» one :oso: onozz ooondxnoz mnu nn. mmw. on» an m:0«»m5»nu oomcos >Hn5nmmo005n coo 50> .m o»m5u»mm ocnpooq »n5mom ezriences while in high school. YO‘IJT’ loeer group in college was mostly female. .24 Y . . . 0L1 had a good soc1al life in college. .56 Actual Ite "Blacks wh they can t \ CIS Your job a 0r abiliti You are ac]. advancemen' You can su: workplace 1 ‘:'°u Parties in College necessary 1 “.3” Parent §ltuations ”‘9 wOrkula (PEIES); goclalizati Cale Sca1 (MDRS .. e (SRS) :“Cation S «nVOIVment 132 Table 8 (con't) Actual Item CPA Estimate "Blacks who are successful should do whatever .29 they can to assist other less fortunate Blacks" CRONBACH'S ALPHA .66 CIS Your job assignments truly reflect your talents .74 or abilities. You are adequately prepared for promotion or .53 advancement in your work place. . 32 You can successfully manage situations in the workplace where women are treated differently than men. 'You participated in extra-curricular activities .25 .in college that assisted you in developing the skills xaecessary for your career. Your parents taught you to effectively handle .43 ssituations of racial discrimination in the workplace CRONBACH'S ALPHA .49 *' Parental Expectations and Involvement in Education Scale (PEIES); Career Issues Scale (CIS); Race-Related Scflzialization Scale (RRSS); Mother—Daughter Relationship Scale (MDRS); Kin Interaction Scale (KIS); Social Relations Scale (SRS); Mother's Expectations and Involvment in ducation Scale (MEIES); Father‘s Expectations and Involvment in Education Scale (PEIES). l l fillt-‘\ . I, ”..R‘ .flcoaL-OQLMVHPH- Unfit to a-auxulWFL-U ago-oak \ALOH-NE.L~§:OO Unhooonu 09s l<<® °h\~ 5° :fithcmE‘U t0‘fiINN“nW\hV°a U .505 hAVNVAVP: sck‘ubokuhue AUn‘KI Ib OK‘INU‘hN 133 al' ..3. Il' '0‘. I. ..c. ./ .lv ..c. WCOZN—0m _m_00w H .n.\ 00.0 / mmzmw_ ..mmhmo P H”...\ 0 ..IV 3...... o I 2...... o It 2...... . .. .g/ ! cozmfizfloow h o If ...c. U0~W_0ml0om 0 '1 ...c..\ o I? ...c C II. ...I . II? ...c. 3.39.0525 05 .0 2.32.. .303 3035......30 ccooca ocwmnducted including scores from the KIS, CIS, SRS, RRSS, FIZIES, and MEIES. The multivariate F was not significant [L!:(6, 126) = .96, p < .46]. Because this is an exploratory study, the univariate tests were examined to determine if there were any significant main effects. Since examining the univariate tests will capitalize on chance findings, such eJeiif‘ects cannot be considered significant in the traditional hypothes: areas to univaria univaria attentic Educatic Educatic 4.22, 9 Scale PEIES CIS KIS MEIES RRSS SRS PrOfe (Dunc analy 136 hypothesis testing sense. However, they do suggest possible areas to be examined in future research. All of the univariate effects are reported in Table 9. The two univariate tests that seem most promising for future attention were Father's Expectations and Involvement in Education Scale and Mother's Expectations and Involvement in Education Scale [§(6, 131) = 3.76, p < .06 and E(6. 131) = 4.22, p < .04 respectively]. Table 9. Summary of the univariate analyses of the MANOVA based on parents' occupational prestige. Overall F £(6, 126) = .96, p < .46 Means Scale ‘§(1,131) 9 Working Class IMiddle Class FEIES 3.76 .06 20.67 22.76 CIS 1.07 .30 12.06 12.45 KIS .23 .64 8.86 9.06 MEIES 4.22 .04 28.26 30.28 RRSS .11 .74 25.60 25.85 SRS .01 .94 18.41 18.45 Because some middle class families consist of professional fathers and mothers who are homemakers (Duncan's Socioeconomic Index = 22) which could potentially lower the average prestige score for the family, a second analysis was done based on whether these women had fathers in middl ch” = 12 same sca 126) = 1 examined tests fc suggest position educatiq are nor. with my Scale FRIES CIS KIS MEIES RRSS SRS 137 in middle class profession positions (Nmiddle 61m = 62: Nworking 120). A MANOVA using Hotelling's T statistic on the class — same scales as used previously was not significant [3(6, 126) = 1.29 p < .26]. Again, the univariate F tests were examined with future research issues in mind. The univariate tests for each scale are reported in Table 10. These tests suggest the hypothesis that fathers who hold professional positions (or who are considered middle class) have higher educational and career expectations for their daughters and are more involved in their daughter's education than fathers with working class positions. Table 10. Summary of the univariate analyses of the MANOVA based on fathers' occupational prestige. Overall F £(6, 126) = 1.29, p < .26 Means Scale .§(1,131) p Working Class IMiddle Class FEIES 7.06 .01 20.43 23.28 CIS .46 .50 12.12 12.38 KIS .05 .82 8.97 8.88 30.22 25.58 18.50 A th had midc sociali: (leddle cl T stati: prestig: signifi analyse areas t % based 0 \ 1(6, 12 \ Scale PEIES CIS KIS MEIES RRSS SRS The] working 138 A third analysis was done based on whether these women had middle class professional mothers who could perhaps socialize their daughters differently for upward mobility (Nada. c1... = 47; 11.0mm, c1... = 135) . A MANOVA using Hotelling's T statistic was calculated based on the occupational prestige of their mother's job. The multivariate F was not significant [3(6, 126) = .551, p < .77]. The univariate analyses reported in Table 11 do not provide any potential areas to explore with respect to future research. Table 11. Summary of the univariate analyses of the MANOVA based on mothers' occupational prestige. Overall F §(6, 126) = .55, p < .77 Means Scale £(1,131) 9 Working Class. Middle Class FEIES .66 .42 21.23 22.18 CIS .76 .38 12.12 12.47 KIS .23 .64 9.00 8.79 MEIES 2.43 .12 28.59 30.26 RRSS .01 .91 25.72 25.63 SRS .01 .93 18.44 18.39 There were no differences between women raised in a working class environment and women raised in a middle class environ] expectai interaC' careers socioec their 5 The daughte Prepara educati Daughte Involve Involve Scale, qUestic Bee.- Other 1 grandmc there 1 one ' s 1 as her questi. a mean biOIOg as a p: or aun 139 environment on their perceptions of their parents' expectations and involvement in education, their interactions with their kin, their preparation for their careers, social relations, or racial socialization. Across socioeconomic status of upbringing, these women perceived their socialization for achievement to be the same. i The sixth research question asked whether the mother- daughter relationship was related to perceived career preparation, parental expectations and involvement in education, and racial socialization. Scores from the Mother- Daughter Relationship Scale, Father's Expectations and Involvement in Education Scale, Mother's Expectations and Involvement in Education Scale, Race-Related Socialization Scale, and Career Issues Scale were used to address this question. Because in some families children are raised by someone other than their biological or legally adoptive mother (e.g. grandmothers and aunts), it was important to determine if there were differences in the perceived relationship with one's mother figure based on who the participant identified as her "mother figure". Before addressing the research question, a t—test was calculated to determine if there was a mean difference on the MDRS for women who reported a biological/legally adopted mother or another family member as a primary female caretaker (i.e. raised by a grandmother or aunt). One hundred forty-five women reported a biologi: reporte: analysi: sample means w 41.75 M analyse A 51 daughte that th Prepare Positix case, 1 there j rePorte POSitix relati: .180, 1 A s daught. inVOIV. that t manner dauqht relati mother 140 biological/legally adopted mother; whereas seventeen reported another person. Keppel (1983) suggests using the analysis for unweighted means when there are differences in sample sizes between groups. The t-statistic for unweighted means was not significance (t(160) = -1.57, p < .14; Mmg== 41.75 Mmmu.= 38.47). Because this was not significant, these analyses were conducted on the full sample. A strong positive correlation between the mother- daughter relationship and career preparation would indicate that those women who believe that they are adequately prepared to be successful in their career also report a positive relationship with their mothers. If this is the case, future research will be necessary to determine if there is a causal relationship. The first correlation reported in Table 13 shows that there is a significantly positive correlation between the mother-daughter relationship and perceived career preparation, r(156) = .180, p < .025. A strong positive relationship between the mother- daughter relationship and parental expectations and involvement in education (FEIES and MEIES) would indicate that the mother-daughter relationship varied in the same manner as the expectations the parents have for their daughter. For example, women who report a positive relationship with their mother also report that their mothers and fathers held high expectations for them. Is the mother-d The secc daughte1 father': .29 p < mother-- involve Fine daughte indicat with tl their c discrir Signif: relati. .13. Sec DOSiti exPect and fa relate Corre] 0V Women ina] 141 mother-daughter relationship related to these expectations? The second correlations in Table 12 shows that the mother- daughter relationship is significantly positively related to father's expectations and involvement in education, r(150) = .29 p < .001. The same relationship is present between the mother-daughter relationship and mother's expectations and involvement in education, r(159) = .47, p < .001. Finally, is racial socialization related to the mother- daughter relationship? A strong positive correlation would indicate that those women who report a positive relationship with their mothers also report receiving messages during their childhood pertaining to race relations and racial discrimination. As reported in Table 12, there was no significant correlation between the mother-daughter relationship and racial socialization, r(l47) = -.124, p < .13. Scores from the Mother-Daughter Relationship scale were positively correlated with career preparation and expectations and involvement in education for both mothers and fathers. The mother-daughter relationship was not related to perceived racial socialization. These correlations are also reported in Table 12. Overall, there were no significant differences between women raised in a working class environment and women raised in a middle class environment on their perceived with Ca] with Fa1 Inn with M01 In‘ with Raw Sea \ sociali nonsign eXplore include aVerage mother. occupat these a motherS danghtE an area Tl aSpectE and moi 142 Table 1;. Correlations between the mother-daughter relationship, parental expectations, career preparation, and race-related socialization. CORRELATIONS WITH MOTHER-DAUGHTER RELATIONSHIP r with Career Issues Scale .18 p < .03 with Father's Expectations and Involvement in Education .29 p < .001 with Mother's Expectations and Involvement in Education .47 p < .001 with Race-Related Socialization Scale -.12 p < .13 socialization for achievement. There were some nonsignificant findings which point to logical questions to explore in future research on African-American women. These include the univariate analyses from the MANOVA based on the average combined occupational prestige of father's and mother's careers and the MANOVA based on fathers' occupational prestige only. The univariate F tests from these analyses suggested differences in fathers' and mothers' career expectations and involvement in their daughters' education as a function of social class. This is an area that can be explored in future research. The mother-daughter relationship is related to some aspects of socialization for achievement including fathers' and mothers' expectations and involvement in education and the dau not rel 143 the daughters' perceived career preparation. However, it is not related to racial socialization. whethel middle- socioec differe soci0e< Africa] Parent: T1 these 1 in odu< 0f the expect; the dd] 900d g; uPbrim eqUall activi. that tj Chapter 4 Discussion Research Questions The general research question for this study was whether there are differences in perceived socialization in middle-class African American women based on the socioeconomic status of their upbringing. What are the differences in socialization for achievement based on socioeconomic status? Do working class parents raise their African American daughters differently than middle class parents? This study found that there were no differences between these women in their mothers' expectations and involvement in education. Both working class and middle class mothers, of the presently middle class women, hold similar expectations for their daughters' achievements according to the daughters. The daughters were equally expected to get good grades and go to college regardless of social class of upbringing. To prepare them for college, they were also equally encouraged to participate in extra-curricular activities. These mothers were also similar to the extent that they were involved in their daughter's education. This 144 include h0mew01 teacher AI univar origin in fat this d seemed to hav did no 1 their social being Prepai Social tEach 0f Hui Middlq aspir. mater ClaSs Shoce that 145 included whether mothers assisted with their daughters' homework and whether they learned who their daughter's teachers were. Although the multivariate E tests was not significant, univariate tests suggested the hypothesis that family of origin socioeconomic status might be linked to differences in fathers' expectations and involvement in the education of this daughter. Fathers who held professional occupations seemed to be more involved in their daughters' education and to have higher expectations for them than did fathers who did not hold professional occupations. There were no differences in the women's perception of their career preparation, social relations, or racial socialization. They felt similarly about issues such as being adequately compensated for their work and their preparation for advancement. They felt similarly about their social relations in college and their parents efforts to teach them the meaning of the African American culture. The results of the current study support the research of Huttman (1991) and Dill (1980) in that working class and middle class mothers have similar expectations and aspirations for their children. It seems that it is not the material goods that the financial resources of the middle class family can provide that are most important for success. It is the nonmaterial aspirations and expectations that money cannot buy that are important for socialization for act is not transmi of fine encoura fosters T1 vast di middle middle than wc differs Prestic levels Class 1 Class 1 thing t their c aspirat childre for the eduoatj AmeriCa Cannot materia 146 for achievement. Astone and McLanahan (1991) argue that it is not only having the aspirations but effectively transmitting these aspirations to one's children. Regardless of financial resources, a family which values education and encourages achievement can provide an environment which fosters success. These findings are contrary to Willie (1986) who found vast differences in the aspirations between those from middle class and working class families. He found that middle class families place greater emphasis on education than working class families. This is supported by the difference in expectations fathers had based on occupational prestige. Huttman (1991) found that families of lower income levels have lower educational goals than middle and working class families and no differences between working and middle class families. Huttman found that a good education is one thing that African American parents agreed was important for their children's success. Dill (1980) studied the aspirations African American domestic women have for their children and found that the vast majority wanted better jobs for their children and stressed the importance of a good education. Edwards and Polite (1992) report that African American families of all income levels stress that education cannot be taken away in the same manner as civil rights or material goods. Therefore, education is key to success. A: daughtl and in‘ and ra: found ‘ involv. percei‘ evalua‘ they p. educat to be Ti relati. expect. educat exPlait Positi' involv. daught. relati. t° gre the po. inv01v. and en. additi. childr. 147 An additional research question asked if the mother- daughter relationship was related to parental expectations and involvement in education, perceived career preparation, and racial socialization. Mother-daughter relationship was found to be positively correlated with the expectations and involvement in education of both parents and the women's perceived career preparation. The more positively the women evaluated their relationship with their mother the greater they perceived their parents' expectations were for education and the more involved they perceived their parents to be in their education. This finding indicates that if the mother-daughter relationship is positive, the mother will have high expectations for the daughter and be involved in the education of her daughter. However, it is more difficult to explain why the mother-daughter relationship would be positively correlated with fathers' expectations and involvement in education. Perhaps, the positive mother- daughter relationship is an indicator of positive relationships in the household overall and this might lead to greater involvement of the father. It is possible that the positive relations with the mother lead to greater involvement by the mother and the mother then consults with and encourages the father to become involved as well. In addition, a mother who fosters positive relations with her children may also be effective in choosing a mate who will also fc active Furthel involve calculi relati< in eduw career mother' daught. believ. workpl their‘ could both a daught the wo T correl interp raCial not Do Clanoht family motheI import 148 also foster positive relations with his children and be active in his daughter's educational and career goals. Further analyses found that if the expectations and involvement of the mother are controlled for when calculating the correlation between the mother-daughter relationship and the father's expectations and involvement in education the correlation is not significant. Perceived career preparation was also positively correlated with the mother-daughter relationship. The more positive the mother- daughter relationship the better prepared the daughter believes she is to address issues pertaining to the workplace. Since more than 90% of the women indicated that their mothers held jobs, a good mother-daughter relationship could lead to the mother sharing her work experiences as both a woman and an African American. This can prepare the daughter to understand and effectively handle situations in the workplace. The mother-daughter relationship was not significantly correlated with racial socialization. This can be interpreted two ways. First, there may be many sources of racial socialization. If the mother-daughter relationship is not positive enough to allow the mother to socialize the daughter with regard to race relations, other members of the family or the community may fulfill this role. Second, the mother perceives the importance of racial socialization important enough that she transmits this information regard resear betwee source S°Cial 149 regardless of her relationship with her daughter. Further research is needed to ferret out the possible relationships between racial socialization and family relations and the sources of racial socialization. Instrument Development The current study provided an instrument with seven scales for assessing socialization for achievement in African American women. Three of the scales had good reliability: Mother-Daughter Relationship Scale (MDRS; alpha = .93), Father's Expectations and Involvement in Education Scale (PEIES; alpha = .87), and Mother's Expectations and Involvement in Education Scale (MEIES; alpha = .88). The mother's and father's expectation and involvement in education scales were initially one scale which loaded on separate factors in the exploratory factor analysis. Only a few items needed to be deleted because of content or because they did not load on the same factor as the other items. The mother-daughter relationship scale did not change from the initial scale construction. All items which were on the scale originally remained on the scale and loaded on the same factor in the exploratory factor analyses and were confirmed using LISREL VIII. The other scales were acceptable; however, some revisions are still necessary. The Race-Related Socialization Scale (alpha = .74) has some questions Wthh loaded althou questi techni other questi Respon reword Scale. were s raised to be stay c Class imProv loaded did no Statis imProv instru reViSe ended Childh 150 loaded highest on the same factor as the other questions although their factor loadings were not very high. These questions pertained to perceived differences in parenting techniques between African American parents and parents of other ethnic groups. The participants completed open ended questions as well as the rest of the questionnaire. Responses to some of these questions can be used to revise, reword, or add questions to the Race-Related Socialization Scale. These questions include "When you were a child, what were some of the things your parents, or other people who raised you, did or told you to help you know what it means to be Black?" and "Some people say that it is difficult to stay connected to the Black community once achieving middle class status. Do you think it is difficult? Why or why not." The Social Relations Scale (alpha = .66) could also be improved by refining the items. Some items, although they loaded highest with the items of the Social Relations Scale, did not have a high factor loadings. Corrected item to scale statistics, however, indicated that the scale would not be improved if the items were removed. Future revisions of the instrument may seek to revise these items. The Career Issues Scale, with an alpha of .49, could be revised by examining the responses to the following open ended questions. "Is there anything about your early childhood or schooling which you think has influenced your career of you: in you: that y« in you: on thi confir these remain manage differ curric develo items ended T Should genera exPect the C0 becaus would reword T Afl‘iCa dev€10 151 career choice or plans?" "Who in you life is most supportive of your career goals?" "What has facilitated your mobility in your current occupation?" "What were some of the values that your mother passed down to you that you found helpful in your career?" Two of the four items which loaded highest on this scale did not have very high factor loadings on the confirmatory factor analysis (.32 and .25). The content of these items seemed relevant to the scale. Therefore, they remained on the scale. These items are "You can successfully manage situations in the workplace where women are treated differently than men" and "You participated in extra- curricular activities in college that assisted you in developing the skills necessary for your career". These items can be revised by using the responses from the open ended items. The Kin Interactions Scale with an alpha of .50 also should be revised in future studies. One question, "In general, when you load money to a close relative, you QQQLE expect to get it back.", had a factor loading of only .17 in the confirmatory factor analysis. It remain on the scale because the item-scale statistics indicated that the scale would not be improved if the item was removed. Perhaps rewording or adding other question will improve this scale. The instrument, Socialization for Achievement in African American Females, has several scales that are well developed with good psychometric properties. Other scales need f valid, will b The fi a diff reliab 152 need further refining in order develop scales which are valid, reliable, and psychometrically sound. Further studies will be conducted to continue the development of this scale. The first logical step is to administer the revised scale to a different sample to determine if the instrument is equally reliable on that sample. L'm' 'o e Cur en Stud As with many studies, it is impossible to control for all of the factors deemed necessary or to assess all of the possible intervening variables. In this respect, the current study is not different. This is the initial stage in the development of the instrument; therefore it is not as refined as a fully developed instrument. There are many questions that could be added to the instrument and others removed or reworded. This undoubtedly influences the quality of information gained about socialization for achievement and upward mobility. However, there are several scales of the instrument with good psychometric properties. Because of the 15% return rate, the generalizability of the findings from this study to all middle-class African- American women is questionable. Are those women who returned the questionnaire different from those women who did not? Future research should use specific sampling techniques to assure the randomness of the sample. A. closed instru experi eviden partic letter revisi 0: does n! examin. does n. exPlor. life-5] aChiev. iSSUes them 1] age di: develc] 153 Another limitation of this study is that it used only closed ended true/false Likert-type questions. This type of instrument does not allow for individual expressions of experiences that are important to the study. This was evidenced by the extensive comments made by some participants both on the actual instrument and in additional letters. These comments can be incorporated into the next revision of the instrument. One criticism some may make about this study is that it does not assess the women at more than one point in time or examine age differences. Is this a developmental study? It does not assess age differences but it does identify, in an exploratory fashion, the issues and variables across the life-span that are important for socialization for achievement and upward mobility. Future studies can use the issues and variables identified in this study and examine them in a longitudinal study. One does not have to examine age differences to explore and identify issues of development. Future Directions The data from this study can be used to explore generational differences in socialization for achievement and parental expectations. Women over the years have not always been encouraged to seek careers, particularly nontraditional careers. An interesting study could examine differ in edu betwee older women? were m discou the pa becaus opport O compar histor Statis‘ Who ea: at his‘ Educat; CarEer underg] those ‘ changes Feathe: C1a8s C exFlore 154 differences in parental expectations, parental involvement in education, education level, and occupational prestige between older and younger women. Were the parents of the older women equally encouraging as parents of the younger women? One could argue that the parents of the older women were more encouraging because society in general was discouraging of career women. Or, one could hypothesize that the parents of the younger generation were more encouraging because it is acceptable to society and there are increased opportunities for professional women. Other interesting research questions include a comparison of women who completed their education at historically Black colleges with those who did not. Statistics have shown that the majority of African Americans who earn graduate degrees complete their undergraduate work at historically Black colleges. One could compare educational level, occupational prestige, and perceived career preparation between women who completed their undergraduate education at historically black colleges and those who did not. The demographic section also included questions about changes in socioeconomic status of the women's parents. Featherman, Spenner, and Tsunematsu (1988) argue that social class of the family changes across childhood and should be explored dynamically. Data from the current study can begin to address this issue by exploring differences between women who v. now t] the 54 they 1 study Since class middle incluc become it is longit middle achiev exPeri refine instru method develo inStru 155 who viewed the social class of their parents as different now than when they were growing up and women who perceived the social class of their parents as the same now as when they were growing up. As with many studies, the findings from the current study leave the researcher with more questions than answers. Since middle class African American women from a working class upbringing are similar to middle class women from a middle class upbringing, future research initiatives could include comparing women from working class environments who become upwardly mobile with those who did not. Additionally, it is important to study upward mobility longitudinally. A longitudinal study that begins in adolescence and ends in middle adulthood could examine the development of achievement, the influences of different people, family, and experiences at various points in the life span. Finally, future research, of course, leads to further refinements of the instrument. The construction of an instrument can become a life-long process. There are always methods and resources for improving, refining, and developing additional questions. The validation of this instrument will continue on African American women and women of other ethnic groups as well. 1. The ter whose skin origin. The hose conti South and C 2.The empha also may be while ensla 3- The def outside of not conside care of her "piece" Wor homes for p COnSidered 4' Unlike tj 39“1019111th and other tj 5' Partic t“011th c. 39'0001‘ D241 3:70'000 an: 156 Endnotes 1. The term "Black" in this case is used to describe all those whose skin color is dark, regardless of one's continent of origin. The term African American refers only to those in America whose continent of origin is Africa. Many Blacks have origins in South and Central Americas. 2.The emphasis on a mother and child as a definition of family also may be considered characteristic of other ethnic groups while enslaved, such as Jewish people enslaved in Egypt. 3. The definition of "in the workforce” used here is working outside of the home for financial or economic gain. A woman is not considered in the workforce if she works in her home taking care of her own family. Historically, some women have taken in "piece" work such as, laundry, baking, and sewing, into their homes for pay. Women involve in this type of work would be considered in the workforce. 4. Unlike the other journals cited here, the journal Hanan Development is not a research journal. In it, literature reviews and other theoretical articles are published. 5. Participants reported their salary by indicating a letter A through G. A=less than $20,000: B=20,000-29,000; C=30,000- 39,000; D=40,000-49,000; E=50,000-59,000; F=60,000-69,000 G=70,000 and above. Appendix A . Date Dear Par I am an 1 Michigan daughter In this stl Particulal this study achieving members | receiver Panicipat enclosed Parental i relationst Should yr strictest c Danicipat. ‘0 Daniel; foreseeab A" results any lepor by late Sp abOVe adt queSiions 0929 0! y( Sincerely, Nancy E. l D'lCloraI c 157 Appendix A: Letter to Participants . Date Dear Participant: I am an African-American doctoral candidate in the Developmental Psychology Program at Michigan State University. I am conducting a study for my dissertation on the role of the mother- daughter relationship on mobility in African-American women. In this study, African—American women will be studied to determine how their mothers, particularly. and the rest of their family members assisted in their development. The purpose of this study is to formulate a better understanding of the characteristics that are necessary for achieving in this society from one generation to the next and how mothers and other famly members prepare their daughters to succeed. I received your name as someone who may be interested in participating in this study. Participation would consist of completing the enclosed survey and returning it to me in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. Issues that will be addressed in this study include parental expectations for career and educational goals. aspects of the mother-daughter relationship. social relations, career issues, and race—related socialization. Should you agree to participate, all responses to the survey and your identity will be held in strictest confidence. By completing and returning the survey you are giving your consent to participate in this study. Please recognize that participation is voluntary and you may choose not to participate at all, or may discontinue participation at any time without penalty. There are no foreseeable physical or emotional risks or discomforts expected from participating in this study. All results will be treated with strict confidence and the participants will remain anonymous in any report of research findings. The general results of this study are expected to be completed by late spring. If you would like to request a copy of these results, please contact me at the above address and refer to the "African-American Mother-Daughter Relationships study“. While considering participating in this study and completing the survey, should you have any questions or would like further information, contact me directly at the above address or at 887- 0929 or you may contact my advisor Dr. Hiram E. Fitzgerald at 355-4599. Sincerely. Nancy E. Hill, MA Hiram E. Fitzgerald. PhD. Doctoral Candidate Professor of Psychology Appendix B / / / 158 Appendix B: Initial Item Pool Throughout your early schooling, you felt that your mother expected you to receive all A's. Relative to your coworkers, you are adequately compensated for the work you do. Compared to the population at large, you are adequately compensated for your work. The goal of college attendance was shared by all family members. Throughout your primary school years, your mother was very involved with your schooling. You can successfully manage situations in the workplace where women are treated differently than men. Your parents encouraged you to participate in any programs with the goal of preparing you for college or your career. Your parents taught you to effectively handle situations of racial discrimination in the workplace. Your parents taught you to effectively handle situations of sexual discrimination in the workplace. Your job assignments truly reflect your talents or abilities. You have received unfair treatment at work because you are a Black woman. When you were growing up, your relationship with your "mother" was warm and supportive. You were closer to your mother than to your father when you were growing up. You feel very close to your mother. You want to be like your mother. Your father stressed that you should have an occupation to succeed in life. You can successfully manage situations in the workplace where Blacks are treated differently than whites. 159 Your mother accepts you no matter what you do. You do not believe that you were over qualified for professional positions you have taken. Your high school adequately prepared you for college. You found it easy to meet people in your field to serve as mentors for you. You try to do things with your mother as often as you can. You are adequately prepared for promotion or advancement in your work place. You participated in extra-curricular activities in college that assisted you in developing the skills necessary for Your career. Your father or mother stressed that you should think and act for yourself. Throughout your early schooling, you felt that your father expected you to receive all A's Your father assisted you with your homework when you were growing up. Your parents were able to assist you in managing interpersonal situations in the office by sharing their experiences with you. When you were growing up, your father expected you to go to college. Your father made it a point to know who your teachers were when you were growing up. Throughout your primary school years, your father was very involved with your schooling. Your mother assisted you with your homework when you were growing up. Your father encouraged you to consider attending graduate or professional school. Your mother made it a point to know who your teachers were when you were growing up. Your prime Your gradt Your you 1 Most was ' When atter Your child Your prime Your Your Your as th Your t0 su You a Your You 1 Your along You h When Your Share YOur durin 160 Your mother emphasized that marriage should 32; be your primary life goal. Your mother encouraged you to consider attending graduate or professional school. Your parents expected you to continue your career after you had children. Most of the teachers at my high school believed that I was "college material". When you were growing up, your mother expected you to attend college. Your parents felt that you should reconsider having children if having them would hinder your career. Your father emphasized that marriage should not be your primary life goal. Your father stressed that you attain an education. Your mother stressed that you attain an education. Your parents' expectations were similar for daughters as they were for sons. Your mother stressed that you should have an occupation to succeed in life. You are satisfied with the relationship you have with your mother. You respect your mother. Your parents made special efforts to prepare you to get along as a Black woman in this society. You have little in common now with the friends you had when you were growing up. Your mother understands what you are really like. In your opinion, there are aspects of the Black American culture that are unique and therefore are not shared by everyone else. Your participation in almost all-white groups decreased during the past five to ten years. (Mfr—c h'f 161 You often find yourself involved in almost all-white situations. You often find yourself involved in all-Black situations. Some remnants of African culture exist in the Black American culture today. Blacks raise their children differently than other ethnic groups. A Black person's skin color makes a difference in the way Black people treat them. The values and messages given to you by your family about society assist you in not feeling guilty about your success. The values and messages given to you by your family about society assist you in not feeling guilty about your success when you think about other Blacks that are in low income or desolate situations. Many of your friends were not planning to go to college right after high school. Black parents are more protective of their children than white parents are? Do you think this statement is true or false: "Blacks who are successful should do whatever they can to assist other less fortunate Blacks." Black parents are more strict with their children than are white parents. It is important for children to be aware of their family history over several generations. Your parents told you stories about famous Black people that assisted you in understanding the accomplishments of Blacks in America. Skin color and hair type affect a person's status in the Black community. Your chances in life depend more on what happens to Black people as a group than what you do by yourself. You have little in common with people in the neighborhood where you grew up. 162 Black children need special preparation for getting along in the world. In general, when you loan money to a close relative, you hardly ever expect to get it back. You feel obligated to help family members who are less fortunate than you. Your mother is important to you. Your current friends are of the same social class as you. In terms of your obligations to your relatives, you feel you have received more help than you have given. You feel your mother respects you. You share your inner feelings or secrets with your mother. You trust your mether. If you go out of your way to help a close relative, you don't expect them to do the same for you. If a person in your family "makes it" or "moves up" he or she is expected to share his or her resources with the rest of the family. On the whole, you enjoyed your social experiences while in high school. Most of the people you spent time with when you were in college were Black. Your peer group in college was mostly female. You had a good social life in college. Your participation in predominantly Black groups increased during the past five to ten years. A Black person's skin color makes a difference in the way White people treat them. Generally, you feel you owe a lot for the help given to you by your family and relatives. Most of the people you currently spend time with are Black. Genera you b: In tel you he Most < Black. The pr same 5 163 Generally, you feel you owe a lot for the help given to you by your community. In terms of your obligations to your friends, you feel you have given more help than received. Most of your good friends when you were growing up were Black. The people you spent time with in college were from the same social class background as you. Appendix C 1 2 3 Append Parent. What 01 terms i with ti Career for the Mother- relatic up and . Kin Int of one' that ar for his Social other 5 current Race-re, America] their (2] America] African. 164 Appendix C: Operational Definitions of the Dimensions Parental Expectations and Involvement in Education - What one's parents expect their children to do or be in terms of occupations and education; Parental involvement with these expectations. career Ieeuee - One's career selection and preparation for that career; Issues within the workplace. Mother-Daughter Relationship - Description of the relationship between a daughter and mother while growing up and currently. Kin Interactions - One's interactions with other members of one's family both real and fictive kin; Expectations that are made by other relatives and one;s expectations for his or her relatives. Social Relations - One's relationships with friends and other social situations both while growing up and currently. Race-related Socialization - Topics relating to African- American culture; How African-American parents prepare their children to function as an African-American in American society; A person's feelings about being African-American. Appendix D Panlcipa Address PM? To be pl. investiga r\‘3SUlts o Appendix D: The Instrument Cover Sheet to be Removed Code Participant's Name Address City State Zip Phone Home Office To be placed in a locked file and used to provide feedback to participants. Only the principle investigator has access to this file and the list wil be destroyed after feedback about the general results of the study have been released to all participants. 1. Subject This sectir demograp as honesti Demogral 2. age . 3. Mari 5- How 5' (if le Are I Blac Mixed E 53' ////l// 166 1. Subject ID Number This section of the survey asks questions about your family while growing up and certain demographic information about yourself and your famly. Please complete the questions below as honestly as possible. Demographic Information 2. age 3. Marital Status _Single _Wldowed _Divorced _Separated _Live-in Partner _Common Law Married _Marrled 4. (Except for those who are single) How long have you been in the current status? Years 5. How many years have you lived in the Lansing area? Years 6. (if less than 1 year) Where did you live before? City. State 7. Are most of the people in your current neighborhood... Black White Latino Asian Other Mixed 8. What is the highest level of education that you have completed _Grade school _Junior high school _High School _Vocational _1-3 years college _College graduate __G raduate or professional school PLEASE NOTE: RETURN OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE CONSTITUTES YOUR VOLUNTARY CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY, “MOTHER-DAUGHTER RELATIONSHIPS AND UPWARD MOBILITYI PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 13. VI. 14. Ah 15. An 17- Wr Subject ID number 167 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. in what year did you graduatefrom high school? Did you enter college directly after completing high school? 1_Yes 2_No If NO: How long did you wait after completing high school to begin your college education? 1_Under1 yr 2_1-2 yrs 3_more than 2 yrs Did you complete your undergraduate education at a historically Black college? Yes No Which of the following life plans comes closest to the expectations you had during your last year in college 1_Career only 2_Career and children 3_Marriage and career 4_Marriage and children. with a full-time career 5_Marriage/children, with steady part-time career 6_Marrlage/children, with periodic employment 7_Marriage and children 8__Marriage only After college did you: 1_go directly into full-time employment? 2_go directly into grad or professional school 3_Go directly into marriage and not to work 4_other Are you currently employed full-time or part-time? 1_Full time 2_part time 3_Not employed How long have your been on your present lob? years mos What is your current occupation? From your current work, please circle the letter that corresponds to your approximate income, before they take anything out. A_Less than $20,000 B_20.000-29.999 PLEASE NOTE: RETURN OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE CONSTITUTES YOUR VOLUNTARY CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY, 'MOTHER-DAUGHTER RELATIONSHIPS AND UPWARD MOBIIJTY' PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 19. 19. 21. 24. 25. 26. 27. Subject lD number 168 C_30,000-39,999 D_40,000-49,999 E_50,000-59,999 F_60,000-69,999 G_7o,000+ 19. When you were growing up, did you live in a neighborhood which was mostly populated by members of your same racial group or a different racial group or was the community mixed? if you lived in more than 1 neighborhood Same Mixed Different Racial Group Groups Racial Groups 19. ist neighborhood 1 2 3 20. 2nd neighborhood 1 2 3 21. 3rd neighborhood 1 2 3 Some questions about your parents 22. What was your father's main job? 23. What was the highest level of education that he completed _Grade school _junior high school _High School _Vocational _1-3 years college _college Graduate _graduate or professional school 24. What was your mother's main job? 25. What was the highest level of education that she completed _Grade school _junior high school _High School _Vocational _1-3 years college _college Graduate _graduate or professional school 26. What was your father's father’s main job? 27. What was the highest grade level that he completed _Grade school PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE Subjec 28. W 31. w 32. w 35. v. Subject lD number 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 169 __junior high school _High School _Vocational _1-3 years college _college Graduate _graduate or professional school What was your father’s mother’s main job? What was the highest grade level that she completed _Grade school _junior high school _High School _Vocational _1-3 years college _college Graduate _graduate or professional school What was your mother's father’s main job? What was the highest grade level that he completed _Grade school _junior high school _High School _Vocational _1-3 years college _college Graduate _graduate or professional school What was your mother’s mother's main job? What was the highest grade level that she completed _Grade school _junior high school _High School _Vocational _1-3 years college _college Graduate _graduate or professional school When you were growing up, what did you consider your family's class or status to be? Lower class Working class _Middle class _Upper Middle class _Upper class What do you consider your mrents’ class now? Lower class Working class _Middle class _Upper Middle class _Upper class What do you consider to be your class 332M? PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE Subject lD lllll 37. 39. 41. 42. Lower What cla Lower What cla: Lower How man . Howman Are you tl _Oldesl Does this Ya When you YOU - just I Who were (Check all Launt Lbrother Lcousin Subject ID number 170 \ 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 44. _Lower class _Working class _Middle class _Upper Middle class _Upper class What class were your father‘s parents? _Lower class _Working class _Middle class _Upper Middle class _Upper class What class were your mother’s parents? _Lower class _Working class _Middle class _Upper Middle class _Upper class How many brothers do you have How many sisters do you have Are you the oldest, youngest, or a middle child? __Oldest _Middle Child _Youngest Does this include any step— or half-sisters or half~brothers? Yes No When you were growing up were there people who were not related but who were close to you - just like kin? 1_Yes 2_No Who were thew If you had to put a name to them, what relative would they be like? (Check all that apply) 1_aunt 2_uncle 3_sister 4_brother 5_parent 6__grandparent 7_cousin PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE Subject lD nun The iollowhg 5 relationships w false. Please re 47. 49. 50. 51. 52. 54. 55. Througho _True . Your motl _True Througho _True Your iathe ‘True When you ~True Your lathe \True Your moth _‘True Your moth _‘True Your moth. \True YOUr mothi .Jrue YOUr lather \Tme ‘ Subject ID number 17 l Thefollowlng statementsaskaboutaspectsofyourexperiencewhlegrowlng upand your relationships with your famly and friends. Each statement can be answered as either true or false. Please respond using the four point true/false scale provided with each question. Parental Expectations and Involvement in Education 45. Throughout your early schooling, you felt that your mother expected you to receive all A’s. _Tme _Mostly true _Mostly false _False 46. Your mother assisted you with your homework when you were growing up. _Tme _Mostly true _Mostly false _False 47. Throughout your primary school years. your father was very involved with your schooling. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False 48. Your father made it a point to know who your teachers were when you were growing up. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False 49. When you were growing up. your father expected you to go to college. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False 50. Your father encouraged you to consider attending graduate or professional school. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False 51. Your mother made it a point to know who your teachers were when you were growing up. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False 52. Your mother encouraged you to consider attending graduate or professional school. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False 53. Your mother stressed that you attain an education. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False 54. Your mother stressed that you should have an occupation to succeed in life. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False 55. Your father stressed that you attain an education. ___True '_'_Moerry true _Mostly false _False PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE Subject ID nun 56. 57. 59. 61. 62. When yc _True Your par _True . Your fail _True Throughc _True . Your pan you for c __True Throughc ‘True Relative ti ‘True Comparq ~~True Your job a \True You are 81 \True d'Ifelently \True Subject lD number 172 \ 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. When you were growing up, your mother expected you to attend college. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Your parents expected you to continue your career after you had children. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Your father assisted you with your homework when you were growing up. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Throughout your early schooling, you felt that your father expected you to receive all A's _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Your parents encouraged you to participate in any programs with the goal of preparing you for college or your career. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Throughout your primary school years. your mother was very involved with your schooling. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Career Issues Relative to your coworkers, you are adequately compensated for your work. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Compared to the population at large, you are adequately compensated for your work. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Your job assignments truly reflect your talents or abilities. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False You are adequately prepared for promotion or advancement in your work place. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False You can successfully manage situations in the workplace where women are treated differently than men. True Mostly true _Mostly false _False PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE Subject ID nu 67. You d _True 68. Your hig Tme 69. You part SkIIIS ner True 70. Who was "It you answe relationship wit 71. Your motl ‘True 72 Your motl ‘True 73‘ You feel y \True 74~ You share \True 75' You ieSpe¢ \True You trusty \TTUe ‘ Subject ID number 17 3 67. You_d_o_ngtbellevethatyouwereoverquallfledforprofessional positionsyouhavetaken. _ane _Mostly true _Mostly false _False 68. Your high school adequately prepared you for college. _ane _Mostly true _Mostly false _False 69. You participated in extra-curricdar activities in college that assisted you in developing the skills necessary for your career. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Mother-Daughter Relationships 70. Who was your primary female caretaker or parent when you were growing up? 1_Mother 2 Grandmother 3 Aunt 4 Cousin 5 Sister 6 Nonrelatlve “If you answered this question with someone other than your mother please think of your relationship with this person when answering the following questions. 71. Your mother is important to you. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False 72. Your mother understands what you are really like. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False 73. You feel your mother respects you. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False 74. You share your inner feelings or secrets with your mother. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False 75. You respect your mother. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False 76. You trust your mother. True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE Subject lD nu 77. When yc _ane 78. You feel _True 79. You are: _True 80. You want _True 81. Your mot ~True 82. You try to ‘True 83' If YOU gor for YOU. ‘True 34. You feel 0| \True In terms OI YOU have 9 Jrue . In general, Jive 87' If a person er IeSOurc. \True ‘ Subject lD number 174 \ 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 85. 86. 87. When you were growing up, your relationship with your mother was warm and supportive. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False You feel very close to your mother. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False You are satisfied with the relationship you have with your mother. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False You want to be like your mother. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Your mother accepts you no matter what you do. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False You try to do things with your mother as often as you can. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Kin interactions if you go out of your way to help a close relative, you don’t expect them to do the same for you. True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False You feel obligated to help family members who are less fortunate than you. _True Mostly true _Mostly false _False In terms of your obligations to your relatives, you feel you have received more help than you have given. True Mostly true _Mostly false _False in general, when you loan money to a close relative. you don’t expect to get it back. True Mostly true _Mostly false _False If a person in your family "makes it" or "moves up" he or she is expected to share his or her resources with the rest of the family. True Mostly true _Mostly false _False PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE Subject ID our 88. 91. 92. 95. 97. Generally True .Thepeol you. _True Your cun _Tnle On the w _True Your pee _True You had True YOU have True You have True Some ren \True A Black D \True B'acks rai: \TTUe Subject ID number 17 5 88. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 97. 98. Generally. you feel you owe a lot for the help given to you by your family and relatives. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Social Relations The people you spent time with in college were from the same social class background as you. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Your current friends are of the same social class as you. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False On the whole, you enjoyed your social experiences while in high school. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Your peer group in college was mostly female. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False You had a good social life in college. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False You have little in common now with the friends you had when you were growing up. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False You have little in common now with people in the neighborhood where you grew up. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Race Related Socialization Some remnants of African culture exist in the Black American culture today. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False A Black person’s skin color makes a difference in the way _wfle people treat them. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Blacks raise their children differently than do other ethnic groups. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE Subject ID nu 99. Your pal society. True 100. Your pal workplar True 101. A Black . _True 102. In your c therefore _True 103. Black pal ~True 104. Skin colo True § 105. Your chat YOU do bf lfiw 106- YOUI' pare Ullderstan \True 107' BIaCk pan tflm 108' 'Blacks w| Blacks.“ \fim maWWmh \Tme Subject ID number 17 6 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 1 07. 108. 109. Yourparents madespecial effortstoprepareyoutogetalongasaBlackwoman inthis society. Tme _Mostly true _Mosfly false _False Your parents taught you to effectively handle situations of racial discrimination in the workplace. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False A Black person's skin color makes a difference in the way Blapk people treat them. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False In your opinion. there are aspects of the Black American culture that are unique and therefore are not shared by everyone else. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Black parents are more protective of their children than white parents are. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Skin color and hair type affect a person’s status In the Black community. True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Your chances in life depend more on what happens to Black people as a group than what you do by yourself. True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Your parents told you stories about famous Black people that assisted you in understanding the accomplishments of Blacks in America. _True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Black parents are more strict with their children than are white parents. True _Mostly true _Mostly false _False 'Blacks who are successful should do whatever they can to assist other less fortunate Blacks.‘ _Tme _Mostly true _Mostly false _False Black children need special preparation for getting along in the world. True _Mostly true _Mowy false _False PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE Subject ID nu Please answe responses wrl back of this p 1. Is there . your car —-— ‘ W 2. In genen ”far-‘1. --- ?» ___, _. Subject ID number 177 Please answer these openended questions as honestly as possible. Remember that all responses will be kept confidential. Should you need more space than provided please use the back of this page or attach an additional page. 1. Is there anything about your eariy childhood or schooling which you think has influenced your career choice or plans? 2. In general, what did your parents‘ expect your life to be like as an adult? 3. Who In your life is most supportive of your career goals? 4. What has facilitated your mobility in your current occupation? 5. What were some of the values that your mother passed down to you that you found helpful in your career’.7 PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE Subject ID nu 6. Some pr achievim N Do you 1 groups i l I 8. When yo differenci /// so When yo: similaritie W 10- When yoj rajSild yol ////// {hank YOU iOr eavailable in Subject ID number 17 8 6. Some people say that It is dlfficrlt to stay connected to the Black community once achieving middle class status. Do you think It Is difficult? Why or why not. 7. Do you think your participation in all Black groups or almost all White social or professional groups has changed in the past five to ten years? Why or why not. 8. When you compare your own life with that of your parents. what do you see as important differences? 9. When you compare your own life with that of your parents, what do you see as important similarities? 10. When you were a child, what were some of the things your parents, or other people who raised you, did or told you to help you know what it means to be Black? Thank you for your time and for completing this survey. General results of this study will be available In late spring. Subject ID 11 Do 1 If so, please Name _ Address __ CW Name Address _ CW Subject ID number 179 Do you know of others that may be interested In participating In this Studw If so, please give us their name and address: Name Address City ‘ State Zip Name Address City State Zip Appendix E 180 Appendix E: The Codebook CODE 800K FOR THE DEMOGRAPHIC SECTION Columns Ente res; 10~ll 12-13 17~1s Columns 181 Demographic Information Enter "99" for all questions for which there is no response. 10-11 12-13 14 6. 15 7. 16 8. 17-18 1. Subject ID # _ _ _ 000 The first three numbers are from the actual questionnaire. Three zeros are added in the event additional coding is desired. 2. Age _ _ 1=Single 2=Widowed 3=Divorced 4=Separated 5=Live in Partner 6=Common Law Marriage 7=Married 4. 00 if Single _ enter actual number of years; If less than one year enter 01 5. _ _ enter actual number of years 00=if lived in Lansing, MI less than one year 1=East Coast 2=Southeast 3=Midwest 4=Northwest 5=Southwest 6=West 0=lived in Lansing, MI more than one year 1=Black 2=White 3=Latino 4=Asian 5=Mixed 1=Grade School 2=Junior High School 3=High School 4=Vocationa1 School 5=1-3 Years College 6=College Graduate 7=Graduate/Professional School 9. Last two digits of year "War 19 10. 20 11. 21 12. 22 13. 23 14. 24 15. 25-26 27~3o 31 18. 32 19. 33 20. 34 21 19 10. 20 11. 21 12. 22 13. 23 14. 24 15. 25-26 27-30 31 18. 32 19. 33 20. 34 21. 182 1=Yes 2=No 4=answered yes to question number 10 1=under 1 year 2=l—2 years 3=More than two years 1= Yes 2=No 1=Career Only 2=Career and Children 3=Marriage and career 4=Marriage and children with full-time career 5=Marriage/children, steady part-time career 6=Marriage/children, with periodic employment 7=Marriage and children 8=Marriage only 1=go directly into full-time employment 2=go directly into grad or professional school 3=go directly into marriage and not into the labor force 4=go directly into marriage and graduate school 1=Full time 2=Part time 3=Not employed 16. _ _ Actual number of years Months are not coded 17. Duncan TSEI2 score 1=Less than $20,000 2=20,000-29,999 3=30,000-39,999 4=40,000-49,999 5=50,000-59,999 6=60,000-69,999 7=7o,ooo+ 1=Same racial group (Black) 2=Mixed 3=Different Racial Group 99=only lived in l neighborhood 1=Same racial group (Black) 2=Mixed 3=Different Racial Group 99=only lived in l or 2 neighborhoods 1=Same racial group (Black) 2=Mixed 35-38 39 23. 40-43 44 25. 45-48 49 27. 50-53 54 29. 55-58 59 31. 183 3=Different Racial Group 22. Duncan TSEIZ score 1=Grade School 2=Junior High School 3=High School 4=Vocational School 5=l-3 Years College 6=College Graduate 7=Graduate/Professional School 24. Duncan TSEI2 score 1=Grade School 2=Junior High School 3=High School 4=Vocational School 5=1-3 Years College 6=College Graduate 7=Graduate/Professional School 26. Duncan TSEIZ score 1=Grade School 2=Junior High School 3=High School 4=Vocational School 5=l-3 Years College 6=College Graduate 7=Graduate/Professional School 28. Duncan TSEI2 score 1=Grade School 2=Junior High School 3=High School 4=Vocational School 5=1-3 Years College 6=College Graduate 7=Graduate/Professional School 30. Duncan TSEIZ score 1=Grade School 2=Junior High School 3=High School 4=Vocational School 5=1-3 Years College 6=College Graduate 7=Graduate/Professional School 60-63 64 33. 65 34. 66 35. 67 36. 68 37. 69 38. 70-71 72-73 74 41“ 755 442. 184 32. Duncan TSEIZ score 1=Grade School 2=Junior High School 3=High School 4=Vocational School 5=1-3 Years College 6=College Graduate 7=Graduate/Professional School 1=Lower Class 2=Working Class 3=Middle Class 4=Upper Middle Class 5=Upper Class 1=Lower Class 2=Working Class 3=Middle Class 4=Upper Middle Class 5=Upper Class 1=Lower Class 2=Working Class 3=Middle Class 4=Upper Middle Class 5=Upper Class 1=Lower Class 2=Working Class 3=Middle Class 4=Upper Middle Class 5=Upper Class 1=Lower Class 2=Working Class 3=Middle Class =Upper Middle Class 5=Upper Class 39. _ _ Actual Number 40. _ _ Actual Number 1=oldest 2=middle child 3=youngest O=only child 1=Yes 2=No f 75 43. 44. 77-141 1=Yes 2=NO Not coded for purposes of this study 45-109. 4=True 3=Mostly True 2=Mostly False 1=False 186 Codebook t 123 1 t. and Lo us oca lon ' ' f Variable Names Listing 0 Variable Name Item Number ..___T__T___L ._.__._____ Description IDNUMBER Lotus Location 1 A Identification of Participant 2 B Age in years of AGE subject T 3 c Participants MARTSTA marital status D Length of time in current marital status (how long has the participant been married or divorced etc) MARTLONG 4 LANSLONG 5 E Length of time in years that the participant has been living in Lansing F If participant PREVAREA 5 has lived in Lansing less than a year this is the geographic location of previous place of residence G Racial breakdown 7 of the CURNEIGH neighborhood where the participant currently lives H Level of education of the Participant sUBED HSCOLLIM HSCOLNIM HSTBLKCL LIFEPLAN AFTCOLL CURREMPL yRSCURJB 'I‘ 10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 187 Year of highschool graduation Whether the participant when straight to college upon highschool graduation If the participate did not go straight to college how long did she wait Did the participant attend a ‘historically black college What were the participants intended plans for life after college during her last year of college Upon college graduation what did the participant do. Status of employment Full, Part time, unemployed Length of time in her current position Socioeconomic index of participant's job SALARY NBHRACEI NBHRACEZ NBHRACE3 TSEIDAD DADED TSEIMOM PKMKED 188 18 R 19 S 20 T 21 U 22 V 23 W 24 X 25 Y Participant's salary range Racial makeup of the participant's first neighborhood while growing UP Racial makeup of the participant's second neighborhood (if she moved during childhood) while growing up. Racial makeup of the participant's third neighborhood (if she moved during childhood) while growing up. Socioeconomic index of her father's occupation Her father's level of education Socioeconomic index of her mother's occupation Her mother's level of education TSEIPGND PGNDED TSEIPGNM PGNMED TSEIMGND MGNDED TSEIMGNM MGNMED SESFAMO 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 189 AB AC AD AE AF AG Socioeconomic index of her paternal grandfather's occupation Level of education of her paternal grandfather Socioeconomic index of her paternal grandmother's occupation Level of education of her paternal grandmother Socioeconomic index of her maternal grandfather's occupation Level of education of her maternal grandfather Socioeconomic index of her maternal grandmother's occupation Level of education of maternal grandmother Self reported socioeconomic- status of her family of origin while she was growing “P SESEMHWI SESSUBNW SESPGN SESMGN BROTHERS SISTERS BRTHORDR STEPHALF OTHERKIN PEIESl-PEIESl? 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45-61 190 AI AL AO AP AQ AR-BH Self reported socioeconomic status of her parent's now Self reported socioeconomic- status of the participant now Self reported socioeconomic status of her paternal grandparents Self reported socioeconomic- status of maternal grandparents Number of brothers the participant has Number of sisters the participant has The ordinal position of the participant compared to her siblings Are any of the previously listed siblings are half or step siblings Does the participant recall fictive kin in her life while she was growing up Parental Expectations ..— CISl-CIS8 MOMTYPE MDRSl-MDRSIZ KISl-KIS6 SRSl-SRS7 RRSSl-RRSSl4 191 62-69 70 71-82 83-88 89-95 96-109 BI-BP BQ BR-CC CD-CI CJ-CP CQ-DD and Involvement in Education Scale Career Issues Scale The biological relationship of the person the participant identifies as her "mother" Mother-Daughter Relationship Scale Kin Interactions Scale Social Relations Scale Race-Related Socialization Scale Appendix F C181 C182 CIS3 C184 C185 C156 C187 C188 K181 K182 K183 K154 KISS K186 MDRSl MDRSlO Appendix F: 192 - - Correlation Coefficients - - C181 1.000 P= . .6188 P= .000 .3062 P= .000 .1491 P= .047 .2228 P= .003 .2114 P: .005 .2829 P= .000 .0962 P= .207 -.O77 P= .306 .0813 P= .281 -.122 P= .104 -.O99 P= .194 -.096 P= .205 -.012 P= .870 .037 P= .632 .052 C182 C183 0 .6188 .3062 P= .000 P= .000 1.0000 .3239 P= . P= .000 .3239 1.0000 P= .000 P= . .1474 .4116 P= .050 P= .000 .2114 .2240 P= .005 P= .003 .1146 .1933 P= .132 P= .010 .2402 .0532 P= .001 P= .483 .0351 .1371 P= .646 P= .070 2 -.0767 .120 P= .310 P= .107 -.0142 .2378 P= .851 P: .001 3 -.0652 .021 P= .389 P= .774 3 -.0085 -.04 P= .912 P= .591 0 -.O741 .052 P= .330 P: .487 4 .0049 .1436 P= .948 P= .056 0 -.0086 .003 P= .911 P= .964 9 .0683 .0722 Correlation Matrix C184 C185 C136 .1491 .2228 .2114 P= .047 P= .003 P= .005 .1474 .2114 .1146 P= .050 P= .005 P= .132 .4116 .2240 .1933 P= .000 P= .003 P= .010 1.0000 .2277 -.0994 P= . P= .002 P= .189 .2277 1.0000 -.0056 P= .002 P= . P= .941 -.0994 -.0056 1.0000 P= .189 P= .941 P= . .1006 .0897 -.0314 P= .183 P= .237 P= .680 .1519 .0647 .1908 P= .044 P= .395 P= .012 9 .1761 .0550 -.0418 P= .018 P= .465 P= .581 .1011 .0987 .0959 P= .177 P= .189 P: .204 6 -.0332 -.0991 -.0350 P= .658 P= .187 P= .644 11 .0441 -.0653 -.0650 P= .563 P= .392 P= .397 6 .0225 .0055 .0297 P= .765 P= .942 P= .697 .0767 .0487 .0246 P= .308 P= .519 P= .746 5 .1736 .0638 .0217 P= .023 P= .407 P= .779 .0844 .0008 -.0074 ‘u. P: MDRSll P: MDRSlZ MDRSZ MDRSB MDRS4 MDRSS MDRS6 MDRS7 MDRSS MDRS9 P: PEIESI P: PEIESlO P: PEIESll P: PEIESlZ p: PEIESl3 P: .489 P= .0020 .979 P= .0833 .284 P= .0587 .447 P= .1517 .049 P= .1061 .170 P= .0546 .481 P= .1196 .121 P= .0892 .239 P= .1076 .157 P= .0729 .336 P= .0753 .321 P= .0771 .308 P= .0986 .201 P= .1310 .081 P= .1164 .129 P: .373 P .0292 .702 "U l .0047 .953 "U II .0321 .679 m H .0839 .280 P= .0970 .211 P= .0266 .732 P= .1025 .186 P= .0934 .219 P= .0853 .263 P= .0679 .372 P= .0950 .211 P= -.0713 .347 P= -.0194 .802 P= .0171 .821 P= .1005 .192 P= 193 .344 P= .267 .0576 .0541 .447 P= .474 .0703 .1619 .365 P= .035 .0944 .0653 .219 P= .395 .1322 .1748 .086 P= .022 .1160 .0671 .132 P= .383 .0903 .1199 .241 P= .118 .0647 .0995 .402 P= .196 .1802 .0510 .016 P= .499 .1065 .0894 .160 P= .237 .0861 .1805 .254 P= .016 .0969 .1961 .199 P= .009 .1097 .1937 .145 P= .009 .1284 .1458 .094 P= .056 .0631 .1162 .401 P= .120 .2414 .1070 .001 P: .161 P= .992 .1523 P= .044 .2796 P: .000 .1296 P= .091 .1434 P= .062 .1870 P= .015 .0402 P= .603 .1351 P= .079 .0380 P.= .616 .0915 P= .227 .0759 P= .315 .1253 P= .096 .1435 P= .056 .1072 P= .163 .1678 P= .025 .1933 P= .011 P= .923 -.0238 P== .756 -.0442 P= .572 -.0121 P= .876 .0116 P= .881 -.0276 P= .722 -.0244 P= .753 .0680 P= .379 .0822 P= .280 .0031 P= .968 -.0805 P= .289 -.0861 P= .257 -.0130 P= .864 .0209 P= .788 -.0156 P= .836 .0141 P: .855 PEIESl4 P: PEIESl5 P: PEIESl6 P: PEIESl7 P: PEIESZ P: PEIES3 P: PEIES4 P: PEIESS P: PEIES6 P: PEIES7 PEIESB PEIES9 RRSSl RRSSlO RRSSll RRSSlZ .0606 .428 P= .0875 .255 P= .2255 .002 P= .1622 .031 P= .1537 .042 P= .0405 .598 P= .0787 .305 P= .1329 .082 P= .1058 .171 P= .1582 .035 P= .1434 .058 P= .0882 .244 P= .1041 .169 P= .0205 .786 P= -.0502 .506 P= .0742 .325 P= 194 .0251 -.0043 .744 P= .955 .0564 .1354 .465 P= .077 .1407 .1567 .062 P= .036 .0530 .1164 .485 P= .122 .0566 -.0396 .457 P= .601 .0015 -.0372 .985 P= .627 .0378 -.0004 .624 P= .995 .0240 .0316 .755 P- .680 .0506 .0654 .514 P= .397 .0377 .0413 .619 P= .584 .0801 .0613 .293 P= .419 -.0860 .0842 .258 P= .265 .1573 .0535 .038 P= .479 -.1443 .0521 .056 P= .491 .0264 -.0376 .728 P: .617 -.0140 .1202 .853 P= .110 .0034 P= .964 .2161 P= .004 .1399 P= .061 .1138 P= .129 -.0544 P= .471 -.0223 P= .770 -.0254 P= .739 .1008 P= .186 .1233 P= .108 -.0271 P= .719 .0989 P= .190 .1121 P= .136 -.0179 P= .813 .0484 P= .521 .0460 P= .540 .1686 P= .024 .1884 P= .013 .1066 P= .164 .1794 P= .016 .1211 P= .107 .0230 .1305 P .087 .1156 P= .130 .1684 P= .027 .0819 P= .288 .0743 P= .324 .1159 P= .125 .1164 P= .123 .0158 P= .835 .0626 P= .408 .0291 P= .699 .1092 P= .147 .0417 -.0413 P= .593 .1114 P= .140 .1129 P= .136 .0861 P= .257 .0105 .892 -.0249 .747 -.1038 P= .177 -.0688 P= .374 -.0294 P= .699 -.0197 P= .796 .0509 P= .504 -.0099 P= .897 -.0230 = .762 -.0686 .365 P= .608 195 RRSSl3 -.0029 .0314 .2298 .0480 .1275 -.0375 P= .969 P= .678 P= .002 P= .523 P= .089 P= .621 RRSSl4 -.0081 -.0687 .0522 .0443 .0960 .0273 P= .915 P= .366 P= .490 P= .557 P= .204 P= .720 RRSSZ -.0673 -.0572 -.0916 .0055 -.0384 .1121 P= .376 P= .453 P= .227 P= .942 P= .613 P= .141 RRSSB .0004 -.0651 -.0013 .0464 .1511 -.0431 P= .996 P= .394 P= .986 P= .539 P= .045 P= .572 RRSS4 .1632 .1274 -.0089 .0238 .1455 -.0614 P= .030 P= .092 P= .906 P= .752 P= .053 P= .418 RRSSS .2279 .1517 .1475 .1296 .1547 .0132 P= .002 P: .044 P: .049 P= .083 P= .039 P= .862 RRSS6 -.0134 .1094 -.0679 -.0248 .0910 -.O991 P: .859 P= .148 P= .368 P= .742 P= .227 P= .191 RRSS7 .0318 -.0836 .0169 -.0604 .1764 .1152 P= .674 P: .270 P: .823 P= .422 P= .019 P= .128 RRSSB .0529 -.0118 -.0411 -.0415 .0923 -.0103 P: .488 P= .878 P= .589 P= .584 P= .225 P= .893 RRSS9 -.0743 -.0362 -.0746 -.0679 .0896 .0334 P= .327 P= .634 P= .325 P= .369 P= .237 P= .661 SRSl .1093 -.0311 .2820 .1611 .1363 .1263 P: .150 P= .684 P= .000 P= .032 P= .071 = .097 SRSZ .1169 -.0191 .1934 .1473 .0618 .1909 P: .121 P: .801 P: .010 P= .049 P= .412 = .011 SRS3 .1048 -.0820 .1537 .1230 .1108 .2010 P= .165 P: .279 P= .041 P: .101 P= .141 P= .007 SRS4 -.0060 .0353 .1856 .1762 -.1893 .0591 P: .938 P= .647 P= .015 P= .020 P= .013 P= .444 SRSS .1180 .0057 .2864 .1880 .2009 .1769 P= .125 P: .941 P: .000 P: .014 P: .008 P: .021 SRS6 -.O905 -.1096 -.0964 -.0912 .0780 -.1206 P= .231 P: .148 P= .201 P: .225 P= .301 P= .111 8RS7 C181 C182 C183 C184 C185 C186 C187 C188 K181 K182 K183 K184 K185 K186 MDRSl 196 .0366 .0269 -.0354 .0025 .0511 -.0200 P= .629 P= .723 P= .639 P= .974 P= .498 P= .792 - - Correlation Coefficients - - C187 C188 K181 K182 K183 K184 .2829 .0962 -.O772 .0813 -.1223 -.0993 P— .000 P= .207 P= .306 P= .281 P= .104 P= .194 .2402 .0351 -.0767 -.0142 -.0652 -.0085 P= .001 P= .646 P= .310 P= .851 P= .389 P= .912 .0532 .1371 .1209 .2378 .0216 .0411 P— .483 P— .070 P= .107 P= .001 P= .774 P= .591 .1006 .1519 .1761 .1011 -.0332 .0441 P= .183 P= .044 P= .018 P== .177 P= .658 P= .563 .0897 .0647 .0550 .0987 -.0991 -.0653 P: .237 P: .395 P= .465 P= .189 P= .187 P= .392 -.O314 .1908 -.0418 .0959 -.0350 -.O650 P: .680 P= .012 P: .581 P= .204 P= .644 P= .397 1.0000 .1406 .0332 .0179 .0671 .0814 P: . P= .063 P= .660 P= .812 P= .373 P= .286 .1406 1.0000 -.1159 .0256 .1536 .0394 P= .063 P= . P= .124 P= .735 P= .041 P= .608 .0332 -.1159 1.0000 .1461 .0381 .1599 P= .660 P= .124 P= . = .049 P= .609 P= .034 .0179 .0256 .1461 1.0000 .0004 -.0144 P: .812 P~ .735 P= .049 P= . P= .995 P= .849 .0671 .1536 .0381 .0004 1.0000 .1852 P— .373 P= .041 P= .609 P= .995 P= . P= .014 .0814 .0394 .1599 -.0144 .1852 1.0000 F: .286 P— .608 P= .034 P= .849 P= .014 P= . .0457 .0203 -.1399 .1806 .1037 .2285 P: .547 P: .790 P: .061 P= .015 P= .166 P= .002 .0753 .2139 .0661 .2115 .3568 0944 P= .319 P= .004 P: .377 P= .004 P= .000 P= .213 -.1066 -.0742 -.1063 .0130 .1616 -.0386 P= .164 p: .336 P: .163 P: .865 P= .033 P= .616 MDRSlO P: MDRSll P: MDRSlZ P: MDRSZ MDRS3 MDRS4 MDR85 MDRS6 MDRS7 MDR88 MDRS9 PEIESl P: PEIESlO P: PEIESll P: PEIESlZ P: -.078 .305 -e 106 .162 .0063 .935 .0003 .997 .0211 .784 -.0160 .835 -.0529 .492 -.1118 .145 -.0353 .642 -.0168 .824 -.0104 .891 .0649 .392 .061 .416 .114 .137 .148 .048 3 P: 2 P: P= P: P: P: P: P: P: P: P: P: 5 P: 6 P: 5 P: .0338 .660 -e067 .374 .0413 O 597 .1174 .127 .0675 O 383 .0592 .445 .0891 .250 .0410 .596 -.0108 .888 .0638 .403 .0385 .613 .0250 .742 .1329 .079 .1069 O 167 .1034 .171 197 .1070 .1511 P= .156 P= .045 7 .0135 .0851 P= .858 P= .257 -.0146 .1296 P= .850 P= .091 -.0309 .1029 P= .686 P= .177 .0914 .0233 P= .232 P= .761 .0544 .0359 P= .477 P= .639 .1065 .1686 P= .163 P= .027 -.0468 .0876 P= .541 P= .252 .0586 .1637 P= .434 P= .028 .0371 .1945 P= .622 P= .009 .1027 .1339 P= .170 P= .073 -.0248 .1381 P= .741 P= .065 .0049 .2438 P= .948 P= .001 -.0139 .1456 P= .856 P= .055 .0175 .2273 P= .815 P= .002 .1422 P= .059 .1497 P== .045 .1215 P= .114 .1358 P= .074 .0368 P= .630 .1649 P= .030 .0912 P= .233 .0980 P= .200 .1300 P= .082 .1014 P= .177 .0928 P= .215 .0788 P= .293 .0737 P= .324 .0028 P= .971 .0360 P= .630 -.0335 P: P: .661 .0503 .510 -.1651 P: O 033 -.1275 P: .096 -.0167 P: .829 .0517 P: .503 -.0458 P: .553 -.1628 P: .034 -.1824 P: .016 -.1821 P: .016 P: .781 .1051 P: .166 -.0676 P: P: .373 .0594 .442 .0078 P: .918 PEIESl3 P: PEIESl4 P: PEIESlS P: PEIESIG P: PEIE817 P: PEIESZ P: PEIES3 P: PEIES4 P: PEIESS P: PEIES6 PEIES7 PE1E88 PE1E89 RRSSl RRSSlO RRSSll .1714 .025 P= .0886 .246 P= .1407 .066 P= .1903 .011 P= -.0264 .728 P= .0297 .696 P= .1462 .056 P: .1678 .028 P= .1693 .026 P= .2547 .001 P= .0620 .412 P= .1250 .099 P= .0483 .523 P: .0600 .429 P= -.0101 .895 P= -.0477 .527 P= .0793 .304 P= .1195 .119 P= .0611 .429 P= .3054 .000 P= .0954 .208 P= .0440 .563 "U II .0661 .391 .1209 .115 .074 .1115 .150 .1143 .131 .1249 .101 .0568 .455 P .2315 .002 P= .0465 .541 P: .0461 .542 P= 198 -.0413 .588 -.0478 .527 -.0168 .825 .0320 .668 .0405 .588 .0045 .952 -.0643 .397 -.0482 .525 -.0325 .669 -.0477 .533 .0826 .269 -.0054 .943 .1174 .117 .0634 .398 -.0051 .946 .0295 .692 .2026 P= .007 .0576 P== .447 .0984 P= .195 .2456 P= .001 .1353 P= .069 .0975 P= .193 .0147 P= .846 .0017 P= .982 .0423 P= .577 .0735 P= .336 .1788 P= .016 .1910 P= .010 .2636 P= .000 .0487 P= .516 .1583 P: .034 .0107 P= .886 .0569 P= .456 .0075 P= .921 .0338 P= .657 .0631 = .397 -.0648 P= .386 -.1125 P= .133 -.0535 P= .481 .0191 P= .802 .0111 P= .884 .1373 P= .072 .0254 P= .735 .1462 P= .051 P= .368 .0457 P= .542 .0289 P= .700 .0240 P= .748 .0296 P= .702 -.0940 P= .219 .0549 P= .475 -.0001 P= .999 -.0922 P= .224 -.1262 .096 -.0697 .364 .0193 P= .801 .0209 P= .786 .0238 P= .758 -.0839 P= .268 .0227 P= .767 -.1047 P= .167 .1107 P= .145 .1611 P= .033 .0105 P= .890 RRSS4 RRSSS RRSS6 RRSS7 RRSSB RRSS9 lSRSl SRSZ SR83 SRs4 SRSS -.0103 .892 P= -.0280 .711 P= -.0177 .816 P= -.0147 .847 P= -.0274 .719 P= .0724 .338 P= .1085 .149 P= .1721 .022 P= -.0457 .546 P= -.0255 .739 P= .0744 .328 P= -.0285 .709 P= -.0089 .906 P: .0962 .203 P= -.0618 .421 P= .0340 .659 P: 199 .0452 -.0358 .551 P= .632 .1406 -.0750 .062 P= .314 .0490 -.1444 .520 P= .053 -.0139 .0606 .856 P= .421 -.0117 -.0384 .878 P= .610 .1035 -.0313 .172 P= .676 .0643 -.0039 .395 P= .959 .0593 -.0296 .434 P= .692 .0201 -.0863 .790 P= .248 .0724 -.1311 .344 P= .081 .0459 -.0467 .548 P= .535 .0461 .0839 .542 P= .264 .1569 .1072 .038 P= .151 .1304 -.0393 .085 P= .599 .1079 .0349 .158 P= .647 .2973 .0475 .000 P= .533 -.0492 P= .511 .2664 P= .000 .2635 P= .000 .0485 P= .519 .0689 P= .360 -.0224 P= .764 .0664 P= .373 -.0753 P= .314 .0659 P= .378 -.0404 P= .593 -.1005 P= .181 .1507 P= .044 .2054 P= .006 .1706 P= .022 .0805 P: .290 .2184 P= .004 -.o730 P= .329 .0902 P= .226 .0503 p= .502 .0300 P= .691 -.0560 P: .457 .1104 P= .139 -.0384 P= .607 .0940 P= .208 -.0804 P= .282 -.0790 P= .294 .0494 P= .511 -.1415 P= .059 -.1528 p= .040 -.0162 P= .829 -.0605 P= .426 .0129 P= .866 -.0446 P= .556 -.0260 P= .731 -.0669 P= .378 .0466 P= .542 .0169 .825 '0 II -.0563 P= .458 -.0488 P= .519 .0992 P= .190 -.0835 O 270 '0 II -.0800 P= .295 .0940 P= .217 -.1711 P= .024 -.2577 P= .001 -.1927 P= .010 -.0969 P= .209 .0926 P= .230 200 SR86 -.1850 -.0130 -.0179 -.1782 .0521 .0821 P= .014 P= .864 P= .811 P= .016 P= .486 P= .279 8R8? -.0868 -.0771 -.0149 -.0218 -.0558 -.0236 P= .251 P= .309 P= .842 P= .771 P= .455 P= .756 - - Correlation Coefficients - - KISS K186 MDRSl MDRSlO MDRSll MDRSlZ C181 -.0960 -.0124 .0370 .0529 .0020 .0833 P— .205 P= .870 P= .632 P= .489 P= .979 P= .284 C182 -.0741 .0049 -.0086 .0683 .0292 .0047 P— .330 P= .948 P= .911 P= .373 P= .702 P= .953 C183 .0526 .1436 .0035 .0722 .0576 .0703 P— .487 P= .056 P= .964 P= .344 P= .447 P= .365 CIS4 .0225 .0767 .1736 .0844 .0541 .1619 P= .765 P= .308 P= .023 P= .267 P= .474 P= .035 C185 .0055 .0487 .0638 .0008 .1523 .2796 P= .942 P= .519 P= .407 P= .992 P= .044 P= .000 C186 .0297 .0246 .0217 -.0074 -.0238 -.0442 P- .697 P= .746 P= .779 P= .923 P= .756 P= .572 C187 .0457 .0753 -.1066 -.0783 -.1062 .0063 P= .547 P= .319 P= .164 P= .305 P= .162 P= .935 C188 .0203 .2139 -.0742 .0338 -.0677 .0413 P= .790 P= .004 P= .336 P= .660 P= .374 P= .597 K181 -.1399 .0661 -.1063 .1070 .0135 -.0146 P= .061 P= .377 P= .163 P= .156 P= .858 P= .850 K182 .1806 .2115 .0130 .1511 .0851 .1296 P= .015 P= .004 P= .865 P= .045 P= .257 P= .091 K183 .1037 .3568 .1616 .1422 .1497 .1215 P= .166 P= .000 P= .033 P= .059 P= .045 P= .114 K184 .2285 .0944 -.0386 -.0335 -.0503 -.1651 P= .002 P= .213 P= .616 P= .661 P= .510 P= .033 K185 1.0000 .2048 .0783 -.0252 .0348 -.0686 P= P= .006 P= .307 P= .740 P= .645 P= .375 ‘KIS6 .2048 1.0000 .0790 .2089 .1573 .0983 P= .006 P= . P= .300 P= .005 P= .035 P= .201 201 MDRSl .0783 .0790 1.0000 .3291 .2918 .4011 P= .307 P= .300 P= . P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 MDRSlO -.0252 .2089 .3291 1.0000 .4256 .5661 P= .740 P= .005 P= .000 P= . P= .000 P= .000 MDRSll .0348 .1573 .2918 .4256 1.0000 .5761 P= .645 P= .035 P= .000 P= .000 P= . P= .000 MDR812 -.O686 .0983 .4011 .5661 .5761 1.0000 P= .375 P= .201 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= . MDRSZ .0305 .0962 .3773 .6175 .5333 .5860 P= .691 P= .206 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 MDR83 .0706 .2262 .2990 .5216 .5520 .4171 P= .358 P= .003 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 MDRS4 .0591 .1446 .2850 .4765 .4774 .5339 P= .442 P= .058 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 MDRSS .0971 .2184 .4496 .5165 .4116 .4925 P= .207 P= .004 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 MDRS6 -.0479 .1801 .5168 .5882 .5941 .5603 P= .534 P= .018 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 .MDRS7 .0644 .1780 .4092 .5863 .5051 .4548 P= .393 P= .017 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 IMDRSB .0295 .2512 .4374 .5895 .5354 .6133 P= .697 P= .001 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 MDRS9 -.0589 .1758 .1812 .6438 .5244 .6001 P= .434 P= .018 P= .017 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 PEIESl .2323 -.0406 -.0329 -.0349 -.0269 .0331 P= .002 P= .589 P= .668 P= .647 P= .722 P= .669 PEIESlO .0327 .2248 .2972 .2565 .1936 .3611 P= .664 P= .002 P= .000 P= .001 P= .010 P= .000 PEIE811 .0166 .1243 .0901 .2107 .1598 .3279 P= .829 P= .103 P= .248 P= .006 P= .037 P= .000 PEIESlZ P: PEIESl3 P: PE1E814 p: PEIESIS P: PEIESl6 P: PE1E317 P: PEIESZ P: PEIES3 P: PEIES4 p: PEIESS P: PEIESO P: PEIES7 P: PEIESB PEIES9 RRSSl RRSSlO .1856 .013 P= .1885 .013 P= .347 P= .1965 .010 P= .1020 .173 P= -.0516 .493 P= -.1004 .182 P= -.0460 .547 P= -.O783 .304 P= .1295 .088 P= .0486 .528 P= -.0632 .400 P= .0299 .693 P= .0240 .751 P= -.0480 .525 P= .1999 .007 P: .1531 .040 P= .1373 .072 P= .0932 .219 P= .0846 .267 P= .2420 .001 P= .1322 .077 P= -.0281 .708 P= .1307 .085 P= .1502 .047 P= .1005 .186 P= .1285 .093 P= .1208 .106 P= .1215 .106 P= .1698 .023 P= .0223 .767 P= .1089 .147 P: 202 .1501 .048 .0874 .260 .0607 .433 .0669 .389 .1881 .013 .2284 .003 .1418 .063 .0107 .891 -.0043 .956 .0140 .857 .0950 .225 .1476 .053 .2425 .001 .3427 .000 -.0593 .439 .0393 .608 .2257 P= .003 .1278 P= .096 .1829 P= .016 .0513 P= .505 .3556 P= .000 .1863 P: .013 .2481 P= .001 .1314 P= .087 .1154 P= .133 .0941 P= .221 .1440 P= .063 .2324 P= .002 .2876 P= .000 .2689 P= .000 .0504 P= .508 -.0884 P= .245 .2200 P= .003 .1718 P= .025 .1501 P= .048 .0758 .1189 P= .113 .1050 P= .163 .1698 P= .024 .1493 P= .050 .1089 P= .154 .1439 P= .059 .1211 P= .116 .0507 P= .502 .2226 P= .003 .2515 P= .001 -.0044 P= .954 .0232 P— .759 .3406 P= .000 .2658 P= .001 .2669 P= .000 .2253 P= .004 .3120 P= .000 .2058 P= .007 .2470 P= .001 .1916 P= .013 .2404 P= .002 2263 2613 P= .001 .2011 P= .009 3270 P= .000 3917 P= .000 .0404 P= .601 -.0179 P= .818 RRSSll P: RRSSlZ P: RRSSl3 P: RR8814 P: RR882 RR883 RRSS4 RR885 RRSS6 RRSS7 RR888 RRSS9 SR81 8R82 SR83 SRS4 -.0135 .857 P= .1282 .087 P= .2497 .001 P= .1332 .076 P= .0861 .255 P= .1910 .011 P= -.O397 .597 P: .0280 .709 P: -.0476 .527 P= .1008 .179 P: .0974 .198 P: -.0659 .383 P= .0417 .582 P= .0742 .324 P= .0417 .579 P= .0250 .744 P: 203 -.0331 .0834 .659 P= .274 -.0935 -.0253 .212 P= .741 .2840 .0576 .000 P= .450 .1773 .0399 .018 P= .603 .1363 -.0086 .070 P= .911 .0151 -.0115 .842 P= .881 .1326 .1670 .076 P= .028 .0086 .1673 .908 P= .027 .1235 -.1547 .099 P= .042 -.0658 .0162 .380 P= .832 -.0107 .0011 .888 P= .989 -.0218 -.1894 .773 P= .013 .0802 -.O917 .0177 -.0191 .813 P= .803 .1149 .1382 .124 P: .070 .0760 -.1117 .319 P= .151 .2165 .1013 .1859 P= .004 P= .177 P= .015 .0118 .0042 .1144 P== .876 P= .956 P= .137 .0854 .0084 .0113 P= .259 P= .911 P= .883 -.0551 -.0048 -.0090 P= .469 P= .950 P= .907 -.0309 .0892 .0064 P= .686 P= .239 P= .934 -.0256 -.0237 .0744 P= .737 P= .755 P= .338 .3264 .1045 .2840 P: .000 P= .165 P= .000 .3334 .0917 .2839 P= .000 P: .222 P= .000 -.0526 -.1063 -.0076 P= .488 P= .158 P= .921 .0041 -.0294 .1202 P: .957 P: .697 P= .118 .0083 -.0174 .0665 P: .914 P: .820 P= .393 -.2398 -.1710 -.0634 P= .001 P= .023 P= .414 .1344 .0653 .1784 P= .077 P= .389 P= .021 .0808 .0374 .0915 P= .286 P= .620 P= .236 .0858 .1836 .2926 P= .257 P= .014 P: .000 -.1082 -.0667 -.1419 P— .160 P: .385 P: .070 SRSS SR86 8RS7 C181 C182 C183 C184 C185 C186 C187 C188 K181 K182 K183 K184 K185 204 .0882 .1966 .0053 .0544 .0209 .1119 P— .250 P= .010 P= .945 P= .482 P= .786 P= .154 .0893 -.0015 -.1016 -.1531 -.0167 -.1150 -.0255 -.O477 -.1178 -.0207 -.0031 .0601 P- .735 P= .525 P= .123 P= .785 P= .967 P= .437 - - Correlation Coefficients - - MDR82 MDR83 MDR84 MDRSS MDR86 MDRS7 .0587 .1517 .1061 .0546 .1196 .0892 P: .447 P== .049 P= .170 P: .481 P: .121 P= .239 .0321 .0839 .0970 .0266 .1025 .0934 P= .679 P— .280 P= .211 P= .732 P= .186 P= .219 .0944 .1322 .1160 .0903 .0647 .1802 P= .219 P— .086 P= .132 P= .241 P= .402 P= .016 .0653 .1748 .0671 .1199 .0995 .0510 P= .395 P— .022 P= .383 P= .118 P= .196 P= .499 .1296 .1434 .1870 .0402 .1351 .0380 P= .091 P= .062 P: .015 P= .603 P= .079 P= .616 -.0121 .0116 -.0276 -.0244 .0680 .0822 P: .876 P= .881 P= .722 P: .753 P= .379 P= .280 .0003 .0211 -.0160 -.0529 -.1118 -.0353 P: .997 P= .784 P— .835 P= .492 P= .145 P= .642 .1174 .0675 .0592 .0891 .0410 -.0108 P: .127 P: .383 P= .445 P= .250 P= .596 P= .888 -.0309 .0914 .0544 .1065 -.O468 .0586 P: .686 P= .232 P= .477 P= .163 P= .541 P= .434 .1029 .0233 .0359 .1686 .0876 .1637 P= .177 P= .761 P= .639 P= .027 P= .252 P= .028 .1358 .0368 .1649 .0912 .0980 .1300 P= .074 P: .630 P= .030 P= .233 P= .200 P= .082 -.1275 -.0167 .0517 -.0458 -.1628 -.1824 P= .096 P= .829 P= .503 P= .553 P= .034 P= .016 .0305 .0706 .0591 .0971 -.0479 .0644 P: .691 P= .358 P= .442 P= .207 P: .534 P: .393 K186 p= MDRSl p= MDRSlO P= MDRSll P= MDRSlZ p: MDRSZ P: MDR83 '0 II MDRS4 MDRSS MDRSG MDRS7 MDRS8 IMDRS9 p= PEIESl -.1218 p: PEIESlO p: PEIESll p: PEIE812 P= 205 .0962 .2262 .1446 .2184 .1801 .1780 .206 P= .003 P= .058 P= .004 P= .018 P= .017 .3773 .2990 .2850 .4496 .5168 .4092 .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 .6175 .5216 .4765 .5165 .5882 .5863 .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 .5333 .5520 .4774 .4116 .5941 .5051 .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 .5860 .4171 .5339 .4925 .5603 .4548 .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 1.0000 .5272 .6074 .5296 .6144 .5904 . P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 .5272 1.0000 .5149 .5251 .5192 .4490 .000 P= . P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 .6074 .5149 1.0000 .3688 .4583 .5158 .000 P= .000 P= . P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 .5296 .5251 .3688 1.0000 .6071 .5140 .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= . P= .000 P= .000 .6144 .5192 .4583 .6071 1.0000 .5665 .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= . P= .000 .5904 .4490 .5158 .5140 .5665 1.0000 .000 P: .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= . .6921 .4767 .5701 .5791 .7102 .7477 .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 .6722 .6049 .5790 .4796 .5288 .5656 .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 -.0702 -.0018 -.0132 -.0537 -.0960 .360 P= .981 P= .864 P= .485 P= .212 P= .105 .3029 .3690 .2603 .3807 .3037 .3217 .000 P= .000 P= .001 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 .2406 .2234 .1394 .2605 .0962 .2305 .002 P= .004 P= .074 P= .001 P= .219 P= .002 .2295 .2967 .2553 .2732 .1802 .2261 .002 P= .000 P= .001 P= .000 P= .018 P= .002 PEIESl3 P= PEIE814 P: PEIESlS P: PEIE816 P: PEIESl7 P: PEIESZ P: PEIES3 P: PEIES4 PEIESS PE1E86 PEIES7 PE1E88 PE1E89 RRSSl p: ‘1‘.“ _1 7., 4- .1406 .069 P= .1909 .013 P= .0670 .388 P= .3098 .000 P= .1967 .009 P= .1612 .035 P= .1340 .083 P= .1194 .123 P= .1223 .114 P= .2034 .009 P= .1637 .031 P= .2654 .000 P= .2906 .000 P= .0691 .368 P= .2169 .005 P= .1287 .096 P= .0759 .330 P= .2643 .000 P= .2581 .001 P= .1522 .047 P .1220 .116 P= .0620 .426 .2307 .003 P= .1152 .142 .1589 .037 .1907 .012 .2834 .000 .0614 .425 P 206 .1007 O 195 .2656 .001 .0999 .199 .2235 .003 .2727 .000 .009 .1744 .024 .2082 .007 .1904 O 014 .1913 .014 .1624 .033 .2810 .000 .1679 - .028 -.0014 .986 .2082 .007 .1121 .148 .1092 .160 .2711 O 000 .1799 P= .018 .2175 P= .004 .0593 P= .446 .0884 P= .256 .1765 P= .022 P= .212 .1489 P= .051 .2425 P= .001 .3505 P= .000 .0685 P: .374 .1053 P= .176 .1924 P= .012 .0245 P= .754 .2031 P= .007 .1989 P= .009 .2191 P= .004 .1592 P= .040 .1146 P= .140 -.0122 P= .875 .1243 P= .113 .0864 P= .260 .2339 P= .002 .2817 P= .000 .0200 P= .795 .1319 P= .085 .1764 P= .020 .0333 P= .664 .2960 P= .000 .3651 P= .000 .3620 P= .000 .2048 P= .007 .1628 P= .032 .1057 P= .165 .1061 P= .167 .2555 P= .001 .2984 P= .000 .3539 P= .000 -.0659 P= .382 207 RRSSlO -.OO73 .0210 .0172 .0281 -.0357 -.0424 P= .924 P= .785 P= .824 P= .716 P= .643 P= .574 RRSSll .1873 .1201 .2481 .1057 .1654 .1631 P= .013 P= .116 P= .001 P= .166 P= .030 P= .029 RR8812 .0354 .0615 .0665 .0402 .0531 -.0212 P= .643 P= .423 P= .386 P= .601 P= .489 P= .778 RR8813 .0948 .1152 .1900 .0322 -.0199 .0978 P= .213 P= .131 P= .012 P= .674 P= .795 P= .191 RR8814 -.0002 .0608 -.0228 -.0032 -.0161 -.O798 P: .998 P= .429 P== .768 P= .967 P: .834 P= .289 RR882 -.0055 .1665 .0057 .1075 .0552 -.0739 P: .943 P: .029 P= .940 P= .160 P= .472 P= .328 RR883 .0416 .0972 .0142 .0542 .0139 .0146 P= .589 P= .207 P= .854 P= .482 P= .858 P= .847 RRSS4 .2611 .1863 .2792 .1389 .2002 .1735 P: .001 P= .014 P: .000 P= .069 P= .008 P= .020 RR885 .3015 .2041 .3042 .1398 .2561 .2207 P= .000 P= .007 P= .000 P: .067 P= .001 P= .003 RRSS6 -.0947 -.0014 .0036 -.1785 -.1378 -.2557 P= .215 P= .985 P= .963 P: .019 P: .071 P= .001 RRSS7 .0185 .0368 .0226 .0437 .0457 -.O793 P: .809 P= .631 P= .768 P: .569 P= .552 P= .292 RR888 .0233 .0277 .0338 -.0011 .0853 .0324 P: .763 P= .721 P= .662 P= .988 P= .270 P= .670 RRSS9 -.1545 -.1224 -.1117 -.2606 -.2073 -.3346 P= .044 P= .112 P= .147 P= .001 P= .007 P= .000 8R81 .0731 .1219 .0367 .0303 .0322 .0899 P= .342 P: .113 P= .634 P= .695 P= .677 P= .234 8R82 .0641 .1137 -.0302 .0851 -.0275 .0409 P: .402 P: .137 P= .694 P= .267 P= .721 P= .587 SR83 .2364 .1935 .1074 .2027 .1688 .2482 P= .002 P: .011 P= .161 P= .008 P= .027 P= .001 8R84 SRSS SR86 SRS7 C181 C182 C183 C184 C185 C186 C187 C188 K181 K182 K183 K184 MDRSB MDRSQ PEIESl .1076 .0729 .0753 P= .157 P= .336 P= .321 .0853 .0679 .0950 P= .263 P= .372 P= .211 .1065 .0861 .0969 P= .160 P= .254 P= .199 .0894 .1805 .1961 P— .237 P= .016 P= .009 .0915 .0759 .1253 P= .227 P= .315 P= .096 .0031 -.0805 -.0861 P= .968 P= .289 P= .257 -.0168 -.0104 .0649 P= .824 P= .891 P= .392 .0638 .0385 .0250 P= .403 P= .613 P= .742 .0371 .1027 -.0248 P= .622 P= .170 P= .741 .1945 .1339 .1381 P= .009 P= .073 P= .065 .1014 .0928 .0788 P= .177 P= .215 P= .293 -.1821 -.0211 .1051 208 -.0750 -.0561 -.1038 .335 P= .473 P= .183 .0644 .1417 .0963 .410 P= .069 P= .219 -.1230 .0079 -.1198 .107 P= .918 P= .117 P= .999 P= .152 -.0735 .0047 -.0769 .336 P= .952 P= .016 P= .781 P= .166 -.0922 -.1659 -.0593 P= .237 P= .033 P= .439 .0654 .0845 .1587 P= .404 P= .281 P= .038 -.0001 -.1098 -.1642 P= .028 .0066 -.0065 -.0920 .0771 P= .308 -.0713 P= .347 .1097 P= .145 .1937 P= .009 .1435 P= .056 -.0130 P= .864 .0615 P= .416 .1329 P= .079 .0049 P= .948 .2438 P= .001 .0737 P= .324 -.0676 P= .373 .316 P‘--= .931 P= .932 P= .221 Correlation Coefficients - - PEIESlO PEIE811 PEIESlZ .0986 .1310 P= .201 P= .081 -.0194 .0171 P= .802 P= .821 .1284 .0631 P= .094 P= .401 .1458 .1162 P= .056 P= .120 .1072 .1678 P= .163 P= .025 .0209 -.0156 P= .788 P= .836 .1146 .1485 P= .137 P= .048 .1069 .1034 P= .167 P= .171 -.0139 .0175 P= .856 P= .815 .1456 .2273 P= .055 P= .002 .0028 .0360 P= .971 P= .630 -.0594 .0078 P= .442 P= .918 K185 K186 MDRSl MDRSlO MDRSll ’0 ll MDR812 MDR82 MDR83 MDRS4 MDRSS MDR86 MDRS7 MDR88 MDRS9 PEIESl .0295 .697 P= .2512 .001 P= .4374 .000 P= .5895 .000 P= .5354 .000 P= .6133 .000 P= .6921 .000 P= .4767 .000 P= .5701 .000 P= .5791 .000 P= .7102 .000 P= .7477 .000 P= 1.0000 . P= .6740 .000 P: -.1067 .157 P= 209 -.0589 .2323 .0327 .0166 .434 P= .002 P= .664 P= .829 .1758 -.0406 .2248 .1243 .018 P= .589 P= .002 P= .103 .1812 -.0329 .2972 .0901 .017 P= .668 P= .000 P= .248 .6438 -.0349 .2565 .2107 .000 P= .647 P— .001 P= .006 .5244 -.0269 .1936 .1598 .000 P= .722 P— .010 P= .037 .6001 .0331 .3611 .3279 .000 P= .669 = .000 P= .000 .6722 -.0702 .3029 .2406 .000 P= .360 P= .000 P= .002 .6049 -.0018 .3690 .2234 .000 P= .981 P— .000 P= .004 .5790 -.0132 .2603 .1394 .000 P= .864 P= .001 P= .074 .4796 -.0537 .3807 .2605 .000 P= .485 P= .000 P= .001 .5288 -.0960 .3037 .0962 .000 P= .212 P= .000 P= .219 .5656 -.1218 .3217 .2305 .000 P= .105 P= .000 P= .002 .6740 -.1067 .3895 .2366 .000 P= .157 P= .000 P= .002 1.0000 -.0060 .2952 .2707 P: .936 P= .000 P= .000 -.0060 1.0000 .2090 .1376 .936 P= . P= .005 P= .072 .n-grfi'rr -- .1856 P= .013 .1531 P= .040 .1501 P= .048 .2257 P= .003 .2200 P= .003 3406 P= .000 .2295 P= .002 .2967 P= .000 .2553 P= .001 .2732 P= .000 .1802 P= .018 .2261 P= .002 .2738 P= .000 .2473 P= .001 .3208 P= .000 PEIESlO P: PEIESll P: PEIESlZ P: PEIE813 P: PEIESl4 P: PEIESlS p: PEIESl6 P: PEIESl7 P: PEIESZ P: PEIES3 P: PEIES4 P: PEIESS p: PEIES6 P: PEIES7 P: PEIESB P: PEIE89 P: .3895 .000 P= .2366 .002 P= .2738 .000 P= .1834 .016 P= .2222 .003 = .1184 .121 P= .3238 .000 P= .2795 .000 P= .2714 .000 P= .015 P: .1500 .049 P= .1056 .167 P= .1598 .037 P= .1971 .008 P= .3163 .000 P= .3963 .000 P= .2952 .000 P= .2707 .000 P= .2473 .001 P= .1420 .063 P= .1656 .029 P= .0918 .230 P= .2790 .000 P= .1745 .019 P= .2020 .007 P .1285 .091 .1281 .092 .1584 .037 .2006 .009 P= .1613 .031 .2942 .000 P= .2709 .000 P: 210 .2090 .005 .1376 .072 .3208 .000 .1963 .010 .0755 .321 .5329 .000 .2246 .002 .1883 .012 .0977 .193 .0333 .663 .0548 .473 .2302 .002 .1911 .012 .2689 .000 .1983 .008 .1763 .019 1.0000 P= . .3339 .000 .6759 .000 .4061 O 000 .1772 .019 .2713 .000 .4708 .000 .5328 .000 .2758 P= .000 .1776 P= .018 .1384 P= .067 .2346 P= .002 .2442 P= .001 .4993 P= .000 .4875 P= .000 .7633 P= .000 .3339 P= .000 1.0000 P= . .3836 P= .000 .3507 P= .000 .4107 P= .000 .4866 P= .000 .4450 P= .000 .2150 P= .004 .2212 P= .003 .4392 P= .000 .4242 P= .000 .6951 P= .000 .5437 P: .000 .1999 P= .008 .1782 P= .019 .3957 P: .000 .6759 P= .000 .3836 P= .000 1.0000 P: O .5213 P= .000 .2364 P= .002 .3988 P= .000 .4703 P= .000 .4056 P= .000 .2493 P= .001 .2394 P= .001 .1908 P= .011 .5292 P= .000 .3302 P= .000 .4666 P= .000 .5158 P= .000 .6193 P= .000 RRSSl P: RRSSlO P: RRSSll P: RRSSlZ P: RRSSl3 P: RR8814 P: RR882 RR883 RRSS4 RR885 RR886 RRSS7 RR888 RRSS9 SR81 8R82 .0561 .458 P= -.0971 .199 P= .1622 .030 P= -.0710 .346 P= .1218 .104 P= -.0637 .399 P= -.0220 .772 P= -.0351 .643 P: .2191 .003 P= .2179 .003 P: -.1420 .059 P= -.0355 .638 P= .0227 .766 P= -.2494 .001 P= .0633 .404 P= .0565 .454 P: 211 .0188 .0717 .804 P= .342 -.0586 .1332 .437 P= .076 .1961 .0770 .008 P= .304 -.0097 .1505 .897 P= .044 .0354 .1047 .637 P= .162 -.0777 .0670 .303 P: .374 -.0097 .1194 .898 P= .113 .0138 .1361 .855 P= .071 .1948 .1164 .009 P= .121 .2032 .1264 .006 P= .091 -.0605 .1374 .421 P= .067 -.0812 .1377 .280 P= .066 -.0469 .1277 .537 P= .091 -.2070 .1737 .006 P= .021 1519 -.0095 .044 P= .901 .0657 .0094 .382 P= .901 .0981 P= .192 .1102 P= .142 .1840 P= .013 .0086 P= .909 .1800 P= .015 .2176 P= .003 .0605 P= .422 .0791 P= .294 .2681 P= .000 .2922 P= .000 .0141 P= .851 .1325 P= .076 .0410 P= .588 .0255 P= .735 .1766 P= .018 .1575 P= .035 -.0078 P= .919 .0321 P= .676 -.0183 P= .811 .0835 P= .275 .1742 P= .021 .0655 P= .393 .0277 P= .719 .1759 P= .021 .2159 P= .004 .2955 P= .000 .0677 P= .376 .1174 P= .124 .0625 P= .418 .0821 P= .286 .1520 P= .047 .2432 P= .001 .0671 P= .370 .0801 P= .285 .1753 P= .018 .0242 P= .747 .1225 P= .099 .1256 P== .093 .0197 P= .794 -.0018 P= .981 .2020 P= .006 .1712 P= .021 .0473 P= .527 .0578 P= .439 -.O367 P= .626 -.0030 P= .969 .1980 P= .008 .1324 P= .076 SR83 SRS4 8R85 SRS6 SR87 C181 C182 C183 C184 C185 C186 C187 C188 K181 K182 K183 .2541 P= .001 -.0782 P= .308 .1398 P= .068 -.1519 P= .043 -.0605 P= .423 PEIESl3 .1164 P= .129 .1005 P= .192 .2414 P= .001 .1070 P= .161 .1933 P: .011 .0141 P= .855 .1714 P= .025 .0793 P= .304 -.0413 P= .588 .2026 P= .007 .0569 P: .456 212 .2096 .1120 .2402 .2905 .2572 P= .005 P= .135 P= .001 P= .000 P= .000 -.0377 -.0518 -.0609 -.0121 -.1023 P= .622 P= .497 P= .424 P= .877 P= .178 .0954 .0279 .2178 .0665 .1965 P= .213 P= .716 P= .004 P= .393 P= .009 -.1179 .0544 -.0646 -.1231 -.O701 P= .116 P= .470 P= .389 P= .107 P= .348 .0093 .0149 -.0286 -.0111 -.0596 P= .901 P= .843 P= .703 P= .885 P= .425 Correlation Coefficients - — PEIE814 PEIESIS PEIESl6 PEIE817 PEIE82 .0606 .0875 .2255 .1622 .1537 P= .428 P= .255 P= .002 P= .031 P= .042 .0251 .0564 .1407 .0530 .0566 P- .744 P= .465 P= .062 P= .485 P= .457 -.OO43 .1354 .1567 .1164 -.0396 P= .955 P= .077 P= .036 P= .122 P= .601 .0034 .2161 .1399 .1138 -.0544 P= .964 P= .004 P= .061 P= .129 P= .471 .1884 .1066 .1794 .1211 .0230 P= .013 P= .164 P= .016 P= .107 P= .761 .0417 -.0413 .1114 .1129 .0861 P= .587 P= .593 P= .140 P= .136 P= .257 .0886 .1407 .1903 -.0264 .0297 P= .246 P= .066 P= .011 P= .728 P= .696 .1195 .0611 .3054 .0954 .0440 P= .119 P= .429 P= .000 P= .208 P= .563 -.0478 -.0168 .0320 .0405 .0045 P= .527 P= .825 P= .668 P= .588 P= .952 .0576 .0984 .2456 .1353 .0975 P= .447 P= .195 P= .001 P= .069 P= .193 .0075 .0338 .0631 -.O648 -.1125 P= .921 P: .657 P: .397 P: .386 P= .133 K184 K185 K186 MDRSl MDR810 MDR811 MDR812 MDR82 MDR83 MDRS4 MDRSS MDR86 MDRS7 MDR88 MDRS9 .096 .025 O 001 .069 .005 .195 .007 .176 .016 .063 .0296 .702 P: .1885 .013 P: .1373 .072 P: .0874 .260 P= .1278 P: .1718 P: .2658 P: .1406 P: .2169 P: .1007 P: .2082 P: .1053 P: .1319 .085 P= .1834 P: .1420 P: -.0940 .219 -.0716 .347 O 219 .0607 .433 .1829 .016 .1501 .048 .2669 .000 .1909 .013 .1287 .096 .2656 .001 .1121 .148 .1924 .012 .1764 .020 .2222 .003 .1656 O 029 P: 213 .0549 .475 .1965 .010 0846 .267 .0669 .389 .0513 .505 .0758 .323 .2253 .004 .0670 .388 .0759 .330 .0999 .199 .1092 .160 .0245 .754 .0333 .664 .1184 .121 .0918 .230 -.0001 P= .999 .1020 P= .173 .2420 P= .001 .1881 P= .013 .3556 P= .000 .1189 P= .113 .3120 P= .000 .3098 P= .000 .2643 P= .000 .2235 P= .003 .2711 P= .000 .2031 P= .007 .2960 P= .000 .3238 P= .000 .2790 P= .000 -.0922 P= .224 -.0516 P= .493 1322 P= .077 .2284 P= .003 .1863 P= .013 .1050 P= .163 .2058 P= .007 .1967 P= .009 .2581 P= .001 .2727 P= .000 .1799 P= .018 .1989 P= .009 .3651 P= .000 .2795 P= .000 .1745 P= .019 -.1262 P= .096 -.1004 P= .182 P= .708 .1418 P= .063 .2481 P= .001 .1698 P= .024 .2470 P= .001 .1612 P= .035 .1522 P= .047 .1988 P: .009 .2175 P= .004 .2191 P= .004 .3620 P= .000 .2714 P= .000 .2020 P= .007 PEIESl P: PEIESlO P: PEIESll P: PEIESlZ p: PEIESl3 P: PEIESI4 P: PEIESlS P: PEIE816 P: PEIE317 P: PEIE82 P: PEIE83 P: PEIES4 PEIESS PEIES6 PEIES7 PEIES8 P: .1963 010 P= .4061 .000 P= .3507 .000 P= .5213 000 P= 1.0000 P: .2094 .006 P= .3091 .000 P: .3699 .000 P= .1759 .021 P= .1200 .117 P= .1371 .075 P= .1187 .124 P= .3596 .000 P= .3300 .000 P: .2507 .001 P= .3287 .000 P= .0755 .321 P= .1772 .019 P= .4107 .000 P= .2364 .002 P= .2094 .006 P= 1.0000 0 P: .4160 .000 P: .2834 .000 P= .2875 .000 P= .2765 .000 P .7872 .000 .6490 .000 .4268 .000 .4847 .000 .2029 .007 "U II .2592 .001 P 214 .5329 .000 .2713 .000 .4866 .000 .3988 .000 .3091 .000 .416 .000 1.000 .3460 .000 .1741 .022 .1596 .036 .4256 .000 .3725 O 000 .5237 .000 .5190 .000 .2642 .000 .2136 .005 .2246 P= .002 .4708 P= .000 .4450 P= .000 .4703 P= .000 .3699 P= .000 0 .2834 P= .000 0 .3460 P= .000 1.0000 P: O .5361 P= .000 .4240 P= .000 .3046 P= .000 .2948 P= .000 .3948 P= .000 .3471 P= .000 .5231 P= .000 .4276 P= .000 .1883 P= .012 .5328 P= .000 .2150 P= .004 .4056 P= .000 .1759 P-"= .021 .2875 P= .000 .1741 P: .022 .5361 P= .000 1.0000 P: O .6077 P= .000 .3969 P= .000 .3371 P= .000 .2084 P== .006 .1898 P= .013 .6754 P= .000 .4323 P= .000 .0977 P= .193 .2758 P= .000 .2212 P= .003 .2493 P= .001 .1200 P= .117 .2765 .000 "U II .1596 .036 .4240 .000 .6077 P= .000 1.0000 P= . .3361 P= .000 .3111 P= .000 .1793 P= .018 .1633 P= .032 .5089 P= .000 .2732 P= .000 PEIES9 P: RRSSl RRSSlO P: RRSSll P: RRSSlZ P: RR8813 P: RR8814 RR882 RR883 RRSS4 RR885 RRSS6 RRSS7 RR888 RRSS9 SR81 8R82 SRS3 .2705 .000 P= .0605 .430 P= .0801 .296 P= .1023 .179 P= .0915 .231 P= .1323 .082 P= .0860 .262 P= .0183 .812 P= -.0195 .799 P= .1445 .057 P= .1484 .051 P= .1121 .142 P= .0439 .567 P= .0586 .448 P= .0926 .228 P= .1550 .043 P= .1592 .036 P= .1919 215 .1823 .2383 .016 P= .002 .0681 .0949 .371 P= .214 -.0497 .0584 .514 P= .445 .1046 .0092 .166 P= .904 .1037 .1495 .171 P= .049 .1052 .1282 .163 P= .091 .0119 -.0372 .876 P: .627 -.0087 -.0427 .910 P= .578 .1441 .1625 .057 P= .033 .2940 .2140 .000 P= .005 .2431 .2779 .001 P: .000 .0153 .0856 .840 P“ .262 .0007 .0300 .993 P— .695 .1134 .0450 .138 P— .559 .0636 .1002 .405 P= .191 -.0735 .1349 .335 P= .078 -.0492 .1070 .517 P= .160 .1039 .1023 .4339 P= .000 .1802 P= .016 -.0549 P= .464 .1364 P= .066 .0002 P= .998 .1426 P= .055 .1185 .113 .0419 P= .578 .0566 P= .452 .3587 P= .000 .3419 P= .000 .0197 P= .793 .1917 .010 .0199 .792 .0169 .822 .0981 P= .192 .1106 P= .138 .1992 .5232 P= .000 .1270 -.0269 P= .720 .1560 P= .036 .0717 P= .339 .1246 P= .095 .2143 P= .004 .1061 P= .159 .1340 P= .075 .3108 P= .000 .3192 P= .000 -.0418 P= .578 .1214 P= .105 .1460 P= .052 .0082 .914 P: .0428 P= .571 .0218 P= .771 .2087 .2976 P= .000 .1108 P= .141 P= .056 .0972 P= .194 -.0586 P= .436 -.0252 P= .737 -.0201 P= .790 .0865 P= .253 -.0214 P= .777 .2899 P= .000 .3742 P= .000 -.1454 P= .052 .1230 P= .101 .0277 P= .715 -.O490 P= .517 .0383 P= .613 -.0032 P= .966 .1141 SR84 SRSS SRS6 SRS? C181 C182 C183 C184 C185 C186 C187 C188 K181 K182 K183 P= .011 P= .169 P= .0501 -.0352 P= .520 P= .648 P= .1468 -.0917 P= .059 P= .234 P= --.1630 -.1035 P: .032 P= .172 P= -.0817 -.0775 P= .285 P= .306 P= - - Correlation PEIE83 PEIES4 P .0405 .0787 . P: .598 P= .305 P= .0015 .0378 . P= .985 P= .624 P= -.0372 -.0004 P= .627 P= .995 P= -.0223 -.0254 P= .770 P= .739 P= .1305 .1156 . P: .087 P: .130 P= .0105 -.0249 P= .892 P= .747 P= .1462 .1678 . P= .056 P= .028 P= .0661 .1209 . P: .391 P= .115 P= -.0643 -.O482 P: .397 P= .525 P= .0147 .0017 . P= .846 P= .982 P= -.0535 .0191 P= .481 P= .802 P= 216 .178 P= .007 P= .005 P= .128 -.0211 .0975 .0456 -.0086 .786 P= .199 P= .550 P= .910 -.0071 .1187 .1562 .0503 .927 P= .119 P= .040 P= .511 -.0121 -.1371 -.1164 -.0804 .874 P= .066 P= .120 P= .285 -.0811 -.0389 -.0204 .0129 .288 P= .603 P= .786 P= .864 Coefficients - - EIESS PEIES6 PEIES7 PEIE88 1329 .1058 .1582 .1434 .082 P= .171 P= .035 P= .058 0240 .0506 .0377 .0801 .755 P= .514 P= .619 P= .293 .0316 .0654 .0413 .0613 .680 P= .397 P= .584 P= .419 .1008 .1233 -.0271 .0989 .186 P= .108 P= .719 P= .190 1684 .0819 .0743 .1159 .027 P= .288 P= .324 P= .125 -.1038 -.0688 -.0294 -.0197 .177 P= .374 P: .699 P= .796 1693 .2547 .0620 .1250 .026 P= .001 P= .412 P= .099 1370 .1115 .1143 .1249 .074 P= .150 P= .131 P= .101 -.0325 -.0477 .0826 -.0054 .669 P= .533 P= .269 P: .943 0423 .0735 .1788 .1910 .577 P= .336 P= .016 P= .010 .0111 .1373 .0254 .1462 .884 P= .072 P= .735 P= .051 K184 p: K185 p= KI86 p: MDRSl P: MDRSlO P: MDR811 P: MDR812 MDR82 MDR83 MDR84 MDRSS MDRS6 MDRS7 MDR88 -.0697 .364 P= -.0460 .547 P= .1307 .085 P= .0107 .891 P= .1314 .087 P= .1493 .050 P= .1916 .013 P= .1340 .083 P= .1220 .116 P= .1744 .024 P= .0593 .446 P= .1592 .040 P= .2048 .007 P= .1854 .015 P= 217 .0193 .0209 .0238 .801 P= .786 P= .758 -.0783 .1295 .0486 .304 P= .088 P= .528 .1502 .1005 .1285 .047 P= .186 P= .093 -.0043 .0140 .0950 .956 P= .857 P= .225 .1154 .0941 .1440 .133 P= .221 P= .063 .1089 .1439 .1211 .154 P= .059 P= .116 .2404 .2263 .2613 .002 P= .003 P= .001 .1194 .1223 .2034 .123 P= .114 P= .009 .0620 .2307 .1152 .426 P= .003 P= .142 .2082 .1904 .1913 .007 P= .014 P= .014 .0884 .1765 .0979 .256 P= .022 P= .212 .1146 -.0122 .1243 .140 P= .875 P= .113 .1628 .1057 .1061 .032 P= .165 P= .167 .1500 .1056 .1598 .049 P= .167 P= .037 -.0839 P= .268 -.0632 P= .400 .1208 P= .106 .1476 P= .053 .2324 P= .002 .0507 P= .502 .2011 P= .009 .1637 P= .031 .1589 P= .037 .1624 P= .033 .1489 P= .051 .0864 P= .260 .2555 P= .001 .1971 P= .008 .0227 P= .767 .0299 P= .693 .1215 P3 .106 .2425 P= .001 .2876 P= .000 .2226 P= .003 .3270 P= .000 .2654 P= .000 .1907 P= .012 .2810 P= .000 .2425 P= .001 .2339 P= .002 .2984 P= .000 .3163 P= .000 MDR89 p: PEIE81 p= PEIESlO p: PEIESll p= PEIESlZ p= PEIESl3 p= PEIE814 p: PEIESIS P: PEIE816 P: PEIE817 p= PEIESZ P: PEIES3 P: PEIES4 p= PEIESS P: PEIESG P: PEIES7 P: .1285 .091 P= .0333 .663 P= .1776 .018 P= .4392 .000 P= .2394 .001 P= .1371 .075 P= .7872 .000 P= .4256 .000 P= .3046 .000 P= .3969 .000 P= .3361 .000 P= 1.0000 . P: .7944 .000 P= .4698 .000 P= .5414 .000 P= .2907 .000 P= 218 .1281 .1584 .2006 .092 P= .037 P= .009 .0548 .2302 .1911 .473 P= .002 P= .012 .1384 .2346 .2442 .067 P= .002 P= .001 .4242 .6951 .5437 .000 P= .000 P= .000 .1908 .5292 .3302 .011 P= .000 P= .000 .1187 .3596 .3300 .124 P= .000 P= .000 .6490 .4268 .4847 .000 P= .000 P= .000 .3725 .5237 .5190 .000 P= .000 P= .000 .2948 .3948 .3471 .000 P= .000 P= .000 .3371 .2084 .1898 .000 P= .006 P= .013 .3111 .1793 .1633 .000 P= .018 P= .032 .7944 .4698 .5414 .000 P= .000 P= .000 1.0000 .4538 .4566 . P= .000 P= .000 .4538 1.0000 .5908 .000 P= . P= .000 .4566 .5908 1.0000 .000 P= .000 P= . .2969 .2782 .2482 .000 P= .000 P= .001 .1613 P= .031 .2689 P= .000 .4993 P= .000 .1999 P= .008 .4666 P= .000 .2507 P= .001 .2029 P= .007 .2642 P= .000 .5231 P= .000 .6754 P= .000 .5089 P= .000 .2907 P= .000 .2969 P= .000 .2782 P= .000 .2482 P= .001 1.0000 P= . .2942 P= .000 .1983 P= .008 .4875 P= .000 .1782 P= .019 .5158 P= .000 .3287 P= .000 .2592 P= .001 .2136 P= .005 .4276 P= .000 .4323 P= .000 .2732 P= .000 .2503 P= .001 .1948 P= .010 .1659 P= .029 .5210 P= .000 .4590 P= .000 219 PEIE88 .2503 .1948 .1659 .5210 .4590 1.0000 P= .001 P= .010 P= .029 P= .000 P= .000 P= . PEIES9 .2028 .1486 .2441 .2186 .5136 .4686 P= .007 P= .050 P= .001 P= .004 P= .000 P= .000 RRSSl -.0201 -.0418 .0094 .1156 .1888 .1593 P= .792 P= .584 P= .902 P= .132 P= .011 P= .034 RRSSlO -.0900 -.0594 .0689 .0529 -.0309 -.0208 P= .238 P= .436 P= .366 P= .492 P= .682 P= .784 RRSSll .0580 .0532 .0408 .1408 .0936 .2756 P: .444 P= .483 P= .591 P= .065 P: .210 P= .000 RR8812 .0520 .0424 .0664 .1643 -.0354 .0521 P= .495 P= .577 P= .382 P= .031 P= .637 P= .490 RR8813 .0232 -.0228 .1526 .1696 .0570 .1622 P= .760 P= .764 P= .043 P: .026 P= .446 P= .030 RR8814 -.0015 .0375 .0262 .0605 .0866 .1506 P= .984 P= .623 P= .732 P= .432 P= .249 P= .045 RR882 .0069 .0039 .0114 .0385 .0329 .0593 P= .928 P= .959 P= .881 P= .618 P= .663 P= .433 RR883 .1372 .0739 .1733 .1661 -.0415 .0141 P= .071 P= .332 P= .023 P= .030 P= .583 P= .853 RRSS4 .2705 .2788 .1687 .2838 .3331 .3230 P= .000 P= .000 P= .026 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 RR885 .2877 .2790 .1543 .2476 .2731 .2231 P: .000 P= .000 P= .041 P= .001 P= .000 P= .003 RR886 .0232 .0963 .1286 .1740 -.1206 .0136 P= .760 P= .205 P= .090 P= .022 P= .107 P= .857 RRSS7 -.0364 -.0163 .0414 .0952 .0935 .0904 P= .633 P= .830 P= .586 P= .214 P= .212 P= .230 RR888 .0974 .0860 .0787 .1486 -.0230 .0129 P= .204 P= .262 P= .305 P= .054 P= .762 P= .866 RRSS9 .0270 .1249 .0903 .1704 -.0639 .0056 P= .725 P= .102 P= .238 P= .026 P= .397 P= .941 SR81 8R82 SR83 SR84 SR85 SRS6 SRS7 C181 C182 C183 C184 C185 C186 C187 C188 K181 220 .0009 -.0368 .0754 -.0015 .0934 .0174 P= .991 P= .630 P= .324 P= .984 P= .215 P= .818 -.O608 -.1285 .1333 .0436 .0665 .0022 P= .424 P= .090 P= .079 P= .570 P= .375 P= .976 .1194 .0881 .1936 .0547 .1908 .1234 P= .114 P= .245 P= .010 P= .474 P= .010- P= .101 -.O307 -.1032 -.0177 -.0164 .0094 -.0625 P: .692 P= .182 P= .819 P= .834 P= .902 P= .415 -.O717 -.0490 .0160 -.1283 .1650 .0678 P= .354 P= .527 P= .836 P= .099 P= .030 P= .379 -.0510 -.0416 -.0608 -.0316 -.0513 .0062 P: .503 P= .585 P= .424 P= .681 P= .494 P= .935 -.0265 -.0561 -.0911 -.0244 -.0345 -.0583 P= .728 P= .461 P= .230 P= .751 P= .646 P= .439 - — Correlation Coefficients - - PEIES9 RRSSl RRSSlO RR8811 RR8812 RR8813 .0882 .1041 .0205 -.0502 .0742 -.0029 P= .244 P= .169 P= .786 P= .506 P= .325 P= .969 -.0860 .1573 -.1443 .0264 -.0140 .0314 P: .258 P= .038 P= .056 P= .728 P= .853 P= .678 .0842 .0535 .0521 -.0376 .1202 .2298 P— .265 P= .479 P= .491 P= .617 P= .110 P= .002 .1121 -.0179 .0484 .0460 .1686 .0480 P: .136 P= .813 P= .521 P= .540 P= .024 P= .523 .1164 .0158 .0626 .0291 .1092 .1275 P: .123 P= .835 P= .408 P= .699 P= .147 P= .089 .0509 -.0099 -.0230 -.0686 -.0389 -.0375 P“ .504 P= .897 P= .762 P= .365 P= .608 P= .621 .0483 .0600 -.0101 -.0477 -.0103 -.0280 P= .523 P= .429 P= .895 P= .527 P= .892 P= .711 .0568 .2315 .0465 .0461 .0452 .1406 P: .455 P= .002 = .541 P= .542 P= .551 P= .062 .1174 .0634 -.0051 .0295 -.0358 -.0750 P= .117 P: .398 P: .946 P= .692 P: .632 P= .314 K182 K183 K184 K185 p: K186 P: MDRSl P: MDRSlO p: MDR811 p: MDR812 P= MDR82 MDR83 MDRS4 MDRSS MDRSG MDRS7 .2636 .0487 .1583 .000 P= .516 P= .034 .0675 .0457 .0289 .368 P= .542 P= .700 -.1047 .1107 .1611 .167 P= .145 P= .033 .0240 -.0480 .1999 .751 P= .525 P= .007 .1698 .0223 .1089 .023 P= .767 P= .147 .3427 -.0593 .0393 .000 P= .439 P= .608 .2689 .0504 -.0884 .000 P= .508 P= .245 .2515 -.0044 .0232 .001 P= .954 P= .759 .3917 .0404 -.0179 .000 P= .601 P= .818 .2906 .0691 -.0073 .000 P= .368 P= .924 .2834 .0614 .0210 .000 P= .425 P= .785 .1679 -.0014 .0172 .028 P= .986 P= .824 .3505 .0685 .0281 .000 P= .374 P= .716 .2817 .0200 -.0357 .000 P= .795 P= .643 .3539 -.0659 -.0424 .000 P= .382 P= .574 221 .0107 P= .886 .0240 P= .748 .0105 P= .890 -.0135 P= .857 -.0331 P= .659 .0834 P= .274 .2165 P= .004 .1013 P= .177 .1859 P= .015 .1873 P= .013 .1201 P= .116 .2481 P= .001 .1057 P= .166 .1654 P= .030 .1631 -.0492 P= .511 -.0730 P= .329 -.0446 P= .556 .1282 P= .087 -.0935 P= .212 -.0253 P= .741 .0118 P= .876 .0042 P= .956 .1144 P= .137 .0354 P= .643 .0615 P= .423 .0665 P= .386 .0402 P= .601 .0531 P= .489 -.0212 .2664 P= .000 .0902 P= .226 -.0260 P= .731 .2497 PB .001 .2840 P3 .000 .0576 P= .450 .0854 P= .259 .0084 P= .911 .0113 P= .883 .0948 P= .213 .1152 P= .131 .1900 P= .012 .0322 P= .674 -.0199 P= .795 .0978 P= .029 P= .778 P= .191 MDR88 MDRS9 PEIESl P: PEIESlO P: PEIESll P: PEIESlZ P: PEIE513 P: PEIESl4 P: PEIESlS P: PEIESI6 P: 'PEIESl? p: PEIE82 P: PEIESB PEIES4 PEIESS PEIES6 P: .000 .000 .007 .3963 000 P= .2709 .000 P= .1763 .019 P= .7633 .000 P= .3957 P: .6193 P: .2705 .000 P= .1823 016 P= .2383 .4339 000 P= .5232 .000 P= .2976 .000 P= .2028 P: .1486 .050 P= .2441 .001 P= .2186 .004 P= .0561 O 458 .0188 .804 .0717 .342 .0981 .192 -.007 .919 .0671 .370 .0605 .430 .0681 .371 .0949 .214 .1802 .016 .1270 .090 .1108 .141 -.0201 .792 -.0418 .584 .0094 .902 .1156 .132 P: P: P: P: 8 P: P: P: P: P: P: P: P: P: P: P: P: 222 -.0971 .1622 .199 P= .030 -.0586 .1961 .437 P= .008 .1332 .0770 .076 P= .304 .1102 .1840 .142 P= .013 .0321 -.0183 .676 P= .811 .0801 .1753 .285 P= .018 .0801 .1023 .296 P= .179 -.0497 .1046 .514 P= .166 .0584 .0092 .445 P= .904 -.0549 .1364 .464 P= .066 -.0269 .1560 .720 P= .036 -.1436 .0972 .056 P= .194 -.0900 .0580 .238 P= .444 -.0594 .0532 .436 P: .483 .0689 .0408 .366 P= .591 .0529 .1408 .492 P= .065 -.0710 P: .346 -00097 P: .897 .1505 P= .044 .0086 P: .909 .0835 P= .275 .0242 P: .747 .0915 P: .231 .1037 P: .171 .1495 P: .049 .0002 P= .998 .0717 P: .339 -.0586 P: .436 .0520 P: .495 .0424 P: .577 .0664 P: .382 .1643 P: .031 .1218 P= .104 .0354 P= .637 .1047 P= .162 .1800 .1742 P= .021 P= .099 .1323 P= .082 .1052 P= .163 .1282 P= .091 .1426 P= .055 .1246 P= .095 -.0252 P= .737 .0232 P= .760 -.0228 P= .764 .1526 P: .043 .1696 P= .026 PEIES7 P: PEIES8 P: PEIE39 P: RRSSl P: RRSSlO P: RRSSll P: RRSSIZ P: RRSS13 p: RRSSl4 P: RR882 RR883 RRSS4 RRSSS RRSS6 RRSS7 RR888 .5136 .000 P= .4686 .000 P= 1.0000 0 P: .0838 .266 P= .0645 .392 P= .1549 .038 P= .0546 .468 P= .0931 .214 P= .1642 .029 P= .1346 .074 P: .0917 .225 P= .1740 .020 P= .1606 .031 P= -.O462 .540 P= .1812 .015 P= .0878 .247 P= .1888 .011 P= .1593 .034 P= .266 P= 1.0000 . P= -.0247 .743 P= -.0640 .393 P= .0561 .456 P .1523 .041 .0442 .558 .1773 .018 .0680 .368 .2562 O 001 .1202 .108 P= -.0368 .625 P= .2346 .002 P= .0715 .346 P= 223 -.0309 .682 -.0208 .784 .0645 .392 -.024 .743 1.000 .0610 .416 .2986 O 000 .0637 .395 .2533 .001 .0135 .858 .1380 .067 .0089 .906 -.0127 .866 .1271 O 090 .0253 .737 .2914 .000 .0936 -.0354 P= .210 P= .637 .2756 .0521 P= .000 P= .490 .1549 .0546 P= .038 P= .468 7 -.0640 .0561 P= .393 P= .456 0 .0610 .2986 P= .416 P= .000 1.0000 .1050 P= . P= .160 .1050 1.0000 P= .160 P= . .0109 .0431 P— .884 P= .565 -.0266 .2337 P- .723 P= .002 -.0221 .0561 P= .769 P= .457 .0447 .4856 P= .552 P= .000 .2382 .0854 P== .001 P= .254 .1341 .0522 P= .071 P= .485 .1306 .1339 P= .080 P: .073 .0086 .2708 P= .908 P= .000 .0982 .6170 P= .192 P= .000 .0570 P= .446 .1622 P= .030 P= .214 .1523 P= .041 .0637 P= .395 P= .884 .0431 P= .565 1.0000 P: O .4439 P= .000 .0961 P= .201 .2117 P= .004 .1639 P= .027 .0542 P= .467 .0637 P= .394 .1787 P= .016 .1019 P= .176 RRSS9 SR81 SRS2 SRS3 SRS4 SRS5 SRS6 SRS7 CISl CISZ CIS3 C184 C185 CIS6 C187 C188 224 -.0300 -.0064 .1195 .0299 .1309 -.0216 .1242 -.0823 .0773 -.0858 .1406 .1596 P: .100 P= .275 P= .306 P= .253 P= .061 P= .033 .1343 -.0459 .1426 -.0692 .0745 .2038 P= .073 P= .542 P= .057 P= .354 P= .320 P= .006 .3014 -.0811 -.0434 -.0729 .0318 .1890 P= .000 P= .281 P= .564 P= .330 P= .671 P= .011 ~.1154 .0579 -.0191 -.0959 .0078 .1472 P= .131 P= .448 P= .803 P= .207 P= .918 P= .052 .1927 .0776 .1003 .0058 .0376 .1619 P= .011 P= .310 P= .190 P= .940 P= .623 P= .033 -.0797 .0307 .0762 -.0124 .0554 -.0993 P= .289 P= .683 P== .310 P= .868 P= .460 P= .184 .0289 .0301 -.1188 -.0342 .1108 -.1148 P= .701 P= .689 P= .113 P= .647 P= .139 P= .124 - - Correlation Coefficients — - RR8814 RRSS2 RR883 RRSS4 RR885 RRSS6 -.0081 -.0673 .0004 .1632 .2279 -.0134 P= .915 P= .376 P= .996 P= .030 P= .002 P= .859 -.0687 -.0572 -.0651 .1274 .1517 .1094 P= .366 P= .453 P= .394 P= .092 P= .044 P= .148 .0522 -.0916 —.0013 -.0089 .1475 -.0679 P: .490 P= .227 P: .986 P= .906 P= .049 P: .368 .0443 .0055 .0464 .0238 1296 -.0248 P: .557 P= .942 P= .539 P= .752 P= .083 P= .742 .0960 -.0384 .1511 .1455 .1547 .0910 P: .204 P= .613 P= .045 P= .053 P= .039 P= .227 .0273 .1121 “.0431 -.0614 .0132 -.0991 P: .720 P: .141 P= .572 P= .418 P= .862 P= .191 -.0177 -.0147 -.0274 .0724 .1085 .1721 P= .816 P= .847 P= .719 P= .338 P= .149 P= .022 .0490 -.0139 -.0117 .1035 .0643 .0593 P: .520 P= .856 P= .878 P= .172 P= .395 P= .434 K181 K182 K153 K184 KISS KI86 MDRSl MDRSlO MDRS11 MDR812 MDRS2 MDR83 MDRS4 MDRSS MDRS6 -.1444 .053 P= .2635 .000 P== .0503 .502 P= -.0669 .378 P= .076 P= .1773 .018 P= .0399 .603 P= -.0551 .469 P= -.0048 .950 P= -.OO90 .907 P= -.0002 .998 P= .0608 .429 P= -.0228 .768 P= -.0032 .967 P= -.0161 .834 P= .0606 .421 .0485 .519 .0300 .691 .0466 .542 .0861 .255 .1363 .070 -.0086 .911 -.030 .686 .0892 .239 .0064 .934 -.0055 .943 .1665 .029 .0057 .940 .1075 .160 .0552 .472 225 -.0384 -.0313 -.0039 -.0296 P= .610 P= .676 P= .959 P= .692 .0689 -.0224 .0664 -.0753 P= .360 P= .764 P= .373 P= .314 -.0560 .1104 -.0384 .0940 P= .457 P= .139 P= .607 P= .208 .0169 -.0563 -.0488 .0992 P= .825 P= .458 P= .519 P= .190 .1910 -.0397 .0280 -.0476 P= .011 P= .597 P= .709 P= .527 .0151 .1326 .0086 .1235 P= .842 P= .076 P= .908 P= .099 -.0115 .1670 .1673 -.1547 P= .881 P: .028 P= .027 P= .042 9 -.0256 .3264 .3334 -.0526 P= .737 P= .000 P= .000 P= .488 -.0237 .1045 .0917 -.1063 P= .755 P= .165 P= .222 P= .158 .0744 .2840 .2839 -.0076 P= .338 P= .000 P= .000 P= .921 .0416 .2611 .3015 -.0947 P= .589 P= .001 P= .000 P= .215 .0972 .1863 .2041 -.0014 P= .207 P= .014 P= .007 P= .985 .0142 .2792 .3042 .0036 P= .854 P= .000 P= .000 P= .963 .0542 .1389 .1398 -.1785 P= .482 P= .069 P= .067 P= .019 .0139 .2002 .2561 -.1378 P= .858 P= .008 P= .001 P= .071 MDRS7 P: MDRSB P: MDRSQ P: PEIESl P: PEIESlO p: PEIESll P: PEIES12 p= PEIESl3 P: PEIE814 P: PEIESIS P: PEIE816 P: PEIESl7 P: PEIE82 P: PEIES3 PEIES4 PEIESS P: -.0798 .289 P= -.0637 .399 P= -.0777 .303 P= .0670 .374 P= .2176 .003 P= .0655 .393 P= .1256 .093 P= .0860 .262 P= .0119 .876 P= -.0372 .627 P= .1185 .113 P= .2143 .004 P= -.0201 .790 P= -.0015 .0375 .623 P= .0262 .732 P: -.0739 .328 P= -.0220 .772 P= -.0097 .898 P= .1194 .113 P= .0605 .422 P= .0277 .719 P= .0197 .794 P= .0183 .812 P= -.0087 .910 P= -.0427 .578 P= .0419 .578 P= .1061 .159 P= .0865 .253 P= .0069 .928 P= .0039 .959 P= .0114 .881 P= 226 .0146 .847 -.0351 .643 .0138 .855 .1361 .071 .0791 .294 .1759 .021 -.0018 .981 -.0195 .799 .1441 .057 .1625 .033 .0566 .452 .1340 .075 -.0214 .777 .1372 .071 .0739 .332 .1733 O 023 .1735 P= .020 .2191 P= .003 .1948 P= .009 .1164 P= .121 .2681 P= .000 .2159 P= .004 .2020 P= .006 .1445 P= .057 .2940 P= .000 .2140 P= .005 .3587 P= .000 .3108 P= .000 .2899 P= .000 .2705 P= .000 .2788 P= .000 .1687 P= .026 .2207 P= .003 .2179 P= .003 .2032 P= .006 .1264 P= .091 .2922 P= .000 .2955 P= .000 .1712 P= .021 .1484 .051 .2431 .001 .2779 P= .000 .3419 P= .000 .3192 P: .000 .3742 P= .000 .2877 P= .000 .2790 P= .000 .1543 P= .041 -.2557 P: P: .001 .1420 .059 -.0605 P: .421 .1374 P: .067 .0141 P: .851 .0677 P: .376 .0473 P: O 527 .1121 P: O 142 .0153 P: .840 .0856 P: .262 .0197 P: .793 -.0418 P: P .578 .1454 .052 .0232 P: .760 .0963 P: .205 .1286 P: .090 PEIES6 PEIES7 PEIE88 PEIES9 RRSSl P: RRSSlO P: RRSSll RRSSlZ RR8813 RRSSl4 RR882 RRSSB RRSS4 RR885 RRSSG RRSS7 .0605 .432 P= .0866 .249 P= .1506 .045 P= .1642 .029 P= .0442 .558 P= .2533 .001 P= -.0266 .723 P= .2337 .002 P= .000 P= 1.0000 . P= .2008 .007 P= .3137 .000 P: .0248 .742 P= .0449 .550 P= .1757 .019 P= .2789 .000 P= .007 .0385 .618 P= .0329 .663 .0593 .433 .1346 .074 .1773 .018 P= .0135 .858 P= -.0221 .769 P= .0561 .457 P= .0961 .201 P= .2008 P: 1.0000 0 P: .1945 .010 P= -.0127 .866 P= -.1304 .082 P= .1665 .026 P= .1916 .010 P= 227 .1661 .030 -.0415 .583 .0141 .853 .0917 .225 .0680 .368 .1380 O 067 .044 .552 .4856 .000 .2117 .004 .3137 .000 P= .1945 .010 P= 1.0000 .0746 .322 .0152 .840 .1870 .012 .3365 .000 7 P .2838 P= .000 .3331 P= .000 .3230 P= .000 .1740 P= .020 .2562 P= .001 .0089 P= .906 .2382 P= .001 .0854 P= .254 .1639 P= .027 .0248 .742 -.0127 .866 .0746 .322 1.0000 P= . .6139 P= .000 .0828 P= .269 .1745 P= .019 P P P P .2476 P= .001 .2731 P= .000 .2231 P= .003 .1606 P= .031 .1202 P= .108 -.0127 P= .866 .1341 P= .071 .0522 P= .485 .0542 P= .467 .0449 O 550 -.1304 .082 .0152 = .840 .6139 = .000 P= . -.0163 P= .827 .1104 P= .139 .1740 P= .022 -01206 P= .107 .0136 P= .857 P= .540 -.0368 P= .625 .1271 P= .090 .1306 P= .080 .1339 P= .073 .0637 P= .394 .1757 P= .019 .1665 P= .026 .1870 P= .012 .0828 P= .269 -.0163 P= .827 1.0000 P= . .0827 P= .270 RR888 RRSS9 SR81 SRSZ SRS3 SRS4 SRSS SRS6 SRS7 CISl CISZ CIS3 CIS4 CISS CIS6 CIS7 228 .2486 .1995 .4583 .1140 P= .001 P= .008 P= .000 P= .131 .2015 .2029 .1885 .0245 P= .007 P= .007 P= .012 P= .745 .0771 -.1045 .0250 .0235 P= .308 P= .168 P= .742 P= .755 .1749 -.0263 .0757 -.0953 P= .019 P= .728 P= .315 P= .203 .0421 .1486 .0369 -.0329 P— .576 P— .048 P= .624 P= .661 .1270 .1008 .0807 -.OO80 P= .096 P- .188 P= .293 P= .916 .0565 .0291 .0864 -.0248 P— .461 P= .706 P= .261 P= .746 -.0524 .0701 .1013 .1671 P= .486 P= .352 P= .179 P= .025 -.0541 .0510 .1063 .0698 P= .472 P= .499 P= .158 P= .352 - - Correlation Coefficients - - RRSS7 RRSS8 RRSS9 SRSl SRS .0318 .0529 -.O743 .1093 P= .674 P= .488 P= .327 P= .150 -.0836 -.0118 -.0362 -.0311 P: .270 P= .878 P= .634 P= .684 .0169 -.0411 -.0746 .2820 P= .823 P= .589 P: .325 P= .000 ~.0604 -.0415 -.0679 .1611 P: .422 P= .584 P= .369 P= .032 .1764 .0923 .0896 .1363 . P: .019 P= .225 P= .237 P= .071 .1152 -.0103 .0334 .1263 P: .128 P== .893 P= .661 P= .097 -.0457 -.0255 .0744 -.0285 P= .546 P: .739 P: .328 P= .709 .0641 .2780 P= .396 P= .000 -.0585 .6759 P= .436 P= .000 .0887 -.1071 P= .238 P= .155 -.0502 -.0225 P= .502 P= .765 .0314 -.1344 P= .675 P= .072 -.1233 .0041 P= .104 P= .957 .0147 -.1036 P= .847 P= .175 -.1013 .1328 P= .175 P= .076 -.0640 .1195 P= .392 P= .110 2 SRS3 .1169 .1048 P= .121 P= .165 -.0191 -.0820 P= .801 P= .279 .1934 .1537 P= .010 P= .041 .1473 .1230 P= .049 P: .101 0618 .1108 P= .412 P= .141 .1909 .2010 P= .011 P= .007 -.0089 .0962 P: .906 P= .203 CISB KISl K182 K183 KIS4 K155 K156 MDRSl MDRSlO MDRS11 MDR812 MDRS2 MDR83 MDRS4 MDRSS MDRS6 MDRS7 229 .0201 .0724 .0459 .0461 .790 P= .344 P= .548 P= .542 -.0863 -.1311 -.0467 .0839 .248 P= .081 P= .535 P= .264 .0659 -.0404 -.1005 .1507 .378 P= .593 P= .181 P= .044 -.0804 -.0790 .0494 -.1415 .282 P= .294 P= .511 P= .059 -.0835 -.0800 .0940 -.1711 .270 P= .295 P= .217 P= .024 .1008 .0974 -.0659 .0417 .179 P= .198 P= .383 P= .582 -.0658 -.0107 -.0218 .0802 .380 P= .888 P= .773 P= .287 .0162 .0011 -.1894 -.0917 .832 P= .989 P= .013 P= .233 .0041 .0083 -.2398 .1344 .957 P= .914 P= .001 P= .077 -.0294 -.0174 -.1710 .0653 .697 P= .820 P= .023 P= .389 .1202 .0665 -.0634 .1784 .118 P= .393 P= .414 P= .021 .0185 .0233 -.1545 .0731 .809 P= .763 P= .044 P= .342 .0368 .0277 -.1224 .1219 .631 P= .721 P= .112 P= .113 .0226 .0338 -.1117 .0367 .768 P= .662 P= .147 P= .634 .0437 -.0011 -.2606 .0303 .569 P= .988 P= .001 P= .695 .0457 .0853 -.2073 .0322 .552 P= .270 P= .007 P= .677 -.0793 .0324 -.3346 .0899 .292 P= .670 P= .000 P= .234 .1569 .1304 P= .038 P= .085 .1072 -.0393 P= .151 P= .599 .2054 .1706 P= .006 P= .022 -.1528 -.0162 P= .040 P8 .829 -.2577 -.1927 P= .001 P8 .010 .0742 .0417 P= .324 P= .579 .0177 .1149 P= .813 P= .124 -.0191 .1382 P= .803 P= .070 .0808 .0858 P= .286 P= .257 .0374 .1836 P= .620 P= .014 .0915 .2926 P= .236 P= .000 .0641 .2364 P= .402 P= .002 .1137 .1935 P= .137 P= .011 -.0302 .1074 P= .694 P= .161 .0851 .2027 P= .267 P= .008 -.0275 .1688 P= .721 P= .027 .0409 .2482 P= .587 P= .001 MDRSB P: MDRS9 PEIESI P: PEIESlO P: PEIESll P: PEIESlZ P: PEIESl3 P: PEIESl4 P: PEIESIS P: PEIESl6 p: PEIE817 P: PEIE82 P: PEIES3 p: PEIES4 P: -.0355 .638 P= -.0812 .280 P= .1377 .066 P= .1325 .076 P= .1174 .124 P= .0578 .439 P= .0439 .567 P= .0007 .993 P= .0300 .695 P= .1917 .010 P= .1214 .105 P= .1230 .101 P= -.0364 .633 P= -.0163 .830 P= .0227 .766 P= -.0469 .537 P= .1277 .091 P= .0410 .588 P= .0625 .418 P= -.0367 .626 P= .0586 .448 P= .1134 .138 P= .0450 .559 P= -.0199 .792 P= .1460 .052 P= .0277 .715 P= .0974 .204 P‘-= .0860 .262 P= 230 -.2494 .001 P= -.2070 .006 P= .1737 .021 P= .0255 .735 P= .0821 .286 P= -.0030 .969 P== .0926 .228 P= .0636 .405 P= .1002 .191 P= -.0169 .822 -.0082 .914 -.0490 .517 .0270 .725 P= .1249 .102 P: P: P: P: .0633 .404 .1519 O 044 .0095 O 901 .1766 .018 .1520 .047 .1980 .008 .1550 .043 -.0735 .335 .1349 .078 .0981 .192 .0428 .571 .0383 .613 .0009 .991 -.0368 .630 .0565 P= .454 .0657 P= .382 .0094 P= .901 .1575 P= .035 .2432 P= .001 .1324 P= .076 .1592 P--‘= .036 -.0492 P= .517 .1070 P= .160 .1106 P= .138 .0218 P— 0771 -.0032 P= .966 -.0608 P= .424 -.1285 P= .090 .2541 P= .001 .2096 P= .005 .1120 .2402 P= .001 .2905 P= .000 .2572 P= .000 .1919 P= .011 .1039 P= .169 .1023 P= .178 .1992 P= .007 .2087 P= .005 .1141 P= .128 .1194 P= .114 .0881 P= .245 PEIESS p: PEIES6 P: PEIES7 P: PEIE88 P= PEIE89 p: RRSSl P: RRSSlO P: RR8811 p: RRSSIZ P: RR8813 P RR8814 P: RR882 RRSS3 RRSS4 RR885 IRRSS6 .0414 .586 P= .0952 .214 P= .0935 .212 P= .0904 .230 P= .1812 .015 P= .2346 .002 P= .0253 .737 P= .0086 .908 P= .2708 .000 P= .1787 .016 P= .2789 .000 P= .1916 .010 P= .3365 .000 P= .1745 .019 P= .1104 .139 P= .0827 .270 P= .0787 .305 .1486 .054 -.0230 .762 .0129 .866 .0878 .247 .0715 .346 .2914 .000 .0982 .192 .6170 .000 .1019 .176 .2486 .001 .1995 .008 .4583 .000 .1140 .131 .0641 .396 .2780 .000 231 .0903 P= .238 .1704 P= .026 -.0639 P= .397 .0056 P= .941 -.0300 P= .692 -.0064 P= .932 .1195 P= .112 .0299 P= .691 .1309 P= .081 -.0216 P= .774 .2015 P= .007 .2029 P= .007 .1885 P= .012 .0245 P= .745 -.0585 P= .436 .6759 P= .000 .0754 P= .324 -.0015 P= .984 .0934 P= .215 .0174 P= .818 .1242 P= .100 -.0823 P= .275 .0773 P= .306 -.0858 P= .253 .1406 P= .061 .1596 P= .033 .0771 P= .308 -.1045 P= .168 .0250 P= .742 .0235 P= .755 .0887 P= .238 -.1071 P= .155 .1333 P= .079 .0436 P= .570 .0665 P= .375 .0022 P= .976 .1343 P= .073 -.0459 P= .542 .1426 P= .057 -.0692 P= .354 .0745 P= .320 .2038 P= .006 .1749 P= .019 -.0263 P= .728 .0757 P= .315 -.0953 P= .203 -.0502 - .502 -.0225 .765 .1936 P= .010 .0547 P= .474 .1908 P= .010 .1234 P= .101 .3014 P= .000 -.0811 P= .281 -.0434 P= .564 -.0729 P= .330 .0318 P= .671 .1890 P= .011 .0421 P= .576 .1486 P= .048 .0369 P= .624 -.0329 P= .661 .0314 P= .675 .1344 .072 RRSS7 RR888 RRSS9 SRSl SRS2 SRS3 SRS4 SRS5 SRS6 SRS7 CISl C182 CIS3 CIS4 CISS CIS6 232 1.0000 .2858 .2559 .1472 .1768 .0333 P= . P= .000 P= .001 P= .049 P= .018 P= .657 .2858 1.0000 .3051 .1056 .1332 .0638 P= .000 P= . P= .000 P= .164 P= .077 P= .399 .2559 .3051 1.0000 -.1010 -.0301 -.0425 P= .001 P= .000 P= . P= .182 P= .690 P= .573 .1472 .1056 -.1010 1.0000 .6046 .2662 P= .049 P= .164 P= .182 P= . P= .000 P= .000 .1768 .1332 -.0301 .6046 1.0000 .3260 P= .018 P= .077 P= .690 P= .000 P= . P= .000 .0333 .0638 -.0425 .2662 .3260 1.0000 P= .657 P= .399 P= .573 P= .000 P= .000 P= . -.1010 .0294 .1073 .1118 .2561 .1031 P= .183 P= .702 P= .161 P= .141 P= .001 P= .176 .1079 .0288 -.1232 .4200 .3106 .4382 P= .156 P= .709 = .108 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 .1109 -.0157 .2126 -.0606 -.0232 -.2281 P- .138 P= .835 P= .004 P= .422 P= .757 P= .002 .2079 .0066 .1318 .0057 .0267 -.1894 P= .005 P= .931 P= .080 P= .940 P= .722 P= .011 — - Correlation Coefficients - - SRS4 SRSS SRS6 SRS7 -.0060 .1180 -.0905 .0366 P= .938 P= .125 = .231 P= .629 .0353 .0057 -.1096 .0269 P= .647 P= .941 = .148 P= .723 .1856 .2864 -.0964 -.0354 P= .015 P= .000 P— .201 P= .639 .1762 .1880 -.0912 .0025 P: .020 P= .014 P= .225 P= .974 -.1893 .2009 .0780 .0511 P= .013 P= .008 = .301 = .498 .0591 .1769 -.1206 -.0200 P= .444 P= .021 P= .111 P= .792 C187 CI88 K181 K182 KIS3 K184 KISS K186 MDR81 P: MDRSlO P: MDR811 P: MDR812 MDR82 MDR83 MDRS4 MDRSS MDR86 MDRS7 -.0618 .421 P= .1079 .158 P= .0349 .647 P= .0805 .290 P= -.0605 .426 P== -.0969 .209 P= .0250 .744 P= .0760 .319 P= -.1117 .151 P= -.1082 .160 P= -.0667 .385 P= -.1419 .070 P= -.0750 -.0561 .473 P= -.1038 .183 P: -.0922 .237 P= -.1659 .033 P== -.0593 .0340 .659 P= .2973 - .000 P= .0475 - .533 P= .2184 - .004 P= -.0129 .866 P= -.0926 .230 P= .0882 . .250 P= .1966 - .010 P= .0053 .945 P= .0544 .482 P= .0209 .786 P= .1119 .154 P= .0644 .410 P= .1417 .069 P= .0963 .219 P: .0654 .404 P= .0845 .281 P= .1587 233 -.1850 .014 P= .0130 - .864 P= .0179 - .811 P= .1782 - .016 P= .0521 .486 P= .0821 .279 P= 0893 , -. .235 P= .0015 - .984 P= -.1016 .183 P= -.1531 .042 P= -.0167 .825 P= -.1150 .135 P= -.1230 .107 P= .0079 . .918 P= -.1198 .117 P: -.0001 .999 P= -.1098 .152 P= -.1642 -.0868 .251 .0771 .309 .0149 .842 .0218 .771 -.0558 .455 -.0236 .756 0255 .735 .0477 .525 .123 -.0207 .785 -.0031 .967 .0601 .437 -.0735 .336 0047 .952 -.0769 .316 .0066 .931 -.0065 .932 -.0920 MDR88 MDRS9 PEIE81 P: PEIESIO P: PEIESll P: PEIESIZ P: PEIESl3 P: PEIESI4 P: PEIESlS P: PEIESlG P: PEIE817 P: PEIE82 P: PEIES3 p: PEIES4 P: PEIESS P: PEIESG P: PEIES7 P: .439 P= -.0782 .308 P= -.0377 .622 P= -.0518 .497 P= -.0609 .424 P= -.0121 .877 P= -.1023 .178 P= .0501 .520 P= -.0352 .648 P= -.0211 .786 P= .0975 .199 P= .0456 .550 P= -.0086 .910 P= -.0307 .692 P= -.1032 .182 P= -.0177 .819 P: -.0164 .834 P= .0094 .902 P= .038 P= .1398 .068 P= .0954 .213 P= .0279 .716 P= .2178 .004 P= .0665 .393 P= .1965 .009 P= .1468 .059 P= -.0917 .234 P= -.0071 .927 P: .1187 .119 P= .1562 .040 P: .0503 .511 P= -.O717 .354 P= -.0490 .527 P= .0160 .836 P= -.1283 .099 P= .1650 .030 P= 234 .028 P= -.1519 .043 P= .1179 .116 P= .0544 .470 P= -.0646 .389 P= -.1231 .107 P= -.0701 .348 P= -.1630 .032 P= -.1035 .172 P= -.0121 .874 P= -.1371 .066 P= -.1164 .120 P= -.0804 .285 P= -.0510 .503 P= -.0416 .585 P= -.0608 .424 P= -.0316 .681 P= -.0513 .494 P= .221 .423 .0093 .901 .0149 .843 “.0286 O 703 -.0111 .885 -.0596 .425 -.0817 .285 -.0775 .306 -.0811 .288 .603 -.0204 .786 .0129 O 864 -.0265 .728 -.0561 .461 -.0911 .230 -.0244 .751 -.0345 .646 PEIE88 p= PEIESQ P: RR881 P: RR8810 P= RRSSll P: RR8812 p: RR8813 P RR8814 P: RR882 RR883 RRSS4 RR885 RR886 RRSS7 IRR888 1RR889 EHRSI 55182 -.062 .415 -.115 .131 .0579 .448 -.019 .803 -.095 .207 .0078 .918 .1472 .052 .1270 .096 .1008 .188 .0807 .293 -.0080 .916 -.1233 .104 .0041 .957 -.1010 .183 .0294 .702 .1073 .161 .1118 .141 .2561 5 p: 4 P: P: 1 p: 9 P: p: p: P: p: p: P: P: P: p: P: p: P: 235 .0678 .0062 -.0583 .379 P= .935 P= .439 .1927 -.0797 .0289 .011 P= .289 P= .701 .0776 .0307 .0301 .310 P= .683 P= .689 .1003 .0762 -.1188 .190 P= .310 P= .113 .0058 -.0124 -.0342 .940 P= .868 P= .647 .0376 .0554 .1108 .623 P= .460 P= .139 .1619 -.0993 -.1148 .033 P= .184 P= .124 .0565 -.0524 -.0541 .461 P= .486 P= .472 .0291 .0701 .0510 .706 P= .352 P= .499 .0864 .1013 .1063 .261 P= .179 P= .158 -.0248 .1671 .0698 .746 P= .025 P= .352 .0147 -.1013 -.0640 .847 P= .175 P= .392 -.1036 .1328 .1195 .175 P= .076 P= .110 .1079 .1109 .2079 .156 P= .138 P= .005 .0288 -.0157 .0066 .709 P= .835 P= .931 -.1232 .2126 .1318 .108 P= .004 P= .080 .4200 -.0606 .0057 .000 P= .422 P= .940 .3106 -.0232 .0267 SR83 SRS4 SRSS SRS6 SRS7 .001 P= .000 P= 236 .757 P= .722 .1031 .4382 -.2281 - .176 P= .000 P= .002 P= 1.0000 .0587 -.0383 . P= .443 P= .616 P= .0587 1.0000 -.1287 .443 P= . P= .092 P= -.0383 -.1287 1.0000 .616 P= .092 P= . P= -.0347 -.0609 .5575 .650 P= .426 P= .000 P= .1894 .011 -.0347 .650 -.0609 .426 .5575 .000 1.0000 LIST OF REFERENCES Almquist, E. M. (1991). Labor market gender inequality in minority groups. In J. Lorber & S. A. Farrell (Eds.), The Social Construction of Gender (pp. 180-192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Alwin, D. F. (1990). Cohort replacement and changes in parental socialization values. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 5;, 347-360. Anderson, K. (1988). A history of women's work in the United States. In A. H. Stromberg and S. Harkness (Eds.), Women working: Theories and facts in perspective (pp. 25-41). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. Astone, N. M. & McLanahan, S. S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices and high school completion. American Sociological Review, §§, 309-320. Bell-Scott, P. & Guy-Sheftall, B. (1991). Introduction. In P. Bell-Scott, B. Guy-Sheftall, J. J. Royster, J. Sims- Wood, M. DeCosta-Willis, & L. P. Fultz (Eds.), Double stitch: Black women write about mothers and daughters (pp. 1—4). New York: Harper Perennial. 237 238 Bem, S. L. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1;, 634-643. Bem, S. L. (1978). Probing the promise of androgyny. In J. Sherman & F. Denmark (Eds.), The Psychology of Women: Future Directions in Research. New York: Psychological Dimensions, Inc. Biernacki, P. & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods and Research, ;Q(2), 141—163. Billingsley, A. (1968). Black families in White America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Billingsley, A. (1992). Climbing Jacob's ladder: The enduring legacy of African-American families. New York: Simon & Schuster. Block, J. H. (1983). Differential premises arising from differential socialization of the sexes: Some conjectures. Child Development, fig, 1335-1354. Bowman, P. J. & Howard, C. (1985). Race-related socialization, motivation, and academic achievement: A study of Black youth in three-generation families. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, ;g(2), 134-141. Brooks-Gunn, J. & Furstenberg, F. F. (1986). The children of adolescent mothers: Physical, academic, and psychological outcomes. Developmental Review, §(3), 224-251. 239 Brooks-Gunn, J. & Zahaykevich, M. (1989). Parent-daughter relationships in early adolescence: A developmental perspective. In K. Kreppner & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Family systems and life-span development, (pp. 223-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Brown, A., Goodwin, B. J., Hall, B. A., & Jackson, L. (1985). A review of psychology of women textbooks: Focus on the Afro-American woman. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2, 29-38. Brown, E. B. (1986). Hearing our mothers' lives. Paper presented at fifteenth anniversary of African-American and African studies at Emory College, Atlanta, GA. Brown, E. B. (1991). Mothers of mind. In P. Bell-Scott, B. Guy-Sheftall, J. J. Royster, J. Sims-Wood, M. DeCosta- Willis, & L. P. Fultz (Eds.), Double stitch: Black women write about mothers and daughters (pp. 74-93). New York: Harper Perennial. Brown, J. & Weiner, B. (1984). Affective consequences of ability verses effort ascriptions: Controversies, resolutions, and quandaries. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1g, 146-158. Burgess, N. J. & Horton, H. D. (1993). African-American women and work: A socio-historical perspective. JOurnal of Family History, ;§(1), 53-63. 240 Burton, L. M. (1990). Teenage childbearing as an alternate life-course strategy in multigeneration black families. Human Nature, 1(2), 123-143. Cannon, L. W., Higginbotham, E. & Leung, M. L. A. (1991). Race and class bias in qualitative research on women. In J. Lorber & S. A. Farrell (Eds.), The social construction of gender (pp. 237-248). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Cherlin, A. & Walters, P. (1981). Trends in United States men's and women's sex-role attitudes: 1972-1978. American Sociological Review, fig, 453-460. Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Colby, A, & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care: Contemporary lives of moral commitment. New York: The Free Press. Cole, J. B. (1991). Preface. In P. Bell-Scott, B. Guy- Sheftall, J. J. Royster, J. Sims-Wood, M. DeCosta-Willis, & L. P. Fultz (Eds.), Double stitch: Black women write about mothers and daughters (pp. xiii-xv). New York: Harper Perennial. Coleman, L. M., Antonucci, T. C., Adelmann, P. K., Crohan. S. E. (1987). Social roles in the lives of middle-aged and older Black women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 761-771. Collins, P. H. (1989). The social construction of black feminist thought. Signs, 14(4), 745-773. 241 Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge. Collins, P. H. (1991). The meaning of motherhood in Black culture and Black mother-daughter relationships. In P. Bell-Scott, B. Guy-Sheftall, J. J. Royster, J. Sims-Wood, M. DeCosta-Willis, & L. P. Fultz (Eds.), Double stitch: Black women write about mothers and daughters (pp. 42- 60). New York: Harper Perennial. Comer, J. (1993). African-American parents and child development: An agenda for school success. Paper presented at the 60th anniversary meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA, March 25-28, 1993. Coner-Edwards, A. F. & Edwards, H. E. (1988). The Black middle class: Definitions and demographics. In A. F. Coner-Edwards & J. Spurlock (Eds.), Black families in crisis: The middle class (pp. 1-9). New York: Brunner Mazel Publishers. Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, fig, 389-407. Cotton, J. (1988). Discrimination and favoritism in the U.S. labor market: The cost to a wage earner of being female and Black and the benefit of being male and White. 242 American JOurnal of Economics and Sociology, 51(1), 15- 28. Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory (pp. 66-86). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Davis, A. (1981). WOmen, race, and class. New York: Random House. Dawkins, M. P. (1981). Mobility aspirations of Black adolescents: A comparison of males and females. Adolescence, 16(63), 701-710. Dawkins, M. P. (1989). The persistence of plans for professional careers among Blacks in early adolescence. Journal of Negro Education, §§(2), 220-231. Dill, B. T. (1980). "The means to put my children through": Child-rearing goals and strategies among black female domestic servants. In L. Rodgers-Rose (Ed.), The Black Woman (pp. 107-124). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dodson, J. (1988). Conceptualizations of Black families. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black families (2nd ed. pp. 77-90) Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dugger, K. (1991). Social location and gender-role attitudes: A comparison of Black and White women. In J. Lorber & S. A. Farrell (Eds.), The social construction of gender (pp. 38-59). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 243 Edwards, A. & Polite, C. K. (1992). Children of the Dream: The Psychology of Black Success. New York: Anchor Books. Edwards, A. M. (1933). A social-economic grouping of gainful workers of the United States. Journal of the American Statistical Association, zg, 377-387. Erikson, B. H. (1979). Some problems of inference from chain data. In K. F. Schuessler (Ed.), Sociological Methodology (pp.276-302). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Publishers. Erikson, R. & Goldthorpe, J. H. (1985). Are American rates of social mobility exceptionally high? New evidence on an old issue. Enropean Sociological Review, 1(1) 1-22. Featherman, D. L. & Hauser, R. M. (1976). Changes in the socioeconomic stratification of the races, 1962-1973. American Journal of Sociology, §;_621-651. Featherman, D. L. & Hauser, R. M. (1977). Commonalities in social stratification and assumptions about status mobility in the United States. In R. Hauser & D. Featherman (Eds.), The process of stratification. New York: Academic Press. Featherman, D. L. & Hauser, R. M. (1978). Opportunity and change. New York: Academic. Featherman, D. L. & Kahn, M. L. (1994, February). Procedings from the National Institute of Mental Health Editors' Consortium. 244 Featherman, D. L., Spenner, K. I. & Tsunematsu, N. (1988). Class and the socialization of children: Constancy, change, or irrelevance? In E. M. Hetherington, R. M. Lerner, & M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Child Development in Life-Span Perspective (pp.67-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher. Fitzgerald, H. E. (1977). Infants and caregivers: Sex differences as determinants of socialization. In E. Donelson & J. E. Gullahorn (Eds.), WOmen: A psychological perspective (pp. 101-118). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Frazier, E. F. (1949). The Negro in the united States. New York: MacMillan Company. Franklin, J. H. (1988). A historical note on Black families. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black families (2nd ed. pp. 20-22) Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Fulenwider, C. K. (1980). Feminism in American politics. New York: Praeger. Furstenberg, F. F. (1971). Birth control experiences among pregnant adolescents: The process of unplanned parenthood. Social Problems, 12(2). 192-203. Furstenberg, F. F. (1980). Burdens and benefits: The impact of early childrearing on the family. Journal of Social Issues, 36(1), 64-87. Gentile, D. A. (1993). What are sex and gender, anyway? A call for a new terminological standard. Psychological Science, 4(2), 120-122. 245 Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goldscheider, F. K. (1989). Children and the household economy. In F. Goldscheider & C. Goldscheider (Eds.), Ethnicity and the new family economy: Living arrangements and intergenerational financial flows. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Goldscheider, F. K. & Goldscheider, C. (1991). The intergenerational flow of income: Family structure and the status of Black americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 5;, 499-508. Goldstein, J. & Smucker, J. (1986). Multitracking: The success ethic in an era of diminished opportunities. Youth and Society, 18(2), 127-149. Graham, S. (1992). Most of the subjects were white and middle class: Trends in published research on African- Americans in selected APA journals, 1970-1989. American Psychologist, 41(5), 629-639. Greene, B. A. (1990a). Sturdy bridges: The role of African- American mothers in the socialization of African-American children. Women and Therapy, 19(1/2), 205-225. Greene, B. A. (1990b). What has gone before: The legacy of racism and sexism in the lives of Black mothers and daughters. In L. S. Brown & M. P. P. Root (Eds.) Diversity and complexity in feminist therapy (pp. 207- 230), New York: The Haworth Press. 246 Grief, E. (1979) Sex differences in parent-child conversations: Who interrupts whom? Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, San Francisco, CA, March, 1979. Gulliksen, H. (1950). Theory of Mental Tests. New York: Wiley. Gump, J. P. (1975). Comparative analysis of Black women's and White women's sex-role attitudes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 11, 858-863. Gump, J. P. (1980). Reality and myth: Employment and sex ideology in Black women. In F. Denmark & J. Sherman (Eds.), The psychology of women. New York: Psychological Dimensions. Hacker, A. (1992). Two nations: Black and White, separate, hostile, unequal. New York: Ballantine Books. Hale, J. (1980). The Black woman and child rearing. In L. Rodgers-Rose (Ed.), The Black Woman (pp. 79-88). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hambleton R. K. & Jones, R. W. (1993). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(3), 38-47. Hambleton, R. K. & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item Response Theory: Principles and Applications. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 247 Harris, D. J. (1992). A cultural model for assessing the growth and development of the African-American female. Journal of Multicultural Cbunseling and Development, 1g, 158-167. Harrison, A. 0., Wilson, M. N., Pine, C. J., Chan, S. Q. & Buriel, R. (1990). Family ecologies of ethnic minority children. Child Development, 61, 347-362. Hauser, R. M. & Anderson, D. K. (1991). Post-high school plans and aspirations of Black and White high school seniors: 1976-1986. Sociology of Education, 61, 263-277. Hauser, R. M., Featherman, D. L. & Hogan, D. (1977). Sex in the structure of occupational mobility in the United States, 1962. In R. M. Hauser & D. L. Featherman (Eds.), The process of stratification (pp.19l-215). New York: Academic. Hermons, W. M. (1980). The women's liberation movement: Understanding Black women's attitudes. In L. Rogers-Rose (Ed.), The Black woman, (pp. 285-299). Beverly Hills: Sage. Hernandez, D. J. (1993). America's children: Resources from family, government, and the economy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Iiigginbotham, E. & Robinson, C. M. (1993, September 20). Personal Communication. 248 Higginbotham, E. & Weber, L. (1992). Moving up with kin and community: Upward social mobility for Black and White women. Gender and Society, 6(3), 416-440. Hill, R. (1972). The strengths of Black families. New York: National Urban League. Hock, R. A. & Curry, J. F. (1983). Sex-role identification of normal adolescent males and females as related to school achievement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11(6), 461-470. Horner, M. S. (1972). Toward an understanding of achievement-related conflicts in women. JOurnal of Social Issues, 18, 157-176. Hout, M. (1984a). Status, autonomy, and training in occupational mobility. American JOurnal of Sociology, 82, 1379-1409. Hout, M. (1984b). Occupational mobility of Black men in the United States: 1962-1973. American Sociological Review, 42, 308-322. .Hout, M. (1988). More universalism, less structural mobility: The American occupational structure in the 1980s. American JOurnal of Sociology, 91(6), 1358-1400. liuston, A. C. (1983). Sex-typing. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Social development, volume in P. H. Mussen (General Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology (4th Ed.). New York: Wiley. 249 Huttman, E. (1991). A research note on dreams and aspirations of black families. JOurnal of COmparative Family Studies, 11(2), 147-158. Jackson, V. R. & McAdoo, H. P. (1991). Family values transmission through proverbs as related to the family connectedness of African-American adults. Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations Annual Conference, November 19, 1991, Denver, CO. Jenkins, A. H. (1988). Black families: The nurturing of agency. In A. F. Coner-Edwards & J. Spurlock (Eds.), Black families in crisis: The middle class (pp. 115-128). New York: Brunner Mazel Publishers. Jewell, K. S. (1987). The changing character of black families: The effects of differential social and economic gains. Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 11(3), 143-154. Johnson, D. L. (1991). the representation of African- American women in Psychology of Women Quarterly. Unpublished manuscript. Johnson, L. B. (1988). Perspectives on Black family empirical research: 1965-1978. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black Families (2nd ed. pp. 91-106) Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Jorgeson, K. G. & Sorbom, D. (1988). LISREL 7: A Guide to the Program and Applications (2nd Ed.). Chicago: SPSS, IDC. 250 Joseph, G. I. (1991). Black mothers and daughters: Traditional and new perspectives. In P. Bell-Scott, B. Guy-Sheftall, J. J. Royster, J. Sims-Wood, M. DeCosta- Willis, & L. P. Fultz (Eds.), Double Stitch: Black women write about mothers and daughters (pp. 94-106). New York: Harper Perennial. Kamerman, S. B. & Hayes, C. D. (1984). Families that work: Children in a changing world. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Katz, P. A. (1979). The development of female identity. Sex Roles, 5, 155-178. Keppel, G. (1983). Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook (2nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. Kohn, M. L. (1969). Class and conformity: A study in values. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Ladner, J. (1978). Mixed families. New York: Anchor. Lerner, R. M. (1992). Final solutions. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Lipset, S. M & Bendix, R. (1959). Social mobility in industrial society. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lord, F. M. (1952). A theory of test scores. Psychometric Monograph , 1. Lord, F. M. & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistic Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 251 Lyke, M. B. (1983). Discrimination and coping in the lives of black women: Analyses of oral history data. JOurnal of Social Issues, 11(3) 101-113. Malson, M. R. (1983). Black women's sex roles: The social context for a new ideology. Journal of Social Issues, 3_9, (3) , 101-113. Marjoribanks, K. (1991). Sibling and environmental correlates of young adults' status attainment. Psychological Reports, 11, 907-911. Marshall, N. L. & Barnett, R. C. (1991). Race, class, and multiple role strains and gains among women employed in the service sector. Women and Health, 11(4), 1-19. Matlin, M. W. (1987). The psychology of women. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. McAdoo, H. P. (1978). Factors related to stability in upwardly mobile Black families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 19(4), McAdoo, H. P. (1980). Black mothers and the extended family support network. In L. Rodgers-Rose (Ed.), The Black woman (pp. 125-144). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McAdoo, H. P. (1981). Upward mobility and parenting in middle-income Black families. The Journal of Black Psychology, 1(1), 1-22. McAdoo, H. P. (1982). Stress absorbing systems in Black families. Family Relations, 31. 252 McAdoo, H. P. (1983). Societal stress and the black family. In H. McCubbin & C. Figley (Eds.), Stress and the family. New York: Brunner Mazel. McAdoo, H. P. (1988a). Preface to the first edition. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black families (2nd ed. pp. 7-15) Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McAdoo, H. P. (1988b). Changes in the formation and structure of black families: The impact on black women. Wellesley College, Center for Research on Women: Working Paper #182. McAdoo, H. P. (1988c). Societal stress: The black family. In H. I. McCubbin & C. R. Figley (Eds.), Stress and the family: Coping with normative transitions (Volume: 1). New York: Brunner/Mazel, Publishers. McAdoo, H. P. (1988d). Transgenerational patterns of upward mobility in African-American families. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black families (2nd ed. pp. 148-168) Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McAdoo, H. P. (1989). Family values and outcome for children. Paper presented at One-third of a Nation: African American Perspectives Conference. African- American Family Life: Child Rearing and Developmental Outcomes, November 10, 1989. McCray, C. A. (1980). The Black woman and family roles. In L. Rodgers-Rose (Ed.), The Black woman (pp. 67-78). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 253 McLoyd, V. C. & Randolph, S. M. (1985). Secular trends in the study of afro-american children: A review of Child Development, 1936-1980. In A. B. Smuts & J. W. Hagen, History and Research in Child Development, Monographs of the Society of Research on Child Development, 19(4-5), 78-92. Mill, C. W. (1951). White collar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moynihan, D. P. (1965). The Negro family: The case for national action. Office of policy Planning and Research. United States Department of Labor. Mueller, C. W. & Parcel, T. L. (1981). Measures of socioeconomic status: Alternative and recommendations. Child Development, 11, 13-30. Mullins, E. & Sites, P. (1990). The contribution of black women to black upper class maintenance and achievement. Sociological Spectrum, 11, 187-208. Nobles, W. W. (1975, June). Africanity in Black families. The Black Scholar. Nye, F. I. (1974). Sociocultural context. In L. W. Hoffman & F. I. Nye (Eds.), Working Mothers, (pp. 1-31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. O'Connell, L., Betz, M. & Kurth, S. (1989). Plans for balancing work and family life: Do women pursuing nontraditional and traditional occupations differ? Sex Roles, 11(1/2), 35-45. Ogbt ec 42 O'He nc ge Pe Orlc no In Pe OSha fo Pear« PO‘ ECt hUH 254 Ogbu, J. U. (1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural- ecological perspective. Child Development, 11(2), 413- 429. O'Heron, C. A. & Orlofsky, J. L. (1990). Stereotypic and nonstereotypic sex role trait and behavior orientations, gender identity, and psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 134-143. Orlofsky, J. L. & O'Heron, C. A. (1987). Stereotypic and nonstereotypic sex role trait and behavior orientation: Implications for personal adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 1034-1042. Oshansky, C. (1993). Poverty Measurements, National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University School of Public Health. Pearce, D. & McAdoo (1981). Women and children: Alone and in poverty. Washington, D.C.: National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity. Peery, J. C. & Adams, G. R. (1981). Qualitative ratings of human development journals. Human Development, 11, 312- 319. Peters, M. (1985). Racial socialization of young Black children. In H. McAdoo & J. McAdoo (Eds.), Black children (pp. 159-173). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Robinson, C. R. (1983). Black Women: A tradition in self- reliant strength. In L. S. Brown & M. P. P. Root (Eds.) Roo Rub ‘—H inm‘.*:‘._:a: '_I_‘h_; _“--_‘m.' 255 Diversity and complexity in feminist therapy (pp. 135- 144), New York: The Haworth Press. Roos,P. A. (1985). Gender and work: A comparative analysis of industrial societies. Albany: SUNY Press. Rubin, L. B. (1976). WOrlds of pain: Lives in the working class family. New York: Basic Books, A division of Harper Collins Publisher. Ruble, D. N. (1984). Sex role development. In M. H. Bernstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds), DevelOpmental psychology: An advanced textbook (pp. 325-371). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Ruble, J. S., Provenzano, F. J., Luria, Z. (1974). The eye of the beholder: Parents' views on sex of newborns. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1, 353-363. Sachs, N. (1991). For white women only: A review of research published on black women in the journal. Sex Roles, 1980- 1990. Unpublished manuscript. Sanchez, S. (1989). Sonia Sanchez. In B. Lanker (Ed.), I dream a world: Portraits of Black women who changed America (p.68). New York: Stewart, Tabori & Chang. Scanzoni, L. & Scanzoni, J. (1978). Men, women and change: A sociology of marriage and the family. New York: McGraw- Hill. Sims-Wood, J. (1991). Introduction: Fraying edges: Tensions. In P. Bell-Scott, B. Guy-Sheftall, J. J. Royster, J. Sims-Wood, M. DeCosta-Willis, & L. P. Fultz (Eds.), 256 Double stitch: Black women write about mothers and daughters (pp. 139-140). New York: Harper Perennial. Smith, A. W. (1989). Educational attainment as a determinant Smith, E. J. (1982). The black female adolescent: A review Smith, J. W. (1988). Black middle-class education in the of social class among Black Americans. JOurnal of Negro Education, 11(3), 416-429. of the educational, career, and psychological literature. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1(3), 261-288. 19805. In A. F. Coner-Edwards & J. Spurlock (Eds.), Black families in crisis: The middle class (p. 129-138) New York: Brunner/Mazel Publishers. Smith, A, & Stewart, A. J. (1983). Approaches to studying racism and sexism in black women's lives. Journal of Social Issues, 11(3), 1-15. Spence, J. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, and gender- related traits: A conceptual analysis and critique of current research. Progress in Experimental Personality 3, 1—97. Research, Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relations to self esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 29-39. Stack, C. B. (1974). All our kin: Strategies for survival in a Black community. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. 257 Stein, Jess (1984), Editor in Chief, The Random House College Dictionary (Revised Edition). New York: Random House, Inc. Stevens, G. & Featherman, D. L. (1981). A revised socioeconomic index of occupational status. Social Science Research, 11, 364-395. Sudarkasa, N. (1988). Interpreting the African heritage. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black families (2nd ed. pp. 23-28) Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Thornton, M. C., Chatters, L. M., Taylor, R. J., & Allen, W. R. (1990). Sociodemographic and environmental correlates of racial socialization by Black parents. Child Development, 11, 401-409. Trevino, C. V. (1980). Child perceived parental behaviors related to achievement motivation in Mexican children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 11(10), 4343A. Troester, R. R. (1984). Turbulence and tenderness: Mothers, daughters, and "othermothers" in Paule Marshall's Brown girl, brownstones. Sage: A Scholarly Journal on Black Women, 1(2), 13-16. Trost, J. E. (1986). Statistically nonrepresentative stratified sampling: A sampling technique for qualitative studies. Qualitative Sociology, 1(1), 54-57. Tyree, A. & Treas, J. (1974). The occupational and marital mobility of women. American Sociological Review, 11, 293- 302. 258 Unger, R. K. & Crawford, M. (1993). Commentary: Sex and gender-the troubled relationship between terms and concepts. Psychological Science, 1(2), 122-124. von Eye, A. (March, 1994). Personal Communication. von Eye, A. & Sorensen, S. (1991). Models of chance when measuring interrater agreement with Kappa. Biometric Journal, 33(7), 781-787. Wade-Gayles, G. (1980). She who is BlaCk and mother: In sociology and fiction, 1940-1970. In L. Rodgers-Rose (Ed.), The Black woman (pp. 89-106). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Wade-Gayles, G. (1984). The truths of our mothers' lives: Mother-Daughter relationships in Black women's fiction. Sage: A Scholarly Journal on Black Women, 1(2), 8-12. Wallace, M. (1978). Black macho and the myth of the superwoman. New York: Dial Press. Watson, V. (1989). The African-American middle-class family: Growth trends and prospects. Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 11(3), 117-127. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 11, 548- 573. Welch, S. (1975). Sampling by referral in a dispersed population. Public Opinion Quarterly, 11(2), 237-245. ME‘AM .._‘.-‘_._‘.'; .” . 259 Whyte, W. F. (1955). Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wilkerson, I. (1990, November 25). Middle class Blacks try to grip a ladder while lending a hand. The New Ybrk Times, p. 1 Willie, C. V. (1986). The Black family and social class. In Robert Stables (Ed.), The Black families: Essays and studies (3rd Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Willie, C. V. (1988). A new look at Black families (3rd Ed.), Dix Hills, NY: General Hall, Inc. Wolfe, L. K. & Betz, N. E. (1981). Traditionality of choice and sex-role identification as moderators of the congruence of occupational choice in college women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 11, 43-55. Worrell, J. (1981). Life-span sex roles: Development, continuity, and change. In R. M. Lerner, & N. A. Busch- Rossnagel (Eds.), Individuals as producers of their development: A life-span perspective (pp. 313-347). New York: Academic Press. Zalk, S. R. (1991). Task force report response of mainstream journals to feminist submissions. Psychology of WOmen: Newsletter, 10-11. Zinn, M. Baca (1991). Family, feminism, and race in American. In J. Lorber & S. A. Farrell (Eds.), The social 260 construction of gender (pp. 119-133). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. . . 2 . 2:52)... 3.4. . .E a yr .4... .2: SEE. 1...}. 3.1;. . . .c I 1.... 13.52? _. ; . .1. ..\ y JIzZLtliy x... 4 ; .krac. an»... i . (.255. .72) 171...... 235.21. ...3...;.....:.; t. :3: ;