# ~*.__-—.._..__. _. 35" Zing} Q a ’ ,f. Cl (3 {1 0 8 MAR 0 4 2003 Thifl ng'l ‘ 1‘ the tier exp? cw bet“ Prat Urldi arm ‘1'. ABSTRACT PARENTS' PERCEPTIDNS OF THEIR CHILDREN, PARENTS' CHILD-REARING PRACTICES, AND CHILDREN'S INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR WITH AN ADULT by Loretta R. Laurenitis The objectives of the present investigation were: (a) to examine the relationships between children's behaviors and parental percep- tions, child-rearing concerns, and child-rearing practices, (b) to explore the relationships among measures of parental perceptions, child-rearing concerns and practices, and (c) to study the differences between mothers and fathers in their child-rearing attitudes and practices. The study was an attempt to provide more information to understand how positive and negative behavior patterns are developed and maintained in children and how parental attitudes are related to children's behaviors. One hundred and fifty second grade children were recruited to participate in a research project with undergraduates. These children interacted with the undergraduates in thirty minute sessions within .a playroom setting. These sessions were videotaped and the children's behaviors were later coded using the interpersonal rating scheme and system of categories developed by Freedman, Leary, Ossorio, and Coffey. After the children's participation in the research had been com- pleted, the parents of these youngsters were contacted by mail and 33*? A . .aZa WC Y 4 1H: Loretta R. Laurenitis asked to complete three questionnaires. The "Children's Behavior Checklist-Form Q" measured the relative positiveness of the parents' perceptions of their children. The "Child-Rearing Concerns and Practices Questionnaire“ was used to obtain parents' reports of their child-rearing behaviors. The "Sensitivity to Children Questionnaire" (STC-PN) is a sex item projective test which elicits parental responses in hypothetical conflict situations with a child. 0f the 148 families which were represented by the l50 children, parents of 94 children (63.5% of the total family pool) returned the ques- tionnaires. Data were received from 60 spouse pairs. Complete data for both parents and a child were acquired for 5] families. Multivariage analyses of variance were performed on the parental data, using CRCP, STC-PN, and CBC dependent variables, some of which were derived from several principal axis factor analyses. Independent variables included family role (mother or father) and sex of the child (male or female). Multiple regression analyses were conducted fo find those parental variables which were the best "pre- dictors" of the children's behavior. Measures of children's behavior based upon the coding of the videotapes served as the "criterion" variables while the parental measures derived from the CBC, STC-PN, and CRCP served as the independent variables. The major results were: Theoretically "positive" parental atti- tudes seemed to generally "predict" to "positive" children's be- haviors (more friendly, assertive, and socially responsible be- haviors), while "negative" children's behaviors (less friendly, and more passive and negatively assertive behavior) were generally predicted by theoretically "negative" parental attitudes. Specific EditEl TZJnC 55136 p w IAN. RUM (3V SCE’ z)“ .xg n\< la Loretta R. Laurenitis patterns emerged for the four subgroups studied: mothers of girls, fathers of girls, mothers of boys, and fathers of boys. Different patterns of intercorrelations among the parental variables were also found for the various subgroups. In general, however, intercorrelated parental practices seemed to represent four groupings indicative of Schaefer's two orthogonal dimensions (Love-Hostility, Autonomy-Control). Sex differences were found for one of the perceptual variables, reveal- ing that parents perceive daughters relatively more positively than sons. Parents also used more praise with daughters and were more likely to relate the child's feelings and behavior to their own with boys. Family role results indicated that fathers used significantly more external rewards and criticisms and threats, while mothers ex- pressed more approval and physical affection, and also used more ex- planations in controlling children's aggressive-defiant behavior. In hypothetical conflict situations, mothers were signifiantly more likely to use statements of acceptance of the child's feelings, to express their own feelings, to provide alternatives for the child's present feelings, and to recognize the child's positive intentions. Fathers, on the other hand, were significantly more likely to use name-calling, to question the child, or to attempt to obtain more infor- mation about the child's behavior. Methodological considerations in the interpretation of the results were discussed. Implications of the findings for future research and the development of parent effectiveness training programs were presented. PARENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR CHILDREN, PARENTS' CHILD-REARING PRACTICES, AND CHILDREN'S INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR WITH AN ADULT by Loretta R. Laurenitis A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1976 To my parents, for what they have given me over the years, and for their early encouragement of my pursuit of an education. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are certain people without whom I do not think the completion of this project would have come about. I am especially grateful to my co-chairmen, Dr. Lawrence A. Messé and Dr. Gary E. Stollak. They were constant sources of advice, guidance, and support throughout the long labor of this research. Dr. Stollak was particularly helpful in nourishing the original ideas. He has been a mainstay during my years at Michigan State, consistently available, stimulating, and thought-provoking. He has had a definite impact upon the direction of my career and upon the development of a nagging conscience in me about the need for doing research. Dr. Messé'has been an invaluable source of statistical knowledge and encouragement during this project. I am very grateful to him for his faith in my ability to get done when I was most despairing that I would ever finish. I am sincerely appreciative for the indis- pensible assistance he provided. To my other two committee members, Dr. Charles Bassos and Dr. Albert Aniskiewicz, I also extend my deepest thanks. Dr. Bassos' interest and thoughtful questions enriched my experience in this project. Dr. Aniskiewicz's assistance was critical in shaping my initial ideas into more organized and basic questions. The help of both Dr. Aniskiewicz and Dr. Bassos and their participation on my committee were very important to me. Aside from my committee members, there has been another very critical person involved in this project. I want to particularly Le so m A» Ilu .- .‘L. acknowledge this woman, who has been an incredible help and tremendous support in my struggles to get this dissertation into final form - Sue Willis. I can never thank her enough for sticking through the horrendous tables and terrible traumas and rewrites of this thesis. She was able to keep a sense of humor and a vision of it being done when I could not. Without Sue, I am not sure I would have made it myself. She has been a terrific friend and one I will think of each time I open the pages of this dissertation. There are also other people who have been helpful to me in this project and whom I would like to thank. Many students put in long hours to score and code the data. I am especially grateful to Valerie, Jim, Jackie, John, Phil, Carol and Kay. Jane Rice and Beth Talmadge provided much needed secretarial help in the early stages of this research. Dr. Howard Iker generously gave statistical advice when I needed assistance. Bob Green offered some useful suggestions in reorganizing my results when I was most bogged down. At this time, I would also like to extend my thanks to some other poeple who have been important to me during my years at Michigan State. Dr. Lucy Ferguson, Dr. William Mueller, Dr. Mary Leichty, Dr. Martha Karson, and Ms. Marsha Worby have all taught me so much in my work with them. I will remember them with great fond- ness and appreciation. Another special person has been Dr. Gwen Norrell, whose support was invaluable in some of my most difficult times. iv Vf‘ ‘I‘Cl .A Wyn 'H‘ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES .................................................. Vi LIST OF FIGURES ................................................. viii LIST OF APPENDICES .............................................. ix INTRODUCTION .................................................... l Parents Perceptions of Children ..................... 3 Parent-Child Relations .............................. ll Parent-Child Communication .......................... l7 Mother-Father Differences ........................... 24 Statement of the Questions .......................... 28 METHOD ........................................................... 29 Recruitment of Subjects ............................. 29 Measures for Parents ................................ 30 Measuring the Children's Behavior ................... 35 Final Subject Pool .................................. 37 Experimental Design and Statistical Analysis ........ 38 RESULTS .......................................................... 4O Inter-rater Reliabilities ........................... 4O CRCP Factor Analysis ................................ 4l STC-PN Factor Analysis .............................. 44 Mother-Father Differences ........................... 52 Relationships Among Parental Variables .............. 63 Parents' Child-Rearing Concerns, Practices, and Sensitivity to Children ........................ 68 Children's Behavior and Parental Perceptions, Concerns, and Practices ........................ 97 DISCUSSION ....................................................... lll Effectiveness of the Parental Variables ............ lll Children's Behavior and Parental Perceptions, Concerns and Practices ........................ l24 Intercorrelations of the Parental Variables ........ l32 Differences and Similarities Between Mothers and Fathers ...................................... l42 Methodological Considerations ..................... 145 Implications of the Research ...................... 149 SUMMARY ........................................................... 150 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................... l53 APPENDICES ........................................................ 157 I i Q ‘01: Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 10 ll 12 13 l4a-l7b Table 18 LIST OF TABLES Significant Behavior Checklist Items in Differen- tiating Clinic and Non-Clinic Children Charac- teristic of Non-Clinic Children ("Positive Behaviors") ...... 7 Significant Behavior Checklist Items in Differen- tiating Clinic and Non-Clinic Children Characteris- tic of Clinic Children ("Negative Behaviors") ............... 9 Inter-Rater Reliabilities for Scoring Categories of the STC-PN .............................................. l98 Average Inter-Rater Reliabilities Across Coder Pairs and Percent of Occurrence of Sixteen Children's Behavior Categories ........................................ 200 Summary of Factor Loadings - CRCP Part I ................... 42 Summary of Factor Loadings - CRCP Part II .................. 45 Mean Category Usage and Standard Deviations for the STC-PN Scoring Categories .............................. 20l Summary of Factor Loadings for STC ......................... 53 Summary of the Significant Univariate Comparisons for the Perceptual Variables Not Qualified by Higher-Order Interactions for MANOVAS on spouse data ....... 203 Spouse Means for "Apply Difference" and Charac- teristic Difference" ....................................... 204 Summary of Significant CRCP II Univariate Comparisons Not Qualified by Higher-Order Interactions for MANOVAS on Spouse Data ............................................. 205 Weighted Means for Dependent Variables of the CRCP II Showing Significant Family Role Effects .................... 59 Summary of Significant Analysis of Variance Effects and Weighted Means of Those STC-PN Dependent Variables ......... 62 Correlational Matrices of Parental and Children's Variables for Spouse Subgroups ............................. 206 Parental Concerns with Practices Significantly Associated with Positive Perceptions of Children ...................... 66 vi Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 20- 23 25- 28 29 3O 32 Significant Correlational Relationships Among Parental Concerns and Practices ....................... Results of Multiple Regression Analayses for Children's Behavioral Ratings .................................... Children's Behaviors and Significantly Associated (p (.05) Parental Variables Results of Muleiple Regression Analyses for Experi- menter-Taper Data ..................................... Ratings of Children's Behavior and Significantly Associated Parental Variables ......................... Parental Variables and Their Anticipated Effectiveness or Ineffectiveness for the Development of Children's Competent-Prosocial Behavior .......................... Groupings of Commonly Intercorrelated Parental Variables and the Children's Behaviors Which They "Predict" ..... Parental Variables Not Consistently Correlated with Others and Children's Behaviors to Which They “Predict".. 69 225 99 235 109 122 T35 T37 LIST OF FIGURES Figure l Circumplex Model for Child Behavior 19l viii an“ ..i I "w'r‘t “FF,“ H I AJPC ”7.91 -L— I dfihflf HP» a}. .T “r r «F‘AF HI; | HI ":Cm. FYMI 1. . a, E, m" FM r ME? I. "l v5?! .‘bih ra- Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix LIST OF APPENDICES Page Children's Behavior Checklist - Form Q ............ l57 The Child-Rearing Concerns and Practices Questionnaire ................................... 16l The Sensitivity to Children Questionnaire - Form PN (STC-PN) ................................ l73 Definitions of the STC-PN Scoring Categories STC-PN Scoring Sheet .............................. l77 Scoring Categories for the Children's Behavior Definitions of the Categories Circumplex Diagram Division of Categories into Quadrants Instructions for Coding Scoring Sheet ..................................... 187 Experimenter-Taper Rating Sheet ................... l96 Inter-rater Reliabilities for Scoring Categories of the STC-PN ................................... l98 Average Inter-rater reliabilities Across Coder Pairs and Percent of Occurrence of the Sixtten Categories of Children's Behavior ................. 200 Mean Category Usage and Standard Deviations for STC-PN Scoring Categories ......................... 201 Summary of MANOVA Results for Perceptual Variables.203 Summary of Significant Univariate Results for MANOVAS of CRCP II Variables ....................... 205 Correlational Matrices of Parental and Children's Variables for Spouse Subgroups ..................... 206 Results of Multiple Regression Analayses for Children's Behavioral Ratings ..................... 225 Results of Multiple Regression Analyses for Experimental-Taper Data ............................ 235 ix in cur "Urinals and re: “was at: lfirscna lepende TOWC lied to 3€flavlo INTRODUCTION In a world that has made many remarkable technological advances and expanded the scientific horizons, we still seem to be very limited in our knowledge of how to raise children who are competent, self- confident, and able to make full use of their natural talents and abilities. While we speak of children as important "natural resources" in whom the hope of the future lies, our actions seem to belie our words. In its 1970 report, the Joint Commission on Mental Health of Children called our lack of commitment to the problems and needs of children "a national tragedy." Much of the focus of concern in the child literature has been on "problem“ children - those having serious socio-emotional difficulties and requiring mental health services of some kind. Only more recently has attention shifted to well-adjusted youngsters who exhibit desirable personality characteristics (e.g., high self-esteem, competence, in- dependent behavior) and are functioning capably in their daily lives. To be of greatest assistance to parents and educators, however, we need to further our understanding of how both_negative and positive behavior patterns develop and are maintained in children. Parents remain the most significant figures in children's lives. In their daily interactions, by what they say and do, parents have an enduring impact upon their child's social and emotional development. Study of parents' child-rearing practices and parent-child communica- tion can yield important information about how parents influence, or seek to influence, their children. Recent research indicates that parental perceptions are an additional variable to be considered in studying parent-child relationships (Ferguson, Partyka, & Lester, l974; Stierlin, Levi, & Savard, l97l). Although parents are powerful figures in terms of their impact on children's development, incredibly little attention has been given to providing adults with parenting skills. They are either expected to know how to act as parents or it is assumed that they will learn what they need to know as they "go along" in raising their children. Research indicates, however, that young adults may not be successful in working out sensitive ways of dealing with chilren and that direc- tive, didactic training may be necessary to teach persons how to communicate empathically (Linden & Stollak, l969). Furthermore, sensitivity does not seem to increase when one becomes a parent (mothers are just as insensitive as college students), nor does it increase with experience in raising a child (Kallman, l974). Thus there are indications that parents need training in specific skills to be most effective as parents. Yet we also need to acquire more understanding about how parents do respond in particular situations, what attitudes and practices parents do maintain, and what effect particular parental behaviors do have on children's development to institute the most meaningful and facilitative education programs. The current investigation was an attempt to further our knowledge about parents and children. The objectives of this research were to determine the relationships among parents' child-rearing concerns and practices, parents' perceptions of children, parents' sensitivity to children, and children's behavior with an adult. Additional infor- mation is needed about these areas in order to develop more effective training and education programs for parents which will enable them to maximize their children's full potentials for growth. Parents' Perceptions of Children The development of a child's self-concept and sense of self- esteem are intimately related to the messages conveyed to a child by the parents and significant others in his or her life. Sullivan (l953) wrote of the importance of the interpersonal environment and the "reflected appraisals" of others in determining a child's sense of self or "self-view." Satir (l967) emphasized that a child's self- esteem is based upon how the parents treat that child and whether they validate that child's growth and abilities. Meddinnus and Curtis (l963) wrote, "The extent to which a child develops a positive self- concept depends crucially upon the extent to which he is accepted by the 'significant others' (typically parents) in the early years" (p. 542). How parents respond to their children, however, is based upon their perceptions of their children and of their children's behavior. Yet very little empirical research has been conducted in this area. There are few studies investigating parental perceptions of children, the effect of perceptual style on behavior, or how parents' percep- tions influence their child-rearing practices or the children's functioning. Needless to say, there are many variables that may affect a parents' perception and behavior at any one moment in time. In dis- cussing these factors which impinge upon a parent in interaction with '5 a child, Stolz (l967) composed the following diagram (p. 279): Past Present Immediate Childhood Personal charac- Parents' goals experiences teristics Parents' urges Adult Values Perception of Parent Child experiences Beliefs child behavior behavior Spouse inter- Behavior setting action Certainly one cannot begin to include all of these variables in any one study. The present research was concerned with parents' current perceptions of their children, which have been built up over time and which may now influence parents' behavior. Although this study was not focused on actual parent-child interaction, it is important to keep in mind the reciprocal nature of any interpersonal relationship. Thomas, Chess, and Birch (l968) demonstrated that children's tempera- ments differ and can play a role in the development of behavior dis- orders in childhood. Yet it is not merely the behavior that merits study, but how that behavior is perceived by others and the effect of those perceptions on present and future interactions and feelings. Certainly a parent who perceives an active child as "hyperactive" will be likely to act differently towards that child than one who perceives the same child as "lively" or "spirited." The child's behavior may be perceived differently by various adults. It is this variable of perception that is often forgotten or overlooked when we discuss parent-child interaction. Studies that have focused on parental perceptions of children and the effects of these perceptions on children's functioning have been few and are largely based on clinical data. Shapiro (l969), using tre irl o\d 5"! is gen 4'? ”A I an A... Il\.‘ . I Arid : | AU transcripts of family therapy sessions, investigated the relation- ship between adolescent development and parental "delineations". i.e., the parent's view of mental image of the adolescent as it is revealed in behavior with the youngster. He concluded that impair- ments in the adolescent's development of "ego autonomy" or ability to function independently of others is related to parents' communica- ting to the adolescent a view of him or her as "dependent, incompetent, impractical, and lacking in discernment" (p. 115). Stierlin (1974) and Stierlin, Levi, and Savard (1971) concluded that the adolescent's self-perception, interpersonal functioning, and ability to separate from his or her family are also strongly affected by the parents' perceptions. In one of the few empirical studies, Van Der Veen, Huebner, Jor- gens, and Neja (1962) found that mothers and fathers of "low adjust- ment" families (i.e., those having a clinic-referred child) differ more in their perceptions of their families than parents of "high adjustment" families (i.e., those having a child high in social and emotional adjustment). 0n the basis of her empirical research, Partyka (1971) concluded that parents of clinic-referred children perceive their children as having more "negative" or undesirable characteristics or behavior while the parents of nonclinic children perceive their children as possessing more "positive" or desirable characteristics and behavior. The work by Partkya (l97l) relates most directly to the current study. In her investigation of parental perceptions, the parents of 81 clinic-referred children and those of 96 children who were not referred to a mental health agency were asked to independently complete ~ '+ 334"“ fiajenzi snare l ht. perceive '5», 6 ce»r r in.“ y ments n 1 l SUlSIl‘l x 7; Sitl 0 the o a 154-item checklist ("The Children's Behavior Checklist" by Ferguson, Mackenzie, & Does) on the behavior of their child. Chi-square tests were performed on each of the items of the check- list. Significant chi-square values in the non-clinic direction were found for 34 items (see Table 1) while 32 items yielded significant chi- square values in the clinic direction (see Table 2). According to Ferguson, §t_alfs work, clinic-referred children are perceived by their parents as emitting more "negative" or undesirable behaviors while nonclinic children are perceived by their parents as demonstrating more "positive" or desirable behaviors. Specifically, parents of non-clinic children perceive in their children items de- scriptive of competence, control, and the skills necessary for develop- ing satisfactory interpersonal relations. Parents of clinic children, on the other hand, perceive their children as exhibiting more aggression and difficulties in the areas of impulse and motor control. One explanation for these findings is that the children's behavior was the primary determinant for the parents' perceptions, i.e., that clinic parents perceived more negative behaviors because their children emitted more negative behaviors. Another hypothesis, however, is that parents differ in their perceptual styles, some focusing more on positive behaviors while others pay more attention to negative behaviors. It may be that such different perceptual sets affect parents' child- rearing practices and contribute to later perceptions of child charac- teristics and behavior. In research currently in progress, Messe and Stollak (1974) are studying adults' perceptual styles. They hypothesize that some parents ("negative behavior perceivers") selectively attend to Can acce Shims p! Does wt: ”mes gr Plays t: Others 5 "EKES fr Self-cor Write a Pre'ers Energeti Shows pl [Plates Plti'les Learns q likes to 59813 go {file to r‘. . “”9711 Table 1 Significant Behavior Checklist Items in Differentiating Clinic and Non-Clinic Children Characteristic of Non-Clinic Children ("Positive Behaviors") Is concerned about feelings of others Handles small objects skillfully Can be depended on to do what he (she) is supposed to do without reminders Activity is focused on a particular purpose, seems to accomplish what he (she) sets out to do Can accept new ideas without getting upset Shows pride in accomplishment Does what other adults ask him(her) to Moves gracefully - is well coordinated Plays to win Others seem to want to be with him (her) Makes friends quickly and easily Self-confident Polite and cooperative with others Prefers competitive games Energetic Shows pleasure and involvement in most things he (she) does - enthusiastic Competes with other children Pitches in when things are to be done Learns quickly from others Likes to play with girls instead of boys Seems comfortable in new situations ' Able to stand up for himself (herself) Careful in explanations - precise Shows appreciation when others help or do things for him (her) Quick and clever Is tidy and neat, perhaps even a bit fussy about it Is curious about things Retains composure even when those around him (her) are acting in a boisterous way Table l (Con't.) Asks sensible questions in new situations Feelings are apparent in facial expression Easily embarrassed Starts things off when with others Talks all the time Prefers playing with older or bigger children even when children of own age are around Table 2 Significant Behavior Checklist Items in Differentiating Clinic and Non-Clinic Children Characteristic of Clinic Children ("Negative Bheaviors“) GEts irritated or angry easily Plays with toys in a rough way Doesn't pay attention to what grownup says to him (her) Acts in ways that makes others not like him (her) Seems to do things just to get others angry at him (her) Quickly loses interest in an activity Plays mostly with younger or smaller children - even when children of own age are around Often has to be reminded of what he (she) can and cannot do Seems out of touch with what is going on around him (her) - off in his (her) own world When told to do something he (she) doesn't want to do, he (she) becomes very angry Doesn't seem to care about how he (she) looks - often looks sloppy Blows up very easily when bothered by someone Seems sad and unhappy Tends to go too far unless frequently reminded of rules Threatens to hit or hurt others Has uncontrollable outbursts of temper Will lie to get out of a tight spot Fidgety and restless Often breaks the rules in games with others Gets other children stirred up to mischief Has a characteristic mannerism or nervous habit Bullies younger children .Play is aimless, doesn't seem to make or accomplish anything Seems selfish, always wants own way Acts as if everyone were against him (her) Is left out and ignored by others Prefers following others to taking the initiative Can't wait - must have things immediately Looks awkward when he (she) moves around (Adapted from Partyka, 1971) and punisr tire, 9'05 tire benal heir chil being atte 'urther t? able to n their chi of, more and they one ever We parr to l The Extrema] FIECIlCEE 3.1;], 1‘ Wiltlve‘ E'3l933i( 3mm; ire'J' ""‘Gltr TO and punish negative behaviors while ignoring or minimizing the posi- tive, prosocial, competent behaviors of a child. Other parents ("posi- tive behavior perceivers") selectively pay attention to and reinforce their children's positive (competent, prosocial) behaviors while not being attentive to the child's negative behaviors. It is assumed further that there is a middle group of "accurate" perceivers who are able to respond selectively to both negative and positive behaviors in their children. Stolz (1967) is one researcher who provided an indication that the idea of perceptual set may be a valid concept. In discussing data obtained through interviews with 78 parents (mothers & fathers) she wrote: Although parents are not unresponsive to, or totally ignoring of, behavior of their children of which they approve, they are much more conscious of the effect of behavior that they disapprove of and that they would like to change. Three-fourths of the behavior they discussed, they considered worthy of change. Every mother but one laid more emphasis on disapproved than approved behavior, and every father except three did the same (p. 202). We suggest that some parents may need help in identifying, understanding, and responding to children's behavior that is painful to the children themselves, but not disturbing or annoying to the family (p. 290). The current study attempted to provide more information about parental perceptions and their relationships to parents' child-rearing practices, sensitivity to children, and children's behavior. Specifi- cally, it was asked whether parents who perceive their children more positively demonstrate: (1) greater sensitivity to children, (2) greater expression of child-rearing practices and attitudes associated with prosocial-independent behavior of children, and (3) have children who exhibit more "positive" behavior (e.g., affiliation, cooperation, IEY'EW rearin grasps vers' ll positively assertive behavior) in interaction with an adult. Parent-Child Relations Parent Behavior and Children's Development An immense number of studies have been conducted in the areas of parental child-rearing attitudes, parent behavior, and children's social and personality development (Mussen, 1970). Only those studies most relevant to the current investigation have been selected for review. Baumrind (1967) studied the association between parents' child- rearing practices and competence in a young child. To do so, three groups of pre-school children were identified on the basis of obser- vers' ratings in nursery schools. Pattern I children were self- reliant, self-controlled, content, explorative, affiliative, and self- assertive. Pattern II children were withdrawn, discontent, distrust- ful, less affiliative towards peers, and more likely than Pattern I children to become hostile or regressive under stress. Pattern III children were those lacking self-reliance, having little self-control, and tending to retreat from novel experiences. To obtain data about parent-child interaction, home visits, focused interviews, and struc- tured observations were conducted. Parents of Pattern 1 children were described as "notably firm, loving, demanding, and understanding" (p. 83). Baumrind found that these parents "...were markedly consistent, loving, conscientious, and secure in handling their chilren. They respected the child's indepen- dent decisions but demonstrated remarkable ability to hold to a position once they took a stand. They tended to accompany a directive with a reason... (these parents) balanced high nurtur- ance with high control and high demands with clear communication about what was required of the children. (p. 80). 12 In contrast, parents of Pattern II children were found to be "firm, punitive, and unaffectionate" (p. 83). These parents "...exerted firm control and used power freely, but offered little support or affection. They did not attempt to convince the child through use of reason to obey a directive, nor did they encourage the child to express himself when he disagreed. Accord— ing to interview data, the mother was more inclined to given an absolute moral imperative as a reason for her demands...and admitted more to frightening the child" (p. 81). Pattern III chilren were found to have mothers who "lacked control and were moderately loving" while fathers were "ambivalent and lax" (p. 83). These parents babied their children more and engaged in less independence training than Pattern I parents. Mothers were found to use withdrawal of love and ridicule as incentives rather than power or reason. In another study of parental practices, Baumrind and Black (1967) found that parents' willingness to give reasons for their directives and to listen to their children were associated with competent behav- ior on the part of the children. Techniques which fostered self- reliance,. either by encouraging the child's decision-making, and independent actions or by placing high demands on the child for good performance or self-control, were found to facilitate responsible, independent behavior. Baumrind and Black concluded that firm, demand- ing behavior on the part of the parent was not associated with puni- tiveness or lack of warmth and that, indeed, the opposite was true (p. 325). In a review of three studies, Baumrind (1973) concluded that social responsibility (achievement orientation, friendliness toward peers, and cooperativness toward adults) and independence (social dominance, non-conforming behavior, and purposiveness) are associated 13 with authoritative control in which the parent promotes the child's autonomy and individuality while setting firm, appropriate limits. In contrast, social responsibility was found not to be associated with authoritarian control, or parental restrictiveness, while independence was not associated with permissive noncontrol. Coopersmith (1967) studied the relationship of parental child- rearing practices and public school children's levels of self-esteem. He found that children with high self-esteem had parents who: (1) were accepting, concerned with, and attentive toward their children, (2) clearly defined and enforced limits of behavior, and (3) within the limits that they set, respected the child's needs and wishes and granted the child a large degree of freedom. These same variables have been found to be related to adolescents' development of autonomy (Murphy, Silber, Coelho, Hamburg, & Greenberg, 1963). In a review of empirical research on moral development, Hoffman (1970) distinguished the following three methods of discipline used by parents: (1) Power assertion includes those techniques which the parent uses to control the child by capitalizing on physical power or the control of material resources (e.g., punishment, depriving the child of privileges or material objects, using force, and threatening the child with any of these). (2) Love-withdrawal techniques are those in which the parent directly expresses anger or disapproval of the child for acting in some undesirable way, but does not use any physical means to show his/her feelings (e.g., refusing to listen or speak to the child, isolating the child, expressing dislike, threaten- ing to leave the child). Love-withdrawal has a very punitive quality and may be emotionally traumatic for a child because of the threat of (‘0 k C) "(J CL 7:" ”f l4 abandonment and loss of the parent's love. (3) Induction refers to the use of techniques whereby the parent gives the child reasons or explanations for asking that the child change a behavior (pp. 285- 286). Hoffman's conclusions about the use of these three disciplinary techniques were that power assertion by the mother shows a consistent high degree of association with "weak moral development," love- withdrawal shows infrequent relationships with moral develOpment, and affection and induction are significantly related to "advanced moral development" (p. 292). Induction by adults seems to contribute to the development of empathy in children and to their awareness of the consequences of their behavior. The relationship between power assertion and the development of consideratness in children was revealed in Hoffman's (1963) study of parental discipline and children's consideration for others. In general, results showed the children's friendliness or "positive affective orientation" was related to parental acceptance. In regard to parental discipline, when mothers were low in reactive unqualified power assertion, children's considerateness was found to be positively related to the mothers' use of "other-oriented" discipline (i.e., discipline oriented to the needs of others and containing reference to the implications of the child's behavior for another person). How- ever, when mothers were high in power assertion, children's consider- ateness was negatively correlated with other-oriented discipline. Hoffman noted that unqualified power assertion conveys to the child that she/he must comply immediately and without question with the parent's demands, despite what the child's feelings might be. This technique frustrates the child's autonomy needs, does not promote the ceildrer that nc: functior “whatever 8e: trees or ITO-,7; a l 15. pm Studles 15 development of internal controls by the child, and may lead to dis- placement of aggression outside the home, particularly toward peers (Hoffman, 1960). Furthermore, Hoffman suggested that the more power assertive a parent is, the less likely the child will be to assimilate the cognitive content of the parent's discipline because of the emo- _ tions generated by the parent's authoritarianism. Aggression and heightened autonomy needs may become conditioned responses of the child which are aroused whenever the parent attempts to change the child's behavior, in spite of the technique used. The negative corre- lation between other-oriented discipline and considerateness for children of mothers high in power assertion raised the possibility that not only might power assertion interfere with a child's cognitive functioning, but the child might actually begin to rebel against whatever the parent communicates. Becker (1964) reviewed research on the consequences of different types of parental discipline. He attempted to integrate the findings from a number of studies in terms of two dimensions: restrictiveness vs. permissiveness and warmth vs. hostility. He concluded: "...the studies show that permissiveness combined with hostility maximizes aggressive, poorly controlled behavior, while restrictiveness combined with hostility maximizes self-aggression, social withdrawal, and signs of internal conflict" (p. 193). Warmth-permissivness, on the other hand, was found to relate to socially outgoing characteristics and individuality in children. "The child with warm-permissive parents is socialized mainly through love, good models, reasons, and a trial and error learning of how his actions...have an impact on others" (p. 198). died? or “nc men C derelt Hill. 16 Becker's "permissive" condition implies the use of induction as a disciplinary method and is, therefore, not totally "non-restrictive" or "noncontrol". Such differences in meanings must be kept in mind when comparing studies. In summary, the research reviewed on parental behavior and child development reveals the following: (1) Parents' use of induction (providing explanations or reasons) is related to the following behaviors in children: competence, consid- erateness, self-reliance, self-control, independence, and I'advanced moral development". (2) Parents' use of authoritative control (firm, appropriate limit-setting with explanations and allowance for considerable freedom within those limits) is associated with raising children who are socially responsible, competent, independent, and high in self-esteem, self-reliance, and self-control. (3) Parents' warmth and acceptance are related to children's friendliness. (4) Parents who are both warm (high in nurturance) and use author— itative control (induction and clear communication) have children who are competent, independent, self-reliant, socially out-going, socially responsible, friendly, explorative, and high in self-esteem, self- reliance, and self-control. (5) Parents who are low in warmth (or hostile) and who exert firm, punitive control (authoritarian, restrictive, or power assertive tech- niques) seem to have children who are socially withdrawn, discontent, distrustful (insecure), low in social responsibility, low in consider- ateness (when mothers use other-oriented discipline as well), and self-aggressive. «flu an I IHU s‘eias r EE'CE‘ :eravi " .1 El‘ 358, Ehsir. \ 325' 70:: e: \ V 17 (6) Parents who are permissive (lax, low in control) and either hostile or low in warmth (use love withdrawal, ridicule) have children who lack self-reliance, retreat from novel experiences, show poor self- control, and may be aggressive. The current study was an exploratory investigation of the relation- ships among parent's child-rearing practices and concerns, parents perceptions of their children, parents' sensitivity, and children's behavior. It was expected that: (1) There would be positive correlations among those child-rearing practices ("positive practices") associated with more socially responsible and independent behavior of children (e.g., induction, demonstration of love, explanations), greater concern with competence-mastery and prosocial considerateness issues and parents' positive perceptions of their children; (2) "positive practices" of parents would be positively related to children's friendly, assertive, cooperative and generally more "positive" behavior with an adult; (3) positive correlations would be found between "positive practices" and measures of parental sensitivity or effectiveness in conflict situa- tions. Parent-Child Communication Sensitive and Effective Responses to Children The research reviewed in the previous section and the writings of clinicians and theorists interested in child development (Axline, 1947; Ginott, 1965; Gordon, 1970; Moustakas, 1959; Stollak, 1973, 1976) indicate that parental behavior along the following dimensions is important for children's emotional development: that is t) mire 18 1. Reflection of the Child's Feelings, Needs and Wishes 2. A Statement of Acceptance of the Validity of the Child's Feelings and Needs 3. A Statement of the Adult's Own Feelings 4. Providing Alternative Routes of Expression for the Child's Feelings and Needs in the Present 5. Providing Alternative Routes of Expression for the Child's Feelings and Wishes in the Future (Stollak, 1973). Reflecting a child's feelings and thoughts is said to convey to the child a sense of empathy and understanding and to demonstrate a parent's interest and caring. It is also a way to help a child recog- nize, label, and clarify her/his inner experiences. The development and maintenance of a child's feelings of self-esteem and worth are thought to be related to adults' reflection and acceptance of the child's feelings. A statement of the adult's own feelings as they relate to the child's feelings, needs, and behaviors is hypothesized to help a child's development of interpersonal skill and competence. The child begins to learn how her/his behavior affects others and what the consequences of that behavior are. Providing alternative routes for expression of feelings and needs is thought to help to teach a child positive ways of behaving and to increase a child's repertoire of acceptable responses. Sears, Maccoby, and Levin (1957) noted that one characteristic of punishment is that a child is told what ngt_to do, but not what to g9, Unless children are given alternative ways to express their feelings, they may revert back _ I‘ it u. "'7 PIV at v 19 to undesirable behavior. Furthermore, providing alternative ways to behave promotes a child's independence, develOpment of interpersonal skills, and ability to master the environment (Liberman, Stollak, and Denner, l97l). Insensitive and Ineffective Methods of Communicating with Children Gordon (1970) suggests that when children's behavior interferes with the parents' lives or needs, "99 out of 100'' parents in his classes respond ineffectively. These parental responses fall into twelve cate- gories: 1. Ordering, Directing, Commanding 2. Threatening, Warning, Admonishing 3. Preaching, Moralizing, Exhorting 4. Providing Answers or Solutions, Advising 5. Giving Logical Arguments or Solutions, Advising 6. Judging Negatively, Criticizing, Disagreeing, Blaming 7. Judging Positively, Praising, Agreeing 8. Name-Calling, Ridiculing, Shaming 9. Interpreting, Analyzing, Diagnosing 10. Supporting, Reassuring, Sympathizing, Consoling 11. Questioning, Probing, Interrogating 12. Ignoring, Withdrawing, Distracting, Humoring, Diverting (Gordon, 1970). 'ine hC‘n’E Lita cattr 20 Although Gordon conducted no research to support his contention of the wide usage of these types of communications in problem situations, Stollak, Scholom, Kallman, and Saturansky (1973) studied undergraduates' responses on a projective paper and pencil test presenting hypothetical adult-child conflict situations. These young adults used an average of 1.51 of these twelve categories per problem. Kallman (1974) studied mothers' responses to similar stiuations and found a high degree of similarity to the data from the college students. Mothers' average mean usage of these "ineffective" responses was 1.78. Gordon's basis for characterizing those 12 responses listed as "ineffective" rests upon clinical experience. He receives some support, however, from client-centered therapists like Axline (1947) and Mous- takas (1957) who stress the importance of accepting a child and communi- cating respect for the child's ability to make her/his own decisions. This means that the therapist refrains from providing answers, judging, praising, questioning, ordering, teaching, criticizing, or any other of the 12 categories. Gordon suggests that the 12 categories presented are ineffective for the following reasons: Categories 1-4 (Ordering, Threatening, Preaching, and Providing Answers) communicate that the child's feelings are unimportant, undermine the child's self-esteem and autonomy develop- ment, and may generate resentment of parental authority. Giving Logical Arguments, Judging Negatively, Name-Calling, and Interpreting are “put down" messages which make a child feel inadequate, inferior, unloved, unworthy, or rejected. Judging Positively, Praising may have negative effects in that the praise does not fit with the child's self-image or causes the child to feel he/she is not being understood. (Ginott, 1965, 21 feels praise is undesirable and unhelpful when it deals with a child's personality and character instead of focusing on the child's efforts and achievements and mirroring for the child a realistic picture of his/her accomplishments.) Supporting, Reassuring is ineffective because such messages often convey a lack of understanding or an attempt to deny the child's feelings. Questioning may indicate lack of trust or suspicion, or may limit the child's exploration of feelings. Ignoring clearly demonstrates a lack of interest and respect for the child. Additional Responses in Parent-Child Communication In a study conducted by Kallman (l974), hypothetical problem parent- child situations were presented to mothers and children. Several responses which were not included in Stollak, gt_al,'s (1973) or Gordon's (1970) lists were frequently used by either mothers or children. Following are these additional responses: 1. The use of physical punishment Yelling or shouting, irrespective of content Indirect statement of the parent's feelings Restricted compliance with the child's need, wish, or demand Unrestricted compliance with the child's need, wish or demand 030‘!th Restriction of the child's privileges -- grounding 7. Statement of mutual reciprocity. Classified as ineffective responses were physical punishment, yelling, unrestricted compliance, and restriction of the child's privileges (grounding). Kallman found that grounding most often represented an isolated example of parental discipline, not associated with either 22 explanation for the behavior, concern for the child's feelings, or a message of alternative routes for the expression of the child's needs. Classified as effective responses were restricted compliance (exert some control yet help child be aware of others' needs) and statement of mutual reciprocity (relating child's needs and wishes to their effect upon the needs and feelings of the adult). Indirect statement of parent's feelings was described as similar to "Statement of Adult Feelings," an effective response, but as less optimal because of the lack of clarity or directness in stating the parent's feelings (Kall- man, 1974). In addition to Stollak, et_§l,'s (1973), Gordon's (1970) and Kallman's (1974) lists, the present study incorporated several other categories in exploring parental responses in conflict situations. "Seeking information about the child's feelings" and "Seeking infor- mation about the child's behavior" may be viewed as attempts to learn more about what has occurred, and may be either relatively neutral or effective categories. "Other-oriented discipline," that is, discipline oriented to the needs of others and containing reference to the implica- tions of the child's behavior for another person, has been found to be related to the development of considerateness in children (Hoffman, 1963) and thus is a potentially "effective" response. Ginott (1965) stressed the importance of "desirable praise", i.e., praise which focuses realistically upon the child's behavior and achievements instead of on the child's personality and character. He claimed desirable praise was a more effective response than what we usually consider as "praise". Related to the concept of desirable praise is the idea of attentional focus upon the "positive" or "negative" 23 aspects of a child's behavior. For example, if a child lends a jacket to a friend and the jacket gets dirty, a parent may focus upon one or both of the following aspects: (1) the child's thoughtfulness in giving the jacket to his/her friend ("positive" or desirable aspect) or (2) the fact of the dirty clothing ("negative" or undesirable aspect). If the parent attends first to the "negative" aspect she/he may generate anxiety and other feelings in the child which may be counterproductive in terms of, e.g., the child's "tuning out" the parents or not being responsive to later "positive" affect the parent may express about the incident. Thus, attentional focus in this respect is an important variable in studying parental sensitivity or responsiveness to children's feelings and needs. This research used all of these categories as well as those provided by Stollak, et_al, (1973), Gordon (1970) and Kallman (1974) in studying parental responses in conflict situations. The Question of Effectiveness and Ineffectiveness of Responses Although theoretical notions and clinical data provide support for calling various categories "effective" or "ineffective", as already described, empirical evidence appears more equivocal. Baumrind (1967, 1971) found that parents of the most competent children used less withdrawal of love, less ridicule, and less moralizing than did par- ents of her two less competent groups of children. Thus the most "effective" parents used fewer of the types of responses which Gordon (1970) described as "ineffective” or "insensitive". However, Baumrind (1971) also reported, "The effective parent used reason, power, and shaping by reinforcement to achieve her objectives." These types of 24 responses, too, however, may fit into Gordon's "ineffective" responses, e.g., being similar to "Ordering and Directing," ”Providing Answers on Solutions," or "Giving Logical Arguments". Therefore, the "effective- ness" and "ineffectiveness" of particular responses may not be as clearcut a matter as Gordon (1970) implied. "Effectiveness" may be differentially determined by such factors as the situation and the child's age. It may also be that there are optimal levels of particular parental behaviors that are most "effective" while "ineffectiveness" is related to either an extremely high or an extremely low degree of those behaviors. In this regard, for example, Sears, Maccoby, and Levin (1957) and Becker (1964) studied the relationship of parental warmth and children's emotional development. This study was designed to provide more information about the effectiveness and sensitivity of parental responses by considering the relationships among parents' responses to children in conflict situa- tions, parents' child-rearing attitudes and concerns, parental percep- tions, and children's behavior in interaction with an adult. For purposes of future reference, the term "sensitivity" will be used to mean parents' responsivity to children's needs and feelings in conflict situations. Mother-Father Differences Increasingly, recognition has been made of the importance of including the father in studies of child development and parent-child interaction (Becker, Peterson, Hellmer, Shoemaker, & Quay, 1959; Nash, 1965; Stolz, 1967). Indeed, research that has considered the father as well as the mother often has found differences between the parents in 25 their child-rearing attitudes and practices, or in their effect upon children's behavior. Eron, Banta, Walder, and Laulicht (1961) compared data obtained from mothers and fathers on child-rearing practices and the relation of these practices to child aggression. Correlations between mothers' and fathers' scores showed that parents did not agree to an appreciable degree in reporting perceptions of their own child. It was suggested that parents may each observe and react to children differently and that the reactions of both are needed to obtain a complete picture. Further- more, the authors found that some variables that did not relate when predictions were made from the scores of only one parent, did show a relationship when scores of both parents were considered. For example, while both parents had to be rejecting for a child to be rated high in aggression, only the mother's lack of rejection resulted in a child low in aggression. On the other hand, only fathers' scores for punishment for aggression were related to the child's aggression. Regardless of the mother's score, the child tended to be low on aggression when the father scored low in punishment for aggression. The authors concluded that the contributions of both mothers and fathers must be considered to acquire a more complete picture of the effects of child-rearing practices and attitudes on children's behavior. Peterson, Becker, Luria, and Hellmer (1961) studied parents of "normal" and clinic kindergarten children. They concluded that fathers' attitudes were at least as intimately related to the maladjustive tendencies of children as were mothers' attitudes. 26 McCord, McCord, and Howard (1961) studied the familial correlates of aggression in nondelinquent boys rated as assertive, aggressive, or nonaggressive. They found that 95% of their aggressive boys came from homes where at least one parent was emotionally rejecting. These boys also tended to have one parent who was physically punitive. Their homes were usually characterized by parental conflict and lack of respect of the parents for each other. These findings indicate again that infor- mation from both parents is necessary to acquire a complete picture. Parental disagreement itself may be an important variable to consider in relation to children's functioning. Baumrind and Black (1967) also found differential effects of mothers' and fathers' behavior on children. Paternal consistent dis- cipline was found to be related to assertiveness and independence in boys and to affiliativeness in girls. Paternal punitiveness, on the other hand, was associated with independent and domineering behavior in girls and unlikeability in boys. Thus the relationship of specific parent-child variables have been found to vary with both the sex of the parent and the sex of the child. Rothbart and Maccoby (1966) investigated parents' differential reactions to daughters and sons. Using as the stimulus the voice of a child which could be identified as either male or female, parents were asked to respond to the child's statements in problem situations. Mothers were found to be more permissive for the voice identified as a boy's while fathers were more permissive for the voice identified as a girl's. In terms of aggression toward the parent and comfort-seeking, mothers appear to be more accepting of these behaviors in sons than in 27 daughters while fathers allow greater expression of these behaviors with daughters than sons. A study by Aberle and Naegle (1952) focused primarily on middle class fathers' attitudes toward their children. Based on interview data, fathers were found to express more statements of concern involving boys. The emotional intensity of these concerns was also greater with respect to boys than girls. Furthermore, the areas of concern differed with the sex of the child. For boys, fathers were pleased if their sons displayed initiative and responsibility, stood up for themselves, did well in school, showed athletic ability, and were emotionally stable. Satisfaction with girls, on the other hand, focused strongly on the girls being "nice," ”sweet," pretty, affectionate, and well-liked. Mothers were found to express more concern about girls than fathers. Besides sex, birth order was related to paternal attentiveness. Male firstborn children were of more concern to fathers than either female first-borns or subsequent male children. The results of this study indicate that the child's sex is an important variable to consider when assessing parental perceptions. Apparently, parents differ in the types of behaviors on which they focus, depending upon whether the child is male or female. Thus parents may develOp different perceptual biases related to the child's sex. The current investigation attempted to extend our knowledge about the child-rearing practices and sensitivity of mothers apg_fathers. The relationships among parents' child-rearing practices and concerns, sensitivity to children, and perceptions of children were studied to determine how mothers and fathers differed on these variables. betwe Guest their sitiv ships Deteht to ch' such a 28 Statement of the Questions The current research was concerned with three broad questions. Question I: 00 mothers and fathers differ in their perceptions of their children, child-rearing practices, and sensitivity to children? This was an exploratory question to assess just what differences between parents are related to their family role. Qpestion II: What are the relationships among parents' perceptions of their children, child-rearing practices and concerns, and their sen- sitivity to children? It was expected that there would be significant positive relation- ships among parents' perceptions, concern with issues related to com- petence-mastery and prosocial-considerateness in children, sensitivity to children, and use of more "authoritative" child-rearing practices, such as induction and demonstration of love. Question III: How is children's behavior related to parents' percep- tions of their children, child-rearing practices and concerns, and sensitivity to children? This question was largely exploratory with the aim of providing greater information about the relationships among specific children's behaviors and parental perceptions, child-rearing attitudes and practices. METHOD Recruitment of Subjects In the Fall of 1974, second grade children were recruited through the East Lansing schools to serve as volunteers in a research project on undergraduates to be conducted by Lawrence Messe, and Gary Stollak, of the Department of Psychology, Michigan State University. Parents indicated their willingness to allow their child to be involved by returning a postcard to the experimenters. In the spring of 1975, 150 children whose parents had given per- mission for their involvement were contacted to participate. Each child was scheduled for a half-hour of time with an undergraduate in a playroom at the Michigan State University Psychology Department. The first ten minutes of the playroom session were devoted to free play, during which the child and undergraduate could do whatever they wanted. For the second ten minutes, the child and undergraduate were asked to work together on a puzzle task, specifically, to draw a particular design with an Etch-A-Sketch. The child was to use one knob of the Etch-a-Sketch toy and the undergraduate, the other. Cooperation was necessary to complete the design. In the last ten minutes of these encounters, the undergraduate was given a list of proverbs and asked to teach the child the meaning of two of them. Each session of a child and undergraduate was videotaped. These tapes were used in the current study for the analysis of the children's behavior. 29 30 Parental data for the present study were obtained from the parents of the children who participated in the encounters with the undergrad- uates. Parents were contacted by mail and asked to complete a set of questionnaires that would provide more information about their children and about the parents' child-rearing practices. Parents were asked to fill out the questionnaires independently of each other. Measures for Parents The Children's Behavior Checklist The Children's Behavior Checklist Form Q was used to assess parental perception. This is a modified version of the checklist complied by Ferguson, Mackenzie, and Does. The original checklist was composed of 154 interpersonal and symptomatic items referring to children's behavior. These items were obtained from parents' descrip- tions of children and from observations of children in classes for the emotionally disturbed and in play therapy. Ferguson, et_al,'s (1974) research identified those behaviors reported more frequently by the parents of nonclinic and clinic chilren. Thirty-four items yielded significant values in the non-clinic direction while 32 items were significant in the clinic direction. Approximately equal numbers of many of these behaviors descriptive of clinic and non-clinic children were used to compose the Children's Behavior Checklist, Form Q (See Appendix A). This checklist contains two columns, one which is marked "Applicable" and one which is marked "Characteristic." Parents were asked to read through the checklist, first indicating those behaviors which applied to their child, and then marking those which were also characteristic of their child. Parents were asked only to rate their child who participated in the research. 31 The Child-Rearipg Concerns and Practices Questionnaire Child-rearingpconcerns. The Child-Rearing Concerns and Practices Questionnaire (CRCP), (See Appendix B) is composed of two parts. Part I related to child-rearing concerns. On a five point scale ranging from "very little" to "a great deal“ parents were asked to indicate how much they would emphasize, pay attention to, or be concerned about various aspects of their child's behavior. There were 24 items that were adapted from the Parent's Value Orientation Questionnaire (Olejnik & McKinney, 1973) and the Children's Behavior Checklist (Ferguson, Mackenzie, & Does) by Robert Jay Green (1975). The items of Part I measured to what extent a paretn or other subject would focus attention on various positive and negative behaviors of children. The positive behavior items were selected to relate to facets of prosocial-considera- teness or competence-mastery, while the negative behaviors were designed to tap dimensions of authority-defiance or aggression-hostility. The relative importance to parents' of various positive and negative behaviors of children could thus be ascertained by scores on Part I of the CRCP. Child-rearing practices. Part II of the CRCP assessed child- rearing practices. Descriptions of four typical parent-child inter- action situations were presented. Each situation involved one of the following four dimensions of children's behavior: competence-mastery, prosocial-considerateness, aggression-hostility, and authority-defiance. After each situation were listed twenty responses. On a five point scale ranging from "Never" to "Usually" the parent was asked to indicate how often he/she would respond in each of the twenty ways to the situ- ation presented. In terms of the conceptual design, the 20 responses of situation A and the 20 responses of situation C were selected to A u.» ".1. ’1. t: he Ci 32 measure these four categories of parental behavior: power assertion, love-withdrawal, induction, or non-response. The 20 responses for situation 8 and the 20 responses for situation 0 were designated to measure five other categories of parental behavior: reward, demonstrate love, empathize-explain, take for granted, and improve-criticize . Thus Part II of the CRCP revealed the ways in which a parent might respond to a child showing various kinds of "positive" or "negative" behavior. The Sensitivity to Children Questionnaire The Sensitivity to Children Questionnaire (STC) was originally designed by Stollak (Stollak, et a1., 1973) to study adult behavior toward children in problem situations and consisted of sixteen items. As a projective test, the STC required the subject to read a short description of a situation which concenred a young child. The direc- tions asked that the subject pretend that the incident had occurred and write down the exact words and actions he or she would use in responding to the child. Each situation consisted of one type of "negative" be- havior exhibited by the child. For the current study, the author devised another Sensitivity to Children Questionnaire, the STC-PN, consisting of six items, each of which contained two different behaviors of a child. In each instance, a conflict situation was presented between a behavior or verbal state- ment which might be labelled "positive" or desirable, and another which would generally be perceived as "negative" or undesirable (See Appendix C). The parent was asked to write down the way he/she would respond to his/her seven year old child, using the exact words and/or actions, as if the parent were writing a script. Crer to 33 Scoring the STC-PN Each of the six situations for each STC-PN protocol was scored independently by two coders for thirty-seven (37) response categories. More than one response category could be scored for an STC-PN situation, but a response category could only be scored once for any specific STC- PN situation. The first twelve categories for each STC-PN item (Response Cate- gories 1-12) were Gordon's list of "ineffective" responses which he stated parents used most frequently in problem situations with their children. These response categories were: 1. Ordering, Directing, Commanding 2. Threatening, Warning, Admonishing 3. Preaching, Moralizing, Exhorting 4. Providing Answers or Solutions, Advising 5. Giving Logical Arguments, Lecturing, Teaching Judging negatively, Criticizing, Disagreeing, Blaming 7. Judging Positively, Praising, Agreeing 8. Name-Calling, Ridiculing, Shaming 9. Interpreting, Analyzing, Diagnosing 10. Supporting, Reassuring, Sympathizing, Consoling ll. Questioning, Probing, Interrogating 12. Ignoring, Withdrawing, Distracting, Humoring, Directing. Seven categories (Response Categories 13-17 and 31-33) were ones that Kallman (1974) found to be frequently used by mothers. They were: with D 34 13. Unrestricted Compliance with the Child's Needs, Wish, or Demand 14. Restriction of the Child's Privileges - Grounding 15. Use of Physical Punishment 31 A Statement of Mutual Reciporcity 32. Restricted Compliance with Child's Need, Wishes, or Demands 33. Indirect Statement of Adult's Feelings Eleven categories of "effective" adult responding used in previous work by Stollak, gt_al_(l973) were incorporated in the scoring system. These consisted of the following (Response Categories 18-28): 18. Statement of Child's Feelings 19. Statement of Acceptance of Child's Feelings 20. Statement of Adult's Feelings 21. Relating Child's Feelings to Adult's Feelings 22. Relating Child Feelings to Adult Behavior 23. Relating Child Behavior to Adult Feelings 24. Relating Child Behavior to Adult Behavior 25. Directions or Alternatives Regarding Child's Present Feelings 26. Directions or Alternatives Regarding Child's Future Feelings 27. Attempt to Obtain More Information of Child's Feelings 28. Attempt to Obtain More Information of Child Behavior The other categories composing the scoring system (Response Cate- gories 16, 29, 30, 34-37) represented dimensions that the author thought could potentially provide useful information, or which had been found in previous research to relate directly to certain aspects of children's behavior: 35 16. Punishment-Isolation 29. Other-Oriented Discipline 30. Desirable and Helpful Praise 34. Recognition of Child's "Positive" Intent or Feelings 35. Recognition of Child's "Negative" Behavior 36. "Positive" Intent or Feelings Recognized First 37. "Negative" Behavior Recognized First (Scoring sheets and detailed descriptions of these thirty-seven response categories can be found in Appendix D). Measuripg the Children's Behavior Rating Technique for the Videotapes The videotaped interaction between the child and undergraduate for each of the three parts (free play and two structured tasks) was rated using the continuous scoring technique and system of behavioral cate- gories devised by Freedman, Leary, Ossorio, and Coffey (1951). The circumplex rating scheme provides for the coding of behavior from the perspective of an "interpersonal mechanism," i.e., the interpersonal function of a unit of social behavior. The basic unit of verbal inter- action is defined as the "meaningful speech," comprised of one or more words that serve an interpersonal function and are not interrupted by the other person. However, coding a behavior depends neither on the form nor the medium of expression. Definitions of the coding categories used are contained in Appendix E. The sixteen categories that composed the system were Dominate, Structure, Help, Reassure, Love, Cooperate, Depend, Passively Question, SewinBe Fttively RE (Seehppenr definitions categories Exampleso icircmpl lhisdiagr system. 1 behavior. Each coders. l actor eve seghentsr Stearatel‘ study. 1 Using the let'sheco Riding. been pre_ asim'lar Celtual 5 36 Subnit, Be Helpless, Suspect, Complain, Hate, Punish, Compete, and Actively Resist. These categories may also be subdivided into quadrants (See Appendix E). This system was taken from Rowland, 1968. Separate definitions were given for the adult and child since the behavioral categories have somewhat different meanings for children and adults. Examples of adult and child behaviors were provided for each category. A circumplex diagram for the child behavior is presented in Appendix E. This diagram, too, is from Rowland's (1968) adaptation of this scoring system. The current study focused on the analysis of the children's behavior. Each video tape of a child was rated independently by two different coders. (See Appendix E for the scoring sheet). Ratings were for each act or every 30 seconds of a continuous behavior. Each of the three segments of a session (free play, etch-a-sketch, proverbs) was coded separately and then the scores were combined for use in the current Study. In analyzing the data, the following procedure was followed. Using the mean for a coder across the category for the children, he/ She coded standard scores were generated to control for idiosyncratic coding. Because the undergraduates who played with the children had been pre-selected on measures of perceptual bias by Messe and Stollak, a Similar procedure was used to eliminate the effects of both per- CEDtual style and sex of the undergraduate. 37 Ratings by Experimenters and Tapers The experimenters and tapers conducting the child-undergraduate interaction session all completed the "Undergraduate Effectiveness Rating Forms" upon completion of the session. These rating forms also included a section for scoring the child's behavior with the under- graduate on measures of adjustment, self-confidence, maturity, soci- ability, and competence. (See Appendix F). The combined ratings of each coder-experimenter pair for each of the six variables were used in the present research. Final Subject Pool The 150 children who participated in the study represented 148 different families. Of these 148 families, responses were received from the parents of 94 children or 63.5% of the total family subject pool. (Nine more responses were received too late to be included in this study, yielding information from 103 families or 69.6% of the total group). The respectable participation rate made it likely that the final parents' subject pool was representative of the population samp- led. Of the 94 families returning data, sixty spouse pairs participated (63.8% of the 94 families), with complete data for both parents and the child in 51 cases (54.3%). In three instances, data were missing for the child's play interaction segment because an undergraduate had failed to appear for a session. Returns were also received from 15 parents (12 mothers and 3 fathers) whose spouse did not complete any questionnaire (16%), 18 single, divorced, or separated parents (17 mothers and l father) who constituted 19.1% of the return pool, and 2 mothers who fail- ed to list their marital status (2.1%). All available data were used in the Part II For all usable pairs, parenta li variant hensio role-m 38 in the factor analyses of the CRCP Part I (85 mothers, 57 fathers), CRCP Part II (84 mothers and 56 fathers), and STC-PN (89 mothers, 58 fathers). For all other analyses, only data from spouse returns were used. This usable data consisted of the following: CBC protocols for 56 parental pairs, CRCP protocols for 52 parental pairs, STC-PN protocols for 52 parental pairs, and complete parent and child data for 51 families. Experimental Design and Statistical Analyses The study used factorial designs and multivariate analysis of variance. To assess mother-father and child sex differences, the di- mensions of the design were 2 (child's sex-male or female) x 2 (family role-mother or father). Dependent variables for the STC-PN and CRCP were generated through two separate principal axis factor analyses using all available data (N=l42 for CRCP, N=147 for STC-PN). R2 was used as the estimate of communality, and factors were rotated to a varimax solution. Sixteen different factors were derived for the CRCP, four for Part I and twelve for Part II. Six factors were obtained for the STC-PN. Multi- variate analyses of variance were performed on the sixteen composite scores of the CRCP and the six composite scores of the STC-PN resulting from their respective factor analyses. To study parents' perceptions of their children, two measures of the relative "positiveness" of the parents' perceptions were derived. "Apply Difference" was obtained by subtracting all the "negative" traits which a parent said applied to his/her child from all the "positive" traits checked as applying to the child. A score for "Characteristic Difference" was derived in the same manner. Multivariate analysis of variance was used to assess mother-father and child sex differences. inedihens Corre thong pare Ft,and pa oiain se; titers of h=22). S atsignifi 10 an aiiparent Ihltlple r llltlple r results do iarahles heassreg 0 uhfle teas irectices 3"loiticar 39 The dimensions of the design were 2 (sex of child) x 2 (family role). Correlational analysis was employed to study the relationships among parents' perceptions, their "sensitivity" as measured by the STC- PN, and parents' child-rearing practices. Spouse data were used to obtain separate correlation matrices for mothers of girls (N=34), fathers of girls (N=30), mothers of boys (N=21), and fathers of boys (N=22). Significant correlations were those with at least a .05 level of significance for a two-tailed test. To analyze the relationships of parental perceptions, sensitivity, and parental child-rearing attitudes with the chilren's behavior, multiple regression analysis was used. It was found that simultaneous multiple regression and even hierarchical inclusion yielded no significant results due to the overlap among variables and the large number of variables per subject. Therefore stepwise multiple regression was used. Measures of children's behavior were employed as the "criterion" variables while measures of parental perceptions, sensitivity, and child-rearing practices and concerns served as the "predictor" variables. Selected as significant "predictors" were those variables that met the following criteria: (1) the setwise E_was significant at the .05 level or better, (2) the f_ratio for the Beta (standardized partial-regression coefficient) of the predictor variable was significant at .05 level or better, and (3) there was a significant zero-order correlation between the predictor and criterion variables. Sensi‘ 22 ho along tateg each _, .3.“ E; 1;) RESULTS Inter-Rater Reliabilities Sensitivity to Children Questionnaire (STC-PN) Six raters were trained in the scoring procedure for approximately 20 hours. Five rater pairs independently scored the STC-PN responses along the 37 categories. A composite score was obtained for each category over the six different situations. Correlations (3)5) for each pair across the 37 categories combined were .76, .88, .77, .73, and .78. The overall mean was .78, with reliabilities ranging from .10 to 1.0. Excluded from the calculation of reliabilities were those cases in which a correlation could not be calculated because one coder had scored no occurrences for that category while the second coder had scored very few occurrences. These cases, however, did reflect a high degree of reliability between the coders. Of 36 t's computed, three (8%) were significant at the .05 level. Table 3 in Appendix 6 presents the inter-rater reliabilities by coder pairs for the 37 categories, as well as the results of the t-tests. Ratings of Children's Behavior Eleven raters were trained in the scoring procedure for rating the children's play behavior for approximately 60 hours. Six rater pairs then independently rated the available video-tapes. Table 4 in Appendix H presents the average interrater reliability across coder pairs as well as percent of the total behavior constituted by each category. These reliabilities ranged from .29 to .93. 4O Pr ality a [cancer For anr sobjec data v ‘actor by the than .35 a' and ( items c, luu‘y the for ‘1 we 41 CRCP Factor Analysis Principal axis factor analyses using R2 as the estimate of commun- ality and varimax rotation were performed separately for CRCP Part I (concerns) and CRCP II (practices). All available data were used. For analysis of CRCP Part I, complete data were obtained for 142 subjects (85 mothers and 57 fathers). For analysis of CRCP Part II, data were available for 140 subjects (84 mothers and 56 fathers). Factors that were produced by varimax rotation were defined as "usable" by the following criteria: (1) at least one item had to load greater than .55 on each factor; (2) all other items had to load higher than .35 and differ by at least .20 from their laoding on any other factor; and (3) a factor had to be constituted by at least two "eligible" items. The factor analysis of CRCP Part I yielded four factors that met the above criteria. Together they accounted for 88.9% of the variance. Factor I was composed of 6 "eligible" items and was titled "Concern with Child's Authority-Defiant and Antisocial Behavior." Factor 11, composed of four "eligible" items, was labelled "Concern with Child's Prosocial-Mastery Behavior." Factor III - "Concern with Child's Sense of Responsibility" - was constituted by two "eligible" items. Factor IV was composed of five "eligible'' items and was labelled "Concern with Child's Aggressive - Defiant Behavior". Table 5 presents these four factors, the particular "eligible" items defining each factor, the rotated factor loadings, and the percentage of variance accounted for by each factor. Factor analysis of CRCP Part II (child-rearing practices) yielded twelve factors, which met the criteria previously listed. Together FU .\ 42 Table 5 Summary of Factor Loadings - CRCP Part I (N=142) Factor I (41.8% of variance) "Concern with Child's Authority-Defiant and Antisocial Behavior" Itgm_ Loading 1. Ignores what adults tell him/her to do .58876 5. Tells lies .84628 11. Plays with toys in a rough way .50547 15. Does things just to get others angry .68096 21. Cheats in school .93140 23. Threatens to hit or hurt others .63983 Factor II (25.8% of variance) 'Concern with Child's Prosocial-Mastery Behavior" Itgm_ Loading 4. Shows pride in an accomplishment .48484 6. Shows concern about the feelings of others .58252 8. Shows self-confidence .46048 10. Makes friends easily .58258 r.“ —‘ to N c .. p “3 ‘~l o o o ' a 43 Table 5 (con't.) Summary of Factor Loadings - CRCP Part I Factor III (14.5% of variance) "Concern with Child's Sense of Responsibility" Item Loading 18. Pitches in when things need to be done .69274 22. Helps around the house .59391 Factor IV (5.8% of variance) "Concern with Child's Aggressive-Defiant Behavior" Item Loading 3. Gets irritated or angry easily .57038 7. Fights with friends or with brothers and sisters .45421 9. Has to be reminded of what he/she may or may not do .54297 17. Goes too far unless frequently reminded of rules .54267 19. Blows-up easily when bothered by someone .61194 44 these factors accounted for 81.8 percent of the variance. Following are these twelve factors and the names they were given: Factor V - "Give Extrinsic Reward for Desirable Behavior;" Factor VI - "Draw Attention to the Intrinsic Reward of Desirable Behavior;" Factor VII - "Use of Physical Punishment;" Factor VII - "Non-verbal and Implicit Disapproval (Love-Withdrawal);" Factor IX - "Expression of Adult Approval of Child's Behavior;" Factor X - "Expression of Physical Affection;" Factor XI - "Abdicating Responsibility for Discipline to One's Spouse;" Factor XII - "Parent's Negative Evaluation and Disapproval of Child's Self;" Factor XIII - "Ignoring Child's Competent and Defiant Behavior;" Factor XIV - "Dismissal of Child's Mastery - Prosocial Behavior;" Factor XV - "Use of Explanation for Control of Child's Aggressive - Defiant Behavior (Reasoning);" Factor XVI - "Criticize- Threaten." Table 6 presents these twelve factors, the "eligible" items composing each factor, rotated factor loadings and the percentage of variance accounted for by each factor. Additional factor analyses were performed separately for mothers' data and fathers' data. Inspection of the separate subgroup analyses indicated that the two subgroups' factor structures were very similiar to those of the group as a whole. The slight differences that did occur probably were due to sampling error resulting from the smaller subgroup frequencies. STC-PN Factor Analysis Category usage: STC-PN protocols of 147 parents, 89 mothers, and 58 fathers, were subjected to analysis. Of the original 37 categories, three were eliminated prior to the analysis due to redundancy of the 45 Table 6 Summary of Factor Loadings on CRCP Part II Factor V (26.4% of variance) "Give Extrinsic Reward for Desirable Behavior" It§m_ Situation Loading 45. Give him some extra spending money or something else he wants 8 .79795 49. Promise him something he wants 8 .68769 55. Buy him something he wants 8 .83755 61. Tell him he'll be rewarded for doing so well B .71015 64. Make arrangements for him to do something he has wanted to do for a long time B .65764 85. Let him do something special he wants to do 0 .48562 90. Reward him for doing the good deed D .58721 97. Give him some extra spending money or something he else he wants 0 .87109 101. Promise him something he wants 0 .76454 .80324 D 104. Buy him something he has wanted for a long time H X? B7. 93. 94. 99. 46 Table 6 (con't.) Factor VI (14.8% of variance) "Draw Attention to the Intrinsic Reward of Desirable Behavior" Item Situation Loading 58. Explain to him that doing well will help him to feel good about himself and get what he wants in life 8 .60759 63. Tell him that a job well done is rewarding for its own sake B .42405 87. Explain to him that going good will make him feel good about himself in life 0 .72492 93. Say it is good when you treat others as you would like to be treated D .71425 94. Explain how it makes him happy to do kind and helpful things 0 .77188 99. Explain that being considerate to others makes a person feel worthwhile D .85319 100. Tell him that doing something kind is very rewarding just in itself 0 .77133 Factor VII (9.4% of variance) "Use of Physical Punishment" Item Situation Loading 25. Hit or spank him A .73966 65. Hit or spank him C .78367 68 Tell him I'll hit or spank him if he ever talks like that again C .61595 Item 35. 38. 73. 82. Item 52. 54. 92. 96. 47 Table 6 (con't.) Factor VIII (5.8% of variance) "Non-Verbal and Implicit Disapproval (Love-Withdrawal)" Situation Give him an angry look and walk away A Do it myself and show him I don't like it by not talking to him for awhile A Give him and angry look and walk away C Give him an angry look and ignore him for awhile C Factor IX (5.3% of variance) "Expression of Adult Approval of Child's Behavior" Situation Show him how proud I am 8 Tell him what he did makes me happy 8 Tell him what he did makes me happy D Tell him I am very proud of the way he acted 0 Loading .69279 .57765 .73370 .78760 Loading .49624 .72170 .67528 .72024 48 Table 6 (con't.) Factor X (4.0% of variance) "Expression of Physical Affection Item Situation Loading 47. Kiss him or hug him 8 .75919 103. Kiss him or hug him 0 .82874 Factor XI (3.6% of variance) "Abdicating Responsibility for Discipline to One's Spouse" Item Situation Loading 30. Tell his father (mother) and let him (her) handle it A .74846 74. Tell his father (mother) and let him (her) hand1e it C .70521 Factor XII (3.2% of variance) "Negative Evaluation and Disapproval of Child's Self" Item Situation Loading 26. Tell him he ought to be ashamed of himself A .66466 28. Tell him he's being selfish A .49437 37. Tell him I'm disappointed in him A .59056 49 Table 6 (con't.) Factor XIII (2.9% of variance) "Ignoring Child's Competent and Defiant Behavior" Item Situation Loading 41. Do nothing A .62897 51. Do nothing 8 .53112 Factor XIV (2.6% of variance) "Dismissal of Child's Mastery-Prosocial Behavior“ Item Situation Loading 60. Show him that these things are just expected from him and that they are no big deal 8 .72977 95. Show him that these things are just expected and are no big deal 0 .81514 102. Tell him that "nice guys finish last" 0 .47223 39. 66. 81. 44. r 79. T 66. 81. 84. 50 Table 6 (con't.) Factor XV (2.3% of variance) "Use of Explanation for Control of Child's Aggressive-Defiant Behavior (Reasoning)" Situation Loading Give reasons why the thing has to be done right away A .60371 Tell him we each have to help each other out and I need for him to do the thing right away A .43836 Tell him I don't like it when he talks back angrily and that he can discuss it more calmly C .53197 Give him reasons why he can't have his way C .69428 Tell him I know he's angry and explain why he can't have his way C .54255 Factor XVI (1.5% of variance) "Criticize-Threaten" Situation Loading Tell him he is just being stubborn and that he had better stop it right now A .55966 Tell him he'll be sorry if he doesn't do it right away A .70852 Tell him he'll be sorry if he doesn't be quiet C .63038 catego 37-" 51 information that they contributed. Those categories discarded were Category 34 - "Recognition of Child's "Positive“ Intent or Feelings", Category 35 - "Recognition of Child's 'Negative'Behavior," and Category 36 - "Positive Intent or Feelings Recognized First." Of the remaining 34 categories, the most frequently obtained response category was Category 37 - “Negative Behavior Recognized First," while the least frequently used categories were Category 22, "Relating Child Feelings to Adult Behavior," and Category 31, "Statement of Mutual Reciprocity", Table 7 (Appendix 1) presents the mean category and usage and standard deviations for the 34 scoring categories used, in the order of frequency of their usage. In proceeding with the factor analysis, a decision was made to eliminate from further analysis those categories with a mean less than .08, i.e., those categories scored as occurring less than once in every six situations by one member of the coder pair. Thus seven additional categories were eliminated and the remaining 27 categories were subjected to factor analysis. Factor Analysis Relations among the final 27 categories were explored via a prin- cipal axis factor analysis using R2 as the estimate of communality. Factors were rotated to varimax solution. The categories generated six factors that accounted for 75.5% of the cumulative variance. Usable fac- tors were defined according to the criteria described for the CRCP factor analysis. These factors were labelled as follows: Factor I - "Offering Advice, Directions, and Ways for Expression"; Factor II - "Threaten - Express Hostility;" Factor III - "Reflection of Child's Inner Experience"; Factor IV - "Relating Child's Feelings and Behavior to Adult's Feelings;" Factor “Desira Eligibl loading present Ac and fat indicai as a wi error, analys- "395 i childr tinns. nultlv CRCP, 833933 the Ch was De DErCe; "heels COAltar 52 Factor V - "Judging and Interpreting the Child's Behavior;" Factor VI - "Desirable and Helpful Praise - Focus on Positive Aspects of Behavior". Eligible items defining each of these factors, their rotated factor loadings, and percentage of variance accounted for by each factor are presented in Table 8. Additional factor analyses were performed separately for mothers' and fathers' data. Inspection of the results from the separate analyses indicated that the subgroups' factors were similar to those of the group as a whole. Those differences occurring were probably due to sampling error, arising from the small subgroup frequencies. The original factor analysis served to reduce the data to six meaningful dimensions. Mother-Father Differences The first question addressed by the present study asked about the ways in which mothers and fathers differ in their perceptions of their children, child-rearing practices, and responsiveness in problem situa- tions. To explore this issue, 2 (sex of child) x 2 (family role) multivariate analyses of variance were performed on the data of the CBC, CRCP, and STC. Parents' Perceptions of Their Children - Using parents' responses to the Children's Behavior Checklist, multivariate analysis of variance was performed to investigate differences between mothers' and fathers' perceptions of their children. The CBC dependent variables were defined in the following way: (1) "Apply Difference" - the sum of the positive items checked in CBC column #1 as applying to the child minus the sum of the negative items 29. // 53 Table 8 Summary of Factor Loadings for STC Factor I (31.4% of variance) "Offering Advice and Ways for Expression" Category Loading 4. Advising, Recommending, Providing Answers or Solutions .44987 5. Presuading with Logic, Arguing, Instructing, Lecturing .46635 25. Providing Alternate Routes of Expression for the Child's Feelings, Thoughts, and Wishes - In the Present .55996 29. Other-Oriented Discipline .44016 Factor II (12.9% of variance) "Threaten - Express Hostility" Category Loading 2. Warning, Admonishing, Threatening .45530 8. Name-calling, Ridiculing, Shaming, Using Sarcasm, Making Light of .59582 17. Yelling or Shouting .58850 e t . a ‘II C 2 \\ 54 Table 8 (con't.) Factor III (11.1% of variance) "Reflection of Child's Inner Experience" Category Loading 3. Exhorting, Moralizing, Preaching -.53941 18. Reflection of the Child's Feelings, Needs or Wishes .62782 Factor IV (7.3% of variance) "Relating Child's Feelings and Behavior to Adult's Feelings“ Category Loading 21. Relating of Child Feelings to Adult Feelings .64658 23. Relating of Child Behavior to Adult Feelings .52898 55 Table 8 (con't.) Factor V (7.1% of variance) "Judging Negatively and Interpreting the Child's Behavior“ Category Loading 6. Evaluating/Judging Negatively, Disapproving, Blaming, Criticizing .52290 9. Diagnosing, Psychoanalyzing, Interpreting, Reading In, Offering Insights .40769 Factor V1 (5.8% of variance) "Desirable and Helpful Praise - Focus on Positive Aspects of Behavior" Category Loading 30. Desirable and Helpful Praise .75949 37. Recognition of "negative" behavior or feeling first -.56556 checked Differe being c checked ence sc of the ences t by sub; cotter used in patent Unlyar ratio univar R for "p it" se 0f the thlnE dld sc 56 checked in CBC column #1 as applying to the child; (2) "Characteristic Difference" - the sum of the positive items checked in CBC column #2 as being characteristic of the child minus the number of negative items checked in CBC column #2 as being characteristic of the child. Differ- ence scores were used because they represented the relative positiveness of the parents' perceptions. Investigation of the nature of the differ- ences between mothers' and fathers' (spouses') perceptions was conducted by subjecting the two CBC dependent variables to a 2 (family role- mother, father) x 2(child's sex -boy, girl) analysis of variance. Data used were spouse pairs in which both parents had completed the CBC (N=31 parental pairs with girl children; N=24 parental pairs with boy children). Univariate £_ratios were examined when the associated multivariate 5 ratio exceeded a confidence level of .20. Findings are reported for univariate results which were significant at pg(.05. Results for the CBC spouse data were statistically significant only for "Apply Difference," for which there was a significant main effect for sex of the child. (See Tables 9 and 10 of Appendix J). Inspection of the means (Table 10) revealed that spouse pairs rated daughters as having significantly more positive characteristics that apply than they did sons (£35.62, p;(.02). There was also a trend toward significance in the same direction for "Characteristic Difference". That is, parents tended to perceive daughters more positively than they perceived sons (Ef2.77, pg(.10). No significant effect was found for family role, i.e., there were no differences between mothers and fathers for either "Apply Difference" or "Characteristic Difference". Parei 8X30 iron yari Pare feth 57 Parents' Child-Rearing_Concerns Mothers' and fathers' child-rearing concerns were investigated by examining their scores on the CRCP Part I. The four factors acquired from the factor analysis of the CRCP Part I served as the dependent variables. Composite scores were computed for each variable by summing scores on the eligible items defining each factor. For example, a subject's composite score for CRCP Factor I - "Concern with Child's Authority-Defiant and Antisocial Behavior" - was equal to the sum of his or her scores on items 1, 5, ll, 15, 21, and 23. In this way, four CRCP I composite scores were computed for each subject. Multivariate analyses of variance were then performed on these dependent variables to explore parents' child-rearing concerns and differences between mothers and fathers of spouse pairs. Two (family role-mother, father) x 2(child's sex -girl, boy) analyses of variance were used. Univariate effects were investigated only when the multivariate E_ratio exceeded a confidence level of p_ (.20. Results of the analyses of the spouse data showed no statistical difference in child-rearing concerns for parents of boys or girls, no statistical difference for family role (mother or father), and no interaction effect. Child-rearing concerns appear to be similar whether the parent is a mother or father and whether the parent has a male or a female child. Parents' Child-Rearing Practices The twelve usable factors generated by the factor analysis were used as the dependent measures for the CRCP-Part II. Composite scores were computed for each variable by summing scores over the eligible itens depend parent father Zitami Univar ratio pain . for f univa ilthi reari 58 items defining each factor. In this manner, 12 composite scores, or dependent variables, were obtained for each subject. To investigate parents' child-rearing practices and the differences between mothers and fathers, data from spouse pairs (N=52) were used and subjected to a 2(family role) x 2 (child's sex) multivariate analysis of variance. Univariate E_ratios were examined when the associated multivariate f_ ratio exceeded a confidence level of .20. Results of the investigation of spouse data revealed no significant main effect for child sex. However, there was a significant main effect for family role. (Multivariate ff4.50, pg<20002). Inspection of the univariate ffs and the relevant means revealed the following results. Within spouse pairs, fathers made more significant use of these child- rearing practices: "Give Extrinsic Reward for Desirable Behavior " (_F_=7.38, p<.OO9); and "Criticize-Threaten" (F=4.26, p (.004). Mothers, on the other hand, made more significant use of these other child- rearing practices: "Expression of Adult Approval of Child's Behavior" (F=5.30, p<.025); "Expression of Physical Affection " (f_=8.32, p_< .006); and "Use of Explanation for Control of Child's Aggressive-Defiant Behavior" (5:7.31, p_(.009). A summary table of the significant univariate results for each of these dependent variables can be found in Appendix K (see Table 11). Table 12 below presents the means for mothers and fathers of spouse pairs on each of these dependent variables. 59 Table 12 Means for Dependent Variables of the CRCP II Showing Significant Family Role Effects Dependent Measure Family Role Mother Father Factor V -"Give Extrinsic Reward for Desirable Behavior" 11.54 14.64 Factor IX - "Expression of Adult Approval of Child's Behavior" 13.63 12.48 Factor X - "Expression of Physical Affection" 6.48 5.50 Factor XV - "Use of Explanation for Control of Child's Aggressive-Defiant Behavior" 14.19 12.42 Factor XVI - "Criticize-Threaten" 2.69 3.72 Paren __.-—— 60 Parents' Responses to Parent-Child Conflict Situations The six factors obtained through the factor analysis were used as the dependent measures for the STC-PN. Composite scores were acquired for each variable by summing scores over the items defining each factor. In this way, six composite scores or dependent variables were obtained for each subject. To investigate parental responses to the STC-PN parent-child conflict situations, data from spouse pairs (23 parental pairs of boys, 29 parental pairs of girls) were used and subjected to multivariate analysis of variance. A 2 (family role-mother, father) x 2 (child's sex-girl, boy) analysis was used. No significant results were obtained. Because of the possibility that significant effects of particular items were masked when the items were combined into the dependent variables, twenty-seven separate items of the STC-PN were subjected to multivariate analysis of variance. Data from the same spouse pairs were used in a 2(family role) x 2(child sex) analysis of variance. When the multivariate E_ratio exceeded a confidence level of .20, the associated univariate §_ratios were examined. A significant main effect was found for child sex (multivariate ff1.78, p (.08). Inspection of the univariate [)5 and cell means re- vealed that parents of girls expressed more "Praise, Judge Positively" (X¥.90) than did parents' of boys (Xf .46) (Ef5.74, p3(.02), while parents' of boys more frequently made use of "Relate Child's Feelings to Adult's Feelings" (X¥.48) than did the parents' of girls (XE.01) (_F_=4.64, p<.04). O". .I ‘ 5'"- 'C1 chi llC 61 The multivatiate f_for family role reached a significance level of p(.03 (_F_=2.ll). A number of significant univariate main effects were obtained for family role. Table 13 presents these results and the cell means. Specifically, mothers were found to express significantly more "Acceptance of Child's Feelings," "Statement of Adult's Feelings," "Alternatives for the Child's Present Feelings," and "Recognition of Positive Intent" and tended to offer more "Support". Fathers expressed significantly more statements of "Name-Calling," "Questioning," and "Attempts to Obtain Information About the Child's Behavior." Fathers also tended to express more statements of "Warning, Admonishing". No significant interaction effects for family role by child sex were obtained. Summapy of MANOVA results Multivariate analysis of variance of the spouse data revealed the following results: 1. Parental Perceptions — A significant main effect was found for child sex for Apply Difference. Parents rated daughters more positively than they did sons. There was no main effect for family role, indicating no significant difference between mothers and fathers in their perceptions of children. 2. Parental Child-Rearing Concerns - No significant differences were found between mothers and fathers or between parents of boys and parents of girls. 3. Parental Child-Rearing Practices - There was no significant difference between parents of boys and parents of girls in their child- U26 muuweku GUCCwL©> kc wwwk~fit< utwu*k$tmsm k0 XLEEEBW as. a...a.o. 62 om\P mew: mcomwgmaeoo ms“ :04 ewe amo. ak.a am.m aa.a Scach a>aaamaa ea coauaaaaaam mac. Fm.a om. ma. aaa>agam upwzu ca caspasaaccH caauao aoo. mo.m ap. om. . ma:a_aaa pcmmwga m.upwso Low mo>wumcgmpp< _oo. ok._fi am. up._ maga_aaa m.p_=a< do “casapapm one. am.a mo. om. ma=a_aaa a.a_w;o ca aacapaaaa< Noe. RN.N aa._ “a. aa_aaga .aawaawaaaao ouo. ma.m NF. om. mawaamaaam .achaaaaam amo. am.m N_. ao. acwpaaaaam .m:P_Faa-aEaz amo. ak.m ms. mo. aa_;mw=asa< .acacaaz .m mm Logan; gmgpoz mpnmwgm> ucmvcmama 89v a 33:3:an apex xpwsmm mmpam_ga> “cmucmamo zauuhm mmock do mama: umucmwmz vac muumwmm wocmwcm> do mamapmc< acmuwwwcmwm we Acmeszm mp mpnmp tr 63 rearing practices. There was a significant multivariate effect for family role. Results revealed that fathers used significantly more "Give External Reward for Desirable Behavior" and "Criticize-Threaten," while mothers used significantly more "Expression of Adult Approval for Desirable Behavior," "Expression of Physical Affection," and "Use of Explanation for Control of Aggressive-Defiant Behavior". 4. Parental Sensitivity or Responsiveness - No differences were found between mothers and fathers or between parents of boys and girls on any of the six STC-PN factors used to evaluate sensitivity. Multi- variate analysis of variance of the individual STC—PN items, however, revealed significant main effects for child sex and family role. Parents significantly more often used "Praise, Judge Positively" with girls and used "Relate Child Feelings to Adult Feelings"significantly more often with boys. Mothers were found to be significantly more likely in parent-child conflict situations to use statements of "Accept- ance of Child's Feelings," "Statement of Adult Feelings," "Alternatives for the Child's Present Feelings," and "Recognition of Child's Positive Intent". Fathers, on the other hand, were significantly more likely to make statements of "Name-calling," "Questioning, Probing," and "Attempts to Obtain More Information About Child Behavior.” Relationships Among Parental Variables The second question addressed by the present study adked what relationships existed among parents' perceptions of their children, child-rearing practices and concerns, and sensitivity to children. This question was studied by exploring the Pearson correlations among the 64 dependent variables derived from the three questionnaires used. These dependent variables were as follows: from the CBC - "Apply Difference," "Characteristic Difference"; from the CRCP - "Concern with Child's Authority-Defiant and Antisocial Behavior," "Concern with Child' Prosocial-Mastery Behavior," "Concern with Child Sense of Responsi- bility," "Concern with Child's Aggressive-Defiant Behavior," "Give Extrinisic Reward for Desirable Behavior," "Draw Attention to the Intrinsic Reward of Desirable Behavior," l'Use of Physical Punishment," "Non-Verbal and Implicit Disapproval (Love-Withdrawal)," "Expression of Adult Approval of Child's Behavior," "Expression of Physical Affec- tion," "Abdicating Responsibility for Discipline to One's Spouse," "Negative Evaluation and Disapproval of Child's Self," "Ignoring Child's Competent and Defiant Behavior," "Dismissal of Child's Mastery- Prosocial Behavior," "Use of Explanation for Control of Child's Aggressive- Defiant Behavior (Reasoning)," "Criticize-Threaten"; from the STC-PN "Offering Advice and Ways for Expression," "Threaten-Express Hostility," "Reflection of Child's Inner Experience," "Relating Child's Feelings and Behavior to Adult's Feelings," "Judging Negatively and Interpreting the Child's Behavior," and "Desirable and Helpful Praise - Focus on Positive Aspects of Behavior." Data were analyzed separately for the following subgroups derived from spouse returns: Mothers of boys (N=21), mothers of girls (N=34), fathers of boys (N=22), and fathers of girls (N=30). Only those values of r significant at the .05 level or above for a two-tailed test were considered in reporting the results. Tables 14-17 of Appendix L present the correlation matrices for the four subgroups studied. thar gir‘ Pee pare Cor! pos the: Pace Tabl Dare beer chil Char "er thro any, -55- In all cases, the number of significant correlations was greater than the number expected by chance (mothers of girls, 5.9%; fathers of girls, 6.8%, mothers of boys, 6.4%; fathers of boys, 6.2%). Parents' Perceptions and Their Child-Rearipg Concerns and Practices Two dependent variables obtained from the CBC served as measures of parental perception - "Apply Difference" and "Characteristic Difference".C Correlations between these two variables for each of the subgroups were positively significant at the .01 level, except in the case of mothers of girls for which there was no significant positive correlation between these two measures. The correlations of the CBC dependent variables with the other parental variables derived from the CRCP and STC-PN may be found in Tables 14-17 of Appendix L. To simplify the presentation of the results, parents' responses to the STC-PN parent-child conflict situations have been considered as parental practices as well as parental sensitivity to children's needs. The significant correlations for Apply Difference and Characteristic Difference with measures of parental concerns and practices may be found in Table 18. The following abbreviations will be used throughout the tables in this section to represent the four subgroups: MG for Mothers of Girls, MB for Mothers of Boys, FG for Fathers of Girls, and F8 for Fathers of Boys. Inspection of Table 18 reveals the following results: Four out of five significant correlations for "Apply Difference" occurred for the subgroup, mothers of girls. Both mothers and fathers, who rated daughters 66 Table 18 Parental Concerns and Practices Significantly Associated with Positive Perceptions of Children Parental Concerns Perceptual Variables and Practices Apply Difference Characteristic Difference Concern with Child's Authority- *** 45(MG) Defiant and Antisocial Behavior ' Concern with Child's Sense of Responsibility ***.46 (MG) Concern with Child's Prosocial- Mastery Behavior *.49 (F8) Nonverbal and Implicit Disapproval *.40 (FG) Ignoring Child's Competent and **-.42 (MG) Defiant Behavior *-.37 (FG) Criticize-Threaten *-.34 (MG) *.48 (F8) Judging Negatively and Interpreting Child's Behavior *-.34 (MG) *.38 (MG) Desirable Praise - Focus on Positive Aspects of Behavior *-.34 (MG) * p<:.05 ** p< .02 *** p< .0] as in be the tin and of t were havir Erect Posit who r. to lnr less c T‘Ol‘e u behavi for ”A! for nor Nilcar 67 as having many positive characteristics which applied, were likely to indicate that they did not ignore their daughters' competent or defiant behaviors. Mothers of girls were also likely to express concern with their daughters' authority-defiant and antisocial behavior while indica- ting infrequent use of critical-threatening or negatively judgemental and interpretive behavior. For Characteristic Difference, a different pattern emerged. Fathers of boys, who rated their sons as having many positive characteristics, were likely to express concern with their sons' prosocial-mastery be- havior and to advocate criticizing and threatening as a child-rearing practice. For fathers of girls, Characteristic Difference correlated positively with endorsement of nonverbal disapproval. Mothers of girls who rated their daughters as characteristically positive, were more likely to indicate concern with their daughters' helping behavior, to express less desirable praise in hypothetical conflict situations, and to report more use of negative judgments and interpretations of their children's behaviors. Thus, different correlational patterns appeared evident for "Apply Difference" and "Characteristic Difference," particularly for mothers of girls, which helped to account for the absence of a sig- nificant positive correlation between Apply Difference and Characteristic Difference in the case of mothers of girls. Par and 16 r obta intc fatl matr PESL Pres Press dlffe eaCh. Antes, Dreser 68 Parents' Child-Rearipg Concerns, Practices, and Sensitivity to Children1 To explore the relationships among parents' child-rearing concerns and practices as measured by the CRCP and STC-PN, correlations among the 16 dependent measures obtained from the CRCP and the 6 dependent measures obtained from the STC-PN were analyzed for spouse data (N=52) subdivided into four subgroups: Mothers of girls (MG), mothers of boys (MB), fathers of girls (FG), fathers of boys (F8). The respective correlation matrices are presented in Tables 14-17 of Appendix L. The significant results obtained for each of the child-rearing concerns or practices are presented in summary fashion in Table 19. Patterns of Parental Practices and Concerns To simplify the presentation of the results, the findings are presented with regard to the specific patterns that are evidenced for different subgroups. All parents: Only two variables were positively correlated with each other for all parents -- Concern with Authority - Defiant and Antisocial Behavior and Concern with Aggressive-Defiant Behavior. Cross Sex Patterns: Several correlational relationships were present for both mothers of boys and fathers of girls. Concern with the Child's Prosocial-Mastery Behavior was positively correlated with Expression 1In discussing parental practices and concerns, the reader is reminded that these parental variables represent parents' reports of their be- havior and not their actual behavior. 69 mm.-a cmpmmggplmeuwpwgu ae.-aea cow>agam “capeao new pcauaasao m.a_wcu mcwaaamH aa.-a , cowuum$w< quwmxza do :owmmmgqu ma.-a cow>mgmm mFQmemmo we ugmzmm owmcwcacH op cowpcmpp< saga a¢.* cow>mzmm m.u_w:u mcwumcacmch use apm>wpmmmz acwmuza nm.« cowmmmgaxm sow mxmz ucm muv>u< mcwcmmmo _m.aeaa N¢.a mm.ea Fm.ae Laa>asam pcawcaa-a>ammaaaa< m_a_a;u 56w: ceaacau eaw>agam Fa_aamwae< aca aaavcao-»awaa;p=< m.apw;u spa; ccaaeau L I ma _ ma — a: a m: _ maaogmnzm Pangaea; _ wfinmwgm> Faucmgm; mmuwpomca ccm mnemocou Faucmgma mcos< mawzmcowuw_mm chowchmgcou “snowmwcmwm mp wpnwk «.b.:oov mfi o~oae 7O nm.¥ mv.k¥ mv.k mv.k xawpwpmoz mmmcaxmucmummgsh Pm>ocgq< ppzu< mo cowmmmggxm cow>mzmm “cavemoum>wmmmgmm< spwz :gmucou Lo+>mgmm xgmpmmzipmwuomoga cup: :Lmocou .xpw_wnwmcoammm do mmcmm m.u_w;u gpwz cgmucou mm.« m¢.¥r mm.u«k¥ m¢.k«k w¢.uk m¢.« xuwpwpmo: mmmggxmncmpamggp mmsoam m.mco op mew—awomwo com xpw_wnwmcoammm mcwuouPun< cowpumdm< Pmowmxga do :owmmmgqu cow>acwm mpnmgwmmo mo ugammm uwmcwgch op cowpcmuu< saga cow>ocmm mpnmgwmma com ucmzom uwmcwgpxm m>wu XHVFwawmcoammm do mmcmm m.upw;o cup: cgmucou Lom>mzmm xgwummz-_mwuomoga m.cpw;u saw; :gmucoo um _ mm M w: m2 _ maaogmnzm Fmpzmgma _ mpnmwgm> qucmgma A.u.:ouv mp mpnmh 71 oc.¥ pm.«#ka mv.§ m¢.u«a* vm.-« mm.«*« Nv.u« om.iat Fm.a¢ m¢.¥ pm.«« Low>msmm we maomqm< m>_upmoa co mzuou van mmwaga mpnmg_mmo mucmwgmaxu Lassa m.u~w:u do =o_uow~$mm gow>mgmm ucmwmmo new ucmumasou m.n—p:o ucvgocmm Low>mgmm mpnmg_mmo so» cgmzmm uchwguxm m>pc =o_mmmcaxm mo mam: use .cowuums_o .mu_>c< emcee. Lo_>a;mm m.vagu mo ugmzmm u_m:wgucfi o» copucmuu< zmgo xuwp_awmcogmmm we mmcmm m.up_;o gpvz ccoucou goP>mgmm pawuomwuc< can ucmwwoouxupgosuz< su_z cgmucou go_>mgmm u:m_wma-m>pmmmgmm< m.u_w;u sum: cumucou E_ E_ a; a; mazogmaam paucogma A A.u.:ouv mp mpnah apnowsu> .mucosua 72 n¢.n«««. A._ -_ (.4 -A me.¢«¢ n-u .nv om.««a mm.¢ —¢.a wm.c om.ui««. me.« vm.uc m¢.a«« oe.«¢¢ mm.a p¢.c¢ mv.¢¢« ¢¢.ui om.u« vv.a .—...-.-. ‘- ‘AA--A ”AA..- ‘— gow>agmm we mau~am< m>wuwmoa co made; use mmwaga opaagwmwa mmcwwmmd m.u_=u< o» sow>mcmm new mmcwwmmw m.u_wgu mcwuapmm cowmmmgaxu Low mxaz new meowuumgwo .muw>c< gmwwo sow>mcmm acawwmolm>wmmmgmm< m.upw;u saw: cgmucou meuwuwculcmammggw Low>mgmm acmwwmo use acmumgsou m.uwwcu mcwgocma wpom m.upw:u wo wm>ogggumwo can cowuoapa>m m>wummmz cowuuoww< wmuwnga wo :owmmmcaxu “cussmwcaa mewnga wo «ma. sow>mgwm mpnmgwmwo wo ugazom uwmcwguc~ on cowucmuu< 38cc gow>usmm zgmumnzlpuwuomoga m.u—w;u saw: ccmucou sow>ocmm mpncgwmoo Low ugozom uwmcwgpxm m>wu a; a; a; quogmazm paucmgoa- 4 awamwgo> waucmgua A.a.:oov mp m—noh 73 mm.-e xpwwwumo: mmmgaxuucmpmmgnw ma.-w caw>agam _a_uamwp=< aca “cawwao-spwca;p=< m.a__;u ;p_z caaacau oa.wwa Law>agam Pawaamaea-seapmaz a_a__;u wa Fammwsawo ma.awa c_am m.a_w;o wa _a>oeaaamwo ace aawaaa_a>m a>wpaaaz Km.a aaaaam as acwpawamwo Law saw.wawm=aamam aewpau_aa< wa.wa Low>msmm mwamgwmmo Low ucmzmm uwmcwguxm m>wc Fm.aw Low>msmm pcmwwmoum>wmmmgmm< m.u_w;u gpwz cgmucou wm.« cow>mcwm xgmummzuwmwuomoga m.uww;o gwwz :Lmucoo Low>mgwm m.uww;u wo ugmzwm owmcwgwcH op cowpcmuu< saga cm W mm H a: m: mpnmwgm> paucmgma maaogmnam Fmacmgma - _ A.p.:ouv mp wpnmw 74 mo.-«««« w¢.1a wo mpumqm< m>wpwmoa co msuom can mmwmgasmflmmmwmmo mm.-w wm.-« mmcwwmwm a.a_=a< a“ aaw>agam aaa ma=w_aaa a.apw=u acwpa_am ~ mm.-w om.-« cowmmmgqu Low mam: use .mcowpumgwo .muw>u< mcwgmwwo oo.-«aa« ¢¢.1a -m>wmmmgmm< m.u_w;u wo wogucou Low “wwwmuwwawmmwmem: mm.ew om.« xpw—wumo: mmmcaxm-cmgmmgcw mm.aw mm.a«ew mw.««aw :mpmmczw-m~w6wuwgu o¢.¥ Low>mgmm wwwuomogauxgmummz m.upw;u wo wmmmwsmwo _N.wwaw amaaam op aawwawamwo cow spw_wawa=aamam acwuaawaa< —¢.a mv.a cm.« Low>msmm ownmcwmmo Low ugmzmm owmcwgpxu m>ww “smacmwcsa wmuwmasa wo mm: mm mm a: m: mwnmwgm> Faucmgma mnaogmazm Fmpcmgma A.p.couv mp mpnmw 75 ma.-« cow>mgmm m.c_w;u mcwpmgqcmch can mcwmuza wa.1«w cowpumww< pmuwm»;a wo cowmmmgaxm mm.-« wm>ocaa< pwzu< wo :owmmmgaxm mmcwwmmm ma.awa m.p.=a< a» eaw>agam aca macwpaaa m.apw;u acwpawaa wm.e mm.« Low>mgmm wmwuomoga-xgwummz m_u._;u wo wmmmwsmwo mm.a«w we.aaw Low>mcmm pcmwwmo can pcmumqsou m.upwco mcwgocmm wa.a wwmm m.cww;u wo wm>ocgammwo ucm cowgmz—m>m w>wpmmmz ma.««a mmzoam m.mco ou mchQPUmwo Low xuw_wnwmcoammm mcwumUwun< Awmzmcucpw:-m>o4v wm>ocaammwo uwuwwasH use angm>ucoz an mm # w: i— mpnmwgm> Fmpcmgma masogmnzm _mu:mgma .L, _ A.u.couv mp mpnmw 76 nm.u« w¢.¥¥¥ mm.« om.ukaw um.u* mm.|¥ mm.* o¢.k¥ mm.uw«k Nm.u¥k No.xk¥ mmcwwmmw S_aa< as Law>agam aca ma=PPaaa m.a_w;u acwpapam gow>msmm wmwuomosalacmummz m.uww;u wo wmmmwsmwo Low>ogmm ucmwwmo use ucmumasou m.uww;u mcwgocmH Fm>ogaammwo “wowwasH vcm wmngm>lcoz mucmwgwaxm gmccH m.u_w;o wo cowuumemm gow>mcmm ucmwwwo -m>wmmmcmm< m.u_w;u wo wogpcou Low cowpocmwaxm wo om: cowuumww< wmuwmzca wo cowmmmgaxm zuwwwnwmcoammm wo mmcmm m.u_w;u gpwz cgmucoo Low>mcmm m.va;u wo wm>ogaa< pwsu< wo cowmmmgaxm a; mm — w: — maaogmnzm Fmpcmgma , a; _ mwnmwgm> Fmpcmcma A.u.coov mp mpnmw L «.u.:oov m. o.opw 77 mm.« mm.« mm.* v¢.nk mm.n« mm.u* Fw.nxk o¢.¥x mm.k«« mv.k gow>mgmm m.u_w;u mcwumgagmpcm use mcwmuzn Low>mswm wmwoomogalxgmummz wo memwsmwo wm>ogaqmmwa awowwaEH can wmngm>acoz gow>mcmm _awaamwp=< aca pcawcao-spweagp=< a.aww;u new; ccaacao Low>mgmm wo mpumgm< m>wuwmoa co mzuod ucm mmwmga mwnocwmmo _m>ogaa< wo cowmmmgaxm Low>mgmm mwnmgwmmo cow ugmzmm uwmcwgpxm m>wu cow>mgmm .mwuomogauzgmpmmz m.cww;u saw: cgmucou :owpumww< Pmowm>53 wo cowmmmcqu a. mu m a: m: _ mazocmaam popcmcma H m_nmwgm> Faucwgma A.u.:ouv m— mwnmh LII" «.u.coov ow owoaw 78 8.-.... j 8.52% we 383d $.5me :0 good 98 3.5.5 822.,me we.-ae mmcwwmmd m.a.=a< as Law>agam aca macwpaaw a.a__;u acwaapam No.1waa cowmmwggxm Low mam: ucm muw>u< mewo _m.-w Low>mcmm ucmwwmo -m>wmmmgmm< m.u_w;o wo Pogucou Low cowumcmngm wo mm: me.-a Eow>mcmm xxmummzuwmwuomoca saw: :Lmucou mm.w mo.we« cmummgswlouwuwuwgu mo.aaw cow>agam Seawwao aca aaapaaeao m_a_w;u newcacaH m¢.a«a wm>osaammwa p_=u< wo cowmmmcaxm Pk.eaww paaagmwcaa Paawmwga we as: wm.e gow>mcmm mwnmgwmmo wo ugmzmm uwmcwgaCH op :owpcmgu< 3mgo mmzoam m.mco op mcwwawumwo Low wuwwwawmcoammm mcwumuwvn< mm mm — a: m_nmwgm> Pangaea; masogmnzm Pmucmgma as“ L A.p.:ouv mp m—nmw 79 mm.kk cmummggwlmeuwuwcu oo.awea Low>mgmm ucmwwwolm>wmmmgmm< m.uwwgu wo —ocpcoo Low cowumcawaxm wo mm: ma.e Fm>ocaammwo “wowwasm ace wmncm>ucoz m¢.«aw Low>msmm mwnmgwmma wo ugmzmm uwmcwgucH op :owucmuu< saga om.aea ev.a Low>azmm mFaagwmmo Low acmzmm uwmcwguxu m>wo wwmm m.upw:u wo wm>ogqnmmwo vcm cowumzpm>m m>wummmz ma — mull fl as m: mwamwga> wmucmgma maaogmnzw wmpcmcma A.p_:ouv mp w—nmw ~.u.:oov ow ohoow 80 mm.-w mm.-ww Fa>aaaa< SP=a< wa cawmmaaaxm me.-aaa Low>msmm acmwwwolm>wmmmgmm< m.uww;u saw; :Lmucoo ae.-a«e Low>mgmm wmwoom -wp:< can pcmwwma-»pwgo;p=< m.oww;o spwz cgmucoo wv.w Low>acmm ucmwwmo -m>wmmmgmm< m.uww;o wo wogucou Low cowumcmngu wo mm: ma.e Low>acmm wmwuomogauzcmpmaz m.u_w;u wo memwsmwo om.aww mo.saa amaaam as a:w_awumwo Law spw_wawm=aamam newpaawaa< mm.««a w¢.wee wa>ogaammwa pwuwwasm new wmncm>lcoz m¢.eae Low>mgwm mwnmgwmmo Low ugmzmm uwmcwcpxm m>ww Low>mnmm pcmwwmo ucm pcmamgsou m.uww;u mcwgocmH on mu fl u: _ mwnmwgm> papcmgma quogmnzm Fmpcmgaa a; — A.p.=aov a_ a_aaw 81 mm.-« sowpumww< wuumess wo sowmmmssxm am.-aea am.-wwa _a>asaas u_=us wa sawmmaesxw om.ee«w smpumsswumeuwuwsu mu.e Low>usmm usuwwmo usu usmuwssoo m.u_wsu mswsosmH mm.w Fu>osssumwo pwuwFsEH use wunsm>usoz sa.w usassmwssa _aawmssa wa am: ou.aaa sow>uswm mwsaswmms wo usust uwmswspsm op sowpsmuu< sues sow>usmm Fuwuomoss-xsmamuz m.uwwso wo wummemws us — ms — w: m: _ oFsuwsu> wupswsus mssosmasm Pupsmsus s A.u.souv mp mwauh .u.:oos m. owoow 82 xpwwwumo: mmmssxmusmuumssw ou.-e mm.-ea mm.-w smpuosswanwuwpwsu _m.-ae amaaam cu ass_awamws saw suwpwawmsasmas aswuaawuas om.-«wea su.-s usmssmwsss Fuuwmzss wo mm: mm.e mosmwsmsxm LossH m.uwwsu wo sowuumwwmm mm.waw sowmmwssxm sow mxuz use .sowuowswo .muw>u< smwwo wu.« sow>usmm usmwwmo usu usmpmssou m.uwwsu mswsosmH om.w«ae wwmm m.upwsu wo Fu>osssumwo usu sowumswu>m m>wuummz m¢.wa« wu>osss< upsu< wo sowmmmssxm sow>usmm usuwwmsum>wmmmsmm< m_uwwsu wo wospsoo sow sowuusuFqu wo mm: as as _ as m mwnuwsu> Fauswsus mssosmssm Pupsmsms A.p.couv mp mpnmw 83 mm.k mu.ss« ¢¢.u« o©.«««« mm.¥¥ mm.ue mm.us mm.**¥¥ mu.«¥« mm.u¥¥ mm.u¥*« mm.¥¥ mm.¥¥¥ mm.«¥*« sow>usmm wmwoom -wuss usa usawwas-suwsasu=< m.u_wss saw; ssaasas sow>uswm usuwwmo -m>wmmmsmm< m_uwwsu wo waspsou sow sowumsuwsxu wo mm: sow>usmm wo muumsm< m>wpwmos so msoos usu mmwuss mwnuswmoo sowmmmssxu sow mxuz use .sowpumswo .muw>u< smwwo sow>usmm wuwuomossuzsmumuz m.upwso wo wummemws wwmm m.upwsu wo wu>osssumwo usu sowumswu>m o>wpumoz mmsosm op mswwswomwo sow zpwwwnwmsosmms mswpuowus< usmEsmwsss wmowmxss wo mm: sow>usmm mpnuswmwo sow usmzma owmswspxm m>ww smuumsswumeuwpwsu aL mm a; m: mssosmssm Fupsmsms mFsMwLu> Pupsmsms A.u.souv mp mpamw 84 mu.n¥¥¥ ¢¢.¥ om.#* o¢.« mm.¥ om.|« om.u*«* om.u* ou.« mm.*** souoosswaonowpwsu usossmwsos Poowmxss wo mm: sow>osmm owsoswmoo sow usozos owmswspxm m>ww mmswwmms m_ow=us oo Law>asam usa mo=w_aas m.u_wso oswpapas sow>osom wo mpumom< o>wuwmos so mooou uso mmwoss oposswmmo sow>osom psowwoo lo>wmmosoo< m.uwwsu wo Posusoo sow sowposowoxu wo mm: sow>osmm psowwoalo>wmmosmm< saw: ssoosou sow>osom wowoom -_os< usa ocawwao-sowsaso=< m.u_wso sow; asaasao sowmmosoxm sow was: uso .sowuooswo .mow>u< sowwo os # ms .w a .1 mooosmoom Popsmsos i mwoowso> Popsmsos A.u_souv mw mwnoh 85 ou.-a uu.1a sow>osom wo muooom< o>wuwmos so msuos uso mmwoss mwooswmos ou.-« mm.-«a lo>wmmosom< m.upwsu wo wosusou sow umwnmummowmowwoMmu mm.-waa sow>osmm xsoamozlpowoomoss saw: ssoosou mm.- sow>osom m.uwwsu wo usozws owmswsasu op sowasouu< sass mm.ae om... osassmwsas _ao_asss wa am: mu.« zuwpwowmsoomos wo mmsom m.u_wsu saw: ssoosoo xuwpwumo: mmwsoxmusopoossw as as oz m: m—oowso> pousosos mooosmosm ~oasosos A.u.=ouv mp m—aow 86 mo.-awa sow>osmm opooswmoo wo usozos owmswsasH o» sowusmau< zoso om.-e« sow>oswm “sowwmo-o>wmmosmo< sow; ssousoo mm.w _o>osoo< o_=u< wo sowmmosoxu wm.e sow>osom “sowwoo lo>wmmosmm< m.uwwsu wo wospsou sow sowuosowoxm wo mm: om.ew . sow>oswm m.uwwsu mswpososousH uso mswmuou mm. .32. Lom>wzmm f wo muooom< o>wuwmos so msoos uso omwoss owooswmos mosmwsmoxm LossH m.uwwsu wo sowuomems as # ms fl oz — m2 owoowso> popsmsos mooosmosm Fousosos A.p.souv mp mwnow 87 “a.-w amaaam as asw_asom_s saw sowwwawmsasaas oswoaowuns um.-a —o>osoo< pwou< wo sowmmosoxu om.-« sm.-t usassmosas .aawmssa wa am: om.-w sow>osom owooswmoo sow usozos owmswspxm o>ww mo.e mo.a wo muooom< m>wpwmos so mooos usu mmwusssmemuwmmo mm.e sow>osmm mswumsosmusH uso aswmuou uu.w sowmmosoxm sow was: uso mow>u< smwwo mo.waa _a>aaaaamws owawwsss _aasa>-saz moswwoos m.uwsu< op sow>oswm uso mmswwoms m.uwwsu oswpowos as — ms _ w: — m: _ mwoowso> popsmsos mooosmoom Popsosos _ A.u.souv mp wwnow 88 om.¥* mm.n¥ mm.« mu.u¥ uu.n¥ wo>osooomwo awowwoeH uso wooso>usoz sowpooww< woowmass wo sowmmosoxm sow>usom wowoomwus< usa “sawsas-»owsasoas a.u_sso so_z ssausao moswwaas a.opaus op Law>asam usa mocwpaas a_uwwso oswpapas oosowsooxm LossH m.upwsu wo sowuom—wmm bl ’ sow>osom m.uwwsu ms“ mswumsosopsm uso mswousu .24 ms _ a u oz _ mooosmoom Popsmsos owoowso> wopsmsos A.u.soov mp mpnmw .U. COUV a. 0.055 so. vast. _.o . V at; No. V 9; mo.V an. 89 ou.u¥ uu.us u¢.us mm.n¥ mu.u« mo.u«¥*« nu.us om.us¥« uu.u¥ mu.u¥ mu.¥ mu.« mm. om.* ou.¥ mm.¥ xuwwwpmo: mmosoxuusmpoossw sopoosswuonowuwsu omooom ow zuwwwowmsoommm oswuoowuos usossmwsos woowmxss wo mm: sow>osom mwooswmoo sow usozom owmswspxm o>ww sow>osom psowwmoao>wmmmsmm< saw: ssousou mmswpoos m.o_=u< co saw>asam usa moswwaas m.upwso ocooa_as musowsooxm LossH m.uwwsu wo sowpuowwom sowmmosoxu sow mxoz uso mow>u< smwwo sowpooww< woowmass wo sowmmosoxu sow>osmm wo muooom< o>wpwmos so mouos uso mmwoss «wooswmma P mooosmosw Fousosos - E E H oz_ mzfl _ mwoowgo> Popsosos A.p.soov m— mpnuw Cr wi Th Sn usr thi ex; of 1 who Dre ind rep. giv l‘EWE ette 90 of Physical Affection; Give Extrinsic Reward for Desirable Behavior was positively correlated with Negative Evaluation and Disapproval of the Child's Self; Expression of Adult Approval was negatively correlated with Ignoring the Child's Competent and Defiant Behavior; and Criticize- Threaten was correlated positively with Abdicating Responsibility to the Spouse. Mothers: Both mothers of boys and mothers of girls who reported use of physical punishment were more likely to make criticizing and threatening their children, but were less likely to express use of explanations to control the child's aggressive-defiant actions or offering of advice, directions, and ways for expression. Thus mothers who reported use of physical punishment were also likely to note ex- pressing hostility verbally, but were unlikely to indicate employing inductive child-rearing practices. On the other hand, mothers who reported expressing affection physically were also likely to express giving approval to their children. Fathers: Fathers of boys and girls who reported giving external rewards for desirable behavior were also likely to express drawing attention to the intrinsic rewards of the child's behavior and using physical punishment. Fathers who reported ignoring their children's competent or defiant actions were more likely to say they abdicated disciplinary responsibility to their spouses. Fathers who threatened and expressed hostility in conflict situations were less likely to indicate use of explanations for control of the child's aggressive- defiant behavior or to offer desirable praise and focus on the positive aspects of behavior in hypothetical parent-child conflict situations. wi ad ie gi di. 00] her rep Cri' Behe DOSi 91 Parents ofpgirls: For both mothers and fathers of girls, giving extrinsic rewards for desirable behavior was positively correlated with drawing attention to the intrinsic rewards of behavior, endorsement of physical punishment, and threatening-criticizing. Parents' reported use of physical punishment was negatively correlated with relating the child's feelings and behavior to the adults' feelings. Parents of girls who indicated using nonverbal and implicit disapproval were more likely to also note that they ignored their daughters' competent and defiant behavior and dismissed the girls' prosocial-mastery behavior. Parents of boys: For both mothers and fathers of boys, reported use of physical punishment was correlated positively with expression of critical, threatening, hostile responses (Criticize-Threat and Threaten and Express Hostility) and negatively with giving desirable praise and focusing on the positive aspects of behavior. Use of desirable praise within a conflict situation was correlated positively with offering advice and relating the child's feelings and behavior to the adults' feelings, but negatively with reportedly criticizing-threatening and giving extrinsic rewards for behavior. Parents of boys who indicated dismissing their sons' prosocial-competent behavior were less likely to note that they offered approval for behavior. Mothers of girls: Three specific patterns of intercorrelations were revealed by the data: (1) Positive correlations were found among reported use of physical punishment, giving external rewards, and criticize-threaten. (2) Both Concern with Authority-Defiant and Antisocial Behavior and Concern with Aggressive-Defiant Behavior (which correlated positively with each other) correlated negatively with parents' reported ch vi- llOl 92 use of ignoring the child's competent or defiant behavior. Thus mothers who expressed concern about their daughters' antisocial, aggressive, or defiant behavior were unlikely to note that they ignored the girls' behavior. (3) Expression of physical affection and expression of adult approval (which correlated positively with each other) correlated negatively with non-verbal and implicit disapproval. Mothers who in- dicated that they expressed affection physically and offered approval were unlikely to report employing love-withdrawal. Other correlational findings revealed the following: Mothers who reportedly gave external rewards were also likely to express concern with their daughters' prosocial-competent behavior and to note ignoring the child's competent and defiant behavior, while they indicated less concern with aggressive-defiant behavior. Mothers who reportedly criticized and threatened were less likely to express concern about their daughter's authority-defiant and antisocial behavior or to indicate use of explanations. Reflection of the child's inner experience was a practice positively related to reports of giving approval and using explanations. Mothers who related their daughters' feelings and behavior to their own were less likely to indicate that they dismissed their daughters' prosocial-mastery behavior, but were more likely to judge negatively and interpret the child's behavior in a conflict situation. Mothers' who reported expressing affection physically were less likely to make negative judgments and interpretations or to note dismissing the child's prosocial-mastery behavior. Dismissal was correlated positively with both drawing attention to the intrinsic rewards of behavior and nonverbal disapproval. Fa fc de pr da th be; Why ti c oft con EXp dam Peg; 93 Fathers of Girls: Two patterns of intercorrelations were outstand- ing: (1) Concern with the child's authority-defiant and antisocial behavior, concern with the child's aggressive-defiant behavior, and offering advice were all positively correlated with each other. Thus, fathers' who reported concern with their daughter's aggressive, defiant, and antisocial behavior were likely to endorse use of inductive methods and to offer alternatives and directions for their child's behavior. (2) Positive correlations were found among fathers' reports of responsibility for discipline to the spouse, ignoring competent and defiant behavior, and use of nonverbal and implicit disapproval. Analysis of other correlational relationships revealed the following: Fathers who noted expressing affection physically were also likely to focus on positive aspects of their daughters' behavior and provide desirable praise. Fathers who expressed concern about their daughters prosocial-mastery behavior were also likely to be concerned about their daughters' sense of responsibility and to report drawing attention to the intrinsic rewards of behavior. Endorsing external rewards for behavior correlated positively with reports of expressing affection physically, threatening and criticizing, and expressing negative evalua- tions and disapproval of the child's behavior, and negatlively with offering the child advice. Fathers who indicated use of explanations to control their daughters' aggressive-defiant behavior were likely to express giving approval of their daughters' behavior, but were also apt to report evaluating negatively and expressing disapproval of their daughters. Fathers who noted concern with their daughters' sense of responsibility were also likely to endorse giving approval, while those wh ex spa ex; rev pun bet repr an ' was aspe conc that less behar confl 94 who drew attention to the intrinsic rewards of behavior were apt to express negative evaluations of their daughters and to abdicate re- sponsibility to their wives, but were less likely to threaten and express hostility. Mothers of prs: Two distinct intercorrelational patterns were revealed: (1) A positive correlation was found between use of physical punishment and criticize-threaten, with negative correlations existing between these two practices and offering advice. Thus mothers who reported use of hostile punitive behavior were less likely to note using an inductive technique. (2) Reflection of the child's inner experience was correlated positively with desirable praise and focus on the positive aspects of behavior. Both these practices correlated negatively with concern with the child's aggressive-defiant behavior. Thus, it appears that mothers who focused on their sons' aggressive-defiant actions were less likely to offer helpful praise, to attend to positive aspects of behavior, or to be sensitive to their sons' feelings in hypothetical conflict situations. Other correlational relationships which existed revealed the following: Mothers who reported abdicating responsbiility to their spouses were those who expressed less concern with the child's pro- social-mastery behavior, were less likely to use explanations for control of their sons' aggressive-defiant behavior, and were less likely to relate the child's feelings and behavior to their own, but more more likely to express criticism and threats and to be physically punitive. Mothers who offered advice were also likely to use explanations to ph we th ex to am wit my adv- 95 control their sons' aggressive behavior and to relate the child's feelings and behavior to their own. Judging negatively and interpreting the child's behavior correlated negatively with use of nonverbal disapproval and concern with the child's antisocial behavior while negative evaluations and disapproval of their sons correlated positively with criticizing-threatening. Mothers' who reported ignoring their sons' behavior were also likely to indicate dismissing their sons' prosocial-mastery behavior but express use of explanations for control of aggression and defiance. Giving extrinsic rewards correlated negatively with mothers' relating the child's feelings and behavior to their own, while concern with the sons' aggressive-defiant behavior correlated positively with concern with the sons' sense of responsibility and drawing attention to the intrinsic rewards of behavior. Fathers of Boys: Four patterns of intercorrelational relationships emerged: (1) Giving external rewards for desired behavior and use of physical punishment were positively correlated with each other. Both were negatively correlated with giving desirable praise and focusing on the positive aspects of behavior. Thus fathers who reported exhibiting external control in either a rewarding or punitive fashion were unlikely to offer helpful praise to their sons. (2) Use of physical punishment and criticize-threaten correlated positively with each other and negatively with desirable praise. Fathers who indicated employing hostile, punitive methods were less likely to give desirable praise to their sons. (3) Positive correlations were found among desirable praise, offering advice and ways for expression, and relating the child's feelings and 96 behavior to the fathers' feelings. (4) Positive correlations were also found among use of physical punishment, criticizing-threatening, and dismissal of the child's prosocial-mastery behavior. Thus these punitive, hostile methods seemed related to disregard for the child's positive behaviors. Other correlational relationships revealed the following: Fathers' who threatened and expressed hostility toward their sons in hypothetical conflict situations, were likely to indicate concern with the sons' sense of responsibility, but were less likely to express concern about the boys' prosocial-mastery behaviors, to report use of explanations for control of their sons' aggressive-defiant behavior, or to provide desirable praise. Fathers who related their sons' feelings and behavior to their own were likely to offer advice, but also tended to report use of non- verbal disapproval. Dismissal of their sons' prosocial-mastery behavior correlated positively with fathers' reported use of criticize-threaten and negatively with giving approval. Reflection of their sons' feelings was positively correlated with judging negatively and interpreting their sons' behavior. Fathers who expressed negative evaluations and disapproval of their sons were likely to also employ nonverbal disapproval, while fathers who expressed desirable praise were unlikely to indicate abdicating responsiblity to their spouses. Fathers concerned with their sons' authority-defiant and antisocial behavior were less likely to indicate expressing affection physically or to draw attention to the intrinsic rewards of behavior. Summary: Specific patterns of intercorrelations were apparent from the data. Although there was only one which was consistent for all 97 parents in the study, there were complexes of attitudes which were common for mothers, fathers, parents of boy and parents of girls. Children's Behavior and Parental Perceptions, Concerns, and Practices The third and perhaps most critical question addressed by this study was whether relationships could be found between the measures of children's behavior and the parental variables derived from the CBC, STC-PN, and CRCP. We wished to assess whether parental perceptions, child-rearing concerns, and child-rearing practices (measured by the instruments used in this study), "predicted" to the children's behavior. Videotapes of the children's playroom interaction were coded via Leary's Circumplex Model. In addition to analyzing the data for the sixteen individual behaviors, categories represented by this model, results were acquired for the four quadrants of the circumplex (Affiliation- Dominance, Affilitaion-Submissivness, Dissaffiliation-Dominance, and Disaffiliation-Submissiveness) and two circumplex hemispheres (Affiliation, Disaffiliation). (See Appendix E). Five individual categories were eliminated from separate analyses because their frequency of occurrence was less then 1 percent. These categories were Love, Dependency, Suspicion, Hate, and Punishment. The experimenter-taper ratings, another data source regarding the children's behavior, were used for a more global assessment of the child. Stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to analyze the data, with the measures of children's behavior serving as the dependent or "criterion" variables and the parental measures (2 CBC perceptual vari- 98 ables, 16 CRCP factors, and 6 STC-PN factors) serving as the independent or 'predictor" variables. Parental measures were selected out as sig- nificant "predictors" according to the criteria presented in the "Method" section. Multiple regression analyses were run for four sub- groups derived from the spouse data: mothers of girls, fathers of girls, mothers of boys, and fathers of boys. The following proportions of significant correlations were found among the parental variables and among the parental variables and children's behavioral measures (excluding the 5 categories with less than 1% frequency of occurrence): mothers of girls, 5.9%; fathers of girls, 6.8%. mothers of boys, 6.4%, fathers of boys, 6.2%. In each case, the number of significant correlations was greater than would be expected by chance. Matrices of the correlations between measures for parents and measures for children may be found in Appendix M (Tables 14-17). Detailed tables of the multiple regression results can be found in Appendix M (See Tables 20-23). A summary of these results for the videotape ratings is presented in Table 24. Children's Playroom Behavior The multiple regression analyses explored what the relationships were among the children's playroom behavior and parents' reported per- ceptions of their children, child-rearing concerns, and child-rearing practices. Specifically, we wished to differentiate those parental variables associated with "positive" (friendly, assertive, socially responsible) and "negative" (unfriendly, submissive, and negatively assertive) behaviors of children. In this respect, the following scoring categories were considered to represent "positive" children's Ch' Sea Feta hale F853, hale 99 Table 24 Children's Behaviors and Significantly Associated (p (.05) Parental Variables Child Family Role Sex Mother Father Dominance (1) Female Drew Attention to Intrinsic Reward of Desirable Behavior (+) Male Relate Child Feelings and Behavior to Adult Feelings (+) Structure and Teach (2) Female Relate Child Feelings and Behavior to Adult Feelings (+) Male Concern with Aggressive- Desirable Praise and Focus on Defiant Behavior (+) Poiitive Aspects of Behavior + Help (3) Female Threaten-Express Hostility Abdicate Responsibility for (-) Discipline to Spouse (-) Male Non-verbal and Implicit Concern with Aggressive- Disapproval (+) Defiant Behavior (+) Chil Sex Pena Male Femal FShale Feidle 100 Table 24 (Con't.) Child Family Role Sex Mother Father Reassurance (4) Female Male Relate Child Feelings and Behavior to Adult Feelings (+) Cooperation (5) Female Male Use of Physical Punnish- Concern with Authority-Defiant ment (-) and Antisocial Behavior (+) Passive Questioning (6) Female Expression of Physical Affection (+); Concern with Authority- Defiant and Antisocial Behavior (+) Male Characteristic Difference Characteristic Difference (-) (-); Concern with Aggres- Concern with Sense of Respon- sive-Defiant Behavior (+) sibility (-) Submission (7) Female Negative Evaluation and Negative Evaluation and Disappro- Disapproval of Child's Self (-) val of Child's Self (-) Concern with Aggressive-Defiant Behavior (+) Child Sex hale 101 Table 24 (Con't.) Child Family Role Sex Mother Father Male Concern with Authority- Defiant and Antisocial Behavior (-) Helplessness (8) Female Negative Evaluation and Disapproval of Child's Self (+) Male Use of Explanation for Control of Aggressive-Defiant Behavior (-) Complaint (9) Female Threaten-Express Hostility Concern with Aggressive-Defiant (+) Behavior (+) Male Competition (10) Female Threaten-Express Hostility Ignoring Child's Competent and (+) Defiant Behavior (+) Male Concern with Child's Sense Expression of Physical of Responsibility (-) Affection (+) Chilc Sex Female Male 102 Table 24 (Con't.) Child Family Role Sex Mother Father Affiliation-Dominance (11) Female Male Concern with Aggressive- Relate Child's Feelings and Be- Defiant Behavior (+) havior to Adult's Feelings (+) Affiliation—Submission (12) Female Expression of Physical Affec- tion (+) Male Concern with Aggressive- Defiant Behavior (+) Disaffiliation-Submission (13) Female Dismissal of Prosocial- Concern with Aggressive-Defiant Mastery Behavior (+) Behavior (+); Expression of Physical Affection (+) Male Expression of Approval (+) Give Extrinsic Reward for Desirable Behavior (+) Disaffiliation-Dominance (14) Female Threaten-Express Hostility Offer Advice and Ways for Male (+) Expression (+) Chil Sex Pena hale Fema hale 103 Table 24 (Con't.) Child Family Role Sex Mother Father Affiliation (15) Female Expression of Physical Affec- tion (+) Male Concern with Aggressive- Defiant Behavior (+) Disaffiliation (15) Female Dismissal of Prosocial- Concern with Aggressive-Defiant Mastery Behavior (+) Behavior (+) Male (+) indicates a positive correlational relationship (-) indicates a negative correlational relationship Dost (arr 104 behaviors: Dominance, Structure and Teach, Help, Reassurance, Cooperation, Passive Questioning, Affiliation-Dominance, Affiliation-Submission, and Affiliation. These other categories were considered representa- tive of "negative" children's behaviors: Submission, Helplessness, Compliance, Competition, Disaffiliation-Submission, Disaffiliation- Dominance and Disaffiliation (see Rowland, 1968). There were specific patterns which emerged, as well as some support for the hypothesis that theoretically "positive" parental attitudes would "predict" to "positive" children's behaviors while theoretically "negative" parental attitudes would predict to "negative" children's behaviors. Specifically, the results were as follows: (1) Boys' Positive Behavior: Fathers' reported use of an inter- personally feeling-oriented method of induction (Relate Child Feelings and Behavior to Adult Feelings) and ability to offer helpful praise and focus on the positive aspects of behavior while maintaining concern with their sons' aggressive, defiant, and antisocial actions were "predictive" of boys' positively assertive (affiliation-dominance, dominance, structure and teach, reassurance) and socially responsible (help, cooperation) behavior. (See Table 24: 1-5, 11). Thus fathers' apparent ability to share feelings and teach their sons about the impact of the boys' behavior while attending to both desirable and negative aspects of their sons' behavior was associated with boys' prosocial, effective behaviors. Mothers' reported concern with aggressive-defiant behavior was positively "predictive" of boys' affiliative, positively assertive (affiliation-dominance, structure-teach), and socially submissive 11 e) pa le of Nd de‘ nor the Phy: ant‘ of d IESp 105 (passive questioning) behaviors. Also, the less mothers expressed use of physical punishment, as a means of discipline, the more cooperation their sons exhibited. Thus boys' positively assertive, socially responsive, and friendly behavior were significantly associated with mothers' expressed concern with aggressive-defiant behaviors and reported lack of a hostile, punitive disciplinary approach. One finding that did not fit with general expectations was the positive relationship between boys' helping behavior and mothers' reported use of nonverbal disapproval. (2) Boys' Neggtive Behavior: Fathers' stated infrequent use of an inductive method to control aggressive-defiant behavior and reported exercise of control by extrinsic rewards were predictive of sons' passive-aggressive (disaffiliative-submissive) and withdrawal (help- lessness) behaviors. (See Table 24: 8 & 13). The positive association of fathers' expression of physical affection and boys' competitiveness was unexpected. Mothers' expressed lack of concern about their sons' antisocial, defiant, or helping (responsibility) behaviors was "predictive" of boys more submissive and competitive behavior. Contrary to expectations was the positive relationship between boys' passive-aggressive behavior (disaffiliation-submission) and mothers' reported expression of approval. (3) Girls' "Positive" Behavior: Fathers who described showing physical affection, expressed concern about their daughters' defiant and antisocial behavior, reported focusing attention on the inherent value of desired behavior, and did not indicate abdicating disciplinary responsibility to their wives, were likely to have daughters who were friendly, positively assertive, and sociably submissive (See Table 24; 1, 4, 6 & 15). 106 Girls' positively assertive behavior (structuring and teaching, helping) was significantly associated with mothers' reported use of an interpersonally-oriented, feeling-focused inductive technique (Relate Child Feelings and Behavior to Adult Feelings) and lack of hostility. (4) Girls' "Negative" Behavior: Fathers' reported concern with daughters' aggressive-defiant behavior and ignoring of competent and defiant behavior were "predictive" of girls' negatively assertive, passive-aggressive, and submissive behaviors. (See Table 24:7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16). The fact that fathers' stated concern with aggressive- defiant behavior and expression of physical affection together were "predictive" of disaffiliative-submissive behavior, while concern with aggressive-defiant behavior alone was "predictive" of unfriendly (disaffiliation) behavior, suggests that fathers' physical affection, in the context of concern with aggression, promotes more deferent, unassertive behavior in girls. Thus the result for submission (See Table 24: 7), probably falls into this context. That is, fathers who expressed more concern about girls' acting-out behavior, but noted they were less likely to be negatively evaluative of their daughters (i.e., less hostile); were more likely to have daughters who were passive. Mothers' reported hostility (threaten-express hostility), negative evaluations of their daughters, and dismissal of the girls' prosocial- mastery behavior were "predictive" of daughters' helplessness, nega- tively assertive behavior, passive-aggressiveness, and general unfriend- liness. (See Table 24: 8, 9, 10, l3, 14 16). In particular, mothers' direct hostility appeared related to girls' negatively assertive, less 107 sociable behavior, while mothers' shaming (negative evaluation and disapproval of child's self) or more subtle hostility was associated with girls' disaffiliative-withdrawal behavior. Mothers' reported dismissal of girls' "positive" behavior was related to daughters' general disaffiliation and unfriendly, unassertive behavior. One result that appeared to be an exception to this pattern was the negative association found between mothers' described use of negative evaluation and girls' submission. However, this result may need to be considered in the larger context of findings for mothers and fathers. Thus the results of the multiple regression analyses indicated that children's behavior could be "predicted" by parental attitudes. There was support for the hypothesis that mothers' and fathers' "positive" attitudes were associated with children's more friendly, assertive, and socially responsible behavior while parents' "negative" attitudes were associated with children's less friendly and more passive and negatively assertive behavior. Global Ratings of the Children The six experimenter-taper ratings of the children represented global assessments of the children's interaction with a strange adult within the playroom setting. These six behaviors were used as the "criterion" variables in a step-wise multiple regression analysis with the parental measures from the CBC, CRCP, and STC-PN as the "predictor" variables. The question considered was whether particular parental variables were "predictive" of the ratings of the children's behavior. Tables 25-28 in Appendix M present the detailed findings of the multiple regression analyses while Table 29 summarizes the significant results. 108 In general, ratings of girls as competent, confident, and sociable were "predicted" by fathers' reported affectionate behavior, use of induction, and concern with prosocial-mastery behavior, and mothers' reported lack of hostility and negative evaluation. The overall rating of girls as "good children" was "predicted" by fathers' positive perceptions of their daughters (Apply Difference). For boys, the findings were somewhat equivocal. Ratings of boys as adjusted and as "good" children were positively "predicted" by mothers' reported concern with sons' helping and prosocial behavior. Boys' level of confidence was related to fathers' sharing of feelings about the impact of the sons' behavior and feelings upon them. Several other findings, however, did not fit clearly into the above pattern. For example, the more concern fathers' expressed about their sons' aggressive- defiant behavior, the less sociable and competent their sons were rated. Also, the more positively mothers had characterized their sons, the less sociable the sons were rated. Fr 109 Table 29 Ratings of Children's Behavior and Significantly Associated Parental Variables Child Family Role Sex Mother Father "Good-Bad" Female Apply Difference (+) Male Concerns with Child's Sense of Responsibility (+) Adjustment Female Male Concern with Child's Pro- social-Mastery Behavior (+) Confidence Female Negative Evaluation and Expression of Physical Disapproval of Child's Affection (+) Self (_) Male Relate Child's Feelings and Behavior to Adult's Feelings (+) Sociability Female Concern with Prosocial-Mastery Behavior (+); Offer Advice and Ways for Expression (+) Male Characteristic Difference Concern with Aggressive-Defiant (-) Behavior (-) 110 Table 29 (Con't.) Child Family Role Sex Mother Father Competence Female Negative Evaluation and Expression of Physical Affec- Disapproval of Child's tion (+) Self (-) Male Concern with Aggressive-Defiant Behavior (-) ['13 CV the dei, 50C DISCUSSION Effectiveness of the Parental Variables A major part of this study related to the question of whether significant associations could be found between measures of parental perceptions, concerns, and practices, and measures of children's playroom behavior. A critical issue in the interpretation of these results is the meaning of the factors derived from the CRCP and STC- PN. These dependent variables and child-rearing dimensions will be discussed below in regard to their effectiveness or potential for facilitating children's social and emotional development. Parental practices will be labelled "ineffective" if they are presumed to be non-conducive for children's well-being and possibly contributing elements in children's social and emotional disturbances. To make the distinction between effective and ineffective parental attitudes and practices, theoretical writings and past research are drawn upon. Parental Variables Derived from the CRCP Factor I - "Concern with Child's Authority-Defiant and Antisocial Behavior" - appears to represent parental concern with the socialization of their children and the inculcation of such values as truthfulness, honesty, and respect for people and property. Parents serve as social-- izing agents for their children and relate, transmit, and interpret cultural expectations for behavior. Clearly, parents who do not fulfill their responsibilities in these respects, or whose values are extremely deviant from those of the society at large, may have children who become social outcasts and misfits or, at least, encounter serious difficulties 111 at an fa th C0 112 in adjusting to societal institutions or relating to peers and other adults. Although it is possible that a very high score on this factor implies extreme rigidity or over-conformity, a moderate degree of concern with the child's authority-defiant and antisocial behavior seems necessary to teach children what behaviors are expected of them in the world-at-large and what behaviors will result in negative encounters for them, for example, with the school. Thus, this factor generally is viewed as a positive one in terms of promoting the child's socially appropriate behavior. The implication, too, is that while the parent may be concerned with particular negative behavior, e.g., lying, he/she is also teaching the child a more socially productive behavior, i.e., telling the truth. There is some research that supports the hypothesis that factor I of the CRCP is a positive or effective variable in terms of promoting the child's social development. Bandura and Walters (1959) found that mothers of aggressive, antisocial adolescent boys differed from the mothers of a control group in the tendency to place fewer restrictions on the child's home behavior, to be much less demanding of obedience and to be inconsistent in enforcing demands. McCord, McCord, and Howard (1961) found that aggressive, non-delinquent boys were products of families where few demands were made for conforming, polite behavior and the boys' actions were not adequately supervised. Feshbach (1970) concluded that the McCord & Howard, and the Bandura and Walters studies suggested that the parents of non-aggressive and aggressive boys differed "more markedly in the demands they place on the child for conformity to social convention than in the restraints they exercise on impulse 11‘. or pa ba par Dar 113 expression" (p. 221), and that although parents of aggressive boys might restrict their children's deviant behavior, they were lax in promoting socially desirable behavior by failing to provide an awareness of approved behaviors. Factor II — "Concern with Child's Prosocial-Mastery Behavior" - seems quite clearly to be positively related to a child's emotional well-being and social development. Parents who show a lack of concern with their children's feelings of mastery and prosocial behavior may disregard such behavior and feelings and, consequently, extinguish their occurrence. This factor also indicates an empathic awareness of the child. Thus the parents who show a high degree of concern with their children's prosocial-mastery behavior are probably quite sensitive to their children's feelings, value children's prosocial-mastery behaviors, and demonstrate awareness of their children's needs. They present models who show concern for others and interest in interper— sonal relationships. It is possible, however, that a very high score on this factor could represent parental intrusiveness and overconcern with the child's life. Olejnik and McKinney (1973) conducted a study that has implica- tions for the discussion of CRCP Factor II, as well as the other three CRCP Part I variables. They compared parental "prescriptive" value orientations (parental focus on doing or avoiding doing good) with parental "proscriptive" value orientation (emphasis on avoiding doing bad) and generosity in four-year old children. Children of 'prescriptive" parents were found to be more generous than children of Vproscriptive" parents. Adults who score high on concern with children's prosocial- 3173 S in; ext rig beh 114 mastery behavior would appear to be like the "prescriptive" parents. CRCP Factor III - Concern with the Child's Sense of Responsibility - seems to bear a generally positive relationship to the development of children's competent and socially responsible behaviors. Like CRCP Factor 11, it reflects a "prescriptive" orientation to children's actions. The focus on helping behavior would seem to teach children the importance of cooperation and working together to accomplish a task. An extremely high score, however, could conceivably indicate parental rigidity and excessive emphasis upon obedience. Parental concern with children's aggressive-defiant behavior (CRCP Factor IV) appears to be somewhat more complex than the other variables discussed. McCord e§_glfs. study (1961) demonstrated that there is no simple and clearcut relationship between children's aggression and maternal control. They found that mothers of aggressive boys tended either to "over control" (dominate a child's choices) or minimally control (make few demands and provide little supervision) their sons' behavior, while mothers of nonaggressive boys either "overcontrolled" or demonstrated a "normal" degree of control. Although the highest propor- tion of mothers of assertive boys fell into the category of the "normal controls," they were represented in the other two categories as well. Theoretically, it seems that parents who focus to an extreme degree upon children's aggressive-defiant behavior may overemphasize and implicitly reinforce negative behavior by their attention to it, or may overinhibit the child and his/her apprOpriate expression of anger. On the other hand, a parent who disregards or is unconcerned with children's aggressive- defiant behavior may not set appropriate limits, be too permissive, and 115 actually provide tacit approval for the child's acting-out (Baumrind, 1973; Becker, 1964). Thus concern with children's aggressive-defiant behavior seems to bear a curvilinear relationship to the development of positively assertive and socially responsible behaviors of children, with moderate amounts of this factor being most facilitative. Parental Variables Derived from the CRCP Part II: One way to assess the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of the child-rearing variables derived from the CRCP Part II is to evaluate their similarity to parental behaviors studied in previous research. Power assertion techniques such as physical punishment, deprivation of privileges, and the threat of such actions have consistently been shown to be related to "negative" child characteristics and behaviors, such as weak moral development, counter-aggression, self-aggression, and inhibi- tion (Baumrind, 1967, 1973; Becker, 1964; Hoffman, 1970). Love-withdrawal techniques, which include such behaviors as ignoring, refusing to talk to a child, stating disapproval of the child, and withdrawing from or threatening to leave the child, seem to produce anxiety which may in turn motivate the child to inhibit aggressive and other impulses (Hoffman, 1970). There is no evidence that love withdrawal techniques are sufficient for advanced moral development nor that they are related to such "positive" behaviors as friendliness, assertiveness, self-confidence, and independence in children. Instead, this technique seems to be associated with lower self-esteem, withdrawn-inhibited behavior, and the development of conduct disorders (Becker, 1964). In their review of the research, Reif and Stollak (1972) summarize ineffective parental practices as ’(1) behaviors 116 associated with non-acceptance of the child, e.g., criticism, rejection- hostility; and (2) behaviors associated with over or under control of the child, e.g., setting limits without explanation, non-attention, and unclarified compliance. In terms of effective disciplinary techniques, induction (use of explanations and reasons for the child to change his/her behavior) is most conducive to children's moral development (Hoffman, 1970) and to the development of social responsibility and independence in children (Baumrind, 1967, 1973; Becker, 1964). The importance of parental affection in promoting children's social and emotional well-being has also been revealed in previous studies (Baumrind, 1967, 1973; Becker, 1964; Feshbach, 1970; Hoffman, 1963, 1970; Sears, Macoby, and Levin, 1957). Stollak, in reviewing the research on caregiver characteristics and behaviors and children's development from birth to six years of age, concluded that competence in children is related to the following dimensions: 1. A highly stimulating, complex and enriched visual, aural, and tactual environment ... 2. Frequent caregiver involvement with the child, especially in highly intellectual activities... 3. Caretakers who are highly affectionate and tender, who are frequently and consistently highly accessible, accepting, attentive and promptly responsive to child cues and signals indicating a desire for positive social and environmental encounters, and especially signals indicating distress. 4. caregivers who stimulate and encourage, and minimally restrict children's independent and autonomous actions, self-expressions, exploratory, master, imaginative, and curiosity behaviors. 5. Caregivers who themselves model complex exploratory, mastery imaginative, ggg_socially responsive and responsible behaviors in direct, intimate encounters with the child... 117 6. Consistent, just and fair control of unacceptable child behaviors by caregivers who use reasons, rationally discuss with the child the impact and consequences of child behaviors on others, accompanied by the conveying of acknowledgment of the validity of the child's inner experience, 7. Caregivers who provide help, support, guidance and directions for children's expressions of needs, wishes, and feelings; (Stollak, 1976, p. 43). On the basis of previous research, several of the factors derived from the CRCP can be presumed to be ineffective. Factor VII -- "Use of Physical Punishment" and Factor XVI "Criticize-Threaten" are power assertive techniques, which contain a hostility component. Factor VIII -- "Non-verbal and Implicit Disapproval" and Factor XII -- "Nega- tive Evaluation and Disapproval of Child's Self" are methods of love- withdrawal and rejection. Parents who use nonverbal disapproval provide poor models who retreat from expressing feelings verbally and fail to demonstrate more suitable ways to resolve disagreements. Factor XI - "Abdicating Responsibility for Discipline to One's Spouse" and Factor XIII - "Ignoring the Child's Competent and Defiant Behavior" - indicate that the parent is not responsive to the child's needs and is either very lax or extremely permissive, having difficulty setting appropriate limits. Such permissive noncontrol is related to children's lack of self-reliance, lack of self-control, and tendency to retreat from novel experiences (Baumrind, 1967, 1973). Factor XIV - "Dismissal of Child's Mastery - Prosocial Behavior" and Factor XIII - are also both ineffec- tive because they devalue "positive" behavior and undermine self-esteem in the child. 118 Factor V - "Give Extrinsic Reward for Desriable Behavior" is more difficult to assess in terms of its effectiveness. All of the items in this factor provide positive reinforcement of prosocial-competent behavior. Generally the reward involves some concrete or materialistic object. At first glance, one might deduce that these types of practices are effective because they would promote the continued occurrence of the "positive" child behaviors. However, it is quite possible that the use of such rewards indicates to the child that helpfulness, achievement, and prosocial behavior are only to be valued for their external benefits. The child's feelings about the behavior and the principles involved are disregarded. Instead of encouraging the child to develop an internal locus of control, to internalize particular moral standards, and to develop feelings of competence, mastery, and self-esteem by focusing upon his/her feelings about her/his accomplishments, the use of external rewards makes the significant point of reference the external world. What becomes valued is not what the child herself/himself feels about the behavior, but how others evaluate those actions. While it may be argued that behavior modifiers effectively use concrete reinforcers such as candy and money to promote prosocial behavior, it must be remembered that those rewards are usually paired with social reinforcers, such as a smile, praise, or affection. The ultimate goal is to teach children to be responsive to social reinforcers and to reason about their behaviors so that they can make choices and assume responsibility for their actions (Becker, 1971). Factor V gives no indication that the emphasis is other than on the external rewards. Thus this practice does not appear to foster more advanced moral development, but instead promotes 119 conventional role-conformity or instrumental morality (Kohlberg's stages 2 & 3. (See Kolhberg, 1963). Therefore, although Factor V may increase the frequency of particular desirable behaviors, for the reasons dis- cussed, giving external rewards is considered an ineffective parental practice in promoting children's feelings of self worth, competency, independence and social responsibility. Factor VI - "Draw Attention to the Intrinsic Reward of Desirable Behavior" - is also difficult to assess with regard to its effectiveness. On the surface, one would generally assume that focusing on the intrinsic rewards of behavior would promote development of an internal locus of control so that the child would evaluate the merits of her/his own behavior. However, careful inspection of the items composing this factor, indicates that it may not be as effective a practice as one would anticipate. Although there appears to be a reasoning-induction component, there is also a quality of moralizing, preaching, and lecturing, for example, "Explain to him that doing well will help him feel good about himself and get what he wants in life." Several of the items express rather cliched notions. Although the items emphasize "positive" aspects of behavior, they go beyond Ginott's advice that comments about a child be phrased in such a way that the child draws positive inferences about his/her personality. Likewise, the apparent reflection of feeling component is deceptive. While a statement like "Explain how it makes him happy to do kind and helpful things" does indeed focus upon the child's behavior and feelings about the behavior, other items seem questionable. For example, "Explain to him that doing 120 good will make him feel good about himself in life." is not a statement which is attuned to the child's feelings but rather tell§_the child what he/she feels. On the basis of all these considerations, this factor will be considered a neutral practice with probable negative effects upon children's development. Factor IX - "Expression of Adult Approval of Children's Behavior” and Factor X - "Expression of Physical Affection" are characterized as effective child-rearing variables. Previous research illustrates the significance of physical affection (Baumrind, 1967, 1973; Becker, 1964). Giving approval, although adult-focused, also relates children's behavior to the adults' feelings and thus is helpful in teaching the child the impact of her/his behavior. Factor XV - "Explanation for Control of Child's Aggressive-Defiant Behavior" clearly contains components of reasoning and induction, which have previously been shown to relate to positive aspects of children's behavior. Yet this factor also contains elements of control and guilt- production. Nevertheless, Factor XV is considered an effective child- rearing practice. Parental Variables from the STC-PN Based upon what has already been discussed and upon previous research, the following STC-PN variables are labelled as "effective" practices which promote positive behaviors in children: Factor I - "Offering Advice and Ways of Behaving; Factor III - “Reflection of Child's Inner Experiences;" Factor IV - "Relating Child's Feelings and Behavior to Adult's Feelings;" and Factor VI - "Desirable Praise and 121 Focus on Positive Aspects of Behavior." Factor I contains items related to other-oriented discipline and induction, which the research reveals are positive parental behaviors in terms of stimulating develOpment of competent, prosocial behaviors in children (Baumrind, 1967, 1973; Hoffman, 1963, 1970). Factor III reveals a parents' sensitivity to children's feelings and ability to reflect the child's inner exper- iences. Factor VI contains productive praise and a lack of primary focus on negative behavior. Factor IV is adult-centered yet also indicates responsiveness to feelings and both acknowledges and teaches that the child can and does have an impact on others. Factor IV also appears to contain an inductive element in the sense of Hoffman's concept of "other-oriented" induction. Two of the STC-PM factors seem clearly negative - Factor II: "Threaten, Express Hostility" and Factor V: "Judge and Interpret Child's Behavior." Both of these factors contain hostility components, devaluate the child, and undermine the development of a child's self- esteem and confidence. Overview Table 30 summarizes the conclusions about the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of the parental variables derived from the CRCP and STC-PN based upon theoretical writings and past research studying related parental measures. In the next section, the relationships between the children's measures and the factors of the CRCP and STC-PN will be discussed. 122 Table 30 Parental Variables and Their Anticipated Effectiveness or Ineffectiveness for the Development of Children's Competent-Prosocial Behavior Parental Variable Effectiveness CRCP Factors I: Concern with Child's Authority-Defiant and Antisocial Behavior E II: Concern with Child's Prosocial-Mastery Behavior E III: Concern with Child's Sense of Responsibility E IV: Concern with Child's Aggressive-Defiant Behavior E* V: Give Extrinsic Reward for Desirable Behavior (1) VI: Draw Attention to Intrinsic Reward of Desirable Behavior (I) VII: Use of Physical Punishment I VIIIzNon-Verbal and Implicit Disapproval I IX: Expression of Adult Approval of Child's Behavior E X: Expression of Physical Attention E XI: Abdicating Responsibility for Discipline to One's Spouse I XII: Negative Evaluation and Disapproval of Child's Self I XIII:Ignoral of Child's Competent-Defiant Behavior I XIV: Dismissal of Child's Mastery-Prosocial Behavior I XV: Use of Explanation for Control of Child's Aggressive- Defiant Behavior E XVI: Criticize-Threaten I 123 Table 30 (con't.) Parental Variable Effectiveness STC-PN Factors: I: Offer Advice, Directions, and Ways for Behaving E II: Threaten-Express Hostility I III: Reflection of Child's Inner Experiences E IV: Relating Child's Feelings and Behavior to Adult's Feelings E V: Judging and Interpreting Child's Behaviors I VI: Desirable Praise and Positive Focus on Children's Behavior E E = Effective I = Ineffective * = Curvilinear relationship to behavior; moderate amounts as most effective Greater uncertainty about effect upon children's development ( ) 124 Children's Behavior and Parental Perceptions, Concerns, and Practices Specific patterns of relationships between children's behavior and parental reports of child-rearing concerns and practices were evident from the multiple regression analyses of the data. When considered within the context of the theoretical effectiveness of the parental variables, the findings appeared to generally fit the pattern of "positive" parental concerns and practices being associated with "positive" children's behaviors. Boys positively assertive and socially responsible behaviors were "predicted" by fathers' reported use of helpful praise, sharing of feelings, about the impact of the child's behavior, and concern with both "positive" aspects of behavior and their sons' aggressive, defiant, and antisocial behavior. Specifically, boys' dominance, reassurance and friendly assertive (affiliation-dominance) behaviors were "predicted" by fathers' use of "Relate Child's Feelings and Behavior to Adult's Feelings." This finding suggests that the effectiveness of this parental practice resides in its association with the development of boys' self-esteem and self-reliance. Teaching boys about their interpersonal impact, pro- viding useful feedback, and acknowledging their influence without punitiveness or demand for change may promote the development of an internal locus of control, as well as feelings of self-worth and com- petence. This practice seems to allow the boys the opportunity to decide whether they want to change their behavior. Also, there is an aspect of sensitivity to another's feelings which may make boys more attune to others' feelings and needs for reassurance. Structuring- 125 teaching was "predicted" by fathers' ability to provide helpful praise and focus on positive aspects of behavior. Such a child-rearing practice seems to promote self-esteem by helping the child to perceive his/her effective behaviors and to feel validated by an important and powerful adult figure. Helping behavior was predicted by fathers' concern with aggressive-defiant behavior while boys' cooperation was associated with fathers' concern with authority defiant and antisocial behavior. These results suggest that fathers' concerns with boys' "negative" behaviors may also include components of promoting more positive, prosocial actions. Thus the general pattern indicated was that boys' competent, prosocial behaviors are related to fathers' ability to maintain a balanced focus on behavior (attention to both positive and negative aspects of boys' actions), to teach sons about the boys' interpersonal impact, and to maintain high levels of involvement and interest. This kind of parental pattern appears similar to Baumrind's (1967) Pattern II parental behaviors. Baumrind found that children who were self-reliant, self-controlled, explorative, and content, had parents who were "notably firm, loving, demanding, and understanding." Mothers' behaviors which "predicted" to boys' friendly, positively assertive, and socially responsible behaviors also seemed to fit into Baumrind's Pattern I parents. Mothers' concern with aggressive-defiant behavior appeared to be a particularly potent variable. This practice was related to boys' structuring-teaching behavior, affiliation, and both friendly assertive and socially responsive behaviors. These findings suggest that mothers' expressing concerns about boys' aggression and defiance implies some limit-setting and encouragement of socially 126 appropriate behaviors which facilitate the development of self-esteem and "positive" behavior in boys. It appears that both mothers' and fathers' concern withaggressive-defiant behavior are important elements in reference to boys' positively assertive behavior and may reflect McCord e;_gl,'s findings (1961) that mothers' of assertive boys were "normally" controlling with regard to aggressive behavior. One other finding for mothers revealed that boys' cooperation was "predicted" by mothers' infrequent use of physical punishment. The hostility, puni- tiveness, and power assertive features of this practice counterindicated cooperative behavior for boys. The pattern of relationships between mothers' and fathers' child rearing attitudes and girls "positive" behavior was somewhat different - than for boys. Girls' dominance was significantly predicted only by fathers' drawing attention to the intrinsic rewards of behavior. This finding suggests the possibility that the father's behavior is more influential than the mother's in regard to the development of certain assertive behaviors of girls. Perhaps the father is a more salient reinforcer or model in this respect and may promote assertive behavior by reflecting upon its inherent value. On the other hand, this could just be a chance finding. What appear most important to consider are the findings for "Expression of Physical Affection" and the relevance of fathers' expression of physical affection to girls' friendly and socially submissive behavior. In his review of the research, Lynn (1974) reports that girls' feminine behavior appears to be enhanced by fathers' nur- turance. The finding that girls' passive questioning behavior (which fits the "feminine" stereotype) is "predicted" by fathers' physical 127 affection and concern with defiant and antisocial behavior suggests that girls' friendly-submissive, "feminine" behavior is indeed shaped by fathers. It appears that fathers who are warm and attend to, and probably channel, girls' defiant and antisocial behavior shape daughters' behavior along traditional social lines. Fathers' warmth may make them more salient models and reinforcement sources. The positive association between fathers' affection and daughters' affiliation also implies that girls' self-esteem is promoted by fathers' warmth, which may reflect father's validation of their daughters as females. The finding that girls' helping behavior is negatively "predicted" by father's abdication of disciplinary responsibility to their wives suggests that fathers who are neglectful, uninvolved and themselves unhelpful have daughters who are less likely to be helpful with others. It may be that through such behavior, fathers convey a message to their daughters of their dis- interest, which then fosters low self-esteem in the girls. Another possibility is that girls displace their anger towards the fathers onto others and react by not being helping. The findings suggest that girls who are affiliative and helpful have fathers who display behaviors similar to Baumrind's Pattern I parents. Girls' positively assertive behavior was related to mothers' lack of hostility and reported use of relating the girls' feelings and behavior to their own. Thus, as with boys and fathers, the practice of "Relating the Child's Behavior and Feelings to the Adult's Feelings" is significantly associated with behavior indicative of self-reliance, self-control, and high self-esteem in the child. The results suggest that this particular parental practice is particularly important in 128 like-sex relationships. Whether this is indeed a fact, can only be confirmed by further research. It can be speculated, however, that this practice is effective because it contains elements of "other-oriented" discipline, teaches the child about the impact of his/her behavior (particularly upon the like-sex model, which may have implications for confirming the child as a male or female), promotes sensitivity to feelings, and fosters an internal locus of control. With regard to "negative" behavior, boys' withdrawal behavior was "predicted" by fathers' infrequent use of explanations to control aggressive behavior and boys' passive-aggressive behavior by fathers' use of extrinsic rewards. These findings suggest that when fathers' use external controls, even in the sense of rewards, they may generate some anger in their sons. However, since the fathers are powerful and salient reinforcers, sons learn to express their feelings in a passive-aggressive fashion, which generalizes to other encounters with adults. Boys' helplessness and withdrawal are particularly associated with fathers' reported lack of use of an inductive method to control aggression. When fathers do provide explanations and demand self-control with regard to aggressive behavior, boys' self-reliance may be promoted. Boys' submissive and competitive behavior were "predicted" by mothers' expressed lack of concern about the boys' antisocial, defiant or helping behavior. These findings suggest that mothers who are lax and distinterested will have sons who are passive and less self-reliant. Also, the less mothers express concern about their sons being helpful and responsible, the more competitive and combative the boys will be, perhaps as a means to gain attention. 129 The findings regarding girls' "negative" behaviors and fathers' reported child-rearing practices suggest the following: Fathers who ignore their daughters' behavior are likely to have girls who engage in competitive, combative behavior. It can be speculated that such behavior may indicate expression of aggressive feelings engendered by fathers' disinterest, reaction-formation to feelings of low self- esteem or an attempt to gain attention, even in a negative way. Fathers' concern with girls' aggressive-defiant behaviors (perhaps, overconcern?) and warmth, or at least, lack of hostility (i.e., few negative evaluations of the daughters) were found to relate to girls' unfriendly and submissive behavior. Other findings suggested that fathers' concern with girls' aggression was most "predictive" of unfriendly behavior, perhaps because fathers were too controlling, whereas fathers who are also somewhat warm, promote more deferent behavior. It is interesting that fathers' concern with aggressive- defiant behavior appears to be related to more "positive” behaviors in boys and less "positive" ones in girls. The findings regarding girls' “negative" behaviors and mothers' child-rearing practices were quite clear. Girls' helplessness, nega- tively assertive behavior, passive-aggressiveness, and unfriendliness were predicted by maternal behaviors indicative of hostility, dis- interest, and neglect. It can be speculated that such behaviors by mothers promote low self-esteem, lack of self-reliance, feelings of inadequacy, and anger. The general pattern reflected Baumrind's Pattern II children (discontent, withdrawn and distrustful) who had "firm, punitive, and unaffectionate" parents. The results also suggested that mothers' more subtle hostility (reflected by shaming) related to girls' 130 unfriendly, submissive behavior whereas mothers' more direct hostility seemed to promote more overtly aggressive, unsociable behavior (i.e., complaining, competitiveness). Thus shaming may be more undermining to girls' self-esteem whereas direct hostility and punitiveness engender similar behavior because of the anger these practices give rise to, or because of the models for poorly controlled behavior which such mothers present. Some of the results of the multiple regression analyses did not fit with expectations. Boys' helping behavior was predicted by mothers' reported use of nonverbal and implicit disapproval. Perhaps boys who have mothers who use this love-withdrawal technique engage in helping behavior in an attempt to win approval or prevent the adult from with- drawing affection. Girls' submission was predicted by mothers' lack of negative evaluations and disapproval of the child. This finding sug- gests that mothers who engage in more devaluations of their daughters, have less passive girls. The implications of this result are unclear since it is not evident in what kind of behavior such girls then engage. These results also seem contradictory to those for helplessness which revealed a positive association with mothers' use of negative evalua- tions. The positive association between boys' competitiveness and fathers' expression of physical affection, between boys' disaffiliative- submissive behavior and mothers' expression of approval, and between girls' disaffilative-dominant behaviors and fathers' offering of advice were contrary to expectations. The latter result, if confirmed by additional research, would provide support for Gordon's (1970) contention that offering advice is an ineffective practice. 131 The results of the multiple regression analyses of the experi- menter-taper ratings provided some additional indications about the effectiveness of certain parental measures. It is impossible, however, to ascertain whether these global ratings were actually valid assess- ments of the children's behavior. With this caution in mind, however, the results indicated the following: Girls' ratings as confident and competent were "predicted" by fathers' expressions of physical affection and mothers' lack of negative evaluations. These findings suggest that fathers' warmth and affection promote girls' self-esteem while mothers' negative evaluations and disapproval undermine girls' feelings of adequacy and the expression of effective behaviors. Boys' confidence was "predicted" by fathers' use of relating the child's feelings and behavior to their own. The positive association between the ratings of boys as adjusted and mothers' concern with prosocial-mastery behavior suggests that mothers who focus on children's "positive" behaviors promote the development of behaviors which appear socially appropriate. That boys' ratings as being "good" were related to mothers' concern with the child's helpful and responsible behavior suggests that these mothers may shape their sons' behavior in a prosocial direction. Raters apparently perceived girls in a fashion similar to fathers. Ratings of girls as "good" children were "predicted" by the relative positiveness of fathers' perceptions. Girls' sociability was associated with fathers' concerns with prosocial-mastery behavior and offering advice. Thus fathers who focus on girls' "positive" behavior and use an inductive, non-power assertive tech- nique seem to promote girls' friendly behavior. Low ratings for boys' in 132 sociability and competence were "predicted" by fathers' concerns with aggression and defiance, a relationship not expected. It may be, how- ever, that this finding indicates that when fathers are overly concerned with aggressive-defiant behavior, they have a negative impact upon the development of sociable and competent behaviors in boys. Another finding which did not fit with predictions was the negative association between mothers' positive perceptions of their sons' characteristic behavior and the boys friendly, sociable actions. All these results, however, must be considered with caution since there was no uniform definition for any of these categories, no reliability established between raters, and a very short segment of behavior observed. How- ever, the results do provide some indication of the relationships between how others might perceive these children and the parental concerns and practices related to such perceptions. Intercorrelations of the Parental Variables A second question asked by this study was what the relationships were among the different parental measures. The results revealed certain patterns of relationships. The perceptual variables (Apply Difference and Characteristic Difference) were not strongly and consistently related to specific parental practices. Thus, these variables were disappointing in terms of their lack of potency for "predicting" child behavior (See previous section) and lack of consistent relationships with other parental measures. Perhaps results were masked by using difference scores to assess relative positiveness instead of merely using parents' ratings of those positive and those negative traits which applied and were 133 characteristic of their children. Another possibility, however, is that the CBC elicits socially desirable responses and fails to differ- entiate effectively between "negative" and "positive" behavior per- ceivers. One interesting pattern was revealed for Apply Difference and Characteristic Difference, however. For mothers of boys, fathers of boys, and fathers of girls, these two variables were significantly positively correlated, indicating that these parents who perceived their children as having positive characteristics which applied also rated them as having many positive behaviors which were characteristic. Only for mothers of girls was there no significant correlation between these two measures, revealing that mothers rated girls differently with regard to behaviors which applied or were characteristic. Correlational analysis revealed different patterns for these two variables with parental practices for mothers of girls. Apply Difference correlated positively with Concern with Child's Authority-Defiant and Antisocial Behavior and negatively with Ignoring the Child's Competent and Defiant Behavior, Criticize-Threaten, and Judging and Interpreting the Child's Behavior. Characteristic Difference, on the other hand, correlated positively with Concern with the Child's Sense of Responsibility and Judging Negatively and Interpreting the Child's Behavior and negatively with Desirable Praise and Focus on the Positive Aspects of Behavior. These findings indicated that mothers who rated daughters as having many positive characteristics which applied were concerned with girls' defiant and antisocial behavior, but were unlikely to ignore their 134 daughters' positive or negative behavior, to interpret their daugthers' behavior or judge negatively, or to criticize and threaten. Thus these mothers were concerned with their daughters' "negative" behavior, but were unlikely to be hostile, critical, or disinterested in their daughters. Mothers who rated their daughters high on Characteristic Difference, however, were concerned with their daughters' responsible and helping behavior, but were themselves judgemental and unlikely to offer helpful praise or to focus on positive aspects of behavior. Therefore, there is some indication that these latter mothers, in scoring their daughters high in positive characteristics, actually may have been overcompensating for their own "negative" behaviors and perhaps denying some hostility towards their daughters. Intercorrelations of the parental practices and concerns revealed particular complexes of attitudes for mothers and fathers of boys and girls (See Results section for these specific patterns for each subgroup considered). In an attempt to clarify the meaning of the intercorre- lations across subgroups and to reveal some common or relatively consistent dimensions, the results were reviewed and practices that generally seemed to be positively correlated were grouped together. The results are presented in Table 31. The children's behaviors "predicted" by the particular parental practices and concerns are also presented to provide a more comprehensive and meaningful picture. In Table 32 are presented those parental variables that did not consis- tently correlate with others. Group I parental variables (Table 31) commonly were positively correlated with one another and negatively 135 Amsv mosouwwsou A+V .Amsv ousosommo tom .szv osspuospm A+v .Amsv mosuswsoo A+V .Amsv ousoswsoolsowuowwwww< A+v Amos asaoossom A+v Amzv sowuosooooo A-v sods a_az A-v szv mososwsoo -sa_oas_sweamws A+V .Aosv sawosoaasao A+V .Aozv s_a_asao A+v .Aozv a_as A-V .Aozs mosouooeou A-v .szv mosouwwsoo Auv .Aozv mmwsmmmwopm: A+v was .wzv sowmmwsosm Auv A Amsv :awmawsaam-=awoasFowwamss +v moaw_aas m.o_=u< a» aaw>asam usa mosw_aas m.u_wso aoa_as sow>osom wo mpooom< o>wpwmos so msoos uso omwoss mwooswmos HH goose psoasmwsss onwmzss wo om: omooom op osw_owomwo sow xpwwwowmsoomom opoUwuo< xuwwwpmoz moosoxmusouoossw sopomsswwonowpwsu wo>osooomwo uso sowuoswo>m m>wpomwz sow>osmm opposwmoo sow usozom owmswsuxm m>ww H ooosw meow>osom m.sosuwwsu mopoowso> Popsosos wo oswsooso =oawuass. sasw saws: as maaw>asam m.sasu__so ago use mowoowso> Popsosos uouowossoosmpsH zwsoaeou wo moswsoosw _m asaaw 136 Aozv sawoaspswwaaws A+v Aosv sa_owoaasao A+v Amzv s_m: A+v sass sa_mm_sa=m-sawoas_swwamss A+V Awsv mosmumosoo A+v .Aosv aasaa_wsao A+v . osv sawmmssaam -sawoaw__wwamws A+v . osv cawmmosaam sowuowwwwws A+V .Amsv sowpwuooEou A+v .Aosv oswsowpmoso o>wmmos A+v Amsv moosmmopowo: A-v sass sos_waasaam A+V .Aosv aacasssas-=awoawswwwamso va sow>osom zsopmozupowoomoss m.u_wsu wo .ommPEmwo sow>osmm psowwoo uso usopoosoo m.u—wsu mswsosmm wu>ossoomwo “wowwoeH uso Fooso>lsoz >H ooosu _o>osoo< wo sowmmosoxm sowpooww< wuowmxss wo sowmmosoxm HHH ososc mosowsooxu LossH m.u—wsu wo sowpumwwms sow>osom usow>os -m>wmmosoo< m.u_wso wo wosusou sow sowposowoxm wo om: sowmmosoxm sow was: .msowpomswo .m0w>u< smwwo mLow>mcmm m. :msu _. :5 mowoowso> Puusosos wo oswososo A.w.soov Fm wpnoh 137 Awsv oososwsoo A+V Ammo aosaoaasoo A-v .Amsv wow_snawoam A- .Aosv aowmmssazm-sawpa_sswwamws A+V .Amz sosmmosasm-sosoaw_wwss A+V .Amzv assasssas -sawoaw_wsw< A+v .Aosv casoaw_swwaaws A+v .Amzv cowoao_www< A+V .Aosv swa_ssao va .Aosv sasmmosaam A+V .Amzv oswsawomaao a>wamaa A+V .Amsv a_as .Amzv asaooasom A+V moss uam-uaao A+V .Amz sowuwpoosoo Auv .Amsv swsowpmmoo o>wmmos A+ floss sow_waawoam A+V .Amzv usaESmawus A+v Amsv sawmmwsasm A-v .Aosv os_=awoma:o lo>wmmos A+v .Amsv sowoosooooo A+v Amzv sosswaa_oam Auv .Ams.mzv mswsowumooo o>wmmos Any floss aam-aaao A+v sow>osom mpooswmoa wo usozom uwmswsusH op sowpsopp< 2oss sow>osom usowwoouo>wmmosom< sow: ssoosou xpwwwowmsoommx wo omsom m.uwwso spwz ssousou sow>osmm asmumo21wowoomoss m.u_wsu saw: ssoosoo sow>osom _as00m_oss usa usawwas-»owsoso=< m.ussso sow: ssausao mosmsowwwo owpmwsouoososu ousosowwwo awoo< meow>osom m.sosu_wsu mowoowso> wuusmsos wo oswooosw .oowuasa. sasw saws: as asaw>asam m.sasu_wso usa maasoo sow: umpowmssou xwpsmpmwmsou uoz mmpoowso> Popsosos mm mwnow 138 correlated with the Group II parental variables. Group I variables seem to share a common control/hostility dimension, with an external focus. Group II parental variables, on the other hand, contain elements of induction, sensitivity to feelings, and focus upon the child and her/his behavior. Group III parental variables, which were generally positively correlated with each other and negatively with Group IV variables, reflect a warmth-love dimension while Group IV variables seem to have in common elements of neglect and laxness or non-control. The four groups into which the majority of parental practices fell, are indicative of the two orthogonal factors or dimensions proposed by Schaefer (1959) - Autonomy versus Control and Love versus Hostility. 0n the basis of factor analysis of a number of studies of maternal behavior, Schaefer found that the above two factors accounted for most of the variance. The first pole was characterized by behaviors associated with autonomy while at the other pole were maternal behaviors related to control (e.g., intrusiveness, excessive contact, achievement demands, concern about health, fostering dependency, strictness, social isolation, and wish to control). At one pole of the second factor (Love) were affection and positive evaluation of the child, while behaviors such as ignoring, punitiveness, use of fear to control, aggression, and irritability characterized the other pole (Hostility). Based upon these two dimensions, Schaefer developed a hypothetical circumplex model represented by these quadrants: Love- Autonomy (acceptance, cooperation, democratic, freedom), Autonomy- Hostility (detached, indifferent, neglecting, rejection), Hostility- 139 Control (demanding, antagonistic, dictatorial, authoritarian), and Control-Love (possessive, overprotective, indulgent, protective, over- indulgent). The four groupings which seem to result from the present study, fit well into this model. Group I practices appear to represent the Hostility-Control quadrant while Group II practices seem to fall mainly into the Love—Autonomy quadrant. The Group III practices reflect the Love end of the Love-Hostility dimension while Group IV practices are indicative of the Autonomy-Hostility quadrant. Becker (1964) reviewed parent child interaction research and or- ganized the findings around two orthogonal dimensions which are similar to Schaefer's model: warmth versus hostility and restrictiveness versus permissiveness. The warmth end of the Warmth-Hostility dimension was defined by variables such as these: "accepting, affectionate, approving, understanding, child-centered, frequent use of explanations, positive response to dependency behavior, high use of reasons in discipline, high use of praise in discipline and low use of physical punishment"(p. 174), while the restrictiveness end of the restrictiveness- permissiveness dimension was characterized by "many restrictions and strict enforcement of demands in the areas of sex play, modesty behavior, table manners, toilet training, neatness, orderliness, care of household furniture, noise, obedience, aggression to sibs, aggression to peers, and aggression to parents" (p. 174). Becker discovered that a number of child characteristics were associated with the different kinds of parental discipline described for the quadrants of Schaefer's model. Presented according to the quadrants, these results for the child char- acteristics were as follows: 140 (1) For Warmth-Restrictiveness: submissive, dependent, polite, neat, obedient, minimal aggression, maximum rule enforcement, dependent, not friendly, not creative, and maximal compliance; (2) For Hostility-Restrictiveness: "neurotic" problems, more quarreling and shyness with peers, socially withdrawn, low in adults role-taking, and maximal self-aggression in boys; (3) For Warmth-Permissiveness: active, socially outgoing, creative, successfully aggressive, minimal rule enforcement in boys, facilitation of adult role-taking, minimal self-aggression in boys, and independent, friendly, creative behavior and low projective hostility; (4) For Hostility-Permissiveness: delinquency, non-compliance, and maximal aggression. When the parental practices studied in the current research are grouped (based upon their intercorrelations - See Table 31), a general picture can be obtained regarding the types of children's behaviors to which they predict. In general, the results seem consistent with those which Becker (1964) detailed. The general patterns seemed to be the following: (1) Group I (Hostility-Restrictiveness) predicted to passive- aggressive, negatively assertive, unfriendly—aggressive behaviors, lack of socially responsible (helping, cooperative) actions and lack of confidence. (2) Group II (Warmth-Permissiveness) predicted to positively assertive, structuring behaviors and impressions of sociability and confidence. 141 (3) Group III (Warmth) predicted to friendly, sociably submissive behavior and ratings for confidence and competence. However, there were also two associations with unfriendly-submissive behaviors. (4) Group IV (Hostility-Permissiveness) predicted to negatively assertive, unfriendly, and unsociable-submissive behaviors. Whether empirical analysis of data from a larger number of parents would result in actual factors similar to those groupings of parental practices presented in Table 31 can only be ascertained by future research. Another possibility may be that there is actually a general effectiveness factor, such as Clarke-Stewart (1973) found in her re- search. Table 32 presents those parental variables for which there seemed to be no consistent pattern of intercorrelations. Clearly the perceptual variables and parental concerns were outstanding in this regard. Perhaps results would have been acquired for the perceptual measures had the actual positive and negative scores been used instead of the differences between these two sums. With regard to the parental concerns and the variable "Draw Attention to the Intrinsic Reward of Desirable Behavior," uncertainty had been expressed initially about their effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Although the results for the parental concerns are generally in the expected direction in terms of their predictiveness to "positive“ children's behaviors (although results seem mixed for Concern with Aggressive-Defiant Behavior - See Table 32), the lack of any pattern of intercorrelations with measures of parental practices indicates uncertainty as to the actual meaning of the concerns. That is, 142 using the present measures, there is no way to assess the degree of parental concern or how parents respond to their concerns in terms of their disciplinary techniques and focus upon negative or positive behaviors. Differences and Similarities Between Mothers and Fathers The present investigation revealed that parents, both mothers and fathers, perceive their daughters as displaying more positive charac- teristics and fewer negative characteristics that apply than they do sons. This finding is not really surprising. For one thing, the culture perpetuates the notion of girls as "sugar and spice and every- thing nice" while boys are characterized more negatively and expected to be, e.g., more aggressive. Parents carry these cultural stereotypes and expectations into their families. Research indicates that parents attribute different characteristics to girls and boys as early as 24 hours after birth, with girls being perceived as softer, littler, finer-featured and more inattentive (Rubin, Provenzano, & Luria, l974). Tasch (1952) reported that fathers were more concerned about girls' safety than boys, viewing girls as fragile and delicate. These fathers participated more in developing the motor abilities, skills and interests of boys. Aberle and Naegle (1952) found that fathers' concerns differed with the sex of the child. For girls, satisfaction focused upon the girls being "nice,“ "sweet," pretty, affectionate and well liked. For boys, on the other hand, fathers were concerned about whether their sons took initiative and responsibility, stood up for themselves, did well in school, showed athletic ability, and were emotionally stable. Lambert, 143 Yackley, and Hein (1971) report similar findings for parents. Typically, boys were described as more likely to be rough at play, be noisy, be competitive, do dangerous things, defy punishment, be physically active and defend themselves. Girls, on the other hand, were described as being more likely to be helpful around the house, be neat and clean, be quiet and reserved, be sensitive to others' feelings, be a tattletale, cry or get upset, be well mannered and be easily frightened. Goldberg and Lewis (1969) studied 13 month old infants interacting with their mothers and found differences between boys and girls. Specifically, girls "were more dependent, showed less exploratory behavior, and their play behavior reflected a more quiet style. Boys were independent, showed more exploratory behavior, played with toys requiring gross motor activity, were more vigorous and tended to run and bang in their play" (p. 30). The authors observed that maternal behavior toward infants at 6 months indicated that some of these sex differences were related to the mothers' behavior toward infants. They suggested that parents behave differently toward boys and girls, reinforcing sex-appropriate behavior even in infancy. Another factor that needs to be considered in interpeting the results for the perceptual variables, is the CBC items themselves. Those listed as "negative" relate more to aggressive behavior and expression of anger. Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) report that a sex difference in aggression has been noted in all cultures where this behavior has been observed. Boys are more aggressive both verbally and physically. Thus, for parents to score more negative traits for boys, when the CBC items are geared to aggressive behavior, is not unusual. Some of the char- 144 acteristics which Ferguson, e§_gl, (1974) found to be positive indicate a high degree of control and are behaviors which it appears parents might more readily perceive as positive for girls, but not for boys. Parents were found to exhibit no significant differences in their child-rearing concerns. Thus mothers and fathers express similar concerns, regardless of their child's sex. This was contrary to Green's (1975) finding that females express more concern with prosocial child behavior. With reference to child-rearing practices, however, there were some significant family role effects. Fathers were found to express greater use of "Give External Reward for Desirable Behavior" and "Criticize- Threaten" while mothers used more "Expression of Adult Approval for Desirable Behavior." "Expression of Physical Expression" and "Use of Explanation for Control of Aggressive-Defiant Behavior". Fathers, therefore, employ several practices which are more ineffective while mothers use more effective methods. Findings of the analysis of separate STC-PN items were similar. Mothers made more use of effective practices ("Acceptance of Child's Feelings," "Statement of Adult Feelings," "Alternatives for the Child's Present Feelings," and "Recognition of Child's Positive Intent") than did fathers, who used more ineffective methods ("Name-Calling," "Questioning, Probing"). The results indicate that mothers use more loving, child-focused, permissive practices while fathers use more controlling, punitive, and ineffective methods. These findings are consistent with previous research. Teyber (1975) found that male undergraduates were both globally rated as being less accepting and demonstrated greater use of punitive-rejecting 145 responses to tape recorded child communications. Green (1975) found that males were more likely than females to endorse authoritarian- punitive child-rearing practices. Fathers were significantly more likely than mothers to use criticism and threats while mothers were sig- nificantly more likely than fathers to express their own feelings of pride in response to a child's desirable behavior and to demand that the child control his anger toward the parent in a conflict situation. In reviewing a number of studies, largely based on children's reports, Becker (1964) found that mothers were usually perceived as more loving and nurturant than fathers, while fathers were viewed as being stricter, using more physical punishment, and being more fear—arousing. Radke (1964) found fathers were less likely to explain the reason for their discipline than were mothers. In his review of the research Lynn (1974) described fathers as being on the whole less nurturant and more restrictive. Such findings and conclusions have implications for the development of programs geared to increase parents' use of productive child-rearing practices. Emphasis may need to be different for mothers and fathers. Methodological Considerations The present study was largely exploratory in nature. Its major meth- odological weakness was the reliance upon parental self-report data in the measurement of parental concerns and practices and the use of thought-out, written accounts of parental responses in parent-child conflict situations. The critical issue is whether, or to what extent, parental verbal and written reports reflect parents' actual behavior. 146 Mannino _e_t_fl. (1968) observed, the evidence that responses on projected tests will correlate highly with responses in real life situations is inconclusive. Radke and Yarrow (l963) questioned the validity of the questionnaire and interview as information sources on parental behavior, noting that parents' reports do not necessarily predict actual parent to child behaviors. Factors such as social desirability and the influence of the current life situation may reduce the accuracy of parental reports. In fact, several parents noted on the STC-PN that their mood and the day's events would affect their responses in actual conflict situations, and that they would respond differently at different times. However, in spite of drawbacks to their use, questionnaires may be the only way to gain certain information from parents. For example, even if one could afford to conduct systematic observations of parent-child interactions it would be difficult, if not impossible, to establish the kinds of conflict situations that occur in the home. While some parents were willing to indicate their use of physical punishment in their CRCP and STC-PN responses, clearly that is not the kind of behavior a parent would be likely to exhibit within a laboratory setting. Home observation might overcome even this problem, but such a method is time-consuming and costly. Even then, the criticism can be raised that the presence of an observer or a camera influences the interactions that occur. Thus, although there are limitations in the use of questionnaire data, other alternatives also result in problems in collecting data about parent-child conflicts and parental child- rearing practices. 147 Objections can even be raised to the use of videotapes of children's playroom interactions to rate their behaviors. Although this method certainly provides a more direct measure of behavior than a questionnaire or verbal report, it admittedly measures only a small amount of inter- action, and then within a special setting with a stranger. There is no measure of how typical the child's behavior was within the playroom versus at home or in school. Many children may have been on their best behavior, particularly with a strange adult and knowing that a camera was recording the session. Some children may have needed time to become acquainted with the setting before becoming comfortable. Also, it must be kept in mind that these children were a select subgroup to begin with, for they had agreed to participate in the research, came without their parents to the sessions, and were all approximately seven years old. Thus, they and their parents (mainly middle class) represented relatively homogeneous groups, and the results of this study must be interpreted with all of these considerations and limita- tions in mind. Serious questions can also be raised about the use of the experi- menter-taper ratings to assess the children's behavior. There were no measures of reliability nor were there set definitions for the categories scored, so that the raters shared no acknowledged common basis from which to make judgements. Use of these ratings is similar to solicitation of teacher ratings, although teachers have had a longer period of association with a child and can share impressions based upon a number of experiences in different situations. All these factors need to be considered in interpreting those results which relied upon experimenter- taper ratings. 148 It can also be said that the questionnaires used in the present study more appropriately measure parental attitudes than actual child- rearing practices and behavior. Thus the results may be reflecting only parental reports about behavior and not how parents in fact respond or have responded to their children. The CRCP-Part II may actually be more valid than similar questionnaires, since it describes four specific parent-child interactions to which parents are asked to reSpond instead of just presenting general statements about the use of particular child-rearing practices. Too, since a large list of responses are presented, including very ineffective behaviors, a parent may feel less threatened about admitting the use of particular practices. Just the fact of having written down on paper certain methods of child-rearing may signal acceptance of those methods to parents, as well as the idea that other parents use such behaviors. The fact that the factor analysis of the present study, as well as one done previously with a different population (Green, 1975), yielded several very similar factors indicates that parents respond along similar dimensions. The results of the present research revealed that parental concerns, as delineated by Part I of the CRCP, are not very potent or meaningful variables. Precisely what parents mean when they indicate concern about particular behaviors is not clear, particularly with regard to the child-rearing practices which they employ. For example, one parent who indciates concern with aggressive-defiant behavior may only attend to undesired actions, and then in a punitive, controlling fashion. Another parent, who indicates a similar degree of concern with aggression and 149 defiance, may respond by reinforcing and teaching prosocial behavior through inductive techniques. It seems quite clear that the outcomes of these different methods, in terms of the child's behavior, would be extremely different. Thus, more precise ways need to be devised to measure the meaning of parental concerns. Implications of the Research Results of the current study carry a number of implications for future research and parent education programs. This study provides support for the idea that some particular parental practices are more "predictive" of positively assertive and socially responsible behavior than others. Although clearly the findings must be regarded as only tentative, they do suggest that certain variables, such as "Relate Child Feelings and Behavior to Adult Feelings," are worth further study. The data suggest the usefulness of collecting information from additional subjects to assess the relevance of those dimensions which were only suggested by the intercorrelational groupings of the present data. The effects of particular child-rearing practices could be better assessed by selecting parents who score high and low on those factors, and then studying their children to determine whether there are differences in the youngsters' behaviors. The importance of studying both mothers and fathers is revealed by the results of this study. The fact that this research indicates that different complexes of child-rearing practices exist for parents, depending upon their sex and the sex of the child, mean separate evaluations on the basis of family role and child sex should be undertaken in order to fully evaluate parental differences and the influence of the child's sex. 150 Results of this study carry implications for parent-education programs, indicating that mothers and fathers may need different approaches. Fathers, who seem generally to be more punitive, con- trolling, and externally focused, may need to be made more sensitive to feelings and taught verbal, inductive methods of discipline. Perhaps as Green (1975) suggests, parental programs for fathers only would elicit greater male participation. For both mothers and fathers, some didactive material regarding the effectiveness of particular parental practices and their impact upon children's development may be especially useful. SUMMARY The objectives of the present investigation were: (a) to examine the relationships between children's behaviors and parental percep- tions, child-rearing concerns, and child-rearing practices; (b) to explore the relationships among measures of parental perceptions, child-rearing concerns, and practices; and (c) to study the differences between mothers and fathers in their child-rearing attitudes and practices. The study was an attempt to provide more information to understand how positive and negative behavior patterns are developed and maintained in children and how parental attitudes are related to children's behaviors. One hundred and fifty second grade children were recruited to participate in a research project with undergraduates. These children interacted with the undergraduates in thirty minute sessions within a playroom setting. These sessions were videotaped and the children's behaviors were later coded using the interpersonal rating scheme and system of categories developed by Freedman, Leary, Ossorio, and Coffey. 151 After the children's participation in the research had been com- pleted, the parents of these youngsters were contacted by mail and asked to complete three questionnaires. The "Children's Behavior Checklist-Form Q" measured the relative positiveness of the parents' perceptions of their children. The "Child-Rearing Concerns and Practices Questionnaire" was used to obtain parents' reports of their child—rearing behaviors. The "Sensitivity to Children Questionnaire" (STC-PN) is a sex item projective test which elicits parental responses in hypothetical conflict situations with a child. Of the 148 families which were represented by the 150 children, parents of 94 children (63.5% of the total family pool) returned the ques- tionnaires. Data were received from 60 spouse pairs. Complete data for both parents and a child were acquired for 51 families. Multivariage analyses of variance were performed on the parental data, using CRCP, STC-PN, and CBC dependent variables, some of which were derived from several principal axis factor analyses. Independent variables included family role (mother or father) and sex of the child (male or female). Multiple regression analyses were conducted fo find those parental variables which were the best "pre- dictors" of the children's behavior. Measures of children's behavior based upon the coding of the videotapes served as the "criterion" variables while the parental measures derived from the CBC, STC-PN, and CRCP served as the independent variables. The major results were: Theoretically "positive" parental atti- tudes seemed to generally "predict" to "positive" children's be- haviors (more friendly, assertive, and socially responsible be- haviors), while "negative" children's behaviors (less friendly, and 152 more passive and negatively assertive behavior) were generally predicted by theoretically "negative" parental attitudes. Specific patterns emerged for the four subgroups studied: mothers of girls, fathers of girls, mothers of boys, and fathers of boys. Different patterns of intercorrelations among the parental variables were also found for the various subgroups. In general, however, intercorrelated parental practices seemed to represent four grOUpings indicative of Schaefer's two orthogonal dimensions (Love-Hostility, Autonomy-Control). Sex differences were found for one of the perceptual variables, revealing that parents perceive daughters relatively more positively than sons. Parents also used more praise with daughters and were more likely to relate the child's feelings and behavior to their own with boys. Family role results indicated that fathers used significantly more external rewards and criticisms and threats, while mothers ex- pressed more approval and physical affection, and also used more ex- planations in controlling children's aggressive-defiant behavior. In hypothetical conflict situations, mothers were signifiantly more likely to use statements of acceptance of the child's feelings, to express their own feelings, to provide alternatives for the child's present feelings, and to recognize the child's positive intentions. Fathers, on the other hand, were significantly more likely to use name-calling, to question the child, or to attempt to obtain more information about the child's behavior. Methodological considerations in the interpretation of the results were discussed. Implications of the findings for future research and the development of parent effectiveness training programs were presented. Bibliography BIBLIOGRAPHY Aberle, D., and Naegle, K. Middle class fathers' occupational role and attitudes toward children. American Journal gf_0rthopsychiatry, 1952, 22, 366-378. Axline, V.A. Play therapy. New York: Ballantine Books, 1947. Bandura, A., and Walters, R.H. Adolescent aggression. New York: Ronald Press, 1959, 159-260. Baumrind, 0. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1967, Z3, 43-88. Baumrind, D. The development of instrumental competence through sociali- zation. From Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, Vol. 7, Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1973, 3-46. Baumrind, 0., and Black, A.E. Socialization practices associated with dimensions of competence in pre-school boys and girls. Child Development, 1967, 33, 291-328. Becker, W.C. Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline. In M.L. Hoffman and L.W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of Child Develop- mental Research, Vol. 1, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964, 169-204. Becker, W.C., Peterson, D.R., Hellmer, L.A., Shoemaker, D.J., and Quay, H.C. Factors in parental behavior and personality as related to problem behavior in children. Journal gf_ConsultingPsychology, 1959, 33, 107-118. Clarke-Stewart, K. Interactions between mothers and their young child- ren: Characteristics and consequences. Monographs gf_the Society for Research jg_Child Development, 1973, 33, 6L7. Coopersmith, S. The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1967. Eron, L., Banta, F., Walder, L., and Laulicht, J. Comparison of data obtained from mothers and fathers on child-rearing practices and their relation to child aggression. Child Development, 1961, 33, 457-472. Ferguson, L.R., Partyka, L.B., and Lester, B.M. Patterns of parent perception differentiating clinic from non-clinic children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1974, 2, 169-181. 153 154 Feshbach, S. Aggression. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's Manual of Child Psychology. Vol 2. New York: Wiley, 1970. Freedman, M.B., Leary, T.F., Ossorio, A.G., and Coffey, H.S. The interpersonal dimension of personality. Journal gj_Personality, 1951, 39, 143-161. Goldberg, S. and Lewis, M. Play behavior in the year-old infant: Early sex differences. Child Development, 1969, 49, 21-31. Gordon, T. Parent effectiveness training, New York: Peter H. Wyden, Inc., 1970. Green, R.J. Child-rearing attitudes and perceptions of children's behavior across two generations in families. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University, 1975. Hoffman, M.L. Moral develOpment. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.) Carmichael's Manual of Child Psyghology, Vol. 2. New York: Wiley, 1970, 261-360. Hoffman, M.L. Parent discipline and the child's consideration for others. Child Development, 1963, 33, 573-588. Hoffman, M.L. Power assertion by the parent and its impact on the child. Child Development, 1960, 31, 129-143. Joint Commission on Mental Health for Children. Crisis in child mental health: Challenge for the 1970's. New York: Harper and Row, 1970. Kallman, J. A developmental study of children's perceptions and fantasies of maternal discipline procedures. Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion. Michigan State University, 1974. Kohlberg, L. Moral development and identification. In H.W. Stevenson (ed.), Child Psychology: 62nd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963. Lambert, W.E., Yackley, A., and Hein, R.N. Child training values of English Canadian and French Canadian parents. Canadian Journal gj_ Behavioral Science, 1971, 3, 217-236. Liberman, M., Stollak, G.E., and Denner, B. Assessment of family play interaction. Paper presented at the 1971 meetings of the Midwestern Psychological Association. Linden, J.I. and Stollak, G.E. The training of undergraduates in play techniques. Journal gf_Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33, 213-218. Lynn, 0.8. The father: His role in child development. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1974. Maccoby, E.E. and Jacklin, C.N. The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1974. 155 Mannino, F., Kisclewski, J., Kimbro, E., and Morgenstern, 8. Relation- ship between parental attitudes and behavior. The Family Coordinator, 1968, 237-240. McCord, W., McCord, J., and Howard, A. Familial correlates of aggression in non-delinquent male children. Journal 9_f_ Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 33, 79-93. Medinnus, G., and Curtis, F. The relation between maternal self-acceptance and child acceptance. Journal g3 Consulting Psychology. 1963, _2__7_, 542-544. Messe, LA. and Stollak, G.E. Adult perceptions and child bheavior dysfunctions. NIMH Grant Number 24250. Moustakas, C.E. Psychotherapy with children. New York: Ballantine Books, 1959. Murphy, E., Silber, E., Coelho, 6., Hamburg, D., and Greenberg, I. Development of autonomy and parent-child interaction in late adolescence. American Journal 93 Orthopsychiatry, 1963, 33, 643- 652. Nash, J. The father in contemporary culture and current psychological literature. Child Development, 1965, 33, 261-297. Olejnik, A.R. and McKinney, J.P. Parental value orientation and generosity in children. Developmental Psychology, 1973, 3, 311. Partyka, L. The agreement between parents in perceiving the behavior of clinic and non-clinic children. Unpublished Master's thesis. Michigan State University, 1971. Peterson, 0., Becker, W., Shoemaker, 0., Luria, A., and Hellmer, L. Child behavior problems and parental attitudes. Child Development, 1961, 33, 151-162. Radke-Yarrow, M. Problems of method in parent-child research. Child Development, 1963, 343, 215-226. Reif, T., and Stollak, G.E. Sensitivity to young children: Training and its effects. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1972. Rothbart, M. and Maccoby, E. Parents' differential reactions to sons and daughters. Journal gf_ Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, Z_3_, 237-243. lowl and, T. Mother-son interaction and the coping behavior of young boys. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University, 1 968 . tubin, J.Z. , Provenzano, F.J. and Luria, Z. The ago of the beholder: parents ' views on sex of newborns. American Journal 9: Orthppsychiatry, 1974, fig, 512-519. 156 Satir, V. Conjoint family therapy. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books, 1967. Schonfield, V.A. The body and body-image in adolescents. In G. Caplan and S. Lebovici (Eds.) Adolescence: Psychosocial perspectives. New York: Basic Books, 1969, 27-53. Schonfield, V.A. Body image disturbances in adolescents: Influence of family attitudes and psychopathology. Archives gt: General Psychiatry, 1966, 1.5., 16-21. Sears, R., Maccoby, E., and Levin, H. Patterns of child rearing. New York: Harper and Row, 1957. Shapiro, R.L. Adolescent ego autonomy and the family. In G. Caplan and S. Lebovici (Eds.), Adolescence: Psychosocial perspectives, New York: Basic Books, 1969, 113-121. Stierlin. H. Separating parents and adolescents. New York: Quadrangle/ New York Times Book Co. , 1974. Stierlin, H., Levi, L.D., and Savard, R.J. Parental perceptions of separating children. Family Process, 1971, _l_g, 411-427. Stollak, G.E. Until we are six: Toward the actualization of our children's human potential. Unpublished manuscript, 1976. Stollak, G.E. What happened today, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1973. Stollak, G.E., Scholom, A., Kallman, J., and Saturansky, C. Insensitivity to children: Responses to undergraduates to children in problem situations. Journal gf_Abnormal Child Psychology, 1971, _1_, 169-180. Stolz, L.M. Influences on parent behavior. California: Stanford Univer- sity Press, 1967. Sullivan, H.S. The inteppersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: W.W. Norton, 1953. Tash, 12.6. The role of the father in the family. Journal 91 Experimental Education, 1952, 33, 319-361. Teyber, E.C. Adult role-playing respones to varying child communica- tions. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1975. Thomas, A. , Chess, S., and Birch, H.G. Temperament and behavior disorders in children. New York: New York University Press, 1968. an der Veen, F., Huebner, 8., Jorgans, B., and Neja, P. Relationship between parents' concept of the family and family adjustment. American Journal g30rthopsychiatry, 1964, 34, 45-54. APPENDICES APPENDIX A CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST - FORM 0 157 The Children's Behavior Checklist--Form Q Date: Age: Name of Child: Name of person filling out checklist: Relationship to child who participated in study (mother, father): lhere is a list of items describing many aspects of children's behavhnumthings that children do or ways they have been described by others. Not all of the items will apply to the particular child you are describing, but quite a few of them will. First, go through the list and_put a checkmark ( )_in the first column by each item which gpplies to this child. If you feel that the item does not gpply to the child, put a zero (0) in the first column. After you have gone through the list, please go back through those items you have checked and put another checkmark ( ) in the second column opposite those that are now most characteristic of this child, that describe how he (she) is most of the time. Does this Is it charac- apply at all? teristic? 1. Is happy when he/she does a good job. 2. Gets carried way by his/her feelings. 3. Is tidy and neat, perhaps even a little bit fussy about it. A 4. Can't wait--wants to have things immediately. 8 5. Is concerned about the feelings of adults. A 6. Gets irritated or angry easily. 8 7. Feelings are apparent in his/her A facial expression Scoring key: A 2 Positive Behavior 8 = Negative Behavior 158 Is it charac- Does this teristic? apply at all? 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. .23. 24, .25. 2E5. Plays with toys in a rough way. Handles small objects skillfully. Doesn't pay attention to what others say. Activity is focused on a particular purpose, seems to accomplish what he/she sets out to do. Looks awkward when he/she moves around. Accepts new ideas without getting upset. Acts in ways that makes adults not like him/her. Shows pride in accomplishment. Appears stiff in walking or moving about. Seems comfortable in new situations. Has trouble finding the right words to say what he/she means. Wants very much to be approved of. B A Seems to do things just to get adults angry at him/her. Moves gracefully--well coordinated. Has a characteristic mannerism or > nervous habit. Plays to win. Quickly loses interest in an activity. >cn>oo Does what persons ask him/her to do. Never gets excited about anything, even when you expected him/her to be pleased with something. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41 . 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 159 Does this apply at all? Makes friends quickly and easily. Seems sad and unhappy. Self-confident Tends to go too far unless re- minded of rules. Talks all the time. Often has to be reminded of what he/she can and can't do. Affectionate--enjoys being phy- Is it charac- teristic? A B A sically close to adults. Threatens to hit or hurt others. Is able to stand up for him/herself. Seems out of touch with what is going on around him/her--off in his/her own world. Is polite andcooperate. Has uncontrollable outburst of temper . Is easily embarrassed . Often breaks the rules in games. Is careful in explanation-precise. When told to do something he/she doesn't want to, he/she becomes angry. Is curious about things. Plays aimlessly, doesn't seem to make or accomplish anything. Prefers competitive games. Seems selfish, always wants his/ her own way. >W>W 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64w 160 Does this Apply at all? Showed appreciation when others helped or did things for him/her. Seldom laughts or smiles. Energetic Doesn't seem to care about how he/she looks--often sloppy. Asks sensible questions. Blows up very easily when bothered. Shows pleasure and involvement in most things he/she does. Fidgety and restless. Is competitive. Acts as if adults are against him/ her. Pitches in when things have to be done. Often seems angry for no particu- lar reasons, expresses it in many different ways. Quick and clever. Aggressive and Overpowering. Is it charac- teristic? Learns quickly. Bossy. Likes to do things well. Tires easily in activities. APPENDIX B THE CHILD-REARING CONCERNS AND PRACTICES QUESTIONNAIRE 161 THE CHILD-REARING CONCERNS AND PRACTICES QUESTIONNAIRE Since we don't know for sure what are the best ways to raise children, we are studying more about what parents and prospective parents do (or might do) in different situations involving children. In answering all of your questions, try to image that you are the parent of the 4 to 10 year-old child whose behavior is described in the item. We are interested in what you would actually feel or do in the situations described, not what you think a person should ideally feel or do. While different people give different responses to these questions, there are no "right" or "wrong" answers. Every person has his or her own individual way of responding to children. We ant to learn what your way is or would be in these situations. Your responses will be kept strictly confidential. No one but the researchers will ever see your answers. Read the directions carefully and do not skep any items. Your name: Your address: Your age: Your sex: Today's date: Please list the names, ages and sex of your children in the space below. Please put a checkmark in front of the name of the child who took part in our study. Your last grade completed in school: Your occupation: *For all CRCP items, the scale was transformed in the process of key punching by the IBM scanner at the MSU Scoring Office. The scale was altered to range from O to 4, instead of l to 5 as it appears on this questionnaire. All calculations and mands for CRCP data reported are based on the O to 4 scale. 162 Marital Status: Single Married Divorced Separated Widowed Remarried Part I Directions: Below is a list of items describing many aspects of childrenis fee1ings and behaviors. Of course, not all of these items apply to a particular child, but quite a few of them apply to most children. We are interested in how much parents and propsective parents focus their attention on various behaviors that children engage in. We want to know how much you would emphasize, place importance on, be concerned about, care about, focus on, or give your attention to each behavior described. We want to know how much it would matter to you if your child acted in certain ways. It makes no difference here whether you would encourage or dis- courage the behavior in question. We only want to know how much it would matter to you if your child engaged in the behavior, regardless of how you might show it. For example, while all parents may agree that a child should wear a hat in winter, some parents might focus their attention on this behavior more than other parents would. Read each item carefully and indicate the extent to which the behavior described would matter to you in raising your own child. Imagine you are the parent of a 4 to 10 year old child who is engaging in the described behavior. Then use the following scale to indicate how much the behavior would matter topyou--how much you would focus ygur attention on it: l = it would matter very little 2 = it would matter somewhat 3 = it would matter to a moderate degree 4 = it would matter guite a bit 5 = it would matter a great deal Read each item carefully, then darken the number that best indicates the extent to which you would focus your attention on the behavior in question--the extent to which it would matter to you. Do not skip any items. Use the purple answer sheet. 163 How much would it matter to you very moderate quite a great if your child: little somewhat extent a bit deal 1. Ignores what adults tell him/her to do? 1 2 3 4 5 2. Shares toys? 1 2 3 4 5 3. Gets irritated or angry easily? 1 2 3 4 5 4. Shows pride in an accomplishment? 1 2 3 4 5 5. Tells lies? 1 2 3 4 5 6. Shows concern about the feelings of others? 1 2 3 4 5 7. Fights with friends or with brothers and sisters? 1 2 3 4 5 8. Shows self-confidence? l 2 3 4 5 9. Has to be reminded of what he/she may or may not do? 1 2 3 4 5 10. Makes friends easily? 1 2 3 4 5 11. Plays with toys in a rough way? 1 2 3 4 5 12. Does well at a new task? 1 2 3 4 5 13/ Becomes angry when told to do something he/she doesn't I 2 3 4 5 want to do? 14. Is polite and cooperative 1 2 3 4 5 with others? 15. Does things just to get others angry? l 2 3 4 5 16. Plays to win? 1 2 3 4 5 l7. Goes too far unless fre- quently reminded of rules? 1 2 3 4 5 18. Pitches in when things need to be done? 1 2 3 4 5 19. Blows up easily when bothered by someone? 1 2 3 4 5 20. 21. 22. 23. 164 Accomplished what he/she set out to do? Cheats in school? Helps around house? Threatens to hit or hurt others? 165 Part II Directions: Four parent-child situations are described on the following pages. Below each description, there is a list of things that some parents (who were interviewed in the past) do in such situations. Read each description carefully, then check how often you honestly believe you would do each of the things on the list of parental responses. Use the following scale to indicate how often you feel you would do each thing (or something like it) if you were the parent of a 4 to 10 year old child at such times. 1. Never 2. Rarely 3. Sometimes 4. Frequently 5. Usually Imagine you are the child's parent at such times as those described. Then darken the appropriate number for how often you would do each thing on the list in these kinds of situations. Read the items carefully and please do not skip any items. Continue to use the purple answer sheet. *Note: The word "he" is to be read as "he or she". 166 SITUATION A Sometimes it's hard for parents to get children to do things for them. For example, imagine you have something that you want very much for your child to do right away, You walk to the room he's in and tell him what you want him to do, and ask him to do it right away. He says he's busy watching a television program and can't do the thing you want him to do now. Here is a list of things that some parents have done at times like that. Circle how often ygg_would od each one or something like it in such situations. l = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Frequently 5 = Usually 25. Hit or spank him. 26. Tell him he ought to be ashamed of himself. 27. Explain that if he would do it now, then I would have a chance to do some other things I need to do. 1 2 3 4 5 28. Tell him he's being selfish ' 2 3 4 5 29. Give reasons why the thing has to be done right away. 1 2 3 4 5 30. Tell his father (mother) and let him (her) handle it. 1 2 3 4 5 31. Go over and turn off the television. 1 2 3 4 5 32. Tell him he can finish the program as long as he does what I want as soon as it's over 1 2 3 4 5 33. Go and do it myself, but show him that I'm hurt and disappointed 1 2 in him. 34. Tell him I'm sorry he'll miss the program and explain why the thing must be done now. 1 2 3 4 5 167 35. Give him an angry look and walk away. 1 2 3 4 5 36. Tell him that if he doesn't do it now, he won't be able to have some- thing he likes or do something he likes to do. 1 2 3 4 5 37. Tell him I'm disappointed in him. 1 2 3 4 5 38. Do it myself and how him I don't like it by not talking to him for 1 2 3 4 5 awhile. 39. Tell him that we each have to help each other out and that I need for hime to do the thing right away. 1 2 3 4 5 40. Tell him I would like hime to be more considerable of my wishes. 1 2 3 4 5 41. Do nothing. 1 2 3 4 42. Tell him to do it now anyway. 1 2 3 4 43. Tell him he is just being stubborn and that he better stop it right now.1 2 3 4 5 44. Tell him he'll be sorry if he doesn't do it right away. 1 2 3 4 5 Situation 8 There are times when every child shows self-confidence and performs well at a new task in school. Here is a list of things some parents do when this happens. Please check how often you would do each thing or something like it in such situations. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Frequently 5 = Usually 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 168 Give him some extra spending money or something else he wants. Explain how good he must feel after trying hard and succeeding. Kiss him or hug him. Show him that he could still do even better. Promise him something he wants. Explain that he feels good beacuse he's working up to his potential. Do nothing. Show him how proud I am. Tell him to keep up the good work. Tell him that what he did makes me happy. Buy him something he wants. Tell him how much it means to us for him to do well. Remind him that he shouldn't get conceited or brag about his accomplishments. Explain to him that doing well will help him feel good about himself and get what he wants in life. Tell him I know how proud and happy he must be because he did so well. Show him that these things are just expected from him and that they are no big deal. Tell him he'll be rewarded for doing so well. Tell him what a talented person he is. 0000000) w b-b-h-b .b 169 63. Tell him that a job well done is rewarding for its own sake. 1 2 3 4 5 64. Make arrangements for him to do something he has wanted to do for a long time. 1 2 3 4 5 Situation C Every child when he can't have his own way will sometimes get angry at his parents and talk back. Here is a list of things some parents do when a child angrily talks back. Please circle how often you would do each thing or something like it in such situations. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Frequently 5 = Usually 65. Hit or spank him. 66. Tell him I don't like it when he talks back angrily and that he can discuss it more calmly. l 2 3 4 5 67. Tell him I can't like children who don't show respect for their 1 2 3 4 5 parents. 68. Tell him I'll hit or spank him if he ever talks like that again. 69. Explain that even though he's angry, I would prefer that he express his feeings in a regular tone of voice. 1 2 3 4 5 70. Tell him I don't want to talk to him or have anything to do with him unless he says he's sorry. 1 2 3 4 5 71. Not let him have something he likes or do something he likes to do. 1 2 3 4 5 170 72. Tell him that what he said hurts my feelings and that he can express his anger without saying nasty things to 1 2 3 4 5 me. 73. Give him an angry look and walk away. 1 2 3 4 5 74. Tell his father(mother) and let him (her) handle it. 1 2 3 4 75. Do nothing. ' 4 76. Tell him he is acting like a little baby and that he better stop it right now. 1 2 3 4 5 77. Tell him I'm angry at him for what he said and explain why he can't have his way. 1 2 3 4 5 78. Send him to his room until he's ready to talk about it. 1 2 3 4 5 79. Tell him he'll be sorry if he doesn't be quiet. 1 2 3 4 5 80. Tell him he ought to be ashamed of himself for talking like that. l 2 3 4 5 81. Give him reasons why he can't have his way. 1 2 3 4 5 82. Give him an angry look and ignore him for awhile. 1 2 3 4 5 83. Tell him I won't talk to him or have anthing to do with him if that's the way he's going to act. 1 2 3 4 5 84. Tell him I know he's angry and explain why he can't have his way. 1 2 3 4 5 Situation 0 There are times when every child shows a great deal of concern for the feelings of others, being kind or helpful and cooperative when it is needed. Here is a list of things some parents do when this happens. Please circle how often you would do each thing or something like it in such situations. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 171 = Never = Rarely = Sometimes = Frequently = Usually Let him do something special he wants to do. Not make anything of it even though I might feel good inside. Explain to him that doing good will make him feel good about himself in life. Tell him that I love kind and considerate people like him. Tell him what a helpful and good person he is. Reward him for doing the good deed. Ask why he isn't always so cooperative and considerate. Tell him that what he did makes me happy. Say it is good when you treat others as you would like to be treated. Explain how it makes him happy to do kind and helpful things. Show him that these things are just expected and are not big deal. Tell him I am very proud of the way he acted. Give him some extra spending money or something else he wants. Point out some other good things he ought to do but hasn't been doing. 172 99. Explain that being considerate to attendees a . 2 s 4 s 100. Tell him that doing something kind is very rewarding just in itself. 1 2 3 4 5 101. Promise him something he wants. 1 2 3 4 5 102. 12:1 him that "nice guys finish 1 2 3 4 5 103. Kiss him or hug him. 1 2 3 4 5 104. Buy him something he has wanted for a long time. 1 2 3 4 5 Before returning the questionnaire, please check to be sure that each item has been completed. Thanks for your participation. APPENDIX C THE SENSITIVITY TO CHILDREN QUESTIONNAIRE FORM PN (STC-PN) Name: use are 1 your chilc grapl expla exact movie comic say, 173 STC-PN Name: ' ' Age: Sex: Date: Instructions A series of stiuations will be found on the following pages. You are to pretend that these situations have just happened between you and your seven-year-old child. Your task is to write down exactly how you would respond to your child in each of the situations, in a word, sentence, or short para- graph. Write down your exact words and/or actions, but please do not explain ggy_you said or did what you described. Again, write down your exact war 5 or actions as if you were writing a script for a play or movie. For example: 00 not write, "I would assure him of our love and comfort him"; instead, write, "I would smile at him and in a quiet voice say, "Don't worry, Billy, Daddy/Mommy and I love you." 174 Your child comes running in the house yelling, "I won!" He/She bumps right into you and knocks over a glass of sode you had in your hand, the glass shattering on the floor and the soda spilling over your clothes.. You just brought your child a new outfit and she/he has worn it to school for the first time. You asked her/him to try to keep it clean so it can be worn when your family goes out to dinner to- night. When your child comes home, the jacket of the outfit is covered with mud. Your child says, "My friend was cold so I let him/her wear it and he/she got mud over it." 175 Your child brings home a bunch of flowers and says to you with a big smile, "Here. These are fo you." You recognize that the flowers were from your neighbor's garden. You know your neighbor prizes her flowers and would not pick them herself. You hear crying and go into the living room, where Michael, your three year old child is sobbing. Your seven year old child turns to you and says, "Michael was trying to knock down the plants so I hit him." 176 You have been saving some pieces of wood to make a special gift for a friend. Your daughter/son comes up to you and says, "Look what I just made!" You see that he/she has glued together and painted the wood you were saving. You walk into the bedroom and find your child putting your older son Steven's wallet down with a dollar bill in his/her hand. It is clear from your child's actions that he/she is taking the money without permission. Your child looks up and says, "I wanted to surprise you and buy you something nice for your birthday." APPENDIX D DEFINITIONS OF THE STC-PN SCORING CATEGORIES STC-PN SCORING SHEET 177 Scoring Categories Ordering, Directing, Commanding Telling the child to do something, giving him/her an order or a command. This does not include telling him/her "You may do..." or giving the child alternatives. Warning, Admonishing, Threatening Telling the child what consequences will occur if he/she does something. Exhorting, Moralizing, Preaching Telling the child what he should or ought to do. Advising, Recommending, Providing_Answers or Solutions Telling the child how to solve a problem, giving the child advice or suggestions, providing answers or solutions for the child. Persuading with Logic, Arguing, Instructing, Lecturing Trying to influence the child with facts, counterarguments, logic, information, or your own opinions. Evaluating/Judging Negatively, Disapproving, Blaming, Criticizing Making a negative judgment or evaluation of the child. Praising, JudgingyEvalating_Positively, Approving, Agreeing Offering a positive evaluation of the child (child's personality or character), agreeing. Name-Calling, Ridiculing, Shaming, Using Sarcasm, Making Light of Making the child feel foolish, putting the child into a category, shaming the child. I1 -lllll'.‘ Ill’l'I‘IUI-III: illlll '«IIIIIA,1' 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 178 Diagnosing, Psychoanalyzing, Interpreting, Reading-In, Offering Insights Telling the child what his/her motives are or analyzing why he/she is doing or saying something; communicating that you have the child figured out or have diagnosed the child. Supporting, Reassuring, Excusing, Sympathizing, Consoling Trying to make the child feel better, talking her out of her feelings, trying to make the child's feelings go away, denying the strength of the child's feelings. Questioning, Probing, Cross-Examining, Ppying, Interrogating Trying to find reasons, motives, causes; searching for more infor- mation to help you solve the problem. Withdrawing, Distracting, Avoiding, Ignoring, Bypassing Trying to get the child away from the problem; withdrawing from the problem yourself; distracting the child or pushing the problem aside. Unrestricted Compliance with the Child's Needs, Wishes, or Demands A statement that allows the child to satisfy his needs, wishes, or demands without any limits or behavioral restrictions on the expression of this need. Restriction of Privileges-Grounding Grounding or restriction of privileges as the method of discipline to resolve the issue. Physical punishment A statement that indicates the parent uses some form of physical punishment to solve the issue. Yelling_or Shoutingp- Irrespective of Content Inclusion of the manner in which the parent would respond by yelling, shouting, or scolding. \ l\\ (\3 2i 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 179 Punishment - Isolation A statement that indicates that the parent uses some type of iso- lation as discipline. Reflection of the Child's Feelings, Needs, or Wishes A clear and unambiguous statement that indicates awareness and understanding of the child's feelings, needs, or wishes. That is, reflecting what the child is feeling, needs, or seems to be wishing for, and how his/her actions derive from such thoughts and feelings. A Statement of Acceptance of the Validity of the Child's Feelings and Needs A statement of acceptance of the child's feelings, needs, and wishes as natural and valid human experiences, but not necessarily the child's actions which may be unacceptable to the adult. A Statement of the Adult's Own Feelings A clear statement which indicates how the adult feels and thinks. Relatingpof Child Feelings to Adult Feelings Relating of Child Feelings to Adult Behavior Relating_of Child Behavior to Adult Feelings Relating of Child Behavior to Adult Behavior Providing Alternate Routes of Expression for the Child's Feelings, Thoughts, and Wishes - in the Present A clear statement of how you want the child to express his/her feelings or thoughts in the present, right now. If possible, giving the child 2-3 alternatives to express these "inner ex- periences." ProvidingAAlternate Routes of Expression for the Child's Feelings, Thoughts, or Wishes - In the Future A clear statement indicating how you want the child to express his/her "inner experiences" or feelings in the future. 27 2i 3? 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 180 Attempt to Obtain More Information Regarding Child's Feelings A statement indicating that the adult wants to understand more about the child's feelings. The adult is ng;_trying to find reasons, motives, or causes, or searching for incormation to help solve the problem. Rather, the adult's response indicates an interest in knowing more about the child's experience. Attempt to Obtain More Information Regarding Child Behavior A statement indicating the the adult wants to understand more about what has occurred for the child. The adult is not trying to find reasons, motives, or causes, or searching for ififdrmation to help solve the problem. Rather, the adult's response indicates an interest in knowing more about the child's experience. Other-Oriented Discipline A statement with some reference to the implication of the child's behavior for another person by (a) directly pointing out or ex- plaining the nature of the consequences, (b) pointing out the relevant needs or desires of others, or (c) explaining the motives underlying the other person's behavior toward the child. Desirable and Helpful Praise A statement of praise which deals only with the child's efforts and accomplishments, ngg_with his/her character and personality. Words of praise should mirror for the child a realistic picture of her/his accomplishments. Statement of Mutual Reciprocity A statement that indicates the solution for the problem is based on mutual respect and cooperation of the parent and child. Restricted Compliance with the Child's Needs, Wishes, or Demands A statement from the parent that allows the child to satisfy her/ his needs, wishes or demands, with limits or behavioral restrictions. Indirect Statement of the Parent's Feelings An indirect statement by the adult which would indicate how she or he felt, but not including an "1" statement of how the adult felt. 34. 35. 36. 37. 181 Is there some recognition of or statement about that child's flpositive" intent, Feelings, or behavior? Does the parent make any type of comment about the child's "positive" behavior or feelings? Does the parent pay any atten- tion at all to this behavior? Is there some recognition of or statement about the child's nega- tive or less desirable behavior? Does the parent make any type of comment about the child's "nega- tive" behavior. Does the parent pay any attention at all to this behavior? Does the parent recognize the Vpgsitive" behavior or feeling first? Does the parent make some type of statement or comment about the child's "positive“ feeling or behavior before mentioning the "negative" behavior? Does the parent recognize the "negative" behavior or feeling first? Does the parent first make some kind of statement or comment about the negative behavior before saying anything about the positive behavior. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 182 Scoring Sheet Category Ordering, Directing, Commanding Warming, Admonishing, Threatening Exhortin, Moralizing, Preaching Advising, Recommending, Providing Solutions Persuading with Logic, Arguing, Lecturing Evaluating/Judging Negatively, Blaming Praising, Judging/Evaluating Positively Name-calling, Ridiculing, Shaming Diagnosing, Psycho-analyzing, Reading-in Supporting, Reassuring, Excusing Questioning, Probing Withdrawing, Distracting, Avoiding Unrestricted compliance with child's needs Restriction of privileges - grounding Physical punishment Punishment - isolation Yelling or shouting Statement of child's feelings Statement of acceptance of child's feelings Code Number Item 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 U'IU'IUT 0'1 03 mosaics 05 0303030503 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 183 Statement of adult's feelings Relating child's feelings to adult's feelings Relating child feelings to adult behavior Relating child behavior to adult feelings Relating child behavior to adult behavior Directions or alternatives regarding child's present feelings Directions or alternatives regarding child's future feelings Attempt to obtain more information of child's feelings Attempt to obtain more information of child behavior Other-oriented discipline Desirable and helpful praise Statement of mutual reciprocity Restricted compliance with child's needs Indirect statement of adult's feelings Recognition of child's "positive“ intent or feelings Recognition of child's "negative" behavior "Positive" intent or feeling re- cognized first “Negative" behavior recognized first APPENDIX E SCORING CATEGORIES FOR THE CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR DEFINITIONS OF THE CATEGORIES CIRCUMPLEX DIAGRAM DIVISION OF CATEGORIES INTO QUADRANTS INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODING SCORING SHEET 1. 3. 184 Coding Manual Dominance. Includes behaviors indicative of taking over, being in command, telling the other what to do and what not to do. Direct active control of the other's behavior. Information, etc., is of- ferred in an authoritarian manner. Actor behaves as if other cannot function for hin/her self. Forcibly changing the subject and "riding over" the other's offerings are good examples of such behavior. Example from adult: "The puzzle has to be done one piece at a time." "We'll do this proverb first, and then we'll go on to the others." A takes puzzle from C and begins to work on it; oblivious to C's attempts to proceed in his own way, A says, "Now. What's the next phrase mean?" Example from child: C corrects A; C changes the subject; C inter- rupts A and says she was going to say; "Let me see it." . Structure and Teach. Includes informing, instructing, giving opin- ions, advising, and asking questions, all performed from the dominant position and serving the function of structuring or teaching. Intel- lictualization belongs here, as do relating of events which occurred outside of session; giving information, clarifying, and explaining belong here as long as not directly related to giving a solution. Example from adult: "Here;s the first proverb, "; "I think this is the hardest one"; "Are you ready?" "I talked to your teacher, etc." "What did you do in school today?" Example from child: C tells a storu about what happened in Cub Scouts; "I think this is a harder one"; "Now, where do ygg_think this should go ?" "Do you know what time it is?" "Do you know what Jim said to me?" He 9. Includes offer help, direct help whether or not it is task- oriented, suggestions for a solution, taks-related information, clari- fication, or interpretation. Less dominant and more solution related 185 than Category 2 (Structure). More for benefit of other and helping sove problem. Example from adult: "Maybe this piece goes there;" A mpves a piece of the puzzle; A points to a piece of the puzzle and says, "That one goes over there" (she's offering, not dominating); "Would you like some help?" A supples a work which C is struggling for. Example from child: C atkes some information from A and then comes up with an interpretation; "This seems to be Yogi's hat;" C guesses at a proverb; A is confused about the puzzle, and C helps to clarigy. 4. Reassurance. Includes support, sympathy and pity. Differs from Love (Category 5) and Cooperation (Category 6) because of its smothering, protective quality. These behaviors lack the egalitarian quality of categories 5 and 6, but they do involve a more active, giving -- if somewhat patronizing -- approach than does Category 6. Example for adult: "That's too bad;" "Don't worry, you have plenty g: Eime;" "That's right;" "You don't have to di it if you don"t want Example for child: Very ratre. 5. Lgye, Includes behaviors relecting love and feeling nign_the other person. Intense affect. Real expressions of caring and affect are the behaviors in this category. Example from adult: "I think you're OK even if you don't finish that old puaale;" A puts her arm around C, squeexes C, smiles, etc.: "Boy, that was a hard one, wasn't it?“ Example from child; "Wow, you're good at theis." "Gee, thanks." A smiles or laughs and C loes the same. 6. Cooperation. Includes collaborating and agreeing with the other, or more rarely, confiding in the other. If a question is asked by other, a response that is both appropriate and not an attempt to dominate is scored in this category. Example from adult; C says, “Let's do this," and A replies, "OK;" C is relating a story and A"lubricated" his commentary by repeating his points etc. (such behavior would be Help if it went beyond cooperation by reflecting fellings, helping C express himself, or summarizing what 186 C said); A nods her head as C moves a piece of the puzzle. Example from child: A says, "May I see the pazzle?" and C yields it to her; C responds to a suggestion with, "Sure," "OK," "That's a good idea." . Dependency. Includes behaviors that encourage the other to take over, in a general way, to take charge. Expressions of a need for general help are scored here. Like Passive Questioning (Category 8), it in- cludes behaviors calculated to get others to take a dominant role, but this latter category (8) does so only through specific questions or requests. Example from adult: "Here, you do it." (A is asking C to take over); "Will you help me with this?" "Am I getting across to you?" (asks for reassurance); A obviously wants C to talk because she is uncomfort- able. Example from child: "So do you know shat Yogi would look like?" "I wonder what I should do"; "Is this right?" . Passive Questioning: Includes behaviors that appear to be attempts to get the other to become actively dominant through specific questions and/or requests. Example from adult: "What do you think is the best way to proceed?" "I wonder what this phrase means?" C is relating an account about school, and A asks relevant, "interested" questions. Example from child: (Admiration) -- Defined exactly as for adult. It is more typically child to parent type of questioning. . Submission. Includes behaviors that are submissive, deferent, and reminiscent of a child obeying hi57her parents. Differs from Category 10 (Helplessness) in that this does not represent withdrawal from a previously held position, and the affect expressed is more neutral. Example from adult: C hands puzzle to A with, "Here, you try it" and A takes the puzzle without comment; C says, "This piece goes here," and A says, "Uh huh" (she is not detached, and she seems more deferent 10. 11. 187 than cooperative.). Example from child: A takes over, works on puzzle, and C makes no response. A makes a point and C nods his head. Helplessness. Incluses behaviors that are indicative of feelings of helplessness, attempts to withdraw, backing down from a strongly held previous stand, giving up, degrading oneself. Such acts are more fearful and less restrictive than are those coded in Category 11 (Suspicion). Example from adult: "I'm no good at puzzles" (affect appears more helpless than resistive); "I just can"t seem to help you"; "Let's go on to the next proverb and come back to this one later" (flight out- weighs dominance or suggestion); A tries a few pieces to the puzzle C complains, and A returns to her chair; C puts up a fuss, and A doesn't respond. Example from child: "I can't do ti"; whimpering (not sulking); "I'm no goosd“; C gives up. SuSpicion. Includes expressions of distrust, skepticism, as well as accusations and demands made from a passive, subnissive position. This disbelief and distrust differ from active challenges -- which are coded in Category 14 (Punishment) -- and Complaints (Category 12), which are more negative and less fearful. Example from adult: A raises her eyebrows in response to something C saya; "I uess you can do fine without me" (she"s hurt); "What do you mean?" (she's looking for a hidden meaning); "What are you doing, are you trying to be smart?“ (tone is su3picious and not strongly challenging); "I don't know what ouy mean" (she is resisting but is also threatened). Example from child: Defined exactly as for the adult. It is likely to arise in examples such as; "I don't think this puzzle can be solved"; "I think he can hear us"; "You're suppoesed to watch me, aren't you?" The comments may rever to the investigator, but it is apparent that C perceives A as an ally with or sharing secret know- ledge with him. 12. Complaint. Includes behaviors that are more typical of children than 13. 14. 188 adults; passive and negative expressions of dislike that connote an element of helplessness. Attempts to control via passive resistance complainging, nagging, and sulking. Example from adult: "Why don't you (please) stop that noise?" "I told you that wouldn't work"; C requests help and A indicates, "I don't know how to do puzzles"; "If you're not going to listen, then do it your way"; "These proverbs sure ares stupid" (complaining about the task, but nevertheless saying something to C); On the basis of her previous behavior, some scorable silences may be infer- red to represent passive resistance. Example from child: "I don't want to do this“ (affect is complain- ing); teasing in a complaining tone; A asks a question to which he undoubtedly knows the answer, and he responds, "I don't know." Hate: Includes affect laden behaviors that communicate to child that he/she is unwanted, undesirable, and loathsome. Intensely hostile, disaffiliative behavior bia expressions of contempt and criticism. More a general attitude than a behavior control attempt -- which would be Punishment (Category 14). Example from adult: "That's no way to do it (stupid)'; “You're acting like a (disgusting) little child"; "Why don;t you stop pestering me"; "Can't you behave like a mature boy/girl?" "You had it there for a minute, and now you've gone and fouled it up." Example from child: (Rare for occurrenct of this category to be evident for child behavior.) C glares at A. Punjshment. Includes behaviors that primarily are angry, punishing, mocking, threatening, or challenging if such acts appear to be attempts to control or influence the other's behavior. Probably less intense and more purposice than are the behaviors coded in Category 13 (Hate). Example from adult: "You'd better stop that"; "What did you say!" A administers a spanking; A says with irritation, "What do you want?'" "Is that any way to behave?" 15. 16. 189 Example from child: “Are you crazy?" C loses temper, strikes A etc. A tells C to stOp doing something and he continues; "Wise" comments belong here. Competition. Includes behaviors that are primarily competetive, combative, or expressly oppositional in nature. Good examples involve disagreements with or rejections of other's expressions, or refusing requests. Less intense fhan Punishment (Category 14). Example from adult: "No, you do ti by yourself"; "I don't think that's true at all"; C moves a piece of the puzzle and A makes a point of negating the move. Example from child: "No, I don't want to do that"/; "That's not true"; "That's not right." Active resistance. Includes behaviors that not only are dominant, but also are "distancing“ regarding the other. These indicate active resisatance without clear rejection of the other as a person. Self— stimulating communications to the other; person behaves towards other in a way that suggests that his/her needs rather than other's needs are the important issue. Example from adult: A advises C in a boastful manner; A's behavior is condescending, though not clearly critical or mocking; "Yes, it is a difficult puzzle, but_I know you can do just fine"; A tunes out C's request or comment and responds in an irrelecant manner. Example from child: C boasts ; C interrupts or rides over M's 190 statement and either makes his/her point prevail (without combat) or makes adult's point his/her own. “I'm going to do the puzzle by myself." 191 Figure l. Child Behavior Aeeertive B A ~ctively' Do Resist minate Sectional, C InEorruot e e Hi h P _ xebeilioue Be seli- guthorit Sociable centered hangs . —_T'ST Be self- subject ":c:§3.i' ' etin- Correct ° uletiog; Direct ntsroni: 8““. 3' ru Order Belt 0 énr— e Boast - --- e ence Reject Suggest Be angry work with Be a reesive Hake s queee Defiiznt. e9 teaser uteruret Loving Hoeti e Throw - . ate at see a sa tiliete tent§::.n‘ Suppogg 3 Attack "0° Criticize Glare Be rriteble. 3e cruel __. Coo lain 'Love (’sssIve resistance) Express admiration, Obetmct. Foul up precistlou M Be difficult e atteccionet Sulk. Uhin. q t B C Identiiy ease cusggc e as crate with Dietruet ielp- CoIEasorete Indirectéy .less ne‘end Contide is seen 'ondean s: or Accuse -elt Pss- help Coo€:::- G itbdrev sively Ask for Back down Submit aueetio~ reassurhnc Suspicious Give in e or s; as - attectiou Responsible Apologize Obey an author Express e Be afraid Comply it! need Whisper Inquire H Hhrry is? o withdrawn Cale. Compliant I J Submissive Note: Becker's Circumplex Model for Descriptive adjectives outside of the circle adopted from Boys' Behavior (1962). (from Rowland, l968) 192 Division of Children's Scoring Category 1. Domiant (Dominate) 2. Structure 3. Help 4. Reassure 5. Love 6. Cooperate 7. Depend 8. Passively Question 9. Submit 10. Be Helpless 11. Suspect 12. Complain 13. Hate 14. Punish 15. Compete 16. Actively Resist Categories into Quadrants Quadrant Affiliation - Dominance Affiliation - Submissiveness Disaffiliation - Submissiveness Disaffiliation - Dominance 9. 10. Be Helpless: 193 Coding of Tapes (I) Code by acts or every 30 seconds of a continuous behavior Code each segment on a separate sheet (I) Free Play -- from time E_leaves room to §_returns (II) Etch—a-Sketch -- from time E begins to read instructions to Efs return—- (III) Proverbs -— from time §_begins to read instructions to Efs return Code both Adult's and Child's behaviors into following categories: ADULT Dominate: Command; Direct; Control; Take over; Be authoritarian Structure: Teach; Give opinion; Relate actively; Question; Advise; Inform; Explain; Clarify Help: Suggest; Offer help; Interpret; Inform, etc. to help (not to teach) Reassure: Support; Protect; Sympathize Love: Identify with; Empathize with; Praise; Show affection Coo erate: Collaborate; Agree; Participate with; Accept; Confide Depend: Ask help; Express need Passively Question: Ask for “information; Inquire; Admit other's expertise Submit: Defer; Comply; Obey Give up; Buck CHILD State with authority; Change subject; Correct; Order direct- ly Be sociable; Actively Question; Give opinion; Relate; Inform Suggest; Work with; Make a guess; Interpret, etc. to help Support; Say nice things Express admiration; Appreciate; Be affectionate; Identify with Collaborate; Confide in; Agree with; Accept Ask for help;reassurance, affec- tion; Express need; Ask for directions Ask for information; Inquire; Admit other's wxpertise Obey; Defer; Comply Condemn self; Withdraw; Back 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Punish: 194 ADULT down; Apologize; Condemn self; Show anxiety, etc. Suspect: Distrust; Accuse; Be skeptical; Question motives Com lain: Resist passively; Sulk; Nafg; Tease Hate: Dissaffiliate; Criticize; Show contempt; disgust Threaten; Challenge; Mock; Get angry Com ete: Oppose directly; Disagree; Withhold; ngate; Reject; Refuse Activelngesist: Be self contained; Narcissistic; Tune out; Ignore; Interrupt CHILD down; Give up; Apologize; Show fear, anxiety, etc. Distrust; Accuse; Question motives Resist passively; Obstruct; Be difficult; Sulk; Tease; Whine Disaffiliate; Attack; Criticizw; Glare; Beguile; Show active dis- like Challenge; Be angry; Be aggres- sive; Lose temper; Throw tantrum; Mock Disagree; Combat; Argue; Negate; Oppose; Refuse; Reject Interrupt; Be self—centered; Be rude; Show self-interest Code Number Adult's first name Child's first name 195 Date Coder's name Segment: Free Play; Etch-a-Sketch; Proverbs CATEGORY ADULT TOTAL CHILD TOTAL 1. Dominate 2. Structure 3. Help 4. Reassure 5. Love 6. Cooperate 7. Depend 8. Passively quesrion 9. Submit 10. Be helpless 11. Suspect 12. Complain 13. Hate 14. Punish 15. Compete 16. Actively resist APPENDIX F EXPERIMENTER-TAPER RATING SHEET 196 Undergraduate Effectiveness Rating Form Your name Your job (circle one): taper experimenter Day Date Session time First names: Undergraduate Child Undergraduate's code nember I. How effective do you feel the undergraduate was in communicating with the child? (check one) slightly effective slightly ineffective moderately effective moderately ineffective extremely effective extremely ineffective 2. How much do you think the undergraduate was concerned about the child's feelings? (check one) slightly concerned slightly cunconcerned moderately concerned moderately unconcerned extremely concerned extremely unconcerned 3. Given the framework of the taskes, how involved with the child did the undergraduate appear to be? (check one) slightly involved slightly uninvolved moderately involved moderately uninvolved extremely involved extremely unimvolved 4. In your opinion, how much did the undergraduate treat the child as a person? (check one) not at all slightly somewhat very much 197 Undergraduate Effectiveness Rating Form (2) 5. In your opinion, the ppllg_was (check one in each case): (a):§_good; __4_OK _2__below average; _l__bad (b)_§_ very well adjusted; _fi;_OK; _2__below average; _l_poorly adjusted (c) 5 very self-confident; _4;_OK; _2__below average; 1 lacked self-confidence (d) _§__mature; _4__OK; _g__below avwrage; _l__immature (e)_§__sociable; 4 20K; .51. below average; shy (f) __ _2_ .1. competent; _4__0K; _2__below average; _l__invompetent *Scoring Key APPENDIX G INTER-RATER RELIABILITIES FOR SCORING CATEGORIES OF THE STC-PN 198 Table 3 Inter-Rater Reliabilities for Scoring Categories of the STC-PN Rater Pairs Mean Category Category I II III IV V Reliability l .62 .63a .84 .84 .87 .76 2 l.OO .00 .55a .47a .80 .76 3 .82 .70a .74 .64 .80 .74 4 .69 .98 .64 .73 .60 .73 5 .79 .6lb .58 .5l .59 .62 6 **a **a .60b .80 .54 .65 7 .77 .64a .59b .78 .34 .62 8 .90 **a .68 .86 .80 .8l 9 **a .55a .63 .69 .57 .6l l0 .56a .00 .85 .90 .75 .8l ll .86 .9l .89 .89 .92 .89 l2 **a - .66 - **a .66 l3 - - **a **a .70 .70 l4 - - .OO - .OO .00 l5 l.00 - .96 .00 .00 .99 16 - .OO .86 .70 .OO .89 17 .49 **a .80 .44 .86 .65 l8 1.00 **a .96 .00 .94 .98 l9 **a **a .88 .56 .80 .75 20 .75 .98 .82 .88 .45 .78 2l .lO **a .69 .57 .79 .54 199 Table 3 (Con't.) Rater Pairs Mean Category Category I II III _ly V Reliability 22 **a _ **a _ _ _ 23 - 1.00 .88 .40 .64 .73 24 _ _ **a _ **a _ 25 .29a .45a .50 .35 .78 .47 26 .89 .63a .82 .71 .66 .74 27 **a - .66 .86 .70 .74 28 1.00 .63a .85 .74 .91 .83 29 .82 .87 .84 .68 .76 .79 30 .88 .97 .76 .84 .85 .86 3l - - **a - - - 32 - - .46 **a - .46 33 .83 - .97 .96 .83 .87 34 .91 .92 .81 .99 .95 .92 35 .38a 1.00 .80 .45a .87 .70 36 .89 .98 .95 .88 .94 .93 37 .94 .98 .97 .89 .93 .94 "ea? . . figl'ggl;;ty .76 .88 .77 .73 .78 .78 Pair **Reliability not calculable. One rater scored no occurrences of this category. a=No significant difference between raters' scores.T value resulting from t-test was nonsignificant. b=Significant difference between raters' scores. T value resulting from t- test was significant at the .05 level. APPENDIX H AVERAGE INTER—RATER RELIABILITIES ACROSS CODER PAIRS AND PERCENT OF OCCURRENCE OF THE SIXTEEN CATEGORIES OF CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR 200 TABLE 4 Average Inter-Rater Reliabilities Across Coder Pairs and Percent of Occurence of Sixteen Children's Behavior Categories Average Reliability Percent of Category Across Coder Pairs Total Behavior 1. Dominate .57 6.86% 2. Structure .43 55.12% 3. Help .32 3.46% 4. Reassure .58 3.85% 5. Love .43 .63% 6. C00perate .34 12.77% 7. Depend .38 .70% 8. Passively Question .61 7.45% 9. Submit .51 2.64% 10. Be Helpless .43 3.78% 11. Suspect .29 .46% 12. Complain .39 1.94% 13. Hate .93 .08% 14. Punish .62 .34% 15. Complete .46 1.39% 16. Actively Resist .43 1.24% From Messe’ and Stollak APPENDIX I MEAN CATEGORY USAGE AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR STC-PN SCORING CATEGORIES 201 Table 7 Mean Category Usage and Standard Deviations for the STC-PN Scoring Categories Rank Category Mean Standard Deviation 1 37-Negative behavior recognized first 3.69 1.47 2 1-Ordering, directing, commanding 1.88 1.19 3 3-Exhorting, moralizing, preaching 1.84 1.14 4 30-Desirable and helpful praise 1.76 1.26 5 5-Persuading with logic 1.72 1.07 6 4-Advising, providing solutions 1.57 1.15 7 ll-Questioning, probing 1.14 1.13 8 26-Directions for future feelings 1.05 1.43 9 20-Statement of adult's feelings 1.00 1.12 10 23-Relating child behavior to adult feelings 1.24 1.42 11 28-0btain information of child behavior 0.58 0.56 12 33-Indirect statement of adult's feelings 0.56 1.00 13 7-Priasing, judging positively 0.38 0.56 14 29-Ohter-oriented discipline 0.37 0.54 15 l7-Ye11ing or shouting 0.33 0.60 16 25-Directions for present feelings 0.26 0.40 17 9-Diagnosing, reading in 0.25 0.47 18 10-Supporting, reassuring, excusing 0.19 0.44 19 lB-Statement of Child's feelings 0.18 0.66 20 21-Relating cild's feelings to adult's feelings 0.15 0.41 202 Table 7 (Con't.) Rank Category Mean Standard Deviation 21 8-Name-calling, ridiculing, shaming 0.14 0.40 22 lS-Physical punishment 0.13 0.50 23 19-Statement of acceptance of child's feelings 0.12 0.37 24 27-Obtain information of child's feelings 0.10 0.37 25 6-Eva1uating, judging negatively 0.09 0.26 26 12-Withdrawing, distracting, avoiding 0.08 0.36 27 Z-Warning, admonishing, threatening 0.08 0.33 28 32-Restricted compliance 0.07 0.24 29 l3-Unrestricted compliance 0.05 0.22 30 lG-Punishment-isolation 0.05 0.22 31 14-Restriction of privileges-grounding 0.03 0.17 32 24-Relating child behavior to adult behavior 0.01 0.07 33 22-Re1ating child feelings to adult behavior 0.01 0.06 34 31-Statement of mutual reciprocity 0.01 0.06 APPENDIX J SUMMARY OF MANOVA RESULTS FOR PERCEPTUAL VARIABLES 203 Table 9 Summary of Significant Univariate Comparisons for the Perceptual Variables not Qualified by Higher-Order Interactions for MANOVAS on Spouse Data (Multivariate p (.07) Dependent Variable Source F p_ Apply Difference Sex of Child 5.62 .02 Characteristic Sex of Child 2.77 .10 204 Table 10 Spouse Means for "Apply Difference" and "Characteristic Difference" (Multivariate p (.07) Spouse Sums ‘ Perceptual Variables Apply Characteristic Difference Difference Parents of boys (N=24) 25.21 21.62 Parents of girls (N-33) 32.45 27.03 p<.02 p<.1O APPENDIX K SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT UNIVARIATE RESULTS FOR MANOVAS OF CRCP II VARIABLES 205 Table 11 Summary of Significant CRCP II Univariate Comparisons Not Qualified by Higher-Order Interactions for MANOVAS on Spouse Data Dependent Variable Source Fa .E CRCP Factor V-"Give Extrinsic Reward for Desirable Behavior" Family Role 7.38 .009 CRCP Factor IX-"Expression of Adult Approval of Child's Behavior" Family Role 5.30 .025 CRCP Factor X-"Expression of Physical Affection" Family Role 8.32 .006 CRCP Factor XV—"Use of Explanation for Control of Child's Aggressive- Defiant Behavior" Family Role 7.31 .009 CRCP Factor XVI-"Criticize- Threaten" Family Role 4.26 .04 agifor the comparisons were always 1/50 APPENDIX L CORRELATIONAL MATRICES OF PARENTAL AND CHILDREN”S VARIABLES FOR SPOUSE SUBGROUPS 206 Key to Parental and Child Variables Variable Number Variable Name 1 Concern with Child's Authority Defiant and Anti- social Behavior 2 Concern with Child's Prosocial-Mastery Behavior 3 Concern with Child's Sense of Responsibility 4 Concern with Child's Aggressive-Defiant Behavior 5 Give Extrinsic Reward for Desirable Behavior 6 Draw Attention in Intrinsic Reward of Desirable Behavior 7 Use of Physical Punishment 8 Non-Verbal and Implicit Disapproval (Love-Withdrawal) 9 Expression of Adult Approval of Child's Behavior 10 Expression of Physical Affection 11 Abdicate Responsibility for Discipline to Spouse 12 Negative Evaluation and Disapproval of Child's Self 13 Ignoral of Child's Competent and Defiant Behavior 14 Dismissal of Child's Prosocial-Mastery Behavior 15 ‘ Use of Explanation for Control of Child's Aggressive- Defiant Behavior 16 Criticize-Threaten 17 Apply Difference 18 Characteristic Difference 19 Offer Advice, Directions, Ways for Expression 20 Threaten-Express Hostility 21 Reflection of Child's Inner Experience 22 Relate Child Feelings and Behavior to Adult Feelings 23 Judging and Interpreting the Child's Behavior Variable Number 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 207 Variable Name Desirable and Helpful Praise-Focus on Positive Aspects of Behavior Dominance Structure-Teach Help Reassurance Love Cooperation Dependency Passive Questioning Submission Helplessness Suspicion Complaint Hate Punishment Competition Active Resistance Affiliation-Dominance Affiliation-Submission Disaffiliation-Submission Disaffiliation-Dominance Dominance Submissiveness Disaffiliation Affiliation 208 Variable Number Variable Name 49 Good Kid 50 Adjustment 51 Confidence 52 Maturity 53 Sociability 54 Competence 209 c..- .c. «c.- Na. .c. .c. - n~.- c.. ... «c.- c~.- .- c..- cw cc. c.. c.. c.. .c.- .c.- ... .. cc. cc.- .c. N”. ~c.- cc. m~ c..- c..- «c.- c.. cc. ..n.- c..- ..n.- ...- cc.- cc. c..- ... c.. - cc.- ~c.- n~.- .- .~. .c. c..- .- .- cu. -.- ~.. cu. Nc. .~ ... c~.- cu. .c.- cw.- m~.- cc. c.. .~. n..- ~c.- cc.- c..- c.. c~ -.- .c.- .- cc.- cc. c.. .c~.- .cn.- c..- c~.- ... .c. .c.- cc. c. c~. c.. c..- c.. ”c.- .c.- .c.- c..- .c. ... c..- ....c.. c.. c.. c. .c. .....- c..- .- c.. c..- m..- .- c..- c..- .c. ...- c..- ...cc. .. c.. cN. .n. ... .- c.. NN. «cm. c~. ....cc. c~.- cc.- c~. .cn. c. «c. N..- c.. mmw- can m~. .- «cc.- am. lwmnu, ~c. c.. c.. cc. c. c~. cc. cc. .cn.- ...- .cc. c.. c.. cm. .c. c.. .- c.. c. .c. -. c..- .- c.. c.. ... ...cc. ...cc.- c~. cc. ...... n. c.. mm A: .- c~. c~. .c. c~. .c. c.. c.. c.. c. cc. cc. c.. c.. cc. cn. cc. c..- c.. cc. .. ..cc. .....- .c. .c. c.. .~.- ...- .~. cc. c. (11.41. .cn.- .c. cc. cc. cc.- c.. cc. cc. c r .c. .c. cc. .- c~. c..- ... c cN. .cc. c~.- cc.- c.. c.. . ...c. .c.- c.. c.. cc. c .c.- ... ...cc. .c.. c c.. ~c.- ...nc. c c.. cc. n . - -- cc. ~ c. n. c. .. c. c c . c c c n c . 3?... «23 .c 3058. .8. 333...» .3553 cc «52.—accents... < z 0;: 210 3.... ea. 2.. 3. :1. my..- ...- 3. on. 3.: NN. 3. can. .vnf No.1 2.. . .1 2. c.. _N. 3.- a... 2. 2.- 3.- we. on..- no. Ln. 3... 3.- as. aw. c~.- :. Z. 3.- MN. 2. .3.- v~. .211 No. .cnf K a m - 3 an. 2 a. 2 a. n. ......3. < z c..... iflll .c.. c.c.. c.. cc.- c..- cc. .c. cc. .c.- c.. .c. c..- c..- c..- c..- c..- cc. cc ... ‘3... s. ...- Sc..- H.W.... 1.3.- - c..», .....- --c..- -....u .....- c..-.c. -.c- ..., - ... cc. - c..- cc.- cc. cc.- cc. c.. cc.- cc.- cc. cc.- c..- cc.- .cc. cc. cc .c. cc.- 1c..- ...- - cc.- -.cc. (limcc-- --wcc -. -.mH-3- cc.- .c. cc.- c.. cc. c..- .c ...c.. ....cc. c..- -.cc. c.. cc. c.. cc.- cc.- cc. cc. cc.- ...cc.- ... cc. cc 1,-cc.- c..- .c.- c.. cc.- c.“ . cc.- ~c.- T-.c.- c..- .c.cc.- c..- cc. cc. cc.- c. cc.- cc.- cc. cc. cc. cc. .c.- c.. c.. .c.- c..- .- cc. cc. cc. c. cc.- c.. .c.- c.. cc.- ccw ccH : 1M.. -. “cm“ [cu-1.11cm. ..am... -c.. - .- c..- c. .c. cc. cc.- c..- c.. cc. .c.- cc.- c..- .c. c-. c..-- -.mc.- cc.- cc.- c. c..- cc.- .cc.- ...cwu-. cc.- --mc. cc. c.. cc.- cc. .c.- .c.- c.. cc. .c.- c. cc. cc. cc. ccc ....cc. c.. cc. cc. cc. cc.- cc. ...- cc.- cc.- cc. c. cc.- .- cc. cc.- .c. - .cc.i- -mmcm.- - wc. cc. -mc..- cc.-- -.mm.-. c.. -«c. cc.- c. cc. cc. ...- c..- c.. ...cc. .cc. c..- ... cc.- c.. cc. cc.- cc.- .c. c. ---m.. .c. c.. cc. ..c. cc. .c. cc. ..c.. .c. .c.- cc.- cc. cc. c..- .. cc.- .cc.- cc. cc. .cc.- c.. c..- .c. cc. c.. .c.. c..- c.. cc. c..- c. -. mc.;, ----cp.w- c.. .- cc.- cc. .c.- c.. .c. c..- .....- .c.. c.. c..- c..- c ... .... cc.- 3. :2. 2. cc. cc. 2. cc.- 3. cc.- c..- cc.- cc.- c c.. c.. cc.. cc.- .c. cc. c..- cc. cc. .c.- cc. c.. .c.- cc.- .c. c . - .ca. ..ccc. .. cc. cc. ccM cc. .c.- .c. cc. c.. cc. c.. .cc.- .c.. c.. c. cc. c..- c..- c..- cc. cc. cc.- c.. c.. cc. cc.- cc.- cc.- ...- cc.- c cc. cc. c.. cc. cc. cc. cc. cc. cc. c..- cc. cc. c..- .c.- .c. c .c.- cc.- c.. c..- cc. c.. cc. c..- cc. cc.- cc.- c.. .c. cc. .c. c ...- ...- ... cc.- c.. cc. cc. c..- cc. cc. cc.- c.. ccw c..- . c..- c in cw ct- 2. c1 an- m. 1dfiiimfi- -&H-13: 3. c9 8. cc . cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc .c cc cc cc .c cc cc :75 :55 cc 9353. .3. 3325; .3575. 9.3 .3320.- c.§.._.:.8 3 28:23.89 212 .c. cc. cc. cc. cc. cc. c..- c.. cc. cc.- cc. ..c. cc.- ...- cc. cm c..- .c. c..- cc. .c. cc.- c..- cc. c.. c.. cc. .c. cc.- c.. cc. cc .c. cc. ... cc. cc. cc.- cc. cc.- .c. cc. ...- cc. cc.- .c. .c. cc c.. cc. cc.- c.. cc.» .c. cc. ...- .c. cc. cc. .c.- c.. cc.- cc.- .c c..- cc. cc.- cc. .c. cc.- cc. .cc. c.. cc. ..cc. cc. cc. cc. cc. .cc c.. c.. c.. c.. cc. c..- ...- c..- cc. .c.- cc.- c..- cc.- cc.- cc. c. cc.- c.. cc.- cc. cc.- ...- c.. .m. cc. .c. c.. cc. cc. cc. ... c. c..- c.. cc.- cc.- .- cc. c.. cc. cc. cc.- cc.- c.. cc. .c. cc.- c. c..- cc. 1c..- .c:. ccc- cc. cc.- ...- -cc. .c.- c..- cc.- c..- cc.- cc.- c. .c.- .ccc w..- c..- cc.- c..- cc.- cc.- cc. ...- cc.- c..- cc. c..- cc.- c. cc.- .c. cc. c.. ... c.. ... ..cc. .cc. c.. cc. ...cc. ... .c.- cc. c. .ccu cc. ,mc. cc”- c.. cc. cc.- cc. .c. cc.- cc.- cc. cc. cc.- cc.- c. .cc.- cc. cc.- .cc.- cc.- cc.- cc.- cc. cc. .- cc. cc. .c. ...- c.. c. cc. c.. . c..- c.. cc. c..- c.. cc. .mcn c..- c.. cc. cc. .c. cc. — .. cc. cc. c.. c.. .c.- cc. cc. cc.- cc. .c.- cc.- cc.- .c. .c.- c..- c. .c. cc. cc.- cc.- .c.- cc.- c..- cc.- cc. cc.- cc. ...- c..- c..- cc. c. .c.. cc. c.. cc.- c.. c.. cc.- cc. c.. cc.- cc. cc. cc. c..- c.. c c.. c.. .c.- cc. cc. c.. c.. cc.- c.. .c. cc.- cc. cc. ... cc.- — c. c.. cc. cc. ... cc. .c. cc. cc. cc. cc.- cc. .cc. c.. c..- cc.- c cc..- cc. c..- .c.- cc.- cc. c..- cc. - c.. cc.- ...- c.. cc. .cc.- cc.- c .c.. cc. cc. cc.- cc. cc. cc. cc. c.. c.. c.. .c. .c.- c.. .c. c cc.- cc. cc.- cc.- cc. cc.- .c. c.. cc. c.. cc. c.. .... c.. .c.- c cc. c.. cc. c.. cc.- c.. cc. cc.- cc. cc.- .c.- .c. cc. cc. cc.- c cc.- cc. c..- cc.- c..- cc.- cc. ..c. c.. c.. c.. c.. cc. c.. cc. . .Huuuunuuuuuuunuuuuu-, - cc cc cc .c cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc .c cc — c.....S... a: c..... 213 ...- ...- c.. c.. .cc. cc. ... c..- cc. cc. c..- .c. .c. cc.- cc c.. c.. .c.- cc. c.. .c. cc. c.. cc. .c.- c.. c..- c... cc. cc c.. cc. cc.- c.. cc. c..- c.. .cc.- cc. cc.c, c.. c.. cc. cc.- cc c.. cc. .c. cc.- cc. c..- cc.- .i-c..- ... c.. mc.-- cc.- cc. .- cc.- .c cc.- c.c- - c..- cc.- cc.- cc.- .- - ... ..c. T-ccc mc.- c..- cc.- cc. cc .-.c.- cc.- c..- cc.- c..- .c. c..- cc. cc. ...cc.- .cc. .c. .c. ..c. c. cc. c..- ...- cc. cc.- .c.- ccw- ...- cc. . cc.- -.cc.-, ... cc.- cc.- c. cc. .cc.- cc.- .c.- c..- cc. cc. cc. cc. .c.- cc. cc. cc.- cc.- c. .c. cc. cc. .cc. cc. cc. c.. cc. cc. ...cc. c.. cc. cc.- c.. c. c..- c.. ....cc. cc. cc. ...cc. cc. cc.- cc. cc. cc.- cc. cc. cc.- c. cc. .c. cc. . cc. cc.- ..c. cc. ... cc. .c.- cc.- c..- c..- c. cc. ...cc. c..- .cc.- ...cc. ..c.- .c. cc. cc.- cc.- cc. c..- c. z. «N. .n. 2. OF. 23:. chcme co. Np. cw. 3. N- c.. c..- ...cc. .- .cc. cc. cc. cc.- cc.c cc. .. - - ccw- cc. - cc. -cc. cc» cc. cc. .cc_- cc. c. .- c..- cc. cc. ... ..c. cc. cc. c c..- cc. c.. cc.- cc. c.. .c.- c cc. .c. cc.- c.. c.. ...- c - - - - - - -.cMM cc”- c.. ..c. .c.- c -- - cc.- c..- cc. cc.- c -- - cc. cc.- .....c. c ..cc. c.. c .c.- c c. c. c. .. c. c c c c c c c c . 37.: 2...; co cafe... ..8 c033...» .353... cc csccccccccccoci < .c.- 03..— .. x3833 21L4 .36. V ....c. .=.v..... 84.... 3.2.. 2.. 2. . Na. 2.ch 2. 2... 3. Na. 2.. cm 2... 3.: ~.. NN. mm. 2. I. o..- «N c..- c..- c:. c..- a:.. c..- cc. cc cc. .c.- c..- cc.- c..- cc.- _c 2. 2.- 2..- 5.- 1:... an cc.- cc. c..- cc.- c. ....cc. cc.- c..- c. c.. cc.- c. c.. c. c: I ...— ~— . .— c. c c m c c v n ~ 2.. - _N am a. a. 2 .... m— ..353 < c. c.....— 215 cc. ~c.u cc. cc. aw. pc.- cp. cc. cc. vc. om. pn.- Np.n ~p. ow cp. .p. cm. cp. Np. pm. pp. cc. ~c.- cc. n~.- cp.: cc. nc. mm cp.- ~—. No. nc.a vp. up. no. pc.- pu. c~.n nn.- cp.- cu. ~c. cm mp. cc. cc. cc. cn. 9p. cu. .a pp. np.n cp. cp. nc. mc. pN cc.- cp. on. .u pc. cm. Nw. .- vp. cc.u «p.u an. mc.u mn.- cm can. cw. v~. Nn. NN. cu. mc. pm. cp.- cp.- np. cw. pp.u cw. @— cc. cp. «c. Nc. mc. nc.u cc. ~c.- up. an. vc. cc. up. ~p. cp pp. pc.- cc. cp.- nc. .: cp. cp. ~c.- pw. ~p. pc. cp.- .c.- cp cc. cc. cp. cp. cp. .u can. up. pc. .- 9c. «c. sc.- v~.u cp cp.- vp. cm. sc.u cu. pn.a «on. ~c.- cp.- cc. ~c. cp.: cc. cw. mp cp. ~p.n cc. p~. MN. «c.- cc. c~.u cp.: «c. .c.- p~.u mc.- ~c. vp .c.- c~.u Nc. cc. mp. -.u cc. c~.u «c.- nc.- vN.n m~.- vc. cc. np cc. -. cp. cc. «n. cc.c..- cc. n~.n cp.- pw. cc.- cm.- sp.u pc.: ~— cc. pc.- aw. mc. vc. cp.: cu. cp.- «c. vN. c~.- ccn.u on. ma. pp «p. cm. pn. cp. cc. cm. .pv. mN. -. cw. mp. nc. cp. cc. cp cc.- cw. aw. mp. mN. cc. c~. ~n. .c.- cc. cp. .- ~c.» mc. o cp. cc. ~c. um. cp. .o .c. vp.- n~.a cc.- c~.u v~.u cc. cc. c cm. ~c. cp. mp. cw. cc.s mc. pp. np. an. cp. mc. pp.n «c. c «N. pc. cw. cc. cc. acn.u mp. mc.n cp.: cw. cc. p~.n cc. can. c cp.- oc.- mc. ~c.- «a. «on.o cc. ~c. cc. vp. pc. nc. n~.- nn.- m mp. acne. cc.c. MN. pc. can. nu. cw. cc. pc. mu. cp. cp.: mc. c cp. cu. pN. p~. ~p. np. Np. csn. c~.u .. cw. vp. c~.u cp. n cp. cp. an. Np. mc. cc. can. op. -.u .- cc. up. mc. cp. ~ .n am. pm. cc. cp. on. cum. cu. np.u ~c. Nu. -. n~.- mc.- p cm ~n on on vn mm mm pn cm cu cw su on cw pan-xv cpg.c so cgogcac so. copacccc> paccucam t:- socccgau c.=oscpczu co ceoccapoccoc cap opaap 216 _cc.vc.... _c.v c... ccc.v c.. cc. v c. c.. .c. c.. cc. cc. cc. c.. cc. cc. .c. cc.- cc. c.. cc. cc.- cc.- .- c..- cc.- cc. cc.- cp. cc. cc. ccc cc. c.. cc. c.. c..- cc. .c. cc. c.. cc.- cc. ... cc.- cc. ...- cc.- c..- c..- cc.- cc.- c..- c..- cc.- cc.- cc.- c..- c..- c..- .c.. cc. cc. .c.- cc. c.. cc. c..- cc. c.. c.. cc. ...- c..- c..- ...- c.. c.. cc.- ...- cc.- cc. cc.- c..- c..- c..- .c. .c. .cc. cc. cc. cc. .- cc. .cc. cc. ..cc. ..cc. .c. cc.- .c. c.. cc. cc. cc. c.. cc. cc. cc. c.. cc.- cc. cc. cc.- cc.- c.. c.. cc.- cc.- cc. cc. c.. .c.- cc. .cc. cc. c..- _c. .- cc.- c..- ... cc.- cc.- cc.- c.. c..- cc. cc. cc. cc. ... c.. cc. cc.- cc. cc. cc. c..- cc.- cc. c..- c.. .c.- cc. c..- cc.- c.. c.. c.. cc. cc. c.. c.. cc. c.. cc.- cc. cc. cc. c.. cc. c.. c.. c.. .- cc. c.. _c. c..- ...- cc. cc. cc.- cc.- cc.- c..- cc.- cc.- cc. c.. c..- cc. c.. cc. c..- c..- cc. .cc. cc.- cc. c.. .c. cc.- c.. c.. c.. .cc. cc. c.. c.. cc.- cc.- cc. c..- ... c.. cc. cc. cc. c..- c.. c.. c.. c.. c.. c.. c.. c.. cc. cc. cc. cc. cc. ..cc. cc. cc. ..cc. cc. ...cc. c.. ... .cc. ...cc. c.. cc.- cc. ...- c..- cc.- .c.- cc.- cc. cc. cc. .cc. c.. cc. cc. cc. cc. cc.- cc. c..- ...- cc. cc. cc.- cc. .c. .c. cc.- cc. cc. ... .c.- c..- cc. cc. cc. c.. cc. cc. cc. .c. c.. cc. c.. c.. cc. cc. cc. cc. c..- c.. cc. cc. cc. cc. c.. .c.- c.. cc. cc. c.. c.. cc.- c.. c.. cc.- c.. .c. cc.- c.. cc.- c..- c.. cc. .c.- cc. cc.- cc.- cc.- c.. cc.- .c. cc. ... cc. .c. ... .c. c.. cc. .cc. ..c. cc. cc. ..cc. cc. c.. c.. cc. cc. cc. cc. c.. cc. cc. c.. cc. cc. cc. cc. cc. c.. c.. c.. cc.- cc. .cc. c.. .cc. c.. cc. . c.. cc. cc. cc. c.. cc. c.. cc. _c. c.. cc. cc. cc. cc. ... c.. cc. cc. cc. .c. ... cc. cc. cc. c.. c..- cc cc cc _c cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc .c cc cc ....ccc. cc. c_c.c vm mw - p~ cm cp cp 2 cp mp ep mp ~p pp In NH. 2217' c..- cc.- cc”- cc.- cc. cc.- - .cc.- - .cc.- .cc.- cc. cc. - cc c.. cc.- cc. cc. cc.- cc. .cc.- cc. c..- cc. c..- cc.- cc.- .cc.- cc cc. cc. c..- .cc.- cc. cc.- c..- cc.- cc.- ..cc.- cc.- c.. cc. c..- cc cc.- .c.- cc.- .- .- cc. 1. c..- ...- «ccccc- cc.- ..cc.- c..- cc.- cc. _c cc. c..- _c. cc”. cc. cc. cc.- ..cc. c.. cc. .c.- cc. cc. cc.- cc cc.- .c. cc.- ....cc.- cc. cc. cc.- ..cc.- cc.- c..- ccc- cc. cc. c..- c. cc. c.. c..- .- cc. .- cc. .c.- cc. .cc. ...- c.. cc. cc.- c. c.. c.. cc.- .- c.. c.. cc. cp.“ .. cc .cc.- c..- cc.- cc. cc. c. c.. c..- ...cc. ...cc. cc.- c..- cc. ....cc. cc. cc. cc. cc. .c.- cc. c. c.. .cc. cc.- ...c.- c.. cc. c.. .cc.. cc.- - c..- .c.- c..- cc. cc.- c. .cc. cc. cc.- cc.- ...cc.- cc. cc.- cc. ... cc.- _c. cc.- cc.- c. c..- cc.- cc.- ..cc. cc. cc.- .c.- cc.- c..- cc.- c.. ... c. .c.. .:.- c..- .c. .c. c. .cc. cc. c.. cc. 2. c. - - cc. wc... .4- - .- ...L_cu, c..- ..cc. c.. cc. cc.- c.. c. ...—c. c..- cc.- cc. - c..- cc. c.. .cc. c.. c. . cc.- cc. c..- c.. c.. c..- cc. cc. c ..- 1. .cc.- .cc.qa .a paw.q .4.ccw cc. c.. cc. c - cc. cc. cc. c.. .c.- c.. c cc. ...c. cc. cc.- c.. c - - . .1 cc. c.. cc.- cc.- c .cc. cc. cc.- c c.. c.. c .1 ¢. 41‘ cc. c c. c. c. c. c. c c c c c c c mm. < cp 033 .p 333...? 2?... {can .0 32:3. .3. cope-c..; .3559. cc cc.c—capotcugoccp 218 hm.n cv. cccca. vw.u «cc. wp. cc.c ccna.- cp. ow 0... pm.. mp. aw.- mc. cc. cc. _w.- aw mp. pn.- cw. cw. cp. mn.- cm. ~w w mc.- wn. cc. .- cp.- vw. _w cp. cp. wc. cm. cp.- cw pw. vw. ccccm. ccccm. cp ccccmc. vw.- mp. c. i. -n_- . aw.- cw. pp pc.- cp mp ep mp up pp c. c c - c c - 1 - c v n w nw ww pw cw mp cp Np cp mp p.c.:0cp < cp opaop 219 cc. c.. c..- c.. cc. ...- .c.- cc.- cc.- cc. c.. cc. c..- cc.- c.. cc .- ccc- .wc. rcc. c..- c.. ccw}, cc. .- c..- “_cwu cmcu c.. ...- c..- cc .c.- cc. cc.- c..- cc. c..- c... cc”. c..- cc. cc. cc.- cc. cc. cc.- cc cc. cc.. cc.- .- .c. cc.- cc.- c..- c..- .- c..- .c. cc.- cc.- cc. _c c..- cc.- cc. c..- cc.- c.. cc. cc.- c.. cc.- ...- c..- cc.- cc.- cc.- cc ... c.. cc.- cc. cc. cc. 1c..- I ccwh -cpw. 3 .cc... 1 cc. 2.. cc.- cc: c..- 2 .,cc.- cc.- cc. c..- .- cc. .- .cc.- cc.- c.. .cc. cc.- cc. cc.- .c.- c. cc.- cc.- .c.- .- cc.- cc. cc. cc.- cc.- cc. cc. c..- cc. c.. cc.- c. c..- .- .c.- cc.- cc.- c.. cc.- - cm.- c.” .- ..mp.- cc. .- c..- ...- c. c.. c..- cc.- cc.- cc. c..- cc.- cc. .c.- cc.- c..- c..- cc.- c.. cc.- c. cc.- cc. c.. .zmc.-- c..- cc.- cc. cc.- cc.- c.. cc.- c.. .- cc. .c.L c. c..- c..- cc. .cc.- cc. cc.- cc.- .c.- c..- c.. cc.- cc.- c..- c..- c..- c. ...- .c. c.. .c.- cc.- cc.- cc. c..- c.. c..- cc. cc. c.. c..- cc. c. .- c.. cc.- c.. c..- cc. cc. cc. c..- .- cc.- cc. cc. c..- cc. p. cc. c..- cc.- cc. .- .c.- cc. c.. c..- c.. c.. c.. c.. cc. cc. c. cc. c..- cccc.- cc. ... cc. cc. cc. cc.- .c.- c..- c.. cc. .c. cc. c ...- c.. cc. cc.- .- cc. cc.u. awc“-|: .wcq, .scmq:u| cc.:;: .c.” .ccc c..- cc. c cc.- c..- cc. cc.- cc.- cc. c.. cc.- cc.- .cc.- c..- cc. cc. c..- cc.- c .c.- c..- c..- c..- cc.- cc. cc. cc. cc. cc. cc. .c. .c. cc. cc.- c cc.- ... cc. cc. cc.- cc. cc. cc. cc. cc. - .cc. cc. cc. c..- c.. c c..- .c. c..- cc.- cc. cc.- c..- .cc. cc. ... .cc. cc. cc. ..cc. c.. c «.cc.- .- cc. .cc. cc.- cc. c.. - cc.- pc.- - . can cc. cc. ... cc. cc.- c cc. cc.- cc.- cc. cc. .c. cc.- c..- c.. c.. - .cc. c..- cm. .c. c..- c cc.- cc.- c..- .c.- ... c..- ...cc.- cc. c.. .__.- .c. .c.- c.. cc. c.. . cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc _c cc cc cc cc cc cc ppwczp who: cc chosen: sac «spas—cc, paccogam c=a sopcacuc c.=uscppsc co c=apcapuscoc cop open.— 22H) .c. .c. cc. cc. .c. c.. cc. ... cc. c.. ... cc. cc. cc. cc. cc cc.- c..- c..- .- c..- .- c..- c.. cc.- .- .c. c.. c..- cc.- c..- cc c.. cc. cc. c..- cc. c.. cc. .c.- cc. c..- c..- cc.- .c. cc.- cc.- cc cc.- cc. cc. c.. .c. .c. c..- cc. cc.- c.. cp.. ...- .c.- cc. cc. _c cc. cc.- cc. .c.- cc.- c..- cm.- _cuu cc.- pcc- c..- .c.- cc.- cc.- cc. cc - .c.- .- cc. c.. ..c. c.. cc.- c..- .- .- .- c-. ...- cc.- cc.- c. cc.- ..cc.- c..- .cc.- c.. c.. .- w.u- cc. ...wpcu, Mp.- c- cc. c..- cc. c. cc.- cc.- cc.- cc.- cc. c.. cc.- c..- cc.- c..- cc.- cc. cc.- cc.- cc.- c. cc. cc.- cc. cc. c..- -ccwu]. c..c. .cc.“ cc.- . .L. .c. c..- c..- c..- cc. c. c..- cc.- cc. cc. cc. ... c.uy cc.- cm.- cc.- cc.- cc.- c..- c..- cc.- . .- c..- c..- cc.- cc.- c..- .- c.. c..- c.. .c. cc.- c..- cc. c.. cc.- c..- c..- .c. cc.- c..- cc.- cc.- .cc.- c..- .c.- .cc.- c..- .c.- c.. cc. cc. cc.- c.. cc.- c..- cc. c.. -.1.cw .wpc .4. c..: cc.- .- cc. cc. cc.- c..- cc. c..- .c.- .c.- c..- .cH cc.- .c. 4. cc. cc. cc.- c.. .cc. cc.- c..- c.. cc.- c.. cc. cc. c..- cc. cc.- cc.- cc. c.. cc. cc.- cc.- cc.- cc. cc. cc. ccc cc.- .pc“-.. cc. .4 c..-- H- .cc. c..- ... c..- cc.- c..- ...- cc. cc.- cc. cc. cc. cc. c.. c.. c..- cc. c.. c.. c..- cc.- cc. cc.- cc.- c..- cm.- can - - .m.- ..-pc.u ..ccc .. cc. .ccu. cc.- cc. c..- .- cc.- cc.- cc.- cc.- c.. .. .- cc. c..- c..- ... cc. cc.- .c. cc.- cc.- c.. c.. c..- .- .c. cc” - cc“ -c..-. .cc.- - c..- 4..cc. - .cc. cc.- ... ... cc. c.. cc. cc. cc. .c.- cc. c.. cc.- c..- ..cc. ..cc.- cc.- .- .- cc. cc.- cc. .cc. c.. .- cc. .,H- .:.cc.- .;.cc. c.. cc. cc.- c.. .c.- cc. cc. .cc. cc. _c. cc.- cc. c..- .- .c. cc. cc. .c.- cc.- c.. c.. cc. c.. cc. cc. cc.- .- cc. cc.- .- cc. c.. cc. _ cc cc cc .c cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc _c cc p...ccc. cc. a.cc— 221 cc: 2.. cc.- cc: c.. .- c.. ....cc.- .c. .53.. cc..H - .- cc. cc: cc cp.- cc. cc.- cp.- cw. cp.- cc. an.- wc.- cc.- pp.- cc. np. pp. cc cc. .. ww. cw.- cc. cw.- ..cco. ww.- ac. cp. cc.- cc. cp. wc.- cc cp. cc. cp.- cw. cw. cp.- cp. cp.- cc.- mp. ww. cc.- pc. cw.- .c «c. cc.- wp.: cw. wp.- cp. wn.- wm. an.- cp.- cp. .cc. cccmm.- mw. cw wp.- pw. cp. .- ww. cp.- cw. .- pc. .- cp. pc. cc. cw. cp ww. cc.- cc.- cw.- pp.- .- cw. cc.- cc. cp. cp. cp. cccc. pc. cp cp. cp.- cp.- cp.- cw.. .- cc.- cc. cp. cp. pc.- pc.- cc. cc. cp cc.coc. op. cw. cc. cw.- .. cc. .cwc. pp.- on. cc. cw. pc.- cc. cp cp.- wc. cw. nc.. cp. np. pw. «w... an. nc.- an.. on.. pc. ww.- mp pw. no. cw. cc.- naoc.- pc. .cc. cc. pw. cc. pc. cp. cc.- cp ww. cacvc. cp.- .. wp. cw. ac. cp. aw. cw. pp. ac.- mp mm. wp.- cc. awv. .. up. cw. mm. nw.n ac.- nc.- wp cc.- wp. pp. cm. cw. cc. cp. cw. cp.- cc.- pp nw.u .- cp. wc.u cc. vn.- cc. wc. .cc.- cp .. .- cc. cp.- cp.- mn.u .- ac.- a on.- cc. pp. cc. cp.- wc. .- c cc.- cc. cc. ww. cw.- ww.- c cw. pn.u cc.- cp. cw..- c cc. ~w.- pc.- c..- a cw. cp.- cwv. v cc.- cw. c .- w cp cp wp pp cp a c c o c c n w p pwwnzp caca cc csogccc soc cupcapcc> pc.:occc co ccopc-pocccccocep c o>..~aa= “mocmmopgpmz .c. A .pmm m.epp=u ca .¢,°.cc~m.= mo. cc.c ccm.- ccn.- c... ccn. cc. copaoap.,c u>_u.aaz =o_mm_2g=m .a ‘ ace. cc.c man. . can. oucagoc._c cpac<. % cpn. mam. . 4 . «macaw cu ace. mm.c acv. mam. cupp.a.m=ogmo¢ a:.a.u.ea< cucougoaoa .c acc. cc.c mp..- mp..- pa>ogc=< co gapmmogaxm ccn. ccc. copmmasaxc .c. cc.c «m... cm... Lac “cu: ac. ou.>u< 5a.»: a>Op .m .c. cc.c cc... cc..- ww.. c... ca.p.umo= mauchc-=uaauL=_ A q.o= .n «cappuuc apac< ca sop>agoc. :uaop ace. cc.c can. can. _mp. can. can mag—pug; uppgu nun—o: ecu ug=.u=gam .c po>oc aucau uga.o: .Sua .ga.u: a L spa..ga> upa~.ga> -...capm so. a .uom upcspm c. «pa.ap:: «saga; uppgu upmapa=< copmmogcoc spa—ups: ompxcoum gag: comma mpg—c co unusua: sac «mpg-.2“, .gouu.=ubc. .cau...ca.m we. so.>~=~c ".cuge_.gu cw opaab 2126 pc. cc.c «cc. ncv. ocw. «co. cup—puma: «mogaxc-=ouaogzp cc.c—cacaoc .mp pc. cc.cc cwc. ccc. .ccn. cwc. cupppumoz «mogaxc-:uaaoggp acmasm.==c .op gop>ag -oc a>pmmugcc< co posucoc mc. cc.c .cc. can. mcp. «mm. 50» cc.cacapcxc co 0m: can: .cp cc. pc.. pcn. pcn. pnp. pcn. cucppumoc mmugcxc-cmaoogsp u:.upa§oc .wp ccpuumcc< mcc. cc.c cec. ccn.- paupmagc .9 copmmosnxc ccpuugcsougp mco. oo.o a... mm¢.- uca cpo>puaaaz a=_mu:a pcc. ccc. ouaoam cu moo. cc.cp ccc. mcc. capp_a.m:oamo¢ ccpaaupea< scp>osoc popuomosc pcc. cc.cp mco. ccm. -Asouma: .9 pammpnapc :cpu.am:m .pp paced r1 cocoa ugcpo: name ascpu: s g upaapgn> «pampga> -...ea.m so. u ..oa «pa-pm c. a.c...=: ugoguc u..gu p.a.=oupcc upa._ 2227 _ ..- so.>agac agoumoc mcc. cc.c cnv. cnc. ccp. cnv. -popuomogc .9 pmmmclmpc . copaapp.ccam_c gop>agac cgoumn: ma. cc.c ccm. ccn. cap. ccm. -popuomogc co pammpaa_c mmmao>pmmpsnam ougucpsoc mcc. cc.c cpc. cp.. ccp. cp.. cupppuma= anagaxc-=ouaog=p -copuapppccampo sop>ogoc abacus: :opmmpsaam pc. cc.c vvv. evv. ccp. «we. -pnpuomogc cc pammpsmpc -cocaappcccam.c po>oc 8:3 222. 38 23»: .. .. «32...; «32:; -325; .3. c 32. «pi; c.. 3.53. .53.. 3:: A513”; GN 03:. 2213 so...=ua ace..uo .c. cc.c acc. can. can. .cc. -o,.mmo.aa< g.pz cgoucou ..am m.ep_gu cc pa>oggcampa mac. ma.op ca..- om..- ac. =o..a=_.>u u’.u.aoz gcpmmpaazm .a sop>ag -aa papuow_u=< a “capcoa ma. cc.c can. cc”. »a_Log.=< g~.x gguucou . com. um». copaumcc< pnupmcsc ccpcocumoac mcc. am.o .... c... poo—mag; co go.muagaxcw o>pmmac .e 4 c....a_m=oamo¢ me. on.. can. con. map. cm”. .o macaw =u_: gguugou cucougoaoa .c «macaw ma. cc.c nom.- ngn.- cn_. «an. ac cu.p_a.m=°amo¢ oaaupea< c..: .n gop>a=oc «paugpmoc co 95.3mm . me. co.. 9cm. ac”. .c.. as”. u.m=.g.=_ ca gopucoaa< 3‘2: uu:~=_aa= .— po>oc oueau “gm.u= ..oa agapa: L . «pa.p.., o.a..g~, -...=a_m 5:. 5 ..oc opaapm c. «pa.._=: a=~..c uppgu «pmcpa=< copamoucoc opcpupsc ompzaoum soc: woman upgpc co msoguac soc «co—£0.50) ...-0302905.... uppflupb—ppa—m fic- s¢—>Q£UQ m.=0¢p§:p-U pw opcap 2259 copmmwsaxc ou:a=.3oc mcc. cc.c cmc. ccv. ccp. ccv. soc «can a oup>e< coccc -copunpppccampc gcpuuocc< no. cc.c can. ccn. opn. pcm. paupmcgc co copumogqxc go.>~=oc azapcoc copmmpaaam mcc. cc.c ace. pnv. -o>.mmu.cc< sap: cgouccu -=c_uapppccampc gecuuocc< :opmmpaaam mcc. cc.pp mac. mam. ccw. can. paupmcgc co copmmogaxc -co.au.p.cc< sop>agoc cucuma: cc. cc.c «cm. can. cop. ccm. -pnpuomogc cc pagoccp capacco35ou .mp :ocmmosaxc cc. cc.c ccn. ccc. cvp. can. so» man: ecu oup>u< soccc acmsgmpgac .wp cop>a=mc acaccoc mcc. cc.c cnc. cne. ccp. cnv. -u>pmmogcc< gap: cgoucoc can: .cp soc>aguc “cc.coc ccc. cc.c ccc. cnv. cop. cnv. -o>pmnoLca< :a-t agoucoc ucpapascu .wp po>oc oucau “cc—o: «can uscpu: g s opaapsa> opaapga> its; ..8 .. 33 «as; c.. 22:3. 2.2.: 2.5 p.353 pc «peep ZEN) copuuocu< acc. cc.c o«.. a... cap. a... _.u_mcgc .c =o_mmochu =a..~._..c< “cc.coo ace. an.o mcv. acv. .c.. acc. -o>.mmoLaa< gap; =Lou=ou =o_aa.p_..am.a “cc.coa pc. cc.c coe. .... cco. can. -o>.mmuLaa< g..z =Lou=ou =a_auucc< .cc. an.mp mom. can. ppm. pau.mcgc .0 go.mm¢Laxu mm~=u>pmm.aaam copmmogcxu ace. cc.c a... a... esp. a... Lo. “ca: . oupLu< Luccc uu=u=_aga po>od cacao aga.u= ..aa agape: L L opaa.L.> opaa.La> -.L.=a.m Lo. . ..oa «pas.m NL «pg.._=x acoLac u..gu p.353 pcopaop 2231 u p . scp>asoc A w p..UOmpa=< ecu ago..oa moo. cc.c. mom.- . mam.- own. man. -ca.Log.=< =a.3 =Luu=ou ca.mm.aa=m .¢ A Lo_>agoc ace—coo mo. ...m a... L .c.. -a,.mmoLam< ga.: =L~u=ou L ”c.. one. aco. cc.c L cme.- L oom.- oucoL~.._= LuauuLag o>_mmac .c L we. cc.c as..- u a“..- «cc. ecc. acuagm.==c paupmcgc be on: =o..~Loccou .o cLouma:-papuomogc no. «c.. owe. omv. acc. omc. «.wppgu gap: =Luu=ou a>oc .m pa’oLaaa ma. cp.» pc.. pc.. cpc. .cc. -m.a upu.pga_ age paaLo>=oz q_a= .m Lop>a=mc ace—cu: :uoop c:o mco. cc.c .mm. .mm. mac. can. -u>.mmoLaa< gap: =Loucau oL=.u=Lum .c pu>oc oucau aga.u: ..oc asap»: L L «pea—L., apaapLa> -...ea.m Loc a . «coo «pazpm cL «papa—a: acoLac a_.gu upmcpa=< copmuogcoc opapapax ompxaoam soc: woman «can co mgugua: Lac m0—Al—50) :LOuU-Qosms “couch—ca—m 9:0 bO—>¢£Ofl c.=OLQ——£U ww epoch 2232 L°.,ego¢ u:~..aa poo. cc.c. ace. as“. a... ace. -o>pmmaLaa< gup: =Luu=og co.u~._p..< Lo.>.=oa a=._coa 3. a; S..- S..- :c. 8e. 23 238.89 2 .235. 832.33 c..—«£33m mo. ww.. ”c.. a... cap. nec. pa>oLca< cc gopmmuLax -=°.ua._.c.~m.o Lo_>~goa u=a_.o= =o.mm.aa=m ace. cm.“ can. can. mac. .nm. -u>.mmoLam< ;S.z =Lou=o -co.capp_.c< cop>a=oc agaccoc yucca—soc ace. c_.c ccm. ccm. ccc. ccm. -o,.umuLam< 30.: cLuugou - copuapp...< cap—.c.“:aamoa .9 acc. a_.c ocm.- .cc.- .cc. .cc. ungom a.up.gu =»_: :Laueo ca...a~aeou .c. .o. p..a .mm.- «mm.. can. .cc. p~>cha< upsu¢ co =o_mmach ace: .c. po,ac oucou ugcpuz auoc ascpoz s L opaacga> «pas—La: -pcpga.m Lo. 5 ..oa o.as.m cL «papa—a: “caLac e_.gu p.383 cc «3.: 111 2E33 cap—_apmgoamac mc. cc.c can.- «.c.- ape. ccc. .0 macaw gap: =Lou=oc cgpcopumuac mcc. cc.c _ cc..- cwm.- ouzoLoccpc o_umpLuuuaLusc o>pmmoc .c u Lop>agoc o>pmmoLcc< vco “zuccoc. mcc. cc.c cnv. wcc. ccp. cnv. -capLosa:< sup: =Loucou copaaLmaooc .c L p u «cappuoc upzu< ca Loc>ugoc¢ mwo. cc.c ccv. ccc. ccw. ccc. cc. mmcppooc appgu oaapoc. ouceLammaoc .e Lap>a=oc acnpcocu mco. cc.c ace. ace. anc. ace. -o>.mmoLma< 3“.) =Lou=au apo= .m Lop>e=oc ch scoop v=a pc. pc.c ncm. ccm. awn. .cc. muumam< o>cupmoc co mauoc «LaauaLum .c . «ccppuoc upacc ca accppouc mc. cc.c cmc. cme. cpw. cmc. ecu Lop>o=oc cp.:u campus ouzm=peaa .p pu>oc oucuu ago—o: econ cam—u: L L opaacgo> opaupLu> -...ga.m La. m «use «pc.—m NL «papa—a: acuLuc up.gu mpmcpac< ccpmmogcuz upcpupaz umpxcoum coca sumac axon ca mgozuac sac napa~_L., .Loau.euLc. a:.g.c.:¢.m ecu Lap,~=~a m.=oLu_.gu nw open» 2124 mccppumc upzc< ca ch>agmc mcc. cc.m ccv. ccv. cnw. ccv. sea m9.23... up.=u «capo: oucuzpaoc copmmpaazm mo. cc.c cce. ccq. ccp. ccc. Lo. eLazoc pacLuaxc u>pc -copuapppccammpc accppouc upsu< ca ch>a=mc oucucpacc mcc. cc.c cmm. cmm. ocw. can. ego mc..—pom: uppgc ouopoc -copuopppcc< :o_uuocc< mc. cc.c mnv. mac. ccp. mnv. paupmcsc co copmmaLaxc cc.cpaoqaoc .mp mcgppuuc upsu< cu Lc.>ococ m8. 3.2 3m. 3m. cmc. 3m. a... «c..—pout 3.5 322. u=92mp§c .pr ca.__a.m=oamu¢ mc. cp.m nmv. nmc. mcc. nmv. co om=om gap: cLoucou can: .np ch>og -oc o>pmmuLcc< ecu acapcoc pc. cc.c mom.- mem.- ccw. mem. -cupLogu:< gap: =Loucou :cpupamam .pp Lop>egoc u:a.coc -u>pmmaLcc< co poLacou mcc. cm.wp wcc.- cwc.- can. wwc. Lac copuacopaxc .9 on: m3537.3: .cp po>oc augau agape: acme agapu: L L ope..L.> apaapL~> -...ga.m LoL c .aoc «pas—m cL «papa—a: .coLac u_.=u p.388 cc «2: APPENDIX N RESULTS OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES FOR EXPERIMENTER-TAPER DATA 235 spam L mwc. pc.m mcn.- mac.- cmp. man. «.wppgu cc po>oLaaancc use co.aa=po>u o>paucoz oucoauascc L cpom m.upp=u co pu>oLaaom.c . mc. cc.c ecn.u .cc.- cnp. «cc. ecu copaaapa>u o>paucoz . cocoa—czou fi.p..y po>oc oucou agave: neon agave: L cL L opaapLaa opau.La> -pcpchm Lac u can: opcapm opapupax ucuan .Loaa~-Lo»=ulpLoaxc gopumoLcoc opapupax ompxaoam can: sumac mprc co mLogaoz Lac cupcacLa> .LouupuuLc. ugaupcpccpm can ace—an: Locep-Lua=uapLucxu cw opanp 2536 cc. cw.e pcn. pcm. cap. pcn. copcuocc< L L . . puu_mcgc cc ccpmmuLaxc mucouaaaoc cc. cw.e _ men. ccn. ccc. . cpm. copmmoLaxu Lac mum: ecu ouc>c< Loccc mo. cm.e mmn. ccn. Loc>agoc xLouma: -papucmoLc gu—z =Lou=ou cupppaapuom mco. cc.c wee. . wee. map. wee. cocuuocc< paucmcgc co copmmochc mucoupccoc 8. a; an. an. 3... 8n. 353:3 2...: . ...: .58.. 7; pu>oc uuceu agcpoc euoc ascpua L L L opaapLa> opaepLa> -pcpccpm Lac c econ opclpm c opapupax ueoLac LcaohuLoacoanoaxu copmmuLcoc opcpupax ompxaoam :ccc woman mprc cc «Lacuna Lac mopaupLa> .LouupuoLc. acaupcpccpm ecu accpuex Loacp-Lua:qapLaaxc cw «pack 237 oucomecpc-upumpLouuuLa=u. mcc. cc.c ccm.- ccm.- ccc. ccm. cupppaopuom mc. cc.m cce. ace. nnw. nce. aLoumuzrpepucm -oLc «.wppgu gap: =Lou=ouL acosumaqv< mc. ec.e cee. cee. ccw. cee. cacppapmgocaoc co. macaw «.cpcgc gap: =Lou=ou {upx coca: po>oc m ougau vac—o: scan agape: L L L opaapLu> opaapLe> Lacup .533 Le L 33 29.; c £32.: 22: . £35.22: copmuuLcoc opapupac ompzaocm cog: woman «can co «Logan: Lou mopaopLa> aLOuuceuLc. acoupccecpm ecu mac—us: LocapuLoucaspLocxc cw epoch 2fi38 mcc. ec.c cpm.- cpm.- pcw. cpm. Lop>o=oc ace—coo uu>pmmuLcc< gap: :Louzou mucouoaaau pc. pc.c ecm.- ecc.- ccn. ecm. Lopaacoc acepcmc -o>pmmoLcc< 3a.: cLoucoc cupppcupuom ma. cm.m seq. coo. cpc. cue. ma=._oaL up=e< a» Lo.>~goa can acccpuac oppgu ouapuz mucoupccouL pa>oc oucou “capo: neon ugcpuz L cL L open—La, opaaan> Lana» -...Lo.m Lo. L «Lon open.“ opL.up=x acoLaL -LaucoapLoLxu copmuoLcuc.opgpup:: oopzaoum cog: gonna when co «Lacuna Lac “open—Le> .LoaupvuLcs acne—cpccpm use «cgpuau Logap-Lou=aapLoaxc cw opcep