“anemufle. 5. (95¢... xvyfawumw Mmmwfi .53..-. ... v» 13...... .511 t . v .r. . am. I. II‘ .I...~w:u VINiJVI L‘II. urcnwn.‘ .3 4 15".?“ .. . unfit... an an... 11.4..." 1 IS I v... 1...... v .. 14.00:.1tnxv (.12. y\{» . |I I... u)»: .t '1 “an; Pitt}: wuhvc'finlbflv} \IHHHLVJA? I x-Ir \ v. ‘ . ‘ I rd 1 w§‘ F1 rt 1 »»ui.ul‘gvy l Oink .;r\.1.n .{UP ‘ .\. yuplvvluhln‘. r \ v (flux... K - .- THESIS "IIBRARY Michigan State | Unlversitym lHIlWlW\IlWIUHHIUHIW m L” “We” 3 1293 01568 This is to certify that the thesis entitled HOME ENVIRONMENT AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE MORAL DEVELOPMENT OF 5 TO 6 YEAR-OLD CHILDREN IN SOUTH KOREA presented by Hye-Won Hwang has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MA Child Development degree in Major professor Date 3M /97 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE It RETURN BOX to remove thle checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. Fl (PQTE DUE DATE DUE DATE P}! MSU to An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Inetltulon mulfl-pd HOME ENVIRONMENT AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE MORAL DEVELOPMENT OF 5 TO 6 YEAR-OLD CHILDREN IN SOUTH KOREA By Hye-Won Hwang A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ART Department of Family and Child Ecology 1996 ABSTRACT HOME ENVIRONMENT AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE MORAL DEVELOPMENT OF 5 TO 6 YEAR-OLD CHILDREN IN SOUTH KOREA By Hye-Won Hwang The purpose of this study is to identify factors in the home environment that may be related to the moral development of 5 to 6 year-old children in South Korea. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework was used as the conceptual model for this study. A number of family factors were expected to influence moral development of children. Factors included in this study were: socioeconomic status, maternal values, mothers’ religion and the quality of the home environment. Forty one, 5 to 6 year-old children and their mothers were included in the sample. The sample was drawn from a selected kindergarten in Incheon, a city of South Korea. Data analyses techniques included descriptive statistics, t-test analyses, and Pearson Product Moment Coefficients. Multiple regression analyses were also performed to examine the effects of family variables on the quality of home environment and children’s moral development when other variables were controlled. The results of the study indicated that the quality of the home environment was positively related to the moral development of children. Mothers who provided a more stimulating home environment had children who received higher scores on the Moral Development Scale. Additional analyses showed a positive relationship between mothers’ education, family income, and the quality of home environment mothers provided for their children. To God To my parents iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to express my appreciation to many who made possible the completion of my master’s program as well as this thesis. First, I thank God. Without His guidance and love, this work would not have been possible. I would like to thank Dr. Lillian Phenice, my major professor, for her assistance with the development of this work. From the very beginning of my work at MSU, she was very helpful in giving me direction and support, both in my studies and in my thesis work. I also want to thank my guidance committee members, Dr. Robert Griffore and Dr. Tom Luster for their contributions in both my study and research. Their support and trust in my ability to learn gave me the determination to complete my master’s program and this thesis. I would like to acknowledge the forty one children and their mothers who volunteered for my research, for making it possible for me to observe and interview them in their home for my thesis. Finally, I offer special thanks and love to my mother, Young-0k Kim, and my father, Khen-Shik Hwang. Their love, encouragement, and prayers have helped me to study abroad. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................ viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1 Statement of the Problem ............................................................... 2 Research Objectives ..................................................................... 2 Significance of the Study ............................................................... 3 Conceptual Model ....................................................................... 3 Research Hypotheses .................................................................... 7 Conceptual and Operational Definitions..............................................9 Research Assumptions ................................................................. l 1 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................................. 12 Moral Development of Children ..................................................... 12 Family Factors Influencing Children’s Moral development ...................... 14 Quality of the Home Environment .......................................... 14 Socioeconomic Status ........................................................ 15 Maternal Values ............................................................... l7 Mothers’ Religion ............................................................. 18 Summary ................................................................................ 19 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................. 21 Research Design ........................................................................ 21 Research Sample ........................................................................ 21 Research Instruments ................................................................... 22 Data Collection Procedure ............................................................. 24 Data Analyses ........................................................................... 25 Ethical Considerations ............................................................... .. .26 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................... 27 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample ........................................ 27 Relations Between Several Variables and the Moral Development of Children ....................................................................... 29 Differences Between Subsamples for Independent Variables in Moral Development of Children .......................................... 31 Multiple Predictors of Children’s Moral Development ............................. 36 Path Analysis ............................................................................. 38 Summary of Results ................................................................. .....41 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND INPLICATIONS FOR THE FURTHER RESEARCH ........................................................... 43 Summary of the Study .................................................................. 43 Conclusions .............................................................................. 44 Limitations of the Research ............................................................ 45 Implications for Further Research .................................................. ...45 APPENDICES Appendix A - The Human Subjects Approval Letter ............................... 47 Appendix B - Consent Form ........................................................... 48 Appendix C - Moral Development Scale (MDS) ................................. ...49 Appendix D - Home Observation for the Measurement of Environment (HOME - Preschool) .................................................... 55 Appendix E - Family Background Interview Schedule ............................. 59 Appendix F - Schaefer and Edgerton Rank-Order Parental Values ............... 62 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................. 63 vi LIST OF TABLES Table l - Characteristics of Sample Families ............................................... 28 Table 2 - Zero-order Correlation: Relations between Several Variables and Moral Development of Children ............................................ 30 Table 3 - Relations among the Variables for Overall Sample ............................ 31 Table 4 - T-Test for Differences between Two Groups of Mothers’ Education in Moral Development of Children ............................................... 32 Table 5 - T-Test for Differences between Two Groups of Family Income in Moral Development of Children ............................................... 33 Table 6 - T-Test for Differences between Two Groups of Fathers’ Occupational Status in Moral Development of Children ....................................... 34 Table 7 - T-Test for Differences between Two Groups of Maternal Values in Moral Development of Children ............................................... 34 Table 8 - T-Test for Differences between Two Groups of QualityI of Home Environment in Moral Development of Children ............................... 35 Table 9 - One-way ANOVA Results for Moral Development of Children ............. 36 Table 10 - Multiple Regression Analysis: Predictors of Children’s Moral Development .............................................................. 37 Table 11 - Multiple Regression Analysis: Predictors of Home Environment ........... 38 Table 12 - Multiple Regression Analysis: Selected Predictors of Children’s Moral Development .................................................. 39 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure l - Bronfenbrenner’s Model of Human Ecosystem .............................. _ ..... 5 Figure 2 - Path Model with a Mediating Variable ........................................... 4O viii Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION In order for a society to maintain and develop a stable organization, its members must have a balanced moral belief system. Presently the Korean society is faced with a serious moral crises. Citizens hear on the news everyday reports about all kinds of fraud, homicides, and organizations of violent groups in schools and neighborhoods. It seems as though, many Koreans today are stressing instrumental values over social justice and moral values in modern society. Therefore, children mainly internalize instrumental values through which they satisfy personal gratification rather than social justice or moral excellence. Given this situation, it is natural that scholars today are interested in the changing moral development of children. The future of society rests upon the nation’s children. In the last two decades the psychology of moral development has emerged as a distinct field of study (Kohlberg, 1984; Gibbs & Schnell, 1985; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987; Gilligan & Wiggins, 1987; Kurtines & Gewirtz, 1991). The size and scope of the moral development literature has grown over the past several years. Early life experiences and the social climate of the family - it’s values, attitudes, and behavioral style - have been identified as important contributors to a child’s development (Bronfenbrenner, 1974; Rutter, 1985). According to Baumrind (1971) and Powers (1983), the physical and psychological home environment has a primary 1 2 influence on the moral development of children because the home environment is the primary psychological environment for children. In Korea, the home environment is especially important for the socialization of young children. Korean culture emphasizes the importance of one’s lineage and blood (Yoo, 1985). Because of the rapidly changing family environment, a major focus of research in the past few years has been the study of family factors that determine parent-child transaction and their impact on children’s developmental outcomes Wondra & Belsky, 1993; Hannan & Luster, 1991; Menaghan & Parcel, 1991). Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study is to identify factors in the home environment that may be related to the moral development of 5 to 6 year-old children in South Korea. Specifically, this study will investigate the relationships of socioeconomic status (SES), maternal values, mothers’ religion and the quality of the home environment as they relate to children’s moral development. Research Objectives The research objectives for this study are as follow: 1. To determine the relationship between family’s socioeconomic status (parents’ education, income and occupational status) and the moral development of children. 3 2. To determine the relationship between the values held by mothers and the moral development of children. 3. To determine the relationship between mothers’ religion and the moral development of children. 4. To determine the relationship between quality of the home environment that mothers provide and the moral development of children. Significance of the study This study has practical importance for making policy concerning families and children in Korea. The results of this study could be used to impact policies regarding information about the role of family factors in influencing parenting behavior and its effects on the moral development of children. Parent education programs could also be influenced by the results of this study. The information found could also add to the body of existing literature about Korean parent-child relationship on moral development. Conceptual Model The ecology of human development by Bronfenbrenner is used as the model for this study. He asserted that human development research should include an awareness of the environmental systems within which people are operating. Families and children live in a variety of physical and social environments. 4 The ecology of human development involves the scientific study of the progressive, mutual accommodation between an active, growing human being and the changing properties of the immediate settings in which the developing person lives, as this process is affected by relations between these settings, and by the larger contexts in which the settings are embedded (Bronfenbrenner, 1979,p.21) Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1986) model of the human ecosystem focuses upon the individual and his or her relationship within the environment. His model provides the has basis for understanding family’s influences on the developmental outcomes of children. The developing individual is said to be embedded in not one but several environmental systems, ranging from immediate settings, such as the family, to remote contexts, such as the broader culture. He has systematically defined the environment as a four level system: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem (see Figure l). The microsystem consists of the immediate contexts that individuals actually experience. For most young infants the microsystem may be limited to the family. Yet this structure becomes much more complex as children mature and are exposed to day care, preschool settings, and neighborhood play areas. Not only are children likely to be influenced by the people present in their rnicrosystems, but they affect those people as well. For example, a very irritable or difficult infant can alienate her parents or even create friction between them that may be enough to damage their marital relationship. Microsystems are dynamic systems in which each person influences and is influenced by the other persons present (Shaffer, 1994). History Time Figge 1. Bronfenbrenner’s Model of Human Ecosystem (Adapted from Stever, 1994, p. 77). 6 Mesosystem refers to the interconnections among microsystems. According to Bronfenbrenner, children’s development is likely to be optimized by supportive links among microsystems. For example, a toddler who has established secure emotional ties to his or her parents may be well prepared to approach and to c00perate with other children upon entering day care (Shaffer, 1994). A child’s ability to master arithmetic in elementary school may depend not only on the instruction the teacher provides but also on the extent to which such academic activities are valued and encouraged at home. The exosystem consists of settings that children never experience directly but may still affect their development. For example, children’s emotional relationships at home can also be influenced considerably by whether or not their parents enjoy their work. The type of parents’ occupation can influence the values they hold for their children (Kohn, 1977). Macrosystem refers to as the ideology, values, beliefs, rules, and customs that dictate how children should or should not be treated, what they should be taught, and which goals they should strive for. These values differ fiom culture to culture and can greatly affect the kinds of experiences children have in their homes, schools, neighborhoods, and all other contexts that directly or indirectly influence them. For . example, the occurrence of child abuse in families is much higher in those cultures (or macrosystems) that allow the use of physical punishment and adopt a permissive attitude toward violence (Belsky, 1980). Thus macrosystems are composed of cultural environments. The cultural values, rules, and religious beliefs of the macrosystem 7 affect children’s experience in the microsystem such as the type of home environment and parent-child interaction in south Korean. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological approach of human development is the basis on which this study is designed. This study will examine portions of the child’s microsystem and macrosystem. The research will investigate the interaction among these systems in affecting the moral development of the child. The major independent variables are education, income and occupations of parents, mothers’ religion, values held by mothers, and the quality of home environment mothers provide for their children. The dependent variable is children’s scores on the test of moral development. Research Hypotheses Based on the research objectives, the following hypotheses will be tested in this study. Ho 1. There is no relation between years of mothers’ education and moral development of children. Ha I. There is a positive relation between years of mothers’ education and moral development of children. Ho 2. There is no difference between children whose fathers have higher occupational status and children whose fathers have lower occupational status in moral development. 8 Ha 2. There is a difference between children whose fathers have higher occupational status and children whose fathers have lower occupational status in moral development. Ho 3. There is no difference between children from higher family income and children from lower family income in moral development. Ha 3. There is a difference between children fiom higher family income and children from lower family income in moral development. Ho 4. There is no relation between mothers’ self-direction values and the moral development of children. Ha 4. There is a positive relation between mothers’ self-direction values and the moral development of children. Ho 5. There is no difference between children whose mothers have religion and children whose mothers have no religion in moral development. Ha 5. There is a difference between children whose mothers have religion and children whose mothers have no religion in moral development. Ho 6. There is no relation between quality of the home enviromnent and children’s moral development. Ha 6. Children whose mothers provide more supportive home environment will demonstrate higher levels of moral development than children whose mothers provide lower quality home environment. 9 Conceptual and Operational Definitions The following definitions are used in this study. McLal Development Conceptually, morality refers to virtue in human interactions, encompassing the rules, principles, emotions, reasoning, and training that influence a person’s acting out of his or her rights and responsibilities. Operationally, in this study, moral development will refer to the child’s score on the Moral Development Scale (MDS) (Kurtines and Pirnm, 1981). Home Environment Conceptually, home environment refers to the caregivers’ behavior and to the qualitative and quantitative atmosphere of the rearing environment. Operationally, home environment will refer to the score on the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) (Bradley and Caldwell, 1984). Socioeconomic Status (SES) Conceptually, SES refers to social and economic factors that distinguish among people in a society. IO Operationally, for this study, SES will refer to items on the Family Background Interview Schedule dealing with parents’ occupations (item no. 11 and 12), parents’ education (item no. 13,14,15,16) and family income (item no. 17). Values Conceptually, values refers to a particular person’s conception of what is right and desirable. Operationally, values will refer to the mothers’ scores on the Schaeffer and Edgerton Values Scale (Schaefer and Edgerton, 1978). Religion Conceptually, religion refers to a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with their ultimate problems of human life. Operationally, religion will refer to the mothers’ scores on the items in the Family Background Interview Schedule dealing with mothers’ religion (item no. 19,20,21). 11 Research Assumptions The following assumptions are made in this study. 1. Families in all cultures take care of their children in ways that affect the growth and development of children. All socioeconomic groups organize their rearing environment in ways that affect the development of children. 2. Mothers of children are the persons most familiar with the activities involving the children and can give accurate reports of such activities when interviewed. 3. Children 5 to 6 year-old are generally able to understand the instructions given to them to take the moral development scale. 4. The instruments used to measure Korean children’s moral development are valid measure for this study. Chapter 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Moral Development of Children The moral development of each successive generation is of obvious significance to society. Although moral standards may vary from culture to culture, every society has devised rules that its citizens must obey in order to remain members in good standing (Garbarino & Bronfenbrenner, 1976). A child’s moral code eventually consists of his ideas of right and wrong, his convictions about his responsibilities and about what he should or should not do or be, and the values and standards by which he judges the worthiness or unworthiness of his thoughts and actions (Jersild, 1968). Little research has examined the development of moral understanding in young children. The work of Piaget (1965) has greatly influenced the study of children’s moral development. He has described certain qualities of children’s moral judgments during various periods of childhood. According to Piaget, the changes in children’s ideas about morality and justice come about through maturation and environmental influences. In his view, following the rules of others through a morality of obedience will never lead to the kind of reflection necessary for commitment to a set of internal 12 13 or autonomous principles of moral judgment. In contrast, a relation of mutual respect gives a child the possibility to exercise his will by elaborating his own moral rules. Cognitive-developmentalist Lawrence Kohlberg (1984) studied the way children reasoned about moral dilemmas. He followed a group of males over a 20-year period and found that they moved from preconventional, to conventional, to postconventional levels or moral reasoning. Kohlberg’s research confirmed that subjects are consistent in their progression through the stages and show internal consistency at each stage. He also found that movement through the stages is correlated with age. Freud believed that the individual’s morality is embodied in the superego, which is composed of the ego ideal and the conscience. As the superego forms, the 3- to 5- year-old child intemalizes his or her parents’ standards of right and wrong. Social learning theorists have emphasized the roles of reinforcement, punishment, and imitation in the develOpment of moral'behaviors. In recent years, Bandura incorporated cognition into social learning explanations. Bandura (1963) argued that moral development is determined by many variables and is inherently less predictable than the cognitive-developmentalists suggested. He sees moral development as a continuous process. He believes that changes in moral behavior come about because of changes in the social learning environment. Hoffman (1988) suggested that the motivation to be moral grows out of one’s ability to experience empathy. Empathic distress, in particular, is important in prompting one to aid another. He also analyzed parents’ disciplinary techniques and identified power assertion, love withdrawal, and induction as the three approaches that 14 parents take. Children with highest level of moral development tend to have parents that use induction and avoid power assertion. Family Factors Influencing Children’s Moral Development QtLality of the Home Environment The family is the most important institution in children’s lives. Our society relies on families to perform functions that are critical to the survival and development of children, especially young children. The majority of children in South Korea grow up in families, and there is no doubt that this microsystem has the primary influence on their development. Various aspects of family influence have been investigated for their impact on moral, cognitive, or personality development. According to Yoo (1985), the base of personality, intellectual, creative, moral, and social development is determined by the home environment of a person’s childhood. Kohlberg (1962) suggested that children’s moral development was positively influenced by parental warmth and negatively influenced by punishments with hostility. Yoon (1972) reported that children who experienced better quality of educational and cultural home environments showed higher levels of moral development. According to Kostelnik et al. (1993), some of the more important tasks for families with children from infancy to adolescence are the following: 1. Preserving the couple relationship during the demanding years of child rearing. 2. Meeting the changing needs of growing children for privacy, activities, 15 friends, and wider social relationships. 3. Helping prepare children to make transitions to new roles. 4. Providing for parents’ needs for privacy and quiet. 5. Continuing to establish basic values in a world that is continually changing. 6. Meeting expanded costs. 7. Maintaining the morale of the family. 8. Creating and maintaining adequate communication in the family. 9. Working out ways of sharing tasks and responsibilities. 10. Fitting into community life as a family and as a person. How well the family performs these developmental tasks will predict the quality of environmental support within the family system. Among the most widely used for evaluating the adequacy of a child’s early developmental environment is the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) (Bradley & Caldwell, 1984), which covers the following family characteristics: frequency and stability of adult contact; amount of developmental and vocal stimulation; need gratification; emotional climate; avoidance of restriction on motor and exploratory behavior; available play materials; and home characteristics indicative of parental concern with achievement. Higher scores on the HOME inventory have been linked to favorable developmental outcomes in children (Luster & Mittelstaedt, 1993). From the literature review, there is evidence that there is a positive relationship between the level of home environment and the level of moral development of children (Yoon, 1972; Kim, 1989). Socioeconomic Sm Socioeconomic status (SES) refers to one’s position within a society that is stratified according to status or power. Parents’ education, income, and occupation are very powerful influences on child rearing. These three factors are usually related and 16 it is difficult to separate their effects. Most studies have used a combined index of two or more of these factors to assess SES (Maccoby, 1980). Many people from the lower and working classes face very different kinds of problems, pursue different goals, and ofien adopt different values. According to Shaffer (1994), they live in a different world than middle-class people do. On average, it appears that lower-and working-class parents are somewhat more critical, more punitive, and more intolerant of disobedience than parents from the middle and upper socioeconomic strata (Maccoby, 1980). Vonnie McLoyd (1989) suggests that economic hardship creates its own psychological distress - a most pervasive discomfort that makes lower-income adults more edgy and irritable and more vulnerable to all negative life events, thereby diminishing their capacity to be warm, supportive parents. According to Son’s study (1978), there was a positive relationship between moral development and socioeconomic status. Son’s study showed that the younger children are, the stronger the relationship is between their moral deve10pments and their homes’ socioeconomic status. Also, Piaget (1965) suggested that stages of moral development are not generalizable for children who are from different social stratification. Lerner (1988) suggested that there is a relationship between social stratification and moral judgment ability. He explained that parents from high-social classes gave rewards or punishment in moral judgment of their children according to motivational aspects not situational aspects because they have a less forceful discipline attitude than parents fiom the low-stratification categories. Seo (1963) studied four hundred 5 to 15 year- 17 old Korean children. He reported that children’s heteronomous or autonomous judgment is related to their ages and socioeconomic status of their home. According to his study, children from higher socioeconomic groups exhibit autonomous moral judgments one year earlier than the children from lower socioeconomic groups. Yoo (1985) suggests that the socioeconomic status of a home is related to the cognitive competence of children, and that cognitive competence is related to the moral development of children. There are many interesting paradoxes in the relationship between socioeconomic status and moral attitudes and conduct. On the one hand, in some lower socioeconomic groups the standards seem to be more severe than those prevailing in upper socioeconomic groups. For example, standards of modesty and obedience to authority are especially strict among some lower SES groups and members of lower ‘ socioeconomic groups tend to prescribe more severe punishment for misconduct (Jersild, 1968). According to Jersild (1968), many forms of conduct that are generally disapproved of in higher socioeconomic groups prevail relatively more frequently in lower socioeconomic status groups, including truancy, fighting, sexual misconduct, stealing, and vandalism. Downey and Kelly (1978) related differences between social class groups to differences in child-rearing practices. There is evidence that a positive association exist between a child’s level of moral development and a child’s social class. Maternal Values Another family factor that can influence parenting behavior is parental values. According to Kohn (1969, p. 18), parental values are “the values that parents would 18 most like to see embodied in their children’s behavior - the characteristics they consider most desirable to inculcate in their children”. Because parents offer instruction both by precept and example, we might expect children, eventually, to adopt their parent’s moral standards and values. Parents may differ considerably in their moral outlook, in the importance they attach to various virtues and faults. They also differ in the degree to which they practice what they preach. For example, parents may differ in the internal consistency of their moral standards and in the extent to which their morality rests on values to which they are committed. Preschool children show conscience or superego although it is a very elementary form. In this period, children identify with parental values and attitudes, and they learn behavioral standards and rules of the society from their parents (Yoo, 1985). In this study, two kinds of parental values, self-direction values and conformity values, are considered. Parents who emphasize self-direction values focus on internal standards of behavior such as freedom, individualism, creativity, and self-realization. On the other hand, parents whose emphasis is on conformity values consider external standards of behavior such as obedience, and order. Mothers’ Religi_9_n_ Religion is one of the most powerful, deeply felt, and influential forces in human society. It has shaped people’s relationships with each other influencing family, community, economic, and political life (McGuire, 1981). Sociologists have exhibited keen interest in the connections between religion and the family (Tomas & Cornwall, 1990). A large and growing body of theory and research indicates that religious 19 communities and belief systems help to shape a variety of attitudes and behaviors relevant to family life: the selection of marital partners, marital quality, desired and actual family size, the timing of family formation, attitudes toward gender roles, sexual attitudes and conduct, and child-rearing (Ellison & Sherkat, 1993). Religion exists in a social context, is shaped by that social context, and, in turn, influences the context as well. Religion plays a large part in the lives of most people in one way or another. The relation between morality and religion is an enduring area of controversy (Crittenden, 1990). Oliners, Wilson, and Parsons suggested that religion is indispensable for maintaining morality (Green, 1994). According to McGuire (1981), religious beliefs and values motivate human action, and religious groups organize their collective religious expressions. Nucci (1993) suggests that young children develop an understanding of social complexities in the structure of the religious upbringing. Summary The literature review presented several theories about the moral development of children. Both theory and the empirical data support the conclusion that parents play an important role in their children’s moral development. This is not surprising because children learn much about relationships and ways of treating other people within the familial context. Studies that examined factors that influence children’s moral development were also presented. Overall the studies provide evidence that suggests a relationship 20 between the quality of the home environment and the moral development of children. Studies examining the effects of socioeconomic status on the moral development of children were also presented. The studies suggested a relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and the moral development of children. Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Research Design This study investigates factors related to the children’s home environment and their relationship to moral development. It is cross-sectional and non-experimental in nature. A correlational design was used to achieve the objectives of this study. The unit of analysis in this study is the Korean 5 to 6 year-old child. All the observations and interviews were conducted in the child’s home environment. Research Sample The sample consists of 5 to 6 year-old male and female children attending kindergarten and their mothers residing in the city of Incheon which is one of the urban areas of Korea. The investigator contacted the principal of a kindergarten and explained the purpose of the study and then the principal sent consent forms to one hundred twenty mothers through the children. After receiving the signed consent forms, the investigator started contacting the mothers by telephone to set the time for the interview and observations. The sample included families from a wide range of socioeconomic classes. Forty one mother-child pairs were observed and interviewed. 21 22 A non random sampling procedure was used. All parents who gave consent to participate were selected. One kindergarten grade level from Incheon was selected. Research Instruments The following research instruments were used in this study: (a) Moral Development Scale (MDS), (b) Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME), (c) Family Background Interview Schedule and (d) Schaefer and Edgerton Rank Order of Parental Values. The dependent variable, children’s moral deve10pment, was measured using the ' Moral Development Scale (MDS). The MDS is an individually administered set of tasks designed to assess the overall level of moral reasoning within a Piagetian fiamework (see Appendix B). The equipment for the scale consists of the Manual for The Moral Development Scale, the record sheets containing the stories for each scale, the directions, verbal instructions, and response categories, and a set of cards visually depicting the dilemmas. The Moral Development Scale consists of five individual scales, each containing three items. For each of the items the stage of moral development is determined by the child’s moral choice and the child’s justification for his choice. Moral choice refers to the alternative the child selects. The correct choice (i.e., the autonomous one) is indicated on the record form by an asterisk. The heteronomous choice is the alternative without an asterisk. Justification refers to the child’s reason for his choice. Basically, the scoring for the items on the scales is as follow: The child is given 2 points if he or she makes the correct choice and provides a 23 Level II justification. A Level H justification is one that is clearly appropriate for the that particular story. The child is given 1 point if he or she makes a correct choice and provides a Level I justification. A Level I justification is one that indicates that the child understands the appropriate justification even though the reason itself is an incomplete one. Finally, the child is given no points for autonomous morality if he or she makes a heteronomous choice, with a heteronomous justification, no choice, or a correct choice with an inappropriate justification. According to Kurtines and Pirnm (1981), an estimate of internal consistency reliability was calculated for the cross validation (N=112) and the coefficient alpha was .83. The test-retest correlation for the MDS was .82 and the interrater correlation for the MDS was .81 (Kurtines & Pimm, 1983). The results of the data analysis indicate that the scale has adequate psychometric properties. The MDS has been shown to be a reliable and valid measure. The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) scale, developed by Bradley and Caldwell (1984), is an observation/interview instrument that assesses the quality of the social, emotional, and cognitive stimulation available to a child in the home. Home environment was measured by the preschool version of the HOME. The eight subscales of the HOME are as follows: (a) Learning stimulation, (b) Language stimulation, (c) Physical environment, ((1) Warmth and acceptance, (e) Academic stimulation, (f) Modeling, (g) Variety in experience, and (h) Acceptance (see Appendix C). Bradley and Caldwell (1978) reported interrater reliabilities fiom six studies in the high .805 to low .903, and 6 month test-retest subscale correlations ranging from .45 to .87. Internal consistency estimates based on the Kuder-Richardson 24 2O formula showed coefficients ranging from .53 to .83 for the HOME subscales while the internal consistency estimate for the total scale was .93. The child’s family background information was obtained by the Family Background Interview Schedule designed by Hwang (1996) (see Appendix D). This form is a modified version from Masud’s schedule (1993). This interview schedule include questions about socioeconomic status of the family including parents’ education, yearly income of the family, fathers’ occupations and mothers’ religion. A modified form of the Hollingshead categories of occupation and education was used to determine the SES of the family. Schaefer and Edgerton’s Revision of M.L. Kohn’s (1977) Rank-order of Parental Values (Edgerton & Schaefer, 1978) was used to determine child outcomes that mothers identified as important for their children. The fifteen values in this measure include six self-direction values, six conformity values, and three that represent social skills values (see Appendix E). Edgerton and Schaefer reported an internal consistency estimates of .74 (Cronbach’s alpha) for both the conformity and the self- direction scales (Luster, 1985). None were reported for the social skills’ items. Data Collection Procedure Data collection began on May 20, 1996 and ended on June 29, 1996. The investigator contacted by telephone mothers who signed the consent form. Then according to their area of residence, the investigator scheduled the home observation and interview. A minimmn of one and a maximum of four families were interviewed 25 and observed by the investigator in one day. The investigator was the only person collecting the data. About 1 to 2 hours were spent with each family. After the short warm-up period, the HOME scale was administered. During this time, observations for the HOME scale were simultaneously carried out. Demographic information was collected next. During the process of administering the instruments to the mother, the investigator paid attention to the child and tried to be friendly with him/her. The. Moral Development Scale (MDS) was the last instrument to be administered at the child’s home. Data Analyses Data were coded by the investigator. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-XII). Descriptive statistics were used to determine the basic distributional characteristics of each of the variables. To examine the relations between the variables of interest, Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients, one-way AN OVA, and regression analyses were conducted. Additional supplemental analyses including t-tests were conducted. A chance probability level of less than .05 was set to reject the null hypotheses. All tests were two-tailed. 26 Ethical Considerations The required documentation was submitted for review by the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) at Michigan State University. Approval was granted by UCRIHS prior to the selection of people for the study (Appendix A). A consent form (Appendix B) was provided to each mother to ensure that she understood the study, that there are no inherent risks to either her or her child, and that her participation was voluntary. It was made clear that the mother had the option of discontinuing her participation, and that of her child, at any time. The principal of the school and all the sampled families were informed that all the information they provided and observations made by the investigator would be treated as confidential. Chapter 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Demographic characteristics of the sample were obtained by the Family Background Interview Schedule which was administered to mothers whose children were in the sample. A summary of samples characteristics is presented in Table l. The data collected through this instrument provided information about the child’s age and sex, education and occupations of parents, income of the family, and religion of the mother. Incheon is one of the five big cities of Korea. It is a harbor as well as an industrial city . The population is 2,400,000. There are many factories-and companies in the Incheon area. Many people who live in Incheon work in factories for companies. The total number of mother-child pairs who were interviewed and observed was ' 41. Forty-six percent of the children studied were males and 54% were females. The age of children ranged from 64 months to 76 months with a mean age of 70 months. The average number of children per family was 2.0. In the present study 78% of the families had two children, 12% had one child and 10% had three children. 27 28 Table 1 Characteristics of Sample Families Overall Sample (N=41) Child’s Age Child’s Sex Number of Children Mothers’ Education Fathers’ Education Mothers’ Employment Status Not Employed Employed Part-time F ull-time Fathers’ Occupational Status Skilled worker Owner of small business, sales, clerical Administrative personnel, minor professionals small independent business PrOprietors of medium sized business business managers Maj or professionals Mothers’ Religion mean = 70 months range = 65-76 months Std.Dev. = 3.3 46% males 54% females mean = 2.0 range = 1-3 Std.Dev. = .5 mean = 12.7 range = 7-19 years Std.Dev. = 2.3 mean = 13.9 range = 9-24 years Std.Dev. = 3.0 61% 39% 22% 17% 42% 12% 39% 5% 2% 61% with religion 39% without religion 29 Data on marital status revealed that all the mothers were married. In Korea, marriage is one of the societal institutions that is still highly valued. As far as the education of the mothers was concerned, 12% of the mothers did not complete high school while 51% completed high school. Thirty-seven percent of the mothers graduated from universities and professional colleges while 61% of the fathers graduated from universities and professional colleges. There was a wide range in the annual income of the sampled families ranging from less than $12,500 to more than $37,500. One hundred percent of the fathers were employed; 41% were skilled workers; 12% were owners of very small business or sales and clerical workers; 39% were administrative personnel, small independent business owners, minor professionals; 5% were business managers, proprietors of medium sized business; and 2% were major professionals. Thirty-nine percent of the mothers were employed. Twenty-two percent of the employed mothers worked part- time, while 17% were full-time employees. Relations Between Several Variables and the Moral Development of Children This section presents the relations between the predictor variables and the moral development of children as measured by the Moral Development Scale. Table 2 presents the correlations between the continuous variables and the children’s moral development for the overall sample. As expected, the quality of home environment was positively and significantly related to scores on the MDS. Children who scored higher on the MDS tended to 30 come from more supportive and more stimulating environments. Mothers’ education, family income, self-direction values, conformity values, and social values were not significantly related to scores on the MDS. Table 2 Zero-order Correlations: Relations between Several Variables and Moral Development of Children MDS Scores Variables Overall Sample (N=41) Mothers’ Education - .11 Family Income .28 Self-direction Values .06 Conformity Values .06 Social Values -.20 HOME .40” Note: **p< .01 As can be seen in Table 3, mother’s education was positively related to self- direction values and family annual income. Families with more income and mothers with more education provided their children with better quality care, as assessed with the HOME. Self-direction values were negatively related to conformin values and social values. The data showed that mothers who had higher scores on self-direction values had lower scores on conformity values and social values for their children. 31 Table 3 Relations among the Variables for Overall Sample Mothers’ Family Self-direction Conformity Social HOME Education Income Values Values Values Mothers’ 1.00 Education Family .34“ 1.00 Income Self-direction .3 l * .30 1 .00 Values Conformity -.18 -.12 -.81** 1.00 Values Social -.24 -.31 -.41* "' -.20 1.00 Values HOME .49" .44“ .18 -.15 -.06 1.00 Note: *p< .05 **p< .01 Differences Between Subsamples for Independent Variables in Moral Development of Children An independent t-test was conducted to see if there was a gender difference between the mean MDS scores. The mean MDS score for males was 14.84; for females it was 14.77. The means were not significantly different. Independent t-tests were run to examine the differences between subsarnples for independent variables and moral development of children. Table 4 present a 32 difference between the mean MDS scores of mothers who had a high level of education (more than 13 schooling years) and mothers who had a low level of education (less than 12 schooling years). As can be seen from Table 4, the mean MDS score for children who have highly educated mothers was 15.3; for children who have less educated mothers it was 14.5. The means were not significantly different. Table 4 T-Test for Differences between Two Groups of Mothers’ Education in Moral Development of Children Mean (SD) Variable Highly Less t-value df Prob. educated educated mothers (N =1 5) mothers (N=26) Moral 15.3 14.5 -.678 39 .50 (NS) Development (3.2) (3.4) Scale Note: The NS means not significant. As expected, a significant difference was found between high income families and low income families (see Table 5). The sample was divided at $25,000 because it was a middle level of the families’ income. Children from high income families (more than $25,000.00 annual family income) had higher MDS scores than children from low income families (less than $25,000.00 annual family income). The mean MDS score 33 for children from higher income families was 15.6; for children from lower income families it was 13.7. Table 5 T-Test for Differences between Two Groups of Family Income in Moral Development of Children Mean (SD) Variable Higher Lower t-value df Prob. income income families (N=20) families (N=21) Moral 16.0 13.7 -2.29 39 .03* Development (3.2) (3.0) Scale Note: *p< .05 For fathers’ occupational status, two groups were made. One group’s fathers were skilled workers, owners of small business, sales, and clerical workers and the other group’s fathers were administrative personnel, minor professionals, business managers, proprietors of medium sized business, and major professionals. As can be seen from Table 6, no significant difference was found between the two groups. Thus, there is no difference in moral development for children from groups based on fathers’ occupational status. An independent t-test was run to examine the difference between the mothers who scored higher on self-direction values and mothers who scored higher on conformity values on moral development of children. No significant difference was 34 found between the two groups on moral development of the children (see Table 7). Thus, there was no difference between mothers who have self-direction values and mothers who have conformity values on children’s moral development. Table 6 T-Test for Differences between Two Groups of Fathers’ Occupational Status in Moral Development of Children Mean (SD) Variable Higher Lower t-value df Prob. occupational occupational status (N=19) status (N=22) Moral 15.7 14.0 -l.73 39 .09 (NS) Development (2.6) (3.6) Scale Note: The NS means not significant. Table 7 T-Test for Differences between Two Groups of Maternal Values in Moral Development of Children Mean (SD) Variable Self-direction Conformity t-value df Prob. values (N=19) values (N=21) Moral 14.7 14.8 .02 38 .98 (NS) Development (3.1) (3.5) Scale Note: The NS means not significant. 35 Consistent with expectation, there was a significant difference between the mean MDS scores of children from families with higher scores on the home environment (greater than 43 HOME scores) and children from families with lower scores on the home environment (less than 43 HOME scores) (see Table 8). The mean MDS score for children from families with higher scores of the home environment was 16.3; for children from families with lower scores of the home environment was 13.5. Thus, children’s moral development was influenced by the quality of their home environments. Table 8 T-Test for Differences between Two Groups of Quality of Home Environment in Moral Development of Children Mean (SD) Variable Higher quality Less quality t-value df Prob. home home environment(N=19) environment(N =22) Moral 16.3 13.5 -2.99 39 .01M Development (2.7) (3.2) Scale Note: **p< .01 One-way AN OVA for the MDS was used to test the differences among the three means for the children from high (greater than 44 HOME scores), medium (from 41 to 43 HOME scores), and low (less than 40 HOME scores) quality of the home environment. The mean MDS score for children from high quality of the home 36 environment was 16.3; for children from medium quality of the home environment it was 14.0; for children from low quality of the home environment it was 13.1. As can be seen from Table 9, there was a difference among three home environment groups for the mean MDS scores. Table 9 One-way AN OVA Results for Moral Development of Children HOME Mean scores on MDS S.D High HOME (N=19) 16.3 2.7 Medium HOME (N=10) 14.0 3.8 Low HOME (N=12) 13.1 2.8 Groups Mean Squares df f-value Prob. Between 42.7 2 4.68 .02* Within 9.1 38 Note: *p< .05 Multiple Predictors of Children’s Moral Development This section presents the findings of a regression analysis that was done to determine which of the predictor variables are related to children’s moral development. In the analysis, all the independent variables were entered simultaneously. The results 37 of the regression analysis for the overall sample are presented in Table 10. As can be seen in Table 10, mothers’ education, fathers’ occupational status, family annual income, mothers’ religion, and quality of the home environment explained 26% of the variance in the scores for MDS. The F value for the model was significant. The analysis suggested that none of the independent variables, except for the quality of the home environment, were significantly related to children’s moral development. Table 10 Multiple Regression Analysis: Predictors of Children’s Moral Development MDS Scores Predictor Variables Betas t-Statistic Prob. Mothers’ Education -.21 -l.15 .26 Fathers’ Occupational Status .16 .83 .41 Family Annual Income .17 .94 .35 Mothers’ Religion -.10 -.70 .49 HOME .41 2.46 .02 R sq .26 F-Ratio 2.51 .05 Note: Betas presented are standardized betas. 38 Path Analysis Multiple regression was used to determine which of the independent variables were directly related to the outcome, when other factors were controlled. Path analysis, which relies on multiple linear regression, attempts to isolate the separate contributions to a dependent variable made by a set of interrelated predictor variables. Table 1 land Table 12 presents the results of multiple regression for four variables. Table 11 Multiple Regression Analysis: Predictors of Home Environment HOME Scores Predictor Variables Betas t-Statistic Prob. Mothers’ Education .38 2.70 .01 Family Annual Income .30 2.13 .04 R sq .32 F-Ratio 8.94 .001 Note: Betas presented are standardized betas. The results of path analysis are presented in Figure 2. Mothers’ education and family income were significant predictors of home environment. These factors did not significantly predict the moral development of children when the quality of home 39 environment was controlled. Only home environment had a direct effect on moral development of children. Table 12 Multiple Regression Analysis: Selected Predictors of Children’s Moral Development MDS Scores Predictor Variables Betas t-Statistic Prob. Mothers’ Education -.14 -.78 .44 Family Annual Income .15 .89 .38 HOME .40 2.23 .03 R sq .19 F-Ratio 2.83 .05 Note: Betas presented are standardized betas. «53...; ”53:55 a 5.3 .35.: in.” .N ensur— mo. V m... .233 352656 0.8 856508 55 SEES—0300 Eco—2 €225 *OM. oEoofi SEE Eoficegcm Alli 680: .8. do £20 53825 * w m . .9850: 41 Summary of Results In this section, a summary of the results of the study is presented in terms of the research hypotheses. Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relation between years of mothers’ education and moral development of children. Hymthesis 2: There is a difference between children whose fathers have higher occupational status and children whose fathers have lower occupational status in moral development. Hypothesis 3: There is a difference between children fiom high family income and children from low family income in moral development. The data did not support the hypotheses, except for family income, that a positive relation or differences exist between the SES variables and child’s moral development (see Table 2, 5, 6). This conclusion is tentative for the researcher felt that there were not enough highly educated mothers. Also, the sample didn’t include unemployed fathers and unskilled workers. There was a difference between higher income families and lower income families on children’s moral development. This result supported past studies included in the literature review section (Lerner, 1988; Seo, 1963). Mothers who had higher levels of education provided better quality home environments for their children than other mothers. This finding is consistent with findings from other studies (Baharudin, 1992; Luster, 1985). 42 Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relation between mothers’ self-direction values and the moral deve10pment of children. The data did not support this hypothesis. No significant relation between mothers’ self-direction values and children’s moral development was found. However, there was a significant relation between mothers’ self-direction values and mothers’ education. This finding supported Kohn’s hypothesis. Kohn (1977) argues that low SES families tend to value conformity and middle-class families tend to value self- direction. Hypothesis 5: There is a difference between children whose mothers have religion and children whose mothers have no religion in moral development. There was no significant difference between the two groups. The data did not support the hypothesis. The researcher dealt with only mothers’ religion. It would be useful to study the extent of religiosity rather than mothers having or not having religion. Hmthesis 6: Children whose mothers provide a more supportive home environment will demonstrate higher levels of moral development than children whose mothers provide a lower quality home environment. l The data provided support for this hypothesis. Children who achieved higher scores on the MDS-experienced a more supportive home environment. This finding is consistent with the literature which suggests that a high quality home environment has a positive influence on children’s developmental outcomes (Yoo, 1985; Luster & Mittelstaedt, 1993). Chapter 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Summary of the Study The major purpose of this study was to examine several family factors that influence the moral development of 5 to 6 year-old children in Korea. Forty-one mother-child dyad of selected 5 to 6 year-old kindergarten children from Incheon, Korea were studied in 1996. The following research instruments were used to collect the data: Moral Development Scale, Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment, Family Background Schedule, and Schaefer and Edgerton Rank Order of Parental Values. The study showed that children who had higher scores on the MDS, a measure of their moral development, experienced more supportive home environments than children who had lower scores. The relationship between children’s MDS scores and HOME scores was highly significant (see Table 2). For this small sample of children, a significant difference between children fi'om higher family income and children from lower family income in their moral development was found (see Table 5). Mothers’ educational level, fathers’ occupational status, maternal values, and mothers’ religion were not related to children’s moral development. However, there were significant 43 44 relationships between mothers’ education and family income with HOME, and mothers’ education and self-direction values. There was no difference between the mean MDS scores of boys and girls. Conclusions The findings of this study have demonstrated that the development of children is related to factors in the children’s ecosystem. Some of the findings from this study are consistent with the Bronfenbrenner’s ecological approach to human development. Although the sample is limited, there is some supportive evidence that children’s moral development was influenced by family income. Data also showed that mothers who had more years of education provided a more supportive home environment. Bronfenbrenner (1989) assumed that environments surrounding the children influence their developmental outcomes. The results from this study were consistent with this assumption. Children who achieved higher scores on the test of moral development had mothers who provided higher quality home environments. Although the research instruments are standardized for use within the United States, the researcher felt that these are also appropriate for Korean families. There were a few questions which needed to be explained more often to mothers by the researcher. The MDS seemed a little bit difficult for younger children but children understood the stories found in the Moral Development Scale (MDS). Children especially recognized the stories about lying. However, the concept of fairness seemed a bit hard for 5 to 6 year-old children to grasp. 45 Limitations of the Research The potential limitations of the study concerns the sample, and generalizability of the findings. The non random sample size of 41 mother and child dyads may be too small to allow the findings to be generalized to a population of Incheon, Korea families with 5 to 6-year-old children. Only mothers were interviewed. Findings apply, therefore, only to parenting by mothers. Similarly, only mothers residing in the urban setting of Incheon, Korea were included as respondents. The generalizability of the study, therefore, is limited to similar populations. Another limitation of the study is the use of the research instruments that were standardized in the United States. Data from other countries are limited especially regarding the moral development of children 5 to 6 years of age. Caution is needed in drawing conclusions from the study. Implications for Further Research Replication of this research with a large, representative sample would serve to confirm or disconfirrn the results of this study. It would be interesting to include, as part of the sample, fathers. Korean fathers are increasingly becoming more involved in their children’s well being. This research indicated a significant relationship between home environment and children’s moral development. However, additional research beyond the scope of this 46 thesis project on moral development of children needs to be conducted to get a better explanation of this topic. Because our society is rapidly changing, we need to be concerned about the impact of other social environments on our children, such as school, friends, mass media, community, and policies of the government. In addition, research is needed to fully understand what characteristics of children, parents, and contexts combine to influence parents-child relationships. Although the results of the study suggest little influence of mothers’ religion in the moral development of children, studying other aspects of religion with a larger sample size may yield some valuable results. For example, the relations of different types of religious orientations to knowledge about child development, parents’ concerns and goals for the child, and expectations and aspirations for children could be studied. APPENDICES APPENDIX A OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES University Committee 0 Research lnvolv Human Suhiects (UCRIHS) Michigan State University 232 Administration Building East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1046 517/355-2180 FAX: 517/432-1171 the Michigan Slate University IDEA IS Institutional Diversity. Excellence in Action. MSU is an aflimraflve-action. eoual-opponunity institution MICHIGAN STATE UNIV ERSITY April 9, 1996 TO: H e Hwang W 15 Owen Hall RE: IRB#: 96-241 TITLE: HOME ENVIRONMENT AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON THE MORAL DEVELOPMENT OF 6 TO 7 YEAR-OLD CHILDREN IN SOUTH KOREA REVISION REQUESTED: N/A CATEGORY: l-B APPROVAL DATE: 04/08/96 The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'(UCRIHS) review of this project 18 complete. I am pleased to advrse that the - rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. herefore, above. RENEWAL : REVIS IONS : PROBLEMS / CHANGES : If we can be of any future help, pl at (517)355-2180 or FAX (517)432-1171. Sincerel r4». 1” DEW:bed aavid E. Wright UCRIHS Chair the UCRIHS approved this project and any revrsrons listed UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to continue a project beyond one year must use the green renewal form (enclosed Wlth t e original agproval letter or when a. project is renewed) to seek u date certification. There IS a maxrmum of four such expedite renewals possrble. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again or complete review. UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, rior to initiation of t e change. If this IS done at the time o renewal, please use the green renewal form. To revrse an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written request to the. CRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencrng the prOJect's IRB # and t1t18.. Include in your request a description of the change and any rev1sed instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable. Should either of the followin arise during the course of the work, investigators must noti UCRIHS promptly: (1) roblems (unexpected Slde effects, comp aints, etc.) involving uman subjects.or (2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human sub'ects than exrsted when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved. ease do not hesitate to contact us I cc: Lillian Phenice 47 APPENDIX B APPENDIX B Parental Consent Form I am a graduate student in the Department of Family and Child Ecology, Michigan State University and this study is a very important part of my program. I am inviting you and your kindergarten child to participate in the study and asking your permission to interview and observe you and your child. Your child will also be doing the Moral Development Scale. This study will be conducted at your home for about 1-2 hours. All information obtained from this study will be kept confidential. Results from the study will be reported as group summaries with no one individual identifiable in the record. Your participation is voluntary and you are free to withdraw your consent and participation at any time. I have read the preceding statement and here by agree to participate in this study. I understand that my participation is voluntary, and I can withdraw at any time. Child’s Name Parent’s Signature Date Phone No. Address Please indicate dates and times for the interview that are convenient for you: Appropriate dates and times 48 APPENDIX C APPENDIX C Moral Development Scale Interview Form A-82 - William M. Kurtines, June B. Pimm, and Matthew Pimm. 1981 Date Examiner Sample Subject Name (or ID) IA. INTENTIONALITY: CLUMSINESS AND STEALING DIRECTIONS The general purpose of the IN TENTIONALITY Scale is to determine if the child assigns responsibility or blame on the basis of subjective intention 9_r_ objective consideration. The specific aim of the INTENTIONALITY Scale is to find out if the child assigns responsibility on the basis of consequence rather than intention. As you read each story, show the child the appropriate set of cards. Make sure the child is aware of the differences in the amount of damage. Check the child’s action in the RESPONSE section. VERBAL INSTRUCTIONS 1a. John was playing in his room when his mother asked him to come to dinner. While John was walking by the table he slipped and bumped the dishes. 15 of the dishes fell and broke. * 1b. One day when Henry’s mother was not home, he decided to eat some cookies even though his mother had told him not to. While he was taking the cookies, Henry dropped the cookie jar, but the lid only cracked. Which of these boys was worse? Why? RESPONSE H A-I A-II 2a. Marie walked by her mother’s closet and saw that her coat had fallen on the floor. Marie wanted to help her mother out, so she hung it up; but the coat got caught on the nail and got abig tear in it. *2b. Margaret wanted to try on her mother’s pretty new dress, but her mother said no. When her mother was not around Margaret tried on the dress. As she was putting it on she tore a gig hole in it. Which of the two girls is worse? Why? RESPONSE H A-I A-II 49 50 3a. George’s father was watching TV out in the yard. He went inside and left the TV outside. While he was inside it started to rain. George tried to bring the TV inside, but he dropped it and smashed it. *3b. A friend of Bob’s had a dog. The dog had puppies. Bob liked the puppies, and one day when his friend was not around he took one. Which of the two boys is worse? Why? RESPONSE H A-I A-II IB. INTENTIONALITY: LYING DIRECTIONS The aim of the LYING Scale is to find out if the child understands that a plausible intentional deception is worse than a harmless but implausible exaggeration. Read each story to the child. Make sure that the child understands that neither child was telling the truth. As you read the stories, show the appropriate cards. Check the child’s choice in the RESPONSE section. VERBAL INSTRUCTIONS la. A little boy was taking a walk one day and a dog scared him. When he got home he told his father the dog was as big as a cow. "' 1b. A little boy told his mother that his teacher gave him a good grade in school. This was not true, his teacher did not give him a good grade. But his mother believed him and gave him some money as a reward. Which of the two boys is worse? Why? RESPONSE H A-I A-II *Za. One afternoon a girl was watching her favorite TV program. Her mother asked her to help set the table. She said she could not help because she had hurt her foot. This was not true, she did not hurt her foot. 2b. A little girl who liked sports cars and always wanted to ride in one saw one in the street in front of her house. That afiemoon she told her mother that she took the car for a long drive. But it was not true. She had made it up. Which of the two girls is worse? Why? RESPONSE H A-I A-II ‘3a. Bob lived here in town all of his life and knew the names of the streets quite well. One day a man asked him where 14th street was. Bob wanted to play a trick on the man, 51 and pointed in the wrong direction. But the man didn’t get lost and managed to find the street anyway. 3b. Joe was new in town and did not know the names of the streets very well. One day a man asked him where 14th street was and Joe said, “I think it is over there.” and pointed in the wrong direction. The man got lost and could not find the street he was looking for. Which of the two boys is worse? Why? RESPONSE H A-I A-II IIA. JUSTICE: FAIRNESS OF PUNISHMENT DIRECTIONS The general aim of the FAIRNESS and UTILITY Scale is to determine if the child can distinguish between punishment intended to extract atonement and punishment intended to put things right, restore the status quo, or correct an injustice. The specific aim of the FAIRNESS Scale is to find out if the child considers reciprocal punishment fairer (i.e., more just) than expiatory punishment. Read each story to the child. Make sure the child understands which punishment is more severe/harsh. As you read the story, show the child the appropriate set of cards. Circle the child’s actions in the RESPONSE category. VERBAL INSTRUCTIONS 1. Donald was playing in the yard when his mother asked him to go to the store and get some bread because there was none in the house. But instead of going right away, Donald said that he couldn’t be bothered, that he’d go in a minute. But he did not go and there was no bread for dinner. His father was not very pleased and wondered how he should punish Donald. He thought of two punishments, one very severe and the other not so hard. 1a. One was not letting Donald watch TV for a week, a very severe punishment because Donald liked TV very much. *1b. The second was not as hard. His father thought that he could teach Donald a lesson by not doing a favor in return such as helping him to fix the flat tire on his bike. Which of the two punishments did the father pick? Why? Is it fair? Why? RESPONSE H A-I A-II 2. One day a boy was playing in his room. His father had asked him not to play ball for fear of breaking the window, but he did it anyway and he broke the window. His father thought of two ways of punishing him, one severe and the other not so hard. 52 2a. The hard one was not to fix the window. Since it was winter it would be too cold to play in the room. *2b. The other, which wasn’t as hard, was to make him help pay for the window. Which of the two punishments did the father pick? Why? Is it fair? Why? RESPONSE H A-I A-II 3. John was playing with his little brother’s toy wagon and broke it. His father thought of one hard and one not so hard punishment. *3a. The easy one was to have John either fix the wagon or help buy another one. 3b. The hard one was not to allow John to play with his own toys for a long time. Which of the two punishments did the father pick? Why? Is it fair? Why? RESPONSE H A-I A-II IIB. JUSTICE: UTILITY OF PUNISHMENT DIRECTIONS The aim of the UTILITY Scale is to determine if the child considers the use of reciprocal punishment more effective than expiatory punishment in preventing future transgressions. Read the stories as a pair. Then read the summary. Make sure the child understands the contrast between a severe/harsh and arbitrary punishment and a moderate and constructure punishment. As you read each story, show the child the appropriate set of cards. Check the child’s choice in the RESPONSE category. VERBAL INSTRUCTIONS * 1a. A boy was playing in his room while his daddy was at work. After a while the boy thought he would like to draw, but he had no paper. Then he remembered that there was some in his father’s desk. He remembered that his father had told him not to go in his desk, but he went and got the paper anyway. When his father found out that he had been in his desk he was very angry and gave the boy a good whipping. lb. Now I shall tell you a story that is nearly the same, but not quite. This boy was also playing in his room and thought he would like to draw. He also remembered that there was some paper in his father’s desk and his father had told him not to go in his desk. But 53 this boy also took the paper anyway. But his father punished him by giving him a good talking to and explained that it was not alright to take something that doesn’t belong to him. A few days later these boys were each playing in their rooms and wanted some paper. Can you guess which one would take paper from his father’s desk again? The boy who was punished or the boy who was talked to? Why? RESPONSE H A-I A-II 2a. Once there was a little boy who was playing in the kitchen while his mother was out. He broke a dish. When his mother came home, he said, “It wasn’t me, it was the cat who broke the dish.” His mother saw quite well that this was a lie. She punished him by giving him a good talking to and explained to him that it was not right to lie and that he would not like it if someone told him a lie. *2b. This is another story that is nearly the same but not quite. Another boy did the same thing. He lied about breaking his mother’s dish. She was very angry and punished the boy by spanking him. ‘ Can you guess which one of the boys would lie again, the boy who was punished or the boy who was talked to? Why? RESPONSE H A-I A-H Notes: *3a. Susan was in her mother’s room and saw a lipstick she liked. When her mother wasn’t looking, she took the lipstick. Her mother found out and gave Susan a spanking for taking her lipstick. 3b. Here is another story. This girl did the same thing. Her name was Mary. She took her mother’s lipstick. Here’s what her mother did. She didn’t spank Mary. She just gave her a good talking to and told her why she shouldn’t take things that don’t belong to her. Can you guess which one of the girls will take what doesn’t belong to her again, the girl who was spanked or the girl who was talked to? Why? RESPONSE H A-I A-H Notes: III. JUSTICE: EQUALITY VERSUS AUTHORITY DIRECTIONS The aim of the EQUALITY Scale is to determine if the child considers equality of treatment to be more important than obedience to authority. Read the stories to the child. 54 Make sure the child understands the story and the question. Check the child’s choice in the RESPONSE category. VERBAL INSTRUCTIONS 1. One afternoon a mother asked her two daughters to help around the house because she was tired. She asked one girl to dry the plates, and the other to set the table. One of the little girls decided she didn’t want to help and went outside to play. The mother asked the other little girl to do both of the chores. If your mother asked you, would you do both chores? Is it fair for mother to ask? Why? RESPONSE H A-I A-II Notes: 2. One summer there were several boys and girls at camp. The rule was that each morning the boys and girls had to shine their shoes. One morning one of the boys slept late and did not wake up in time to shine his shoes so the camp teacher, who was in charge of all the boys and girls, asked one of the other boys, who had already shined his shoes, to shine the shoes of the boy who slept late. If you were the boy and your teacher asked, would you shine both shoes? Is it fair for the teacher to ask? Why? RESPONSE H A-I A-II Notes: 3. A father had two boys. He would always send them on errands. One of them would always complain when he had to run an errand. The other didn’t like to run errands either, but he didn’t complain. So the father would send him on more errands than the other boy. If you were the boy and your father asked, would you run the extra errands? Is it fair for the father to ask? Why? RESPONSE H A-I A-H Notes: APPENDIX D APPENDIX D Home Observation for the Measurement of the Environment (Preschool) - Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. 1984 Adaptation of the HOME There are 55 items on the HOME inventory. Each is scored yes or no. A total score is computed by adding together the number of items scored “yes”. (Items for asking - A, Items for observing - O). LearnmgE Stimulation 1. Child has toys which teach color, size, shape. (A) 2. Child has three or more puzzles. (A) 3. Child has record player, CD player, or audio and at least five children’s records, tapes, or CD5. (A) 4. Child has toys permitting free expression. (A) 5. Child has toys or games requiring refined movement. (A) 6. Child has toys or games which help teach numbers. (A) 7. Child has at least 10 children’s books. (A) 8. At least 10 books are visible in the apartment. (0) 9. Family buys and reads a daily newspaper. (A) 10. Family subscribes to at least one magazine. (A) 11. Child is encouraged to learn shapes. (A) 55 56 Language Stimulation 12. Child has toys that help teach the names of animals. (A) 13. Child is encouraged to learn the alphabet. (A) 14. Parent teaches child simple verbal manners (please, thank you). (A) 15. Mother uses correct grammar and pronunciation. (O) 16. Parent encourages child to talk and takes time to listen. (0) 17. Parent’s voice conveys positive feelings to child. (0) 18. Child is permitted choice in breakfast or lunch menu. (A) Physical Environment 19. Buildings appears safe. (0) 20. Outside play environment appears safe. (0) 21. Interior of apartment not dark or perceptually monotonous. (O) 22. Neighborhood is aesthetically pleasing. (O) 23. House/Apartment has enough living space per person. (0) 24. Rooms are not overcrowded with furniture. (0) 25. House/Apartment is reasonably clean and minimally cluttered. (O) larmth and Acceptancg 26. Parent holds child close 10-15 minutes per day. (A) 27. Parent converses with child at least twice during visit. (0) 28. Parent answers child’s questions or requests verbally. (O) 57 29. Parent usually responds verbally to child’s speech. (A) 30. Parent praises child’s qualities twice during visit. (0) 31. Parent caresses, kisses, or cuddles child during visit. (0) 32. Parent helps child demonstrate some achievement during visit. (0) Academic Stimulation 33. Child is encouraged to learn colors. (A) 34. Child is encouraged to learn patterned speech (songs, etc.). (A) 35. Child is encouraged to learn spatial relationships. (A) 36. Child is encouraged to learn numbers. (A) 37. Child is encouraged to learn to read a few words. (A) Modeling 38. Some delay of food gratification is expected. (A) 39. TV is used judiciously. (A) 40. Parent introduced visitor to child. (0) 41. Child can express negative feelings withoutlreprisal. (A) 42. Child can hit parent without harsh reprisal. (A) V_ariety in Experience 43. Child has real or toy musical instrument. (A) 44. Child is taken on outing by family members at least every other week. (A) 58 45. Child has been on trip more than fifty miles during last year. (A) 46. Child has been taken to a museum during past year (A) 47. Parent encourages child to put away toys without help. (A) 48. Parents uses complex sentence structure and vocabulary. (O) 49. Child’s art work is displayed some place in house/apartment. (O) 50. Child cats at least one meal per day with mother and father. (A) S 1. Parent lets child choose some foods or brands at grocery store. (A) Acceptance 52. Parent does not scold or derogate child more than once. (0) 53. Parent does not use physical restraint during visit. (0) 54. Parent neither slaps nor spanks child during visit. (0) 55. No more than one instance of physical punishment during past week. (A) Comments APPENDIX E APPENDIX E Family Background Interview Schedule Date 1. Child’s name Birth date 2. Age of the child 3. Sex of the child 4. Birth order of the child 5. Relationship to the child 6. Current child care arrangements 7. Main caregiver 8. What is your marital status? 1. Married 2. Widowed 3. divorced 4. Separated 5. Other 9. Are you currently employed? 1. Yes 2. No 10. If yes, are you working full-time or part-time? 1. Full-time 2. Part-time 11. What is your job? 1. Unemployed 2. Unskilled worker 3. Skilled worker 4. Owner of small business, clerical, sales, technician 5. Administrative personnel, small independent business, minor professionals 6. Business managers, proprietors of medium sized business 7. Executives and proprietors of large concern, major professionals 59 60 12. What is your husband’s job? 1. Unemployed 2. Unskilled worker 3. Skilled worker 4. Owner of small business, clerical, sales, technician 5. Administrative personnel, small independent business, minor professionals 6. Business managers, proprietors of medium sized business 7. Executives and proprietors of large concern, major professionals 13. What is the highest level of formal school that you have completed? 1. No formal schooling 2. Some formal schooling 3. Primary school graduation 4. Secondary school graduation 5. High school graduation 6. Partial college training 7. Standard college or University graduation 8. Graduate professional training 14. Total years of education 15. What is the highest level of formal school your husband has completed? 1. No formal schooling 2. Some formal schooling 3. Primary school graduation 4. Secondary school graduation 5. High school graduation 6. Partial college training 7. Standard college or University graduation 8. Graduate professional training 16. Total years of education 17. Total income of the family per year: 1. Less than $12,500.00 2. $12,501 .00-18,750.00 3. $18,751.00-25,000.00 4. $25,001 .00-31,250.00 5. $31,251 .00-37,500.00 6. More than $37,501.00 18. How many children do you have between age 0-6 years 6-12 years 12-20 years 20 and above Total 61 19. Are you a religious person? 1. Yes 2. No 20. What is your religion? l.Buddhism 2. Christian 3. Catholic 4. Other 5.No religion 21. How often do you go to a temple or a church? 1. less than once a month 2. once a month 3. once two weeks 4. once a week 5. more than once a week APPENDIX F APPENDIX F Schaefer and Edgerton Rank-Order of Parental Values I have three categories of things that most parents feel important for their child to learn. What do you think is most important for your child? In the three groups below, please prioritize what you most want your child to learn first, rank ntunber 1. What’s second-most important rank number 2, and so on, with what’s least important to you last, that will be number 5. First set 1a) to think for him/herself lb) to keep him/herself and his /her clothes clean 1c) to be curious about many things 1d) to be polite to adults 1e) to be kind to other children Second set 2a) to obey parents and teachers 2b) to be responsible for his/her own work 2c) to be kind and considerate 2d) to keep things neat and in order 2e) to use imagination Third set 33) interest in how and why things happen 3b) ability to get along with people 3c) being a good student 3d) ability to look after him/herself 3e) good manners Self-direction score = la+1c+2b+2e+3a+3d Conformity score = lb+ld+2a+2d+3c+3e Social score = 1e+2c+3b 62 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bibliography Bandura, A. & McDonald, F. J. (1963). Influence of social reinforcement and the behavior of models in shaping children’s moral judgments. Journal of A bnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 274-281. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4 (1, pt 2). Belsky, J. (1980). Child maltreatment: An ecological integration. American Psychologist, 35, 320-335. Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1984). Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. Little Rock: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Is early intervention eflective? A report on longitudinal evaluations of preschool programs (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Child Development. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental psychology, 22, 723-742. Crittenden, P. (1990). Learning to be moral. London: Humanities Press International. Downey, M., & Kelley, A. (1978). Moral education: Theory and practice. New York: Harper & Row Edgerton, M., & Schaefer, E. (1978). Maternal values, sociodemographic variables, child competence and adaptation. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Atlanta, Georgia. Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91-119. Ellison, C. G., & Sherkat, D. E. (1993). Conservative Protestantism and support for corporal punishment. American Sociological Review. 58, 131-144. Garbarino, J ., & Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The socialization of moral judgment and behavior in cross-cultural perspective. In T. Lickona (Ed), Moral development and behavior. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 63 54 Gibbs, J. C., & Schnell, S. V. (1985). Moral development “versus” socialization. American Psychologist, 40(10), 1071-1080. Gilligan, C., & Wiggins, G. (1987). The origins of morality in early childhood relationships. In J. Kagan & S. Lamb (Eds.), The emergence of morality in early childhood. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Green, F. P. (1994). Cross cultural roots of minority child development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Harman, K., & Luster, T. (1991). Influence of parent, child, and contextual factors on the quality of the home environment. Infant Mental Health Journal. 12(1), 17-30. Hoffman, M. L. (1988). Moral development. In M.H. Bomstein & ME. Lamb (Eds), Developmental Psychology: An advanced textbook (2nd ed., pp. 497-548). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Jersild, A. T. (1968). Child Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kim, J. H. (1989). The relationship between family environment and moral development of children. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Keonkuk University, Seoul, Korea. Kohlberg, L. (1962). Stage and sequence: The cognitive approach to socialization. D.A. Goslin (Ed.) Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally. Kohlberg, L. (1984). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive development approach. In essays on moral development, Vol.2: The psychology of moral development (pp. 170-205). San Francisco: Harper & Row. Kohn, ML. (1969). Class and conformity: A study in values. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press. Kohn, M. L. (1977). Class and conformity: A study in values. Second Edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kostelnik, M.J., Stein, L.C., Whiren, A.P., & Soderrnan, AK. (1993). Guiding children ’3 social development (2nd ed. ). Albany, NY: Delmar. Kurtines, W. & Gewirtz, J. L. (Eds). (1991). Handbook of moral behavior and development. Vol. 1-3. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kurtines, W. & Pirnm, J. B. (1981). The moral development scale: Manual. Unpublished paper. 65 Kurtines, W. & Pimm, J .B. (1983). The moral development scale: A Piagetian measure of moral judgment. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 43, 89-105. Lerner, J .V., Hertzog, C., Hooker, K. A., Hassibi, K. A., & Thomas, A. (1988). A longitudinal study of negative emotional states and adjustment from early childhood through adolescence. Child Development, 59, 356-366. Luster, T. (1985). Influences on maternal behavior: child-rearing beliefs, social support and infant temperament. (Doctoral dissertation, Cornell university). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(10), 3618 B. Luster, T., & Mittelstaedt, M. (1993). Adolescent mothers. In T. Luster & L. Okagaki (Eds), Parenting-An ecological perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Maccoby, EB. (1980). Child rearing practices and their effects. Social development: Psychological growth and the parent-child relationship (pp. 368-407). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Masud, S. (1993). Selected family factors as predictors of home environment and their eflects on the cognitive competence of four to six year-old children in Parkistan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. McGuire, MB. (1981). Religion: The social context. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. McLoyd, V. (1989). Economic stress : efi'ects on family life and child development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Menaghan, E. g., Parcel, TL. (1991). Stability and change in children home environment: The effects of parental occupational experiences and family conditions. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, Washington. Nucci, L. & Turiel, E. (1993). God’s word, religious rules, and their relation to Christian and Jewish children’s concepts of morality. Child Development. 64, 1475-1491. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1932). Powers, S. (1983). Family interaction and parental moral development as a context for adolescent moral development: A study of patient and non-patient adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts International. 43, 3753 E. (University Microfilms No. DA8308501) 66 Rutter, M. (1985). F arnily and school influences meanings, mechanisms, and implications. In A. R. Nichol (Ed.) Longitudinal studies in child psychology and psychiatry (pp. 357-401). NY: Wiley. Seo, B. Y. (1963). The research on the concept of morality. Survey Research, 24. Seoul: Jungang educational Research center. Shaffer, D. R. (1994). Social and personality development. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Son, C. K. (1978). The relationships between socioeconomic status and psychological home environments and moral development. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. Thomas, D.C., & Cornwall, M. (1990). Religion and family in the 19805: Discovery and development Journal of Marriage and the Family. 52, 983-992. Vondra, J ., & Belsky, J. (1993). Developmental origins of parenting: Personality and relationship factors. In T. Luster & L. Okagaki (Eds), Parenting: An ecological perspective (pp. 1-34). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Yoo, A. J. (1985). Child environmental theory. Seoul: Changjisa. Yoon, S. I. (1972). The relationships among moral development and I. Q. and educational and cultural home environments. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Iwha University, Seoul, Korea. MICHIGAN STRTE u llflllflllllfllfllyiuynfllfliflmil-Ir.