l

. NEW.
21
Q n
. EM.

. -1.qu
...~...mm.m.......u. .3.

"\u a
.l ‘
l 1"

"1:55

. I}.
:7

.‘vi. . v.. .
.Iv...V-ro« 7.. . .
. .I~i:|.

..L- .-

I!

 

i

I
v!

’v
#6

A
‘ 0

.7.»
nut

.Mhzr.
34.4% . . .. . .
o) ' I t l ‘
.. Rh» . .mwaw-..:..m.. 4.3%....
.wummwflmfi. .
. ...w.“fi}.m..“3dbm..ru.rufi .
. e ’u \u I .l.
:. drags......mm...%aq...w....wurkus...
x... ....u. hinqn
. V

rag-ii. *
I u‘ 1
:hétw . .

7“:

h
a.

. r .
v: .WNandnfiflifi
. 1 .‘f- ‘ 0", i

5.. . :1:

 

i1

1.... . $3.5. . _. . . . . . . . .. . .
. . . “9qu .. . .. . . . . . . L . . . .. 4|

. . . . .. . : .. . I . .5- .0“ UL

. . . . . . . . . . . . u .1 at

, . . . 2.}-.. A

. i.

v
Q

43.5%-.. (A). .3. N...

":2... .... .Lfmqfluxkvo

in? 5...... .51 .
HUN -. L...»

Ea...
cl 5

.s‘? '
«:1;
‘1

hi
p".
6

.4»
‘0
~
.
v.

3

"km:
I 13:.

. .éj

,
A

14 914““ .. a
. .. - \.lvll9\..lll.'llv

Whit». .3! (.9. 5H... 4.15... NA.
. 1.9». IIIIII tflflnghrla
v 3"»... ..

~t’lt .

1 .
:fi‘f‘é‘it“ '
3.3%.?er
”a“ . ~
"W ‘

- H!
v?

r. . WWI n . H
um." ..._ Wenwh

1;!
«$5

5

. . _..

i 5.. ¢
3-...

. 93.-.»:-

."
..

N1.

fin
. ‘T'
0,",-
l \.1
Ht.

9. . ... . . . .... u
. 910‘“ . x. . :y a.»
.1 4. uvun . . . Luv

.1. I . .
n. n.4,? . . . . .yflukfianuv...
9 .. 3.3.. 7.1 fling“. . . 52:521.. 2.
.vnosPo .3... .Il.. '. . . . .1". Qvffln..ul.v&rlvv . . fihnfifmwflh.
IH..V lCo-Ih. ON A . . . "I .l.I I? ‘ u : bat
. . . . . . . L4. 1 .9. v...
. U i) 150..

. . -L ....-:-.. . :
.. -.hnu:.n.m...n.....h...1.r1,i A... -Rtwwwun.
t . 1" It, I V . .
.EhNuiytbe. \q. nu. ”Shaun. 193...... . .. .. .. . : .
u . . 1 ‘gncll'v-‘r‘ l.. 3.1“.» n .t .
.. . ’0! Vi. 1 I, . . . ¢ 1 1 u
. . “Valli! . on» . .. . . . .
_ d».-. . :......r: . .. L . .<-..w....nn.
.. yr: v».- . . .. . .3:

. ‘ .
v'.||‘

41‘
a .1“.

‘1':
§

'1

.. 2.-.

.0... I. l.

S-xrwlnih «(JurWur .
kiln . - Inl'vhl‘}:

. , w --
M‘,‘ ‘
.‘_. _
"2'“:
. . I
I'M“ .
2" ‘s -
. Kf‘i

‘f
t

.. 35.1.3351 3
. $.71... 1h»!.-.v....~tl
. 3L7." 41%.... €416“...
imFAnfllzl 8.1.?
It 1. ‘ 5 .. . .
.7 . 30335:...
:1. . x !.

1.x!i I nn'tvt s
.104... 5 ..4(ID ..

.
F;
T;
-o
3

 

n

 

.9?

 

u

 

:01. n

i

. H. . . I... . .
......y....«_uu 3...... .. 1.1..

"“4

 

a "P'.‘-‘~V
. v g'lv‘ UV: ‘. I 3‘
.. u. .. so [AH u v. .
: {tiny}... Ft... ...:..|..
. . 1.... . 1 . . 3
- I p . . ~. ~ V .
m1 lyfl.i..»thn. 2W. . . . . .7 .. . v .
a : n.‘l

‘ ' 10"}I‘o
I...
. .quuw .. . . 2.....-
- .. : . . {immufia ..
. . .. . . .r»..rr....... .
‘-u.u...v..-...l. 3.

L0"

9%. .
”LU-AW»! . luarkh :{IFKWIIAJVI y
l.-. I 7". . ¢4DI|UI
. . 119% .
fawn .
. 3041.. “III\

. .. 3."... . . t . . T.
p . . . . 59.5.53 . .. .
. ‘33l , , 7:11"A . « .
., . .. .. . .. .. ill (1-1‘1131- ..
. . . H . .. . . . Ipu’qwhfl ...-1-.....P..u.l. A.

; .2.
mm... ”Wart

 

‘1‘
~‘—

\g') m

U5

\

IINHIHIIHHIII”NIH”IUIIIIHHIHHHllllllillllllllll

31293 01570 6280

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
An Ecological Analysis of Variables associated

with Parental Disciplinary PracticeS"”"

presented by

Hyuk Jun Moon

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

Ph. D. degreein Family & Child Ecology

W17“? 46/0 Meg

[Major professor

Date @0107, /é‘?’7

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0 12771

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

AN ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF VARIABLES ASSOCIATED WITH
PARENTAL DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES

BY

Hyuk Jun Moon

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILD ECOLOGY

1997

ABSTRACT

AN ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF VARIABLES ASSOCIATED WITH
PARENTAL DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES

BY

Hyukjun Moon

Parenting is a complex process. The ultimate aim of
this study was to shed light on this complexity. Among the
many aspects of parenting researchers have studied, early
parental disciplinary practices have been recognized as
important factors in the socialization of children.
Ineffective parental disciplinary practices lead to negative
outcomes in children such as high rates of child misbehavior
and high levels of childhood aggression. Effective parenting
practices, on the other hand, lead to low levels of
noncompliance and low levels of aggressive behavior in
children. The purpose of this study was to examine to what
extent mothers and fathers differ in their disciplinary
practices, to identify which of the variables were related to
the maternal and paternal disciplinary practices, to identify
which of the variables were associated with effective and
ineffective parental disciplinary practices, and to examine
the effects of cumulative risk factors on ineffective
disciplinary practices.

This study was designed to look at parental disciplinary

practices more comprehensively than most prior research.

Factors that may contribute to parental disciplinary
practices were grouped into three major categories: (1) child
factors, (2) parental factors, and (3) family contextual
factors.

The subjects for this study consisted of 120 mothers and
120 fathers of two to six year old children attending a
university child development laboratory as well as families
on the waiting list for the program.

Self-report questionnaires were used to collect data on
the following variables: 1) family background
characteristics; 2) child temperament; 3) quality of life; 4)
social support; 5) intergenerational transmission of
parenting; and 6) parental disciplinary practices.

Descriptive analysis, zero-order correlations, MANOVA,
multiple regression analyses, t-test, and chi-square analyses
were used for data description and analysis.

The results of this study indicate that the
characteristics of the child, parent, and contextual factors

all contribute to the parental disciplinary practices.

DEDICATION

I'd like to take this opportunity to dedicate this

dissertation to my parents.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writing and completion of this dissertation would
have been impossible without the invaluable support,
insights, and guidance from the following people whom I wish
to acknowledge and express sincere gratitude: Dr. Marjorie
Kostelnik, Dr. Lillian Phenice, Dr. Alice Whiren, and Dr.
Harvey Clarizio. My greatest appreciation goes to Dr.
Marjorie Kostelnik, my major professor, for her concern,
interest, and direction.

My deep appreciation is extended to Dr. Tom Luster and
Dr. Unhai Rhee for their time, comments, and guidance,
especially with their knowledge of data analysis.

In addition to the members of my committee, I am deeply
indebted to the respondents, who made this study possible.

Special thanks are also extended to the Department of
Family and Child Ecology and College of Human Ecology for
their financial support through Beatrice Paolucci Memorial
Scholarship, Eugene O. Peisner Scholarship, College of Human
Ecology Dissertation Fellowship, Society of Human Ecology
Conference Scholarship, Beatrice Paolucci Symposium
Scholarship, Teaching Assistantships, and Undesignated
Fellowships throughout my graduate program.

Finally, a very special gratitude goes to my dear

parents who provided me tremendous support, encouragement,

and love throughout my entire program. I also thank for my
brother for his patience and understanding of my roller

coaster ride of emotions.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

Purpose of the Study

Theoretical Framework

Conceptual and Operational Definitions
Overview

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Goals of Discipline
Parental Discipline Philosophies and Practices
Child Factors

Child Temperament and Parenting .

Other Child- Related Factors and Parenting.
Parental Factors . . . .
Family Contextual Factors . . . .

Socioeconomic, Ethnic, and Cultural Factors

and Parenting

Employment Status and Satisfaction and

Parenting . . . .

Quality of Life.

Stress and Parenting.

Social Support (Network) and Parenting

Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting

Summary . .

METHODOLOGY

Research Design
Dependent and Independent Variables
Sample Selection and Description
Research Questions .
Description of Instrumentation .
Parenting Disciplinary Practice
Demographic Information
Temperament .
Parental Social Support
Quality of Life .
Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting

vii

Page

H

H+4
LDFJO\hub

16
18
22
23

30
31

32
36

39
43
46
48

49
49

53
53
54
55
55
57
58
59

IV.

Data Collection Procedures
Data Analysis
Summary

RESULTS

Research Question One
Research Question Two
Research Question Three
Research Question Four
Summary

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary .

Conclusions .

Discussion of the Findings
Limitations of the Research
Suggestions for Future Research

APPENDICES

.APPENDIX A: Parenting Scale. .

APPENDIX B: Demographic Questionnaire . .

APPENDIX C: Colorado Temperament Inventory .

APPENDIX D: Social Provisions Scale

APPENDIX E: Quality of Life Measure

APPENDIX F: Intergenerational Transmission of
Parenting Scale

APPENDIX G: Cover Letter

APPENDIX H: Consent Form

APPENDIX I: Letter from Director to
Participants

.APPENDIX J1 UCRIHS Approval

BIBLIOGRAPHY

viii

Page

61
62
63

65
67
76
79
83

84
86
87
93
94

97
100
102
104
106

107
108
110
111
112

113

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

10:

11:

LIST OF TABLES

Variables and Instruments .
Sample Demographic Characteristics

MANOVA of Differences Between Disciplinary
Practices of Mothers and Fathers .

Zero-Order Correlations Among the Predictor
Variables of Mothers

Zero-Order Correlations Among the Predictor
Variables of Fathers

Zero-Order Correlations: The Relations
between the Predictor Variables and the
Disciplinary Practices

Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis:
Predictors of the Disciplinary Practices

Comparison of Ineffective and Effective
Disciplinary Practices of Mothers

Comparison of Ineffective and Effective
Disciplinary Practices of Fathers

Probability of Mothers and Fathers with
Ineffective Disciplinary Scores

Summary of the Findings

ix

Page
14

52

66

68

7O

72

75

77

79

82

83

LIST OF FIGURE

Page

Figure 1: Theoretical Model . . . . . 10

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Parenting has been described as the most challenging and
complex task of adulthood. The parents of today may face
unprecedented levels of social and economic stress due to
major contextual changes. The growing incidence of such
significant contemporary problems as the growth of one-parent
families, mothers in the labor force, single-parent
households, and poverty makes parenting increasingly
difficult.

Among the many aspects of parenting researchers have
studied, early parental disciplinary practices have been
recognized as important factors in the socialization of
children, because disciplinary episodes between parents and
toddlers occur as frequently as once every 6 to 9 minutes
(Power & Chapieski, 1986). This leads to the early emergence
of stable patterns of interactions between parents and
children. Moreover, there is a significant association
between parental disciplinary behaviors and preschoolers'
behavior and development. Overall, the presence of poor
disciplinary practices is likely to maintain or exacerbate
negative child behavior. For instance, Patterson and his

colleagues (1989) have shown that the frequent occurrence of

 

coercive cycles between parent and child can undermine the
child’s acquisition of prosocial behavior and positive social
interactional skills. Inconsistent, irritable, explosive,
inflexible, rigid, harsh parental discipline, and love
withdrawal have been associated with child problems such as
antisocial and delinquent behavior (McCord, 1979), depression
(Gelfand & Teti, 1990), child noncompliance, aggression
(Forgatch, 1991), and irritable child temperament (Lee &
Bates, 1985).

In contrast, nonpunitive, supportive parenting
practices and parental use of reasoning and induction have
been linked to higher levels of child moral reasoning,
maturity, prosocial behavior, and altruism, as well as
increased popularity with peers (Dekovic & Janssens, 1992;
Shaffer & Brody, 1981; Eisenberg, 1986).

Much of the parenting literature in the past 50 years
has dealt with differences in parental disciplinary
practices. For example, there is evidence that parents react
differently to the misbehavior of boys and girls (Yarrow,
Waxler, & Scott, 1971) and that they respond differently to
younger children than older children (Dishion & Patterson,
1992). Knowledge about how mothers and fathers differ in
disciplinary strategies has recently been recognized as
important in the socialization of children. A study by
Lytton & Romney (1991) reported that fathers tend to

differentiate more than mothers between boys and girls, and

Holden and Zambarano (1992) found that mothers tended to
approve of physical punishment less than fathers. Recent
research also suggests that mothers tend to reflect upon and
are more accepting of alternate explanations of children's
behavior than fathers (McGillicuddy-DeLisi, 1992). Trickett
& Kuczynski (1986) have suggested that parents tend to use
power-assertive discipline for high-arousal transgressions,
reasoning or inductive discipline for conventional social
transgressions, and reasoning and punishment for moral
transgressions. Their results also indicate that physically
abusive parents use punishment as their predominant strategy
for all types of child transgressions. Thus, taken together.
the evidence indicates that most parents use different
disciplinary techniques, depending on the characteristics of
the child, the characteristics of the parent, as well as the
circumstances in which discipline is required.

Nonetheless, there are few empirical studies on the
possible comprehensive nature of the relationships of
observed differences in parenting children. It seems
unlikely that any one factor would be sufficient to examine
the similarities and differences in the ways that parents
rear their children. It is, therefore, important to
understand the complex multiple variables that affect

discipline related interactions between children and parents.

W

Despite the fact that much research has focused on
parental disciplinary practices, most studies have looked at
only a few isolated variables at any one time. Also most
research has focused on uni—directional influence (e.g., from
parent to child or from child to parent), resulting in
relatively few studies that have addressed the influence of
broader contextual factors on parenting children.

Furthermore, most studies have tended to pay much more
attention to the mother's role in shaping the child than they
have to the father's role (Sigel, Dreyer, & McGuillicuddy-
Delisi, 1984) Until recently, the role and impact of the
father in chid care has been overlooked. With more dual
earner households, the father's influence in various aspects
of child development is now being increasingly recognized.
Therefore, the present research contributes to this
recognition of multiple contexts and the paternal role in
child rearing in order to advance understanding of
differences in parental disciplinary practices toward

children.

W

Parents use many different strategies to teach their
young children right from wrong. This is often referred to
as parental disciplinary practices. Some parental

disciplinary practices lead to negative outcomes in children

such as high rates of child misbehavior and high levels of
childhood aggression. Effective parenting practices, on the
other hand, lead to low levels of noncompliance and low
levels of aggressive behavior in children. These impacts
appear by almost age two and appear to be lasting. Many
factors seem to influence these practices including the
child's personality, family traditions, and other family
factors. This study is designed to explain the unique
combination of factors that influences how parents go about
the important task of teaching their child how to behave.

This study is based on the premise that it is essential
to investigate the dynamic influence of multiple, contextual
variables on parental disciplinary practices. A variety of
factors that may be associated with parental disciplinary
practices with their children will be studied. These will be
grouped into three major categories: (1) child factors, (2)
parental factors, and (3) family contextual factors.

In order to achieve the purpose of this research, the
following objectives were developed for this research.

1) To determine if there are differences between
mothers and fathers in their disciplinary practices;

2) To determine the extent of associations between the
identified child, parent, and contextual variables and
parental disciplinary practices;

3) To identify which of the identified child, parent,

and contextual variables have an effect on the effective and

ineffective parental disciplinary practices;
4) To examine the combined effects of risk factors on
the ineffective disciplinary practices of mothers and

fathers.

W

The theoretical framework underlying the present
research is comprised of principles derived from Belsky's
“Determinants of Parenting Model.” The model summarizes and
organizes many variables related to parenting. Viewing the
family as a system through systems theory acknowledges that
these influences are complex and that there are many
variables that affect the parents, the child, and any
interactions between them directly and indirectly. More
specifically, “the model presumes that parenting is directly
influenced by forces emanating from within the individual
parent (personality), within the individual child (child
characteristics of individuality), and from the broader
social context in which the parent—child relationships is
embedded - specifically, marital relations, social networks.
and occupational experiences of parents. Furthermore, the
model assumes that parents' developmental histories, marital
relations, social networks, and jobs influence individual
personality and general psychological well—being of parents
and, thereby, parental functioning and, in turn, child

development (Belsky, p.84, 1984)."

Rather than focusing solely on the child and family
microsystem, the ecological model calls our attention to the
possibility that any element in the entire system may
influence or interact with any Other. Within this
perspective, the context for development is not seen as a
simple stimulus environment, but rather as an ecological
environment (Bronfenbrener, 1979). In other words, this
approach emphasizes that the process of developmental change
between children and parents is reciprocally embedded in
multiple contextual environments. The essential idea is that
organism and context cannot be separated (Lerner, 1984).

Parenting involves bi-directional relationships between
members of two (or more) generations and reciprocal relations
between individuals and the multiple levels of contexts
within which they live (Lerner, 1986). In other words, the
parent-child relationship does not exist in isolation. Both
the child and the parent have other social roles which lead
into social relationships with other groups of people.
Parents are also spouses, adult children of their own
parents, workers, and neighbors. Children also may be
siblings, friends of other children, and students. The sorts
of relationships in which children and parents engage in
outside of their role of child or parent can be expected to
impact on the quality of the parent-child relationship
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979). For this reason, the factors

that may link to parental disciplinary behaviors with their

children can be grouped into three major categories: (1)
child factors, (2) parental factors (3) family contextual
factors.

Child factors are important contributors to parenting.
Characteristics of the child such as gender, temperament, or
birth order have been shown to influence parental behavior
(Bates, 1980; Campbell, 1979). In regard to parental
factors, various aspects of parental characteristics have
been studied in relation to their disciplinary behavior.
There is strong evidence that parenting attitudes and
practices are also a complex result of parental age, marital
status, employment status, and education level (Fox, 1995;
Hashima & Amato, 1994; Kelley et al., 1992; Polit & Falbo,
1987). Considering the family context is important in
understanding differences in parental disciplinary behaviors.
The influence of family contextual factors such as number of
children living at home, family size, SES, ethnic and
cultural background, social support, stress level, and
history of parenting on parental disciplinary practices has
been found (Crockenberg, 1987; Rauh et al., 1990; Turner &
Avison, 1985). The research addressing the adverse effects
of numerous individual risk factors for parents such as
marital distress, single parent status, parental depression.
chronic stress, daily hassles, and poverty on studies of the
parent-child relationships seem to indicate that the

relationships are indeed adversely affected.

As previously mentioned, there is persuasive evidence
that characteristics of the child, characteristics of the
caregiver, and of the caregiving environment all affect
parenting. It is therefore important to understand the
complex multivariate processes that influence parental
disciplinary behaviors from an ecological perspective.

Based on Belsky's “Determinants of Parenting Model", an
ecological model of parental disciplinary practices is

presented in Figure 1.

10

 

wmeSnwp owmnwpwwsmnk
mHmonMnmm

 

 

anwwa mmonowm

 

FemaUmHmamSn
*mwfinr OHQmH
»mmx

45mm

 

mmnmnnmw mwonomm

 

 

swam

*macomnwosmw bm<mp
»Mn35wown<\wmom
szmnwnwp mnwnCm

»mapwo<amsn mnwnCm

mwmcfim H” esmofimnwomp zoamw

 

 

nonnancwH wmononm

 

*Zmenww mmnwmmmonwos
*uoq mwnwmmmonwo:
»Hsnoam

*ZCSUmH 0m ndwwanms
Eocmwwnk 0m rwmm
umoowmw mcoponn

smwmnOHK 0m monounwam

mocnnm" u. wmpmww .Hmmpv mam <mwwmqwmm wamsnwmwma.*v w: nwm Hwnmwmncnm

11

2 I J i : I' J I E' . .

In this section, the major variables of the study will
be defined. Concepts used in this study will be defined
first. Where applicable, operational definitions follow
conceptual definitions.

1. Parenting is defined as the tasks of a parent such as
nourishing, protecting, guiding children's life throughout
the course of development.

2. Parent—child relationship refers to frequency, extent
and structure of interactions as well as the degree of
positive affect and closeness between parents and children.

3. Discipline is defined as the application of standards
(internal,external) to regulate conduct or behavior.

4. Parental disciplinary practice refers to the child
rearing techniques selected by parents to discipline their
children. In this particular study, the term parental
discipline style/method/behavior is used interchangeably with
parental disciplinary practice.

Operationally, parental disciplinary practice is
measured using Parenting Scale developed by Arnold et al.
(1993).

5. Temperament is conceptually defined as individual
differences in reactivity to internal and external
stimulation, and in patterns of motor and attentional self-
regulation (Sanson & Rothbart, 1996, p.229).

Operationally, temperament is determined by the parents'

12

response to the Colorado Childhood Temperament Inventory
(CCTI) (Rowe & Plomin, 1977).

6. Parental stress refers to the levels of tension and
difficulty experienced by parents as a result of the process
of adapting to the parenting role (Touliatos, Perlmutter. &
Straus, 1990).

7. Quality of life refers to an individual’s global
sense of well-being on present life (e.g., self, neighbors,
financial stability, health. standard of living, and life as
a whole) Operationally, the quality of life is assessed with
parental reports on the questionnaire items drawn from the
Perceived Quality of Life (POQL) measure (Andrews & Withey.
1976).

8. Parental social support is conceptually defined as
emotional, instrumental, or informational help that people
provide to an individual (Crockenberg, 1988).

With respect to families, emotional support refers to
expressions of empathy and encouragement that convey to
parents that they are understood and capable of working
through difficulties in order to do a good job in that role.

Instrumental support refers to concrete help that
reduces the number of tasks or responsibilities a parent must
perform, typically household and child care tasks.
Informational support refers to advice or information
concerning child care or parenting (p.141).

Operationally, parental social support is measured by
parental reports on the Social Provisions Scale (Russell &
Cutrona, 1987).

9. Intergenerational transmission of parenting is

conceptually defined as the process through which an earlier

13

generation influences the parental attitudes and behaviors of
the next generation toward childrearing (Van Ijzendoorn,
1992). Supportive parenting means that parents show concern
about their child's feelings, manifest love and acceptance,
and help with problems (Simons et al., 1992). Harsh
parenting refers to instances of yelling, spanking, slapping,
shoving, or hitting the child with an object (Arnold et al..
1993).

Operationally, two measures will be used as indicators
of the extent to which the parents experienced supportive or
harsh parenting from their own parents. The supportive
Discipline Scale has been adapted from Simons et al. (1992)
and the Harsh Parenting Scale has been adapted from Straus et
al. (1980).

A summary of variables and instruments is presented in

Table.1

14

Table 1: Variables and Instruments

W

Ifllflflflflllnfi.

 

Child Factors

 

Sex

Demographic Sheet

 

Temperament

Colorado Childhood Temperament
Inventory (1977)

 

Birth Order

Demographic Sheet

 

Parental Factors

 

1v

Age

Demographic Sheet

 

Educational Level

Demographic Sheet

 

Race/Ethnicity

Demographic Sheet

 

Marital Status

Demographic Sheet

 

Job Status

Demographic Sheet

 

Contextual Factors

 

Number of Children Living at
home

Demographic Sheet

 

Household Income

Demographic Sheet

 

Marital Satisfaction

Quality of Life Measure

 

Job Satisfaction

Quality of Life Measure

 

Quality of Life

Quality of Life Measure

 

Social Support

Social Provisions Scale (1974)

 

Intergenerational Transmission
of Parenting

Supportive Discipline Scale
(1982)
Harsh Discipline Scale (1980)

 

MW

 

Parental Disciplinary Practices

 

Parenting Scale (1993)

15
mm

This chapter presented a statement of the problem, the
purpose of the study, a theoretical framework, and conceptual
and operational definitions. Literature relative to a
variety of factors that may contribute to parental
disciplinary practices toward their children is reviewed in
Chapter II. In chapter III, methods for carrying out the
investigation are discussed. An analysis of the data and
results of the study are presented in Chpater IV. Summary.

discussion and implications are explicated in Chapter V.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In this chapter, a comprehensive review of research
literature is organized around five major topics to provide
the basis for the research questions and hypothesis of this
study. These topics are: l) the goals of discipline, 2)
parental discipline philosophies and practices, 3) child
factors, 4) parental factors, and 5) family contextual

factors.

3 J E I' . J'

The discipline of young children in the parenting
process has been a central issue for decades to many parents
and researchers, both because children do not raise
themselves and because young children are dependent on their
parents for direction, socialization, and nurturance.

One of the most important jobs of parents is to teach
children what are socially desirable acts and what are
inappropriate behaviors. Although children are born as
social beings, they are not born socially competent. This
means that children need to be reminded constantly of the
difference between acceptable and unacceptable behavior from

a very young age.

16

17

Socialization enables children to acquire the knowledge.
skills, and character traits in order to participate as
effective members of groups and society. Among many
significant agents of socialization such as the family, the
school, the peer group, the media, and the community, in the
early years parents, within the family environment, are
usually the most critical influence in the socialization of
children. In particular, there is strong evidence that
helping children develop autonomy and self-regulation during
early childhood is extremely crucial, because poor social
behavior may impair well-being in adolescence and adulthood.
For example, children who are aggressive, or undercontrolled
at early ages often persist in this pattern (Caspi, Elder, &
Bem, 1987; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989), with long—
term repercussions which include negative reports from
teachers, poor performances in school, and rejection by
peers. These consequences may result in violent delinquent
behavior during adolescence.

Initially, young children are dependent on external
control such as rewards, punishments, and the presence of
authority figures to guide their behaviors. They have no
internal sense of right and wrong and no means of figuring
out how to conduct themselves appropriately in unfamiliar
situations. As children get older and mature with parents'
guidance, nurture and support, most of them become self-

disciplined and develop their own sense of right and wrong

18

and thus have a guide for how to behave appropriately in
various kinds of circumstances, without the need for constant
reminders and the presence of an authority figure. They are
not preoccupied with gaining the approval of others or a
quest for external rewards (Kostelnik et al., 1993).

In sum, the practical question of how to raise
contented, competent, self—disciplined children is a major
issue for parents. An additional review of the literature
concentrating on to what extent parental use of specific
discipline techniques affects a child's internalization is

undertaken in the next section.

E | 1 1' . ]' £1°J 1. i E I'

First, historical views of parenting are considered
along with a review of modern-day theories of parenting with
regard to discipline.

In the late 1600s, Locke, (1693/1964) in a treatise
entitled “Some Thoughts Concerning Education” , provided a
practical guide to a father about rearing a son. Locke
expressed a concern that children might be spoiled by too
much love, material rewards, and servants. His view of
individual differences in children, of the superiority of
discipline through reasoning as opposed to corporal
punishment and the importance of parental role models were
presented. Girls were not mentioned in Locke's work. In the

late 17005, the ideas of Wollstonecraft suggested that both

19

boys and girls need a warm and loving environment.

Within the parenting literature of the last 50 years.
individual investigators have conceptualized types of
parental styles of discipline in a variety of ways.

Maccoby and Martin (1983), for example, proposed a two
dimensional classification of parenting behaviors. These
authors suggest that parents differ on dimensions of
demandingness and reponsiveness. Demandingness refers to the
degree to which parents maintain expectations for their
children's behavior and attempt to control the outcome of
their children’s development. Responsiveness refers to the
degree to which parents accept or reject their children.

Hoffman (1983) described three distinct kinds of
disciplinary practices used by parents. In the first kind.
power assertive techniques involve the use of physical force,
deprivation of possessions or privileges, direct commands, or
threats. In contrast to power assertion, the inductive
discipline approach attempts either to point out the effect
of the child's behavior on others or give an understanding of
the reasoning behind the discipline, whereas in the case of
love withdrawal techniques, “the parent simply gives direct.
but nonphysical, expressions to anger or disapproval of the
child for engaging in some undesirable behavior” (p.247).

Baumrind (1972b) assessed patterns of parental behavior
using lengthy interviews, standardized test instruments, and

observations of parent-child interactions at home, and

20

distinguished between three styles of parenting in which the
types of control and warmth varied, namely: 1) authoritarian.
2) authoritative, 3) permissive. Baumrind and her collegues
found that parenting behaviors in 77 percent of their
families fitted into one of three patterns.

The first style of parenting which she called
authoritarian approaches to childcaring are characterized by
arbitrary and power-oriented limit setting. Authoritarian
parents, for example, emphasize that their children conform
to their expectations and value obedience as a virtue. They
tend to favor forceful punitive measures (i.e., physical
punishment, shame, and ridicule) without talking to their
children about the misbehavior and the reason for the
punishment. A study by Michels (1993) examined the
relationship between physical discipline at home and
children's acting-out behaviors at school. Children who
received frequent physical discipline (at least once per
week) acted out significantly more than those who received
infrequent physical discipline. Baumrind refers to a second
pattern of childrearing as authoritative parenting. It
encourages children to be independent but still set limits
and rules and imposes consequences for failure to comply.
The authoritative parents value self-assertion, willfulness.
and individuality, and foster these characteristics by
reasoning with the child about the specific misbehavior.

They balance high control with high independence-granting,

21

and high standards for maturity with much support and
nurturance. A third type of parenting is permissive
parenting. It is a style in which the parent allows the
child excessive freedom of expression and places too few
constraints on his/her children's behavior. Permissive
parents appear cool and uninvolved.

There are numerous studies examining the types of
discipline discussed by Baumrind. Authoritarian or power-
assertive approaches were likely to be associated with lower
levels of social competence, reflected either in social
withdrawal, or unfriendly, suspicious, resentful, and unhappy
or aggressive and explosive behavior. Children who grow up
under a permissive parenting style tend to get along poorly
with peers and to be bossy, aggressive, and rebellious. Of
the three styles, children of permissive parents also have
the lowest levels of independence and self-control.
Authoritative and supportive childrearing strategies are
associated with social competence in relations with with
peers, sensitivity to others' feelings, a higher level of
cooperation and responsibility, healthier adjustment and
higher achievement, and much lower rates of behavioral
problems in young children than either authoritarian parental
behavior or permissive parental behavior (Denham, Renwick, &
Holt, 1991; Hart, Dewolf, Wozniak, & Burts, 1992; Lamborn,
Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Maccoby & Martin, 1983;

Baumrind, 1967. 1971).

22

Maccoby and Martin (1983) have reported findings
suggesting that limit—setting and control appear to be most
effective in the context of a positive affective relationship
between mother and child, and that this is partly a function
of the reciprocity in the relationship that has developed
over the course of the first year. In addition, laboratory
findings demonstrate that timing (Parke & Walters, 1967),
intensity (Parke, 1969), and consistency (Sawin & Parke,
1969) of negative consequences can greatly influence the
effectiveness of discipline.

Taken together, there is some consensus that parental
warmth and responsiveness, and clear, firm, consistent, and
appropriate consequences in combination with effective
techniques and appropriate limit setting have implications

for optimal parental discipline.

W

This section explores some of the important aspects of
the child's contribution to parenting. In other words, how
parents behave toward their children depends to a large
degree on how the children have influenced their parents to
behave. Such child influences are termed child factors.
Child factors appear to play a critical role in determining
parental discipline. Child factors likely include important
individual child characteristics such as temperament, gender,

and birth order.

23
i] 13 i .

Children differ from each other from early infancy and
many researchers attribute these individual differences to
child temperament.

In the early work of the New York Longitudinal Study
(NYLS), Thomas, Chess, and their colleagues (1963) analyzed
infants' reactions to everyday situations on the basis of
interviews with 22 parents of infants. They identified a set
of nine temperament categories: Activity Level, Rhythmicity,
Approach versus Withdrawal, Adaptability, Intensity.
Threshold, Quality of Mood, Distractibility, and Attention
Span/Persistence. They also classified three major
behavioral patterns, namely “difficult,” “easy,” and “slow-
to-warm-up” infants. Difficultness describes those who are
prone to show negative mood, withdrawal, low adaptability.
high intensity, and low regularity (Thomas et al., 1963).
The opposite pole of this measure was described as “easy.”
The “slow-to-warm-up” child is described as one who does not
respond well to changes in his/her environment. In their
longitudinal investigation, Thomas and Chess (1991) found
that 40 percent of children they studied could be classified
as “easy,” 10 percent as “difficult,” and 15 percent as
“slow-to-warm-up.” 35 percent of children in the study could
not be readily classified as belonging to any of the three
temperamental styles.

A major idea which Thomas and Chess have suggested is

24

that the child's temperament must be considered in any

discussion of appropriate parenting, because child

temperament plays a key role in that an irritable, difficult-

to-train child definitely alters the behavior of his or her

parent (Anderson, Lytton, & Romney, 1986). The importance of

“goodness of fit” between the child's temperament style and
the patterns of child rearing used by parents has also been

stressed. In other words, because “difficult” children are

more demanding to parents, the usual parenting strategies may

be ineffective with them. They may also often elicit poorer

parenting. Crockenberg & Acredolo (1983), for example, found

that mothers are less engaged with their babies if they are
diffftult or irritable. It is also true that extremely
difficult, stubborn, and aggressive children wear their
parents out, causing them to become lax, less affectionate.
and possibly even hostile and uninvolved (Anderson et al..
1986; Lytton, 1990).

There has been empirical attention paid to issues
surrounding a difficult temperament as contributing to the
everyday stressors of parenting. Children's temperamental
styles, and especially those that reflect more difficult
temperaments, offer the most salient child characteristics
for everyday stress considerations. Hinde (1989), for
instance, has provided evidence for links between distress-
related temperament attributes such as irritability.

difficultness, negative mood and poor parenting and general

25

parent unresponsiveness. Likewise, Kyrios & Prior (1990)
have found associations between a child's positive affect and
self-regulation, and parental responsiveness, social
interaction, and use of rewards. The direction of causation
is not clear in these studies. Lee and Bates (1985) have
reported that difficult children more often approach
situations that cause them “trouble” than do children with
easy temperaments and thus mothers of difficult children
might use intrusive, controlling techniques to keep them out
of trouble.

A number of studies have established a relationship
between children’s temperamental fearfulness and anxiety and
parental child-rearing methods. The model proposed by
Dienstbier (1984) suggests, for instance, that children who
are temperamentally less likely to experience discomfort
after transgressing may inspire harsh parental moral
socialization practices. Conversely, some children are prone
to distress upon wrongdoing, and may inspire gentle
discipline. For children who are relatively fearful and
anxious, lower power approaches by parents may be effective
because they are likely to lead to the optimal level of
discomfort and thus promote internalization of moral
standards. However, for children who are relatively fearless
and not anxiety prone, simply increasing the amount of
applied power may not be effective, as a high power approach

is almost detrimental to internalization (Kochanska. 1993).

26

A study by Kochanska (1995) has found support for
Dienstibier's model that children's temperamental
fearfulness/anxiety proneness plays a significant role in the
development of internalization. The correlation between
fearfulness and behavioral internalization without
surveillance was significant for girls (r=.35) but not boys
(r=.17).

Several longitudinal investigations reveal that
temperamental characteristics of a child are stable over
time. A recent study by Pedlow et al. (1993) found a high
level of stability for such temperament factors as Approach,
Irritability, Cooperation-manageability, Inflexibility.
Rhythmicity, and Persistence during the period from infancy
to 8 years.

Taken together, temperament is without doubt an
important aspect of the child's contribution to the parent-

child relationship.

2|] il'li—E J i E | i E |°
In addition to the issues regarding the child's
temperament discussed above, other child factors are
highlighted in this section. Clearly the sex of the child is
an important factor in parent-child interaction. There is
strong evidence that committed, wholehearted compliance was
higher for girls than for boys, and passive noncompliance was

higher for boys than for girls after a parental request

27

(Kochanska & Askan, 1995; Kuczynski et al., 1987). Lytton
(1979) also found that the boys were less inclined to obey
their mothers than they were their fathers. But when their
fathers were present, they were more likely to be responsive
to their mothers' commands and prohibitions. In addition,
girls are more inclined than boys to rely on polite
suggestions, cooperation, and verbal negotiations rather than
forceful, demanding and individualistic strategies to
persuade others (Maccoby, 1988). These gender differences in
compliance may have an important influence on the type of
parenting style adopted by the parents.

Other aspects of the sex differences during childhood
have been examined. Boys are rougher and engage in more
verbal taunting and physical fighting than girls, starting as
early as age 2 (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1987; Hyde, 1984). These
gender differences in aggression are found in all social
classes and all cultures (Parke & Slaby, 1983). Biological
explanations for sex differences emphasize the organizing and
activating effects of hormones (i.e., androgen,
testosterone). Social-learning theorists rely on the
processes of reward, punishment, and imitation to account for
sex differences. For instance, aggressive behavior is a more
socially acceptable for boys than it is for girls (Maccoby &
Jacklin, 1987). Girls who engage in physical aggression tend
to be rejected by peers and reprimanded by adults (Fagot &

Hagan. 1982).

28

In particular, a number of investigators have examined
how the sex of the child influences parental disciplinary
practices, as boys and girls turn out so differently. This
is a continuation of the nature and nurture question that has
been a central issue in the discussion about the rearing of
boys and girls. Obviously, the sex of the child is an
important factor in rearing children from birth. Often the
first information that parents receive about their child is
his or her sex, and that the very first question most friends
and relatives ask is the child's sex (Intons-Peterson &
Reddel, 1984). In addition, parents often call an infant son
things like “big guy” or “tiger,” whereas female infants are
more likely to be labeled “sugar” or “sweetie” (Maccoby.
1980). Besides, parents and others provide gender
prescriptive environments by such means as the choice of
clothes, toys, and playmates for the child from birth.

Clear evidence exists indicating that there are strong
associations between the sex of the child and parenting
approaches which leads to different developmental pathways.
Earls (1987), for example, has provided evidence that
throughout childhood more boys than girls are seen to have
adjustment problems. Furthermore there are clear
correlations for boys between a lack of monitoring, inept
discipline (particularly harsh and abusive discipline), and a
lack of problem solving to antisocial behavior, delinquency,

school failure, and a lack of self-esteem (Capaldi &

29

Patterson, 1991). Thus, taken together, parental discipline
appears to be a salient aspect of life that has a strong
potential influence on the differences in behavior between
boys and girls.

Despite the fact that much research has studied sex
differences and parental discipline methods, there is little
agreement on the extent to which boys and girls are treated
differently by their parents. Lytton and Romney (1991), for
instance, have reported findings from a meta-analysis of 172
studies suggesting that in North American studies parents are
likely to display encouragement of achievement.
restrictiveness and disciplinary strictness (including
physical punishment) slightly more toward boys, while parents
tend to show warmth and encouragement of dependence slightly
more toward girls. While most effect sizes were found to be
nonsignificant and small in this study, in 17 other
countries, including Australia, physical punishment is
applied significantly more to boys than to girls.

The predominant pattern emerging from data regarding the
effects of the sex of the child and the child's temperament
on parenting suggests a more tolerant response to boys'
difficultness, and a lower acceptance of difficultness in
girls, especially on the part of fathers (Rendina &
Dickerscheid, 1976; Sanson et al., 1993).

Much of the data on sex effects may be interpreted in

terms of different beliefs about the acceptability and

30

desirability of attributes for boys and girls, for example,
that boys will be active, intense, and hard to manage, and
need to stand up for themselves, whereas girls will be more
docile, and compliant, and need to be cooperative.

A number of investigators have found that birth order
effects the parent-child relationship. Results indicate that
mothers appear to be less tolerant and supportive, and more
controlling, demanding, intrusive and inconsistent with their
firstborns (Ward et al., 1988), especially when the firstborn
is a daughter (Baskett, 1984). Some investigators examined
the parent-child relationships of only children and reported
that only children have more positive relationships with
their parents and parents with one child spend more time than
do parents with two or three children (Falbo & Polit, 1986;

Lewis & Feiring, 1982).

W

This section addresses potential determinants of
parenting practices including the age of parents, marital
status, and education level.

Mothers who were younger, were single or unmarried, and
had a lower educational attainment were likely to report less
positive parenting practices concerning nurturing and
discipline and to use a more parent—oriented disciplinary
approach than comparison mothers (Fox, 1995; Kelley et al.,

1992). There is evidence that the vulnerability of women

31

rearing their children alone may affect parenting behavior
directly and indirectly through reduced social supports and
increased stress (Compas & Williams, 1990).

Hart (1994) compared maternal and paternal disciplinary
strategies based on individual interviews with parents (109
mothers, 109 fathers) of 109 middle-class preschool-age
children and found that fathers were prone to use power
assertive disciplining strategies while mothers reported
using more inductive reasoning in their disciplinary
strategies. However, Bentley (1991) reported that mothers of
children (aged 1-4 years) obtained significantly higher
nurturing scores than the fathers of the children did but
that developmental expectations and disciplinary strategies

did not differ between mothers and fathers.

Eamil¥_CQntsxtual_Eacths

Knowing something about family context is important in
understanding differences in parental disciplinary behaviors
and for predicting likely outcomes in young children.

The first section in the review of literature about
family system factors included family size, socioeconomic,
ethnic, and cultural backgrounds associated with parenting.
The second section presents the relevant study regarding
employment status and satisfaction and parenting. The third
section presents the relevant study regarding quality of

life. The following section summarizes prior research

32

studies that illustrate the effects of parental stresses on
the quality of parent-child relationships. In the next
section, an attempt is made to examine previous research on
the relationship between social support and networks on the
one hand, and positive and negative parenting discipline
practices on the other. Finally, the literature on the
subject of intergenerational transmission of parenting

behavior will be described.

I O I I O
"on ‘ o 0‘ to.“ 00 .00. . o. o .10.

Parents who had more than 1 child living at home and
those with large families were likely to report less positive
parenting practices (Nye et al., 1970). In a classic study
of large families, Bossard and Boll (1956) reported parenting
in large families stresses obedience and discipline. In
other words, as family size increases, parents are also more
autocratic (Elder, Liker, & Cross, 1984) and fathers become
more involved in childrearing (Lewis & Feiring, 1982).

The interaction among parents' SES and their
disciplinary behaviors toward their children has been
studied. In some of the earlier research on socioeconomic
status and parenting, Bronfenbrenner (1958) concluded that
“over the entire twenty-five-year period studied, parent-
child relationships in the middle-class are consistently

reported as more acceptant and egalitarian, while those in

33

the working-class are oriented toward maintaining order and
obedience” (p.420).

In addition, a classic study of the effects of social
class and parental child-rearing values and practices has
demonstrated similar relations (Kohn, 1963). A more recent
study by Sigel (1985) has noted, in support of previous
studies, that higher SES parents express more positive
attitudes toward independent behavior and responsibility from
their children than lower class parents, who favor obedient
behavior.

Other studies have consistently described higher SES
homes and higher income levels as being more democratic, less
punitive, and more child centered than homes with lower SES
parents (Fox, 1995; Hoffman, 1963; Gecas, 1979; Skinner,
1985). Similarly, Maccoby (1980) concluded that higher SES
parents tend to talk more with their children and reason with
them more and show more warmth and affection toward their
children than lower SES parents. Greater sensitivity and
flexibility towards the individuality of their children among
higher SES mothers might explain these patterns of parental
responses (Prior et al., 1989).

In overview, the literature on parenting makes it clear
that parents in different social strata child rearing
differently.

The research on ethnicity has demonstrated that ethnic

minority families differ from White American families in

34

their size, structure, and composition, their reliance on the
kinship networks, and their levels of income and education.
Large and extended families are more common among ethnic
minority groups than White Americans (Harrison et al., 1990).
Also ethnic minority parents are less well educated than
White Americans and ethnic minority children are more likely
to come from young, single-parent families, and low income
families than White American children (Spencer & Donbusch.
1990). And the extended family system in many ethnic
minority families provide an important buffer to stress
(Munsch & Wampler, 1992).

Several studies have examined the childrearing attitudes
and behaviors held by members of different ethnic groups in
the United States. In native-American families, children can
be treated permissively, in accord with a belief in the
importance of respecting children's autonomy (Phillips &
Lobar, 1990). African-American parental discipline practices
have been characterized as being comparatively more harsh,
authoritarian, and parent-focused than White American
practices (Baumrind, 1972a; Durrett et al., 1975). Mexican
American mothers were less authoritative but more protective
than African American or White American mothers (Durrett et
al., 1975). Hispanic-American mothers tend to be nurturant.
warm, and egalitarian, with relative permissiveness and

indulgence characterizing their behavior toward the young

 

35

(Vega, 1990). Finally, Asian American parents tend to be
highly lenient, nurturant, and permissive during infancy and
toddlerhood, while becoming stricter when children reach 3 to
6 years (Kelly & Tseng, 1992; Hess et al., 1980). The
literature on variations in parenting patterns suggests the
importance of taking into consideration the relationship
between acculturation and parenting styles.

In addition to differences among ethnic and minority
families, several cross—cultural studies indicate further
cultural differences in parenting styles. Whiting and
Edwards (1988) found mothers' behavior toward their children
in agricultural communities of Philippines, Mexico, and North
India to be more controlling than that of mothers in the U.S.
community of Orchard Town. However, a study by Solis-Camara
(1995) reported that Latin mothers from Mexico and Caucasian
mothers from the US did not differ significantly in their
developmental expectations or parenting practices when
demographic variables were controlled for formal educational
level, socioeconomic and marital status. Both samples
maintained higher expectations and reported more frequent use
of discipline with older children than with younger children.

In summary, ethnic, minority, and cultural groups are
characterized by relatively different parenting attitudes,

values, and behaviors.

36

| 1 5| | i S I' E I' i E I'

Ample data exist to suggest relations between parental
employment and parenting behavior. A study by Greenberger
and his colleagues (1994) found that parents with more
challenging and stimulating jobs and parents whose jobs
involve complex interactions with people, were associated
with less harsh disciplinary practices, more warmth, and
greater responsiveness.

Interest in the role of maternal employment and
parenting has been coincident with the increase in mothers'
employment over the past 40 years (A.E.Gottfried, Bathurst, &
A.W.Gottfried, 1994). Only 16 percent of U.S. children had
working mothers in 1950, and by 1970, 36 percent of the
children had mothers in the labor force. However by 1990,
this proportion had grown to 59 percent (Hernandez, 1993).
The single (male)-earner, intact, two—parent family is now in
the minority. Maternal unavailability during early childhood
because of employment was believed to be deprivational, as
psychoanalytic theory considered the mother to be of
unparalleled importance to her child's psychological
development (Bretherton, 1993).

Recently, mothers' satisfaction with employment and
parenting roles has been a significant issue. A positive
association between maternal job dissatisfaction and parental
use of rejecting behaviors has been noted (Lerner & Galambos.

1985). Women's dissatisfaction with their role as employed

37

mother was associated with negative moods. The mothers'
negative moods in turn influenced the incidence of their
rejecting and punishing behavior towards their children
(MacEwen & Barling, 1991). On the other hand, when mothers
are satisfied with their employment they tend to be more
authoritative and rely less on power assertive forms of
discipline to enforce rules (Greenberger & Goldberg, 1989).
Similarly, O'Neil (1991) assessed mothers in a variety of
middle-class occupations and found that those who described a
higher level of job demands (e.g.,time pressure and
performance expectation) reported lower involvement in
cognitively challenging activities with 5- and 6-year-old
sons. In contrast, high job demands were related positively
to mothers' reports of more involvement in cognitively
challenging interactions with daughters.

A positive trend regarding the greater involvement of
fathers in childrearing has been reported. The trend is most
distinct when the mother is employed and as her employment
hours increase (Biernat & Wortman, 1991). Moreover, paternal
unemployment and the unavailability or unaffordability of
high-quality day care have thrown many men into the role of
part-time or full—time caregiver for young children. Some
fathers have assumed increased or primary caregiving
responsibility (Ross, 1987).

Repetti (1992,1994) conducted research on the

relationship between daily fluctuations in job stressors

38

experienced by male air traffic controllers, and their self-
reported daily interactions with their children over a 3-
month period. He suggested that a higher perceived workload
(e.g., a busy day and difficult conditions) was associated
with an increase in withdrawal (i.e., fewer high-involvement
interactions such as helping with homework) by the fathers,
and fewer disciplinary efforts. Similarly, Moen (1982) found
that the more time and energy fathers devoted to their jobs,
the more irritable and impatient they were with their
children, as reported by both husbands' and wives' reports.
Taken together, these findings indicate that conditions of
parental employment significantly effects parenting

behaviors.

: ]'| E I'E
Two major studies on quality of life were conducted in

the early 1970s (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Campbell et al..
1976). Both studies demonstrated that an individual's
overall quality of life is additive. It reflects the sum of
one's satisfaction on various life domains. Domains include
self, standard of living, family life, marriage, friends,
neighbors, work, income, housing, health, and leisure
activities. Glenn and Weaver (1979) found that satisfaction
with marriage was the strongest predictor of quality of life
when other factors such as income, education, and occupation

were controlled.

39

An extensive body of research has found a negative
impact of stress on overall quality of life (Caplan, 1983).
In the following section, literature on the impact of

parental stress and social support on parenting is reviewed.

W

Other contextual factors, such as chronic stress and
daily hassles, as well as social isolation have been
documented as having significant effects on the parent's
ability to discipline and supervise his or her child. Hence.
numerous researchers have been concerned with investigating
the negative affects of stress on the quality of parenting
and on the functioning of the family system, both of which
influence the quality of a child's developmental functioning.

The relationship between family stress and less
effective parenting in preschool children has been clearly
documented. Thompson, Merritt, Keith, Bennett, & Johndrow
(1993) have reported findings suggesting that, with
demographic variables controlled for, higher levels of
maternal daily stress related to both parent- and child
reported adjustment difficulties. This study suggests that
parental stress and hassles are associated with coercive
parent-child interactions, and with disruptions in children’s
development. There is accumulating evidence that preschool
children are more likely to show overactive, noncompliant.

aggressive, and impulsive behavior in the context of

40

uninvolved, rejecting, or harsh parenting. Campbell and his
colleagues (1991), for example, have provided convincing
evidence that maternal reports of stressful life events and
marital distress were each associated with higher levels of
negative maternal control after controlling for children's
observed behavior.

The importance of understanding the connection of daily
hassles to parental disciplinary practices has been reported.
Snyder (1991) found that on days when mothers reported
negative mood and frequent hassles, they were more likely to
respond to child misbehavior in a negative way. In other
words, parents may respond to negatively biased perceptions
of their children's behavior by becoming more controlling and
punishing or by avoiding interactions with their child.

The literature regarding work-family stressors for
employed parents has emerged as a significant issue. Some of
the most contemporary work-related issues include work-family
conflict. Typical work-family conflict has been discussed
with regard to time availability, child care, work schedules.
and performing housework (VOydanoff, 1989). Furthermore.
Hughes and Galinsky (1988) found that one of the most salient
work-family stressors for maternal and dual parent employment
was associated with availability of adequate and stable child
care. For both men and women, being an employed parent held
more role strain than for nonparents.

Another topic in need of attention concerns marital

41

discord and its effect on parenting. Marital conflict, low
marital satisfaction and poor spousal support have been
associated with increased parenting stress by both men and
women. These marital problems are also associated with
inconsistent and punitive parenting as well as a lack of
parental agreement concerning discipline (Webster-Stratton,
1990; Stoneman, 1989; Jouriles et al., 1988).

There is emerging evidence that marital quality
moderates gendered parenting. Maritally dissatisfied
partners have been found to be more likely to differentiate
between their children on the basis of gender (Brody et al.,
1986).

There is evidence that minor parenting stressors affect
the quality of parenting children receive, as well as the
satisfaction that parents receive from the process of child-
rearing. Minor daily hassles experienced by mothers and
fathers were related to negative behavioral responses toward
their child. Mothers responding to more minor stressors
responded with greater negative affect. Fathers who reported
more hassles, on the other hand, tended more often to show no
response to their children (Acevedo, 1993).

McBride (1989) found that when mothers were employed
outside the home, fathers tended to perceive their roles as
being more restricted, experienced more depression in their
parental role, and saw their children being more moody and

demanding. He also notes that many working mothers have been

42

subject to the stress associated with the multiple role
demands of being a parent and working outside the home. Most
fathers, on the other hand, have not, and may experience
stress as they attempt to meet the changing expectations for
paternal involvement of child care in response to maternal
employment.

As poverty rates of U.S. families have increased
gradually (Strawn, 1992), attention has been drawn to the
adverse effects on parenting behaviors caused by the stress
of living in poverty. Many studies reveal that economic
hardship has effects on a depression-loneliness distress
factor. Consequently parents were found to exhibit more
irritable and moody behavior, and to be less nurturant.
involved, and child centered. Poverty-stricken parents also
displayed more inconsistent disciplinary behavior toward
their children than parents who had few financial
difficulties (Conger et al., 1993; McLoyd & Wilson, 1991).
It has also been found that the reported incidence of
maltreatment is disproportionately large among families in
poverty (U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect,
1990). Likewise, socially isolated families and increased
family size (total number of children living in the
household) have both been associated with higher rates of
child abuse than other families (Hashima & Amato, 1994; Corse
et al., 1990; Zurabin, 1988).

In summary, stressors appear to have the power to

43

disrupt parenting practices. In turn, such parenting
practices may increase the presence of children's reported
behavioral problems which may activate a cycle of negative
parent-child interactions and place additional stress on

parents (Mash & Johnston, 1990; Webster-Stratton, 1990)

S . J E | HI 1) i I I.

There has been empirical attention devoted to issues
surrounding the “buffering” view of social support and to
networks of parenting.

Weiss (1974) describes six different social provisions
that may be obtained from relationships with others. He
contends that all six provisions are needed for individuals
to feel adequately supported and to avoid loneliness.
although different provisions may be most crucial in certain
circumstances or at different stages of the life cycle. The
six social provisions are: guidance (advice or information);
reliable alliance (the assurance that other can be counted
upon for tangible assistance); reassurance of worth
(recognition of one's competence, skills, and value by
others); opportunity for nurturance (the sense that others
rely upon one for their well-being); attachment (emotional
closeness from which one derives a sense of security); and
social integration (a sense that belonging to a group that
shares similar interests, concerns, and recreational

activities).

44

Many writers have stressed the importance of the support
from family, relatives, neighbors and friends. Numerous
studies have found that for mothers and fathers, spousal
support of both the emotional (e.g., love, intimacy) and
instrumental (e.g., child care tasks) variety and marital
satisfaction levels are associated with skillful parenting.
This holds true for parents in various countries, and for
parents of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers (Belsky &
Isabella, 1988; Goldberg & Easterbrooks, 1984; Bristol et
al., 1988).

There is strong evidence that the mother's access to
social support moderates the effects of everyday parenting
stresses (Crnic & Greenberg, 1990). The marital relationship
is the primary support system for parenting. Mothers in
happy marriages are warmer and more sensitive to their
children, and their husbands hold more positive childrearing
attitudes than do husbands in less happy relationships (Cox
et al., 1989). The types of relationships in other social
networks in which children and parents engage when “outside”
of their role of child or parent, respectively, can be of
secondary influential capacity on the parent-child
relationship (Belsky & Vondra, 1989; Simons et al., 1993).
Several studies, for example, have demonstrated that more
supportive maternal networks, and satisfaction with one's
network are associated with less restrictive, more nurturant

parenting, more praise for children and a less intrusive

45

style of interaction (Nelson et al., 1993; Corse et al.,
1990; Belsky, 1984; Weinraub & Wolfe, 1983). Similarly,
Jennings et al. (1991) reported that mothers who are
satisfied with their social support exhibit more supportive.
affectionate behavior and a less intrusive style of
interaction.

Unlike previous investigators, Belle (1982) has proposed
that it is not network size, proximity of membership, or
frequency of contact that is associated with emotional well—
being but rather the number of people reported as engaged
specifically in providing child care assistance and the
availibility of “someone to turn to”.

Cochran and his colleagues (1990) have compared parents'
network membership across cultures (Sweden, United States,
Wales, West Germany), social class (blue collar vs. white
collar), and family structure (one- vs. two-parent families)
and have found that across cultures, mothers in white collar
families reported involvement with a higher number of network
members in every category of social support. The networks of
single mothers were smaller than those found in two parent
families, regardless of culture or class.

Cross (1990) has examined network size differences by
race and ethnicity, and has reported that the networks of
African American two-parent families were more than 25
percent larger than those of single mothers. Results also

suggest that the networks of ethnic white mothers were larger

46

than those of either nonethnic White or African mothers.
regardless of family structure.
In summary, the effects of stress on parenting can be

moderated or buffered by the availability of social support.

I I . 1 I . . E I .

Since the late 19405 investigators have looked at the
intergenerational transmission of attitudes toward
childrearing as a determinant of parenting behavior.

Several studies have demonstrated evidence for a strong
association between the type of parenting the father or
mother received as a child and the individual's subsequent
parenting practices (Egeland, Jacobvitz, & Papatola, 1987).

Laub and Sampson (1988), for example, have reported that
girls from families that use inept discipline and that lack
positive reinforcement consequently provide the same
treatment to their own children. It has been reported that
adults who are secure in their relationships with their own
parents provide more emotional support and assistance when
interacting with their young children (Crowell & Feldman,
1988; Grossmann et al., 1988). Crockenberg (1987) also found
that young mothers holding angry, punitive parenting
attitudes experienced little social support from a partner
after birth and had memories of being rejected by their own
parents during childhood. This study was based on 40 mothers

(aged 17—21 years at follow-up) who gave birth as adolescents

47

and their 2—year-old children.

In a large study of 451 two-parent families, each of
which included a 7th grader, in which intergenerational
transmission of harsh parenting was assessed, the
investigators reported that parents' attitudes toward harsh
discipline correlated with their reports of their own
parents' aggressive parenting. Results also indicate the
early transmission of attitudes toward spanking.
Interestingly, the effect was stronger for mothers than for
fathers (Simons et al., 1991).

There is convincing evidence indicating an association
between social class and parenting practices across
generations. The linkages that have been reported between
generations may merely represent the tendency of adult
children to replicate the lower social-class status of their
parents, with its accompanying stressors and life style, a
life style that may promote irritability and increase the
likelihood of harsh parenting (Burgess & Youngblade, 1988).

In summary, there is strong evidence that styles of
parenting are transmitted across generations. Furthermore.
the supportive and harsh parenting of one generation may
directly influence the parenting of the next generation

through a simple modeling effect.

48

Summarx

For several decades, researchers have documented the
relation between parental disciplinary practices and
developmental outcomes in children. The literature has found
that reasoning, which involves providing the child rationales
and explanations requiring compliance, promotes self—control
in children. On the other hand, power assertion, which
involves direct commands and punishments, provides external
motivations for compliance (Kuczynski, 1983).

Given the importance of parental disciplinary practices
for children, findings from these studies suggest a combined
influence of several factors on individual differences in
parental disciplinary practices. Such research reviewed also
provide persuasive evidence that characteristics of the
child, characteristics of the parent, and the context in
which the parent—child relationship is evolving affect
parental behaviors. The studies support Belsky's model that

parenting behavior is multiply determined.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter is divided into the following sections: 1)
Research Design, 2) Dependent and Independent Variables, 3)
Sample Selection and Description, 4) Research Questions, 5)
Description of Instruments, 6) Data Collection Procedures, 7)

Data Analysis.

W

A survey design was undertaken to achieve the objectives
of this study. The units of analysis examined were the
mothers and fathers of preschool age children. Self-report
questionnaires were used to collect data on the following
variables: 1) family background characteristics; 2) child
temperament; 3) quality of life; 4) social support; 5)
intergenerational transmission of parenting; and 6) parental

disciplinary practices.

W
The dependent variable in this study was parental
disciplinary practices. The study involved three sets of
independent variables: 1) child factors, which include sex,

temperament (sociability, soothability, activity level,

49

50

emotionality, attention span-persistence), and birth order;
2) parental factors, which include age, education level.
ethnic and cultural background, marital status and job
status; and 3) contextual factors, which include number of
children living at home, marital satisfaction, job
satisfaction, quality of life, social support, and

recollected childhood experiences.

5 J S J I. i I . I.

The subjects for this study consisted of 120 mothers and
120 fathers of two to six year old children. 474 mothers and
fathers whose children attended a university child
development laboratory as well as families on the waiting
list for the program were recruited. The mothers and fathers
of the children were informed about the research, and invited
to participate. Those who agreed to participate were
included in the study.

Table 2 presents a summary of the demographic
characteristics of the subjects. Approximately 58% of the
children were males, and most (64.2%) of the children were
first born. The age of the children included in the research
ranged from 19 to 70 months, with a mean of 44.9 months (SD =
12.3).

The age of the mothers ranged from 24 to 48 years, with
a mean of 35.3 years (SD = 4.91). The mean age for the

participating fathers was 37.58 (SD = 5.72). The range

51

spanned 29 years with the youngest father being 27 years old
and the oldest being 56 years old. Mothers and fathers in
the sample were highly educated. More than ten percent
(10.8%) of the mothers had only finished high school and
52.5% completed a college degree, while 7.5% of the fathers
finished high school and 31.7% completed a college degree.
Approximately thirty-four percent (34.2%) of the mothers and
57.5% of the fathers completed a master degree or above.
Mothers reported their occupational status as homemaker by
57.5%, professional by 22.6%. Fathers reported their
occupational status as professional by 50% and sales manager
by 20.8%. All subjects were married. These subjects also
represented different ethnic groups. More than seventy-four
percent (74.2%) of the mothers and 77.5% of the fathers were
Euro-American, 25.8% of the mothers and 22.5% of the fathers
were Asian. The Asian mothers and fathers represented
different citizenships, including Korean, Chinese, and
Japanese.

The average number of children at home for this sample
was 2.0 (SD = 0.8). with a range from 1 to 5. Family income
ranged from less than $15,999 to over $100,000 annually.
29.2% of families reported an income of over $100,000
annually, 36.7% between $50,000 and $99,999, 22.5% between
$25,000 and $49,999, 4.2% between $15,000 and $24,999, and

7.5% at less than $15,999.

.35!!! 5"... .ld‘l

52

Table 2

Sample Demographic Characteristics

 

Variable

 

Child Characteristica(N-120)

Male(%) 58.3
Female (%) 41.7
Age(months)
M 44.90
Range 19-70
Birth Order(%)
First born 64.2
Second born 25.0
Third born 8.3
Fourth born or greater 2.5
Parental Characteristics W W
Age(years)
M 35.30 37.58
Range 27-48 27-56
Education(%)
Less than high school graduate 0.0 0.8
High school graduate 2.5 2.5
Some education beyond
high school graduate 10.8 7.5
B.A/B.S degree 52.5 31.7
M.A./M.S. degree 23.4 22.5
Ph.D.,M.D.,J.D..D.D.S. 10.8 35.0
Occupation(%) .
Professional specialty 22.6 50.0
Self-employed businessman 5.0 7.5
Service 0.0 4.1
Homemaker 57.5 0.8
Student 7.5 13.3
Sales Manager 7.5 20.8
Other 0.0 3.3
Ethnicity(%)
Euro-American 74.2 77.5
Asian 25.8 12.5
Family Characteristics
Number of children
M 2.01
Range 1-5
Gross household Income(%)
Under $ 15,999 7.5
$ 15,000 - 24,999 4.2
$ 25,000 - 49,999 22.5
$ 50,000 - 99,999 36.7
$100,000 and over 29.2

 

 

53

W
The following research questions were explored in this
study:
1. What are the differences between mothers and fathers in

their disciplinary practices?

2. What are the child, parent, and contextual variables
most associated with parental disciplinary practices?

3. Which child, parent, and contextual variables.
identified in research question two, distinguish effective
and ineffective parental disciplinary practices?

4. What are the relationships between cumulative risk
factors and ineffective disciplinary practices of mothers and

fathers?

I . . E 1

The following research instruments were used in the
research: (a) The Parenting Scale, (b) The Demographic
Questionnaire, (c) The Colorado Childhood Temperament
Inventory, (d) The Social Provisions Scale, (e) Quality of
Life measure, (f) The Supportive Parenting Scale, (9) The
Punitive Parenting Scale.

The measure used to assess the parental disciplinary
practice is described first. This description is followed by

an overview of the predictor variables.

54

J . . I. E I.
Ibe_£a;en§ing_$gal§* The Parenting Scale developed by

Arnold et al (1993) was used to measure disciplinary
practices in parents of young children. Copies of the
Parenting Scale are located in Appendix A. Three factors
indicating a dysfunctional discipline style were identified:
(1) Laxness, (b) Overreactivity, and (c) Verbosity.

The Laxness factor included 11 items related to
permissive discipline. The Overreactivity factor consisted
of 10 items used to identify parenting mistakes such as
displays of anger, meanness, and irritability. The Verbosity
factor was composed of 7 items related to lengthy verbal
responses and a reliance on talking even when talking is
ineffective. For this study, the Verbosity subscale was
dropped in order to reduce the time parents spent completing
forms.

Each of the preceding items was paired with a more
effective counterpart to form the anchors of a 7—point scale.
For example, the mistake anchor of one item is I let my child
do whatever he or she wants, and its effective counterpart is
I set limits on what my child can do.

A total score was determined by totaling the ratings of
all 21 items. Scores can range from 21 to 147. Higher
scores indicated that the parent utilized a more effective
disciplinary practice.

The alpha reliability and test-retest reliability of the

55

Parenting Scale were examined by Arnold et al (1993). The
coefficients ranged from .82 to .84. The internal

consistency of this instrument for the present study sample
was also established. Cronbach’s alpha was .86 for laxness
subscale, .83 for overreactivity subscale, and .87 for total

scale.

I] E I. : I. .

Parents were asked information about the age, sex,
ordinal position of a target child in the family, number of
children living at home, as well as each parent's age, each
parent's highest level of education, and marital status.
Questions about the primary occupation of each parent,
employment status, and the gross income of each family, as
well as the ethnic and cultural background of the respondents

were also included (see Appendix B).

Temperament

TWW Child
temperament was assessed with the use of The Colorado
Childhood Temperament Inventory (CCTI) (Rowe & Plomin, 1977).
Copies of the CCTI are presented in Appendix C. This
instrument consists of twenty-five items. For each item,
parents are asked to circle one response on a five-point
scale ranging from “not at all like the child” to “a lot like

the child”. Five dimensions are derived from the individual

 

56

items: 1) sociability, 2) emotionality, 3) activity level, 4)
attention span—persistence, 5) soothability.

The internal consistency of each dimension reported by
Rowe and Plomin (1977) was as follows: sociability .88;
emotionality .80; activity level .82; attention span-
persistence .79; soothability .73. The test-retest
reliability of each dimension reported by Rowe and Plomin
(1977) was the following: sociability .58; emotionality .72;
activity level .80; attention span—persistence .77;
soothability .43. Data from this study were used to assess
the internal consistency of the five subscales. The
Cronbach's alpha for each dimension were as follows:
sociability .85; emotionality .86; activity level .78;
attention span-persistence .75; and soothability .81.

A total score for each dimension is achieved by summing
the ratings of 5 items. The highest possible score on this
scale is 25 and the lowest possible score is 5. High scores
on each subscale indicate that the child is very social,
emotional, active, persistent, and easy to soothe. Low
scores on the sociability dimension indicate that a) the
child doesn’t make friends easily, b) the child is not
friendly with strangers, c) the child is not sociable, d) the
child takes a long time to warm up to strangers, and e) the
child tends to be shy. Low scores on the emotionality
dimension indicate that a) the child doesn’t get upset

easily. b) the child tends not to be emotional. c) the child

 

57

doesn't react intensely when upset, d) the child rarely
cries, and e) the child rarely fusses. Low scores on
activity dimension indicate that a) the child is not
energetic, b) the child is not on the go, c) the child
prefers more active games to quiet, inactive ones, d) the
child is rarely off and running as soon as he wakes up in the
morning, and e) when the child moves about, he usually moves
slowly. Low scores on the attention span-persistence
dimension indicate that a) the child plays with a single toy
for short periods of time, b) the child doesn't persist at a
task until successful, c) the child goes from toy to toy
quickly, d) the child gives up easily when difficulties are
encountered, and e) with a difficult toy, the child gives up
quite easily. Finally, low scores on the soothability
dimension indicate that a) whenever the child starts crying,
he/she can hardly be distracted, b) when upset by an
unexpected situation, the child is slow to calm down, c) the
child doesn't stop fussing although someone talked to him/her
or picked him/her up, d) although talked to, the child
doesn't stop crying, and e) the child doesn't tolerate

frustration well.

W
W The parental levels of
social support were assessed through utilization of the

Social Provisions Scale (Russell & Cutrona, 1987; Appendix D)

58

to measure the six relational provisions of the social
support theory developed by Weiss (1974). The six provisions
of social support are: 1) provisions of guidance, 2)
reassurance of worth, 3) social integration, 4) attachment,
5) reliable alliance, 6) opportunity for nurturance. Each
provision is assessed by four items. Two of the items relate
to the presence of the provisions and two related to the
absence of the provisions. Parents use a four point scale (1
= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly
agree) to indicate how much each of the items described their
social support. The scores from each of the items are summed
to produce a total score. The highest possible score on this
scale is 96 and the lowest possible score was 24. A high
score is indicative of greater social support.

The internal consistency for each of the subscales was
reported by Russell & Cutrona (1987). The coefficients
ranged from .68 to .89. The reliability coefficient.
Cronbach's alpha, for the total Social Support Scale of the

present sample was .91.

: J'l E 1.:
W A Quality of Life Measure was
adapted by this researcher based on the Quality of Life
Measure developed by Andrews and Withey (1976). There are
ten items to determine parental feelings about life concerns.

Only items applicable to this study are included. Among ten

59

items, 2 items were used to test marital satisfaction and job
satisfaction. Appendix E contains this scale.

The original Quality of Life Measure includes 26 items.
The reliability of .70 for the original measure was estimated
by Andrews and Withey (1976). For this study's sample,
Cronbach's alpha of the modified version of this measure was
.84.

Parents select answers from a seven point scale.
Responses on the seven point continuum range from “terrible”
to “delighted” (1 = terrible, 2 = unhappy, 3 = mostly
dissatisfied, 4 = mixed, 5 = mostly satisfied, 6 = pleased, 7
= delighted). The scores of the 8 items are summed for the
Quality of Life total score. The highest possible score on
this scale is 56 and the lowest possible score is 8. Higher
scores on this scale correspond to higher levels of

satisfaction.

I . J I . . E I .

Two measures were used as indicators of the mothers' and
fathers' ratings of their parent's parenting (see Appendix
F).

W This measure requires
that the mothers and fathers recollect their childhood
memories using the seven-item Supportive Discipline Scale
(Simons et al., 1992). Response categories range along a 5-

point continuum with 1 = never, 3 = about half the time, and

60

5 = always.

The total supportive discipline score is the sum of the
parent's responses to the seven items. A higher score on
this measure indicates higher levels of grandparents'
supportive parenting.

The Supportive Parenting Scale is found to have
acceptable alpha reliability. Coefficient alpha for mother's
reports of the grandparent's supportive parenting ranged from
.92 to .93, while coefficient alpha for father's reports of
the grandparent's supportive parenting ranged from .87 to .91
respectively (Simons et al., 1992). In the present sample.
the seven item Supportive Parenting Scale had Cronbach's
alpha of .89 for mothers and fathers.

Ihe_Haz§h_ni§ginlin§_§galg‘ In this test, mothers and
fathers are asked to think about their childhood relationship
with their parents. This measure requires mothers and
fathers to complete a four-item Harsh Discipline Scale
adapted from Straus et al. (1980). Response categories range
along a 5-point continuum with 1 = never, 3 = about half the
time, and 5 = always.

The scores of the 4 items are summed for the Harsh
Discipline Scale. The highest possible score on this measure
is 20 and the lowest possible score is 4. A high score on
this measure indicates higher levels of grandparents' harsh
parenting.

Coefficient alpha ranged from .70 to .73 for fathers'

61

reports on their parent's punitive parenting. Coefficient
alpha ranged from .75 to .78 for mothers' reports on their
parent's punitive parenting (Straus et al., 1980). In the
present sample, the four item Punitive Parenting Scale had a

Cronbach's alpha .73 for mothers and fathers.

W

The questionnaire, two cover letters, one for families
in the program and one for families on the waiting list, and
a consent form were submitted to and approved by the Michigan
State University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects. The packets were then mailed to the home of 474
families of preschool-age children in late October. Within
the packets were two sets of questionnaires to be completed
by the parents, one designated ‘mother' and one designated
‘father.’ A consent form, a stamped and return—addressed
envelope, and a cover letter (introducing the researcher,
describing the purpose of the study, the importance of the
study, and an maintenance in strict confidentiality) were
also included. The parents were directed not to consult with
one another when completing the questionnaire.

Of the 474 mailed questionnaires, 11 sets were not
deliverable and 3 couples maintained that their children did
not fit criteria. Of the 460 potential couples left, 139
couples returned their questionnaires. This yielded a

response rate of thirty percent. Nineteen sets were

62

eliminated because either one of the parents did not complete
the questionnaire or returned it partially complete.

During the winter of 1996 and 1997, the data were coded,
entered into computer files, and thoroughly cleaned by the
researcher. Families who returned their forms received five
children's books and were thanked for their participation and
assistance. A summary of the results of the study was sent

to those who expressed interest.

mm:

Data were coded and entered into a data file by the
researcher. The data were analyzed using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The analyses were
conducted separately for the group of mothers and the group
of fathers. Descriptive analysis was used to describe the
demographic characteristics of the sample. The descriptive
statistics included frequencies of child, parent, and
contextual characteristics. Mean standard deviations of the
variables were run for the following variables: 1) age of the
child, 2) number of children living at home, 3) age of
mother, 4) age of father, 5) mother's level of education, 6)
father's level of education, 7) gross income of the family.
Percentages were computed for the following variables: 1) sex
of the child, 2) ordinal position of the target child in the
family, 3) marital status of the parents, 4) mother's

employment status, 5) father's employment status, 6) ethnic

63

and cultural backgrounds of the mother and father.

Five statistical methods were used for data description
and analysis: MANOVA, zero-order correlations, multiple
regression analyses, t—test, and chi-square analyses. MANOVA
was computed to test for difference in disciplinary practices
between mothers and fathers. Zero order correlations were
calculated to determine the extent of associations among the
predictor variables, and the associations between predictor
variables and the disciplinary practices of mothers and
fathers. Multiple regression analyses, employing the
stepwise procedure, were performed to examine the combined
effects of several predictor variables on the disciplinary
practices of mothers and fathers. T-test and chi-square
analyses were computed to identify which of the variables
were related to the ineffective and effective disciplinary
practices of mothers and fathers. Chi-square analyses were
employed to examine the relationship between the scores on a
“risk index” and the probability of having a low disciplinary
score (ineffective disciplinary score). Findings were
considered to be significant when the coefficient was greater
than zero by a chance probability that was less than or equal

to .05.

Summarx

The research design, the major variables of the study,

and the selection as well as description of the subjects who

64

participated in this study were discussed. The instruments

and techniques for data collection and analysis employed in

this study were also discussed in this chapter. Chapter IV

contains a report of the findings for this study.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The results of the statistical analysis of the data will
be presented and discussed in this chapter. Each research
question is stated, followed by results related to that

question.

Research_Qne§Lign_l: What are differences between

mothers and fathers in their disciplinary practices?

The disciplinary practices of mothers and fathers toward
their preschool-age children were assessed using the
Parenting Scale total score and with two subscales (laxness
and overreactivity) of the Parenting Scale. Higher scores
represented more effective parental disciplinary practices.

In order to ascertain whether there were statistically
significant differences in the disciplinary practices that
mothers and fathers utilized with their children, MANOVA was
conducted. Maternal disciplinary total scores ranged from 72
to 140, with a mean of 115.68 and a standard deviation of
14.09. Paternal disciplinary total scores ranged from 79 to
141 with a mean of 113.26 and a standard deviation of 13.35.
Mothers showed a higher mean than fathers on the total

scores, although the difference was not statistically

65

66

significant.

The laxness dimension of the maternal disciplinary
scores ranged from 30 to 74, with a mean of 60.50 and a
standard deviation of 8.89. The laxness dimension of the
paternal disciplinary scores ranged from 29 to 75, with a
mean of 58.22 and a standard deviation of 8.93. Mothers
scored significantly higher than fathers on laxness scores.

The overreactivity dimension of the maternal
disciplinary scores ranged from 34 to 68, with a mean of
55.18 and a standard deviation of 7.74. The overreactivity
dimension of the paternal disciplinary scores ranged from 32
to 70, with a mean of 55.04 and a standard deviation of 7.98.
No significant difference was found between overreactivity
scores on the maternal disciplinary practices and
overreactivity scores on the paternal disciplinary practices.

These results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

MANOVA of Differences Between Disciplinary
Practices of Mothers and Fathers

 

 

Scale Mother Father F
(N=120) (N=120)
M SD M SD
Laxness 60.50 8.89 58.22 8.93 3.94“
Overreactivity 55.18 7.74 55.04 7.98 .02
Total 115.68 14.09 113.26 13.35 1.86

 

*P<.05

67

Resear§h_Qnestign_Z: What are the child, parent, and

contextual variables most associated with parental
disciplinary practices?

As the first step of the analysis to test research
question 2, the zero order correlations between the predictor
variables and the outcome variable, parental disciplinary
practices, for the group of fathers and the group of mothers
were examined. The predictor variables used in this study
fell into three categories: child factors, parental factors,
and contextual factors. In the present study, three child
factors were considered, including sex, temperament
(sociability, emotionality, activity level, attention span—
persistence, soothability), and birth order. The parental
factors identified were age, education level, ethnicity, and
employment status. Seven contextual factors included in the
analyses: number of children living at home, household
income, marital satisfaction, job satisfaction, levels of
social support, levels of quality of life, and recollected
childhood experiences. These results are presented in Table
4 for mothers and Table 5 for fathers. Most of the
correlations were in the expected directions, and small to
moderate in magnitude. Relations between predictor variables
that were significant at the zero-order level and
disciplinary practices of mothers and fathers are presented

in Table 6.

68

HDUHa b

NoHOIONQoH nonnoHunHosu vaoao «no wHQQHonon <UHHavHou on Konsonu

 

m'dthtfl3504h3h‘

\0

Ho.
HH.
HN.
Hu.
Ha.
Hm.
Hm.
HQ.
Hm.
Hm.
Na.
NH.
NM.

.om
.cm
l.om

.HN
.cm
.ow
.cN
.Nmfifii
.ou
.ow
.om
.ow
.ow
.om
.om
.Nmiifi
.Hm
.Hm
.cfi
.OH
.Hqs

.HH
.00
.OH
.o¢
.ch
.HN
.cu
.om
.cH
.NH‘.‘
.OH
.om
.Hms
.Hme
.Hb
.OH
.o¢
.Noss
.oo
.co

u

I.OH

.ON
(.Hm

.Hma

.0h

.uoeesa
I.Hw

.OQ
I.°N
I.cm

.Hms

.ON

.cm

.mNaesa

.Hm
I.ou

.oq

.om
I.Hh

a

.Ho
.om
.H4¢
I.oc
u.cm
.ou
u.ou
.cm
.ofi
u.Hmse
.Ho
.Ho
.ob
u.cw
.Hc
l.ow
.cm
.ow

m

.NQ“!
.oq
.Hn
.Ho
.ou
.OH
.ou
.Hmea
.04
.HS
.ou
.HM
.Hma
.on
.ou
.OH
.0H

m

I.Hm
I.mHsata
I.om
I.OQ
u.No»a
I.om
.om
.Hde
I.Ho
(.HH
(.HN
.om
I.om
I.Hmet
I.H¢

I.Um§tifi

Q

.Hqs
.HH
(.Has
.Nuss
u.om
I.cm
.om
.om
.HH
.Hmss
.ow
|.c~
.Hqss
.HN
.Hmss

.Hms
.oq
.om
.OH
.cw
.Hqs
.Hm
.Ho
.HH
I.Hmlt
Hm.
.wHes
.Hmss
.Nwss

w

.Ne...

.Umfifififi

.om
.oq
.Hms
.oo
.qu
.HQe
.om
.oq
.HN
.Hm
.OH

Ho

.ow
.HN
.HH
.OH
.HN
.NHse
.om
.Nm‘fii.
.HN
.om
.om
.HN

 

 

69

noanssem

 

 

HH HM Hw Hé Hm Hm Hm Hm No NH
HM (.Ho
Hu (.Hu I.Mcas .
H5 1.6» (.Hm I.HH
Hm .Hu .Ho I.qu .Nwtas
Hm .umtsts I.uatas .Hm n.94 .HN
HQ .om l.Ho u.o¢ .Hu .om .NHae
Hm. .o¢ I.cm .OH l.Hms I.Hms .om
Ho :.Hc .om l.om .Hw .Hb |.ou I.bwssss
no .Nmsss I.NHsa 1.6% .mbssos .mmssss .Hstss I.Hb .Hmss
NH .umssss I.Noss I.HH .wosss .wosss .HN I.om .Hms .mmssss
MN .uHssss |.ou I.Hm .MHss .Nmsss .Nuss l.mH .HH .Amasss .umsess
s ”A.Ho
we 3.9m
use VA.oH

OTTO. ”A. OOH

max on «we ovHHm Hm oomom nu aDHo .Hv on moabHe .~..
MBpHoKBnun ununcm Hm momma an oabHokoQAHv on anbanroHANV
anbHoHnK Ha comma nu quDsAHv on mcnonvaouHoauAHV.

anHn nunnoua
H. >00. n. max. u. wHHnU OHQmH.

m. maonHoanHHnK. q. mooHuUHHHnK.
InneHuIH fluonone ..

w. who. He. macnunwoauH bo<oH. HH. warsHoHn<xwuoo.

nouneunsaH unanoua

Ha. ENHHnuH manwmmuonHos. Hm. nod mnnHmmnonHoa.

Hm. wcaHnH<o menOHK on wunmnanu.

a. wonH<Hn< ro<oH. m.
m. moonanHHHnK

wnnoanoanmvau vamHmnmuom.

HM. mabHo<aban manage. Hu. moooaaun< ooocvunwos

Hm. mocuoUon Haooab. Ha. ZGBUoH on nUHHmHma.

Hm. mcvvonnH<o :HunOHK on mnnoanHan. No bo<oH om oanHnK on erm.
NH. rm<oH om mooHnH msonnn. mu. UHuoHpHHanHK UHDonHoou

70

anUHo m

NeHOuOHmoH nonnoHunHoau raoso n56 vnomwonon <nHHnUHmm om mansmnm

 

\DGQMU‘IQWNH

H
0

HH
HM
Hw

Hn.

Hm
Hm
HQ
Hm
Hm
Mc.
MH
MM

H

I.om
.Ob
.oo
.Hma

I.om
.Hm
.ou
.Mdets
.cq
.ow
.Om
.OM
.0h

I.om
.om
.Méaee

I.Ho
.HM

cm
.HH
.OH

.HH
|.Hu

.OH

.om
u.om
I.om
.cM
.ou
.oa
.om
|.oq
(.Hu
.Hms
.Hme
.Hh
u.o¢
u.oH
:.Muss
(.Hmo
I.M¢ss

w

n.HH
.om
.om
.ou
.ou
.leII
.om
.Hu
.Hqs
.om
.Mos.
.om
.om
.mNfiififi
.om
l.oo
.Hu
.ow
.oc

p

.Hw
.Hw
.ow
.OH
n.0M

.cfi

.ou
(.Ha

.ou
|.oo

.OM

.Ho
n.om
.cm
.Ho
.OH
.cq
.om

m

.UN'ififi

.HM
.UH‘iifi
.Hu
.cq
.ou
.Ho
.cp
.co
.Ho
.oc
.om
.Hw
.ou
.an
.cm
.09

m 4 m
n.Muss
le§N§§§I .NM“!
n.Hmn .HM .oq
u.oo n.0H .ow
n.om .wwssse .Hme
u.oo u.Hmes .OH
.HM (.Hms u.om
u.cu .ou .ow
.cH l.om .OH
.OH .Hu .ou
.oc .Hu .oo
.cH 1.9m u.oq
.oH .om .OH
n.cm .om .om
I.Hm .HH .Hu
I.MMss .ow .Hms

w

.Hme
.MHee
.MHrr
.om
.ow
.oM
.Muss
.HH
.oo
.HH
.om
.om
.om

Ho

.Mues
.Mose
.oo
.Ho
.Hme
.oq
.om
.om
.om
.HM
.Nmfiii
.cq

 

71

noanHacem

 

 

HH HM Hu Hh Hm Hm H4 Hm Hm Mo MH
HM I.hmsssw
Hw 0.0H I.Moss
Hp .om .om I.om
Hm u.oq n.0H n.cq .Emssss
Hm. .umeses l.mMssss .sts .cm .ow
HM. .HH (.Hmss .Hm .Hms .Hn .MHss
Hm. .Ha u.ow .Mcss I.HH u.cu |.cH .OM
Hm |.Hw I.Hme .MMss .HM .Hu .Musn .cu (.HHsrs
Mo .HH (.Hms u.om .qosssn .mmssss .uassss .Hm I.Hqs .uMsrso
MH .Hb u.ou I.°o .absses .uqesss .Hqu .HM |.o¢ .om .mmesse
MM .Muss u.Mu¢s I.oa .MHss .Hms .wosss I.OH .cn .HH .nMsose .unesss
s UA.Hc
as CA.om
its UA.OH

eerie CA.OOH

max an «no orHHa Hm ooama an auHo .H. on mosto .Mv.

mapHo<8m5n mnDnCu Hm comma nu ncHHunHBo oabHo<oQ .H. on H: movooHAMv.
MnUbHoHnK Hm nomad am vuuusaHv on MCHOuvaoHHonaan.

nUHHa neonona

H. vow. M. wax. u. wHHnU onaon. S. DnnH<Hn< ro<eH. m. vnnoanwos:mpns meHuHmnosom.

m. MBOnHosaHHnK. q. mooHnUHHHnK. m. moonwanHHnK

veneHuIH nlonona -

m. vow. Ho. masonnHosaH bo<oH. HH. unrsHoHn<anoe. HM. MECHOKBban mnnncu. Hu. mmooaanNK ooocpanwos.
nouneunsaH dunno". 1

Ha. ZuHHnDH mnnHunnonHos. Hm. nod munHunnonHos. Hm. mosuoUon Haooao. H4. zzavon on nrHHmHoa.

Hm. vcanH<o mwmnOHK on vunosnuan. Hm. mcvvonnH<o swanOHK on wanoanHao. Mc bo<oH on oanHn<.0n rwno.
MH. rm<mH 0m moanH mapponn. MM. UHmoHpHH59H< anoanom

 

72

Table 6

Zero-Order Correlations:
The Relations between the Predictor Variables
and the Disciplinary Practices

 

Parenting Scale

 

Zero-Order Correlations

 

 

Predictor Variables Mothers Rather:
(n=120) (n=120)
W
Temperament
Emotionality —.38*** -.22*
Sociability .18*
Soothability .22*
Sex -.24*
W
Employment Status —.23*
Ethnicity .31*** .23*
W
Marital Satisfaction .21* .21*
Job Satisfaction .25**
Quality of life .43*** .42***
Social support .32*** .34***
Household income .23* .30***
* p<.05
** p<.01
*** p<.001

Sex of the child is coded as male(1) or female(2).
Employment Status is coded as employed full-time(l), in
school(2)

Ethnicity is coded as Asian(1). Euro-American(2).

73

Only three child factors were related to disciplinary
practices of mothers: emotionality, sociability, and
soothability. The correlations for the disciplinary
practices of mothers were negatively related to the child's
emotionality as perceived by mothers and positively
associated with two dimensions of child's temperament as
perceived by mothers: sociability and soothability. The data
here indicate that mothers who perceived their child as less
emotional, more sociable, and more soothable scored higher on
effective disciplinary practices.

The child's emotionality as perceived by fathers was
negatively correlated with the disciplinary practices of
fathers, and sex of the child showed a significant
correlation with the disciplinary practices of fathers. The
data here indicate that boys who were perceived as less
emotional by fathers received more effective disciplinary
practices. The correlations with perceptions of child's
sociability and soothability were not significant for
fathers.

Ethnicity was found to be a significant predictor of the
disciplinary scores of mothers and fathers. The data here
indicate that Euro-American mothers and fathers scored higher
than Asian parents on effective disciplinary practices.

Employment status was significantly associated with the
disciplinary practices of fathers, but not for mothers.

Thus, fathers who were employed full-time scored higher on

74

effective disciplinary practices than fathers who were in
school.

For both mothers and fathers, there were strong
associations between the four contextual factors and parental
disciplinary practices. Levels of perceived marital
satisfaction, levels of perceived quality life, levels of
perceived social support, and levels of household income were
positively and significantly correlated with disciplinary
practices of mothers and fathers. Levels of job satisfaction
made a modest contribution to predicting disciplinary scores
for mothers, but was not significantly related to the
disciplinary scores of fathers.

Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the
combined effect of three sets of predictor variables on the
outcome variable, to examine which of the predictor variables
contributed uniquely to the disciplinary practices of mothers
and fathers, and to compute the percentage of variance
explained by the model.

The nine variables (emotionality, sociability.
soothability, ethnicity, marital satisfaction, job
satisfaction, quality of life, social support, and household
income) that were significant in the zero—order correlations
were run with the method of stepwise entry. The results of
these analyses are presented in the Table 7. Only three
variables were found to be predictive of the disciplinary

practices of mothers and fathers: emotionality, ethnicity,

75

and quality of life measure. The data here indicate that
Euro-American mothers and fathers, less emotional children,
and higher levels of quality of life made unique
contributions to predicting more effective disciplinary
practices. Thirty-one percent of the variance in maternal
disciplinary scores was accounted for by these variables
while the three predictor variables combined to explain 24%
of the variance in paternal disciplinary scores. The F
values for the two regression models were found to be
significant (p<.001).

Table 7

Stepwise Multiple Regression Analyses:
Predictors of the Disciplinary Practices

 

Parenting Scale

 

 

 

Standarized Standarized
Betas Betas
Predictor Variables Mathgza Eathgzs
(n=120) (n=120)
W
Temperament
Emotionality —.30*** —.17*
W
Ethnicity . 18* . 17*
W
Quality of life .32*** .39***
R-square .31 .24
F 17.10*** 12.14***
* p<.05
** p<.01
*** p<.001

Ethnicity is coded as Asian(1), Euro-American(2).

76

Researgh_Questign_1: Which child, parent, and family

contextual variables, identified in research question two,
distinguish effective and ineffective parental disciplinary
practices?

T test and chi-square analyses were run to determine
variables that contributed to distinguishing between
effective and ineffective parental disciplinary practices.
Effective and ineffective groups of maternal and paternal
disciplinary practices were created by using the upper third
and lower third scores on the outcome variable, maternal and
paternal disciplinary total scores as measured by the
Parenting Scale. Forty—one mothers and 42 fathers using
effective practices and 39 mothers and 39 fathers using
ineffective practices were produced due to tied scores.
Effective groups of maternal and paternal disciplinary
practices comprised the top third for the outcome measure.
Ineffective groups of maternal and paternal disciplinary
practices comprised the bottom third for the outcome measure.
The circumstances of mothers and of fathers in the top and
bottom third were compared on the predictor variables that
were significantly related to the outcome variable in the
previous correlation and multiple regression analyses.

As shown in Table 8, statistically significant
differences were found between ineffective and effective
disciplinary practices of mothers on the following variables:

emotionality, sociability, soothability, maternal ethnicity.

77

marital satisfaction, job satisfaction, levels of quality

life, social support, and household income.

Table 8

Comparison of Ineffective and Effective
Disciplinary Practices of Mothers

 

 

 

Mother
Ineffective Effective T Value Phi
(n=39) (n=41)
M SD M SD

W
Temperament

Emotionality 15.82 4.61 12.37 4.55 3.37**

Sociability 17.95 4.28 19.78 4.62 -1.84+

Soothability 16.45 4.34 18.85 3.76 -2.61*
W
Ethnicity .30**
W
Marital satisfaction. 5.51 1.07 6.02 .82 -2.40*
Job Satisfaction 5.00 1.03 5.59 .92 —2.69**
Quality of life 51.10 5.64 58.34 5.32 -5.09***
Social support 80.54 8.43 87.80 8.25 -3.89***
Household income 4.36 1.29 5.02 1.13 -2.46*
+ p<.10
* p<.05
** p<.01
*** p<.001

Ethnicity is coded as Asian(1), Euro-American(2).

As shown in Table 9, statistically significant
differences were found between ineffective and effective
disciplinary practices of fathers on the following variables:
emotionality, sex of the child, employment status, paternal
ethnicity, marital satisfaction, levels of quality life,

social support, and household income.

78

A comparison of disciplinary practices of mothers and
fathers revealed that there was a greater probability of both
mothers and fathers engaging in ineffective disciplinary
practices when they perceived the child as more emotional.
Fathers, but not mothers, were more likely to utilize
ineffective disciplinary practices when the child was a girl.
Mothers, but not fathers, who perceive the child as more
soothable tended to exhibit more effective disciplinary
practices.

Mothers at higher levels of marital satisfaction and job
satisfaction were likely to utilize more effective
disciplinary practices toward their children, whereas neither
level of marital satisfaction nor job satisfaction had
significant effects upon the disciplinary practices of
fathers. The results also showed that Euro-American parents
were more likely than Asian parents to report more effective
disciplinary practices. Fathers, but not mothers, who were
employed full-time were more likely to provide effective
disciplinary practices than fathers in school.

Finally, for both mothers and fathers, high levels of
perceived quality of life and social support increased their
likelihood of reporting effective disciplinary practices.
Also the findings regarding household income showed the
likelihood of reporting ineffective disciplinary practices

decreased as household income increased.

79

Table 9

Comparison of Ineffective and Effective
Disciplinary Practices of Fathers

 

 

 

Father
Ineffective Effective T Value Phi
(n=39) (n=42)
M SD M SD
W
Temperament
Emotionality 15.10 4.58 12.57 4.25 2.58*

Sex —.26*
W
Employment Status -.28*
Ethnicity .25*
WW
IMarital satisfaction. 5.59 1.02 6.05 1.15 -1.89+
Quality of life 52.82 6.24 58.17 5.82 -3.99***
Social support 80.62 8.91 87.88 7.92 -3.89***
Household income 4.31 1.40 5.02 .98 -2.69**
+ p<.10
* p<.05
** p<.01
*** p<.001

Sex of the child is coded as male(1) or female(2).
Employment Status is coded as employed full-time(1), in
school(2)

Ethnicity is coded as Asian(1), Euro-American(2).

Researgh_gnestign_4: What are the relationships between

cumulative risk factors and ineffective disciplinary

practices of mothers and fathers?

In order to examine the cumulative effect of risk,

child, parent, and contextual influences on ineffective

disciplinary practices of mothers and fathers, the seven

predictor variables for mothers and five predictors for

80

fathers that had significant effects upon ineffective
disciplinary practices of mothers and fathers in Tables 8 and
9 were converted to dichotomous variables (risk factors vs.
protective factors). Of the seven predictor variables for
mothers, two were child factors (emotionality, soothability)
and five were contextual factors (marital satisfaction, job
satisfaction, quality of life, social support, household
income). Each of the following was considered to be a risk
factor for mothers: (a) scores on the child's emotionality
which were above the upper third for this sample, (b) scores
on the child's soothability which were below the lower third
for this sample, (c) scores on the marital satisfaction which
were below the lower third for this sample, (d) scores on the
job satisfaction which were below the lower third for this
sample, (e) scores on the quality of life which were below
the lower third for this sample, (f) scores on the social
support which were below the lower third for this sample.

(9) family income which was below the lower third for this
sample.

Of the five predictor variables for fathers, two were
child factors (emotionality, sex of the child), and three
were contextual factors (quality of life, social support.
household income). Each of the following was considered to
be a risk factor for fathers: (a) scores on the child's
emotionality above the upper third for this sample, (b) the

child's sex was female, (c) scores on the quality of life

81

which were below the lower third for this sample, (d) scores
for social support which were below the lower third for this
sample, (e) family income which was below the lower third for
this sample. Each of the risk factors was coded as 1
(present) or 0 (absent), and the total score was produced by
summing the number of risk factors that were present for each
fathers and mother.

The cumulative risk index score ranged from 0 (none of
these risk factors) to 7 (all of risk factors) for mothers
and scores could range from 0 (none of these risk factors) to
5 (all of risk factors) for fathers. The percentage of
mothers at each level of risk factors were: 0 (7.7%).
1(7.7%), 2(23.1%), 3(30.8%), 4(17.9%), 5(10.3%), 6(2.6%).

The percentage of fathers at each level of risk factors were:
0(2.6%), 1(17.9%), 2(35.9%), 3(20.5%), 4(20.5%), 5(2.6%). To
avoid small cell sizes, the risk indexes for outcome were
collapsed into five categories for both mothers and fathers:
zero risk factor, one risk factor, two risk factors, three
risk factors, four or more risk factors.

For these analyses, the outcome variable, the disciplinary
practices as measured by the Parenting Scale, was also
converted to a dichotomous variable (the lowest 32.5% of
scores vs. the upper 67.5%). Crosstabulations were used to
determine the probability of utilizing ineffective
disciplinary practices of mothers and fathers for each level

of risk factor. These analyses are presented in Table 10.

82

The results of the analyses indicate that both mothers
and fathers exposed to several risk factors simultaneously
are at much greater probability of ineffective disciplinary
practices than mothers and fathers exposed to few or no risk
factors. Approximately sixty-three percent (63.2%) of the
mothers exposed to four or more risk factors had high
ineffective disciplinary scores compared to approximately ten
percent (9.7%) of mothers with a score of 0 on the risk
index. As was true for mothers, sixty percent of the fathers
exposed to four or more risk factors had high ineffective
disciplinary scores compared to approximately four percent

(3.8%) of fathers with a score of 0 on the risk index.

Table 4.8

Probability of Mothers and Fathers
with Ineffective Disciplinary Scores (Bottom 33rd percentile)
for Each Level of Risk Factors

 

Ineffective Disciplinary Score

 

No. of Risk Mother(N=39) Father(N=39)
Factors N % N %
with Risk with Risk

0 ................ 3 9.7 1 3.8

1 ................ 3 11.5 7 22.6

2 ................ 9 39.1 14 42.4

3 ................ 12 57.1 8 53.3

4 or more ........ 12 63.2 9 60.0
Phi ............... .47*** .42***

 

*** p<.001

83

SHERRI!

A summary of the research questions tested and the

outcomes of the study is presented below.

Table 11

Summary of the Findings

 

Research Question Analysis Outcome
Used (p<.05)
1.What are the MANOVA There was a 9
differences between (two-tailed) statistically

mothers and fathers in
their disciplinary
practices?

significant difference,
in the laxness scores
between mothers and
fathers.

 

 

 

2.What are the child, Zero—Order W
parent, and contextual Correlations Emotionality
variables most & Parentel_EeeLer
associated with Multiple Ethnicity
parental disciplinary Regression
practices? Analyses Quality life I
3.Which child, parent, T-test Feetere_heleted_te I
and contextual & I
variables, identified Chi-Square Child's Soothability f
in research question Analyses Marital & job
two, distinguish satisfaction
effective and EaCLQI_BBlaL£d_LQ_in¥
ineffective parental Father ;
disciplinary Employment Status
practices? W ;
Child's Emotionality 5
Quality of life
Social Support ‘
Family Income :
4.What are the Chi-Square Parents exposed to
relationships between Analyses several risk factors

cumulative risk
factors and
ineffective
disciplinary practices
of mothers and
fathers?

 

 

were much more likely
to exhibit ineffective;
disciplinary practices
than parents exposed i
to no risk factors. 1

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This chapter presents (a) a summary of the study; (b)
conclusions; (c) discussion of the findings; (d) limitations

of the current study; (e) suggestions for future research.

Summary

The major purpose of the study was to examine the
influence of multiple factors on the disciplinary practices
of mothers and fathers. The factors affecting parental
disciplinary practices were grouped into three broad
categories: child characteristics, parental characteristics.
and contextual factors.

The child factors investigated were: sex, temperament
(sociability, emotionality, activity level, attention span-
persistence, soothability), and birth order. The parental
factors considered included: parental age, education level.
ethnicity, marital status, and job status. Contextual
factors examined in this study included: number of children
living at home, household income, marital satisfaction, job
satisfaction, levels of quality of life, social support, and
recollected childhood experiences.

Answers to the following questions were sought in this

84

85

study:

1. What are differences between mothers and fathers in
their disciplinary practices?

2. What are the child, parent, and contextual variables
most associated with parental disciplinary practices?

3. Which child, parent, and contextual variables.
identified in research question two, distinguish effective
and ineffective parental disciplinary practices?

4. What are the relationships between cumulative risk
factors and ineffective disciplinary practices of mothers and
fathers?

The study included 120 mothers and 120 fathers of
preschool age children. A survey design was the methodology
employed. Both mothers and fathers completed the same
questionnaire which represented a composite of measurement
instruments appropriate to the selected major variables.
i.e., child temperament (Colorado Childhood Temperament
Inventory), parental social support (Social Provisions
Scale), quality of life (Quality of Life measure),
intergenerational transmission of parenting (supportive
parenting as measured by the Supportive Discipline Scale and
punitive parenting as measured by the Harsh Discipline
Scale).

Descriptive analysis, zero-order correlations, MANOVA,
multiple regression analyses, t-test, and chi-square analyses

were used for data description and analysis.

86
Cenclusisms

Based on the research findings, the following
conclusions are offered.

1. Fathers are more likely than mothers to utilize
permissive disciplinary practices.

2. Factors that contributed uniquely to disciplinary
practices of both mothers and fathers were perceptions of
child's emotionality, parental ethnicity, and perceived
levels of quality life. Both mothers and fathers who
perceived the child as being less emotional and who had
higher levels of quality of life had higher scores on
effective disciplinary practices.

3. Mothers who perceived the child as being less
emotional, more soothable, and who had higher levels of
marital satisfaction and job satisfaction engaged in more
effective disciplinary practices.

4. Fathers who perceived the child as being less
emotional, and who have boys provided more effective
disciplinary practices.

5. For both mothers and fathers, parents with higher
levels of quality life, social support, and family income
exhibited more effective disciplinary practices.

6. Parents exposed to several risk factors were much
more likely to exhibit ineffective disciplinary practices
than parents exposed to no risk factors. The results

indicate that exposure to each additional risk factor greatly

87

increases the probability of ineffective disciplinary

practices of mothers and fathers.

I' . E I] E' 3'

The conceptual model utilized for this study is Belsky's
determinants of parenting model. Belsky (1984) proposed that
the factors affecting parental behavior could be grouped into
three major categories: characteristics of the child, parent,
and contextual factors. These categories and their
interactions form the basis of his model. Researcher
referred to the literature to determine which variables to
examine.

Although characteristics of the child, such as gender or
temperament, have been shown to influence parental
disciplinary practices, the results of this study indicate
that parental disciplinary practices are also influenced by a
variety of factors indirectly related to the child. These
factors include parental ethnicity, satisfaction with the
marital relationship, job satisfaction, quality of life.
social support, and household income. Obviously, the
characteristics of the child, parent, and contextual factors
all contributed to the disciplinary practices of mothers and
fathers. Therefore, the results of this study provide
support for Belsky's model that individual differences in
parenting behavior are multiply determined. Other variables

included in Belsky's model that were not examined within this

88

study are work-related stressors other than job satisfaction
and maternal personality characteristics (e.g., psychological
well-being).

Although the present research results revealed that
fathers are more likely than mothers to utilize permissive
disciplinary practices, mothers and fathers seem to
discipline their children in more similar rather than
dissimilar ways. This finding might be interpreted as
indicating that fathers are as competent as mothers in
parenting. A study by Parke and Sawin (1976), for instance,
found that fathers were as sensitive and responsive as
mothers to infant cues and signals in the context of feeding.
Indeed, the conceptualization of paternal roles and
responsibilities has changed dramatically over the last four
decades. Instead of emphasizing the father's role as
breadwinner and perhaps moral teacher for older children, his
role today is expected to involve the direct care and rearing
of young children (Lamb, 1987). Pleck (1993), for example.
reported that fathers' involvement in all aspects of child
care - not just during their wives' working hours - is almost
a third of the total child care by U.S. dual -career couples
in the 1990s. The trend that fathers are becoming more
involved with their infants and children than in earlier eras
is also evident in cross-cultural studies (Lamb, 1987).

It is worth watching, that there was a trend in the data

at the .10 level of significance indicating that for fathers

89

the soothability of the child and their own job satisfaction
predicted paternal disciplinary scores. For mothers, the age
of the child was predictive of maternal disciplinary scores.
This trend could be explored in larger, and more
representative samples.

Some variables contributed to distinguishing ineffective
and effective disciplinary practices in mothers, but not in
fathers. Mothers who perceived the child as being more
soothable, and who have satisfying, supportive marital
relationships with their husbands, and who had higher levels
of job satisfaction were found to utilize more effective
disciplinary practices. The findings regarding the impact of
marital satisfaction and job satisfaction upon maternal
disciplinary practices are consistent with the results of
several other studies (Cox et al., 1989; Greenberger et al.,
1994). This study also found that fathers, but not mothers.
utilized more effective disciplinary practices when the sex
of the child was a boy. This finding is in contradiction to
a study by Greenberger and his colleagues (1994), which found
that parents reported disciplining their sons more harshly
than their daughters. Determining why fathers exhibit more
effective disciplinary practices toward sons rather than
daughters is beyond the scope of this analysis. One possible
explanation for this finding is that fathers might have
different belief systems about parenting sons and daughters.

Previous research suggests that fathers tend to spend more

90

time with sons than with daughters (Barnett & Baruch, 1987;
Cox et al., 1989) and be more involved in socializing their
sons than their daughters (Lamb, 1986). Moreover, fathers
are more likely to act differently toward sons and daughters
than mothers do (Huston, 1983). Taken together, not all of
the factors examined in this study are equally important for
both mothers and fathers. These findings also suggest that
the different factors may combine to affect the disciplinary
practices of mothers and fathers.

Contrary to previous studies (Zuravin, 1988; Wolfe.
1987), education had no effect upon the disciplinary
practices of mothers and fathers. The data in this study
suggest that highly educated parents are no more
likely than parents of lower education to engage in more
effective disciplinary practices. In addition, the number of
children in the household and parental age did not emerge as
the significant predictors of parental disciplinary practices
as has been reported in other research (Nye et al., 1970).
Perhaps this discrepancy is due in part to the fact that this
sample of mothers and fathers had higher educational
attainment and household income than a more diverse sample
would be.

The findings from this study are consistent with the
findings from other studies showing that parents who report
high levels of quality life and social support available to

them may feel less parenting stress and exhibit more

91

effective disciplinary practices (Belsky & Isbella, 1988;
Goldberg & Easterbrooks, 1984; Bristol et al., 1988). It
clearly suggests that families do not exist in isolation, but
are embedded in a variety of formal and informal support
systems. Thus, it seems likely that the quality and quantity
of support that the mother and the father receive from a
variety of sources have an enormous impact on parental
disciplinary practices.

In support of past research (Kelly & Tseng, 1992;
Whiting & Edwards, 1988), the results of this study show
significant racial/ethnic differences in parents' reports of
disciplinary practices. There is no obvious explanation for
these findings that Euro-American parents were less apt to
report ineffective disciplinary practices than Asian parents.
However, these findings could be interpreted in a number of
ways. It seems reasonable to assume that the findings may
reflect cultural differences in child-rearing styles and
values (Garcia Coll, 1990). For instance, the
characteristics of Asian parenting which set them apart from
other ethnic groups have been attributed to traditional
Confucian beliefs and practices such as filial piety (Ho &
Kang, 1984). Consistent with this idea, the expected
cultural differences were found in the study by Chiu (1987).
He compared the child-rearing attitudes of Chinese, Chinese-
American, and White-American mothers and found both Chinese

mothers and Chinese—American mothers to be more

92

authoritarian, restrictive, and controlling of their children
than White-American mothers. Furthermore, it seems probable
that some of the research instruments standardized in the
United States are not designed to be responsive to different
cultural standards.

It is interesting, and contrary to previous research
(Simons et al., 1992), to note that the quality of parenting
that the parent experienced as a child had no effect upon
his/her disciplinary practices toward his/her children. One
possible reason for this finding is that mothers' and
fathers' retrospective reports of the quality of parenting
that they received as children may be influenced by their
affective state at the time of data collection and the
quality of their current relationships between the adult
child and his or her parent (Berkowitz, 1989). It also
depends on how those events have been processed cognitively
(Main & Goldwyn, 1984).

Several features of the study help to offset some of its
shortcomings. In an attempt to recognize the significance of
the paternal role in parenting, this particular study
includes both mothers and fathers. Most prior research
regarding parenting has neglected fathers, focusing only upon
mothers. It is unrealistic to assume that children are
influenced by one parent to the exclusion of the other, nor
do children only influence one parent. Findings from the

present study indicate that consideration of both the

93

mother's and father's disciplinary practices may lead to
better understanding of parental behavior because factors
that predicted maternal disciplinary practices differed
somewhat from those that predicted paternal disciplinary
practices.

Finally, findings from the present study illustrate the
importance of considering the broader ecology of the family
in order to fully understand parenting behavior. It is thus
critically important to recognize the value of examining
multiple factors within one study and acknowledge the

importance of the family's social context.

. .I . E I 1

This study is limited in a number of ways.

1. Sampling problems obviously constitute a limitation
of the present study. The overall sample size is relatively
small and the population sample is all two-parent families
with mostly Caucasian, and overrepresents higher education
and income levels. Furthermore, the majority of the subjects
had some association with a major university. Therefore.
this study cannot be generalized to the population at large.

2. In the present study, the data collected through the
questionnaire were all self-reported. There is lack of
observational data on parent-child interaction. How
accurately these self-reports reflect actual disciplinary

practices is unknown.

94

3. The interpretation of the scale by each respondent is
not uniform. All scales are highly subject to individual
perception and interpretation.

4. The data regarding the parents’ recollected childhood
experience might be biased, because memories of parental
behavior that occurred 20 years earlier may not be accurate.

5. Mail questionnaires generally have low response
rates. For this study, the rate of return was approximately
thirty percent. This is below the rate of 50% considered
adequate (Babbie, 1992). However, there were enough
completed surveys returned to conduct the appropriate
analyses. Due to lack of time and funds a second wave of
surveys was not undertaken. In future research, greater

efforts would have to be made to improve the return rate.

WW

Given the results of this study, there are six major
recommendations for replications or extensions of the
research.

1. The generalizability of the findings is limited due
to imbalance of race, education, and income in the samples.
The findings derived from this study thus must be considered
tentative and any attempt to generalize them for application
to a larger population is subject to further exploration and
assessment. Further, future research needs to look at a much

broader range of subjects, including different settings

95

(e.g., rural, urban). It may be, for example, that the ways
in which rural and urban fathers and mothers discipline their
children are influenced by inherent differences of rural and
urban life.

2. The present study used only self-report measures to
investigate variables associated with parental disciplinary
practices. The combination of observation and self-report
data may increase the ability to explain individual
differences in disciplinary practices of mothers and fathers.
Furthermore, in order to get a truer picture of parental
disciplinary practices in real life situations, one must
observe that behavior in settings that are as close to
natural as possible. Therefore, future work should include
validating measures of disciplinary style (e.g.,
observations) to assure the validity of the disciplinary
style construct.

3. The current study could be replicated and extended by
adding other predictor variables, for example, parental
beliefs concerning discipline and the impact of discipline on
child development, characteristics of the family of origin.
the timing of entry into the parenting role, the amount of
child-rearing knowledge and skills would permit investigating
the extent to which such factors account for parental
disciplinary practices.

4. Results of the present study show that significant

differences among ethnic groups in disciplinary practices of

96

mothers and fathers. More research is needed to fully
understand how parent's ethnicity influence on parental
disciplinary practices. Such research will determine the
extent to which characteristics of child, parent, and context
relate to parental disciplinary practices of each ethnic
group.

5. The present study were done separately for the group
of mothers and group of fathers in order to explore the
relationships between cumulative risk factors and ineffective
parental disciplinary practices. It is suggested that future
research include composite risk index scores of both parents
to better understand how combined parents’ risk scores
influence the probability of using ineffective parental
disciplinary practices.

6. A similar study to the one reported here could be
made more longitudinal by investigating the same population
in two or three year intervals over time. This would permit
gathering of longitudinal data for more comprehensive and
deeper insight as well as fuller understanding of the
parenting processes, parental disciplinary practices, in
response to changes in the characteristics of the child.

parent, and contextual factors.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

97

Please use the following scale to best describe how you
handle discipline with your child. Read from left to right,
circle the number that indicates how you usually respond in
each circumstance. If your response most closely resembles
the description on the left circle #1, #2 or #3, if it is
closer to the description on the right, circle #5, #6, or #7.
If your response is sometimes one way and sometimes another
circle #4. Please complete all 21 items.

1. When I say my child I stick to what I
can't do something, I let my said.
child do it anyway.
1 2 3. .4 5. .6. l

2. If my child gets upset, I stick to what I
I back down and give in. said.
1 2 3. .4 i .6 1
3. When my child does I do something about
something I don’t like, it everytime it I
I often let it go. happens.
1 2 3. .4 5 .6. .7.
4. When I give a fair I always do what I
threat warning, I often said.

don't carry it out.

1 2. 3. A 5. 5. l

5. When my child won’t I take additional
do what I ask. I often action.
let it go or end up
doing it myself.
1 2 3. A 5. .6. .7.

6. If saying “no” doesn't I take some other
work, I offer my child kind of action.
something nice so he/she
will behave.

l 2 3. A 5. 5. l

7. I coax or beg my child I firmly tell my
to stop. child to stop.
1 2 3. .4 5 .6. l
8. I let my child do I set limits on
whatever he or she wants. what my child can
do.

.1 2 3. .4. 5. 5. l

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

I threaten to do things
that I know I won't
actually do.

I 2. 3.

If my child misbehaves
and then acts sorry, I
let it go that time.

1 2 3.

When we're not at home,
I let my child get away
with a lot more.

1. 2. 3.

I get so frustrated or
angry that my child can
see I'm upset.

I 2. 3.

Things build up and I
do things I don't mean

to.

l 2 3.
I raise my voice or
yell.

l 2 3.

I spank, grab, slap,
or hit my child
most of the time.

1 2 3.
I often hold a grudge.
l 2 3.

When I'm upset or
under stress, I'm on my
child's back.

I 2. 3.

I insult my child, say
mean things, or call
my child names most

of the time.

.1 2. 3.

98

I only threaten
things I am sure
I can carry out.

5. 1.

I handle the problem
like I usually
would.

5. .7.

I handle my child
the same way.

5. l

I handle it without
getting upset.

5. 1

Things don't get out
of hand.

5. 1.

I speak to my child
calmly.

5. .7.

Never or rarely.

5. .7.

Things get back to
normal quickly.
5 .7.

I am no more picky
than usual.

5. 1

Never or rarely.

19.

20.

21.

99

I usually get into a
long argument with

my child.
1 2. 3. .4

I give my child a long
lecture.

I 2 3. .4.

I almost always use bad
language or curse.

l 2 3. A

5.

5.

5.

I don’t get into
an argument.

5. l

I keep my talks
short and to the
point.

5 .7.

I rarely use bad
language.

5 l

APPENDIX B

100

This section of the survey describes background information
about you and your family. Please circle the appropriate
number or fill in the blank for each question.(Choose a child
who is in preschool or in toddlers' program right now. If
you have two children in the program simultaneously answer
questions regarding the older child.)

10.

When was the child who is the subject of this
questionnaire born?
Month Year

 

What is the sex of your child in this study?
1) M 2) F

What is the position of this child among all other

children in this family? (Circle one position below)

1. First born 2. Second born 3. Third born

4. Fourth born 5. Fifth born 6. Sixth born
or greater

How many people are living with you at this time?
(Please include spouse, children, relatives, and
friends.)

How many daughters are living at home?

How many sons are living at home?

What is your relationship to the child of this marriage
now?

1. Father 2.Step-father 3. Mother 4.Step-mother
5. Other (Please specify)

 

What is your spouse's relationship to the child of this
marriage now?

1. Father 2.Step-father 3. Mother 4.Step-mother

5. Other (Please specify)

 

What is your present age?
What's your spouse's age?

How many years of education have you completed?

1. Elementary school 2. Some high school

3. Completed high school 4. Some college

5. Completed college 6. Some Master's work

7. MA/MS 8. Some post master's work
9. Post masters’ degree

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

101

What is your current marital status?
1. Never married 2. Married3. Widowed
4. Divorced 5. Separated

Are you an American citizen?
Yes No Others

Which of the following best describes your racial or
ethnic identification (circle all that apply)?

1. Asian 2. Black/African american
3. Hispanic/Chicano 4. White/European

5. Native American

6. Other (Please specify)

 

Which of the following describe your employment status?
(circle number of as many as apply)

1. Employed full-time (35 + hours/week) or with a job
but not at work now because of temporary illness,
vacation, strike or personal leave time.

Employed part-time (less than 35 hours/week)
Homemaker

Unemployed; laid off; or looking for work

In school

Other (please specify)

mmbww

 

Please describe your primary occupation now. (for
example: student, nurse, electrician, homemaker,
accontant).

Main occupation or job title

 

Do you have a secondary occupation?
If yes, what is it?

 

What is your religious preference?
1. Catholic 2. Protestant 3. Jewish 4. Buddism
5. Hindu 6. Moslem 7. Other (please specify)

Which gross income bracket below most closely
corresponds to your family's gross income in 1995?
(Circle the correct number below)

1: $ 0 -- $4.999 2= $5,000 -- $14,999
3= $15,000 -- $24,999 4: $25,000 -- $49,000
5= $50,000 -- $99,999 6= $100,000 -- $499.000

7: $500,000 -- $999,999 8: $1,000,000 and above

APPENDIX C

102

Directions: Using the scale below, please circle the number
that best indicates how well each of the 25 statements listed
here describes your child.

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Somewhat Somewhat a lot like
like the unlike the like the child the child
child child
5 . 1.].
1. Child makes friend easily.
1 2 3. A 5
2. Child is very friendly with strangers.
l 2. 3. A 5
3. Child is very sociable.
l 2. 3. A 5.
4. Child takes a long time to warm up to strangers.

l 2. 3. A 5.

5. Child tends to be shy.
l 2 3. A 5

S I] I'J'I
6. Whenever child starts crying, he can be easily
distracted.
1 2. 3. A 5
7. When upset by an unexpected situation, child quickly

calms down.

1 2. 3. A 5.

8. Child stopped fussing whenever someone talked to him/her
or picked him/her up.

I 2. 3. A 5.

9. If talked to. child stops crying.
J. 2 3. A 5

10. Child tolerates frustration well.

.1 Z 3. A 5.

I. .I

11. Child is very energetic.
l 2. 3. A 5

103
12. Child is always on the go.
1 2 3. A 5

13 Child prefers quiet, inactive games to more active ones.

3. 2 3. A 5.

14. Child is off and running as soon as he/she wakes up in
the morning.

1 2 3. A 5.

15. When child moves about, he/she usually moves slowly.

I 2 3. A 5.

E I. J'I

16. Child gets upset easily.
1 2 3. A 5

17. Child tends to be somewhat emotional.

l 2 3. A 5.

18. Child reacts intensely when upset.

I 2 3. A 5.

19. Child cries easily.
1 2 3. A 5

20. Child often fusses and cries.

l 2 3. A 5.

I I I. _ .
21. Plays with a single toy for long periods of time.

1 2 3. A 5.

22. Child persists at a task until successful.

I 2 3. A 5.

23. Child goes from toy to toy quickly.
1 2 3. A 5

24. Child gives up easily when difficulties are
encountered.

J. 2 3. A 5.

25. With a difficult toy, child gives up quite easily.
1 2 3. A 5.

APPENDIX D

104

Please use the following scale and circle the number you feel

is true for you.

1 2 3 4

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree

10.

11.

There are people I can depend on to help me if I really
need it.

1 2 3. A

I feel that I do not have close personal relationships
with other people.
1 2 3. A

There is no one I can turn to for guidance in times of
stress.

I 2 3. A

There are people who depend on me for help.

3. 2 3. A

There are people who enjoy the same social activities as
I do.
1 2 3. A

Other people do not view me as competent.

l. 2 3. A

I feel personally responsible for the well-being of
another person.

I 2 3. A

I feel part of a group of people who share my attitudes
and beliefs.

3. 2 3. A

I do not think other people respect my skills and
abilities.

I 2 3. A

If something went wrong, no one would come to my
assistance.

3. 2 3. A

I have close relationships that provide me with a sense
of emotional security and well-being.

l 2 3. A

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

105

There is someone I could talk to about important
decisions in my life.

.1 2 3. A

I have relationships where my competence and skills are
recognized.

I 2 3. A

There is no one who really relies on me for their well-
being.

I 2 3. A

There is no one who shares my interests and concerns.

1 2 3. A

There is a trustworthy person I could turn to for advice
if I were having problems.

1 2 3. A

I feel a strong emotional bond with at least one other
person.

1 2 3. A

There is no one I could depend on for aid if I really
need it.

3. 2 3. A

There is no one I feel comfortable talking about
problems with.

l 2 3. A

There are people who admire my talents and abilities.

I 2 3. A

I lack a feeling of intimacy with another person.

3. 2 3. A

There is no one who likes to do the things I do.

1 2 3. A

There are people I can count on in an emergency.

3. 2 3. A

No one needs me to care for them.

1 2 3. A

APPENDIX E

106

Please use the following scale and circle the number you feel
is true for you.

\lU‘leH

10.

Terrible 2 Unhappy
Mostly dissatisfied 4 Mixed
Mostly satisfied 6 Pleased
Delighted

How do you feel about your life as a whole?

.1 2 3. A 5. 5. .7.

How do you feel about your marriage?

3. 2 3. A 5. 5. 1

How do you feel about your job (or school)?

1 2 3. A 5. 5 1

How do you feel about your safety?

3. 2 3. A 5. 5. 1

How do you feel about what you are accomplishing in your
life?

3. 2 3. A 5. 5 1

How do you feel about your particular neighborhood as a
place to live?

3. 2 3. A 5. 5 1

How do you feel about yourself?

.1 2 3. A 5. 5. 1

How do you feel about how secure you are financially?

l 2 3. A 5. 5 .7.

How do you feel about your own health?

1 2 3. A 5. 5 1

How do you feel about your standard of living -- the
things you have like housing, car. furniture,
recreation. and the like?

I 2 3. A 5. 5 1

APPENDIX F

107

Think about your relationship with your parents when you were
in childhood. Please use the following scale and circle the
number you feel is true for you.

1
3

1.

10.

11.

Never 2 Almost never
About half of the time 4 Almost always 5 Always

How often did you talk with your parent about what was
going on in your life?

.1 2 3. A 5.

How often did you talk with your parent about things
that bothered you?
3. 2 3. A 5

How often did your parent ask what you think before
making decisions that affected you?

.1. 2 3. A 5.

How often did your parent ask what you think before
deciding on family matters that involved you?

I 2 3. A 5.

How often did your parent give reasons to you for
his/her decisions?

3. 2 3. A 5.

When you did something your parent liked or approved
of, how often did your parent let you know she/he is
pleased about it? it?

3. 2 3. A 5.

When you and your parent had a problem how often could
the two of you figure out how to deal with it?

3. 2 3. A 5.

When you did something wrong, how often did your parent
lose her/his temper and yell at you?

3. 2 3. A 5

When you did something wrong, how often did your parent
spank or slap you?

3. 2 3. A 5.

When punishing you, did your parent ever hit you with a
belt, paddle, or something else?

1. 2 3. A 5

When you did something wrong, how often did your parent
tell you to get out or look you out of the house?

3. 2 3. A 5.

APPENDIX G

109

COVER LETTER
(for families on the waiting list)
Dear Parent.

I am a student pursuing a Ph.D.in Family and Child
Ecology at Michigan State University. I am interested in
many different strategies parents use to teach their young
children right from wrong and how to behave on a day to day
basis. This is often referred to as parental discipline
practices. Many factors seem to influence these practices
including the child's personality, family traditions, and
other family factors. This study is designed to explain the
unique combination of factors that influences how parents go
about the important task of teaching their children how to
behave. In order to find out more, I need your help. You
are one of many parents of children who are on the waiting
list for the Child Development Laboratories. My hope is that
your interest in a university laboratory school may mean you
would also be interested in contributing to the development
of new knowledge about children and families. With this in
mind I am asking you to participate in a research study
focused on parents and child behavior.

The enclosed questionnaire will take less than 30
minutes to complete. Please read the directions at the
beginning of each section before answering the questions. It
is very important that you answer each questions as carefully
and as accurately as you can. Be sure to respond to all the
questions on both front and back of each page. Both you and
your spouse are asked to complete separate questionnaires.
Please do not discuss your answers before both of you have
finished the entire questionnaire. When you have completed
the questionnaire, return it in the enclosed self-addressed,
stamped envelope by November 15, 1996. Your participation in
the study is strictly on a volunteer basis and whether or not
you participate will in no way affect your child's future
involvement in the Child Development Laboratories. Enclosed
you will find a consent form. Complete the agreement to
participate and return it with the questionnaire regardless
of whether or not you decide to participate. I will separate
the consent form from the questionnaire to protect the
confidentiality of your responses. You will not be referred
to by name in any of my files and no one from the Child
Development Laboratories will see your responses. General
results from this research will be available to you upon
request.

In appreciation of your participation and assistance
with this project you will receive five children's books upon
receipt of both you and your spouse's completed survey.

Thank you for your kind attention to my request.

APPENDIX H

 

110

CONSENT FORM

I understand that the information I provide will be used for
a research study as part of a Ph.D. program at Michigan State
University. I know that my responses will be strictly
confidential. I also understand that I can withdraw from the
study at any time should I desire to do so.

I W15h1_dQ_DQL_Wifih to participate in this study.

(circle one)

 

Signature of participant

 

Date

If your family chooses to participate in this study, please
select any five books from the list below. The books will be
delivered to your family in a few weeks after I receive your
completed questionnaire.

( ) Alphabears by Kathleen Hague

2. ( ) Dinofours: I'm not your friend by Steve
Metzger

3. ( ) Thanksgiving Day by Gail Gibbons

4. ( ) Chicken Soup with Rice by Maurice Sendak

5. ( ) Pretzel by Margret Rey

6. ( ) The Wild Toboggan Ride by Suzan Reid

7. ( ) Three Little Kittens by Jean Marzollo

8. ( ) The Bear Santa Claus Forgot by Diana Kimpton

9. ( ) Clifford's Sing Along by Norman Bridwell

10. ( ) Merry Christmas, Strega Nona by Tomie dePaola

11. ( ) Shoveling Snow by Pat Cummings

12. ( ) It's Christmas by Jack Prelutsky

13. ( ) Let's Go to the Gym

14. ( ) Noisy Nora by Rosemary Wells

15. ( ) 25 Thanksgiving Stickers

APPENDIX I

 

111

MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY

October 29,1996

Dear Parents,

The Child Development Laboratories of Michigan State
University cooperates with researchers who are
investigating questions of concern and interest to
professionals and policy makers related to child
development and child rearing. Mr. Hyuk Jun Moon is
engaged in studying child rearing practices of fathers
and mothers and would like to request your
participation.

l have reviewed this study and given him permission to
make this request of families currently enrolled in the
Child Development Laboratories and those families who
have shown interest in enrolling their children. Your
participation is entirely voluntary. It will not affect
your status on the waiting list or your child’s
participation in any way. You may respond to 'the
request or not, based upon your own decision. Please
give his request your serious consideration. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,
Alice Whiren, PhD.

Professor of Family and Child Ecology
Supervisor of the Child Development Laboratories

APPENDIX J

112

MICHIGAN STATE

U lfl l \l E [K S I 1' Y

October 29,

TO: H k
2 50

Okemos, MI 48864

RE: IRBfi:

1996

Jun Moon. . .
Club Meridian Drive, #86

96-668

TITLE: AN ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF VARIABLES ASSOCIATED

WITH PARENTAL DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES

REVISION REQUESTED: N/A

CATEGO . , 2-
APPROVAL DATE: 10/29/96

RY° l-C I

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'(UCRIHS)
review of this project is complete. I am pleased to adv1se that the
rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately
rotected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate.

herefore,
above.

RENEWAL:

REVISIONS:

PROBLEMS]
CHANGES:

the UCRIHS approved this'project and any reVisions listed

UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with
the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to
continue a project beKond one year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with t e original agprovaI letter or when a_
project is renewed) to seek u date certification. ThereI1s a
max1mum of four such expedite renewals ossible. Investigators

wishing to continue a project beyond tha time need to submit it
again or complete rev1ew.

UCRIHS must review any changes in rocedures involvingIhuman
subjects, rior to initiation of t e change. If this is done at
the time o renewal, please use the green renewalIform. To
rev1se an approved protocol at ang 0 her time during the year,
send your written request to the CRIHS Chair, requesting reVised
approval and referencing the project's IRB # and t1t18.. Include
in ~our request a description of the change and any rev1sed

ins ruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

Should either of the followin arise during the course of the
work, investigators must noti UCRIHS promptly: (l) roblems
(unexpected s1de effects, comp aints, etc.).1nvolving uman
subjects or (2) changes in the research env1ronment or new
information ind1cating greater risk to the human sub ects than
existed when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved.

If we can be of any future helpé lease do not hesitate to contact us

at (51?)355

incerel ,

 
 
 
  

‘fl‘

DEW:bed

-2180 or FAX (517)4 171.

gm LT

vid E. Wright, Ph.D.
CRIHS Chair

(.
\\..

cc: Marjorie Kostelnik

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acevedo, M. C. (1993). Determinants of variations in parental affect socialization:
Implications for the development of emotion regulation. Unpublished master’s thesis,
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Arnold, D. 5., O’Leary, S. G., Wolff, I... S., & Acker, M. M. (1993). The parenting scale: A
measure of Dysfunctional parenting in discipline situations. Psychological Assessment,
5, 137-144.

Anderson, K. E., Lytton, H., 8: Romney, D. N. (1986). Mother’s interaction with normal and
conduct disordered boys: Who effects whom. Developmental Psychology, 22, 604-609.

Andrews, F. M., 8: Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being. New York: Plenum
Press.

Babbie, E. (1992). The practice of social research. CA:Wadsworth

Barnett, R. C. , & Baruch, G. K. (1987). Determinants of father’s participation in family work.
journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 29-40

Baskett, L. M. (1984). Ordinal position differences in children’s family interactions.
Developmental Psychology, 20, 1026-1031.

Bates, I. E. (1980). The concept of difficult temperament. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 26, 299-319.

Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior.
Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43-88.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychological
Monographs, 4 (1, Pt. 2).

Baumrind, D. (19723). An exploratory study of socialization effects on Black children: Some
Black-White comparisons. Child Development, 43, 261-267.

Baumrind, D. (1972b). From each according to her ability. School Review, 80, 161-197.

Belle, D. (1982). Social ties and social support. In D. Belle (Ed), Lives in stress (pp. 133-144).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Belsky, I. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83-
96.

Belsky, 1., 8: Isabella, R. (1988). Maternal, infant, and social-contextual determinants of

attachment security. In I. Belsky & T. Neworski (Eds), Clinical implications of
attachment. Hillsdale, N]: Erlbaum.

113

114

Belsky, 1., 8: Vondra, 1. (1989). Lessons from child abuse: The determinants of parenting. In D.
Cicchetti 8: V. Carlson (Eds), Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes
and consequences of child abuse and neglect (pp. 153-202). New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Bentley, K. S. (1991). Mothers and fathers of young children: Comparison of parenting styles.
Psychological Reports, 69, 320-322.

Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis. Examination and refutation.
Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59-73.

Biernat, M. & Wortman, C. B. (1991). Sharing of home responsibilities between professionally
employed women and their husbands. lournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,
844-860.

Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., 8: Schilling, E. A. (1989). Effects of daily stress on
negative mood. journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 808-818.

Bossard, 1. H. 5., 8: Boll, E. S. (1956). The large family system. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.

Bretherton, I. (1993). Theoretical contributions from developmental psychology. In P. G. Boss,
W. 1. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumn, 8: S. K. Steinmetz (Eds), Sourcebook of
family throeis and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 275-297). New York: Plenum
Press.

Bristol, M. M., Gallagher, 1. 1., & Schopler, E. (1988). Mothers and fathers of young
developmentally disabled and nondisabled boys: Adaptation and spousal support.
Developmental Psychology, 24, 441-41.

Brody, G., Pellegn'ni, A., & Sigel, I. (1986). Marital quality and mother child and father-child
interaction with school-aged children. Developmental Psychology, 22, 291-296.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1958). Socialization and social class through time and space. In E. E.
Maccoby, R. M. Newcomb, a E. L. Harley (Eds), Readings in social psychology (pp.
400-425). New York: Holt, Rienhart 8|: Winston.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human developmmt. American
Psychologist, 32, 513-531.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burgess, R. L., 8: Youngblade, L. M. (1988). Social incompetence and the intergenerational
transmission of abusive parental practices. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, 1. T.
Kirkpatrick, 8: M. A. Straus (Eds), Family abuse and its consequences: New directions
in research (pp. 38-60). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Campbell, S. (1979). Mother-infant interaction as a function of maternal ratings of
temperament. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 10, 67-76.

115

Campbell, A., Converse, P., 8: Rodgers, W. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions,
evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Campbell, 5. 8., Pierce, E., March, C., & Ewing, I. 1. (1991). Noncompliant behavior,
overactivity, and family stress as predictors of negative maternal control in preschool
children. Development and Psychopathology, 3, 175-190.

Capaldi, D., & Patterson, G. R. (1991). Relation of parental transitions to boys' adjustment
problems: I. A linear hypothesis. 1]. Mothers at risk for transitions and unskilled
parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27, 489-504.

Caplan, R. D. (1983). Person environment fit: Past, present, and future. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Stress
research: Directions for the 1980’s (pp. 35—78). London: Wiley.

Caspi, A., 8: Elder, G. H., & Bern, D. 1. (1987). Moving against the world: Life course patterns of
explosive children. Developmental Psychology, 23, 308-313.

Chiu, L. (1987). Child-rearing attitudes of Chinese, Chinese-American, and Anglo-American
mothers. International [ournal of Psychology, 22(4), 409-19.

Cochran, M., Gunnarsson, L, Grabe, S., 8: Lewis, 1. (1990). The social networks of coupled
mothers in four cultures. In M. Cochran, M., Iarner, D. Riley, L. Gunnarsson & C.
Henderson, 1r.(Eds.), Extending families: The social networks of parents and their
children (pp. 119-130). London: Cambridge University Press.

Compas, B. E., 8: Williams, R. A. (1990). Stress, coping, and adjustment in mothers and young
adolescents in single- and two-parent families. American Iournal of Community
Psychology, 18, 525-545.

Conger, R. D., Conger, K. 1., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, R. O., Simons, R. L, 8: Whitbeck, L B. (1993).
Family economic stress and adjustment of early adolescent girls. Developmean
Psychology, 29, 206-219.

Corse, S. 1., Schmid, K., 8: Trickett, P. K. (1990). Social network characteristics of mothers in
abusing and nonabusing families and their relationships to parenting beliefs. Iournal of
Community Psychology, 18, 44-59.

Cox, M., Owen, M. R., Lewis, 1. M., & Henderson, V. K. (1989). Marriage, adult adjustment, and
early parenting. Child Development, 60, 1015-1024.

Crnic, K. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (1990). Minor parenting stresses with young children. Child
Development, 61, 1628-1637.

Crockenberg, S. (1987). Predictors and correlates of anger toward and punitive control of
toddlers by adolescent mothers. Child Development, 58, 964-975.

Crockenberg, S. (1988). Social support and parenting. In W. Fitzgerald, B. Lester, & M. Yogman
(Eds), Rsearch on support for parents and infants in the postnatal period (pp. 67-92).
New York: Ablex.

116

Crockenberg, 5., 8: Acredolo, C. (1983). Infant temperament ratings: A function of infants, or
mothers, or both? Infant Behavior and Development, 6, 61-72.

Crockenberg, S. B. (1987). Support for adolescent mothers during the postnatal period: Theory
and practice. In C. F. Z. Boukydis (Ed.), Research on support for parents and infants in
the postnatal period (PP. 3-24). Norwood, N1: Ablex.

Cross, W. (1990). Race and ethnicity: effects on social networks. In M. Cochran, M. Larner, D.
Riley, L. Gunnarsson 8: C. Henderson, 1r.(Eds.), Extending families: The social networks
of parents and their children (pp. 67-85). London: Cambridge University Press.

Crowell,1., 8: Feldman, S. S. (1988). Mothers’ internal models of relationships and children’s
behavioral and developmental status: A study of mother-child interaction. Child
Development, 59, 1273-1285.

Denham, S. A., Renwick, S. M., 8: Holt, R. W. (1991). Working and playing together: Prediction
of preschool social-emotional competence from mother-child interaction. Child
Development, 62, 242-249.

Dekovic, M. 8: Janssens, 1. M. A. M. (1992). Parents’ child-rearing style and child's sociometric
status. Developmental Psychology, 28, 925-932.

Dienstibier, R. A. (1984). The role of emotion in moral socialization. In C. Izard, 1. Kagan, 8: R.
B. Zajonc (Eds), Emotions, cognitions, and behaviors (pp. 484-513). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Dishion, T. 1., 8: Patterson, G. R. (1992). Age effects in parent-training outcome. Behavior
Therapy,23,719-729.

Durrett, M. E., O’Bryant, 3., 8: Pennebaker, 1. W. (1975). Childrearing reports of White, Black,
and Mexican-American families. Developmental Psychology, 11, 871.

Earls, F. (1987). Sex differences in psychopathology. A review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 574-
595.

Egeland, B.,1acobvitz, D., 8: Papatola, K. (1987). Intergenerational continuity of abuse. In R. 1.
Gelles 8: 1. B. Lancaster (Eds), Child abuse and neglect: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 255-
276). New York: Aldine.

Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic emotion, cognition and behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Elder, G. H., Liker,1., 8: Cross, C. (1984). Parent-child behavior in the Great Depression: Life
course and intergenerational influences. In P. Baltes 8: O. Brim (Eds). Life span
development and behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 109-158). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Fagot, B. 1., 8: Hagan, R. (1982). Hitting in toddler groups: Correlates and continuity. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC.

117

Falbo, T., 8: Polit, D. (1986). Qualitative review of the only child literature: Research
evidence and theory development. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 176-189.

Forgatch, M. S. (1991). The clinical science vortex: A developing theory of antisocial behavior:
In D. 1. Pepler 8: K. H. Rubin (Eds), The development and treatment of childhood
aggression (pp. 291-316). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fox, R. L. (1995). Maternal factors related to parenting practices, developmental expectations,
and perceptions of child behavior problems. lournal of Genetic Psychology, 156, 431-441.

Garcia Coll, C. T. (1990). Developmental outcome of minority infants: A process-oriented look
into our beginnings. Child Development, 61, 270-289

Gecas, V. (1979). The influence of social class on socialization. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye,
8: Reiss, I. L. (Eds), Contemporary theories about the family (pp. 365-404). New York:
Free Press.

Gelfand, D., 8: Teti, 1. (1990). The effects of maternal depression on children. Clinical
Psychology Review, 10, 329-353.

Glen, N. D., 8: Weaver, C. N. (1979). A note on family situation and global happiness. Social
Forces, 57, 960-967.

Goldberg, W. A., 8: Easterbrooks, M. A. (1984). Role of maternal quality in toddler
development. Developmental Psychology, 20, 504-514.

Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K., 8: Gottfried, A. W. (1994). Role of maternal and dual-earner
employment status in children’s development. A longitudinal study from infancy
through early adolescence. In A. E Gottfried 8: A. W. Gottfried (Eds), Redefining
families: Implications for children’s development (pp. 55-97). New York: Plenum.

Greenberger, E., 8: Goldberg, W. A. (1989). Work, parenting, and the socialization of children.
Developmental Psychology, 25, 22-35.

Greenberger, E., O’ Neil, R., 8: Nagel, S. K. (1994). Linking workplace and homeplace:
Relations between the nature of adults’ work and their parenting behaviors.
Developmental Psychology, 30, 990-1002.

Grossman, F. K., Pallack, W. S., 8: Golding, E. (1988). Fathers and children: Predicting the
quality and quantity of fathering. Developmental Psychology, 24, 82-91.

Harrison, A. 0., Wilson, M. N ., Pine, C. 1., Chan, S. Q., 8: Buriel, R. (1990). Family ecologies of
ethnic minority children. Child Development, 61, 363-383.

Hart, C. H. (1994). Comparative study of maternal and paternal disciplinary strategies.
Psychological Reports, 74, 495-498.

Hart, C. H., Dewolf, D. M., Wozniak, P. 8: Butts, D. C. (1992). Maternal and paternal
disciplinary styles: Relations with preschoolers’ playground behavioral orientation
and peer status. Child Development, 63, 879-892.

118

Hashirrna, P. Y., 8: Amato, P. R. (1994). Poverty, social support and parental behavior. Child
Development, 65, 394-403.

Hernandez, D. 1. (1993). America’s children: Resources from family, government, and the
economy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Hess, R. D., Kashiwagi, K., Azuma, H., Price, G. C., 8: Dickson, W. P. (1980). Maternal
expectations for mastery of developmental tasks in Japan and the United States.
International journal of Psychology, 15, 259-271.

Hinde, R. A. (1989). Temperament as an intervening variable. In G. A. Kohnstamm, 1. E. Bates,
8: M. K. Rothbart (Eds), Temperament in childhood (pp. 27-34). Clnichester, England:
Wiley. 0

Ho, D.Y. F., 8: Kang, T. K. (1984). Intergenerational comparisons of child-rearing attitudes and
practices in Hong Kong. Developmental Psychology, 20(6), 1004-1016.

Hoffman, M. L. (1963). Personality, family structure, and social class as antecedents of parental
power assertion. Child Development, 34, 869-884.

Hoffman, M. L. (1983). Affective and cogrnitive processes in moral irnternalization. In E. T.
Higgins, D. N. Ruble, 8: W. W. Hartup (Eds), Social cognition and social development
(pp. 236-244). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Holden, G. W., 8: Zambarano, R. 1. (1992). Passing the rod: Similarities between parents and
the young children in orientations toward physical punishment. In I. E. Sigel, A. V.
McGillicuddy-DeLisi, 8: 1. 1. Goodnow (Eds), Parental belief systems: The
psychological consequences for children (pp. 143-172). Hillsdale, N1: Erlbaum.

Hughes, D., 8: Galinsky, E. (1988). Balancing work and family lives: Research and corporate
applications. In A. E. Gottfried 8: A. W. Gottfried (Eds), Maternal employment and
children's development: Longitudinal research (pp. 59-83). New Yor: Plenum.

Huston, A. C. (1983). Sex-typing. In P. H. Mussen (Ed), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 4:
Socialization, personality, and social development. New York: Wiley.

Hyde, 1. S. (1984). How large are gender differences in aggression? A developmental meta
analysis. Developmental Psychology, 20, 722-736.

Intons-Peterson, M. 1., 8: Reddel, M. (1984). What do people ask about a neonate?
Developmental Psychology, 20, 358-359.

Jennings, K. D., Stagg, V., 8: Connors, R. E. (1991). Social networks and mothers' interactions
with their preschool children. Child Development, 62, 966-978.

1ouriles, E. N., Pfiffner, L. 1., 8: O’ Leary, S. G. (1988). Marital conflict, parenting, and toddler
conduct problems. journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 197-206.

Kelley, M. L., Power, T. G., 8: Wimbush, D. D. (1992). Deterrrninants of disciplinary practices in
low-income black mothers. Child Development, 63, 573-582.

119

Kelly, M. L, 8: Tseng, H. (1992). Cultural differences in childrearing: A comparison of
immigrant Chinese and Caucasian American mothers. journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 23, 444-455.

Kochanska, G. (1995). Children's temperament, mother' discipline, and security of attachment
Multiple pathways to emerging internalization. Child Development, 66, 597-615.

Kochanska, G. (1993). Toward a synthesis of parental socialization and child temperament in
early development of conscience. Child Development, 64, 325-347.

Kochanska, G., 8: Askan, N. (1995). Mother-child mutually positive affect, the quality of
child compliance to requests arnd prohibitions, and maternal control as correlates of
early internalization. Child Development, 66, 236-254

Kohn, M. L. (1963). Social class and parent-child relationships: An interpretation. American
journal of Sociology, 68, 471-480.

Kostelnik, M. 1., Soderman, A. K., 8: Whiren, A. P. (1993). Developmentally appropriate
programs in early childhood education. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

Kuczynski, L. (1983). Reasoning, prohibitions, and motivations for compliance. Developmental
Psychology, 19, 126-134.

Kuczynski, L., Kochanska, G., Radke—Yarrow, M., 8: Girnius-Brown, O. (1987). A
developmental interpretation of young children’s noncompliance. Developmental
Psychology, 23, 799-806.

Kyrios, M., 8: Prior, M. (1990). Temperament, stress and family factors in behavioral
adjustment of 3-5 year old children. International journal of Behavioral Development,
13, 67-93.

Lamb, M. E. (1986). The changing roles of fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed), The role of the father in
child development (2nd ed.) New York: Wiley.

Lamb, M. E. (1987). The father’s role: Cross-cultural perspective. Hillsdale, N1: Erlbaum.

lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., 8: Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence
and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and
neglectful farrnilies. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065.

Laub, 1. H., 8: Sampson, R. 1. (1988). Unraveling families and delinquency: A reanalysis of the
Glueck’s data. Criminology, 26, 355-379.

Lee, C. L., 8: Bates, 1. E. (1985). Mother-child interaction at two years and perceived difficult
temperament. Child Development, 56, 1314-1325.

Lerner, R. M. (1984). On the nature of human plasticity. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Leme (1986). Concepts and theories of human development (2nd ed). New York: Random
House.

120

Lerner, 1. V., 8: Galambos, N. L. (1985). Maternal role satisfaction, mother-child interaction,
and child temperament: A process model. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1157-1164.

Lewis, M., 8: Feiring, C. (1982). Some African families at dinner. In L. M. Laosa 8:1. E. Sigel
(Eds), Families as learning environments for children (pp. 115-145). New York:
Plenum.

Locke, 1. (1964). Some thoughts concerning education (abridged ed,; F. W. Garforth, Ed.)
Woodbury, N1: Barron’s Educational Series. (Original work published 1693)

Lytton, H. (1979). Disciplirnary encounters between young boys and their mothers and fathers: Is
there a contingency system? Developmental Psychology, 15, 256-299.

Lytton, H. (1990). Child and parent effects in boy’s conduct disorder: A reinterpretation.
Developmental Psychology, 26, 683-697.

Lytton, H., 8: Romney, D. M. (1991). Parents’ diffeential socialization of boys and girls: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 267-296.

MacEwen, K. E., 8: Barling, 1. (1991). Effects of maternal employment experiences on children's
behavior via mood, cognitive difficulties, and parenting behavior. journal of Marriage
and the Family, 53, 635-644.

Maccoby, E. E. (1980). Social development: Psychological growth and the parent-child
relationship. SanDiego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Maccoby, E. E. (1988). Gender as a social category. Developmental Psychology, 24, 755-765.

Maccoby, E. E., 8: Jacklin, C. N. (1987). Gender segregation irn childhood. In H. W. Reese (Ed),
Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 239-288). Orlando,
Acaderrnic Press.

Maccoby, E., 8: Martin, 1. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child
interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4.
Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.

Main, M., 8: Goldwyn, R. (1984). Predicting rejection of her infant from mother’s representation
of her own experience: Implications for the abused-abusing intergenerational cycle.
Child Abuse 8: Neglect, 8, 203-217.

Mash, E. 1., 8: Iohnston, C. (1990). Determinants of parenting stress: Illustrations from families
of hyperactive children and families of physically abused children. Special issue: The
stresses of parenting. journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 313-328.

McBride, B. A. (1989). Stress and father’s parental competence: Implications for farrnily life and
parent educators. Family Relations, 38, 385-389.

McCord, 1. (1979). Some child-rearirng antecedents of criminal behavior in adult men. journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1477-1486.

121

McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. V. (1992). Parents’ beliefs and children’s personal-social
development. In I. E. Sigel, A. V. McGillicuddy-DeLisi, 8: 1. 1. Goodnow (Eds), Parental
belief systems: The psychological consequences for children (pp. 115-142). Hillsdale,
N1: Erlbaum.

McLoyd, V. C., 8: Wilson, L. (1991). The strain of living poor: Parenting, social support, and
child mental health. In A. C. Huston (Ed), Children in poverty: Child development
and public policy (pp. 105-135). New York: Cambridge Urnivesity Press.

Melson, G. F., Ladd, G. W., 8: Hsu, H. (1993). Maternal support networks, maternal cognitions,
and young children’s social and cognitive development Child Development, 64, 1401-
1417.

Michels, S. (1993). Parent self-reports of discipline practices and child acting-out behaviors in
kindergarten. Early education 6' development, 4, 139-144.

Moen, P. (1982). The two-provider family: Problerrns and potentials. In M. E. Lamb (Ed),
Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development (pp. 13-44). Hillsdale, N1:
Iawrence Erlbaum.

Munsch, D., 8: Wampler, K. (1993). Ethnic differences irn early adolescents’ coping with school
stress. American journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63(4), 633-646.

Nye, E., Carlson, 1., 8: Garrett, G. (1970). Family size, interaction, affect, and stress. journal of
Marriage and the Family, 32, 216-222.

0’ Neil, R. (1991). Maternal occupational experiences and psychological well-being: Influences
on parental achievement-facilitation and children’s academic achievement.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine.

Parke, R. D. (1969). Effectiveness of punishment as an interaction of intensity, timing, agent
nurturance, and cognitive structuring. Child Development, 40, 213-235.

Parke, R. D., 8: Sawin, D. B. (1976). The father’s role in infancy: A revolution. The Family
Coordinator, 25, 365-371.

Parke, R. D., 8: Slaby, R. G. (1983). The development of aggession. In P. Mussen (Ed),
Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 4 . New York: Wiley.

Parke, R. D., 8: Walters, R. H. (1967). Some factors determining the efficacy of punishment for
inducing response inhibition. Monogaph of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 32, (1, Serial no. 109).

Patterson, G. R., Debaryshe, B. D., 8: Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on
antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329-335.

Pedlow, R., Sanson, A. V., Prior, M., 8: Oberklaid, F. (1993). The stability of temperament from
infancy to eight years. Developmental Psychology, 29, 998-1007.

 

 

122

Phillips, 5., 8: Lobar, S. L. (1990). Literature summary of some Navajo child health beliefs and
rearing practices within a transcultural nursing framework. journal of Transcultural
Nursing, 1, 13-20.

Pleck, 1. (1993). Are family supportive employer policies relevant to men? In 1. Hood (Ed),
Men, work, and family , 221-222. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage.

Polit, D. F., 8: Falbo, T. (1987). Only children and personality development: A quantitative
review. journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 309-325.

Powe, T. G., 8: Chapieski, M. L. (1986). Child rearing and impulse control in toddlers: A
naturalistic investigation. Developmental Psychology, 22, 272-275.

Prior, M., Sanson, A., Carroll, R., 8: Oberklaid, F. (1989). Social class differences in
temperament ratings of preschool children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 239-248.

Rauh, V. A., Wasserrrnan, G. A., 8: Brunelli, S. A. (1990). Determinants of maternal child-
rearing attitudes. journal of American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 29,
375-381.

Rendina,1., 8: Dickerscheid, 1. D. (1976). The father irnvolvement with first born infants.
Family Coordinator, 25, 376-378.

Repetti, R. L. (1992). Social withdrawal as a short-term coping response to daily stress. In H. S.
Friedman (Ed), Hostility, coping, and health (pp. 151-165). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

Repetti, R. L. (1994). Short-terrnn and long-term processes linking job stressors to father-child
interaction. Social Development, 3, 1-15.

Ross, C. (1987). The division of labor at home, Social Forces, 65, 816-833.

Rowe, D. C., 8: Plorrnin, R. (1977). Temperament in early childhood. journal of Personal
Assessment, 41, 150-156.

Russell, D., 8: Cutrona, C. E. (1987). The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to
stress. In W. H. jones and D. Perlman (Eds), Advances in personal relationships ,Vol. 1,
(37-67). Greenwich, CT: 1A1 Press.

Sanson, A., 8: Rothbart, M. K. (1996). Child temperament and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein
(Ed), Handbook of parenting (Vol. 4) (pp. 277-297). Mahwah, N1: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Sanson, A. V., Smart, D. F., Prior, M., 8: Oberklaid, F. (1993). Interactions between parenting
and temperament among 3- to 7-year-old children. Unpublished manuscript.

Sawin, D. B., 8: Parke, R. D. (1979). Inconsistent discipline of aggession in young boys. journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 28, 525-538.

123

Shaffer, D. R., 8: Brody, G. H. (1981). Parental and peer irnfluences on moral developrrnent. In R.
W. Henderson, Parent-child interaction: Theory, research, and prospects (pp. 83-125).
New York: Academic Press.

Sigel, I. E. (1985). A conceptual analysis of beliefs. In I. E. Sigel (Ed), Parental belief systems:
The psychological consequences for children (pp. 345-371). Hillsdale, N1: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Sigel, I. E., Dreyer, A. L, 8: McGuillicuddy-Delisi, A. V. (1984). Psychological perspectives of
the family. In R. D. Parke (Ed), Review of child development research: Vol. 7. The
family (pp. 42-79). Chicago: Universoty of Chicago Press.

Simons, R. L, Beaman, 1, Conge, R. D., 8: Chao, W. (1992). Gender differences irn the
intergenerational transmission of parenting beliefs. journal of Marriage and the
Family, 54, 823-836.

Simons, R. L, Whitbeck, L B., Conger, R. D., 8: Wu, C. (1991). Intergenerational transmission of
harsh parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27, 159-171.

Simons, R. L, Lorenz, F. 0., Wu, C., 8: Conger, R. D. (1993). Social network and marital support
as mediators and moderators of the impact of stress and depression on parental
behavior. Developmental Psychology, 29, 368-381.

Skinner, E. A. (1985). Determinants of mother sensitive and contingent-responsive behavior:
The role of child-rearing beliefs and socioeconomic status. In I. E. Sigel (Ed), Parental
belief systems: The psychological consequences for children (pp. 51-82). Hillsdale, N1:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Snyde, 1. (1991). Disciplirne as a mediator of the impact of maternal stress and mood on child
conduct problems. Development 8 Psychopathology, 3, 263-276.

Solis-Camara, P. (1995). Parenting among mothers with young children in Mexico and the
Urnited States. journal of Social Psychology, 135, 591-599.

Spence, M. B., 8: Donnbusch, S. M. (1990). Challenges in studying minority children. In S. S.
Feldman 8: G. L. Elliot (Eds), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 123-
146). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Stonenan, Z. (1989). Marital quality, depression, and inconsistent parenting: Relationship
with observed mother-child conflict. American journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 105-
177.

Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. 1., 8: Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the
American family. Bevely Hills, CA: Sage.

Strawn, 1. (1992). The states and the poor: Child poverty rises as the safety net shrinks. Social
Policy Report, Society for Research in Child Development, No. 6.

Thomas, A., 8: Chess, 5. (1991). Temperament irn adolescence and its functional significance. In
R. M. Lerner, A. C. Petersen, 8: 1. Brooks-Gum (Eds), Encyclopedia of adolescence (Vol.
II). New York: Garland.

 

124

Thomas, A., Chess, 5., 8: Birch, H. G., Hertzig, M. E., 8: Korn, S. (1963). Behavioral
individuality in early childhood. New York: New York University Press.

Thompson, R. 1., Merritt, K. A., Keith, B. R., Bennett, L, 8: Johndrow, D. A. (1993). The role of
maternal stress and family functioning in maternal distress and mother-reported and
child-reported psychological adjustment of nonreferred children. journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 22, 78-84.

Touliatos, 1., Perlmutter, B., 8: Straus, M. (1990). Handbook of family measurement techniques.
Newbury Park: Sage.

Trickett, P. K., 8: Kuczynski, L. (1986). Children's misbehaviors and parental discipline
strategies in abusive and nonabusive families. Developmental Psychology, 22, 115-123.

Turner, R. 1., 8: Avison, W. R. (1985). Assessing risk factors for problem parenting The
significance of social support. journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 881-892.

U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1990). Child abuse and neglect: Critical
first steps in response to a national emergency. Washington, DC: Govemment Printing
office.

Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1992). Intergenerational transmission of parenting: A review of studies in
nonclinical populations. Developmental Review, 12, 76-99.

Vega, W. A. (1990). Hispanic families in the 19805: A decade of research. journal of Marriage
and the Family, 52, 1015-1024.

Voydanoff, P. (1989). Work and family: A review and expanded conceptualization. journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 3, 1-22.

Ward, M. 1., Vaughn, B. E., 8: Robb, M. D. (1988). Social-emotional adaptation and infant-
motlne attachment in siblings: Role of the mother in cross-sibling consistency. Child
Development, 59, 643-651.

Webster-Stratton, C. (1990). Stress: A potential disrupter of parent perceptions and family
interactions. journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 302-312.

Weirnraub, M., 8: Wolfe, B. M. (1983). Effects of stress and social supports on mother-child
interactions in single and two-parent families. Child Development, 54, 1297-1311.

Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provision of social relationships. In 2. Rubin (Ed), Doing unto others
(pp. 17-26). Englewood Cliffs, N]: Prentice Hall.

Whiting, B. B., 8: Edwards, C. P. (1988). Children of different worlds: The formation of social
behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univesity Press.

Wolfe, D. A. (1987). Child abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Yarrow, M. R., Waxler, C. 2., 8: Scott, P. M. (1971). Child effects on adult behavior.
Developmental Psychology, 5, 300-311.

 

125

Zurabin, S. 1. (1988). Child maltreatment and teenage first borns: A relationship mediated by
chronic sociodemographic stress? American journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58, 91-103.

 

mlllllllllltllllll“