PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this chockout horn your record.
TO AVOID FINES mum on or before data duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_JI__I_J
_——ll_—T_—l

MSU I: An Nflrmatlv- Adm/EM Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

PARENTAL VALUES RELATED TO CONTROL IN FAMILIES WITH
CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

By

Catherine L. Costigan

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1 996

ABSTRACT

PARENTAL VALUES RELATED TO CONTROL IN FAMILIES WITH
CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

By

Catherine L. Costigan

The study examines the causes and effects of parental values related to control by
examining the relationships between control values and parenting practices, children's
adjustment, and perceptions of parenting competence. The sample includes two types of
families with school-aged children (ages 6-18) for whom parental control is a central issue,
families with children with mental retardation (N=76) and those with children with behavior
problems (N40). These groups are compared to families with children with chronic illness
(N=59) and children with no disabilities (N=41). Self-report measures of parenting attitudes,
parenting styles, and child adjustment were obtained from both mothers and fathers.

The results provide partial support for bi-directional models of parent-child
relationships. First, as expected, the findings indicate that parental values are formed in
response to different parenting experiences. Specifically, parents with children with mental
retardation and behavior problems showed higher values related to control than comparison
parents, particularly mothers with older children. These age-related findings suggest that
parents are responsive to children's different rates of development. However, contrary to
expectations, few differences in parenting practices were found. Second, as expected, the
results suggest that parental values play an important role in the socialization process by

influencing parenting practices, and that parenting practices predict child adjustment. In

addition, the results revealed nonlinear relationships between child adjustment and parenting
control practices, in which child competence was greatest at moderate levels of punitive
control and the highest levels of firm control. Finally, the results suggest that mothers
maintained a sense of parenting competence, despite difficult child behavior, when their values
matched their children's abilities. In contrast, fathers' perceptions of competence were directly
related to children's level of adjustment. These mother—father differences may emerge from
mothers' greater involvement in child care compared to fathers.

The results are discussed in terms of clinical interventions with children and families,
including the potential benefits of focusing on parents' values in addition to their behaviors
and of involving fathers in therapy. In addition, special considerations regarding families with

children with special needs are offered.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

As with most significant accomplishments, this work would not have been possible
without the assistance of many individuals. First and foremost, I would like to thank my
advisor, Frank Floyd, for his support and guidance throughout the completion of this
project, as well as for his interest and assistance in guiding my professional development
throughout graduate school.

I would also like to recognize the helpful contributions of the members of my
committee, Ellen Strommen, Susan Frank, Michael Lambert, and Jackie Lerner. A special
thanks goes to Ellen and also Suzy Pavick for helping me negotiate the details of
completing this project from a distance.

This project would not have been possible without the dedication and hard work of
countless undergraduate and graduate students at both Michigan State and the University
of North Carolina who helped collect, score, and enter the data. In addition, I would like
to thank the participating families for sharing their time and insights with us.

I feel fortunate to have made many close fiiends in graduate school and I can't
imagine having gone through this without their fi‘iendship, humor, and support. I am also
grateful to my friends from outside of graduate school for their respect and
encouragement, and for helping me keep things in perspective over the years. Finally, I
want to thank my family for their continuous love and support, and for never doubting that
I would finish.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
Parenting Cognitions ................................................................................. 2
Factors that Affect Parental Values and Practices ....................................... 7
The effects of raising a child with mental retardation on
parents' values and practices ...................................................... 11
The effects of raising a child with behavior problems on
parents' values and practices ...................................................... 13
The Effects of Parental Control on Child Development ............................. 16
Implications of Parental Control Values for Perceptions of Parenting
Success .......................................................................................... 26
Summary of Hypotheses ........................................................................... 31
CHAPTER 2
METHODS ......................................................................................................... 34
Subjects ................................................................................................... 34
Sample Characteristics .............................................................................. 38
Procedures ................................................................................................ 39
Instruments ............................................................................................... 40
Mother - Father Correlations ..................................................................... 47
Operationalization of Hypotheses .............................................................. 48
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 51
The Effects of Child Group on Parental Values and Practices .................... 51
The Effects of Parental Values and Practices on Child Development ........... 55
Parents' Control Values and Parenting Styles .................................. 56
Parenting Styles and Child Adjustment .......................................... 59
Parenting Values and Child Adjustment ......................................... 64
The Effects of Parents' Values beyond he Effects of Parenting
Styles ...................................................................... 67
The Effects of Parental Control Values on Perceptions of Parenting
Success ......................................................................................... 7O

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... 76
Factors that Affect Parental Values and Practices ....................................... 76
The Effects of Parental Values and Practices on Child Development .......... 84
Implications of Parental Control Values for Perceptions of Parenting
Success ......................................................................................... 92
Clinical Implications ............................................................................... 94
Directions for Future Research .................................................................. 98
APPENDICES
Appendix A: TABLES ......................................................................................... 101
Appendix B: FIGURES ...................................................................................... 121
Appendix C: INSTRUMENTS ........................................................................... 124
LIST OF REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 131

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations and Frequencies of Demographic
Characteristics- Parents ....................................................................................... 101

Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations and Frequencies of Demographic
Characteristics- Target Children .......................................................................... 102

Table 3: Results of Factor Analysis of Role Disposition Questionnaire: Items
with loading greater than .45 ............................................................................... 103

Table 4: Comparison of Selected Items from Parenting Styles and Values Scales. 104

Table 5: Correlations between Mothers and Fathers: Values, Parenting Styles,

and Perceptions of Parenting Success ................................................................... 105
Table 6: Group Differences in Control Values and Parenting Styles— Fathers ....... 106
Table 7: Group Differences in Control Values and Parenting Styles— Mothers ...... 107
Table 8: Mother - Father Differences in Control Values and Parenting Styles ...... 108

Table 9: Zero Order Correlations between Parenting Values and Parenting
Styles ................................................................................................................. 109

Table 10: Results of Regressions Predicting Parenting Styles from Parenting
Values - Fathers .................................................................................................. 110

Table 11: Results of Regressions Predicting Parenting Styles from Parenting
Values - Mothers ................................................................................................ 111

Table 12: Zero Order Correlations between Child Adjustment and Parenting
Values and Parenting Styles ................................................................................ 112

Table 13: Results of Regressions Predicting Child Adjustment from Parenting
Styles- Fathers ................................................................................................... 113

Table 14: Results of Regressions predicting Child Adjustment from Parenting
Styles- Mothers ................................................................................................... 114

Table 15: Results of Regressions predicting Child Adjustment from Parenting
Values- Fathers ................................................................................................... 1 15

vii

Table 16: Results of Regressions Predicting Child Adjustment from Parenting
Values- Mothers ................................................................................................... l 16

Table 17: Prediction of Child Adjustment from Parental Values after
accounting for Demographics and Parenting Styles ........................................... 117

Table 18: Zero Order Correlations between Parenting Outcomes and Parenting
Values and Child Adjustment .............................................................................. 118

Table 19: Predicting Parenting Success from Parental Values and Child
Externalizing Behavior Problems ......................................................................... 1 19

Table 20: Predicting Parenting Success from Parental Values and Child Adaptive
Behavior Skills ................................................................................................... 120

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Proposed Mediational Model ............................................................... 121

Figure 2: F athers' Firm Control and Children's Self-Direction Skills .................... 122

Figure 3: Mothers' Power-Oriented Control and Children's Self-Direction Skills... 123

ix

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION _

The socialization of children by parents involves two broad dimensions of
parenting practices, control and acceptance (Baumrind, 1991). Indeed, much research has
demonstrated the effects of control-oriented parenting practices on the development of
children's social and cognitive skills (e. g., Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, 1994; Portes,
Dunham, & Williams, 1986). Recent theorizing in the area of parents' social cognitions
suggests that the source of these practices lies in parents' beliefs, attitudes, and other
cognitions about parenting (e.g., Sigel, 1985). The purpose of the present study is to
examine the relationship between parents' control-oriented values and the exercise of
control in parenting, as well as the relationship of these cognitions and parenting practices
to children's adaptive and maladaptive behaviors. In order to better understand the causes
and effects of parental control, these values and practices are examined in two types of
families where parental control is central, families with children with mental retardation
and families with children with behavior problems, and compares them to two comparison
groups, families with typically developing children and families with children with chronic
illness but no mental retardation.

The study involves three components. The first component examines how parents'
control values and parenting practices are affected by experiences with different types of
children. The second component examines the implications of parents' control values and

practices for child development. This section tests a model of parenting process which

1

2
proposes that parenting practices mediate the relationship between parents' cognitions and
children's development. This model also posits that specific types of parental control will
be most effective for promoting optimal child development. Finally, the third component
examines the role of parental values in either exacerbating or buffering the effects of
difficult child behavior on perceptions of parenting competence. This section tests the
hypothesis that less competent child behavior is associated with lower perceptions of
parenting success only when children's behavior violates parents' values.
Parenting Cognitions

Recent trends in socialization research have focused on parents' child-rearing
cognitions as determinants of parenting behavior and child development (e. g., Goodnow,
1988). Early attempts to understand how parents think about children and child-rearing
focused on global domains of parenting attitudes (e. g., Becker & Krug, 1965). However,
this line of research was disappointing in terms of understanding the relationship between
parents' thoughts about child development and their actual child-rearing practices (Holden
& Edwards, 1989). Therefore, research in this area turned to more specific and
differentiated cognitive variables. Many ways of categorizing parenting cognitions have
been proposed, and most involve at least some of the following categories: attitudes,
values, beliefs, attributions, and self-perceptions. Attitudes and values are similar in that
they are both evaluative beliefs about the way things should be. Whereas attitudes are
specific, values are abstract goals or coherent sets of attitudes. Beliefs have been
subdivided along many lines. For instance, descriptive beliefs are beliefs about how
children develop, such as timetables for acquiring different skills. Instrumental beliefs, on

the other hand, are beliefs about how to parent, such as beliefs about the most effective

3

ways of managing children's misbehavior. In theory, unlike attitudes and values, beliefs
can be proved or disproved. Attributions are specific beliefs about the causes of children's
behaviors and abilities. Finally, self-perceptions refer to parents' beliefs about their own
parenting competence and ability to influence child development.

The underlying assumption that unites this line of research is that parenting
practices are guided by the above array of cognitions about child-rearing (e. g., Grusec &
Walters, 1991; McGillicuddy-DeLisi, 1982). According to this view, parents develop
stable patterns of thinking about children and parenting. These patterns of thinking consist
of cognitive structures and cognitive processes (Bacon & Ashmore, 1986). Cognitive
structures, such as parents' implicit theories of child development, beliefs about ideal child
qualities, and expectations for specific children, determine what child qualities parents
notice and emphasize. Cognitive processes, such as causal attributions, determine how
parents interpret child behavior. Together, cognitive structures and processes filter new
experiences and enable parents to reduce and organize the volumes of information they
receive regarding their children (Newberger, 1980; Kendall, 1991). Thus, parents are
seen as actively processing information rather than merely reacting automatically (e. g.,
Rubin & Mills, 1992).

Theoretically, differences in the way parents process this information explains
variations in the way parents behave towards their children. For example, Dix, Ruble, and
Zambarano (1989) demonstrated how parents' values serve as a schema or filter through
which information about children is processed. They found that parents with authoritarian
values had higher expectations and attributed higher levels of knowledge, capacity, and

responsibility to children than parents with non-authoritarian values. As a result of

4

inferring greater child competence, they favored more punitive discipline strategies.
Similarly, parents' values may partially determine when they initiate socialization (Dix &
Grusec, 1985). Thus, a parent with high conformity values is likely to intervene earlier
with a child who is being disruptive in public than a parent with lower conformity values.

In addition to influencing spontaneous reactions to child behavior, parents'
cognitions also affect more proactive parenting behaviors. For example, parents' beliefs
about their ability to influence child development may affect their motivation to seek out
and utilize community resources. Similarly, cognitions affect parenting behavior because
parents become sensitized to look for information that is consistent with their ideas (Dix,
Ruble, & Zambarano, 1989). This is particularly relevant to raising a child with a
disability. For instance, if parents selectively attend to signs of incompetence and
overlook more adaptive, independent behaviors, they may fail to behave in ways that
promote skills acquisition (Siegel, Smith, & Wood, 1991). In this way, parents'
cognitions, such as low expectations, may become self-fulling prophecies (Fishman, 1988).
Consistently, Lavelle and Keogh (1980) found that parents who saw their child's disability
as stable and caused by internal factors were more likely to focus their intervention efforts
at maintaining their child's current level of functioning rather than promoting new skills.

In addition to their indirect effects on children via parenting practices, parents'
cognitions are also theorized to have more direct, yet subtle effects on child development.
For instance, Gallimore, Weisner, Kaufman, and Bemheimer (1989) propose that values
are transmitted to children through day-to-day interactions, routines, and activities. That
is, parents' values influence the people children are exposed to, the activities children

participate in, and the unwritten rules that shape or constrain their participation. By

5

influencing the organization of the child's daily routine, parents' values minimize or
maximize the child's opportunities to learn different skills by exposing them to different
environments.

Finally, for families raising children with special needs such as mental retardation
or behavior problems, parents' cognitions play an important role in clinical interventions.
That is, distorted, biased, or unrealistic cognitions may underlie some difficulties in
adapting to raising a child with special needs. For example, parenting programs for
parents with children with mental retardation commonly address two maladaptive beliefs:
that children's misbehavior is an unalterable part of the mental retardation and that an
inability to control one's child at all times in equivalent to being a failure as a parent
(Briener, 1989). Similarly, interventions with parents with children with behavior
problems often focus on the parent's perceptions, expectations, and attitudes as well as the
child's behavior (Rogers, Forehand, & Griest, 1981). Finally, family therapists argue that
beliefs about parenting roles and responsibilities can lead to rigid family structures that are
detrimental to family functioning. For example, parenting role beliefs are related to two
family processes commonly seen in families with children with disabilities, an over-
involved mother and a peripheral father (Combrinck-Graham & Higley, 1984) and the
neglect of other family members' needs in order to protect the disabled child (Beavers,
1989)

The focus of the present study is on parenting values related to the exercise of
control in parenting. A value is a judgment about a desirable end-state of existence or a
broad mode of conduct, such as equality or honesty (Bem, 1970). Values are considered

core beliefs that partially determine how one behaves, how one judges the behavior of

6

others, and how one defines the end states worth striving for in oneself and one's children
(Rokeach, 1972). Values differ from beliefs in that they require no logical justification. In
addition, values are probably more stable than beliefs because they involve a stronger
emotional investment (Goodnow, 1988).

Specifically, the present study focuses on an array of values related to the issue of
control. These include both values related to child behavior and values related to
parenting roles. Values regarding child behavior refer to parents' child-rearing goals
(Antil, 1987). Parents base their child-rearing goals on the qualities or end-states that they
value and want to see in their children. These values and goals determine the way in
which parents respond to children's behavior, as well as how they organize the
environment and structure their child's future (Trommsdorlf, 1983). In particular, parents'
valuation of self-direction versus conformity is examined (Kohn, 1977). Higher
conformity values, such as valuing obedience to parents, indicates greater control values
on the part of parents. In contrast, higher self-direction values, such as valuing
independent thinking, indicates lower control values. Regarding parenting roles, this study
examines the way in which parents prioritize their child-rearing responsibilities
(Newberger & White, 1989). In particular, values regarding the necessary and appropriate
role for parents in two domains are considered: discipline and teaching. Both discipline
and teaching roles rely on the greater authority and competence of the parents (Hess &
McDevitt, 1984), and therefore greater valuation of each of these roles reflects greater

control values.

Factors that Affect Pgental Values and Practices

Much research has focused on how social class affects parents' values (e. g.,
Goodnow, 1985). Kohn (1977) first proposed that the qualities and skills required of a
parent in the workplace might influence the qualities parents value for their children.
Thus, he hypothesized that working class parents, for whom obedience and following’
directions were adaptive skills at work, would value conformity in their children, while
parents in managerial and professional positions, for whom initiative and decision making
were adaptive skills, would value self-direction in their children. Many studies measuring
various indices of social status have supported these proposed relationships. In particular,
self-direction and conformity values have been predicted by parents' degree of
occupational self-direction and occupational status (Luster, Rhoades, & Haas, 1989) and
by parents' level of education and income (Schaefer & Edgerton, 1985). In both of these w
studies, higher levels of social class were associated with higher self-direction values and
lower conformity values. Spade (1991) examined the relative contributions of a number
of background characteristics in predicting self-direction and conformity values, and found /
that parents' education was a better predictor of parents' values than occupational status I
and income. Finally, Burns, Hormel, & Goodnow (1984) expanded the measurement of
social class and found that street type, immigrant status, and neighborhood quality
predicted parents' values better than traditional social class indicators.

In addition to social class, child gender has been found to be a salient determinant

of parents' child-rearing values, expectations for children's conduct and achievement, and

8

interpretations of child behavior (Okagaki & Divecha, 1993). Regarding parental values,
Block (1978) found that parents value achievement more for boys than for girls.

Similarly, Hoffman (1977) found that parents of boys value independence and self-reliance
more than parents of girls, while parents of girls value being kind and loving, and being a
good parent. Finally, Burns, Hormel, & Goodnow (1984) found that mothers of boys
valued sex-types behaviors more than mothers of girls and mothers of girls valued being
neat and clean more than mothers of boys. More recent research, however, indicates few ’
gender-based differences in parents' valuation of conformity versus self-direction (Ellis &
Petersen, 1992).

Above and beyond the effects of social class and child gender, however, little is
known about sources of variation in parents' values. In particular, we need to understand
how the child him/herself affects parenting values and practices. Goodnow (1988)
proposes that parents actively construct their cognitions based on their individual
experiences with children, such as the number and spacing of their children or their types
of experiences with children (e. g., mothers versus fathers). For example, parents' beliefs
about children's cognitive development may become more sophisticated when parents have
several children, since they are exposed to differing capabilities and rates of development
(McGillicuddy-DeLisi, 1982). One condition in which parents are likely to reflect upon
and modify their cognitions based on child characteristics is when the child has abilities -'
that set him or her apart from most other children (Samerolf & F eil, 1985). The
hypothesis that parents' values are formed in response to child characteristics is consistent
with theories regarding the reciprocal influences between parents and children (Bell &

Chapman, 1979; Sameroff, 1975). Bell's (1979) bi-directional model of parent-child

9

relationships proposes that parents do not indiscriminately treat all children the same way,
and instead, unique characteristics of children influence parenting behaviors and parent-
child interactions. Thus, by triggering different responses fi'om parents, children
contribute to their own development (Bell & Harper, 1977). Accordingly, the first part of
the study tests the hypothesis that parents' values are formed in response to their
experiences raising different types of children.

In contrast to the literature on parenting values, there is a great deal of research
indicating that parents have different styles of interacting with children, and that some of
the variation in parenting practices is driven by child characteristics. Several studies
demonstrate how children influence control-oriented parenting practices. For instance,
Stice and Barrera (1995) studied parental control strategies and children's substance use
and externalizing behavior problems in a community sample of adolescents. They found
that adolescent substance use and behavior problems prospectively predicted increases in
parents' controlling behaviors over a one year period. Rubin and Mills (1992) also
examined the effects of child characteristics on mothers' self-reported intervention
strategies. In particular, they identified subgroups of mothers whose 4 year old children
were either extremely aggressive or extremely withdrawn. They found that mothers of
both withdrawn and aggressive children favored directive teaching strategies more than
mothers of average children. Mothers of withdrawn children were also more likely to
choose coercive strategies for dealing with both withdrawal and aggression than the other
mothers. In contrast, mothers of aggressive children were most likely to favor indirect
strategies for dealing with withdrawn and aggressive behavior, or to favor no intervention

at all. Finally, Barkley (1985) provides a review of research with mothers of hyperactive

l0

children that suggests that mothers' styles of interaction are responsive to the child's
behavior. For example, mother-child interactions were observed under two conditions,
when the child was taking stimulant medications and a placebo condition. They found that
when the children's disruptive behavior was reduced by the medications, mothers also
reduced their directive behaviors and were more attentive than when they were interacting
with their children without medications.

Child characteristics have been found to influence parenting practices in samples of
disabled children as well. For instance, Brooks-Gunn and Lewis (1984) studied the
influence of three infant characteristics, chronological age, mental age, and handicapping
condition (Down syndrome, developmental delays, and cerebral palsy) on mothers'
responsiveness during interactions with their children 3 to 36 months of age. They found
that the mothers of infants with higher mental ages were more responsive than mothers
with infants with lower mental ages, regardless of chronological age or handicapping
condition. Similarly, a study by McGillicuddy-DeLisi (1992) suggests that child
characteristics are particularly important influences on parenting practices when the child
has a handicap. In particular, this study examined parental teaching styles in families with
and without a child with a communication handicap. The results of a path analysis showed
that the ability level of the communication handicapped child predicted both mothers' and
fathers' teaching behaviors. In contrast, children's ability levels in the non-handicapped
group were not significant predictors of parents' teaching behaviors.

Thus, in addition to examining the influence of child characteristics on parental
values, the present study also examines the hypothesis that the experience of raising

different types of children affects parenting styles. In particular, because the demands of

ll

raising children with mental retardation and behavior problems require increased parental
control, parents with children with mental retardation and parents with children with
behavior problems are expected to demonstrate both higher control values and more
controlling parenting practices than parents with typically developing children. That is,
parents' values and practices are expected to "fit the demands of the job" (Goodnow,
1985), so that parents come to value qualities that facilitate their parenting responsibilities
and maintain their motivation to act on behalf of their child.

The effects of raring; child with mental retardation on parents' values and practices.

On a fundamental level, raising children with handicapping conditions affects
family members' views of their individual roles and responsibilities within the family, and in
some respects, their views of the world in general (Patterson & Garvvick, 1994). In
response to the birth of a handicapped child, the family is faced with the task of
reorganizing the family structure and relationships to accommodate the disabled child.
Part of this reorganization often involves examining core values in order to make sense
out of the handicap (Foster, 1986). Early studies reported that children with mental
retardation had a pervasive negative impact on parents' attitudes, and that mothers with
children with mental retardation were more rejecting than mothers with typically
developing children (Cummings, Bayley, & Rie, 1966; Ricci, 1970). Similarly, parents
with children with handicaps were found to have reduced expectations for their children's
emotional, intellectual, and social development (e. g., Long & Moore, 1979). More recent
research, however, has challenged this pessimistic view of families with children with
disabilities, and instead supports a model of individual and family competence. For

instance, Van Riper, Ryff, and Pridham (1992) found that families with children with

12

Down syndrome did not differ from typical families on any measure of individual well-
being, family functioning, or marital relationships. Similarly, Patterson and Garwick
(1994) suggest that the nature of alteration in parents' cognitions based on the experience
of raising a child with a handicapping condition is adaptive. For instance, parents may
selectively attend to the positive aspects of the child and minimize the child's limitations,
or exaggerate the benefits of child characteristics which cannot be changed.

There are many characteristics of children with mental retardation that set them
apart from typical children, such as cognitive deficits, limited adaptive behavior skills, and
increased need for direct child care (Crnic, 1990, Baxter, 1992). The child's intellectual
limitations and dependency require that parents strike a balance between protecting and
challenging handicapped children (Beavers, 1989; Foster, 1986) without the aid of norms
or guidelines for forming appropriate expectations (Lavelle & Keogh, 1980; Strom, Rees,
Slaughter, & Wurster, 1981). Also, parenting a child with mental retardation may require
much time and effort in terms of physically caring for the child, promoting independent
functioning, and managing inappropriate or disruptive behavior (Kames & Teska, 1980;
Tamer-Behring, Barkley, & Karlsson, 1985). For example, mothers with infants with
Down syndrome compared to mothers with typically developing children spend more time
in daily caretaking activities, experience more difliculty with feeding, bathing, and dressing
the child, and have less time to themselves (Erikson & Upshur, 1989). Consistently,
observations of parent-child interactions have found that parents of children with mental
retardation are more domineering and controlling and spend more time managing child
behavior than parents with typically developing children (Floyd & Costigan, in press;

Stoneman, Brody, & Abbott, 1983; Long & Moore, 1979).

13

Thus, parents with children with mental retardation may value more control and
need to exercise more control and guidance than parents with typically developing
children. A greater emphasis on control and obedience in the home may be part of a
generalized effort to reduce dangerous or aversive behaviors and to protect their children
from dangers related to their child's lack of understanding of personal safety (Harris,
Carpenter, & Gill, 1988). Additionally, children with mental retardation do not press for
increased autonomy and freedom with the same vigor as typically developing children
(Foster, 1986). Thus, even if parents initially valued self-direction, this value is not
reinforced by the child and therefore may not be stressed. At the same time, children with
mental retardation need more guidance than typically developing children to learn basic
self-care skills and social skills (Harris, Carpenter, & Gill, 1988). Therefore, higher levels
of parental control are adaptive to the extent that parents challenge their children to
exhibit more mature behaviors and independent functioning skills.

The affects Qf raising a child with behavior prgblems an parents' valaes aad pragfices.

Children with behavior problems are similar to children with mental retardation in

 

that they elicit increased parental control. For example, the inattention, impulsivity, and
overactivity of children with attention deficit disorder require parents to constantly
monitor and direct children's activities. In general, children with behavior problems are
less compliant, more demanding of attention, less affectionate, and less prosocial than
typically developing children (Rogers, Forehand, & Griest, 1981; Tamer-Behring,
Barkley, & Karlsson, 1985; Crowell & Feldman, 1988). Additionally, observational
studies demonstrate that mothers with children with behavior problems issue more

commands and negative control statements (Tallrnadge & Barkley, 1983; McMahon &

I4

Forehand, 1988; Campbell, Breaux, Ewing, Szumowkski, & Pierce, 1986), provide more
structure and supervision (Barkley, 1985), and are less likely to accept ideas or direction
from their children (Webster-Stratton, 1985a). This is an important group also because
unlike mental retardation, parents' cognitions may be implicated, in part, in the
development or maintenance of the behavior problems (e. g., McMahon & Wells, 1989).
For instance, research has demonstrated that parents of clinic-referred children are more
likely than parents of non-referred children to mislabel neutral child behavior as deviant
and that parents' perceptions of child behavior, rather than actual child behavior, best
discriminates between parents of clinic-referred children and parents of typically
developing children (e. g., McMahon & Forehand, 1988).

Therefore, the parents of children with behavior problems are also expected to
endorse high levels of control values and parenting styles. Since children with behavior
problems present more management problems than other children, their parents may focus
on discipline struggles to the exclusion of other aspects of the parent-child relationship.
Consistently, research with mothers with hyperactive children has found that these
mothers exert more effort to control and structure their children's behavior than mothers
of typically developing children (e.g., Campbell, 197 5). Consequently, these parents may
be more likely to endorse conformity values for their children and disciplinarian roles for
themselves and more likely to favor control-oriented parenting practices than parents with
typically developing children.

In summary, the first component of this study examines the effects of child
characteristics on parenting values and practices, and tests the hypothesis that parents with

children with mental retardation and behavior problems endorse high control values (lower

15

self-direction values, higher valuation of parental discipline and teacher roles) and favor
control-oriented parenting practices (both firm control and power-oriented control)
compared to parents with typically developing children and parents with chronically ill
children. Parents with children with chronic illness are an important comparison because,
as a group, these parents face many of the same stressors as parents with children with
mental retardation (e.g., Turner-Henson, Holaday, & Swan, 1992; Bartholomew, 1986),
but, at least for the children included in the present study, without the presence of
intellectual limitations or the reduced potential for independent functioning across the life
span. Furthermore, although the primary focus of this study concerns parental control,
parents' reports of family closeness are also examined, testing the hypothesis that the
exercise of greater control may be at the expense of family cohesion and warmth.
Consistently, families with children with behavior problems have been found to be less
warm and more conflictual than comparison families (Webster-Stratton, 1985a; Haddad,
Barocas, & Hollenbeck, 1991). Similarly, families with children with mental retardation
are observed to engage in fewer positive, playful exchanges than comparison families
(Floyd & Phillippe, 1993). In addition, the effects of child gender and child age are also
considered in order to evaluate how child disabilities interact with other child
characteristics in forming parents' values and parenting styles. For instance, the effects of
disabilities on parents' values or parenting practices may be especially salient during
specific age periods. Alternatively, children's disabilities may override or interfere with
values or parenting practices based on more normative child characteristics. Finally, since
mothers generally have more child-care responsibilities than fathers (e. g., Bristol,

Gallagher, & Schopler, 1988), mothers are expected to report higher levels of controlling

 

16

values and parenting practices than fathers across all groups of families.

The Effects of Parental Control an Child Devalopmant

Attempts to understand the nature and impact of controlling parenting behaviors

 

on child adjustment have identified a wide range of behaviors that fit under the rubric of
"control." In a review of the literature related to parents' exercise of control, Maccoby
(1984) distinguishes between firm enforcement and restrictive control. Other components
of parental control include demandingness, overprotection, and rejection/ hostility (e.g.,
Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, 1994), but also monitoring, supportive control, and anticipatory
guidance (e. g., Petit & Bates, 1989; Baumrind, 1991). From the range of control-
oriented behaviors that have been identified, it is clear that control is a multidimensional
construct. The implication is that some types of control facilitate adaptive child outcomes,
while other types hinder the development of positive qualities in children. For instance,
Crockenberg and Litman (1990) found that mothers' power assertive behaviors, including
threats, physical interventions, and criticisms, were associated with more child defiance,
whereas firm control and guidance was associated with increased child compliance to
maternal demands.

Firm Control versus PQwer-Qrientg-g antrgl. In the present study, two forms of
parental control are distinguished, firm control versus power-oriented control. Firm
control refers to the provision of structure and organization, guidance, and consistency.
On this dimension, parents' controlling behavior ranges from enforcing clear rules and
routines to providing lax structure and inconsistent discipline. Power-oriented control

refers to more coercive control that relies on the greater authority of the parent to manage

17

children's behavior with strict punishment. On this dimension, parents' controlling
behavior varies in the extent to which authoritarian power is used to establish and enforce
rules and routines.

For two reasons, both types of controlling styles have important effects on child
adjustment. First, parents' control styles have implications for children's development
because the structure, predictability, and consistency parents provide affects the nature
and extent of independence and self-control training children receive (e. g., Gallimore et
al., 1989). Therefore, parental control that involves a high level of parental monitoring
and guidance, paired with maturity expectations, facilitates the development of
independent functioning skills and prosocial behaviors (e. g., Baumrind, 1993).
Alternatively, control strategies that are harsh or punitive are associated with less adaptive
child development. For example, coercive control practices may adversely affect child
adjustment by reinforcing oppositional child behaviors (e. g., Patterson, 1982), providing
the child with hostile and critical models of relationships (Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 1993),
and hindering the development of self-restraint (Feldman & Weinberger, 1994). Second,
parents' approach to discipline teaches children important lessons about their own capacity
for self-control as well as how to control others (Pettit & Bates, 1989). Control strategies
that rely on the parents' greater authority and children's unquestioning obedience do not
teach children qualities such as self-reliance, perseverance, or problem-solving. Instead,
these practices highlight the (unbalanced) parent-child relationship rather than the specific
content the parent is trying to teach, discourage the child's participation in problem-
solving, and undermine the development of a sense of competency in the child (Hess &

McDevitt, 1984).

18

Two basic approaches have been adopted in studying the effects of parental
control on child adjustment. In the first approach, researchers obtain self-reports of
parents' behavior from adolescents and look for evidence that these reports of parenting
styles are associated with the adolescents' adjustment. The research program of Steinberg,
Dombusch and colleagues is representative of this approach. For instance, Dombusch,
Ritter, Liederrnan, Roberts, and F raleigh (1987) were interested in the relationship
between parenting styles and academic achievement. They asked adolescents to rate their
parents' behavior on three parenting styles that conform to Baumrind's (1989) typology:
authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative. Their results showed that authoritative
parenting practices were associated with higher grades, while authoritarian and permissive
parenting styles were associated with lower high school grades. Furthermore, although
they found differences in the mean rates of each parenting style based on child gender,
parents' education, and family structure, the pattern of relationships among the parenting
styles and adolescent achievement was similar across these subgroups.

In another study of parental influences on adolescent achievement, Steinberg,
Elmen, and Mounts (1989) focused exclusively on parents' degree of authoritativeness.
Three components of authoritative parenting were identified: acceptance, behavioral
control, and psychological autonomy granting. They found that all three components
made significant, independent contributions to the prediction of high school grades both
concurrently and one year later. Furthermore, they found that the effect of authoritative
parenting on school performance was mediated by the adolescent's level of psychosocial
maturity, in terms of self-reliance, perseverance, and self-esteem. Finally, Steinberg,

Lamboum, Dombusch, and Darling (1992) also measured the above three components of

l9

authoritative parenting, but instead of treating each component as an independent variable,
they combined the three indices of authoritative parenting to classify parents' degree of
authoritativeness on a 4 point scale. Consistent with the above studies, their results
showed that authoritative parenting was associated with better school performance one
year later. In addition, they found that the effects of authoritative parenting styles on
school performance were mediated by increased parental involvement in children's school
activities.

Overall, these studies demonstrate a positive relationship between authoritative
control practices and school achievement, and a negative relationship between
authoritarian control practices and school achievement. However, since this line of
research has focused exclusively on cognitive outcomes and adolescent development, it is
unknown how these parental control practices relate to children's social development or to
the development of younger children. In addition, there are potential methodological
weakness to this approach of studying parental influence on child development, since
adolescents may not accurately report on their parents' behaviors.

The second approach to understanding the relationships between parenting control
practices and child adjustment involves direct observations of mothers and their young
children. The work of Kochanska, Kuczynski, and colleagues is representative of this
approach. In contrast to the cognitive outcomes examined in the studies reviewed above,
this research has focused on the relationship between control strategies and children's
behavior. In an early study, Kuczynski (1984) observed mothers interacting with their 4
year old children in two situations, one in which the mothers attempted to gain immediate

compliance from their children and another in which the goal was to obtain compliance

20

from the child in the mothers' absence. They found that mothers used different types of
behaviors to obtain compliance under these two conditions. In the immediate compliance
condition, mothers were more likely to use power-oriented behaviors, while in the long-
term compliance condition, mothers were more likely to reason with their children. Most
importantly for our purposes, although power-oriented strategies were effective for
obtaining immediate compliance, they were associated with higher rates of noncompliance
in the long-term. Thus, it was concluded that power-oriented control strategies
discourage internalization.

A study by Kochanska and Askan (1995) also demonstrates the negative
relationship between power-oriented maternal control and children's compliance with
maternal demands. In this study, mothers and their 21 to 41 month old children were
observed interacting together. Two types of maternal control were distinguished, gentle
control and forcefiil control. The results showed that forceful control was related to less
compliance and more passive noncompliance, overt resistance, and defiance, whereas the
use of gentle control showed the opposite effects. However, they also found that mother-
child positive affect was more strongly related with child compliance than any form of
control. Finally, Kuczynski and Kochanska (1995) conducted a longitudinal study of the
effects of maternal demands on the compliance of their 1.5 to 3.5 year old children. In this
study, they distinguished between competence-oriented demands (request to perform an
action) and regulatory controls (demands to stop performing an action). They found that
these latter prohibitive interventions were related to less compliance and increased
behavior problems at age 5, while demands for competent action were related to greater

compliance and fewer behavior problems at age 5.

21

One advantage of this approach is that measures of parental behaviors are directly
observed and therefore are not biased by the reporter. However, observational studies of
parenting behaviors have been criticized because the behaviors observed in the laboratory
setting may not generalize to behaviors outside of the laboratory. For instance, it is
possible that the observational context creates a strong motivation to manage disruptive
behavior, resulting in an overestimation of parental control or an uncharacteristic
representation of the types of control most often used by parents (Stice & Barrera, 1995).
However, two studies by Kochanska and Kuczynski present data suggesting that self-
reports of parenting practices, such as the ones used in the Steinberg at al. studies, and
observations of maternal behaviors are relatively consistent with one another. For /
instance, Kochanska (1990) found that maternal self-reports of authoritative parenting
practices were associated with higher rates of observed prohibitive interventions and more
frequent autonomy-granting practices. Similarly, Kuczynski and Kochanska (1995) found
that self-reports of authoritative parenting styles were related to more demands for
competent action and fewer prohibitions, while self-reports of authoritarian parenting
styles were related to more prohibitions. Thus, it seems that there is some consistency
between parents' reports of their child-rearing practices and observations of parent-child
interactions.

Overall, these studies show that maternal control styles have differential
implications for the development of children's capacity for internalization and self-control.
However, these observational studies have only included very young children, and so less
is known about parental control practices and the development of school-aged children.

In addition, fathers' parenting practices were not examined in any of the studies reviewed

22

above. That is, in the Steinberg et al. studies, adolescents reported on their "parents"
behaviors, without distinguishing between mothers and fathers, and the Kochanska,

Kuczynski, et al. studies included only mothers.

In contrast to the evidence for relationships between parents' control practices and
child development, much less is known about the relationships between parents' values
and child development. In theory, the relationship between parents' cognitions and child
development is mediated by parenting behaviors (e. g., McGillicuddy-DeLisi, 1985). In
practice, there are no studies that simultaneously examine all three constructs related to
the exercise of control in parenting. Thus, the second component of the present study
examines whether parental control values show similar relationships to child adjustment as
parenting practices, and whether control values are associated with child adjustment above
and beyond their association with parenting practices. A model of these proposed
relationships is presented in Figure 1.

First, in order to support the mediational model, parental values should be related
to measures of child adjustment. Consistently, mothers' conformity values are associated
with relatively lower mental test scores and lower teacher ratings of curiosity and
creativity (Schaefer & Edgerton, 1985), and self-direction values are associated with
higher verbal intelligence in young children (Schaefer, 1988) and higher achievement test
scores in older children (Okagaki & Sternberg, 1991).

Second, in order to support the mediational model, parents' values and parenting
practices need to be related in a meaningful and consistent manner. Three studies

illustrate the relationships between parental control values and parenting practices. First,

23

Segal (1985) examined maternal role values in a sample of mothers from low
socioeconomic areas participating in an early intervention program. She found that
mothers who valued their role as their child's teacher did not value their role as a
disciplinarian. In addition, the mothers with higher teacher role values spent more time
participating in parent-child learning activities sponsored by the intervention program.
Second, Luster, Rhoades, and Haas (1989) studied the relationship between maternal
child-rearing values and observations of maternal support and restraint. They found that
mothers with higher conformity values were rated by observers as less involved, less
warm, and more restrictive of their children's actions, and reported more frequent use of
physical punishment. In contrast, higher self-direction values were associated with rater
observations of higher levels of involvement, higher levels of warmth, and less fiequent
restriction of children's behavior. Third, Iverson and Segal (1992) examined the
relationships between mothers' child-rearing values and mother-child interactions in a
sample of 3 to 5 year old children. They distinguished between obedience values and
process goals (e. g., independence, imagination, responsibility). Neither value was related
to mother's use of directives or limits during the mother-child interaction. However,
higher process goals were associated with more time spent interacting with the child and a
higher rate of questions and comments directed at the child during the interaction.

Since there are no studies in which control values, control-oriented parenting
practices, and child development are considered simultaneously, it is not known whether
parental values are associated with child adjustment above and beyond the effects of
parenting practices. Accordingly, the present study tests the hypothesis that parental

control values influence children's adjustment through their association with controlling

24

parenting styles. Both positive and negative indices of children's social adjustment are
assessed. First, consistent with previous research in this area, the relationship between
parenting and children's externalizing behavior problems is evaluated. Second, children's
adaptive behavior skills, in terms of self-direction skills and social responsibility skills, are
evaluated. In addition, the present study expands on previous research by including a
wide age-range of children (6 to 18 years old) and by studying the pr0posed relationships
for mothers and fathers separately.

Finally, in addition to the linear effects described in the above review, it is also
important to consider that the effects of parental control on child adjustment may not be
linear. In particular, the relationship between control and child development may be
curvilinear rather than linear (Kurdek & Fine, 1994). Baumrind (1991) theorized two
potential nonlinear relationships between control and child development. First, parental
control may demonstrate an inverted-U relationship, in which moderate levels of control
are related to optimal child development. Alternatively, Baumrind speculated that there
may be a threshold after which higher levels of parental control are no longer associated
with increases in child adjustment. Kurdek and Fine (1994) tested for nonlinear
relationships between parental firm control and the development of adolescent's
psychosocial competence and behavioral self-regulation. They found that higher levels of
firm control were linearly associated with more competent adolescent functioning. In
addition, they found a curvilinear relationship between firm control and adolescent
adjustment. However, the nature of this complex relationship was not either of the types
Baumrind hypothesized. Instead, they found that the relationship between firm control

and adjustment grew progressively stronger at higher levels of firm control. That is, at the

25

lower end of the continuum, firm control was minimally related to children's adjustment,
whereas at the high end of the continuum, firm control showed a strong positive effect on
children's adjustment. Thus, at least for the type of firm control associated with
authoritative parenting, high levels appear to be particularly beneficial.

Roberts (1986) also evaluated nonlinear relationships between parental control and
the social competence of preschoolers. In addition, this study assessed both firm control,
as rated by observers, and strict control, as reported by parents. The results demonstrated
a curvilinear relationship between observations of parents' firm control and children's
social competence. Consistent with Baumrind's hypotheses, the nature of this complex
relationship was an inverted-U function, so that moderate levels of firm control were
associated with optimal levels of social competence, and relatively low and relatively high
levels were both associated with lower levels of competence. Finally, an even more
complicated sigmoidal relationship (a fourth-degree polynomial firnction) was found
between mothers' strict control and children's behavioral competence. Although the
nature of this relationship was complex, the pattern indicated that the highest child
competence scores were associated with both low and moderately high levels of strict
control, with a sharp decrease in social competence scores at the highest levels of strict
control.

In summary, much controversy over the exact nature of the relationship suggests
the need to investigate linear and curvilinear associations of control with child adjustment.
Accordingly, the second component of this study tests the hypothesis that higher levels of
firm control are associated with more competent child adjustment, whereas higher levels

of power-oriented control are associated with less competent child adjustment. In

26
addition to parental control styles, higher levels of family closeness are also expected to be
related to more competent child behaviors (e.g., Stice & Barrera, 1995; Kurdek & Fine,
1994). Furthermore, if curvilinear relationships are evident, higher levels of firm control
are expected to be associated with greater child competence in an accelerated manner,
whereas mid-levels of power-oriented control are expected to be related to optimal child
competence. Regarding parental values, higher self-direction values and teacher role
values are expected to be related to greater child competence, whereas higher discipline
role values are expected to be related to less competent child adjustment. In addition, this
component tests the hypothesis that parenting styles mediate the association between
parental values and child adjustment. The above relationships are evaluated separately for
mothers and fathers, testing the hypothesis that mothers' values and parenting styles are
better predictors of child adjustment than those of fathers (e. g., Pettit, Bates, & Dodge,
1993; Gjerde, 1988). Finally, since optimal parenting should not differ across different
types of families, no differences in these relationships are expected based on the child's

disability status.

Impligatigns Qf Parental Contra] Valaes far Perceptigns of Parenting Sugcess

The third component of this study examines the implication of parents' control
values for their own perceptions of success in the parenting role. Perceptions of parenting
success are indicated by parents' beliefs about their ability to control children's behavior
and the degree to which they blame themselves for children's misbehavior, so that people
who feel more successful as parents perceive greater control over child behavior and less

responsibility for child misbehavior than people who feel relatively less successfirl.

27

Most previous research regarding perceptions of parenting competence has
conceptualized beliefs about control and responsibility as resources that parents bring to
the task of parenting in much the same way as they bring different values and have
different parenting styles. Several studies suggest that understanding the sources of
parents' control and responsibility beliefs is important because perceptions of parenting
competence are associated with personal and family well-being. For instance, Holloway
and Machida (1992) studied parenting and child adjustment in a sample of recently
divorced women and found that mothers who perceived little control over child behavior
and who attributed children's misbehavior to their own parenting had more health and
psychological problems than mothers with higher beliefs regarding their own control and
mothers who assumed less responsibility for children's behavior. Similarly, in families with
children with handicaps, Frey, Greenberg, and F ewell (1989) found that parents who rated
their own parenting efficacy high had lower scores on measures of parenting stress and
psychological distress, whereas perceptions of low control were related to higher levels of
stress. Finally, Koeske and Koeske (1992) found that an internal parenting locus of
control was associated with higher levels of self-esteem and parenting satisfaction.

Parents' perceptions regarding their own control are also related to their parenting
practices. For instance, the Holloway and Machida (1992) study discussed above also
found that mothers with higher control beliefs used more effective parenting styles, such
as setting appropriate limits, and showed more effective coping strategies. Similarly,
Luster and Rhoades (1989) studied the relationship between mothers' perceptions of
parenting efficacy and observations of their interactions with their young children and the

structure of their homes. They found that mothers who believed that they had more

28

influence over child development provided relatively more supportive home environments.

Furthermore, a series of studies by Bugental and colleagues indicates that
perceptions of perceived control may moderate the effects of child characteristics on
parents' behaviors and emotions, so that low perceived control makes parents more
vulnerable to difficult children. For example, Bugental et al. (1980) trained children to be
either responsive or unresponsive, and then observed women interacting with them. They
found that women with low perceived control beliefs were less assertive when interacting
with unresponsive children compared to responsive children, whereas the behavior of
women with high perceived control beliefs was unaffected by child responsiveness.
Another study by Bugental and colleagues demonstrates that perceptions of control are
also related to affective reactions to child behavior. In this study, Bugental, Blue, Cortex,
Fleck, Kopeikin, Clayton, and Lyon (1993) used computer simulated children who were
either responsive or unresponsive to examine the influence of women's perceived control
beliefs on their autonomic and affective responses. They found that women with low
perceived control were maximally physiologically aroused by child characteristics, so that
they reacted differently to responsive and unresponsive children, whereas high perceived
control women showed more consistent affective reactions to all children.

Finally, several studies suggest that parents' control and responsibility beliefs
influence children's adjustment. For instance, Keltikanga-Jarvinen (1990) found that
mothers who perceived more personal control tended to have less aggressive children,
whereas mothers who perceive less personal control tended to have more aggressive
children. Similarly, DeMaso, Campis, Wypij, Bertram, Lipshitz, & Freed (1991) found

that mothers with external parenting locus of control beliefs had children with higher levels

29

of behavior problems. Finally, mothers seeking psychological services for their children's
behavior problems report lower perceived parent control as well as greater perceived child
control than non-referred mothers (Mouton & Tuma, 1988; Campis, Lyman, &
Prentice-Dunn, 1986).

Although the above studies interpreted the direction of effects as parents' beliefs
influencing children's adjustment, these results can also be understood in the reverse
direction. That is, experience with different types of children may have implications for
parents' sense of competency. Consistently, Mash and Johnston (1983) found that parents
with hyperactive children reported less control than parents with typically developing
children. Similarly, Teti and Gelfand (1991) found that mothers with infants with difficult
temperaments reported lower efficacy beliefs. Finally, Baden & Howe (1992) found that
mothers with conduct disordered children were less likely to rate their own parenting as
effective than mothers of nonclinic children.

In addition to the influence of children's adjustment on perceptions of parenting
success, parents' control values may be directly related as well (e. g., Swick and Graves,
1986). However, it is unlikely that there is a one-to-one correspondence between parents'
control values and their perceptions of parenting success. Instead, control values may
moderate the relationship between children's behavior and parents' perceptions of
parenting success. That is, control values are probably not inherently good or bad in terms
of perceptions of parenting competence, and instead may become problematic only when
they are violated (e.g., Baucom, Epstein, Sayers, & Sher, 1989). Research on children's
temperament suggests that it is the "goodness of fit" between child characteristics and the

social and physical characteristics of the environment that determine children's adjustment

3O

(Lerner, 1993). This model proposes that children's temperamental characteristics are
positively associated with psychosocial adjustment when they conform to the demands of
home or school, and are negatively associated with adjustment when they are incongruent
with environmental demands (Lerner, 1984; Lerner, Lerner, & Zabski, 1985). This model
may apply to parents' adjustment as well children's, in that it may be the "goodness of fit"
between parental values and child behavior that determines perceptions of parenting
success or failure. For instance, a high level of behavior problems may be associated with
lower perceptions of parenting success only when parents highly value parental control or
child conformity. In this way, parents' control values may either exacerbate or buffer the
effects of having a difficult child on perceptions of parenting competence.

In summary, the final component of this study tests the hypothesis that less
competent child adjustment is associated with lower perceptions of parenting success, in
terms of higher levels of self-blame for child misbehavior and lower levels of perceived
parenting control, only when children's behavior violates parents' values. Thus, higher
levels of behavior problems are expected to be related to lower perceptions of parenting
success for the parents who endorse high control values (low self-direction values and
high discipline role values), but not for parents with lower control values. Similarly, lower
levels of adaptive firnctioning are expected to be associated with lower perceptions of

success for parents with high self-direction values and high teacher role values only.

31

Smm fH hs

 

Part 1: The Effacts of Child Grdup dn Pgental Values and Pmtices

1. Parents with children with mental retardation and behavior problems will endorse high
control values and favor control-oriented parenting practices compared to parents with
typically developing children and parents with chronically ill children.

2. The exercise of greater control in families with children with mental retardation and
children with behavior problems will be at the expense of feelings of family closeness.

3. The effects of child gender and child age will be considered in order to evaluate how
child disabilities interact with other child characteristics in forming parents' values and
parenting styles.

4. Mothers will report higher levels of controlling values and parenting practices than

fathers across all groups of families.

Past 2: The Effects of Pgental_Values fild Prfltices on Child Develdpment
A. Parenting styles mediate the association between parental values and child adjustment.
In order to test this hypothesis, four sets of relationships among the variables are
examined:

1. Parental Vflues and Patenting Styles: Higher values related to control will be

associated with higher levels of control-oriented parenting styles.

2. Parsnting Styles and Child Adjustment:

a) Linear relationships: Higher levels of firm control will be associated

with more competent child adjustment, whereas higher levels of power-oriented

32

control will be associated with less competent child adjustment. In addition, higher
levels of family closeness will be related to more competent child behaviors.

b) Curvilinear relationship: Higher levels of firm control will be associated
with greater child competence in an accelerated manner (stronger associations with
child competence at higher levels of firm control), whereas mid-levels of power-
oriented control will be related to optimal child competence.

3. Parental Values and Child Adjustment: Parental values will show similar
relationships to child adjustment as parenting styles. Specifically, higher self-
direction values and teacher role values will be related to greater child competence,
whereas higher discipline role values will be related to less competent child
adjustment.
4. Mediation: The effects of parental values on child adjustment will be mediated
by parenting styles. Therefore, parental values will not add to the prediction of
child adjustment after accounting for the effects of parenting styles.

In addition, across these analyses:

B. Mothers' values and parenting styles will be better predictors of child adjustment than

those of fathers.

C. No differences in these relationships will be evident based on the child's disability

status.

P 3: TheEffect fPrn nrolV es nPr ion ofParnin e
1. Perceptions of parenting success will be determined by the "goodness of fit" between

parents' control values and children's behavior. Therefore, less competent child

33

adjustment will be associated with lower perceptions of parenting success only when
children's behavior violates parents' values.

2. More specifically, higher levels of behavior problems will be related to lower
perceptions of parenting success for the parents who endorse high control values, but not
for parents with lower control values. Similarly, lower levels of adaptive functioning will
be associated with lower perceptions of success for parents with high self-direction values

and high teacher role values only.

Chapter 2
METHODS
mm;

The subjects participated in a larger longitudinal study of family interactions and
family firnctioning. The data used in the present study were collected as part of the third
phase of the longitudinal study. Most of the families with children with mental
retardation and typically developing children were completing a five year follow-up at
Phase 3. The families with children with chronic illness and behavior problems were
assessed for the first time at Phase 3. The subjects were recruited from medium-sized
urban areas and rural areas within a 100 mile radius of a Midwestern university. Each
family was paid $60 for their participation.

Mental Retardation. The families with children with mental retardation who
participated in the two previous phases of data collection were re-contacted by letter and
phone to participate in the five year follow-up. At Phase 1, 171 families with 6-18 year
old children with mental retardation were recruited from Educable Mentally Impaired
(EMI) and Trainable Mentally Impaired (TMI) classrooms. Of these families, 106 agreed
to participate in the five year follow-up. Since the children with mental retardation from
this initial sample were 11-23 years old at the five year follow-up, a subgroup of 29
replacement families with 6-10 year old mentally retarded children were recruited in order
to represent the full age-range 6-18 for comparison purposes. These additional families
were recruited with the same procedures as the initial sample. Thus, the combined sample
of families with children with mental retardation at Phase 3 consisted of 135 families.
Additional families were eliminated if the child with mental retardation was older than 18

34

35

years old or if the family was missing data on the central variables examined in this study,
resulting in 91 families.

Finally, since the parents with children with mental retardation tended to be older
than the parents in the other groups, an additional 15 families who were outliers in terms
of parents' age were eliminated fiom the current sample in order to make the groups
comparable. Thus, the final sample of families with children with mental retardation
consisted of 76 families. A series of independent samples t-tests evaluated for differences
between the 76 families included in the present study and the 15 families excluded from
the present study in terms of parental values, parenting styles, perceptions of parenting
success, and child adjustment. The results of these analyses revealed only one differences,
in which the mothers of included in the present study reported higher discipline role values
than the mothers excluded from the present study, t(88)=-2.05, p<.05.

Placement in special education classes requires evidence of impairment in
intellectual firnctioning and adaptive behavior skills. Based on scores from intelligence
tests administered by the schools (WISC-R and Stanford-Binet), 61 (80%) of the children
obtained IQ scores in the 55-70 ranges and were enrolled in EMI classes, while 15 (20%)
obtained IQ scores in the 40-54 range and were enrolled in TM] classes. These EM] and
TM] classes correspond with DSM-IV criteria for mild and moderate mental retardation.

Behavior Problems. A sample of 64 families with children with behavior problems
were recruited at Phase 3 of the longitudinal study. Two criteria were used for inclusion
into the Behavior Problem group: 1) a score in the 93 rd percentile or higher (T score >=
65) on the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991) as reported by either

parent or teacher and 2) a referral for educational or treatment services because of

36

behavior management problems, including parent-initiated referrals. Families were
recruited from public school classrooms for children with emotional impairments and
community agencies that treat children with behavior problems. Several of the families
recruited for the behavior problem sample failed to meet the requirement of parent or
teacher reported behavior problems over the 93rd percentile (N_=16), and therefore these
families were excluded from the present study. In addition, 7 families were excluded
because they had incomplete data, and one family was excluded because they were an
outlier in terms of parent education. The final sample consisted of 40 families with
children with behavior problems. Of the 40 children, 23 had a diagnosis of Attention
Deficit Disorder (ADD, N=14) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD,
111:9). In addition, 23 children were labelled as either "emotionally impaired" or "behavior
problems." These numbers sum to more than 40 because 6 children received both labels
(ADD/ADHD and emotionally impaired).

Chronie Illness. A sample of 78 families with children with a chronic illness or
physical handicap were also recruited at Phase 3. Compared to the total sample, 11 of
these children were outliers in terms of children's age, and therefore were excluded from
the current study, resulting in a sample size of 59. A series of independent samples t-tests
evaluated for differences between the 59 families included in the present study and the 11
families excluded fi'om the present study in terms of parental values, parenting styles,
perceptions of parenting success, and child adjustment. The results of these analyses
revealed only two differences for the fathers. The fathers who were included in the
current study reported lower discipline role values and lower power-oriented control than

the fathers who were excluded, t(41)=2.21, p<.05 and t(40)=2.47, p<.05 respectively.

37

Chronic illness was defined as any medical condition that is enduring, recurrent,
and requires ongoing medical supervision or care, or any physical or sensory handicap
which limits mobility and independent fiJnctioning, and requires special prosthetics or
training (e. g., Gortmaker & Sappenfield, 1984). Subjects with concurrent intellectual
impairments were excluded from the sample during the recruitment phase. The majority
of these families were recruited through the Department of Public Health. Additional
subjects were recruited by sending letters to all families with children enrolled in public
school classrooms for children with physical health, or sensory impairments. Finally, local
hospitals and community service agencies helped to recruit families. The primary medical
diagnoses of the children in this group were as follows: 16 visual or hearing impairment,
15 asthma, 8 juvenile diabetes, 8 cerebral palsy, 5 physical abnormalities affecting
mobility, 4 muscular dystrophy, 2 cleft lip palate, 2 congenital heart disease, 2 spina bifida,
1 chronic kidney disease, 1 chronic liver disease, 1 sickle cell anemia, 1 leukemia, 1
scoliosis, 1 spinal meningitis, 1 Graves disease, 1 Lowes syndrome, 1 hepatitis, 1 lung
disease, 1 neurofibromatosis, and 1 bladder deformity. The number of diagnoses exceeds
the number of subjects because 18 of the children had more than one medical diagnoses.
In addition, 8 of the children were also diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder.

Sixty three percent of the children in the chronic illness sample had a condition that
involved a physical impairment, and 55% were enrolled in physical or occupational
therapy or special classes for their illness at the time of the study. In addition, 18% of the
sample had been hospitalized in the past year, and all but one of the children had

symptoms present at the time of the study. In general, the disabilities in this sample tended

 

38

to be chronic, but not acute.

Typically developing children. Comparison families with typically developing
children who participated in the initial study were re-contacted by letter and phone to
participate in the five year follow-up. At Phase 1, 52 families with 6-18 year old typically
developing children were recruited through newspaper advertisements. Of these families,
25 agreed to participated in the follow-up. At Phase 3, an additional 35 families with
typically developing children were recruited. Data for the combined sample of 60 families
were screened to ensure that the target children were in regular education classes and that
they did not have behavior problems (as indexed by elevated scores on the Child Behavior
Checklist). Nine of the families were eliminated from the current sample because the
mothers reported T-scores above the 93rd percentile on the Child Behavior Checklist. In
addition, two farrrilies were outliers in terms of parent education and were excluded from
the current study. The final sample of typically developing children consisted of 41
families.

Sample Characteristics.

In total, 216 families were included in the study. One-way ANOVAs were
conducted to evaluate group differences in demographic characteristics for the final
sample. The means and standard deviations and frequencies for each group are presented
in Table 1 for the parents' characteristics. There were no differences in the fathers' age,
E(3,151)=1.20, p=ns, the mothers' age, F(3,209)=1.45, p=ns, the fathers' education,
Ii(3,149)=1.88, p=ns, the mothers' education, E(3,207)=1.07, p=ns, or yearly family
income, E(3,200)=1.19, p=ns. For the entire sample, the mean age of the fathers was

40.66 (SD=6.75), range 29-58, and the mean age of the mothers was 37.61 (S_=5.97),

39
range 25-54. The mean number of years of education was 13.98 (_S_I_)=2.23) range 9-19
for the fathers and 13.74 (S_D=2.14) range 8-20 for the mothers. The mean yearly family
income was $34,074 (SD=$28,413), range=$3,000-$180,000. In addition, chi square
analyses revealed no differences across fanrily groups for the number of married versus
single parents, or for the percentage of ethnic minority farrrilies. For the entire sample,
there were 132 married couples and 84 single parents (primarily mothers). Twenty
percent of the sample were ethnic minorities. Specifically, 29 mothers and 11 father were
Afiican-American, 8 mothers and 3 fathers were Asian, 1 father was Latino, and 4
mothers and 3 fathers were Native American.

The frequencies of child gender and child age group within each group of families
are presented in Table 2. The frequency of behavior problems within each group of
families, defined by a score greater than the 93rd percentile on the Child Behavior
Checklist Total Problem Score, is also presented in the table. The mean age for the target
child across the entire sample was 11.74 (S_=2.95) years, range 6-18 years. A one-way
ANOVA confirmed the absence of differences in the target children's ages across family
groups, F(3,212)=1.91, p=ns. In addition, chi square analyses revealed no differences
across family groups for child gender or child age group (6-12 versus 13-18 years old).
For the entire sample, there were 109 boys and 107 girls, 126 children aged 6-12 years
and 90 children aged 13-18 years, and 129 children without behavior problems and 87

children with behavior problems.

Proeedure.
Each farrrily participated in two sessions of data collection that lasted

approximately two hours and were scheduled one week apart. All family members were

 

4O

requested to be present for both sessions. During the first session, the purposes and
procedures of the study were explained and family members completed a battery of
questionnaires measuring parenting cognitions, family firnctioning and relationships, child
adjustment, marital functioning, psychological distress, social support, and sibling
relationships. In addition, the parents completed a 10 minute marital problem solving
discussion. Some questionnaires were completed by the parents in the week between
sessions. During the second session, family members finished any incomplete
questionnaires and the family was videotaped during a 10 rrrinute family problem solving
discussion and a 50 rrrinute unstructured family interaction. Only questionnaire data are
included in the present study.
Instruments
Measures of Parental Values.

Self-direetien vs. Confermity Values. Parents' childrearing values were measured
with Schaefer and Edgerton's revision of Kohn's Value Scale (Schaefer & Edgerton, 1985;
see Appendix A). The scale consists of fifteen values, six indicating conformity values
(e. g., "to keep himself and his clothes clean"), six indicating self-direction values (e. g., "to
think for himself"), and three indicating social values (e. g., "to be kind to other children").
These fifteen values are separated into three sets of five values; each set contains two
conformity values, two self-direction values, and one social value. For each set, parents
rank order their value preferences from 1 ("the most important thing you want your child
to learn") to 5 ("the least important"). For the present study, a conformity score was
calculated by summing the confomrity items and a self-direction score was calculated by

summing the self-direction items. Scores on each scale could range from 9 to 27. In

 

41

order to aid interpretation, that scores were reflected so that higher scores indicated a
higher value placed on that quality. Schaefer and Edgerton (1985) reported test-retest
correlations over a four month period of [=79 for conformity values and [=64 for self-
direction values. Because of the ipsative nature of this scale, conformity and self-direction
scores were highly correlated (_r=-.86 for the fathers and t=-.84 for the mothers).
Therefore, a single measure of self-direction vs. conformity values was calculated by
subtracting conformity scores from self-direction scores, and adding a constant so that all
scores were greater than zero. Scores on this variable could range from 0 to 36, with
higher scores associated with higher self-direction values and lower conformity values.
This new index of childrearing values correlated highly with the original measures of self-
direction (1:97 for the fathers and [=96 for the mothers) and conformity (_r=-.96 for the

fathers and t=-.96 for the mothers) values.

 

Insert Table 3 here

 

Parenting Rele Values. Parents' role values were measured with a modification of
Segal's (1985) Role Disposition Questionnaire. The Role Disposition Questionnaire is a
24-item scale with a 5-point Likert format, ranging from "strongly disagree" (1) to
"strongly agree" (5). The items assess parents' beliefs about their primary responsibilities
as parents, as disciplinarians and/or as teachers. The authors submitted these 24 items to a
factor analysis and found that 10 items loaded on a single factor (alpha= .79) (Rebman,
1982). The items on this factor contained both "disciplinarian" and "teacher" items

loading in opposite directions, indicating that these two parenting responsibilities were

 

 

 

42

mutually exclusive rather than orthogonal. In the current sample, however, this 10-item
scale had low reliability (alpha=.50) and preliminary analyses indicated that the parent-as-
disciplinarian and parent-as-teacher items were largely uncorrelated (correlations ranging
from .03 to -.16). Therefore, the original 24 items were submitted to a principal
components factor analyses (varimax rotation). Data for both mothers and fathers were
used in this analysis, resulting in 456 subjects. The 24 items formed four significant
factors (eigenvalues > 1.00). Consistent with the recommendations of Tabachnick &
Fidell (1989), only items with factor loadings greater than .45 were used to calculate
factor scores (at least 20% overlapping variance). The first factor, Discipline
(eigenvalue=3. 14), assessed parents valuation of their role as enforcers of strict obedience,
and five items showed factor loadings greater than .45 (range 56-71). The second factor,
Term (eigenvalue=2.45), assessed parents' valuation of their role as educators of their
children at home, and five items showed factor loadings greater than .45 (range: 56-67).
These items and their factor loadings are presented in Table 3 (see Appendix A for the
original 24-item questionnaire). Factor scores were calculated for the mothers and the
fathers separately by summing the five items per factor. Further analysis yielded alpha
reliability coefficients for these two factors of .70 for the Disciplinarian scale and .64 for
the Teacher scale. Consistent with the idea that these two role dispositions are orthogonal
constructs, the disciplinarian and teacher factor scores were unrelated for both the fathers
(t=.02) and the mothers (F-.03). Scores on each scale could range from 5 to 25, with

higher scores indicating relatively high role values in each domain.

 

 

 

43

Measures of Parenting Styles

Family Cleseness. Family Closeness was measured with the Relationship
Dimension of the Family Environment Scale (see Appendix B for all parenting styles
scales). The Family Environment Scale (F ES; Moos & Moos, 1981) consists of 90 true-
false statements which comprise 10 scales. These scales assess the quality of family
relationships, attitudes regarding achievement, cultural pursuits and recreation, and family
structure and maintenance. The FES is a widely used instrument with good reliability and
validity (e. g., Boake & Salmon, 1983; Robertson & Hyde, 1982). The Relationship
Dimension combines three factors from the FES: Cohesion + Expressiveness - Conflict.
The Cohesion scale measures feelings of farrrily unity and belonging (e. g., "Family
members really help and support one another"). Similarly, the Expressiveness scale
measures the extent to which family members feel safe to express their feelings openly
(e. g., "We tell each other our personal problems in our family"). The Conflict scale
measures the degree of hostility and disagreement in the family (e. g., "We fight a lot in our
family"). Higher scores indicate relatively more closeness, warmth, and sense of
belonging, and relatively less hostility. Scores on this dimension ranged from 0 to 24.

Firm Control. A measure of firm control was derived by combining scales from
two family questionnaires: the Systems Maintenance Dimension (Organization + Control)
of the FES and the Laissez-Faire parenting scale from the Family Activities and
Relationships Questionnaire. The Family Activities and Relationship Questionnaire
(FARQ; Bloom, 1985) consists of 40 items regarding family functioning. These 40 items

factor into 8 scales measuring different types of family styles. Items are rated on a 4 point

 

 

 

44

scale from very untrue for my family (1) to very true for my family (4). The F ARQ has
been found to be a valid measure of family life when the individual is the unit of analysis
(Bloom, 1985) as well as when the farrrily is the unit of analysis (Benson, Curtner-Smith,
Collins, & Keith, 1995). The Systems Maintenance Dimension measures the degree of
structure, rules, and routines in the family (e. g., "There are set ways of doing things in our
family" and "There is a strong emphasis on following rules in our family"). The Laissez-
Faire scale measures the extent to which structure and rules are absent in the family (e. g.,
"It is unclear what will happen when rules are broken in our family"). Thus, the Systems
Maintenance Dimension and the Laissez-Faire scales assess opposite ends of the
continuum from clear structure to lax rule and discipline. Furthermore, the Systems
Maintenance Dimension and Laissez-Faire scales were correlated, _r=-.33, p<.000 for
fathers and [-=-.23, p<.001 for mothers. Therefore, a score for Firm Control was
calculated by subtracting the Laissez-Faire scale fi'om the Systems Maintenance
Dimension. Afier adding a constant term so that all scores were greater than zero, scores
for Firm Control ranged from 0 to 21.

Pdwer-Qriented Contrdl. The measure of power-oriented control consisted of the
Authoritarian scale of the FARQ. The Authoritarian scale measures the extent to which
parents rely on their greater power and authority in making and enforcing family rules
(e. g., "There is strict punishment for breaking rules in our family"). Scores on this scale
ranged from 5 to 18, with higher scores indicating greater reliance on parental dominance
and strict punishment for exercising parental control.

In order to further clarify the distinction between firm control and power-oriented

control, Table 4 presents a comparison of the types of items included on each scale. In

 

 

45

addition, Table 4 presents sample items from the scales assessing parental values in order

to clarify the distinction between parental values and parenting styles.

 

Insert Table 4 here

 

Measures of Child Adjustment

Behavior Problems. Externalizing behavior problems were measured with the
normalized T-scores for Externalizing Behavior Problems on the Child Behavior Checklist
(Achenbach, 1991). This scale was almost always completed by the mothers. The
externalizing scale consists of 33 items that parents rate on a 3-point scale, not true (0),
somewhat or sometimes true (1), or very true of ofien true (2). On the Externalizing
factor, 20 items assess aggressive behaviors (e. g., "gets in many fights") and 13 items
assess delinquent behaviors (e. g, "lies, cheats"). The Child Behavior Checklist is a widely
used measure of behavioral and emotional problems in children and has excellent test-
retest reliability, and good concurrent and predictive validity (Achenbach, 1991). In the
current sample, Externalizing T-scores ranged from 30 to 91.

Adaptive Behavior. Two indices were used to measure adaptive fimctioning, both
derived from the Adaptive Behavior Scale (ABS; Nihira, Foster, Shellhaas, & Leland,
1974; see Appendix C). This scale was completed by the mother in the majority of
families. These measures were not administered to the typically developing children. The
ABS is a widely used measure of child firnctioning in samples of children with mental
retardation and has adequate reliability and validity (e.g., Nihira, 1976). Both measures of

adaptive behavior skills were applicable to all children, not just children with mental

 

46

retardation. Self-Direction. The Self-Direction scale of the ABS assesses the extent to
which children show initiative, perseverance, and independent use of leisure time (e. g.,
"initiates most of own activities"). Self-Direction scores ranged from 1 to 20. M
Respensibility. The measure of social competence combines two scales from the ABS,
Responsibility and Socialization (5:64). Items on these scales assess children's
dependability, responsibility for personal belongings, cooperation, consideration, and
social maturity (e. g., "is willing to help if asked" and "initiates group activities"). Social
Responsibility score ranged from 9 to 32.
Measures of Parenting Success
Parents' perceptions of responsibility and control were measured by two subscales

of the Parental Locus of Control Scale (Campis, Lyman, & Prentice-Dunn, 1986). This
scale is comprised of 47 items presented in a 5-point Likert format, ranging from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Campis et al. (1986) report good internal consistency
for the scale (alpha=.92) and construct validity, and Roberts, Joe, & Rowe-Hallbert
(1992) report good test-retest reliability (t=.83). Two factors from this scale are included
in the present study: Self-Blame/ Responsibility (10 items) and Parental Control of Child's
Behavior (10 items). Factor scores were calculated by reverse scoring items that had
negative factor loadings, and summing the respective items (see Appendix D).

Self-Blame/ Respensibility assesses the degree to which parents feel responsible
for child behavior, with high scores indicating relatively greater self-blame (e. g., "My
child's behavior problems are no one's fault but my own"). Pereeived Centre] assesses
parents' sense of competency at controlling their child's behavior, with higher scores

indicating relatively greater perceptions of control (e.g., "I always feel in control when it

 

47

comes to my child's behavior"). Campis et al. (1986) present reliability data for these
factors (alpha=.77 for Self-Blame/ Responsibility and alpha=.65 for Perceived Control).
However, since all of the subjects in their study were under twelve years old, the reliability
of these scales was assessed in the present sample of children 6-18 years old. In the
current sample, both scales showed adequate reliability across this wider age range.
Specifically, for Self-Blame/ Responsibility, alpha=.78 for the fathers and .80 for the
mothers, and for Perceived Control, alpha= .62 for the fathers and .65 for the mothers.
Self-Blame/Responsibility scores ranged from 10 to 50, and Perceived Control scores

ranged from 17 to 47.

 

Insert Table 5 here

 

Mother - Father Correlations

 

The correlations between the mothers and the fathers reports of values, parenting
styles, and perceptions of parenting success are presented in Table 5 for the entire sample,
the parents of children with mental retardation only, and the parents without children with
mental retardation only. As shown in Table 5, the mothers and the fathers' reports were
significantly correlated across variables. However, since the correlations were moderate
in magnitude (range for the entire sample: .19-.58), mothers and fathers' reports are not
completely redundant of one another. Therefore, mothers and fathers data are evaluated
separately. In addition, the strength of the correlation between mothers and fathers varies
depending on the presence of a child with mental retardation. For instance, as shown in

Table 5, self-direction values are highly correlated for the parents of children without

 

48

mental retardation, but are uncorrelated for the parents with children with mental
retardation. The reverse pattern is evident for power-oriented control and, to a lesser
extent, teacher role values. These difference provide firrther support for evaluating

mothers and fathers separately.

Cperatidnalization df Hypotheses
These operational definitions correspond to the hypotheses presented at the end of

Chapter 1.

Part 1 The Effects of Child Group on Parental Values and Practices

Variable Family (gettp Effeet Patent Effeet

Self-direction Values comparisons > MIL BP Father > Mother
Disciplinarian Role Values MR, BP > comparisons Mother > Father
Teacher Role Values MR, BP > comparisons Mother > Father
Firm Control MR, BP > comparisons Mother > Father
Power-Oriented Control MR, BP > comparisons Mother > Father
Family Closeness comparisons > MR, BP Mother > Father

Part 2 The Effects of Parental Values and Practices on Child Development

1. Parental Values predicting Parenting Sgles

Predictors: Values Predicted: Parenting Sgles

 

1 self-direction values
I discipline role values I firm control, I power-oriented control
1 teacher role values

 

49
I self-direction values

1 discipline role values I family closeness
1 teacher role values

2. Parenting Styles predicting Child Adjustment

 

a) Linear relationships
Predictors: Parentirtg Styles Predicted: Child Adjustment
1 firm control

I power-oriented control I externalizing behavior problems
1 family closeness

1 firm control

1 power-oriented control I adaptive functioning

1 family closeness

b) C urvilinear relationships

1. Firm control:
a) The negative correlation between firm control and behavior problems will be
especially strong at the lower end of the firm control continuum.
b) The positive correlation between firm control and adaptive behavior skills will
be especially strong at the higher end of the firm control continuum.

2. Power-Oriented Control:
a) Mid-levels of power-oriented control will be associated with the lowest levels
of children's externalizing behavior problems.

b) Mid-levels of power-oriented control will be associated with the highest levels

of children's adaptive behavior skills.

 

 

 

50
C. Parents' control values predicting Child Adjustment

Predietors: Values Predicted: Child Adjustment

1 self-direction values

I discipline role values I externalizing behavior problems
1 teacher role values

I self-direction values

1 discipline role values 1 adaptive functioning
1 teacher role values

D. Parents' values will not add to the prediction of child adjustment afier accounting for

the variance in child adjustment associated with parenting styles.

Part 3 The Effects of Parental Control Values on Perceptions of Parenting Success

 

 

 

Predictor: Predicted: Moderator:
Child Adjustment Perceptions of ParentingSuccess Only When Vahres=
I Externalizing Problems 1 Self-Blame l Self-Direction

1 Perceived Control 1 Discipline Role

I Teacher Role

1 Adaptive Functioning I Self-Blame I Self-Direction
1 Perceived Control 1 Teacher Role

 

Chapter 3

RESULTS

The Effects of Child Group on Parentaljgrlues and Practices

A series of analyses were conducted to evaluate Family Group differences (Mental
Retardation, Comparison, Behavior Problem, Chronic Illness) in parenting values and
parenting styles. The first set of analyses tested the hypothesis that the parents with
children with mental retardation and children with behavior problems would show higher
control values (lower self-direction values and higher valuation of disciplinarian and
teacher roles) and higher levels of controlling parenting styles (more firm control and
power-oriented control) than the other parents in the two comparison groups. In addition,
the parents of children with mental retardation and behavior problems were expected to
report less family closeness than the other parents. For both the fathers and the mothers,
values and parenting styles were entered into a 4 (Family Group) X 2 (Child Gender) X 2
(Child Age Group 6-12, 13-18) MANOVA. Significant effects were followed up with
post hoc comparisons between the mental retardation and behavior problem parents and
the two comparisons groups. The means and standard deviations for the six dependent
variables and the results of the post hoc analyses are presented in Table 6 for the fathers

and Table 7 for the mothers.

 

Insert Table 6 here

 

51

 

52

him. The three-way MANOVA for the fathers demonstrated a significant
multivariate effect for Family Group, E(3,103)=1.84, p<.05. The main effects for Child
Gender and Child Age Group and all interaction effects were nonsignificant. The
significant multivariate Family Group effect was accounted for by significant univariate
effects for three of the six dependent variables, Self-Direction Values, E(3,103 )=4.20,
p<.01, Teacher Roles, E(3,103)=3.31, p<.05, and Family Closeness, E(3,103)=2.80,
p< .05. Post hoc contrasts revealed that, as expected, the fathers of children with mental
retardation valued self-direction less than the two groups of comparison fathers (see Table
6). However, contrary to expectations, the fathers with children with mental retardation
showed lower teacher role values than the two groups of comparison fathers. Finally,
consistent with expectations, the behavior problem fathers reported less family closeness
than the fathers in the two comparison groups. Thus, the results provided only partial
support for expected differences between the groups of fathers in terms of control values
and controlling parenting styles. For the MR fathers, although they reported lower self-
direction values than the comparison fathers, as expected, other variables either did not
differ fiom comparison groups, or in the case of teacher roles, were opposite expectations.
Similarly, for the BP fathers, the only significant difference was lower levels of family

closeness compared to the comparison fathers.

 

Insert Table 7 here

 

 

53

Methets. The three-way MANOVA for the mothers demonstrated significant
multivariate effects for Family Group, _E(3,183 )=1.78, p<.05, Child Age Group,
F_(1,183)=3.51, p<.001, and the Child Age X Family Group interaction, _E(3,183)=1.76,
p<.05. There was no main effect for Child Gender and no significant interaction terms
involving Child Gender. The main effect for Family Group was accounted for by
significant univariate effects for Teacher Role, E(3,183)=3.36, p<.05 and Family
Closeness, E(3,183)=3.78, p<.01. As shown in Table 5, contrary to expectations, the MR
mothers showed lower teacher role values than the chronic illness mothers. However,
consistent with expectations, the behavior problem mothers showed higher teacher role
values than the comparison mothers. In addition, as expected, the behavior problem
mothers reported less family closeness than the two comparison groups of mothers.

In addition to these Family group differences, there were main effects for Child
Age and Child Age X Family Group interactions for three variables, Self-Direction Values,
Discipline Role Values, and Firm Control. Since all three of the dependent variables
showing significant main effects for Child Age were also involved in the Child Age X
Family Group interactions, only the interactions are interpreted, Self-Direction Values,
E(3,183)=3.14, p<.05, Discipline Role Values, E(3,183)=2.58, p<.05, and Firm Control,
E(3,183)=2.54, p< .05. Post hoc analyses revealed that the family group hypotheses were
supported for the mothers of older children, but not for the mothers of younger children
(see Table 7). Specifically, for the mothers of children 13-18 years old, the MR mothers,
M=21.43, $=755, reported lower self-direction values than the comparison mothers,
M=27.00, SL)=6.10. In addition, for the mothers with older children, the MR mothers,

M=13.09, SQ=420 and the behavior problem mothers, M=14.77, SD=475 both reported

 

 

 

54

higher discipline role values than the comparison mothers, M=9.47, D=2.61. Finally, the
MR mothers of older children, M=13.49, _S_D=3.61, reported more firm control than the
comparison mothers of older children, M=10.64, _SI)=3.89. The only significant group
difference for the mothers of 6-12 year old children was contrary to the hypotheses.
Specifically, the behavior problem mothers, M=23.25, $=699, reported higher self-
direction values than the comparison mothers, M=18.35, S_D=6.02.

Thus, overall, the hypothesis that the MR mothers and the BP mothers would
show higher control values and controlling parenting styles received partial support.
Expected group differences were obtained on two variables, and on three other variables
only for the mothers with older children.

Mother-Father Contrasts

In order to test the hypothesis that mothers would report higher control values,
higher levels of controlling parenting styles, and more family closeness than fathers, the
mothers' and fathers' values and parenting styles were entered into a Family Group (MR,
Comp, BP, CI) X Parent (mother, father) X Child Age (6-12, 13-18) X Child Gender
(boy, girl) repeated measures MANOVA. The results relevant to the within-subjects

Parent effects are presented in Table 6.

 

Insert Table 8 here

 

The results revealed a significant multivariate Parent effect, E(1,109)=3.89, p<.001
and a significant Parent X Child Gender effect, E(1,109)=2.35, p<.05. The multivariate

Parent effect was accounted for by significant univariate effects for four of the six

 

 

55

dependent variables, Teacher Role, E(1,109)=6.97, p<.01, Firm Control, £(1,109)=5.55,
p<.01, Power-Oriented Control, _E(1,109)=6.73, p<.01, and Family Closeness,
E(l,109)=9.58, p<.001. As shown in Table 6, consistent with the hypotheses, the mothers
reported higher teacher role values, more firm control, and more family closeness than the
fathers. Contrary to expectations, the fathers reported more power-oriented control than
mothers. However, this effect was qualified by a significant Parent X Gender interaction,
_F_(1,109)=8.23, p<.01. Post hoc contrasts revealed that these differences were accounted
for by the parents of girls only, where the fathers of girls M=11.73, 52:1.72 reported
more power-oriented control than the mothers of girls M=10.96, §D=1.88.

Thus, the results generally supported the hypotheses regarding mother-father
differences. Also, it is interesting that these findings were evident regardless of the child's

disability status, since there were no interactions with Family Group.

Th Effects f P rental V lues n Practi s on Chil Dev 10 m nt

A series of regression analyses were conducted to examine the implications of
parenting values and parenting styles for children's development. These analyses were
designed to test the hypothesis that parenting styles mediate the association between
parents' values and children's adjustment after controlling for parents' level of education.
Thus, the analyses evaluate 1) the relationship between parenting values and parenting
styles, 2) the relationship of parenting styles to child adjustment, 3) whether parents'
values show similar relationships to child adjustment as parenting styles, and 4) whether
parents' values add to the prediction of child adjustment after accounting for the effects of

parenting styles.

 

 

56

Parents' Centrol Values and Parenting Styles

First, a series of hierarchical multiple regressions tested the hypothesis that parents'
values would predict their parenting styles. Specifically, it was expected that lower self-
direction values, higher discipline role values, and higher teacher role values would predict
higher levels of firm control and power-oriented control. In addition, it was expected that
higher self-direction values, lower discipline role values, and higher teacher role values
would predict higher levels of family closeness. In Step 1, demographic variables (parent
education, child gender, and child age group) and an MR family group dummy variable
(coded 1 for MR families and 0 for all other families) were entered. In Step 2, the three
parenting values were entered. In Step 3, stepwise entry was used to evaluate the
interactions between parental values and child gender, child age, and family group.
Significant interactions were followed up by calculating the correlations between the
parental value and the criterion at each level of the demographic variable. There were two
levels to each of the demographic variables, boys vs. girls, 6-12 year old vs. 13-18 year
old, and MR family group vs. non-MR family group. The zero-order correlations between
values and parenting styles are presented in Table 9. The results of the regressions are
presented in Table 10 for the fathers and Table 11 for the mothers. These tables present
the R2, the change in R2 associated with each step, the partial correlations between the
predictors and the criterion at each step, and the F-ratios associated with each regression

model.

 

Insert Tables 9, 10, and 11 here

 

 

 

57

Firm Control. For the fathers, as shown in Table 9, more firm control was only
significantly correlated with lower self-direction values. However, as shown in Table 10,
after controlling for demographic variables, both self-direction values and discipline role
values significantly predicted firm control, and together they added 8% to the predicted
variance. Consistent with expectations, lower self-direction values and higher discipline
role values were associated with more firm control. Additionally, although teacher role
values had no significant main effect, it did interact with child age in predicting firm
control. Post hoc analyses revealed that consistent with expectations, higher teacher role
values were associated with more firrn control for the fathers of older children, F32,
p<.05, but not for the fathers of younger children, [=-. 13, p=ns.

For the mothers, as shown in Table 9, none of the parental values were
significantly correlated with firm control. However, as shown in Table 11, after
controlling for demographic variables, self-direction values significantly predicted firm
control. Consistent with expectations, lower self-direction values were associated with
more firm control.

Pdwer-Oriented Control. For the fathers, as shown in Table 9, power-oriented
control was not significantly correlated with any of the parental values, and as shown in
Table 10, after controlling for demographic variables, there were no significant main
effects for parents' values in predicting power-oriented control. However, there were two
significant interactions between the demographic variables and parental values, adding
11% to the predicted variance. First, contrary to expectations, higher self-direction values
were associated with more power-oriented control for the MR fathers, _r=.29, p<.05, but

not for the non-MR fathers, t=-.18, p=ns. The second interaction term revealed that

 

 

58

consistent with expectations, higher discipline values were associated with more power-
oriented control for the fathers of girls, t=.24, p<.05, but not the fathers of boys, _r=-.19,
p=ns

For the mothers, as shown in Table 9, more power-oriented control was only
significantly correlated with higher discipline role values, and this relationship remained
after controlling for demographic variables (see Table 11). Additionally, although teacher
role values had no significant main effect, it did interact with MR family group in
predicting power-oriented control. Post hoc analyses suggested that higher teacher
values may be associated with more power-oriented control for MR mothers but not for
non-MR mothers, although these relationships did not reach significance (t=.10, p=ns for
the MR mothers and t=.03, p=ns for the non-MR mothers).

Family Closeness. For the fathers, as shown in Table 9, more farrrily closeness was
only significantly correlated with higher teacher role values, and this effect remained after
controlling for the demographic variables (see Table 10). As expected, higher levels of
family closeness were predicted by higher teacher role values.

For the mothers, more family closeness was significantly correlated with both
higher self-direction values and lower discipline role values (see Table 9). However, as
shown in Table 11, after controlling for demographic variables, there were no main effects
for self-direction values or discipline role values in predicting family closeness. Instead,
higher teacher role values were associated with more family closeness. Additionally, self-
direction values interacted with child age in predicting farrrily closeness. Post hoc analyses
revealed that, as expected, higher self-direction values were associated with more family

closeness for the mothers of adolescents, _r=.36, p<.001, but not for the mothers of

 

 

59

younger children, t=.03, p=ns.

In summary, the results showed several similarities between the mothers and the
fathers that were consistent with the hypotheses. Specifically, for the mothers and the
fathers, higher self-direction values were associated with less firm control, higher
discipline role values were associated with more power-oriented control for all parent-
child dyads expect the fathers of boys, and higher teacher role values were associated with
more family closeness.

Parenting Styles and Child Adjustment

The next set of analyses tested the hypotheses that parenting styles would predict
the three indices of child adjustment: externalizing behavior problems, self-direction skills,
and social responsibility skills. For the latter two outcomes, data were not available for
the typically developing children. It was hypothesized that less firm control, more power-
oriented control, and less family closeness would be associated with higher levels of
externalizing behavior problems. In contrast, more firm control, less power-oriented
control, and more family closeness were expected to be associated with higher levels of
adaptive functioning. In addition to evaluating these linear relationships, these analyses
tested the hypothesis that the relationship between controlling parenting styles and child
adjustment is curvilinear. In particular, it was hypothesized that firm control would show
stronger negative associations with children's behavior problems at increasingly lower
levels of firm control and stronger positive associations with children's adaptive behavior
skills at increasingly higher levels of firm control. In addition, power-oriented control was
expected to show U-shaped relationships, in that middle levels of power-oriented control

would be associated with the lowest levels of children's externalizing behavior problems

 

 

 

 

 

 

60

and the highest levels of children's adaptive behavior skills.

Hierarchical multiple regressions were used to test these hypotheses. Aiken and
West (1991) demonstrate that when interactions between two continuous variables are
included in a regression model, the variables need to be standardized before calculating the
interaction terms. The standardized main effects should be entered for the linear terms and
the cross product of the standardized main effects should be entered into the regression
equation for the higher order terms. Failure to do so results in 1) inaccurate beta
coefficients for the linear effects, and 2) problems with multicolinearity between the linear
effects and the higher order terms. In order to assess for curvilinear relationships for the
two types of control, the standardized control variables were squared (Aiken & West,
1991; Kurdek & Fine, 1994).

The overall strategy for these analyses was to enter child gender, child age, and
MR family group in Step 1, the linear parenting styles in Step 2, and the squared firm
control and power-oriented control terms in Step 3. As in the previous analyses, the
interactions between parenting styles and child gender, child age, and MR family group
were evaluated for entry in a stepwise manner in Step 4 and significant interactions were
followed up by calculating the correlations between the parenting style and the criterion at
each level of the demographic variable. Preliminary analyses tested for possible
interactions between family closeness and the two types of control-oriented parenting
styles in predicting children's adjustment. These analyses tested the hypothesis that the
effects of firm control or power-oriented control on children's adjustment may depend on
levels of family closeness. For instance, firm control may show positive effects on

children's adjustment only when exercised in the context of a high level of family

 

 

 

 

61

closeness. Similarly, power-oriented control may only be detrimental to children's
adjustment when exercised in the absence of family closeness. However, the results of
these analyses revealed no significant interaction effects, and these interaction terms were
eliminated from the current regression analyses in order to maintain an acceptable subject
to variable ratio.

The zero-order correlations between parenting styles and child adjustment are
presented in the top half of Table 12. The results of the regression analyses are presented
in Table 13 for the fathers and Table 14 for the mothers. The tables present the R2, the
change in R2 at each step, the B coefficient associated with each predictor at the final step
in the regression, and the F -ratios for each regression model. According to Aiken and
West (1991), when variables are standardized, the beta coefficients are inappropriate
indices of relationships, and the B coefficients should be presented instead. The B
coefficients at the final step in the regression give measures of the direct effects of each
predictor on the criterion when all other variables are included in the model (e. g., Cohen

& Cohen, 1983).

 

Insert Tables 12, 13 and 14 here

 

Externalizing Behavidr Problems. For the fathers, as shown in Table 12, higher
levels of externalizing behavior problems were only significantly correlated with lower
levels of family closeness. Similarly, after controlling for demographic variables, less
family closeness was associated with higher levels of externalizing behavior problems,

adding 13% to the predicted variance (see Table 11). However, a significant interaction

 

 

 

 

62

between family closeness and child gender qualified this finding. Post hoc analyses
revealed that higher levels of family closeness reported by fathers were associated with
lower levels of behavior problems for boys, _r=-.69, p<.001, but were unrelated for girls,
t=.13, p=ns.

For the mothers, as shown in Table 12, higher levels of externalizing behavior
problems were significantly correlated with both lower levels of firm control and lower
levels of family closeness. However, as shown in Table 14, after controlling for
demographic variables, only lower levels of family closeness were associated with higher
levels of externalizing behavior problems. However, this effect was qualified by a
significant interaction between family closeness and MR family group. Post hoc tests
revealed that more family closeness reported by the non-MR mothers was associated with
lower levels of behavior problems for the non-MR children, [=-.45, p<.001, but there was
no significant relationship in the MR families, _F-.18, p=ns.

Self-Direction Skills. For the fathers, as shown in Table 12, children's self-
direction skills were not significantly correlated with any of the parenting styles.
However, after controlling for demographic variables, as shown in Table 13, higher levels
of family closeness were associated with higher levels of self-direction skills. However, a
significant interaction between family closeness and child gender revealed that more family
closeness reported by fathers was related to higher self-direction skills for boys, _r=.35,
p<.05, but not for girls, _r=.01, p=ns. In addition, there was a significant quadratic effect
for firm control, adding 7% to the predicted variance. Following Kurdek and Fine (1994),
to identify the nature of the nonlinear relationship between firm control and self-direction

skills, the quartiles for the linear firm control term were identified, and the means for self-

 

 

 

63

direction skills at each quartile were computed. These points are plotted in Figure 2.
Consistent with expectations, higher levels of firm control were associated with higher
levels of self-direction skills in an accelerated manner. That is, low and mid-levels of firm
control showed no effect on self-direction skills, whereas at the highest levels of firm
control, more firm control was associated with higher self-direction skills.

For the mothers, as shown in Table 12, self-direction skills were significantly
correlated with higher levels of power-oriented control and higher levels of family
closeness. As shown in Table 14, after controlling for demographic variables, there were
no linear main effects for any of the parenting styles variables in predicting self-direction
skills, but there was a significant quadratic effect for power-oriented control. As before,
the quartiles for the linear power-oriented control term were identified, and the means for
self-direction skills at each quartile were computed. These points are plotted in Figure 3.
Consistent with expectations, the results revealed an inverted U-shaped curve in which
mid-levels of power-oriented control were associated with the highest levels of self-
direction skills.

Social Responsibility. For the fathers, as shown in Table 12, children's social
responsibility skills were not significantly correlated with any of the parenting styles
variables. However, after controlling for demographic variables, consistent with the
hypotheses, higher levels of firm control and lower levels of power-oriented control were
associated with higher levels of social responsibility (see Table 13). However, the effect
of power-oriented control on social responsibility skills was qualified by a significant
interaction between power-oriented control and MR family group. Post hoc analyses

revealed that more power-oriented control for the non-MR fathers was associated with

64

lower social responsibility skills, _t=-.28, p<.05, and there was a trend in the opposite
direction for the MR fathers, t=.17, p=ns.

For the mothers, as shown in Table 12, social responsibility skills were not
correlated with any of the parenting styles variables. Similarly, as shown in Table 14, after
controlling for demographic variables, there were no main effects for the parenting styles
variables in predicting social responsibility. However, there was an interaction between
power-oriented control and MR family group. Post hoc analyses showed that higher
levels of power-oriented control for the MR mothers were related to higher levels of social
responsibility skills, whereas higher levels of power-oriented control for the non-MR
mothers were associated with lower levels of social responsibility skills. However, neither
of these relationships were significant, [=.14, p=ns for the MR mothers, and t=-.10, p=ns
for the non-MR mothers.

In summary, several findings supported the hypothesized relationships between
parenting styles and child adjustment. In addition, there seemed to be a consistent pattern
across the results for the fathers and the mothers. In particular, levels of family closeness
were associated with children's externalizing behavior problems, as expected, but levels of
parental control were not. In contrast, levels of parental control were associated with
children's self-direction skills and social responsibility skills, as expected, but levels of
family closeness were not. Finally, the hypothesis that the relationship between parental
control styles and children's adjustment would be nonlinear was supported for both the
mothers and the fathers in the prediction of self-direction skills.

Parenting Valdes a_nd Child Adjustment

A series of hierarchical multiple regressions tested the hypothesis that parents'

65
control values would predict child adjustment in a way that is similar to the predictions
from parenting styles. In particular, it was expected that lower self-direction values,
higher discipline role values, and lower teacher role values would be associated with
higher levels of externalizing behavior problems. In addition, higher self-direction values,
lower discipline role values, and higher teacher role values would be associated with
higher levels of adaptive firnctioning. Similar to the previous analyses, demographic
variables were entered in Step 1, parenting values were entered in Step 2, and interaction
terms were evaluated for entry in Step 3. Significant interactions were followed up as in
the previous analyses. The zero-order correlations are presented in the bottom half of
Table 12. The regression results are presented in Table 15 for the fathers and Table 16
for the mothers. The tables present the R2, the change in R2 at each step, the partial
correlations between parents' values and child adjustment, and the F-ratios associated with

each regression model.

 

Insert Table 15 and 16 here

 

Externalizing Behavier Prdblems For the fathers, as shown in Table 12,
externalizing behavior problems were not significantly correlated with any of the measures
of parental values. Similarly, after controlling for the demographic variables, as shown in
Table 15, there were no main effects for parental values in predicting externalizing
behavior problems. However, there was a significant interaction between discipline role
values and child gender. As expected, higher discipline role values reported by fathers

were associated with higher levels of externalizing behavior problems for boys, _r=.36,

66

p<.01, but not for girls, r=-.13, p=ns.

For the mothers, as shown in Table 12, higher levels of externalizing behavior
problems were only significantly correlated with higher discipline role values. However,
after controlling for demographic variables, as shown in Table 16, although discipline role
values were no longer associated with externalizing behavior problems, teacher role values
were. Contrary to expectations, higher teacher role values were associated with higher
levels of behavior problems. In addition, there was a significant interaction between self-
direction values and child age. Post hoc analyses revealed that, as expected, higher self-
direction values reported by mothers were associated with lower levels of behavior
problems for older children, r—=-.28, p<.01, but not for younger children, [=- 12, p=ns.

Self-Directien Skills. For the fathers, as shown in Table 12, higher levels of
children's self-direction skills were only significantly correlated with higher parental self-
direction values. However, after controlling for demographic variables, none of the
parental values predicted children's self-direction skills (see Table 15).

For the mothers, as shown in Table 12, self-direction skills were not significantly
correlated with any of the parental values. Similarly, after controlling for the
demographic variables, none of the parental values predicted self-direction skills (see
Table 16).

Social Respdnsibility, For the fathers, as shown in Table 12, higher social
responsibility skills were only significantly correlated with higher self-direction values.
However, after controlling for demographic variables, none of the main effects for parental
values predicted social responsibility skills, although there was a significant interaction

between self-direction values and MR family group (see Table 15). Post hoc analyses

67

revealed that higher self-direction values by the non-MR fathers were associated with
higher social responsibility skills for non-MR children, [=.42, p<.001, but no relationship
was evident in the MR families, r=-.18, p=ns.

For the mothers, as shown in Table 12, higher social responsibility skills were
significantly correlated with both lower discipline role values and higher teacher role
values. After controlling for demographic variables, none of the main effects for parental
values predicted social responsibility skills, but teacher role values interacted with child
age (see Table 16). Post hoc analyses revealed that as expected, higher teacher role values
reported by the mothers were associated with higher social responsibility for younger
children, _r=.27, p<.01, but not for older children, t=.03, p=ns.

In summary, the results did not support the hypothesis that parental values would
show similar relationships with child adjustment as parenting styles. There were few
relationships between parents' values and child adjustment for the fathers or the mothers,
and although the relationships that were found were generally consistent with the
hypotheses, they were all qualified by interactions. In contrast to the lack of association
between parents' values and the children's adjustment, the demographic variables entered
in Step 1 showed many significant associations. In particular, parent education was
associated with all three indices of children's adjustment. In addition, older children
showed higher self-direction and social responsibility skills than younger children, and the
MR children showed lower skills than the other children.

The Effects of Parents' Values Beyend the Effects ef Parenting Styles
In order to test the hypothesis that parents' values would add to the prediction of

child adjustment above and beyond the effects of parenting styles, hierarchical multiple

68

regressions were used. The overall strategy for these analyses was to enter parent
education, child gender, child age, and MR family group in Step 1, the linear parenting
styles in Step 2, a stepwise entry of the squared parenting styles variables and interaction
terms associated with parenting styles in Step 3, the parenting values in Step 4, and a
stepwise entry of the interaction terms associated with parenting values in Step 5. The
tables present the R2, the change in R2 at each step, and the B coefficient associated with
each predictor at the final step in the regression for Steps 4 and 5 only, since Steps 1, 2,

and 3 are redundant of earlier analyses.

 

Insert Table 17 here

 

Externalizing Behavier Prdblems. For the fathers, as shown in Table 17, there
were no significant main effects for the parenting values in predicting externalizing
behavior problems afier accounting for the effects of parenting styles. However, the
significant interaction between discipline role values and child gender found in the
previous analyses remained after controlling for parenting styles (see Table 15), indicating
that the effects of discipline values on children's externalizing behavior problems are not
mediated by parenting styles.

For the mothers, as shown in Table 17, the parenting values added significantly to
the prediction of externalizing behavior problems, adding 6% to the predicted variance.
After accounting for parenting styles, the mothers' teacher role values continued to be
associated with higher levels of externalizing behavior problems as before. However, the

earlier finding that higher self-direction values were associated with lower levels of

69

behavior problems for older children (see Table 16) was not evident after accounting for
the effect of parenting styles on externalizing behavior problems.

Self-Direction Sldlls For the fathers, as in the previous analysis, none of the
parenting values predicted children's self-direction skills.

For the mothers, although there were no main effects for parenting values, there
were two significant interactions terms involving discipline role values, that together
added 11% to the predicted variance. First, higher discipline role values reported by the
mothers were associated with lower self-direction skills for girls, t'=-.23, p<.05, but not for
boys, t=-.05, p=ns. Secondly, higher discipline role values for the non-MR mothers were
associated with lower self-direction skills for the non-MR children, 11.22, p<.05, but
there was no relationship in the MR families, _r=-.01, p=ns. Neither of these effects were
present in the previous analyses, since earlier there were no relationships between parental
values and children's self-direction skills (see Table 16).

Social Respensibility. For the fathers, as shown in Table 17, there were no
significant main effects for the parenting values in predicting social responsibility skills
after accounting for the effects of parenting styles. However, there was a significant
interaction between discipline role values and child gender that was not present in the
earlier analysis (see Table 15). Post hoc analyses revealed that higher discipline role
values reported by fathers were associated with lower levels of social responsibility for
boys, t=-.25, p=ns, and higher levels of social responsibility for girls, t=.18, p=ns,
although neither relationship was significant. However, the earlier finding that higher self-
direction values were associated higher levels of social responsibility for non-MR children

(see Table 15) was not evident after accounting for the effect of parenting styles on social

7O
responsibility skills.

For the mothers, although there were no significant main effects for parental
values, there were two significant interactions involving the mothers' discipline role values,
adding 8% to the predicted variance (see Table 16). First, higher discipline role values
reported by mothers were associated with lower social responsibility skills for girls, [=-
.23, p<.05, but not for boys, r=-.17, p=ns. Secondly, higher discipline role values reported
by the non-MR mothers were associated with lower self-direction skills for the non-MR
children, _r=-.28, p<.05, but there was no relationship in the MR families, _r=-.08, p=ns.
Neither of these effects were evident in the previous analysis (see Table 16). In addition,
the earlier finding that higher teacher role values were associated with higher levels of
social responsibility for the older children (see Table 16) was not evident after accounting
for the effect of parenting styles.

In summary, these results do not support the hypothesis that the effects of parental
values on child adjustment are completely mediated by parenting styles. Instead, the
results suggest that parental values, particularly discipline role values, have independent

effects on children's development.

The Effeets pf Parental Contrel Valaes on Pereeptions pf Parenting Suecess

The final component of the study examined the implications of parental values and
children's adjustment for parents' perceptions of parenting success. Two indices of
parenting success were evaluated: perceptions of control over child behavior and
perceptions of self-blame for children's misbehavior. These analyses tested the hypothesis

that perceptions of parenting success are deterrrrined by the " goodness of fit" between

71

one's control values and children's behavior. Therefore, it was expected that lower
perceptions of parenting success would be associated with poorer child adjustment only
when the children's behavior violates the parents' values. Specifically, it was expected that
higher levels of behavior problems would be associated with lower perceptions of
parenting success only for the parents with lower self-direction values, higher discipline
role values, and higher teacher role values. Similarly, lower levels of adaptive functioning
would be associated with lower perceptions of parenting success only for the parents with
higher self-direction values and higher teacher role values.

A series of hierarchical multiple regressions tested these hypotheses. In these
analyses, parent education, child gender, and child age were entered in Step 1, parental
values were entered in Step 2, and the child adjustment measures were entered in Step 3.
In Step 4, the interactions between parental values and child adjustment were evaluated
for entry in a stepwise manner. Significant interactions were first followed-up by
performing a mean split on the parental value variable, and then calculating the
correlations between the child adjustment measure and the parenting outcome measure at
these two levels. If this procedure did not reveal the nature of the interaction, the parental
value measure was divided into three groups: one standard deviation above the mean,
within one standard deviation of the mean, and one standard deviation below the mean
(Cohen & Cohen, 1978), and similar correlations were calculated at these three levels.

The zero-order correlations between parents' values and children's adjustment and
perceptions of parenting success are presented in Table 18. Because data were missing for
the measures of adaptive behavior skills for the parents with typically developing children,

externalizing behavior problems and adaptive behavior skills were evaluated in separate

72

regression models in order to retain all of the subjects in the analyses involving
externalizing behavior problems. The results of the regressions involving externalizing
behavior problems are presented in Table 19 and the results of the regression involving
adaptive behavior skills are presented in Table 20. The tables present the R2, the change in
R2 at each step, and the B coefficient associated with each predictor at the final step in the
regression. Support for the hypothesis is indicated by significant interaction terms in Step
4. The demographic variables did not predict perceptions of parenting success in any

regression, and therefore the statistics for Step 1 are excluded from the tables.

 

Insert Tables 18, 19, and 20 here

 

FatheLs

For the fathers, as shown in Table 18, lower perceptions of control and greater
feelings of self-blame were significantly correlated with lower teacher role values. In
addition, all three indices of child adjustment were significantly correlated with the
parenting outcomes, in that poorer child firnctioning was associated with lower
perceptions of parenting success.

Externalizing Behavior Problems. For perceptions of control, consistent with the
univariate correlations, higher teacher role values and higher levels of externalizing
behavior problems were associated with perceptions of less control after controlling for
demographic variables (see Table 19). However, contrary to the hypothesis, there were
no significant interactions between parental values and externalizing behavior problems.

Similarly, higher teacher role values and higher levels of externalizing behavior problems

73

were associated with perceptions of self-blame after controlling for the demographic
variables. Additionally, there was a significant interaction between teacher role values and
externalizing behavior problems. In order to evaluate the nature of the interaction, the
fathers were divided into two groups based on scoring above or below the mean on
teacher role values, and the correlation between externalizing behavior problems and self-
blame at each level was calculated. Consistent with the hypothesis, higher levels of
externalizing behavior problems by the child were associated with greater self-blame for
fathers when the fathers had higher teacher role values, _r=.39, p<.001, but not when they
had lower teacher role values, _r=.17, p=ns.

Adaptive Behavior Skills. Regarding perceived control, as shown in Table 20,
after controlling for the demographic variables, parental values and children's adaptive
behavior skills were not associated with perceptions of control. However, regarding self-
blame, consistent with the univariate correlations, lower teacher role values and lower
levels of social responsibility skills were associated with greater self-blame. Finally,
contrary to the hypothesis, there were no significant interactions between parental values
and children's adaptive behavior skills for either control or self-blame.

mm

Externalizing Behavior Problems. As shown in Table 18, higher levels of
externalizing behavior problems were associated with less perceived control and greater
self-blame. These relationships remained after controlling for demographic variables (see
Table 19). For the prediction of perceived control, there was a significant interaction
between self-direction values and externalizing behavior problems. The nature of the

interaction was revealed by dividing the mothers into three groups based on their self-

74

direction values: one standard deviation below the mean, within one standard deviation of
the mean, and one standard deviation above the mean. Since the measure of self-direction
values was calculated as self-direction values minus conformity values, lower levels of
self-direction values indicate higher conformity values. Consistent with the hypothesis,
higher levels of externalizing behavior problems by the child were associated with less
perceived control when the mothers had low self-direction values, r=-.47, p<.001, and
average self-direction values, 11.39, p<.001, but not when they had higher self-direction
values, t‘=-.23, p=ns. Thus, the relationship between externalizing behavior problems and
perceived control decreased as self-direction values increase and conformity values
decreased.

Similarly, for the prediction of self-blame, there was a significant interaction
between discipline role values and externalizing behavior problems. The nature of the
interaction was revealed by dividing the mothers into two groups, above and below the
mean. Consistent with the hypothesis, higher levels of externalizing behavior problems by
the child were associated with greater self-blame for mothers when the mothers had higher
discipline role values, t=.29, p<.001, but not when they had lower discipline role values,
[=.09, p=ns.

Adaptive Behavior Skills. As shown in Table 18, higher discipline role values and
higher teacher role values were significantly correlated with less perceived control.
Neither of the child adaptive behavior skills were correlated with perceived control, and
only lower levels of social responsibility skills were correlated with greater self-blame.
Furthermore, as shown in Table 20, after controlling for demographic variables, none of

the parental values and neither of the measures of child adaptive functioning predicted

75

perceptions of control or self-blame. However, for the prediction of perceived control,
there was a significant interaction between mothers' self-direction values and children's
self-direction skills (see Table 20). Again, the mothers' self-direction values were divided
into three groups based on their deviation fi'om the mean. The results revealed that lower
levels of children's self-direction skills were associated with lower perceived control for
the mothers with higher self-direction values, r=.48, p<.05, but not for the mothers with
average self-direction values, t=.04, p=ns, or for the mothers with low self-direction
values, _r=.17, p=ns. Thus, as expected, the relationship between children's self-direction
skills and perceived control decreased as mothers' self-direction values decreased.

Similarly, for the prediction of self-blame, there was a significant interaction
between mothers' self-direction values and children's social responsibility skills. The
nature of the interaction was revealed by dividing the mothers into two groups, above and
below the mean. Because of the nature of the self-direction values measure, the mothers
below the mean on self-direction values reported higher conformity values. Consistent
with the hypothesis, lower levels of social responsibility skills were associated with greater
self-blame for the mothers with lower self-direction values, r=-.26, p<.05, but not for the
mothers with higher self-direction values _r=-.14, p=ns. Thus, the relationship between
children's social responsibility skills and self-blame decreased as self-direction values
increased (and therefore conformity values decreased).

In summary, the hypothesis was largely unsupported for the fathers, but received
considerable support for the mothers. In general, the results revealed that lower levels of
child adjustment were associated with lower perceptions of parenting success only for the

mothers with higher control values.

Chapter 4

DISCUSSION

The results of this study begin to clarify the sources of variation in parental values
associated with different parenting experiences, and provide support for the theory that
parents' values play an important role in the socialization process (e. g., Goodnow, 1985;

1988)

Factors that Affect Parental Values and Praetices.

The Effects of Child Mental Retardatien en Parentfl Values apd Practiees. For the
parents with children with mental retardation, a relatively consistent picture emerged in
which these parents valued more control and, to a lesser extent, exercised more control in
parenting than the comparison parents. For the fathers, greater control was evident only
in their childrearing values, as the fathers of children with mental retardation valued self-
direction less than the comparison parents. For the mothers of children with mental
retardation, higher control values and controlling parenting styles were evident for the
mothers of older children only, in terms of lower self-direction values for children, higher
discipline roles for themselves, and higher levels of firm control, suggesting that the effects
of disabilities on mothers' values are especially salient during adolescence.

Since the general trend was for the non-MR mothers with older children to report
less control than the non-MR mothers with younger children, these findings suggest that

the MR mothers fail to show expected age-related reductions in control and instead

76

fittir .

..".

if-»

left.

77

maintain a high level of control through adolescence. Zirpoli and Bell (1987) caution that
a high level of control over time for parents with children with mental retardation may
signal an insensitivity to the MR child's developing abilities, and therefore hinder the
development of more adaptive behaviors by failing to foster independence. Perhaps
parents maintain a high level of controlling behaviors because these practices are driven by
relatively intractable or rigid control values, that once formed when children are younger,
are unresponsive to developmental change. Alternatively, the high level of control values
for mothers with older children with mental retardation may indeed be responsive to
children's ability levels, so that mothers' control values reflect sensitive and responsive
parenting (e. g., Marfo, 1990). That is, mothers' control values may remain high because
their adolescent children continue to require a high level of management and guidance.
This hypothesis is consistent with longitudinal observations of parent-child interactions
(Floyd, Costigan, & Phillippe, in press) in which a high level of directives with adolescents
was responsive to these children's continued need for greater management and direction.
Similar longitudinal data are necessary to firlly assess the issue of rigidity versus
responsiveness in parental values.

Importantly, for both the fathers and the mothers, the absence of group
differences on power-oriented control and family closeness suggests that the MR parents
are able to exercise more control without resorting to excessive coercive practices and
without sacrificing family harmony. These findings are consistent with observations of
family interactions which demonstrate that although MR parents engage in more behavior
management than comparison parents, they do not show more coercive exchanges (Floyd

& Phillippe, 1993), and they do not differ from comparison families in observer ratings of

78

closeness, affective tone, or cohesion (Hampson, Hulgus, Beavers, & Beavers, 1988).
Taken together, the findings of more firm control and similar levels of power-oriented
control and farrrily closeness demonstrate considerable consistency between parents' self-
reported parenting styles and observations of their parenting practices.

Contrary to the hypotheses, for both the mothers and the fathers, there was an
unexpected finding that the MR parents valued their teacher roles less than the comparison
parents. Thus, instead of conceptualizing teacher role values as indicating higher control
values, it seems that, at least for the MR parents, teacher role values are distinct from
other forms of control. Due to the children's intellectual limitations, these parents may feel
less capable of teaching their children than parents with typically developing children.
Research by Strom and colleagues indicates that parents with children with mental
retardation are less positive about their own ability to guide children's learning than
comparison parents (Strorn et a1, 1984). The present findings suggest that they may also
come to value this role less, perhaps as a result of their failures in this area. Thus, parents'
values may not only follow from their perceptions of their child's needs, as originally
hypothesized, but also from their perceptions of their own capabilities (based on success
versus failures).

Finally, since the measures of parental role values and parenting styles assessed
general values and practices rather than those specific to parenting a disabled child, it
seems that the influence of the disabled child's special needs on parental values and
practices may generalize to role values and parenting practices regarding all children. This
is consistent with research indicating "spillover effects," in which the more directive and

less positive parent-MR child interactions are also characteristic of parents' interactions

79

with other children in the family as well (Floyd & Adams, 1990). This "spillover effect"
may occur because raising a child with mental retardation influences the core values about
parenting that are presumed to underlie parenting practices.

The Effects of Child Behavior Problems on Parental Valdes ar_rd Practices. In
contrast to the parents with children with mental retardation, there was less evidence that
parents with children with behavior problems value more control and exercise more
control than comparison parents. Consistent with the hypothesis, the behavior problem
mothers reported greater control values than comparison mothers, in terms of higher
disciplinarian and teacher role values. However, the finding that behavior problem
mothers with younger children valued self-direction more than comparison mothers with
younger children was unexpected. Perhaps mothers of children who are difficult to
manage from an early age de-emphasize conformity as a childrearing goal. This is
consistent with the hypothesis discussed above regarding the teacher role values of MR
parents, suggesting that parental values may be formed in part by evaluations of their
capabilities as parents. If children demonstrate behavior problems from a very young age,
mothers may feel less capable of producing conformity, and therefore reduce their values
in this area. Alternatively, mothers with children with behavior problems may
inadvertently help maintain children's behavior problems by valuing too much self-
direction and too little conformity in early childhood. Consistently, research regarding the
parenting practices that are associated with conduct disorders in children suggests that
deficits in parental monitoring and parental involvement accelerate the rate at which
children engage in aggressive and antisocial behaviors (Patterson 1982; Miller & Prinz,

1990). If mothers who do not value child conformity fail to adequately monitor their

80

children's activities and discipline misbehavior, this practice may contribute to children's
behavior problems.

Interestingly, the results for the mothers with older children with behavior
problems showed the opposite pattern, in that they reported higher discipline role values
than comparison mothers with older children. Furthermore, their self-direction values
were as low as those of MR mothers with older children. As with children with mental
retardation, an important issue concerns whether this higher level of control is excessive,
or whether it is responsive to the child’s greater need for control and guidance. For
instance, higher conformity and discipline role values with adolescents may indicate
excessive or inappropriate levels of control that do not recognize the adolescent's growing
need for independence. Such a focus on obedience and control may further reinforce
behavior problems by increasing the opportunities for child rebellion and parent-child
conflict. Consistently, the results from the regression analyses suggest that higher
conformity values are associated with less family closeness and more behavior problems in
families with adolescents. Alternatively, it is possible that the high level of control values
reported by mothers of older children is responsive to these children's need for greater
control. In particular, the fact that many of the children in the sample had a diagnosis of
attention deficit disorder, rather than oppositional or conduct disorders, suggests that
these mothers may be sensitive to their children's greater need for more direction and
guidance than other children. Similarly, the evidence for higher teacher role values, in
addition to discipline role values, is consistent with the hypothesis that higher levels of
control represent sensitive parenting, since teacher role values indicate that the higher

levels of control are not exclusively focused on behavior management. Again, longitudinal

81

data are needed to assess these conflicting hypotheses.

Taken together, the age-related findings of lower control values with younger
children and higher control values with older children suggests a potential cycle of
reciprocal causation consistent with Bell's (1979) bi-directional model. That is, lower
levels of control values with younger children may result in higher levels of behavior
problems. In response, mothers may increase their control values, but act on them
ineffectively, thus inadvertently causing further increases in behavior problems.
Unfortunately, the cross-sectional nature of this study cannot directly address this
hypothesis. In addition, longitudinal data are also necessary to test the implication that the
age-related changes in values are accompanied by similar changes in parenting practices.

The present study does not support the assumption that mothers of behavior
problem children act in accordance with their values, since unlike the MR mothers, there
was no evidence for higher controlling parenting styles with children of any age. This is
surprising in light of past research documenting that behavior problem mothers are more
controlling than comparison mothers during observations of parent-child interactions (e. g.,
Barkley, 1985; Webster-Stratton, 1985a). If the mothers do not behave in accordance
with their control values, they may experience increased stress and fi'ustration, since they
are not able to produce behaviors in the children that would conform to their values. That
is, mothers may highly value control, but lack the skills to effectively manage their
children's behavior. This apparent incongruence between parental values and practices
may partially explain why mothers with children with behavior problems are found to
discipline in ways that are explosive, noncontingent, or inconsistent (e. g. Patterson, 1982).

Alternatively, perhaps the global reports of parenting styles assessed in the present

82

study do not adequately capture parenting practices that are specific to interactions with
behavior problem children. For instance, mothers of children with behavior problems may
be inaccurate reporters of their own behavior, because they may lack an objective
reference points for comparison. That is, these parents may not see themselves as
particularly strict or controlling, even though an objective observer would rate them as
such. Perhaps mothers with children with behavior problems define "strictness"
differently, or perhaps they are unaware that family rules are not clear and consistent.
Similarly, it may be that the types of parental deficits associated with children's conduct
problems, such as the reinforcement of coercive behaviors and the failure to reinforce
positive behaviors on a moment-by-moment basis (Patterson, 1986), are not captured in
the global reports of family rules, structure, organization, and punishment. If so, then the
types of parental control practices that are associated with the development of behavior
problems would not be evident in reports of parenting styles. Research on how self-
reports of parenting practices match observations of parent-child interactions is needed to
assess this possibility.

Finally, consistent with past research documenting less warmth in families with
children with behavior problems (e. g., Haddad et al., 1991), higher control values for the
BP mothers seem to be at the expense of family closeness, since both the mothers and
fathers with behavior problem children reported less family closeness than the comparison
parents. This pattern of results is consistent with Baumrind's (1989) definition of
authoritarian parenting, and is potentially problematic because the absence of feelings of
warmth and security in the family, particularly in the context of high levels of control, may

increase children's aggressiveness and delinquency. Parental warmth and acceptance are

83

important for the development of self-esteem (e. g., Gecas, 1972) and psychosocial
competence (e. g., Cooper, Grotevant, & Condon, 1983). In addition, parental acceptance
and warmth provides the security necessary for healthy separation and individuation in
adolescence (e. g., Baumrind, 1991). Thus, lower levels of farrrily closeness may result in
early separations from the family before the child is developmentally ready or may make it
more likely that children will associate with deviant peer groups, which could fiirther
exacerbate behavior problems (e.g., Sessa & Steinberg, 1991).

The Effects pf Gender on Pflental Values and Praetices. For all of the parents,
there was no evidence that child gender influenced parents' values. Thus, in contrast to
previous research suggesting that parents value conformity more for girls and self-
direction more for boys (e. g., Block, 1983), it seems that the child's disability status
overrides the effects of child gender in forming parents' values and parenting styles.
However, the fact that gender differences in parental values and practices were not evident
for the comparison parents either suggests that the influence of child gender as a basis for
parental values may be overstated. Alternatively, since the parental role value measure
and the parenting styles measures were not specific to the target child, and at least some of
the parents had other children, both boys and girls, the current data cannot really detect
differences related to gender.

Finally, the relative absence of differences among the groups of fathers as opposed
to the groups of mothers suggests that fathers' values and parenting styles are less affected
by characteristics of the disabled child than those of mothers. This may be due to the fact
that on average, mothers spend more time with the disabled child and are more responsible

for child care than fathers (e.g., Bristol, et al., 1988). Consistently, mothers reported

84

more control than fathers, in terms of higher teacher role values and more firm control.
The one area in which fathers reported more control than mothers, power-oriented
control, suggests that fathers may be more responsible for discipline and mothers may be
more responsible for structuring daily routines and rules and more attuned to the affective
climate of the family. Finally, the differences between mothers and fathers were robust in
that they were present regardless of the child's disability status. Thus, it seems that
mother/father role differences are similar across different types of families and are not
affected by the experience of raising children with special needs. These findings contrast
with those of Floyd and Phillippe (1993) who found few mother-father differences in
observations of parent-child interactions across parents with children with mental

retardation and comparison parents.

The Effects pf Parental Values apd Praetiees en Child Develdpment

In contrast to the many mother-father differences found for mean levels of values
and parenting styles, the effects of these constructs on child development were quite
similar for mothers and fathers. Therefore, the hypothesis that mothers' values and
parenting styles would be relatively better predictors of child adjustment than fathers' was
not supported. In addition, the fact that the child adjustment measures were almost
always completed by the mothers suggests that the results for the fathers are particularly
strong. That is, the relationships involving the fathers' data are less subject to method
variance biases than the mothers' data, since both fathers and mothers provided data for
the fathers' analyses.

There was a relatively clear pattern of relationships between parental values and

85

parenting styles that was consistent across mothers and fathers. Past research into
parenting cognitions has encountered difficulties demonstrating a link between the way
parents think about children and the way they interact with them (e.g., Sigel, 1985),
perhaps because the parenting behaviors have been too specific, and therefore too open to
situational variation, to detect consistent relationships with parenting cognitions (e. g.,
Sigel, 1986). That is, moment by moment parenting practices are unlikely to totally reflect
parental values, and instead are also likely to be influenced by other contextual factors
such as parental mood or the presence of competing demands for parental attention. The
parenting practices examined in the present study were global reports of parenting styles
rather than rates of specific behaviors, and at this more global level, expected relationships
between values and parenting styles were found. However, since parenting practices were
not directly observed, the current findings cannot rule out the hypothesis that people see
their values and practices as consistent, and report consistencies that are not apparent in
actual behaviors.

In particular, the results suggest that parents' childrearing values are related to the
way in which they structure the environment and organize the child's daily life, since
parents who valued self-direction provided less structure and rules than parents who
valued conformity. In addition, the results suggest that parents' discipline role values are
related to the amount of strict punishment used in response to child misbehavior. F many?"
the finding that teacher role values were associated with more family closeness suggests
that parents who value their role as teachers may be generally more involved in parenting
than parents with lower teacher role values. That is, it may be that parental involvement in

teaching is more discretionary than other parenting roles, so that parents who emphasize

86

parental teaching are more child-oriented and more interested in fostering family cohesion
and togetherness than parents with lower teacher role values.

Although parents' values were related to parenting styles, the results do not
support the hypothesis that parenting styles mediate the effects of values on child
adjustment. First, in contrast to the consistent relationships between values and parenting
styles, fewer relationships were found between parental values and children's adjustment.
In addition, the parents' role values that did predict child adjustment did so afier
controlling for parenting styles, suggesting that parental role values have some direct
effects on child adjustment that are not mediated by parenting styles.

Despite the lack of clear support for the mediational model, there was an
interesting pattern to the predictors of children's externalizing behavior problems versus
adaptive behavior skills, in which externalizing behavior problems were predicted by levels
of farrrily closeness whereas adaptive behavior skills were predicted by levels of parental
control.

Regarding externalizing behavior problems, for both mothers and fathers, less
family closeness was associated with more behavior problems. In contrast, neither of the
controlling parenting styles predicted externalizing behavior problems. In addition,
preliminary analyses did not reveal any interactions between control-oriented parenting
styles and levels of family closeness. Thus, it seems that the affective quality of the family
is a more salient for behavior problems than parental control practices.

The finding that controlling parenting styles were not associated with children's
behavior problems contrasts with research with young children demonstrating positive

relationships between firm control and child compliance and negative relationships

87

between coercive control and child compliance (e. g., Kochanska & Askan, 1995).
However, differences in children's ages and/or differences in the method of assessing
parental control (observations versus self-reports) may explain the lack of consistency.
Furthermore, the current finding that parents' reports of family closeness were better
predictors of children's behavior problems than parental control contrasts with the findings
of Barber, Olsen, and Shagle (1994), who found that adolescent's reports of parental
control were better predictors of adolescent's externalizing behavior problems than their
reports of parental support. Thus, it may be that children's perceptions of parental control
and parents' perceptions of support are most highly related to children's behavior. Perhaps
the parenting practices that children see as controlling are seen by parents as supportive.
In contrast to parenting styles, only two parental values had direct effects on
children's externalizing behavior problems, both before and after controlling for parenting
styles. First, as expected, fathers' higher discipline role values were associated with more
behavior problems for boys. However, the finding that mothers' higher teacher role values
predicted more externalizing behavior problems was unexpected. Perhaps this finding
indicates that since mothers with children with high levels of behavior problems are less
successful in their disciplinarian role, they value or emphasize their teaching role instead.
This pattern would be consistent with the hypothesis offered earlier that parental values
may be formed in part by parents' perceptions of their own capabilities as parents.
Regarding the prediction of adaptive behavior skills, the results showed that
parental control practices and discipline role values were relatively more important for
fostering adaptive behavior than family closeness or valuing independence, particularly for

fathers. Contrary to expectations, with a few exceptions, self-direction values, teacher

88

role values, and levels of family closeness were not related to children's adaptive behavior
skills. Instead, adaptive behavior skills were predicted most consistently by both firm and
power-oriented controlling parenting styles and by discipline role values. In particular,
children's higher self-direction skills were predicted by mid-levels of power-oriented
control and lower discipline role values for mothers, and higher levels of firm control for
fathers. Similarly, children's higher social responsibility skills were predicted by lower
discipline role values for mothers, and high levels of firm control and lower levels of
power-oriented control and discipline role values for fathers.

These results support the distinction between firm control and power-oriented
control. As expected, firm control was positively associated with children's adaptive
behavior skills, especially at the highest levels, whereas higher levels of power-oriented
control and discipline role values were negatively associated with adaptive behavior skills.
Thus, the findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the development of child
qualities such as independent initiative, perseverance, responsibility, and cooperation are
facilitated by control that involves a high level of organization and guidance, and are
hindered by extreme levels of control that is strict or restrictive (e. g., Baumrind, 1989).
Furthermore, the results suggest that fiiture research should investigate curvilinear
relationships between parenting practices and children's development, since both forms of
control showed nonlinear relationships with children's self-direction skills.

Importantly, the families with children with mental retardation seemed to be an
exception to these trends. That is, for both the mothers and the fathers, power-oriented
control showed differential relationships with social responsibility for the MR and non-MR

parents. Although the correlations did not reach significance in the MR families, both the

89

mothers and the fathers showed positive relationships between stricter forms of control
and children's social responsibility skills. In addition, higher discipline role values reported
by mothers were not associated with lower levels of adaptive behavior skills for the MR
children as they were for the non-MR children. Therefore, unlike the non-MR families,
higher levels of strict control may not be detrimental to the development of adaptive
behavior skills for children with mental retardation. Consistently, Marfo (1990) argues
that there is little empirical support for the negative connotations associated with high
levels of control in farrrilies with MR children, and suggests that even high levels of
parental control with MR children may in fact be adaptive. For typically developing
children, normative developmental increases in children's social-cognitive abilities follow
from internal maturational forces, in addition to external parenting pressures (Maccoby,
1984). Perhaps these innate drives towards greater self-control and social competence are
reduced or delayed in MR children, and as a result, these children may require more
external control to develop these qualities. Thus, parents' exercise of strict control may
compensate for a lower rate of maturational increases in adaptive behaviors compared to
typically developing children. Consistently, higher self-direction values for MR fathers
were associated with more power-oriented control, indicating that fathers with children
with mental retardation may (correctly) believe that strict control is necessary to foster
independent fimctioning in their children.

Across the analyses, child characteristics other than the child's disability status
appeared to be differentially important for mothers and fathers. In particular, for the
mothers, child age seemed to be as salient as the child's disability status in predicting child

adjustment, since several of the expected relationships between parental values and child

9O

adjustment were found for the mothers of older children only. This is consistent with the
findings that many of the child group differences in mothers values and parenting styles
were evident only for the mothers of older children. It may by that mothers' values
influence child development in a cumulative manner, so that their impact on child
adjustment is not evident until adolescence. Similarly, it may be that adolescents, more so
than younger children, are aware of their mothers' values and have internalized them to
some extent (e.g., Holden & Edwards, 1992), so that the behavior of older children more
closely conforms to mothers' values than the behavior of younger children. Although
many theories suggest that parent-child relationships are disrupted during adolescence,
research evidence indicates that parents continue to be an important influence and that
adolescents retain their emotional connection to parents during adolescence (Collins,
1992). Thus, at least for global traits such as conformity versus self-direction, adolescents
may adopt their parents' values. Consistently, Cashmore and Goodnow (1985) found that
adolescents generally perceive considerable similarity between their values and those of
their parents.

For the fathers, child gender appeared to be particularly salient, as many of the
predictions of child adjustment were significant for the fathers of boys only. This pattern
suggests that fathers may be more involved in parenting boys or more invested in the
development of boys, so that their values and parenting styles are more predictive of
outcomes for boys than girls. This is consistent with observational studies that compare
mothers' and fathers' interactions with sons and daughters. In particular, research
evidence suggests that fathers engage in more extensive and varied interactions with sons

compared to daughters (Vaughn, Block, & Block, 1988), and that fathers' influence may

91

be less prominent for girls than boys (Block, Block, & Morrison, 1981). Gjerde (1988)
speculates that fathers' influence on girls may be less direct because fathers may spend less
time in dyadic interactions with daughters compared to sons, and instead interact primarily
with daughters in the presence of mothers. In addition to fewer direct interactions with
daughters, other research indicates that fathers more than mothers treat sons and
daughters differently (e. g., Siegal, 1987). For instance, Leaper et al. (1989) found that
fathers engaged in more behaviors emphasizing separation with sons, and more behaviors
emphasizing closeness with their daughters. Interestingly, in the current study, the
parenting style that was most predictive of behavior problems for the fathers of boys was
family closeness. Perhaps since Leaper et al.'s (1989) findings suggest that interactions
characterized by closeness may be less common for fathers and their sons, such practices
may be quite salient and therefore more highly predictive of child adjustment than control
practices for boys.
Diregion df Effeets

The above discussion is not intended to imply that the direction of effects runs
exclusively from parents' values and parenting styles to children's adjustment. Indeed, the
first component of this study focused on the extent to which child characteristics influence
parenting. Unfortunately, the cross-sectional nature of this study cannot address the
question of causality, and it is likely that some of the above relationships can also be
understood as child characteristics influencing parenting values and parenting styles. For
instance, instead of lower levels of family closeness predicting increased behavior
problems, it could be that when children exhibit a high level of behavior problems, family

life is characterized by more conflict and less cohesion, so that over time, stressful

92

interactions erode feelings of family closeness.

Indeed, the results of this study provide support for bi-directional models of
parent-child relationships (e. g., Bell, 1979; Bell & Chapman, 1986) by showing the
effects of child characteristics on parenting as well as the effects of parenting on child
characteristics. Thus, consistent with the bi-directional model, it is likely that both
processes are operating, so that child characteristics and parenting continually feedback
into one another. In this way, for example, higher levels of behavior problems may
initially reduce feelings of family closeness, but reduced family closeness likely creates
circumstances that firrther elevate children's behavior problems. However, because
parents possess more power, knowledge, resources, and competency than children, they
have more avenues for impacting child development than the reverse (e. g., Maccoby,
1992; Baumrind, 1993). At the same time, however, child characteristics such as mental
retardation and chronic illness are not created by parents, and therefore the direction of

effects is especially likely to be reversed in these families.

Implicatiens of Parentfl Centrol Valaes fer Pereeptions ef Patenting Seeeess,

For the mothers, there was considerable support for the hypothesis that parental
values can either exacerbate or buffer the effects of having a difficult child. That is, lower
levels of child adjustment were associated with lower perceptions of parenting success
only when the child's level of firnctioning violated the mothers' values. Thus, it seems to
be the "goodness of fit" between mothers' values and children's behavior that determines
mothers' sense of parenting success. This was particularly true for violations of mothers'

values for children's behavior (self-direction versus confomrity), rather than parental role

93

values. Therefore, the "goodness of fit" between child characteristics and environmental
demands, in addition to affecting children's adjustment (Lerner, 1993), also has
implications for mothers' adjustment.

For the fathers, perceptions of parenting success seem to be determined directly by
children's behavior, regardless of their values. These results suggest that fathers' beliefs
about their own competence as a parent may be more vulnerable to difficult child
behavior. As a result, fathers may withdraw from interactions with children who are
difficult to manage more readily than mothers. If feelings of parenting incompetence
cause fathers to withdraw, this may explain why mothers assume the majority of child
management and teaching responsibilities (e.g., Stoneman, Brody, & Abbott, 1983). In
contrast to fathers, mothers may have more mechanisms for protecting their parenting self-
esteem than fathers, since difficult child behavior was associated with perceptions of less
parenting competence only for mothers with higher control values. That is, mothers may
adjust their values to reflect not only their child's needs, but also what they believe is
possible to achieve, thus enabling them to maintain their motivation to parent in the face of
difficult child behavior (e. g., Goodnow, 1985).

Regardless of children's behavior, fathers with higher teacher role values felt more
successful as parents than fathers with lower teacher role values. This is consistent with
the conceptualization offered earlier that parents with higher teacher role values may be
more involved and child-oriented than parents with lower teacher role values. Research
by McConachie (1989) suggests that fathers with children with mental retardation who
spend more time interacting with their children display more sensitivity, provide more

positive feedback, and obtain more child compliance than fathers who spend relatively less

94

time interacting with their children. Thus, when fathers are more involved in a teaching
role with their children, in addition to showing more effective parenting, they may also
have more opportunities to develop a view of themselves as competent caregivers.
However, the current results do not address whether perceptions of parenting competence
follow from role values or whether role values follow fiom perceptions of parenting
competence. That is, it is possible that fathers who feel more capable as parents come to
value their teacher roles more than fathers who feel relatively less capable. This
hypothesis firrther supports the idea proposed earlier that parental values may follow from

parenting successes and failures.

Clini Im lic ions

There are several implications of the current findings for clinicians working with
families. First, the current findings support family systems theories that firm control is
beneficial to children's development (e. g., Falloon, 1989). Family systems theories
propose that families in which parents are actively involved in parenting and maintain
appropriate boundaries between parents and children are more effective than families in
which there is role reversal between parents and children or in which parents are relatively
disengaged from their parenting responsibilities (e. g., Minuchin & Fishman, 1981). It is
possible that parents' control values underlie the way in which parenting roles are defined
or the way in which the family power hierarchy is organized. Therefore, attempts to alter
family structures may benefit fi'om examining parental control values and how they relate
to family organization.

Second, the finding that parental values were related to parenting styles also

95

suggests that parent training and family therapy interventions may be more effective if they
address the values that underlie parents' styles of interacting with their children, in addition
to attempting to alter specific behaviors. That is, therapeutic efforts to achieve stable
changes in parenting strategies may fail without addressing how parents think about their
parenting role or their childrearing goals. Thus, for example, attempts to encourage
parents to reduce their reliance on power-oriented forms of control may be less successfirl
if the parents highly value their disciplinarian role. Values are basic assumptions parents
have that typically go unexamined, and therapy would probably be more effective if
parents' values were explicitly examined in relation to children's abilities and
developmental levels, and altered if found to be unrealistic or extreme. Similar attention
to parents' cognitions are advocated for understanding extreme parenting behaviors such
as child abuse. For instance, abusive mothers have been found to hold more unrealistic
expectations regarding children's capabilities than nonabusive mothers, and these specific
expectations are believed to contribute to abusive episodes when children fail to live up to
mothers' unrealistic expectations (e.g., Azar, Robinson, Hekirnian, & Twentyman, 1984).
The results of the current study suggest that unrealistic values regarding control may also
underlie difficulties with less extreme parenting practices. Examination of parental values
may be particularly important when children's development is non-normative, such as
children with mental retardation or behavior problems.

Third, the findings suggest several specific considerations for clinicians working
with families with children with special needs. For the parents with children with mental
retardation, the finding that power-oriented control may not be detrimental to the

development of adaptive behaviors, and may even have beneficial effects, suggests that

96
clinicians should be cautious about automatically assuming that strict control is
problematic. In addition, the findings suggest that mothers with older children with mental
retardation may need extra support, as normative increases in children's competence may
not be evident and mothers need to maintain a higher level of control. This may be
especially problematic for mothers with higher self-direction values or lower disciplinarian
role values. Sirrrilarly, for mothers with older children with behavior problems, the
appropriateness of higher control values should be assessed. That is, for some parents
with children with behavior problems, higher control values into adolescence may be
responsive to these children's need for greater control and guidance. However, for others,
high control values in adolescence may be extreme or unresponsive to the adolescent's
increasing abilities. In such case, mothers' emphasis on control at an age when children
are pushing for increased freedom and autonomy may result in increased coercive
exchanges and more child defiance. Additionally, for families with children with behavior
problems, family closeness may also be low, so that interventions should focus on
fostering family cohesion in addition to focusing on the development of more effective
parental control.

Fourth, the results suggest that more extreme control values may leave mothers
vulnerable to difficult child behavior. For some parents, an appropriate therapy goal may
be to redefine what it means to be a successful parent, particularly for parents with
challenging children. Ellis (197 7) based his theory of depression on the notion that
irrational beliefs about how things "should" be cause peOple distress. Similarly, it may be
that parents' values regarding how much they "should" be able to control their children

may contribute to low parenting confidence. In some families, it may be that mothers'

97

expectations of themselves or for their children regarding control may not be realistic
given their child's ability level. Thus, parents can potentially protect their parenting self-
esteem by evaluating their control values and adjusting their expectations for their child or
for themselves to more realistically match their child's behavior and abilities.

Finally, the results highlight the important role of fathers for children's
development, since fathers' values and parenting practices predicted child development as
well as those of mothers. Although parent training programs typically advocate for
involving fathers, in practice, these programs usually only involve mothers (e.g., Miller &
Prinz, 1990), and consequently are potentially only influencing half of the child's parenting
experience. By not involving fathers, the potency of therapeutic interventions is limited.
First, research indicates that when fathers are involved in therapy, treatment gains related
to effective mother-child interactions are more likely to be maintained (Webster-Stratton,
1985b). Second, the inclusion of fathers in parenting programs introduces additional
avenues for effecting change via the fathers' values and practices, thus increasing the
potential for change (Colapinto, 1989). In addition, the results suggest that clinicians
should pay close attention to fathers' emotional needs and their feelings about their
parenting, since fathers' perceptions of parenting success were more directly driven by
children's behavior than those of mothers. Increasing fathers' parenting confidence may
result in greater father involvement in parenting. This is particularly important in families
with children with special needs (e. g., Combrink-Graham & Higley, 1984). Therefore, as
with mothers, therapy could focus on exploring with fathers what it means to be a

successfirl parent, and on nurturing fathers' sense of effective control.

98
Directions for Future Resmzlr

There are several directions for future research that would address the limits of the
current study. For instance, fixture research in this area could assess directly whether
parents' form different values for their disabled child versus healthy siblings, or whether
the differences found in the current study generalize to all children. Earlier, it was
suggested that variations in parents' control values and practices may indicate that parental
values formed in response to the disabled child's needs generalize to all children.

However, data directly assessing this issue would be helpful. Similarly, the effects of child
gender on parental values could be more directly assessed by comparing parents' reports
of their values for their sons versus daughters within the same family.

F urtherrnore, longitudinal data is necessary to directly assess whether values are
relatively stable, or whether they are responsive to developmental changes in children
and/or parents' evaluations of their own parenting capabilities. The findings in the current
study regarding child age suggest that parents may continually adjust their values in
response to changing child needs or perceived success and failures as parents, but these
hypotheses are highly speculative without longitudinal data. In addition, longitudinal data
could better address the questions raised about causality among values, parenting practices
and child characteristics.

Future research could also attempt to determine the conditions in which parents
are more or less likely to behave in accordance with their values. For instance, it may be.
that parents act on their values in a planful manner in terms of how they structure their
children's daily life, but that parental values are less important to spontaneous reactions to

child misbehavior. Accordingly, it would be interesting to assess specific parenting

99

behaviors in addition to the global reports of parenting styles examined here in order to
determine whether the relationships found between parental values and parenting styles are
also evident in parents' moment-by-moment interactions.

In addition, there are several directions for fiiture research that may reveal clearer
links between parents' values and child development. For example, it may be that parents
hold different beliefs about how children acquire behavioral self-control or adaptive
behavior skills, despite having similar values. That is, two parents may hold similarly high
self-direction values for their children, but differ in their beliefs about how children
develop independent functioning skills. Alternatively, the range or diversity of parental
role values may be the most important factors for understanding links with children's
development. For instance, optimal child development may be associated with parents
who are able to effectively manage a number of different parenting roles compared to
parents who value one parental role to the exclusion of others.

Finally, an interesting question for future research concerns the congruence
between mothers' and fathers' values, and how similarities versus dissimilarities affect child
adjustment (e. g., Gjerde, 1988). For instance, children from families with high levels of
parental concordance probably receive more consistent messages, and therefore show
stronger relationships between parental values and child adjustment. In addition, parental
agreement on values and parenting practices could also be related to other domains of
family functioning, such as the quality of the parenting alliance. Although much research
has examined the correlates of parental agreement on childrearing practices in terms of
both child development (Vaughn, Block, & Block, 1988) and parenting behaviors (Gjerde,

1988), parental concordance has not been related directly to coparenting or the parenting

100

alliance (e. g., Frank et al., 1991). Thus, expanding the focus of future research in this way
may uncover further relationships between parental values and parenting styles and
children's adjustment. For example, parental agreement, in terms of childrearing values
and parenting styles, may be related to stronger parenting alliances, which in turn relate to

more competent child firnctioning.

APPENDIX A

101

Table 1

Means and Stande Deviations ar_id Frequencies ef Demographic Charaeteristics- Parents

 

 

Mental Behavior Chronic

Variable Retardation Comparison Problems Illness
N

Father 56 24 27 48

Mother 76 41 40 59
Age

Father 41.84 (6.94) 40.88 (7.05) 39.07 (6.99) 40.08 (6.19)

Mother 38.72 (6.08) 36.85 (5.82) 36.67 (5.05) 37.34 (6.40)
Education‘

Father 13.84 (2.07) 14.58 (2.38) 13.26 (1.63) 14.26 (2.54)

Mother 13.71 (2.21) 14.13 (2.15) 13.28 (2.25) 13.83 (2.08)
Yearlylncome2 38.46 (35.51) 34.00 (26.09) 28.00 (19.78) 32.45 (23.92)
Marital Status

Married 52 24 21 35

Single 24 17 19 24
Ethnicity

Caucasian 60 27 32 47
Minority I3 12 5 11

 

 

 

 

 

‘= in years, 2: in thousands

Note. Standard deviations in parentheses.

 

102

Table 2

Mean an tandar Devi tions nd Fre uenci s of D m r hic haract ri tic - Tar et
Children

 

 

Mental Behavior Chronic Illness

Variable Retardation Comparison Problems
Age 12.25 (2.77) 11.78 (3.18) 11.74 (2.57) 11.04 (3.19)
Gender

Boys 34 22 23 30

Girls 42 19 17 29
Age Group

6-12 years 38 25 27 36

13-18 years 38 16 13 23
Behavior Problems

Yes 27 0 4O 20

No 49 41 0 39

 

 

 

 

 

Note. Standard deviations in parentheses.

103

Table 3

Results ef Faeter Analysis of Role Dispositien Questiennaire: Items with loading greater
than .45

 

Item

Loading

Factor 1: Parent-As-Disciplinarian

1. Every child needs a good spanking once in awhile. .71
2. Children should not question the authority of their parents. .67
3. The most important thing to teach children is absolute obedience to parents. .63
4. Spanking is not a very effective way to discipline a child. -.60
5. Children should always do what their parents say, no matter what. .57

Faetor 2: Parent-As-Teacher

1. It is up to parents to provide the child with learning experiences at an early age. .65

2. Parents should continue to teach their children, even after the child enters school. .65

3. A 4-year old should not be left alone in the house, even during the day. .60

4. Parents have the most influence on the development of the child's attitudes and
beliefs. .58

5. Parents are their child's best teacher. .53

Factor 3

1. The main purpose of schools is to develop a child's self-confidence. .85

2. The things a child learns at home are more important than his or her education

at school. .76

Factor 4

1. Children are born good. .84

2. All children are good by nature. .84

__—"-'II

 

 

 

104

Table 4

Comparison of Selected Items from Parenting Styles and Values Scales,

 

Control-Oriented Parenting Styles

Firm Control

There are set ways of doing things at home.
There is a strong emphasis on following rules
breaking rules in our family.

Each person's duties are clearly defined in
our family.

Members of our family can get away with
almost anything.

Power-Oriented Control

Parents make all of the important
decisions in our family.

There is strict punishment for
in our family.

Nobody orders anyone around in our
family.

Farrrily members are severely
punished for anything they do wrong.

Parental Values

Self-Diregion Values

It is important for my child to think for himself.

It is important for my child to be interested in
how and why things happen.

Disciplinarian Rolelalues

Every child needs a good spanking once in

awhile.

Children should not question the authority
of their parents.

Cenfermig Valees

It is important for my child to obey
parents and teachers.

It is important for my child to keep
things neat and in order.

Teacher Role Values

It is up to parents to provide the child
with learning experiences at an early

age.

Parents should continue to teach their
children, even after the child enters
school.

Table 5

 

Cerrelations between Mothers aed Fathers: Values, Parenting Styles, and Perceptions of

 

 

 

 

hrenting Success
Total Sample MR families Non-MR families
Variable (N=121) (N =5 l ) (N =70)
Parental Values
SDvalues .31*** .02 .47***
Discipline Roles 38*" .33 * .43 * **
Teacher Roles .20* .27’ .02
Parenting Styles
Firm Control .47*** .54*** .42***
Power-Oriented . 19* .3 5* * .07
Family Closeness .58*** .62*** .54* **
Parenting Success
Perceived Control .19* .19 .18
Self-Blame 20* . 15 .23 *

 

 

 

 

a=p<.1(); *-_-p<'05; **=D<-01; ***=D<-001

Note. MR families = families with children with mental retardation, Non-MR families=
families without children with mental retardation, SD values=Self-Direction Values.

106

Table 6

Group Differences in Control Valdes and Parenting Styles- Fathers

 

 

 

 

Means and Standard Deviations Post hoc
Contrast
MR Comp BP CI Family
Variable N=52 N=22 N=1 7 5:3 5 Group
SDvalue 18.77 24.45 21.53 22.79 MR<C,CI
(7.61) (8.21) (8.53) (9.06)
Discipline 12.83 13.23 14.40 13.60 ns
(4.17) (3.69) (3.93) (4.89)
Teacher 21.81 23.23 22.63 23 .20 MR<C,CI
(3.07) (1.82) (2.00) (2.04)
Firm 12.72 12.45 11.35 12.21 ns
(4.42) (4.10) (526) (3.91)
Power 11.52 11.62 12.00 11.41 ns
(1.67) (2.18) (2.12) (1.44)
Closeness 14.06 15.19 11.12 13.97 BP<C,CI
(5.39) (3.70) (4.62) (3.94)

 

 

 

Note. MR= Mental Retardation, Comp= Comparison, BP= Behavior Problem, CI=

Chronic Illness.

107

Table 7

Group Differences in Control Vflres and Parenting Styles- Mothers

 

 

 

 

Means and Standard Deviations Post hoc Contrasts
MR Comp BP CI Age X Child Family
Variable N=76 N=39 N=39 N=59 Group Age Group
SDvalue 21.18 21.47 22.38 21.67 Young: Old > ns
(7.34) (7.30) (7.40) (8.45) BP>C; Young
Old:
MR<C
Discipline 13.59 12.23 14.00 12.93 Old: Young ns
(3 .97) (4.78) (4.28) (5.19) MR>C >
BP>C Old
Teacher 22.50 22.3 1 23 .79 23.68 ns ns MR<CI;
(2.58) (4.24) (1.76) (1.68) BP>C
Firm 13.38 12.51 12.49 13.32 Old: Young ns
(3.65) (3.71) (4.12) (3.83) MR>C >
Old
Power 11.14 11.23 11.08 11.07 ns ns ns
(2.02) (2.30) (1.44) (1.52)
Closeness 14.96 16.10 12.38 14.98 ns ns BP<C,CI
(5.08) (3.70) (4.26) (4.43)

 

 

 

Note. MR= Mental Retardation, Comp= Comparison, BP= Behavior Problem, CI=
Chronic Illness, SD values=Self-Direction Values, Young= 6-12 year olds, Old=l3-18
year olds.

Table 8

108

Mother - Father Differences in Control V ues an Paren in S les

 

Means and Standard

Post hoc Contrasts

 

 

Deviations
Variable Fathers Mothers Parent X Parent
Gender
SD values 21.24 21.59 ns ns
(8.46) (7.63)
Discipline Role 13.31 13.23 ns ns
(4.26) (4.55)
Teacher Role 22.55 23.03 ns Mo>Fa
(2.55) (2.71)
Firm Control 12.34 13.04 ns Mo>Fa
(4.33) (3.79)
Power Control 11.57 11.12 Girls: Fa>Mo
(1.76) (1.84) Fa>Mo
Closeness 13.82 14.72 ns Mo>Fa
(4.75) (4.64)

 

 

 

Note. SD values=Self-Direction values, Mo= mothers, F a= fathers.

 

109

Table 9

Zero Order Correlations between Parenting Values and Parenting Styles

 

 

 

 

Fathers Mothers
Values Firm Power Close Firm Power Close
SD values -.19* .00 .09 -.13a -.06 .17*
Discipline .14 .04 -.12 .09 . 17* -.17*
Teacher .09 .05 .20* -.05 .05 .12'

 

 

 

a=Q<,10; *=p<.05; **=p<.01; ***=p<.001

Note. SD values=Self-Direction Values.

110

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 10
a I a u 'acar"e.'ri° \‘ H.n'-.-'rr°V-_- ' ~
Firm Control Power-Oriented Control Closeness
Predictors R2 AR2 beta R2 AR2 beta R2 AR2 beta
Step 1 .04 .01 .05
Education .20“ -.02 .22"
Gender -.05 .11 .00
Age Group -.06 .00 .01
MR Group .08 -.05 .05
Step 2 .13 .08“ .01 .00 .09 .04
SD Values -.26" .00 .03
Discipline . 18" .01 -.07
Teacher . 10 .05 .20"
Step 3 .20 07*“ .12 .11" no interactions
AgeXT each 28*"
MRXSDval .22"
SexXDisc .26"
F-Ratio E(8,1 14F1.75‘ £(7,92)=2.06‘ E(8,91)=4.45”‘

 

 

 

 

L—‘p<.10; ‘=p<.05; "=p<.01; ““=p<.001

Note. SDval=Self-Direction Values, Teach=Teacher Role Values, Disc=Discipline Role

Values.

Table 1 l

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re It fR r i n r ictin P ni le mP nin V l -M thers
F irm Control Power-Oriented Control Closeness
Predictors R2 AR2 beta R2 AR2 beta R2 AR2 beta
Step 1 .02 .02 .06
Education .06 -.07 24*"
Gender .03 -. 12a .08
Age Group -.15"' -.06 -.05
MR Group .05 .00 .05
Step 2 .05 ..03 .05 .03 .09 .03
SD Values -.l6* -.03 .10
Discipline .10 . 15“ -.07
Teacher -.02 -. 10 .14"
Step 3 no interactions .09 .03" .11 .02"
AgeXSDval .16“
MRXT each . 19"
F-ratio E(7,188)=1.59 E(8,188)=2.39"' E(8,189)=3.08"*

 

 

 

 

‘=p<.10; *=p<.05; "fl<.01; "*=p<.001

Note. SDval=Self-Direction Values, Teacher Role Values.

112
Table 12

Zere _Qrder Correlations between Child Adjustment and Parenting Values and Parenting
Styles

 

 

 

 

Fathers Mothers
Extemal- Self- Social Extemal- Self- Social
izing Direction Respons izing Direction Respons.
Styles
Firm -.15' .10 .16 -.15* .09 .08
Power .05 -.07 -.07 -.03 .15* .02
Close -.25** .17‘ .12 -.35*** .16* .12
Values
SD values -.06 21* .21* -.05 .04 .09
Discipline .08 -.08 .01 .16* -.15a -.20**
Teacher -.09 .08 .09 .13a .06 .15*

 

 

 

3:9<.10; *=D<-05; **=P.<-01; ***=2<-001

Note. SD values=Self-Direction Values, Social Respons= Social Responsibility Skills.

113

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 13
0 i .01 Pf'cqlrt -01 A! r ’r 0 '- ‘rlr: 51' -Fhr
Externalizing Self-Direction Skills Social Responsibility
Predictors R2 AR2 B R2 AR2 B R2 AR2 B
Step 1 .oo .05 .12
Gender .05 -.06 .00
Age Group .02 .14 .20"
MR Group -.02 -.21‘ -.28"
Step 2 .06 .06' .09 .03 .16 .04
Firm -.43 .87 1.22“
Power .76 -.27 -l .53‘
Closeness -8.11"" 1.59" .36
Step 3 .07 .01 .16 .07" .17 .01
Firm2 -.25 .79" .36
Power2 .49 -.66‘ -. 15
Step4 .22 .15‘" .21 .05' .22 .05"
SexXClose 1085*" -2.00"
MRXPower 2.30“
F- Ratio E(9,111)=3.58"" E(9,88)=2.53" E(9,88)=2.76"

 

 

 

 

‘=p<.10; *=p<.05; "=p<.01; *"=p<.001

Table 14

114

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Externalizing Self-Direction Skills Social Responsibility
Predictors R2 AR2 B R2 AR2 B R2 AR2 B
Step 1 .01 .05 .09
Gender .05 .07 -.01
Age Group .04 .18* .24"
MR Group -.07 -.13 -.24"”"
Step2 .14 .13*" .11 .06" .12 .03
Firm -.61 .31 .43
Power .20 .51 -1 .09'
Closeness -6.71"* .53 .54
Step 3 .14 .00 .15 .04“ .14 .02
Firm2 .14 -.20 -.41
Power2 .44 -.57" -.31
Step 4 .17 .03" no interactions .16 .02"
MRXClose 4.70"
MRXPower 1.59"‘
F- Ratio _E(9,198)=4.58"* E(8,151)=3.44"* E(9,150)=3.19*"‘*

 

 

 

 

‘=p<.10; ‘=p<.05; "=p<.01; ““=p<.001

115

Table 15

" l Ofe'ki' in .' 1.11 t 1.]! ‘t m !0 rninVl - whrs

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extemalrzr' 'ng Self-Direction Skills Social Responsibility
Predictors R2 AR2 beta R2 AR2 beta R2 AR2 beta
Step 1 .04 .13 .21
Education -.20"‘ 29*" 32""
Gender .02 -.01 .02
Age Group .10 .10 .16‘
MR Group -.02 -.15 -.25"
Step 2 .05 ..01 .14 .01 .21 .00
SD Values .01 .08 .04
Discipline .04 -.04 .04
Teacher -.05 -.02 -.04
Step 3 .11 .06" no interactions .28 .07"
SexXDisc -.25”
MRXSDval -.29"
F- Ratio E(8,109)=3.36"* E(9,109)=1.73 E(7,114)=1.71

 

 

 

 

EQ<.]0; *=D<'05; tt=p<.01; ttt=—D<.001

Note. SDval=Self-Direction Values, Disc=Discipline Role Values

116

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 16
R 1 If":‘ 10 "91:15! i fror ’ 1 1° - hr
Externalizing Self-Direction Skills Social Responsibility
Predictors R2 AR2 beta R2 AR2 beta R2 AR2 beta
Step 1 .08 .07 .14
Education -.26*"‘* .14‘ 23*”
Gender .02 .07 .04
Age Group .09 .16“ .19"
MR Group -.11 -.16“' -26"*
Step 2 .11 .03a .08 .01 .17 .03
SD Values .03 -.02 -.01
Discipline . l 1 -.08 -. 12
Teacher .15" .05 . 12
Step 3 .15 04"" no interactions .19 .02“
AgeXSDval -.20"*
AgeXTeach -. 16*
F- Ratio E(8,l90)=4.13"* F(7,149)=l.79‘ F(8,148)=4.42““

 

 

 

 

‘=p<.10; *=p<.05; "=p<.01; "*=p<.001

Note. SDval=Self-Direction Values, Teach=Teacher Role Values.

Table 17

'rl‘qao 0

Parenting Styles

10.1.10, r .'l r-

1V-.‘o..i'=_co i:

117

or 0 'm0 :r- hiC -nc

 

Externalizing

Self-Direction Skills

Social Responsibility

 

Predictors R2

 

AR2 B

 

R2 AR2 B

 

R2 AR2 B

 

Fathers

 

Step 4 .26
SDvalues
Discipline

Teacher

..00
1.08
2.42
-.22

.16 .Ol
-.35
-.21
-.21

.23 .00
-.21
-l.15
-.35

 

Step 5 .30
Sex X Disc

 

.04“
-I.34"‘

 

no interactions

 

.27 .04“
.45"I

 

Mothers

 

Step 4 .25
SD values
Discipline

Teacher

.06‘
1.25
1.77
3.36“

.23 .03
.28
-. 18
.34

.34 .04
-.05
-.46
.69

 

Step 5
SexXDisc
MRXDisc

 

no interactions

.33 .10"
-.60"‘

-.53"'"‘

 

.42 .os**
457**

.47“

 

 

IEp<.10; l'=p<.05;

#t=p<'01; ‘TT$<.OOI

118

 

 

 

 

 

Table 18
Zero Order Correlations between Parenting Outcomes and Parentigg Values and Child
Adjustment
Fathers Mothers
Control Self-Blame Control Self-Blame
Values
SD values .05 -.15a .04 .0]
Discipline -.l 1 .05 -.20* ** -.02
Teacher .23“ -.28*** -.l4* -.08
Child Adjust
Externalizing -.37*** .33*** -.38*** .18**
Self-Direction .27* * -.28* * .15‘ -. 12
Social Respons. 20* -.26** .06 -.19**

 

 

 

Note. SD values=Self-Direction Values.

119

.825» Box oE—amomauommnH .w=_~__eEo§mu§m .8375 29m coaouohnmoh .mo=_~> cozooaafiomu—g Gm .802
Sevens... Mavers... wave"... x: .vmn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$2 amxaa
80.- am

x 35m

$3 Each
*8. m _. *8. t. *8. 2. 228825 8 4 new
:43. ...:8.~- :43. 58.7 .55
4:8. 2. 2.....2. 2. 4:8. 2. .........:. a. 22m
8.- 2.. its. _- 18.. :23
8. _- on- m. on. 985
8. _- S .- 2. mo. .9 am
8. 3. 5. 4o. :2. 2. .8. S. N 8a

m $2 $_ m $2 $2 m $2 $_ m $2 $_ .8285

0:85.28 35.50 vagina—om .8200
@5502 who—tam

 

 

 

 

cfiszBxM 2E0 v: we _u>_ E :5 88m 885 £283 a: 60.5

2 03m...

120

.mEu—m 5:535:301 _amoomndm EEO .mEo—m :otooLmQ-Somuflm EEO .mo:_~> comuooamflufiomH—g; Gm .202
_OOVQHeee m_o.Vm—.H..:.. Mmpg-van... Mo— .VGH.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*8. mm 2.5

x .9 am

.18.. mm 2.5

x .9 am
..8. m .. foo. S. 32822:. e: macros-.85 o: v 32m
.3. .- 8.- *8..- 8. 888
$- 9. 8.- .2. 98.8
8. 2. 8. 8. :2. 8. *8. E. m new
M..- 6.- :5..- .8. fish
a. . .- 8.- 2. $.- 985
8.- am. 8.- 8. .9 am
8. 8. .o. 8. 80. :. 8. 8. N 85

m $2 $. m $2 $. m $. 2 $. m $. 2 $. 88.8...

oEaE-hom .2280 apnea-hum .8280
80502 805mm

 

 

 

mas. . $2.8m 9.. 22 :5 58 . > .9. ._ as e a 83m 8:2 a 88..U 5

ON 2an

APPENDIX B

121

(11'1de

 

 

 

Self-Direction Skills

17

122

 

 

 

 

 

12 -----------------------------------------------------
11 -----------------------------------------------------

10 l l

1 (0-10) 2 (10-13) 3 (13-15) 4(15-19)

IFirm Control Quartiles

 

Self-Direction Skills

123

 

I7

16 .....................................................

 

 

 

 

11 -----------------------------------------------------
10 l i
1(5-10) 2 (10-11) 3 (11-12) 4 (12-18)

lPower—Oriented Control Quartiles

 

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

INSTRUMENTS

Parental Values

Role Disposition Questionnaire

Please rate the following items on a 5-point scale:

1=Strongly 2=Mildly 3=Not Sure 4=Mildly 5=Strongly

”SQV‘PWNH

t—it—ll—iI—do
wig—ago-

14.
15.

l6.
l7.
l8.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

24.

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

It is up to the parents to provide the child with learning experiences at an early age.

The main purpose of the schools is to develop a child's self-confidence.

The most important thing to teach children is absolute obedience to parents.

Every child needs a good spanking once in a while.

Children are naturally mean.

Children are naturally curious.

Parents are their child's best teacher.

A 4-year old should dress himself/herself completely, except for tying his or her shoes.

Parents have the most influence on the development of the child's attitudes and beliefs.
Children should not question the authority of their parents.

. Children are born good.

A 4-year old should not be left alone in the house, even during the day.

. Teachers at school should play a bigger part in the child's development than the

parents.

Spanking is not a very effective way to discipline a child.

The basic goal of the school should be to teach children reading, writing, and
arithmetic.

All children are good by nature.

Parents should continue to teach their child, even after the child enters school.

A 4-year old should be allowed to play outside the neighborhood without an adult.

A teacher should not be allowed to use physical punishment with a child.

Once a child enters school, all of his or her education should take place there.

Children should always do what their parents say, no matter what.

Parents should choose their child's playmates.

The things a child learns at home are more important than his or her education at
school.

Children will not do the right thing unless they must.

124

125

Parental Values Scale

Instructions: For the following three sets of statements, please tan_k the five statements
from 1 to 5 with the most important thing you want your child to learn ranked 1, the
second most important thing ranked 2, and so on with the least important thing ranked 5.
Give each five statements a different number.

First Set

1. It is important for my child:

to think for himself

to keep himself and his clothes clean
to be curious about many things

to be polite to adults

to be kind to other children

lllllE

.09-09‘!»

Second Set
2. It is important for my child:

to obey parents and teachers

to be responsible for his own work
to be kind and considerate

to keep things neat and in order

to use imagination

l|l|l§

.09-09‘.»

Third Set
3. It is important for my child:

to be interested in how and why things happen
to have the ability to get along with people

to be a good student

to have the ability to look after himself

to have good manners

.09-09‘?»

Confonm Score= Sum of items 1b, 1d, 2a, 2d, 3c, 3e.
Self-Direction Score= Sum of items la, 1c, 2b, 2e, 3a, 3d.

126

Parenting Styles

Firm nrl

Systems Maintenance items: (rated true or false)

>°9°S9W¥WNP

Activities in our family are carefully planned.
Family members are rarely ordered around.
We are generally very neat and orderly.
There are very few rules to follow in our family.
It's often hard to find things when you need them in out household.
There is one family member who makes most of the decisions.
Being on time is very important in our family.
There are set ways of doing things at home.
People change their minds often in our family.
There is a strong emphasis on following rules in our family.

. Family members make sure their rooms are neat.
. Everyone has an equal say in family decisions.

Each person's duties are clearly defined in our family.

. We can do whatever we want in our family.

Money is not handled very carefully in our family.

. Rule are pretty inflexible in our household.
. Dishes are usually done immediately after eating.
. You can't get away with much in our family.

Lax Control items: (rated on a 4-point scale)

.V'PPJNS"

Members of our family can get away with almost anything.

It is unclear what will happen when rules are broken in our family.

Fanrily members are not punished or reprimanded when they do something wrong.
There is strong leadership in our family.

It is hard to know what the rules are in our family because they always change.

Pewer-Qriented Contrel

A uthoritarian items (rated on a 4-point scale)

9:59.19?"

Parents make all of the important decisions in our family.

There is strict punishment for breaking rules in our family.

Family members are severely punished for anything they do wrong.
There are very few rules in our family.

Nobody orders anyone around in our family.

127

Children's Adaptive Behavior Skills

Self-Direction Skills

A. Initiative

Initiative (Circle only one)

Initiates most of own activities (e. g., tasks, games, etc)

Asks if there is something to do, or explores surroundings (e. g., home, yard)
Will engage in activities only if assigned or directed

Will not engage in assigned activities (e. g., putting away toys, etc)

9.0.7.”?-

Passivity (Check ALL statements which apply)
Has to be made to do things
Has no ambition
Seems to have no interest in things
Finishes tasks last because of wasted time
Is unnecessarily dependent on others for help
Movement is slow and sluggish
one of the above __

zmop-osrew

B. Perseverance

A ttention (Circle only one)

Will pay attention to purposeful activities for more than fifteen rrrinutes
(e. g., playing games, reading, cleaning up)

Will pay attention to purposefiil activities for at least fifteen minutes

Will pay attention to purposeful activities for at least ten minutes

Will pay attention to purposeful activities for at least five minutes

Will not pay attention to purposefill activities for as long as five minutes

5”?“

.09-9.6

Persistence (Check all statements that apply)
Becomes easily discouraged

Fails to carry out tasks

Jumps fi'om one activity to another

. Needs constant encouragement to complete tasks
N ne of the above

999'?!“

C. Leisure Time

1. Leisure Time Activity (Check all statements which apply)

a. Organizes leisure time on a fairly complex level (e.g., plays billiard)

b. Has hobby (e.g., painting, embroidery, collecting stamps or coins)

c. Organizes leisure time adequately on a simple level (e. g., watching
television, listening to radio, etc)

None of the above

Ot-‘NUJ

Ov-‘NWA

128

Social Responsibility Skills
1. Responsibility

A. Personal Belongings (Circle only one)

Very dependable--always takes care of personal belongings
Usually dependable--usually takes care of personal belongings
Unreliable--seldom takes care of personal belongings

Not responsible at all--does not take care of personal belongings

999‘!”

CO

. General Responsibility (Circle only one)
a. Very conscientious and assumes much responsibility—-makes a special effort;
the assigned activities are always performed 3
b. usually dependable--makes an effort to carry out responsibility; one can be
reasonably certain that the assigned activity will be performed 2
c. Unreliable--makes little effort to carry out responsibility; one is uncertain that
the assigned activity will be performed 1
d. Not given responsibility; is unable to carry out responsibility at all

11. Socialization

A. Cooperation (Circle only one)

a. Offers assistance to others 2
b. Is willing to help if asked 1
c. Never helps others 0

B. Consideration for Others (Check all statements which apply)
a. Shows interest in the affairs of others

b. Takes care of others' belongings

c. Directs or manages the affairs of others when needed
(1. Shows consideration for others' feelings

None of the above

C. Awareness of Others (Check all statements which apply)

a. Recognizes own family

b. Recognizes people other than family

c. Has information about others (e. g, job, address, relation to self)

(1. Knows the names of people close to him (e. g., classmates, neighbors)
e

N

. Knows the names of people not regularly encountered
one of the above

129

. Interaction with Others (Circle only one)
Interacts with others in group games or activity
Interacts with others for at least short period of time
Interacts with others irrritatively with little interaction
Does not respond to others in a socially acceptable manner

P—F’P‘P‘U

Participation in Group Activities (Circle only one)

Initiates group activities (leader or organizer)

Participates in group activities spontaneously and eagerly (active participant)
Participates in group activities if encouraged to do so (passive participant)
Does not participate in group activities

909‘9’1‘11

Selfishness (Check all statements which apply)

RCfiJSCS to take turns

Does not share with others

Gets mad if he does not get his way

. Interrupts aide or teacher who is helping another person
N ne of the above

GOV-”31"

G. Social Maturity (Check all statements which apply)
a. Is too familiar with strangers

b. Is afraid of strangers

c. Does anything to make fiiends

d. Like to hold hands with everyone
e. Is at someone's elbow constantly
None of the above

130

Perceptions of Parenting Success

Please rate the following statements as true for you using the following 5 point scale.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree

Parental Control

I always feel in control when it comes to my child.

My child's behavior is sometimes more than I can handle (R).

Sometimes I feel that my child's behavior is hopeless. (R)

It is often easier to let my child have his/her way than to put up with a tantrum. (R)

I find that sometimes my child can get me to do things I really did not want to do. (R)

My child often behaves in a manner very different from the way I would want him/her
to behave. (R)

Sometimes when I'm tired I let my children do things I normally wouldn't. (R)

8. Sometimes I feel that I do not have enough control over the direction my child's life is

taking (R)
9 I allow my child to get away with things. (R)
10. It rs not too difficult to change my child's rrrind about something.

Q‘ShPP’Nf'"

>1

brentjl Self-Blm

There is no such thing as good or bad children- just good or bad parents.

When my child is well behaved, it is because he/she is responding to my efforts.

Parents who can't get their children to listen to them don't understand how to get along

with their children.
My child's behavior problems are no one's fault but my own.
. Capable people who fail to become good parents have not followed through on their
opportunities.

6. Children's behavior problems are often due to mistakes their parents made.

7. Parents whose children make them feel helpless just aren't using the best parenting
techniques.

8. Most children's behavior problems would not have developed if their parents had had
better parenting skills.

9. I am responsible for my child's behavior.

10. The misfortunes and successes I have had as a parent are the direct result of my own
behavior.

PM“?

van

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/448 and
1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.

Aiken, L. S. & West, 8. G. (1991). Multiple Regressien; Testing and

Interpretiaglnteractions. Sage Publications: London.

Anti], J. K. (1987). Parents' beliefs and values about sex roles, sex differences,
and sexuality. In P. Shaver, & C. Hendrick (Eds) Review of Personality and Social
Psychology, 2. (pp. 294-326). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Azar, S. T., Robinson, D. R., Hekimian, E., & Twentyman, C. T. (1984).
Unrealistic expectations and problem-solving ability in maltreating and comparison
mothers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 687-691.

 

Bacon, M. K. & Ashmore, R. D. (1986). A consideration of the cognitive
activities of parents and their role in the socialization process. In R. D. Ashmore & D. M.
Brodzinsky (Eds) Thinking About the Emily: Views of Parents andChildren (pp. 3-33).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Baden, A. D. & Howe, G. W. (1992). Mothers' attributions and expectancies
regarding their conduct-disordered children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29,
467-485.

Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. E., & Shagle, S. C. (1994). Associations between
parental psychological and behavioral control and youth internalized and extemalized
behaviors. Child Development, Q, 1120-1136.

Barkley, R. A. (1985). The parent-cth interaction patterns of hyperactive
children: Precursors to aggressive behavior? Advances in Developmental and Behavioral
Pediatrics, 9, 117-150.

Bartholomew, K. L. (1986). Family therapy for children with chronic illness. In
L. Combrinck-Graham (Ed) The F a_n_11]y Therapy Collections: Treating Young Children
in Family Therapy (pp. 43-51). Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc.

Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N., Sayers, S., & Sher, T. G. (1989). The role of
cognitions in marital relationships: Definitiona], methodological, and conceptual issues.

leumal ef Consulting add Clinical Psychology, _5__Z, 31-38.

13]

132

Baumrind, D. (1993). The average expectable environment is not good enough:
A response to Scarr. Child Development. Q, 1299-1317.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence

and substance use. J eurng ef Early Adelescenee, C, 56-95.

Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In W. Damon (Ed) Child
Development Todayand Tomorrow. (pp.349-378). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Baxter, C. (1992). Appraised significance of intellectual disability for parents of
children in three age cohorts: Exploring the stress process. leuma] ef Intellectud
Disability Research, lé- 512-529.

Beavers, J. (1989). Physical and cognitive handicaps. In L. Combrinck-Graham
(Ed.) Children in Family Contexts (pp. 193-212). New York: Guilford Press.

Becker, W. C. & Krug, R. S. (1965). The parent attitude research instrument- A
research review. Child Development, 36, 329-365.

 

Bell, R. Q. (1979). Parent, child, and reciprocal influences. American
Psyeholegi st, 3_4, 821-826.

Bel], R. Q. & Chapman, M. (1986). Child effects in studies using experimental or
brief longitudinal approaches to socialization. Developmental Psychology, 2, 595-603.

Bel], R. Q. & Harper, L. V. (1977). Child Effects on Adults. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bem, D. J. (1970). Beliefs, Attitudes, and 1'1qu Affairs. Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.

Benson, M J ., Curtner-Smith, M. E., Collins, W. A., & Keith, T. Z. (1995). The
structure of family perceptions among adolescents and their parents: Individual
satisfaction factors and family system factors. Family Process, 3_4, 323-336.

Block, J. H. ( 1978). Another look at sex differentiation in the socialization
behaviors of mothers and fathers. In J. A. Sherman & F. L. Denmark (Eds) The
Psychology of Women: Future Directions in Resea_rclr, (pp. 29-87). New York:
Psychological Dimensions, Inc.

Block, J. H. (1983). Differential premises arising from differential socialization of
the sexes: Some conjectures. Child Development, S_4, 1335-1354.

133

Block, J. H., Block, J., & Morrison, A. (1981). Parental agreement-disagreement
on child-rearing orientations and gender-related personality correlates in children. Child
Development, 52, 965-974.

 

Bloom, B. L. (1985). A factor analysis of self-report measures of family
functioning. F_amilyProcess, 24, 225-239.

 

Boake, C. & Salmon, P. G. (1983). Demographic correlates and factor stnrcture
of the Family Environment Scale. lourna] ef Clinieal Psyehelogy, 3_9, 95-100.

Breiner, J. (1989). Training parents as change agents for their developmentally
delayed disabled children. In C. E. Schaefer & J. M. Briemeister (Eds) Handbook of
Parent Trainin : Parents -Th r i t for hi] r n' B havior Pr 1 m (pp. 269-
304). New York: Wiley-Interscience Publication.

Bristol, M., Gallagher, J. J. & Schopler, E. (1988). Mothers and fathers of young
developmentally disabled and nondisabled boys: Adaptation and spousal support.
Developmental Psychology, _2_3, 441-45 1 .

Brooks-Gunn, J. & Lewis, M. (1984). Maternal responsivity in interactions with
handicapped infants. Child Develepment 55 782-793.

3—,

Bugental, D. 8., Blue, J ., Cortez, V., Fleck, K., Kopeikin, H., Lewis, J. C., &
Lyon, J. (1993). Social cognitions as organizers of autonomic and affective responses to
social challenge. Journal of Personality Ed Soeial Psyeholegy, fl, 94-103.

Bugental, D. B., Caporael, L., & Shennurn, W. A. (1980). Experimentally
produced child uncontrollability: Effects on the potency of adult communication patterns.

Child Development, 5_l, 520-528.

Burns, A., Horrne], R., & Goodnow, J. (1984). Conditions of life and parental
values. Austrafin Journal of Psychology, Zé, 219-237.

 

Campbell, S. B. (1975). Mother-child interaction: A comparison of hyperactive,

learning disabled, and normal boys. Amean leurnal ef Qrthepsyehiatty, 5;, 51-57.

Campbell, S. B., Breaux, A. M., Ewing, L. J., Szumowkski, E. K., & Pierce, E. W.
(1986). Parent-identified problem preschoolers: Mother-child interaction during play at

intake and l-year follow-up. leumal ef Abnorrna] Child Psyehelegy, g, 425-440.

Campis, L. K., Lyman, R. D., & Prentice-Dunn, S. (1986). The Parental Locus of
Control scale: Development and validation. Jouma] of Clinical Child chhology, Q,
260-267.

134

Cashmore, J. A. & Goodnow, J. J. (1985). Parent-child agreement on
attributional beliefs. International journal of Behavioral Development. 2, 191-204.

Cohen, J. & Cohen, J. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/ Correlation Analysis
f rthe B havior Sciences Sec nd Edi ion. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale,
NJ.

Colapinto, J. (1989). Structural family therapy. In A. S. Gurman & D. P.
Kniskem (Eds) H n ook of F '1 Th ra V lume II. (pp. 417-443). New Your:
Brunner/Mazel Publishers.

Collins, W. A. (1992). Parents' cognitions and developmental changes in
relationships during adolescence. In I. E. Sigel, A. V. McGillicuddy-DeLisi, & J. J.
Goodnow (Eds) firental Belief Systems: Psycholggiaal Consequences for Children.
Second Edition, (pp. 175-197). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Combrinck-Graham, L. & Higley, L. W. (1984). Working with families of school-
aged handicapped children. In E. I. Coopersmith (Ed.) The Family Therapy Collections

No. 1]: lelies with Handieapped Members (pp. 18-29). Rockville, MI): Aspen

Systems Corporation.

Cooper, C. R., Grotervant, H. D., & Condon, S. M. (1983). Individuality and
connectedness in the family as a context for adolescent identity formation and role-taking
skill. New Directions in Child Development, 2_2, 43-60.

Crnic, K. A. (1990). Families of children with Down syndrome: Ecological
contexts and characteristics. In D. Cicchetti & M. Beeghly (Eds) Children with Down
Syndrome: A Developmental Perspective (pp. 399-423). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Crockenberg, S. & Litman, C. (1990). Autonomy as competence in 2-year-olds:
Matema] correlates of child defiance, compliance, and self-assertion. Developmental

mam- zs. 961-971.

Crowell, J. A. & Feldman, S. S. (1988). Mothers' internal models of relationships
and children's behavioral and developmental status: A study of mother-child interaction.

Child Develepment, 59, 1273-1285.

Cummings, S. T., Bayley, H. C., & Rie, H. E. (1966). Effects of the child's
deficiency on the mother. American Jourml of Orthopsychratgt, 3_6, 595-608.

 

DeMaso, D. R., Campis, L. K., Wypij, D., Bertram, S., Lipshitz, M., & Freed, M.
(1991). The impact of maternal perceptions and medical severity on the adjustment of
children with congenital heart disease. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 1_6_, 137-149.

135

Dix, T., Ruble, D. N., & Zambarano, R. J. (1989). Mothers' implicit theories of
discipline: Child effects, parent effects, and the attribution process. Child Development,
fl), 1373-1391.

Dix, T. H. & Grusec, J. E. (1985). Parents attribution processes in the
socialization of children. In I. E. Sige] (Ed) Parental Belief Statems: The Psychological
Consequenees for Children (pp. 201-233). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dombusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderrnan, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M.
J. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child
Development, 3, 1244-1257.

Ellis, A. (1977). The basic clinical theory of rational emotive therapy. In A. Ellis
& G. Grieger (Eds) findbook of Rational-Emotive Therapy. New York: Springer.

Ellis, G. J. & Petersen, L. R. (1992). Socialization values and parental control
techniques: A cross-cultural analysis of child-rearing. leumal ef Cemparative Family
Studies, 23, 39-54.

 

Erikson, M. & Upshur, C. C. (1989). Caretaking burden and social support:
Comparison of mothers of infants with and without disabilities. Americau leurnfl en
Mental Retardation, 21, 250-258.

Falloon, I. R. H. (1989). Behavioral family therapy. In A. S. Gurman & D. P.

Kniskern (Eds) Handboek ef Family Therapy, Velume II. (pp. 65-95). New Your:
Brunner/Mazel Publishers.

Feldman, S. S. & Weinberger, D. A. (1994). Self-restraint as a mediator of family
influences on boys' delinquent behavior: A longitudinal study. Child Develepment, Qi-
195-211.

F ishman, H. C. (1988). Treating Troubled Adolescents: A Farrrily Therapy
Appreaeh. New York: Basic Books Inc.

Floyd, F. J. & Adams, A. L. (1990, November). Parental interactions with
mentally retarded children and their siblings: Behavior management, coercion and
supportiveness. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Advancement
of Behavior Therapy, San Francisco, CA.

Floyd, F. J. & Costigan, C. L. (1996, in press). Parent-child interactions in
families with children with mental retardation. Intematienal Review ef Resegch en
Mental Retardation.

136

Floyd, F. J., Costigan, C. L., & Phillippe, K. A. (in press). Developmental change
and consistency in parental interactions with school-aged children and mental retardation.

Ameriean leumal en Mental Retardatien.

Floyd, F. J. & Phillippe, K. A. (1993). Parental interactions with children with and
without mental retardation: Behavior management, coerciveness, and positive exchanges.
American Journal on Mental Retardation, _9_7, 673-684.

Foster, M. A. (1986). Families with young disabled children in family therapy. In
L. Combrink-Graham (Ed) Theiamilythegrpy Collections: Treating YougChildren in
Family Therapy (pp. 62-72). Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc.

Frank, S. J ., Olmstead, C. L., Wagner, A. E., Laub, C. C., Freeark, K., Breitzer,
G. M., & Peters, J. M. (1991). Child illness, the parenting alliance, and parenting stress.

leurnal ef Pediatrie Psycho]ogy,_1_6,, 361-371.

Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., & F ewell, R. R. (1989). Stress and coping among
parents of handicapped children: A multidimensional approach. American Journal on
Mental Retardation, 94, 240-249.

 

Gallimore, R., Weisner, T. S., Kaufinan, S. 2., & Bemheimer, L. P. (1989). The
social construction of ecocultura] niches: Family accommodation of developmentally
delayed children. American 101ml on Mental Retardation, 9_4, 216-230.

Gecas, V. (1972). Parental behavior and contextual variations in adolescent self-
esteem. Sociometgt, 3_5_, 332-345.

Gjerde, P. F. (1988). Parental concordance on child rearing and the interactive
emphases of parents: Sex-differentiated relationships during the preschool years.
Developmental Psycholggy, 24, 700-706.

 

Goodnow, J. J. (1985). Change and variation in ideas about childhood and
parenting. In I. E. Sigel (Ed) Parent lB li f ems: The P cho] ' ns ences
for Children (pp. 235-270). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Goodnow, J. J. (1988). Parents' ideas, actions, and feelings: Models and methods
from developmental and social psychology. Child Develepment, 3, 286-320.

Gortmaker, S. L. & Sappenfield, W. (1984). Chronic childhood disorders:
Prevalence and impact. Pediatric Clinics of North Ameriaa, fl, 3-18.

Grusec, J. E. & Walters, G. C. (1991). psychological abuse and childrearing
belief systems. In R. H. Starr & D. A. Wolfe (Eds) The Effeets ef Child Abuse and
N_eglect: Issues and Researeb (pp. 186-202). New York: The Guilford Press.

137

Haddad, J. D., Barocas, R., & Hollenbeck, A. R. (1991). Family organization and
parent attitudes of children with conduct disorder. Jouma] of Cliniea] Child Psycholegy,
Q, 152-161.

Hampson, R. B., Hulgus, Y. F., Beavers, W. R., & beavers, J. S. (1988). The
assessment of competence in families with a retarded child. Journal ommily Psychology,
_2_, 32-53.

Harris, S. L., Carpenter, L., & Gil], M. J. (1988). The family. In J. L. Matson &
A. Marchetti (Eds) Developmental Disabilities: A Life-Span Perspective (pp. 47-66).
Philadelphia: Grune & Stratton.

Hess, R. D. & McDevitt, T. M. (1984). Some cognitive consequences of
matema] intervention techniques: A longitudinal study. Child Development. g, 2017-
2030.

Hoffman, L. W. (1977). Changes in family roles, socialization, and sex
differences. American Psychologiat, 2, 644-657.

Holden, G. W. & Edwards, L. A. (1989). Parental attitudes toward child rearing:
Instruments, issues, and implications. Psycholegical Bulletin, _1_0_6_, 29-58.

Holden, G. W. & Zambarano, R. J. (1992). passing the rod: Similarities between
parents and their young children in orientations toward physical punishment. In I. E.
Sigel, A. V. McGillicuddy-DeLisi, & J. J. Goodnow (Eds) Parenta Belief Systems:
Psycholegical Consequences for Children. Second Edition, (pp. 143-172). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Holloway, S. D. & Machida, S. (1992). Matema] child-rearing beliefs and coping
strategies: Consequences for divorced mothers and their children. In I. E. Sigel, A. V.
McGillicuddy-DeLisi, & J. J. Goodnow (Eds) Parent B li f S m ' P h l '
Consequences for Children. Secofldition (pp. 249-265). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Iverson, T. J. & Segal, M. (1992). Social behavior of maltreated children:
Exploring links to parent behavior and belief systems. In I. E. Sigel, A. V. McGillicuddy-

DeLisi, & J. J. Goodnow (Eds) Parental Belief Systems: Psychelegiea] Censequences
for Children. Second Edition (pp. 267-289). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Kames, M. B. & Teska, J. A. (1980). Toward successfiil parent involvement in
programs for handicapped children. In J. J. Gallagher (Ed) New Directions for

Exceptional Children No. 4: Parents and Families ef Handieapped Children (pp. 85-111).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

 

I38

Keltikanga-Jarvinen, L. (1990). The stability of self-concept during adolescence
and early adulthood: A six year follow-up. Joumal of General Psychology, 117, 361-368.

 

Kendall, P. C. (1991). Guiding theory for therapy with children and adolescents.
In P. C. Kendall (Ed) Child n A lescent Thera : o nitive-B haviora] Procedures
(pp. 3-22). New York: The Guilford Press.

Kochanska, G. (1990). Maternal beliefs as long-term predictors of mother-child
interaction and report. Child Develepment, fl, 1934-1943.

Kochanska, G. & Askan, N. (1995). Mother-child mutually positive affect, the
quality of child compliance to requests and prohibitions, and maternal control as correlates
of early internalization. Child Develepment, 66, 236-254.

 

Koeske, G. F. & Koeske, R. D. (1992). Parenting locus of control:
Measurement, construct validation, and a proposed conceptual model. Social Work
Research & Abstracts, 28, 37-46.

Kohn, M. L. (1977). Class and Cenfomrity: A Study in Values, 2nd Editien
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuczynski, L. (1984). Socialization goals and mother-child interaction:
Strategies for long-term and short-term compliance. Developmental Psyeholegy, _2_Q,
1061-1073.

Kuczynski, L. & Kochanska, G. (1995). Function and content of maternal
demands: Developmental significance of early demands for competent action. Child
Development. 66, 616-628.

 

Kurdek, L. A. & Fine, M. A. (1994). Family acceptance and family control as
predictors of adjustment in young adolescents: Linear, curvilinear, or interactive effects?
Child Development, 65, 1137-1146.

 

Lavelle, N. & Keogh, B. K. (1980). Expectations and attributions of parents of

handicapped children. In J. J. Gallagher (Ed) Parents and Families of Handicapped
Children (pp. 1-27). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Leaper, C., Hauser, S. T., Kremen, A., Powers, S. I., Jacobson, A. M., Noam, G.
G., Weiss-Perry, B., & Follansbee, D. (1989). Adolescent-parent interactions in relation
to adolescents' gender and ego development pathway: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 2, 335-361.

139

Lerner, J. V. (1984). The import of temperament for psychosocial functioning:
Test of a goodness of fit model. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 3_Q, 177-188.

Lerner, J. V., Lerner, R. M., & Zabski, S. (1985). Temperament and elementary
school children's actual and rated academic performance: A test of a "goodness of fit"
model. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatgt and Allied Disciplines. 2e, 125-136.

Lerner, J. V. (1993). The influence of child temperamental characteristics on
parent behaviors. In L. Luster & L. Okagaki (Eds) Parenting: An Emlogical
Perspective, (pp. 101-120). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Long, C. G. & Moore, J. R. (1979). Parental expectations for their epileptic
children. leumal of t :hild Psyehelegy and Psyehiatt'y, 29, 299-312.

Luster, T. & Rhoades, K. (1989). The relation between child-rearing beliefs and
the home environment in a sample of adolescent mothers. Emily @tions, 3, 317-322.

Luster, T., Rhoades, K., & Haas, B. (1989). The relation between parental values

and parenting behavior: A test of Kohn hypothesis. leumal ef Marriage and the Family,
fl, 139-147.

Maccoby, E. E. (1984). Socialization and developmental change. Child
Develepment 55 317-328.

9—,

Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An
historical overview. Developmeml Psycholagy, 3, 1006-1017.

Marfo, K. (1990). Maternal directiveness in interactions with mentally

handicapped children: An analytical commentary. leumal of Child Psychelegy and
Psychiatgt, 3_1_, 531-549.

Mash, E. J. & Johnston, C. (1983). Parental perceptions of child behavior
problems, parenting self-esteem, and mothers' reported stress in younger and older
hyperactive and normal children. Jouma] of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 51, 86-
99.

 

McConachie, H. (1989). Mothers' and fathers' interaction with their young
mentally handicapped children. International Journal of Behaviorg Development. 2,
239-255.

McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. V. (1982). Parental beliefs about developmental
processes. Hmn Development. 2_5, 192-200.

140

McGillicuddy-DeLisi , A. V. (1985). The relationship between parental beliefs
and children's cognitive level. In I. E. Sigel (Ed) Parental Belief Systems:

Psychelogical Consequences for Children (pp. 7-24). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates:
Hillsdale, NJ.

McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. V. (1992). Correlates of parental teaching strategies in
families of children evidencing normal and atypical development. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 1_3, 215-234.

McMahon, R. J. & Forehand, R. (1988). Conduct disorders. In E. J. Mash & L.

G. Terda] (Eds) Behavioral Assessment of Childheod Disorders, Second Edition (pp.
105-153). New York: The Guilford Press.

McMahon, R. J. & Wells, K. C. (1989). Conduct disorders. In E. J. Mash & R.

A. Barkley (Eds) Treatment of Childhood Disorders (pp. 73-132). New York: The
Guilford Press.

Miller, G. E. & Prinz, R. J. (1990). Enhancement of social learning family
interventions for childhood conduct disorders. Psyehelegieal Bulletin, M, 291-307.

Minuchin, S. & Fishman, H. C. (1981). Family Therapy Teehniques. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Moos, R. H. & Moos, B. S. (1981). _Family Environment Scale manual. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Mouton, P. Y. & Tuma, J. M. (1988). Stress, locus of control, and role
satisfaction in clinic and control mothers. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, _1_7, 217-
224.

Newberger, C. M. & White, K M. (1989). Cognitive foundations for parental
care. In D. Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds) C____hild Maltreatment: Theory and Research on

the Causes and Censequences of Child Abuse ar_1d Negleet (pp. 302- 3 16). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Nihira, K. (1976). Dimensions of adaptive behavior in institutionalized mentally
retarded children and adults: Developmental perspective. Ameriean leurnal ef Mental
Deficiency, 81, 215-226.

 

Nihira, K., Foster, R., Shellhaas, M., & Leland, H. (1974). AAMD Adaptive
Behavior Scale. 1974 Revislen. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental
Deficiency.

141

Okagaki, L. & Sternberg, R. J. (1991). Cultural and parental influences on
cognitive development. In L. Okagaki & R. J. Sternberg (Eds) Directors of

Develepment: Influenees in the Develepment ef Children's Thinking (pp. 101-120).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive Family Process. Eugene, OR: Castalia
Publishing Company.

Patterson, G. R. (1986). Performance models for antisocial boys. American
Psychologist, fl, 432-444.

Patterson, J. M. & Garwick, A. W. (1994). Levels of meaning in family stress
theory. Family Process, 3_3, 1-18.

Pettit, G. S. & Bates, J. E. (1989). Family interaction patterns and children's
behavior problems from infancy to 4 years. Develmmental Psycholegy, _2_5, 413-420.

Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1993). Family interaction patterns and
children's conduct problems at home and school: A longitudinal perspective. Schoe]
Psychology Review, 22, 403-420.

Portes, P. R., Dunham, R. M., & Williams, S. (1986). Assessing child-rearing
style in ecological settings: Its relation to culture, social class, early age intervention and
scholastic achievement. Adolescence, 21, 723-735.

 

Rebman, V. L. (1982). The effect of parental attitudes and program duration
upon parental participation patterns in a preschool education program. Unpublished
document, Nova University.

Ricci, C. S. (1970). Analysis of child-rearing attitudes of mothers of retarded,
emotionally disturbed, and normal children. American Journal of Mental Defieiency, B,
7 56-761.

Roberts, W. L. (1986). Nonlinear models of development: An example from the
socialization of competence. Child Develepment, S1, 1166-1178.

Roberts, M. W., Joe, V. C., & Rowe-Hallbert, A. (1992). Oppositional child
behavior and parental locus of control. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 170-177.

Robertson, D. U. & Hyde, J. S. (1982). The factorial validity of the Family
Environment Scale. Educatienal aud Psyehelegieal Measurement, 4_2, 1233-1241.

Rogers, T. R., Forehand, R. & Griest, D. L. (1981). The conduct disordered
child: An analysis of farrrily problems. Clinical Psychology Review, 1, 139-147.

142

Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, Attitudes, and Vmues: A Theoty ef Qrganizatien
and Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rubin, K. H. & Mills, R. S. L. (1992). Parents' thoughts about children's socially
adaptive and maladaptive behaviors: Stability, change, and individual differences. In I. E.
Sigel, A. V. McGillicuddy-DeLisi, & J. J. Goodnow (Eds) Pmnml Belief Systems:
Psychological Consequences for Children, Second Edition (pp. 41-69). Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ.

Sameroff, A. (1975). Transactional models of early social relations. Human
Development, 18, 65-79.

 

Sameroff, A. J. & Feil, L. A. (1985). Parental concepts of development. In I. E.
Sigel (Ed) Parental Belief Systems: Psychological Consequences for Children (pp. 83-
105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schaefer, E. S. & Edgerton, M. (1985). Parent and child correlates of parental
modernity. In I. E. Sigel (Ed) ParentalaBelief Systems: Psychological Consequences for
Children (pp. 287-318). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schaefer, E. S. (1988). Prediction of child competence from maternal beliefs and
behaviors during infancy. In S. Doxiadis (Ed) flrly Influences Shaping the Individual,
(pp. 257-267). New York: Plenum Press.

Segal, M. (1985). A study of maternal beliefs and values within the context of an
intervention program. In I. E. Sigel (Ed) Parental Belief Sarstems: Psychological
Consequences for Children (pp. 271-286). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sessa, F. M. & Steinberg, L. (1991). Family structure and the development of
autonomy during adolescence. Jourrm] of Early Adolescence. fl, 38-55.

Siegal, M. (1987). Are sons and daughters treated more differently by fathers
than by mothers? Developmental Review, 1, 183-211.

Siege], L. J., Smith, K. E., & Wood, T. A. (1991). Children medically at risk. In
T. R. Kratochwill & R. J. Morris (Eds) The Practice of Child Therapy. Second Edition
(pp. 328-363). New York: Pergamon Press.

Sigel, I. E. (1985). A conceptual analysis of beliefs. In I. E. Sigel (Ed) Parental
Belief Systems: Psychologi_ca] Consemrences for Children (pp. 271-286). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 

143

Sigel, I. E. (1986). Reflections on the belief-behavior connection: The aftermath
of a research program on parental belief systems and teaching strategies. In R. D.
Ashmore & D. M. Brodzinsky (Eds) Thinking abeut the Family: Views of Parentsarm
Children, (pp. 35-65). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Spade, J. Z. (1991). Occupational structure and men's and women's parental
values. urn l f F mil I 3, L7,, 343-360.

Steinberg, L., Lamboum, S. D., Dombusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact
of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school
involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Develepment, Q3.- 1266-1281.

Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting,

psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development. 69.
1424-1436.

Stice, E. & Barrera, M. (1995). A longitudinal examination of the reciprocal
relations between perceived parenting and adolescents' substance use and externalizing
behaviors. Dev ] m ntal P h l , 3_1, 322-334.

Stoneman, Z., Brody, G. H., & Abbott, D. (1983). In-home observations of
young Down syndrome children with their mothers and fathers. American Jouma] of
Mental Deficiency 87 591-600.

9—,

Strom, R., Daniels, 8, Wurster, S., Rees, R., & Goldman, R. (1984). A
comparison of childrearing attitudes of parents of handicapped and non-handicapped

children. leurnal of Instmetienal Psycholegy, 1_1_, 89-103.

Strom, R., Rees, R., Slaughter, H., & Wurster, S. (1981). Child-rearing
expectations of families with atypical children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatrjy, _5_1,
285-296.

Swick, K. J. & Graves, S. B. (1986). Locus of control and interpersonal support
as related to parenting. Childhood Education. 41-50.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate Statistics, Second
Editien. Harper Collins: New York.

Tallmadge, J. & Barkley, R. A. (1983). The interactions of hyperactive and
normal boys with their fathers and mothers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, _1_1,
565-580.

Tarver-Behring, S., Barkley, R. A., & Karlsson, J. (1985). The mother-child
interactions of hyperactive boys and their normal siblings. American Jouma] of

Onhopsychiatty, S5, 202-209.

144

Teti, D. M. & Gelfand, D. M. (1991). Behavioral competence among mothers of
infants in the first years: The mediational role of maternal self-efficacy. Child
mm, 62, 918-929.

 

Trommsdorff, G. (1983). Future orientation and socialization. International
Jouma] of Psychology, 18, 381-406.

 

Turner-Henson, A., Holaday, B., & Swan, J. H. (1992). When parenting becomes
caregiving: Caring for the chronically ill child. Family Community Health, 1_5, 19-30.

Van Riper, M., Ryff, C., & Pridham, K. (1992). Parental and family well-being in
families of children with Down syndrome: A comparative study. Research in Nursing &
Health, fl, 227-235.

Vaughn, B. E., Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1988). Parental agreement on child
rearing during early childhood and the psychological characteristics of adolescents. Child
Development, fl, 1020- 1 03 3.

Webster-Stratton. C. (1985a). Mother perceptions of mother-child interactions:
Comparison of a clinic-referred and a nonclinic group. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, lg, 334-339.

Webster-Stratton, C. (1985b). Predictors of treatment outcome in parent training
for conduct disordered children. Behavior Therapy, 1_6, 223-243.

Zirpoli, T. J. & Bell, R. Q. (1987). Unresponsiveness in children with severe
disabilities: Potential effects on parent-child interactions. The Exceptienal Child, 33, 31-
40.

"111111711111.171111111111113